Was Robespierre in die loon van die Britte?

Was Robespierre in die loon van die Britte?

Ek was op soek na interessante boeke oor die Franse Revolusie, toe ek in die laat 1700's hierdie geskiedenis van Britse spioenasie raakloop. Die boek is 'n paar honderd dollar, so ek sal dit nie kan bekom tensy ek die moeite doen om na 'n universiteitsbiblioteek te stap nie. Wat my opgeval het, is dat die hoogste resensie beweer dat die boek toon dat Robespierre in die loon was van die Britse regering, wat die terreur wou aanmoedig in die hoop dat dit die revolusionêre regering sou in duie stort.

Beide bewerings ruik sterk na samesweringsteorieë. Volgens hierdie sterfkennis van die skrywer (ek kon niks anders oor haar vind nie), was sy egter 'n selfopgeleide maar gerespekteerde historikus wat die boek gebaseer het op uitgebreide argiefnavorsing. Sy het akademiese publikasies gehad, en haar werk is oor die algemeen goed ontvang. Haar boek word selfs aangehaal in 'Choosing Terror', 'n baie algemene geskiedenis.

Natuurlik beteken niks hiervan dat sy nie heeltemal verkeerd kan wees nie, of selfs 'n samesweringsteoretikus. Die resensie verteenwoordig moontlik ook nie haar boek akkuraat nie. Dit is die rede waarom ek gehoop het om hier oor die eis te vra.

Is daar werklik geloofwaardige bewyse dat die 'seegroen onverganklike' Robespirre in die Britte se loon was? Of dat die Britse regering die Terror wou aanmoedig? As dit ernstige bewerings blyk te wees, hoe pas dit dan in die mees onlangse geskiedskrywing van die rewolusie?


As ons slegs op die getuienis van Elizabeth Sparrow se 'geheime diens' gaan, dan sou ek sê dat Robespierre nie 'opgetree het soos voorgeskryf deur 'n Britse betaalmeester' nie. Dit lyk asof Sparrow haar onderwerp deeglik ondersoek het deur nie net Britse en Franse openbare en private argiewe te gebruik nie, maar ook ander in Switserland, Duitsland en Swede.

Die boek begin in 1792 met Britse pogings om hul eie huis te bestuur. Die revolusie in Frankryk het daartoe gelei dat baie Franse mans en vroue na Brittanje gereis het. Sommige was Royalistiese vlugtelinge en sommige was revolusionêre agente (albei bespied hul Britse en Franse vyande en wek revolusionêre gevoelens in die Britse laer klasse op). As gevolg hiervan moes die Britse owerhede wette instel en hul eie 'polisie' instel om vriende en vyande by te hou, en uit te vind watter een was.

Teen die tyd dat die Britte voldoende georganiseer was (laat in 1794) om netwerke van hul eie spioene in Europa en in Frankryk self te begin vorm, het die terreur verloop en Robespierre was dood. Daar word geen melding gemaak dat hy deur die Britte genader is nie, wat nog te sê om geld, of enigiets anders, van hulle af te neem. Trouens, hy verdien nie eens 'n inskrywing in die boekindeks nie.

Bron: Geheime Diens, Britse agente in Frankryk 1792-1815, E.Sparrow (Boydell Press, 1999)


Nee, dit is uit pure logika onmoontlik.

Hoewel Robespierre nog nie die leier van die Committee of National Convention was nie, was hy nie 'n terroris nie. Nadat hy een geword het, het hy saam met Saint-Just feitlik 'n half-diktator van Frankryk geword, en absolute heersers kan ongelukkig nie met geld gekoop word nie. Dit sou te duur wees.

Hy kan voorgestel word oor veiligheid, asiel, maar selfs as hy 'n betaalde agent was voordat hy aan die bewind gekom het, sou hy nooit een bly as hy dit bereik het nie. Hoe kan hy hierdie geld gebruik? Franse geld? Enige nommer kan gedruk word ter wille van die revolusie as hy dit nodig gehad het. Britse pond? Om dit te hê, beteken dat jy 'n verraaier is.

Selfs afpersing werk nie - hy kan dit as 'n propaganda verklaar en die moontlike getuies in Frankryk doodmaak. En getuies buite was almal absoluut irrelevant vanweë die isolasie. Was Stalin bang vir enige buitelandse beskuldigings? Geen! - en die USSR was baie minder geïsoleer as die revolusionêre Frankryk.

Wat bewyse betref - sy afstammelinge kan beslis daarna baie van hulle skep. En nou kan ons dit nie deur logika nagaan nie. Laat ons dit gebruik!

Beria in die USSR is ook as 'n Engelse agent verklaar. Ek dink, nee, daar is nie 'n intelligente wese wat daarin glo nie. En wees seker, daar was bewyse!


Wat was die rol van die Jakobyne in die Franse Revolusie?

Die Jakobyne het gedien as die belangrikste promotors van republikanisme tydens die Franse Revolusie, en hulle het verskillende hervormings aangeneem om gelykheid en persoonlike vryheid te bevorder tydens hul kort beheer oor Frankryk. Hulle het egter die Reign of Terror ingelui, 'n tydperk toe die Jakobyne almal gesoek en tereggestel het wie se politieke oortuigings selfs effens van hulle eie verskil.

Die Jakobyne was formeel bekend as die Society of the Friends of the Constitution. Die klub is oorspronklik gestig deur Bretonse verteenwoordigers aan die Estates General van 1789, maar dit het uiteindelik verder as Bretagne uitgebrei totdat daar hoofstukke in Frankryk was. Die naam Jacobin kom uit die feit dat hulle in Parys ontmoet het in 'n Dominikaanse klooster, die monnike van hierdie orde is ook Jacobyne genoem omdat hul eerste huis in die straat Jacques was.

Die Vereniging van die Vriende van die Grondwet het nie gevra dat die monargie beëindig word nie, maar hulle het daarin geslaag om 'n belangrike krag in die Nasionale Konvensie te word. Uiteindelik het hulle 'n staatsgreep uitgevoer, en in 1793 het die leier van die Jakobyne, Maximilien Robespierre, die nuwe Franse Republiek oorheers. Terwyl hy aanvanklik 'n aantal wette aangeneem het om die gewone mense van Frankryk te help, soos om pryse vas te stel om inflasie te bekamp, ​​het hy gou begin om iemand te vervolg met oortuigings wat hy as teenrevolusionêr beskou het. Hy het aanvanklik die ondersteuners van die monargie, handelaars en ander meningsverskille geteiken, maar binnekort is selfs ander Jakobyne wat slegs effens met Robespierre verskil het, deur guillotine tereggestel.

Uiteindelik draai die ander Jakobyne Robespierre aan, wat dan om die beurt tereggestel word. Sonder dat hul organisasie hulle saamgebind het, het die Jakobyne egter gou die mag aan lede van die bourgeoisie verloor. Baie Jakobynse hervormings is gou ongedaan gemaak, maar hul sterk steun vir vryheid en gelykheid het later politieke groepe in die Franse Republiek steeds beïnvloed.


22 Geskiedenisblaaie wat skrywers betaal

Geskiedenis tydskrifte doen 'n beroep op 'n nismark bloot omdat lede van die algemene publiek dit wel doen nie almal hou van historiese nuus en gebeure. Terwyl hierdie feit lyk Om hierdie tipe publikasie moeiliker te maak om in te breek, is die teenoorgestelde die geval. Met 'n beperkte aantal geskiedenisskrywers wat om vryskutposisies in hierdie arena meeding, maak dit u taak baie makliker as u 'n nuwe geskiedenisskrywer is wat op soek is na skryfwerk.

Hier is twee en twintig geskiedkundige tydskrifte wat u kan lees en opsê.

Let op: U kan nog meer tydskrifte betaal wat skrywers in meer as 20 nisse en#8212 hier betaal.

Betaal: 10 sent

Renaissance Magazine dek 'n verskeidenheid onderwerpe wat verband hou met die Renaissance, laat ‘Middle Periods ’ en geskiedenisartikels. Hulle nooi vryskutters om artikels van hoogstens 2 000 woorde in te dien en betaal 10 sent per gepubliseerde woord. Skrywers kan betaling ongeveer 3 weke na publikasie verwag.

Let daarop dat hierdie publikasie ongevraagde materiaal aanvaar, maar doen eers navraag om seker te maak dat u gekose onderwerp nog nie toegewys is nie.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

American Spirit Magazine fokus op vroeë Amerikaanse geskiedenis, genealogie, historiese bewaring, vroue se geskiedenis en burgerlike opvoeding. Hulle hou daarvan dat voornemende vryskutwerkers idees en die lengte van die voorgestelde artikel aan die redakteur voorlê. Betaling sal tydens bespreking bespreek word.

Hierdie publikasie verkies dat skrywers 'n paar van hul werk wat voorheen gepubliseer is, indien by navraag.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Archeology Magazine is toegewy aan die publisering van verhale oor die menslike verlede uit elke uithoek van die wêreld. Dit bied ook insig in die begin en einde van kulture. Hierdie publikasie moedig skrywers aan om hul artikelidees per e -pos aan die redakteur voor te dra, en betaling sal bespreek word.

Archeology Magazine verwag dat hul vryskutters belangrike kennis oor hul gekose onderwerp sal hê, dus beklemtoon u kwalifikasie (vir die skryf van u stuk) tydens navraag.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Canada History publiseer artikels wat die uiteenlopende ervarings en komplekse karakters belig wat deur die loop van tyd Kanada gevorm het. Hulle moedig vryskutwerkers aan om artikels tussen 600 en 3000 woorde lank in te dien.

Betaling word bespreek by die uitreiking van die tydskrif en by publikasie. Hierdie tydskrif het sterk, direkte riglyne op hul bladsy, dus lees dit alles voordat u besluit of u werk by die beskrywing pas of nie.

Early American Life dek alles wat verband hou met geskiedenis, argitektuur, oudhede, ateljee -handwerk en reis. Hulle versoek om indiening van artikels tussen 700 en 2500 woorde lank. Hulle betaal $ 500 vir funksies deur nuwe skrywers. Geskoolde en ervare skrywers kan meer verdien.

Betaling is by publikasie, en foto's is ook welkom.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Good Old Days is toegewy aan die publisering van regte verhale oor mense wat tussen 1935 en 1960 geleef en grootgeword het. Hulle verkies artikels tussen 300 en 1000 woorde. Good Old Days verwag dat u u idees per e -pos of per pos kan opdateer, en daar word onderhandel oor betaling by indiening.

Hierdie publikasie het spesifieke onderwerpe wat vir vryskutters gereserveer is, dus maak u vertroud met hul webwerf en riglyne voordat u skryf.

Betaal: 8 sent per woord

History Magazine dek 'n wye verskeidenheid onderwerpe wat verband hou met spesifieke verskynsels, gebeure, gevegte, oorloë en biografieë. Hulle verwag dat artikels tussen 400 en 2500 woorde lank sal wees. Hulle betaal 8 sent per gepubliseerde woord, en die betaling word gedoen 60 dae nadat die uitgawe gepubliseer is.

Hierdie publikasie moedig voornemende vryskutwerkers aan om navraag te doen voordat hulle iets skryf.

Range Magazine is 'n wyd geleesde en gerespekteerde publikasie wat kwessies dek wat die Weste bedreig. Hulle hou daarvan dat artikels tussen 500 en 2 000 woorde lank is. Hulle betaal tot $ 400 per artikel en#8211 by publikasie.

Die Range Magazine vereis dat skrywers foto's saam met hul kopieë indien, so wees bedag daarop. Meer besonderhede oor hierdie aspek kan op hul webwerf gevind word.

Betaal: 25 sent per woord

True West fokus op die vaslegging van die geskiedenis van die Amerikaanse grens, deur middel van literêre nie-fiksie. Hulle versoek om voorleggings vir artikels tussen 450 en 1500 woorde lank. Hierdie publikasie verwag dat skrywers hul idees per e -pos of telefoon kan uitbring. Hulle betaal 25 sent per woord en#8211 by publikasie.

Let asseblief daarop dat hierdie tydskrif 'n spesifieke manier gebruik om artikels en navrae in te dien. Besoek hul webwerf vir 'n gedetailleerde beskrywing.

Western Pennsylvania History is 'n gerespekteerde publikasie wat fokus op die oorspronklike analise van huidige en historiese gebeure. Hulle verkies dat artikels tussen 3 000 en 4 000 woorde lank moet wees.

Western Pennsylvania History Magazine nooi skrywers uit om hul idees per e -pos op te stel. Hulle betaal 'n vaste bedrag van $ 250 en#8211 by publikasie.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

History Today Magazine dek 'n wye verskeidenheid onderwerpe wat verband hou met geskiedenis. Hulle hou daarvan dat elke stuk 'n gesaghebbende en innemende idee van 'n historiese onderwerp bied. Artikels sal na verwagting tussen 600 en 2200 woorde lank wees.

Betaling word onderhandel by die uitreiking van die tydskrif. Hierdie publikasie bevat drie soorte artikels, dus kyk gerus op hul webwerf om te sien aan watter een u wil werk.

Michigan History is 'n jarelange publikasie wat bemark word aan lesers wat graag lees oor die kleurvolle verlede van Michigan. Hulle nooi voornemende vryskutwerkers uit om manuskripte of artikels in te dien, wat nie meer as 2 500 woorde lank is nie.

Artikelidees moet per e -pos gestuur word. Hulle betaal tussen $ 150 en $ 400 per artikel en#8211 by publikasie.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Die Tweede Wêreldoorlog -tydskrif publiseer materiaal wat verband hou met die era van die tweede wêreldoorlog. Hulle dek ook artikels oor die Amerikaanse burgeroorlog, Amerikaanse geskiedenis en meer. Daar is geen spesifieke woordtelling nie, maar vryskutwerkers word versoek om hul idees per e -pos op te stel om 'n opdragartikel te kry.

Betaling moet onderhandel word by die uitreiking van die tydskrif. Let daarop dat die meeste van hierdie publikasies se werk deur personeelskrywers gedek word, dus doen 'n deeglike ondersoek voordat u navraag doen.

Naval History Magazine is 'n wyd geleesde publikasie wat toegewy is aan Naval History in die VSA, wat wissel van gevegte tot gebeure. Hulle verwag dat artikels nie meer as 3 000 woorde lank moet wees nie, en dat potensiële skrywers hul idees per e -pos wil uitspreek.

Naval History betaal tot $ 150 per 1000 woorde en#8211 by publikasie. Daar is streng kwalifiseerders op hul webwerf, gerig aan voornemende vryskutwerkers, dus bestudeer dit deeglik voordat u iets skryf.

Wartime Magazine is 'n Australiese geskiedenisstydskrif wat fokus op die Australiese oorlogservaring. Daar is nie 'n spesifieke woordtelling vir artikels nie, maar hulle hou daarvan dat skrywers dit uitspreek of hul idees aan die redakteur stuur om 'n opdragartikel te kry.

Hierdie publikasie betaal $ 300 per 1 000 woorde, en die betaling word gemaak by publikasie.

Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine is toegewy aan die beligting van die ryk kultuur en nalatenskap van die staat Pennsylvania. Artikels mag nie meer as 3500 woorde lank wees nie, en hulle verwag dat u u idees en artikels aan die redakteur moet stuur.

'N Betaling van tussen $ 250 en $ 500 word by publikasie gemaak. Pennsylvania Heritage het 'n besondere stem, so vryskutwerkers moet hulle hiermee vertroud maak voordat hulle hul stuk skryf.

Betaal: 40 sent per woord

New Mexico Magazine streef daarna om sy besoekers bewus te maak van die staat se multikulturele erfenis, klimaat en unieke omgewing. Daar is geen spesifieke woordtelling nie, maar skrywers word aangemoedig om hul idees en opsomming aan die tydskrif voor te lê.

Betaling word beding by voorlegging, en geskied na aanvaarding. Daar is digte en gedetailleerde riglyne op die webwerf, dus lees dit voordat u hierdie tydskrif opstel.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Traces Magazine is 'n wyd-geleesde publikasie wat artikels bevat wat verband hou met biografieë, immigrasie, familie en kulturele erfenis, insluitend die geskiedenis van Indiana. Hulle nooi potensiële vryskutwerkers uit om artikels tussen 600 en 4000 woorde lank in te dien.

Idees moet per e -pos gestuur word. Betaling word onderhandel en geskied by publikasie.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Gateway Magazine is 'n wyd verspreide publikasie wat toegewy is aan die kulturele, historiese, sosiale en politieke kwessies van St. Louis en#8217 en Missouri. Hulle verwag dat opstelle nie meer as 2500 woorde lank moet wees nie.

Gee u idees per e -pos. Betaling word onderhandel. Hulle voorkeure vir voorleggings word op hul webwerf gelys, so kyk gerus.

Betaal: 10 sent per woord

The Country Connection fokus op inhoud oor die geskiedenis, natuur, omgewing, erfenis, reis en kunste van Ontario. Hulle ontvang graag artikels tussen 1 000 en 1 500 woorde lank.

Stel eers u idees voor die tydskrif voordat u skryf. Hulle betaal 10 sent per woord binne 90 dae na publikasie, maar wees bewus daarvan dat onderwerpe en temas vir toekomstige uitgawes op hul webwerf verskyn. Dit beteken dat skrywers hul artikels vooraf moet beplan.

Sojourns Magazine is 'n publikasie wat wyd gelees en wydverspreid versprei is en wat daarop gemik is om die natuurlike en kulturele geskiedenis van skouspelagtige lande in Colorado uit te stal. Hulle verkies dat voornemende vryskutwerkers eers hul idees voor die tydskrif stel en 'n stuk in opdrag kry. Hulle betaal tussen $ 500 en $ 1,200 per artikel.

Hou in gedagte dat hulle uitgebreide voorleggingsriglyne op hul webwerf het, dus maak u hiervan vertroud voordat u navraag doen. Foto's en kunswerke is ook welkom.

Betaal: Ongespesifiseer

Ons State Magazine is 'n jarelange publikasie wat inligting publiseer oor geskiedenis, plekke, kultuur en die mense van Noord-Carolina. Hul oproep om voorleggings is vir artikels wat gemiddeld 1500 woorde lank is. Skrywers word uitgenooi om hul idees voor die tydskrif voor te lê.


Eerste Opiumoorlog

Die gebruik van opium is eens beskryf as 'die sleutels tot die paradys', so die ervaring was oortuigend en heerlik. Hierdie opmerking is gemaak deur Thomas De Quincey, en hy moet weet, aangesien hy die beroemde 'Confessions of an English Opium Eater' in 1821 geskryf het. die agtiende eeu. So gewild dat dit indirek twee oorloë tussen die twee groot nasies veroorsaak het.

Brittanje verkoop opium aan China en veroorsaak 'n ernstige verslawingskrisis in die land. In 'n poging om dit te stop, beland China twee keer in 'n oorlog met Brittanje. China het reeds 'n verbod opium gehad toe die Britte dit begin verhandel het, maar dit het hulle nie afgeskrik nie. Gevolglik het die verbod daartoe gelei dat Britse handelaars sover gegaan het om gratis monsters van hul produkte aan te bied om nuwe gebruikers te lok. Aangesien die Britse Oos-Indiese Handelsonderneming destyds die monopolie op die opiumhandel gehad het, was dit miskien onvermydelik dat China spoedig die Britse produk sou begin eis. Ironies genoeg was hierdie poging om die Chinese verslawing aan opium te verseker 'n baie tipies Britse verslawing. Opium was die oplossing om 'n gewoonte wat Brittanje reeds ontwikkel het vir 'n heel ander, maar nie minder kragtige stof, te voed: tee.

Tea Caddy, laat 18de eeu

China uit die 18de eeu was teenstrydig en sommige sê dat dit selfs Brittanje oortref het in rykdom en voorspoed. Die twee lande was op baie maniere eweredig, insluitend verslawing. Brittanje was verslaaf aan tee, in werklikheid het die land oorgegaan van 'n land wat rondom alkohol fokus, na nuwe luukshede: suiker, sjokolade en tee. Byna elke huishouding in die land het 'n kulturele verskuiwing ondergaan van die drink van die meer algemene bier (of die nog sterker gin!) Na die eksotiese en nuut beskikbare tee.

Die hele dieet en houding van die land het verander. Soveel van die Britse kultuur het destyds uit hul kolonies begin kom, insluitend tee. Die Universiteit van Colombia het aangevoer dat gedurende die Victoriaanse era gemiddeld 5% van die inkomste van elke huishouding in Londen aan tee bestee is, 'n ongelooflike bedrag.

Brittanje het egter 'n probleem gehad; hoe sou hulle voortgaan om vir al hierdie tee te betaal? Gewoonlik is daar 'n element van die verhandeling van goedere tussen lande, wat beteken dat goedere nie heeltemal met geld gekoop is nie, maar 'n deel verruil vir ander goedere. Brittanje het egter baie min wat China wou hê in terme van goedere, en het silwer ingesluk om China vir hul tee te betaal en hul gewoonte te voed. Hulle handel met China het gevaarlik ongelyk geword, met China wat baie meer beheer het oor die situasie as Brittanje. China het bekend geword as die begraafplaas van silwer, vanweë die geneigdheid van die edelmetaal wat destyds gebruik is om China vir goedere te betaal, en nie net deur Brittanje nie.

So, wat moes gedoen word? Ideaal gesproke sou China 'n Britse produk wil hê, net soos Brittanje tee wil hê, en dan kan die handel dienooreenkomstig herkalibreer word. Die oplossing vir hierdie unieke Anglo-Chinese probleem was opium.

Franse satire wat wys hoe 'n Engelsman die keiser van China beveel om opium te koop. 'N Chinese man lê dood op die vloer met troepe in die agtergrond. Die teks sê: “Jy moet hierdie gif onmiddellik koop. Ons wil hê dat u uself heeltemal vergiftig, want ons benodig baie tee om ons beesvleis te verteer. ”

In 1773 was Brittanje die voorste verkoper van opium en die Britse produk (verbou in uitgestrekte papawervelde in hul Indiese kolonies) was ook bekend as die beste kwaliteit wêreldwyd, en daar was 'n enorme vraag in China daarvoor. Teen 1796 het die keiser Jiaqing (van die Qing -dinastie) die handel, invoer en verbouing van opium egter onwettig gemaak. Dit het beteken dat die Oos -Indiese handelsmaatskappy nie opium wettig in China kon bring nie. Dit het die Britte egter nie afgeskrik nie, maar in plaas daarvan is ander handelsskepe gebruik om die stof na smokkelaars te vervoer wat dit dan onwettig na die land kon bring, in wese met behulp van 'n uitgebreide netwerk van smokkelende seerowers.

Alhoewel opium nie eintlik deur die Britte in China ingevoer is nie, was die middel reeds in die 5de eeu in China. Opium, wat deur Assiriërs, Grieke en selfs Arabiere as 'n antieke medisyne gebring is, is al eeue lank as 'n pynstiller gebruik en in pil of vloeibare vorm geneem.

Twee arm Chinese opiumrokers. (Fotokrediet: Wellcome Images)

Die bekendstelling van die beroemde opiumpyp, toe die dwelm gerook word, was 'n baie meer moderne en eksponensieel gevaarliker neiging, wat in die 16de eeu posgevat het. Teen 1729 het rook opium 'n ernstige probleem in China geword, soveel so dat keiser Jiaqing in 1729 die verkoop en rook van opium onwettig gemaak het. En tot vandag toe kan u steeds tradisionele opiumpype in die land koop. Aangesien die verbod min mense afgeskrik het om die dwelm te gebruik, het keiser Jiaqing 'n kommissaris, Lin Tse-Hsu, aangestel om die probleem regoor die land aan te spreek.

Hy het baie metodes bekendgestel om die Chinese dwelmgebruik wat wydverspreid in sy land voorkom, te bekamp. Hy het gereël dat verslaafdes behandel word en binnelandse dwelmhandelaars swaar gestraf word, maar sonder sukses. Die spanning tussen die twee groot moondhede neem toe, want dit lyk asof daar niks gedoen kan word om die vloei van opium na China te stuit nie. Die Chinese bevolking was verslaaf aan die stof en koop dit, ongeag hoe onwettig of gevaarlik dit is, en die Britte gaan nie ophou om dit te verkoop nie, solank hulle silwer of goedere daarvoor kan kry.

Dinge het in Canton breekpunt bereik toe Lin 20 000 vate Britse opium (sowat 1 400 ton) beslag gelê en in die see gestort het. Om die sterkte van die gevoel op die oomblik te wys dat die opium nie net gestort is nie, is dit verbrand met vuur, sout en kalk en bewysbaar in die see gestort, op 3 Junie 1839. (3 Junie bly vandag nog 'n anti-dwelm dag in China) .

Beslaglegging en vernietiging van opium in opdrag van Lin Tse-Hsu

Na die vernietiging van die opium, was daar toenemende voorvalle van konflikte tussen die dwelmsmokkelende seerowerskepe en Chinese oorlogsverbindings. Terselfdertyd is 'n Chinese handelaar deur dronk Britse matrose in Kow Loon vermoor, 'n situasie wat vererger het toe die Britte geweier het om die matrose vir straf aan die Chinese owerhede te oorhandig. Die Chinese het teruggekeer met 'n voedselembargo na die provinsie en skote is op 4 September 1839 van Britse skepe afgevuur op die Chinese embargo -vaartuie. Dit het bekend geword as die Slag van Kowloon en was die eerste gewapende konflik van die oorlog. Die spanning het duidelik kookpunt bereik.

Na verskeie parlementêre debatte het die Britse premier, Lord Palmerston, dan amptelik oorlog begin met China in 1840. Die Britte was nie oor die algemeen tevrede met die verkoop van opium aan China nie, sommige noem dit immoreel. Die beleid is selfs wyd gekritiseer in die parlement deur 'n jong William Gladstone. Die konsensus was egter om oorlog toe te gaan, aangesien die opiumhandel eenvoudig te winsgewend was om op te gee.

In Junie 1840 het 16 oorlogskepe na Hong Kong gekom en die oorlog het ernstig begin. Dit het egter nie lank gehou nie. China was eenvoudig nie ooreenstem met die mag van die Britse vloot nie, op daardie tydstip ongeëwenaard oor die hele wêreld. Na verskeie nederlae deur die Britte en nadat hulle selfs 'n losprys van 6 miljoen dollar moes betaal om hul eie eiland aan hulle terug te gee, het die Chinese onderhandel met die Britte.

Ondertekening van die Verdrag van Nanking, 1842

Na 'n aborsiewe aanvanklike ooreenkoms in 1841 het hulle uiteindelik op 29 Augustus 1842 tot 'n ooreenkoms gekom en die Verdrag van Nanking onderteken. Dit het bekend gestaan ​​as die 'Ongelyke Verdrag' of die eerste van die Ongelyke Verdrae. Dit was te wyte aan die ernstige vooroordeel ten gunste van die Britte. Die Chinese het in wese betaal vir die vloot wat opgedaag het om teen hulle te veg, hulle het betaal vir die verbrande opium, Hong Kong (hoewel dit destyds dikwels 'The Barren Rock ’' genoem is) is aan die Britte gegee, en Britse konsuls is selfs toegelaat na China, wat voorheen 'n baie geslote land was. In totaal was die skadeloosstelling wat die Chinese verplig was om te betaal ongeveer 21 miljoen dollar. China het die Eerste Opiumoorlog skouspelagtig verloor. Vreemd genoeg het Brittanje ook nie juis gewen nie. Hulle het verskeie toegewings en finansiële vergoeding behaal, maar oor opium was daar 'n noemenswaardige stilte. Dit is nêrens in die verdrag genoem nie. Die Britte wou vrye handel met die produk hê en die Chinese sou nooit daaroor ingestem het nie, dus is die saak nooit aan die orde gestel nie.

Die gevolg van die Eerste Opiumoorlog was dat dinge baie teruggekeer het na die status quo. Brittanje het opium onwettig na China gesmokkel, die Chinese het aanhou rook en China het steeds tee na die Verenigde Koninkryk gestuur. Hierdie verhouding was egter ten beste maar taai, en dit sou nie lank duur voordat die probleem weer toegeneem het nie. Dit was nie die einde van die konflikte wat opium veroorsaak het nie. Die verleidelike middel sou weer moeilikheid veroorsaak ...


Oop Kampioenskapsgeskiedenis

Dit dateer uit die eerste in 1860, wat dit die oudste kampioenskap in die sport maak, en dit is die 148ste uitgawe van die Britse Ope in 2019. Die 1860-toernooi by die Prestwick-gholfklub in Skotland het bestaan ​​uit agt professionele persone wat drie rondes gholf van 12 putjies gespeel het. Willie Park Sr. het die byeenkoms gewen. Eers in 1872 ontvang die wen -gholfspeler die Claret Jug.

Sedert sy ontstaan, word die Britse Ope elke jaar in Skotland of Engeland gespeel, met die uitsondering van 1951 toe dit op Royal Portrush in Noord -Ierland gehou is - ook die plek van hierdie jaar se toernooi. Die skakelskursusse het 'n duidelike voordeel op die tuisveld tot 1922 toe Walter Hagen die eerste Amerikaanse wenner geword het.

Sedert 1970 het Amerikaners twee keer lank oorheersings oor die dam gehou. Jack Nicklaus en Tom Watson het 'n tydperk tussen 1970 en '83 beklemtoon waarin Amerikaners 12 van die 14 toernooie gewen het. Meer onlangs, begin met John Daly in 1995 en eindig met Tiger Woods se derde Britse Ope -oorwinning in 2006, het Amerikaners 10 van 12 titels behaal.


Inleiding

Die 11,736 individuele rekords van jaarlikse betalings aan klerke in diens van die Oos -Indiese Kompanjie op hierdie webwerf ingesluit, is gemaak as deel van 'n uitgebreide longitudinale studie van die loopbane en ekonomiese lotgevalle van die Oos -Indiese Kompanjie en sy werknemers. In 1999 voltooi en gelei deur dr H. M. Boot, is die volledige datastel (insluitend inligting vir die tydperk 1820 tot 1850) en projekbeskrywing beskikbaar via die UK Data Archive:

Die datastel geplaas op London Lives omvat die eerste sestig jaar van die datastel, tot 31 Desember 1819, en is slegs beskikbaar vir navraag en naamsoeke. As u 'n statistiese analise van hierdie materiaal wil uitvoer, kan u toegang kry tot die volledige datastel in 'n verskeidenheid formate via die http://www.data-archive.ac.uk. Kopiereg op hierdie materiaal bly by die oorspronklike ondersoeker, Hector Macdonald Boot, en die data word hier per lisensie weergegee, slegs vir nie-kommersiële gebruik.

Die tydperk wat deur hierdie datastel gedek word, sluit die tydperk van die grootste krag van die onderneming in. Na die oprigting van 'n handelsmonopolie met Bengale in 1757, en vir die res van die agtiende eeu, het die Kompanjie in wese Indië beheer, wat in alle opsigte as 'n onafhanklike staat gedien het. Sy mag en gesag is geleidelik aan die Britse regering oorgedra, hoewel dit gedurende die eerste helfte van die negentiende eeu as 'n onafhanklike onderneming opgetree het. In 1801 het die onderneming meer as 3 670 mense in diens as deel van sy tuisonderneming, gesentreer in Oos -Indiese Huis in Leadenhallstraat, maar ook 'n wye verskeidenheid hawe- en pakhuisgeriewe.

Die kategorie van klerk, wat die basis vorm vir hierdie datastel, bevat 'n groot deel van die huiswerkers van die onderneming, wat wissel van lae personeellede tot senior bestuurders met uitvoerende gesag. In die woorde van die Dr Boot:


Belangrike feite en inligting

Kwartaalhandelinge se agtergrond

  • Die Britse nasionale skuld van £ 72 miljoen het tydens die Franse en Indiese oorlog tot byna £ 130 miljoen gestyg.
  • Britse offisiere, insluitend die opperbevelhebber in Britse Noord-Amerika, luitenant-generaal Thomas Gage wat in die Franse en Indiese oorlog geveg het, het dit moeilik gevind om die koloniale gemeentes te oortuig om te betaal vir die kwartiering en voorsiening van troepe op die optog.
  • Om die troepe van voldoende voedsel en skuiling te voorsien, het Gage die parlement versoek om 'n oplossing te vind.
  • Na die oorwinning van die Britte in die Franse en Indiese Oorlog, het die Britse koning George III die koninklike proklamasie van 1763 uitgereik met die bedoeling om nedersettings te verbied om weswaarts oor die Appalachiese gebergte te trek, waar die Proklamasielyn (massiewe grens tussen die kolonis en die inheemse Indiërs) vereis word. die bemanning van poste langs die grens van die inheemse Amerikaners, waarin die Britse administrasie ter verdediging van die koloniste aangevoer het dat die Quartering Act geïmplementeer moet word.
  • Om die Britse nasionale skuld te betaal, het die Britse administrasie 'n sterk militêre teenwoordigheid nodig gehad om nuwe belastingmaatreëls in die kolonies af te dwing, en die enigste wet wat hulle sou help om dit te bereik, was die kwartaalwet.
    Op 24 Maart 1765 is die Quartering Act deur die Britse parlement aanvaar.

Kwartaalwette 1765 Bepalings

  • Om belasting van die koloniste in te vorder en om die grense van die kolonies te beskerm, het die Britte 'n bykomende 40 000 troepe na die kolonies gestuur.
  • Die Amerikaners voorsien die Britse soldate van kaserne en openbare huise.
  • Dit het verder gesê dat as die soldate meer as die kaserne en die beskikbare huisvesting was, hulle die Britse soldate in hul plaaslike herberge moes akkommodeer en hulle basiese behoeftes voorsien, soos eetgerei, wyne, drank, kos, kerse en beddegoed, alles sonder vergoeding.
  • En as daar nie genoeg herberge beskikbaar was nie, kon soldate in onbelemmerde huise, buitegeboue, skure en privaat huise gehuisves word.

Amerikaanse koloniste het daarteen gekant

  • In 1766 het 1500 Britse troepe in New York aangekom. Die New York Provinsiale Vergadering het egter geweier om die Quartering Act na te kom en het nie huise en verblyf aan die Britse soldate verskaf nie.
  • Die Britse soldate moes op hul skepe bly.
  • Die New York Colonial Assembly was van mening dat die wet die Engelse Handves van Regte van 1689 oortree.
  • Om die proviand, kaserne en kos vir die Britse soldate te betaal, word die koloniste sonder hul toestemming belas, wat hulle onregverdig gevoel het.
  • Sommige koloniste het vermoed dat die staande leër teen hulle gebruik kan word.
  • Ondanks die pogings en protes van die kolonis het die Britse soldate geweld gebruik om huise en herberge binne te gaan.
  • Die New York Provinsiale Vergadering het uitdagend gebly tot 1771 toe hulle uiteindelik fondse toewys vir die kwartering van die Britse troepe.

Die Boston -slagting

  • Met die hulp van die Quartering Act is die Townshend -wette in 1767 deur die Britse parlement aanvaar. Dit is vernoem na Charles Townshend wat dit geborg het.
  • Die Townshend -wet belas goedere (papier, verf, lood, glas en tee) wat na die kolonies ingevoer is. Die kolonies, wat geen verteenwoordiging gehad het nie, het egter gevoel dat dit 'n magsmisbruik was.
  • The Americans protested the new Act, which led to the civil unrest in the city. The British Government ordered the British redcoats to post in Boston.
  • Due to the provisions of the Quartering Act, in March 5, 1770, on King Street in Boston, a street brawl occurred between the colonists and the British soldiers, throwing snowballs, stones, and sticks that quickly escalated to manslaughter.
  • Eight people were wounded and five colonists were shot and killed (a black sailor named Crispus Attucks, ropemaker Samuel Gray, a mariner named James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, and Patrick Carr) by the the British soldiers. The event was widely known as the “Boston Massacre”.
  • The British soldiers were accused of manslaughter and murder. The two soldiers were found guilty for manslaughter while British Officer Captain Thomas Preston and his other men were released

The Boston Tea Party

  • On December 16, 1773, at Griffin’s Wharf, members of the Sons of Liberty disguised as Mohawk Indians with their axes, smashed and dumped 340 chests (over 92,000 pounds) of British East India Company Tea into the Boston Harbor in a span of 3 hours.
  • The Boston Tea Party directly led to American Revolution.

The Quartering Act of 1774

  • On January 2, 1774, the British Parliament made an addition to the 1765 Quartering Act, in which the authority was in his Majesty’s service in North America for providing suitable quarters for officers and soldiers.
  • This Act ensured that the Governor had control of Boston and not the American colonists.

Quartering Act of 1774 – The Intolerable Acts

  • The Quartering Act of 1774 was a revival of the Quartering Act of 1765. In contrast to the previous Act, this was applied to all the colonies and not just Massachusetts.
  • The revised law authorized billeting soldiers to occupy facilities, including private homes and allowing British officials to stand trial in Britain.
  • The Intolerable Acts were made due to the Boston Massacre and punishment for the destruction wrought during the Boston Tea Party.
  • It was made to avoid a repetition of the defiant actions taken by the Province of New York. Less than a year after the Quartering Act of 1774, the American Revolution erupted.
  • It became one of the Intolerable Acts in the series of British Laws. The other British measures were the Administration of Justice Act, the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, and the Quebec Act.
  • On October 14, 1774, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was adopted.
  • The American Revolution erupted following the Quartering Act of 1774.

Quartering Act Worksheets

This is a fantastic bundle which includes everything you need to know about the Quartering Act across 19 in-depth pages. Hierdie is ready-to-use Quartering Act worksheets that are perfect for teaching students about the Quartering Act which was passed by the British Parliament.

Volledige lys met ingesluit werkkaarte

  • The Quartering Act Facts
  • The Quartering Act
  • Causes of Quartering Act
  • Quartering Act Provisions
  • Effects of Quartering Act
  • Boston Massacre
  • Tax Protest
  • British soldier
  • Acrostics
  • My Point of View

Skakel/noem hierdie bladsy

As u na die inhoud op hierdie bladsy op u eie webwerf verwys, gebruik die onderstaande kode om hierdie bladsy as die oorspronklike bron te noem.

Gebruik saam met enige kurrikulum

Hierdie werkkaarte is spesifiek ontwerp vir gebruik met enige internasionale kurrikulum. U kan hierdie werkblaaie gebruik soos dit is, of dit met Google Skyfies wysig om dit meer spesifiek te maak vir u eie studentevaardigheidsvlakke en kurrikulumstandaarde.


A Summary View of the Rights of British America

Colonial Americans responded to British attempts to assert additional control over their political and economic affairs with varying degrees of resistance. For the most part, the colonists attempted to balance their desire for imperial recognition of their traditional rights with statements of loyalty and affection towards the British king (and, to a lesser extent, Parliament). Public gatherings, for example, often included toasts that honored individual members of the British nobility, the long heritage of royal governance, the traditional rights of Englishmen, and the achievements of America in rapid succession. In a tempestuous time, these were not seen as contradictions: indeed, for Gouverneur Morris, the tensions between these concepts might have been all that stood between the colonists and complete anarchy. On the other hand, neither Thomas Jefferson (in A Summary View of the Rights of British America, August 1774) nor General Thomas Gage (in his letter to Peyton Randolph) appears to feel any tension over the question of loyalty whatsoever.

Joseph Galloway’s Plan of Union attempted to use the political confusion constructively, by proposing a new type of political union between the colonies and Britain in which political sovereignty would be divided more evenly. The Continental Congress ultimately rejected this solution, and it was never proposed to the crown.

RESOLVED, that it be an instruction to the said deputies, when assembled in general congress with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to the said congress that a humble and dutiful address be presented to his majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as chief magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his majesty’s subjects in America complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the legislature of one part of the empire, upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To represent to his majesty that these his states have often individually made humble application to his imperial throne to obtain, through its intervention, some redress of their injured rights, to none of which was ever even an answer condescended humbly to hope that this their joint address, penned in the language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility which would persuade his majesty that we are asking favors, and not rights, shall obtain from his majesty a more respectful acceptance. And this his majesty will think we have reason to expect when he reflects that he is no more than the chief officer of the people, appointed by the laws, and circumscribed with definite powers, to assist in working the great machine of government, erected for their use, and consequently subject to their superintendence. And in order that these our rights, as well as the invasions of them, may be laid more fully before his majesty, to take a view of them from the origin and first settlement of these countries.

To remind him that our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were the free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness. That their Saxon ancestors had, under this universal law, in like manner left their native wilds and woods in the north of Europe, had possessed themselves of the island of Britain, then less charged with inhabitants, and had established there that system of laws which has so long been the glory and protection of that country. Nor was ever any claim of superiority or dependence asserted over them by that mother country from which they had migrated and were such a claim made, it is believed that his majesty’s subjects in Great Britain have too firm a feeling of the rights derived to them from their ancestors, to bow down the sovereignty of their state before such visionary pretensions. And it is thought that no circumstance has occurred to distinguish materially the British from the Saxon emigration. America was conquered, and her settlements made, and firmly established, at the expense of individuals, and not of the British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement effectual for themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold. Not a shilling was ever issued from the public treasures of his majesty, or his ancestors, for their assistance, till of very late times, after the colonies had become established on a firm and permanent footing. . . . Settlements having been thus effected in the wilds of America, the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country, and to continue their union with her by submitting themselves to the same common sovereign, who was thereby made the central link connecting the several parts of the empire thus newly multiplied.

But that not long were they permitted, however far they thought themselves removed from the hand of oppression, to hold undisturbed the rights thus acquired, at the hazard of their lives, and loss of their fortunes. A family of princes was then on the British throne, whose treasonable crimes against their people brought on them afterwards the exertion of those sacred and sovereign rights of punishment reserved in the hands of the people for cases of extreme necessity, and judged by the constitution unsafe to be delegated to any other judicature. While every day brought forth some new and unjustifiable exertion of power over their subjects on that side the water, it was not to be expected that those here, much less able at that time to oppose the designs of despotism, should be exempted from injury.

Accordingly that country, which had been acquired by the lives, the labors, and the fortunes, of individual adventurers, was by these princes, at several times, parted out and distributed among the favorites and . . . by an assumed right of the crown alone, were erected into distinct and independent governments a measure which it is believed his majesty’s prudence and understanding would prevent him from imitating at this day, as no exercise of such a power, of dividing and dismembering a country, has ever occurred in his majesty’s realm of England, though now of very ancient standing nor could it be justified or acquiesced under there, or in any other part of his majesty’s empire.

That the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural right, and which no law of their own had taken away or abridged, was next the object of unjust encroachment. . . . The parliament for the commonwealth . . . assumed upon themselves the power of prohibiting their trade with all other parts of the world, except the island of Great Britain. This arbitrary act, however, they soon recalled, and by solemn treaty, entered into on the 12th day of March, 1651, between the said commonwealth by their commissioners, and the colony of Virginia by their house of burgesses, it was expressly stipulated, by the 8th article of the said treaty, that they should have “free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations, according to the laws of that commonwealth.” But that, upon the restoration of his majesty king Charles the second, their rights of free commerce fell once more a victim to arbitrary power and by several acts
. . . of his reign, as well as of some of his successors, the trade of the colonies was laid under such restrictions, as show what hopes they might form from the justice of a British parliament, were its uncontrolled power admitted over these states. History has informed us that bodies of men, as well as individuals, are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny. A view of these acts of parliament for regulation, as it has been affectedly called, of the American trade, if all other evidence were removed out of the case, would undeniably evince the truth of this observation. . . . That to heighten still the idea of parliamentary justice, and to show with what moderation they are like to exercise power, where themselves are to feel no part of its weight, we take leave to mention to his majesty certain other acts of British parliament, by which they would prohibit us from manufacturing for our own use the articles we raise on our own lands with our own labor. By an act . . . passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late majesty king George the second, an American subject is forbidden to make a hat for himself of the fur which he has taken perhaps on his own soil an instance of despotism to which no parallel can be produced in the most arbitrary ages of British history. By one other act . . . passed in the 23d year of the same reign, the iron which we make we are forbidden to manufacture, and heavy as that article is, and necessary in every branch of husbandry, besides commission and insurance, we are to pay freight for it to Great Britain, and freight for it back again, for the purpose of supporting not men, but machines, in the island of Great Britain. . . . But that we do not point out to his majesty the injustice of these acts, with intent to rest on that principle the cause of their nullity but to show that experience confirms the propriety of those political principles which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British parliament. The true ground on which we declare these acts void is, that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.

That these exercises of usurped power have not been confined to instances alone, in which themselves were interested, but they have also intermeddled with the regulation of the internal affairs of the colonies. . . .

That thus have we hastened through the reigns which preceded his majesty’s, during which the violations of our right were less alarming, because repeated at more distant intervals than that rapid and bold succession of injuries which is likely to distinguish the present from all other periods of American story. Scarcely have our minds been able to emerge from the astonishment into which one stroke of parliamentary thunder has involved us, before another more heavy, and more alarming, is fallen on us. Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

That the act . . . passed in the 4th year of his majesty’s reign, entitled “An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, &c.” One other act . . . passed in the 5th year of his reign, entitled “An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, &c” one other act . . . passed in the 6th year of his reign, entitled “An act for the better securing the dependency of his majesty’s dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain” and one other act . . . passed in the 7th year of his reign, entitled “An act for granting duties on paper, tea, etc.”, form that connected chain of parliamentary usurpation, which has already been the subject of frequent applications to his majesty, and the houses of lords and commons of Great Britain and no answers having yet been condescended to any of these, we shall not trouble his majesty with a repetition of the matters they contained.

But that one other act . . . passed in the same 7th year of the reign, having been a peculiar attempt, must ever require peculiar mention it is entitled “An act for suspending the legislature of New York.” One free and independent legislature hereby takes upon itself to suspend the powers of another, free and independent as itself thus exhibiting a phenomenon unknown in nature, the creator and creature of its own power. Not only the principles of common sense, but the common feelings of human nature, must be surrendered up before his majesty’s subjects here can be persuaded to believe that they hold their political existence at the will of a British parliament. Shall these governments be dissolved, their property annihilated, and their people reduced to a state of nature, at the imperious breath of a body of men, whom they never saw, in whom they never confided, and over whom they have no powers of punishment or removal, let their crimes against the American public be ever so great? Can any one reason be assigned why 160,000 electors in the island of Great Britain should give law to four millions in the states of America, every individual of whom is equal to every individual of them, in virtue, in understanding, and in bodily strength? Were this to be admitted, instead of being a free people, as we have hitherto supposed, and mean to continue ourselves, we should suddenly be found the slaves, not of one, but of 160,000 tyrants, distinguished too from all others by this singular circumstance, that they are removed from the reach of fear, the only restraining motive which may hold the hand of a tyrant.

That by “an act . . . to discontinue in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandize, at the town and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America,” which was passed at the last session of British parliament a large and populous town, whose trade was their sole subsistence, was deprived of that trade, and involved in utter ruin. Let us for a while suppose the question of right suspended, in order to examine this act on principles of justice: An act of parliament had been passed imposing duties on teas, to be paid in America, against which act the Americans had protested as inauthoritative. The East India company, who till that time had never sent a pound of tea to America on their own account, step forth on that occasion the assertors of parliamentary right, and send hither many shiploads of that obnoxious commodity. The masters of their several vessels, however, on their arrival in America, wisely attended to admonition, and returned with their cargoes. In the province of New England alone the remonstrances of the people were disregarded, and a compliance, after being many days waited for, was flatly refused. Whether in this the master of the vessel was governed by his obstinacy, or his instructions, let those who know, say. There are extraordinary situations which require extraordinary interposition. An exasperated people, who feel that they possess power, are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular. A number of them assembled in the town of Boston, threw the tea into the ocean, and dispersed without doing any other act of violence. If in this they did wrong, they were known and were amenable to the laws of the land, against which it could not be objected that they had ever, in any instance, been obstructed or diverted from their regular course in favor of popular offenders. They should therefore not have been distrusted on this occasion. But that ill fated colony had formerly been bold in their enmities against the house of Stuart, and were now devoted to ruin by that unseen hand which governs the momentous affairs of this great empire. On the partial representations of a few worthless ministerial dependents, whose constant office it has been to keep that government embroiled, and who, by their treacheries, hope to obtain the dignity of the British knighthood, without calling for a party accused, without asking a proof, without attempting a distinction between the guilty and the innocent, the whole of that ancient and wealthy town is in a moment reduced from opulence to beggary. Men who had spent their lives in extending the British commerce, who had invested in that place the wealth their honest endeavors had merited, found themselves and their families thrown at once on the world for subsistence by its charities. Not the hundredth part of the inhabitants of that town had been concerned in the act complained of many of them were in Great Britain and in other parts beyond sea yet all were involved in one indiscriminate ruin, by a new executive power, unheard of till then, that of a British parliament. A property, of the value of many millions of money, was sacrificed to revenge, not repay, the loss of a few thousands. This is administering justice with a heavy hand indeed! . . .

By the act . . . for the suppression of riots and tumults in the town of Boston, passed also in the last session of parliament, a murder committed there is, if the governor pleases, to be tried in the court of King’s Bench, in the island of Great Britain, by a jury of Middlesex. The witnesses, too, on receipt of such a sum as the governor shall think it reasonable for them to expend, are to enter into recognizance to appear at the trial. This is, in other words, taxing them to the amount of their recognizance, and that amount may be whatever a governor pleases for who does his majesty think can be prevailed on to cross the Atlantic for the sole purpose of bearing evidence to a fact? His expenses are to be borne, indeed, as they shall be estimated by a governor but who are to feed the wife and children whom he leaves behind, and who have had no other subsistence but his daily labor? . . . And the wretched criminal, if he happen to have offended on the American side, stripped of his privilege of trial by peers of his vicinage, removed from the place where alone full evidence could be obtained, without money, without counsel, without friends, without exculpatory proof, is tried before judges predetermined to condemn. The cowards who would suffer a countryman to be torn from the bowels of their society, in order to be thus offered a sacrifice to parliamentary tyranny, would merit that everlasting infamy now fixed on the authors of the act! . . . That these are the acts of power, assumed by a body of men, foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws, against which we do, on behalf of the inhabitants of British America, enter this our solemn and determined protest and we do earnestly entreat his majesty, as yet the only mediatory power between the several states of the British empire, to recommend to his parliament of Great Britain the total revocation of these acts, which, however nugatory they be, may yet prove the cause of further discontents and jealousies among us.

That we next proceed to consider the conduct of his majesty, as holding the executive powers of the laws of these states, and mark out his deviations from the line of duty: By the constitution of Great Britain, as well as of the several American states, his majesty possesses the power of refusing to pass into a law any bill which has already passed the other two branches of legislature. His majesty, however, and his ancestors, conscious of the impropriety of opposing their single opinion to the united wisdom of two houses of parliament, while their proceedings were unbiased by interested principles, for several ages past have modestly declined the exercise of this power in that part of his empire called Great Britain. But by change of circumstances, other principles than those of justice simply have obtained an influence on their determinations the addition of new states to the British empire has produced an addition of new, and sometimes opposite interests. It is now, therefore, the great office of his majesty, to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire, which might bear injuriously on the rights and interests of another. Yet this will not excuse the wanton exercise of this power which we have seen his majesty practice on the laws of the American legislatures. For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, though in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions. . . .

One of the articles of impeachment against . . . the . . . judges of Westminster Hall, in the reign of Richard the second, for which they suffered death, as traitors to their country, was, that they had advised the king that he might dissolve his parliament at any time and succeeding kings have adopted the opinion of these unjust judges. Since the establishment, however, of the British constitution, at the glorious revolution, on its free and ancient principles, neither his majesty, nor his ancestors, have exercised such a power of dissolution in the island of Great Britain and when his majesty was petitioned, by the united voice of his people there, to dissolve the present parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his ministers were heard to declare, in open parliament, that his majesty possessed no such power by the constitution. But how different their language and his practice here! To declare, as their duty required, the known rights of their country, to oppose the usurpations of every foreign judicature, to disregard the imperious mandates of a minister or governor, have been the avowed causes of dissolving houses of representatives in America. But if such powers be really vested in his majesty, can he suppose they are there placed to awe the members from such purposes as these? When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. Such being the causes for which the representative body should, and should not, be dissolved, will it not appear strange to an unbiased observer, that that of Great Britain was not dissolved, while those of the colonies have repeatedly incurred that sentence?

But your majesty, or your governors, have carried this power beyond every limit known, or provided for, by the laws: After dissolving one house of representatives, they have refused to call another, so that, for a great length of time, the legislature provided by the laws has been out of existence. From the nature of things, every society must at all times possess within itself the sovereign powers of legislation. The feelings of human nature revolt against the supposition of a state so situated as that it may not in any emergency provide against dangers which perhaps threaten immediate ruin. While those bodies are in existence to whom the people have delegated the powers of legislation, they alone possess and may exercise those powers but when they are dissolved by the lopping off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who may exercise it to unlimited extent, either assembling together in person, sending deputies, or in any other way they may think proper. We forbear to trace consequences further the dangers are conspicuous with which this practice is replete. . . .

That in order to enforce the arbitrary measures before complained of, his majesty has from time to time sent among us large bodies of armed forces, not made up of the people here, nor raised by the authority of our laws: Did his majesty possess such a right as this, it might swallow up all our other rights whenever he should think proper. But his majesty has no right to land a single armed man on our shores, and those whom he sends here are liable to our laws made for the suppression and punishment of riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies or are hostile bodies, invading us in defiance of law. When in the course of the late war it became expedient that a body of Hanoverian troops should be brought over for the defense of Great Britain, his majesty’s grandfather, our late sovereign, did not pretend to introduce them under any authority he possessed. Such a measure would have given just alarm to his subjects in Great Britain, whose liberties would not be safe if armed men of another country, and of another spirit, might be brought into the realm at any time without the consent of their legislature. He therefore applied to parliament, who passed an act for that purpose, limiting the number to be brought in and the time they were to continue. In like manner is his majesty restrained in every part of the empire. He possesses, indeed, the executive power of the laws in every state but they are the laws of the particular state which he is to administer within that state, and not those of any one within the limits of another. Every state must judge for itself the number of armed men which they may safely trust among them, of whom they are to consist, and under what restrictions they shall be laid.

To render these proceedings still more criminal against our laws, instead of subjecting the military to the civil powers, his majesty has expressly made the civil subordinate to the military. But can his majesty thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power superior to that which erected himself? He has done it indeed by force but let him remember that force cannot give right.

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate: Let those flatter who fear it is not an American art. To give praise which is not due might be well from the venal, but would ill beseem those who are asserting the rights of human nature. They know, and will therefore say, that kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people. Open your breast, sire, to liberal and expanded thought. Let not the name of George the third be a blot in the page of history. You are surrounded by British counselors, but remember that they are parties. You have no ministers for American affairs, because you have none taken from among us, nor amenable to the laws on which they are to give you advice. It behooves you, therefore, to think and to act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. No longer persevere in sacrificing the rights of one part of the empire to the inordinate desires of another but deal out to all equal and impartial right. Let no act be passed by any one legislature which may infringe on the rights and liberties of another. This is the important post in which fortune has placed you, holding the balance of a great, if a well poised empire. This, sire, is the advice of your great American council, on the observance of which may perhaps depend your felicity and future fame, and the preservation of that harmony which alone can continue both to Great Britain and America the reciprocal advantages of their connection. It is neither our wish, nor our interest, to separate from her. We are willing, on our part, to sacrifice every thing which reason can ask to the restoration of that tranquility for which all must wish. On their part, let them be ready to establish union and a generous plan. Let them name their terms, but let them be just. . . . The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. This, sire, is our last, our determined resolution and that you will be pleased to interpose with that efficacy which your earnest endeavors may ensure to procure redress of these our great grievances, to quiet the minds of your subjects in British America, against any apprehensions of future encroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony through the whole empire, and that these may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all British America!

Studievrae

A. Consider the enumerated lists of persons and things toasted what do they suggest about how those attending the celebrations understood the ideas of “loyalty” and “rights”? What issues or concerns do they seem to have? Would you expect such persons to be “revolutionaries”? How do Gouverneur Morris and Thomas Jefferson respectively understand the political moment? How would you characterize the Galloway Plan in light of the other documents? Where does Joseph Galloway’s loyalty seem to lie?

B. Taken as a whole, how do these documents suggest citizens draw the line between “rights” and “loyalty” when considering their political activism? Compare this to the range of responses one might gather from later periods in American history, like the Civil War. What differentiates these situations from one another?

C. How does the understanding of “loyalty” of those advocating for American security in the twentieth century compare with the understanding of “loyalty” presented here? How would we evaluate the legacy of these early American political leaders and citizens against the arguments about “the end of history”?


THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE BRITISH NORMANDY MEMORIAL

On Sunday 6 June, the 77th anniversary of D-Day, the British Normandy Memorial was officially opened. The Opening Ceremony was broadcast live to an audience at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, where more than one hundred Normandy Veterans gathered.

Patron of the Normandy Memorial Trust, His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales, opened the British Normandy Memorial virtually with a special video message to Normandy Veterans. The Opening Ceremony was presided over by the British Ambassador to France, Lord Edward Llewellyn.

A small group, including 97-year-old British Normandy Veteran David Mylchreest, French Minister for the Armed Forces, Madame Florence Parly, Senior French guests and Chairman of the Normandy Memorial Trust Lord Peter Ricketts, gathered in front of the ‘D-Day Wall’ for the long-awaited opening in Ver-sur-Mer.

The British Normandy Memorial records the names of the 22,442 servicemen and women under British command who fell on D-Day and during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. This includes people from more than 30 different countries. Inscribed in stone, their names have never, until now, been brought together. The site also includes a French Memorial, dedicated to the memory of French civilians who died during this time.

The opening of the Memorial included the special ribbon-cutting moment, the laying of the first wreath and a flypast by the Red Arrows.


History of Nigeria before Independence (1900 – 1960)

Nigeria is the giant of Africa. And of course, this country has quite a history behind it. In this write-up, you will have the opportunity to learn about what actually transpired in Nigeria during the colonial days that is, those days before Nigeria became an independent country. We are going to focus specially on those days between 1900 and 1960.

Nigeria was referred to as Colonial Nigeria during the era to be discussed in this write-up. Colonial Nigeria now became independent on 1960 and became a republic in 1963. The British prohibited slave trade in 1807 and that was the time Nigeria&rsquos influence began to be noticed on global scale. This also marked the end of the famous Edo Kingdom.

The British divided Nigeria into three protectorates, vis-à-vis, Lagos, Northern Nigerian and Southern Nigeria that was in 1861. Over the 19 th century, the influence of the British increased in the Niger area, including Nigeria, and they established the Oil River Protectorate in 1884.

Despite increase in the influence of the British during the era, the area was not occupied until 1885. In that particular year, all other European powers ceded the area to the British at the Berlin Conference.

The Royal Niger Company was put together by the British to oversee the affairs of the area and the Royal Niger Company was under the control of Governor George Taubman Goldie.

1900 marks the year that the Northern Nigeria Protectorate and the Southern Nigeria Protectorate were merged into one entity. This was also the year that the region was passed to the British crown by the company. The two territories however got amalgamated in 1914 after governor Frederick Laggard urged the British crown to do it. The two territories now became the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Even after the amalgamation, the two territories still maintained some measure of regional autonomy among all the three major regions involved.

After the World War II, a progressive constitution was put together and this gave Nigerians more representation at the National Assembly and more Nigerians had electoral positions. The British rule during most of the colonial days was more of bureaucratic and autocratic rule. At the earlier days, the British adopted indirect rule over Nigeria.

The Lagos colony was however merged with the Southern Nigeria protectorate in 1906. The two were later merged with the northern Nigeria protectorate in 1914. They later named the whole area as Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. The white Britons were mainly the ones overseeing the military control and administration of the region during this period. The administration and military control were carried out both in London and Nigeria.

The British later imposed an economic system on Nigeria with a view to profit from African labour, after military conquest over Nigeria.

This system was referred to as money economy and the British pound was the currency being spent in Nigeria in those days. They demanded that Nigerians pay taxes in British pound sterling or they asked them to pay to cooperative natives and they were also charged various other levies.

Internal tension however followed the 1914 amalgamation and this still persists till this very day.

The missionaries were part of the unarmed forces used by the British government to penetrate into the Nigerian minds. Nigerians embraced the churches and the western ways of life and this further quickens penetration of the Nigerian hinterlands by the British. The fact that the church was mainly involved in the abolishment of slave trade further helped matters, as it promotes their popularity among the locals. At the initial stage, operations of the churches were limited to both Lagos and Ibadan. British officials and traders were accompanied by Portuguese Roman Catholic Priests and they scourged the West African coast to introduce Christianity to the people of this area, including those in Edo Kingdom.

While the CMS were more concentrated among the Yorubas, the Catholics worked more among the Igbos. This was one of the factors that led to the emergence of Samuel Ajayi Crowther as the very first Anglican Bishop of the Niger.

Then in 1925, a new movement began. Nigerian students studying abroad, especially in the United Kingdom, joined forces with other students from the West African sub-region to form the West African Students Union.

This union focused so much on condemning colonial rule and they also showed clear rejection of the amalgamation. They accused the British government of being responsible for backwardness of Nigeria, since they failed to give recognition to tribal and ethnic divides but instead went ahead to join all the different ethnic groups in Nigeria together. The focus of these early nationalists was not about Nigeria, but about their individual ethnic groups.

These were the individuals that first came up with the idea of self-rule and their persistence was party one of the factors that brought an end to colonial rule in 1960. These protesters were also using churches to voice their criticism against British rule.

Various associations, like the Nigerian Union of Teachers, Nigerian Law Association, Nigerian Produce Traders&rsquo Association and the likes started coming up in the 1920s, and Obafemi Awolowo led the Nigerian Produce Traders&rsquo Association then.

By the middle part of 1940s, all the major ethnic groups in Nigeria had formed associations. Good examples of such were the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and Igbo Federal Union.

Herbart Macaulay was referred to as the father of Nigerian nationalism. He was one of those that aroused political awareness in Nigerians via newspapers. He was equally the leader of the Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP).

This party dominated al the elections in Lagos from 1922 till 1938 when the National Youth Movement (NYM) was formed. However, the party was more or less a Lagos party and its members already had various experiences in elective politics.

The NYM was the party that brought to the fore individuals like Nnamdi Azikiwe, H.O. Davies and others. Azikiwe was more of an African man than a Nigerian man. He was more inclined towards a united African front against European Colonialism.

The political awareness were the event that set the stage for the emergence of the Action Group, the Northern People&rsquos Congress and the National Congress of Nigeria and Cameroun. This increased political awareness paved the way for the 1959 general elections and the independent of Nigeria from British rule in 1960.


Kyk die video: Maximilien Robespierre: The Reign of Terror