Timeline of World History TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 
 

TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 

Loading
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
     
     
 
1800 - 1899
 
 
1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99
1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890
1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891
1802 1812 1822 1832 1842 1852 1862 1872 1882 1892
1803 1813 1823 1833 1843 1853 1863 1873 1883 1893
1804 1814 1824 1834 1844 1854 1864 1874 1884 1894
1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895
1806 1816 1826 1836 1846 1856 1866 1876 1886 1896
1807 1817 1827 1837 1847 1857 1867 1877 1887 1897
1808 1818 1828 1838 1848 1858 1868 1878 1888 1898
1809 1819 1829 1839 1849 1859 1869 1879 1889 1899
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1823 Part II NEXT-1824 Part II    
 
 
     
1820 - 1829
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820-1829
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820 Part I
Ferdinand VII
Trienio Liberal
Caroline of Brunswick
Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry
Henri, Count of Chambord
Cato Street Conspiracy
"Missouri Compromise"
Congress of Troppau
Liberal Revolution in Portugal
Ecuadorian War of Independence
Sucre Antonio Jose
Engels Friedrich
Erskine Thomas
Gorres Joseph
Spencer Herbert
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820 Part II
Keats: "Ode to a Nightingale"
Pushkin: "Ruslan and Ludmila"
Fet Afanasy
Scott: "Ivanhoe"
Shelley: "Prometheus Unbound"
William Blake: The Book of Job
Tenniel John
Discovery of the Venus de Milo
Fromentin Eugene
Vieuxtemps Henri
Henri Vieuxtemps - Elegy for Viola and Piano Op.30
Henri Vieuxtemps
Moffat Robert
Florence Nightingale
Anthony Susan Brownell
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1821 Part I
Congress of Laibach
Victor Emmanuel I
Felix Charle
Battle of Novara
Greek War of Independence
Greek Revolution Timeline
Battle of Alamana
Battle of Carabobo
Missouri
Independence of Brazil
Ecole Nationale des Chartes
Concordats with individual states of Germany
Baker Eddy Mary
Grote George
Hegel: "Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts"
Mill James
Champollion Jean-François
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1821 Part II
Baudelaire Charles
Charles Baudelaire
"The Flowers of Evil"
Fenimore Cooper: "The Spy"
Dostoevsky Fyodor
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"The Idiot"
Flaubert Gustave
Gustave Flaubert
"
Madame Bovary
Goethe: "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre"
William Hazlitt: "Table-Talk"
Quincey Thomas
Thomas de Quincey: "Confessions of an English Opium Eater"
Thomas De Quincey 
"Confessions of an English Opium-Eater"
Shelley: "Adonais"
Nekrasov Nekolay
Brown Ford Madox
Ford Madox Brown
Weber: "Der Freischutz"
Helmholtz Hermann
Seebeck Thomas Johann
Virchow Rudolf
Wheatstone Charles
"The Guardian"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1822 Part I
Chios Massacre
Battle of Dervenakia
Grant Ulysses
Iturbide Augustin
Congress of Verona
Colebrooke Henry Thomas
Fourier Joseph
Poncelet Jean-Victor
Goncourt Edmond
Nodier Charles
Vigny Alfred-Victor
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1822 Part II
Delacroix: "Dante and Virgil Crossing the Styx"
Martin John
John Martin
Franck Cesar
Cesar Franck - Prelude, Chorale and Fugue
Cesar Franck
Royal Academy of Music, London
Schubert: Symphony No. 8 ("The Unfinished")
Mendel Gregor
Pasteur Louis
Schliemann Heinrich
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1823 Part I
Federal Republic of Central America
Monroe Doctrine
Leo XII
Renan Ernest
Ernest Renan
"The Life of Jesus"
Fenimore Cooper: "The Pioneers"
Ostrovski Alexander
Petofi Sandor
Yonge Charlotte Mary
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1823 Part II
Ferdinand Waldmuller: "Portrait of Beethoven"
Beethoven: "Missa Solemnis"
Bishop Henry Rowley
Bishop "Home! Sweet Home!"
Schubert: "Rosamunde"
Weber: "Euryanthe"
Babbage Charles
Macintosh Charles
Navigation of the Niger
Oudney Walter
Denham Dixon
Clapperton Bain Hugh
"The Lancet"
Royal Thames Yacht Club
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part I
First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)
Russo-American Treaty of 1824
First Siege of Missolonghi
Constitution of Mexico
Battle of Ayacucho
Bockh August
Botta Carlo Giuseppe Guglielmo
Dumas Alexandre, fils
Landor Walter Savage
Walter Scott: "Redgauntlet"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part II
Delacroix: "The Massacre at Chios"
John Flaxman: "Pastoral Apollo"
Ingres: "Vow of Louis XIII"
Israels Joseph
Joseph Israels
Overbeck: "Christ's entry into Jerusalem"
Gerome Jean-Leon
Jean-Leon Gerome
Boulanger Gustave
Gustave Boulanger
Girodet Anne-Louis
Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part III
Beethoven: Symphony No. 9
Bruckner Anton
Anton Bruckner - Locus Iste
Anton Bruckner
Smetana Bedrich
Smetana - Die Moldau
Bedrich Smetana
Aspdin Joseph
Carnot Sadi
Thomson William
The Hume and Hovell expedition
Hume Hamilton
Hovell William Hilton
Athenaeum Club, London
"Le Globe"
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part I
Ferdinand IV of Naples
Francis I of the Two Sicilies
Third Siege of Missolonghi
Treaty of Saint Petersburg of 1825
Uruguay became independent of Brazil (1825)
Kruger Paul
Maximilian I
Ludwig I of Bavaria
Nicholas I
Decembrist revolt in Russia
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part II
Lasalle Ferdinand
William Hazlitt: "The Spirit of the Age"
Manzoni: "The Betrothed"
Meyer Conrad Ferdinand
Pepys Samuel: "The Diaries of Samuel Pepys"
Pushkin: "Boris Godunov"
Tegner Esaias
Esaias Tegner: "Frithjofs Saga"
Constable: "Leaping Horse"
Collinson James
James Collinson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part III
Boieldieu: "La Dame blanche"
Strauss II Johann , the "Waltz King"
Johan Strauss - Blue Danube Waltz
Johann Strauss II, the "Waltz King"
Charcot Jean Martin
Gurney Goldsworthy
Stockton and Darlington Railway
The Desert
Caillie Rene-Auguste
Laing Alexander Gordon
John Franklin Canadian and Arctic expedition
Horse-bus
Trade Union
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1826 Part I
The Sortie of Missolonghi
Ottoman–Egyptian Invasion of Mani
Treaty of Yandabo
Pedro I
Maria II, Queen of Portugal
Akkerman Convention
Congress of Panama
Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828
Zollverein
Khan Dost Mohammad
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1826 Part II
Liebknecht Wilhelm
Ruan Yuan
Fenimore Cooper: "The Last of the Mohicans"
Benjamin Disraeli: "Vivian Grey"
Scheffel Josef Viktor
Scott: "Woodstock"
Moreau Gustave
Gustave Moreau
Weber: "Oberon"
Nobili Leopoldo
Unverdorben Otto
Raffles Stamford
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1827 Part I
Battle of Phaleron
Kapodistrias Ioannis Antonios
Siege of the Acropolis (1826–27)
Treaty of London
Battle of Navarino
Mahmud II
Russo-Persian War - Campaign of 1827
Coster Charles
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1827 Part II
Bocklin Arnold
Arnold Bocklin
Constable: "The Cornfield"
Hunt William Holman
William Holman Hunt
Audubon John James
Audubon: "Birds of North America"
Baer Karl Ernst
Bright Richard
Lister Joseph
Niepce Nicephore
Ohm Georg Simon
Ressel Joseph
Simpson James
Wohler Friedrich
Timbuktu
Baedeker Karl
"London Evening Standard"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1828 Part I
Ypsilantis Alexander
Michael
Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829
"Tariff of Abominations"
Treaty of Montevideo
Guerrero Vicente
Lange Friedrich Albert
Muller Karl Otfried
Taine Hippolyte Adolphe
Noah Webster "American Dictionary of the English Language"
About Edmond
Alexandre Dumas pere: "Les Trois Mousquetaires"
Ibsen Henrik
Meredith George
George Meredith 
"The Egoist"
Oliphant Margaret
Tolstoy Leo
Leo Tolstoy
"The Kreutzer Sonata"
Verne Jules
Jules Verne
"Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."
"The Children of Captain Grant"
"The Mysterious Island"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1828 Part II
Bonington Richard Parkes
Richard Parkes Bonington
Rossetti Dante Gabriel
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Stevens Alfred
Alfred Stevens
Stuart Gilbert
Gilbert Stuart
Auber: "La Muette de Portici"
Marschner: "Der Vampire"
Abel Niels Henrik
Burdon-Sanderson John
Cohn Ferdinand
De Vinne Theodore
Stewart Balfour
Swan Joseph
Dunant Henri
Hauser Kaspar
Working Men's Party
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part I
Schurz Carl
Biddle Nicholas
Metropolitan Police Act 1829
First Hellenic Republic
Treaty of Adrianople
Attwood Thomas
Bustamante Anastasio
O’Connell Daniel
Gran Colombia–Peru War (1828-1829)
Benson Edward White
Roman Catholic Emancipation Act
Gardiner Samuel Rawson
Pius VIII
Balzac: "Les Chouans"
Goethe: "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre"
Jefferson Joseph  
Edgar Allan Poe: "Al Araaf"
Salvini Tommaso
Scott: "Anne of Geierstein"
Timrod Henry
Warner Charles Dudley
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part II
Feuerbach Anselm
Anselm Feuerbach
Millais John Everett
John Everett Millais
Gottschalk Louis
Louis Moreau Gottschalk - Grande Tarantelle
Louis Gottschalk
Rossini: "William Tell"
Rubinstein Anton
Rubinstein - Piano Concerto No. 1
Anton Rubinstein
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part III
Cantor Moritz Benedikt
Dobereiner Johann Wolfgang
Dreyse Nikolaus
Henry Joseph
Priessnitz Vincenz
Hydropathy, Hydrotherapy
Kekule August
Mitchell Silas Weir
Smithson James
Booth William
Salvation Army
Shillibeer George
Flong
Suttee
 
 
 

Lord Byron on his deathbed, by Joseph-Denis Odevaere
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1824 Part I
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Bolivar Simon proclaimed Emperor of Peru
 
 

Simon Bolivar
 
 
 
1824
 
 
First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)
 

The First Anglo-Burmese War (5 March 1824 – 24 February 1826) was the first of three wars fought between the British and Burmese Empires in the 19th century. The war, which began primarily over the control of northeastern India, ended in a decisive British victory, giving the British total control of Assam, Manipur, Cachar and Jaintia as well as Arakan Province and Tenasserim. The Burmese were also forced to pay an indemnity of one million pounds sterling, and sign a commercial treaty.

 
Fifteen thousand European and Indian soldiers died, together with an unknown number of Burmese military and civilian casualties. The high cost of the campaign to the British, 5–13 million pounds sterling (£367 million-£953 million as of 2014) contributed to a severe economic crisis in British India which cost the East India Company its remaining privileges.

For the Burmese, it was the beginning of the end of their independence. The Third Burmese Empire, for a brief moment the terror of British India, was crippled and no longer a threat to the eastern frontier of British India.[4] The Burmese would be crushed for years to come by repaying the large indemnity of one million pounds (then US$5 million), a large sum even in Europe of that time. The British would make two more wars against a much more weakened Burma, and swallow up the entire country by 1885.

 


The Storming of the Lesser Stockade at Kemmendine near Rangoon on 10 June 1824
 
 
Causes
By 1822, Burmese conquests of Manipur and Assam had created a long border between British India and the Burmese Empire. The British, based in Calcutta, had their own designs on the region, and actively supported rebellions in Manipur, Assam and Arakan. Calcutta unilaterally declared Cachar and Jaintia British protectorates, and sent in troops. Cross border raids into these newly acquired territories from British territories and spheres of influence vexed the Burmese. Convinced that war was inevitable, Burmese commander-in-chief Maha Bandula became a main proponent of offensive policy against the British. Bandula was part of the war party at Bagyidaw's court, which also included Queen Me Nu and her brother, the lord of Salin. Bandula believed that a decisive victory could allow Ava to consolidate its gains in its new western empire in Arakan, Manipur, Assam, Cachar and Jaintia, as well as take over eastern Bengal.

In September 1823, the casus belli arrived when Burma occupied Shalpuri Island near Chittagong, which was claimed by the East India Company.

In January 1824, Burma sent one of their top generals, Thado Thiri Maha Uzana, into Cachar and Jaintia to disperse the rebels. The British sent in their own force to meet the Burmese in Cachar, resulting in the first clashes between the two. The war formally broke out on 5 March 1824, following border clashes in Arakan.

The British reason for the war was in addition to expanding British Bengal's sphere of influence, the desire for new markets for British manufacturing. The British were also anxious to deny the French the use of Burmese harbours and concerned about French influence at the Court of Ava, as the kingdom was still known to them. British Ambassador Michael Symes's mission was equipped to gain as much knowledge as possible of the country for future British plans whereas previous envoys were concerned principally with trade concessions. Anglo–French rivalry had already played a role during Alaungpaya's endeavours of unifying the kingdom. The Burmese in these wars were advancing into smaller states not ruled by the British or the subject of expansionary goals by the British before the war began, and the British were not so much preoccupied by the refugee problem initially as by the threat posed by the French until further incidents forced their hand.

  War

Western theatre

The commander in chief of the Burmese army, Maha Bandula was supported by twelve of the country's best divisions, including one under his personal command, all totaling 10,000 men and 500 horses.

His general staff included some of the country's most decorated soldiers, men like the Lord of Salay and the Governors of Danyawaddy, Wuntho and Taungoo. Bandula's plan was to attack the British on two fronts: Chittagong from Arakan in the southeast, and Sylhet from Cachar and Jaintia in the north.

Bandula personally commanded the Arakan theatre while Uzana commanded Cachar and Jaintia theater.

Early in the war, battle hardened Burmese forces were able to push back the British forces because the Burmese, who had been fighting in the jungles of Manipur and Assam for nearly a decade, were more familiar with the terrain which represented "a formidable obstacle to the march of a European force".

Uzana had already defeated the British units in Cachar and Jaintia in January 1824. In May, Burmese forces led by U Sa, Lord Myawaddy (about 4,000) fought their way into Bengal, and defeated British troops at the Battle of Ramu, 10 miles east of Cox's Bazar on 17 May 1824. Sa's column then joined Bandula's column on the march to defeat British forces at Gadawpalin, and went on to capture Cox's Bazar.

The Burmese success caused extreme panic in Chittagong and in Calcutta. Across the eastern Bengal, the European inhabitants formed themselves into militia forces. And a large portion of the crews of East India Company's ships were landed to assist in the defence of Calcutta.

But Bandula, not wanting to overstretch, stopped U Sa from proceeding to Chittagong. Had Bandula marched on to Chittagong, which unbeknown to him was lightly held, he could have taken it and the way to Calcutta would have been open.(The Burmese, because of the disparity in arms, could not have won the war in any case.

But had they been able to threaten Calcutta, the Burmese could have obtained more favourable terms in the peace negotiations later on.)

 
 

The Storming of one of the principal stockades on its inside,
near Rangoon, on the 8th of July 1824.
 
 
Inside Burma
Battle of Yangon (May–December 1824)

Instead of fighting in hard terrain, the British took the fight to the Burmese mainland. On 11 May 1824, a British naval force of over 10,000 men (5,000 British soldiers and over 5,000 Indian sepoys) entered the harbour of Yangon, taking the Burmese by surprise. The Burmese pursuing a scorched earth policy, left an empty city, and instead chose to fortify positions along an east-west 10-mile arc outside the city. The British forces led by General Archibald Campbell took position inside a fortified Shwedagon Pagoda compound. The British launched attacks on Burmese lines, and by July 1824, had successfully pushed the Burmese towards Kamayut, five miles from Shwedagon. Burmese efforts to retake Shwedagon in September failed.

King Bagyidaw ordered a near complete withdrawal from the western front—Bandula from Arakan and Bengal, and Uzana from Assam, Cachar and Jaintia—and meet the enemy in Yangon. In August, in the midst of monsoon season, Bandula and his army crossed the Arakan Yoma. Moving tens of thousands of men over the 3,000-foot-high Arakan hills, or 10,000-foot-high Assamese ranges, heavily forested with only narrow footpaths and open to attack by tigers and leopards, would be difficult even in mild weather conditions. To do this at the height of the drenching monsoon season was a particularly difficult task.

  Yet Bandula (from Arakan) and Uzana (from Assam) in a testament to their generalship and logistical skills, managed to do just that.

The king granted both Bandula and Uzana the title Agga Maha Thenapati, the highest possible military rank. Bandula was also made the governor of Sittaung.

By November, Bandula commanded a force of 30,000 massed outside Yangon. Bandula believed that he could take on a well-armed British force of 10,000 head-on. Although the Burmese were numerically superior, only 15,000 of the 30,000 had muskets. The Burmese cannons fired only balls whereas the British cannons fired exploding shells. Unbeknown to him, the British had just received the first shipment of the newest weapon in war that the Burmese had never seen–Congreve rockets. More ominously for the Burmese, the speedy march through the hilly regions of Rakhine Yoma and Assamese ranges had left their troops exhausted.

On 30 November, in what turned out be the biggest mistake of his career, Bandula ordered a frontal attack on British positions. The British with far superior weaponry, withstood several Burmese charges at the Shwedagon fort, cutting down men by the thousands. By 7 December, the British troops, supported by rocket fire, had begun to gain the upper hand. On 15 December, the Burmese were driven out of their last remaining stronghold at Kokine. In the end, only 7,000 of the 30,000 Burmese soldiers returned.

 
 

British naval force entered the harbour of Rangoon in May 1824
 
 
Battle of Danubyu (March–April 1825)
Bandula fell back to his rear base at Danubyu, a small town not far from Yangon, in the Irrawaddy delta.

Having lost experienced men in Yangon, the Burmese forces now numbered about 10,000, of mixed quality, including some of the king's best soldiers but also many untrained and barely armed conscripts. The stockade itself stretched a mile along the riverbank, and was made up of solid teak beams no less than 15 feet high.

In March 1825, a four thousand strong British force supported by a flotilla of gun boats attacked Danubyu. The first British attack failed, and Bandula attempted a counter charge, with foot soldiers, cavalry and 17 fighting elephants. But the elephants were stopped by rocket fire and the cavalry found it impossible to move against the sustained British artillery fire.

On 1 April, the British launched a major attack, pounding down on the town with their heavy guns and raining their rockets on every part of the Burmese line. Bandula was killed by a mortar shell.

Bandula had walked around the fort to boost the morale of his men, in his full insignia under a glittering golden umbrella, discarding the warnings of his generals that he would prove an easy target for the enemy's guns.

After Bandula's death, the Burmese evacuated Danubyu.

 
Bandula's lookout tree at Danybyu, mounted with four guns.
 
 
Arakan campaign (February–April 1825)
U Sa was left to command the remaining Burmese troops in Arakan after Bandula and the main battalions were ordered to withdraw from Arakan by Bagyidaw to meet the British invasion in Yangon in August 1824. Sa held on to Arakan throughout 1824 while the main focal point of the war played out in Yangon. After Gen. Archibald Campbell finally defeated Gen. Bandula in the Battle of Yangon in December 1824, the British turned their sights to Arakan. On 1 February 1825, an invasion force of 11,000 soldiers supported by a flotilla of gun boats and armed cruisers along the coast and a squadron of cavalry under the command of Gen. Morrison attacked Burmese positions in Arakan.

Despite their superior numbers and firearms, the British had to fight depleted Burmese forces for nearly two months before they reached the main Burmese garrison at Mrauk-U, Arakan's capital. On 29 March 1825, the British launched their attack on Mrauk-U. (At the same time, Campbell also launched an attack on Bandula's positions in the Battle of Danubyu.) After a few days of fighting, the Burmese at Mrauk-U were defeated on April 1, coincidentally the same day Maha Bandula fell at Danubyu. Sa and the remaining Burmese forces evacuated and left Arakan. The British proceeded to occupy the rest of Arakan.
  Armistice
On 17 September 1825, an armistice was concluded for one month. In the course of the summer, General Joseph Wanton Morrison had conquered the province of Arakan; in the north, the Burmese were expelled from Assam; and the British had made some progress in Cachar, though their advance was finally impeded by the thick forests and jungle.

Peace negotiations that began in September broke down by early October after the Burmese would not agree to British terms. The British had demanded no less than the complete dismemberment of the Burmese western territories in Arakan, Assam, Manipur and the Tenasserim coast as well as two million pounds sterling of indemnity. The Burmese would not agree to give up Arakan and the large sum of indemnity.

Battle of Prome (November–December 1825)
In November 1825, the Burmese decided to throw everything they had in a one last-ditch effort. Starting in mid-November, the Burmese forces, consisted mainly of Shan regiments led by their sawbwas, threatened Prome in a daring circular movement that almost surrounded the town and cut off communications lines to Yangon.

 
 
In the end, the superior firepower of the British guns and missiles won out. On 1 December, Gen. Campbell, with 2500 European and 1500 Indian sepoys, supported by a flotilla of gun boats, attacked the main Burmese position outside Prome. On 2 December, Maha Ne Myo was killed by a shell launched from the flotilla. After Maha Ne Myo's death, the British dislodged the Burmese by 5 December.

The defeat in Prome effectively left the Burmese army in disarray. The Burmese army was in constant retreat from then on. By February 1826, the Burmese were forced to accept the British terms to end the war. On 26 December, they sent a flag of truce to the British camp. Negotiations having commenced, peace was proposed to them in the Treaty of Yandabo.

 
 

Embassy of Michael Symes to King Bodawpaya at Amarapura in 1795
 
 
Treaty of Yandabo
The British demanded and the Burmese agreed to:

Cede to the British Assam, Manipur, Rakhine (Arakan), and Taninthayi (Tenasserim) coast south of Salween river, Cease all interference in Cachar and Jaintia
Pay an indemnity of one million pounds sterling in four installments, Allow for an exchange of diplomatic representatives between Ava and Calcutta,
Sign a commercial treaty in due course.

The first installment of indemnity was to be paid immediately, the second installment within the first 100 days from signing of the treaty, and the rest within two years. Until the second installment was paid, the British would not leave Yangon.

The Treaty of Yandabo was signed by Gen. Campbell from the British side and Governor of Legaing Maha Min Hla Kyaw Htin from the Burmese side on 24 February 1826. The Burmese paid 250,000 pounds sterling in gold and silver bullion as the first installment of the indemnity, and also released British prisoners of war. The war was thus brought to an end, and the British army moved south. The British army remained in the territories surrendered to it under the treaty and in the territories such as the Rangoon area which were occupied for several years in guarantee of the financial terms of the treaty.

  Aftermath
The treaty imposed a severe financial burden to the Burmese kingdom, and effectively left it crippled. The British terms in the negotiations were strongly influenced by the heavy cost in lives and money which the war had entailed. Some 40,000 British and Indians troops had been involved of whom 15,000 had been killed.

The cost to the British India's finances had been almost ruinous, amounting to approximately 13 million pounds sterling.

The cost of war contributed to a severe economic crisis in India, which by 1833 had bankrupted the Bengal agency houses and cost the British East India Company its remaining privileges, including the monopoly of trade to China.

For the Burmese, the treaty was a total humiliation and a long lasting financial burden. A whole generation of men had been wiped out in battle.

The world the Burmese knew, of conquest and martial pride, built on the back of impressive military success of the previous 75 years, had come crashing down. The Court of Ava could not come to terms with the loss of the territories, and made unsuccessful attempts to get them back. An uninvited British Resident in Ava was a daily reminder of the humiliating defeat.

 
 
More importantly, the burden of indemnity would leave the Burmese royal treasury bankrupt for years. The indemnity of one million pounds sterling would have been considered a large sum even in Europe of that time. It appeared more daunting when converted to the Burmese kyat equivalent of 10 million. The cost of living of the average villager in Upper Burma in 1826 was one kyat per month.

The British would wage two more wars, less expensive, against the weaker Burmese in 1852 and 1885, and annex the Burma by 1885.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1824
 
 
Russo-American Treaty of 1824
 

The Russo-American Treaty of 1824 (also known as the Convention Between the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, Relative to Navigating, Fishing, Etc., in the Pacific Ocean) was signed in St. Petersburg between representatives of Russia and the United States on April 17, 1824, ratified by both nations on January 11, 1825 and went into effect on January 12, 1825.

 
The accord contained six articles. It gave Russian claims on the Pacific Northwest coast of North America south of parallel 54°40′ north over what Americans known as the Oregon Country to the United States.

The Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great Britain then fixed the Russian Tsar's southernmost boundary of Alaska at the line of 54°40′N — the present southern tip of the Alaska Panhandle — but Russian rights to trade in the area south of that line remained. The dispute between the United States and Britain over jurisdiction in the region was already underway as a result of the Adams–Onís Treaty between the U.S. and Spain over the latter's former claims north of the 42nd Parallel (today's Oregon-California boundary).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1824
 
 
Greek Revolution Timeline
 
Greek War of Independence (1821–1829)

1821, February 21: Revolt of Greek War of Independence declared by Alexandros Ypsilantis in Wallachia (Iaşi).
1821, March 25: According to tradition, Metropolitan Germanos of Patras blesses a big Greek flag at the Monastery of Agia Lavra in Peloponnesia and proclaims to people assembled the beginning of a Greek Revolution. Greece declares its independence. Beginning of the Greek War of Independence.
1821, 10 April, Easter Monday: Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople Alyssa central outside portal of the Patriarchate by the Turks. The door has remained shut and out of use ever since
1821, 17 April: Former Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril VI is hanged in the gate of the Adrianople's cathedral
1821, 4 April: Constantine Mourousis, Dimitrios Paparigopoulos and Antonios Tsouras are decapitated by the Ottomans in Constantinople
1821, 5 April: The Phanariotes Petros Tsigris, Dimitrios Skanavis and Manuel Hotzeris are decapitated by the Turks, while Georgios Mavrocordatos is hanged by the Sultan forces in Constantinople
1821, 23–24 April: Battle of Alamana. After the Greek defeat, Athanasios Diakos is impaled on a spit.
1821, 4 May: Metropolitans Gregorios of Derkon, Dorotheos of Adrianople, Ioannikios of Tyrnavos, Joseph of Thessaloniki, and the Phanariote Georgios Callimachi and Nikolaos Mourousis are decapitated on Sultan's orders in Constantinople
1821, May: The Turkish governor Yusuf Bey orders his men to kill every Greek in Thessaloniki that they find. The killings last for days, with the metropolitan and major notables among the victims
1821, 2 June: Destruction of Kydonies in Asia Minor by the Ottoman army. Tens of thousands of Greek inhabitants become refugees
1821, 24 June: The massacre of Heraklion or 'the great ravage' occurs against the Greek community in Crete. Among the victims are the metropolitan of Crete and bishops
1821, 9 July: The chief of the Cypriot Orthodox Church Archbishop Kyprianos, along with 486 prominent Greek Cypriots, amongst them the Metropolitans Chrysanthos of Paphos, Meletios of Kition and Lavrentios of Kyrenia, are executed by beheading or hanging by the Turks in Nicosia
1821, July: Küçük Mehmet carries out several days of massacres of Greek Cypriots in Cyprus since July 9 and continues on for forty days, despite the Vizier's command to end the plundering since 20 July 1821
1821, 11 September: Tripolitsa captured by the Greeks, who proceed to eliminate the Turkish garrison, officials and civilians. A total of about 30,000 people perish.
1821, 15 October: Turkish Cypriot mobs hang most of the Greek Cypriots in Larnaca and other towns, among them an archbishop, five bishops, thirty six ecclesiastics

1822, 9 April: After a month's resistance, the city of Naousa is captured by Abdul Abud, devastating the city and massacring its Greek population. Ending of the Greek revolution in Macedonia.
1822: The Chios massacre occurs. A total of about 100,000 people perish, mostly Greeks.
1822, 26 July, Battle at Dervenakia. A decisive victory of the Greeks which saved the revolution.

1823, 18 January: Nafplio becomes the site of the Revolutionary Government.
1823, March: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, represented by George Canning, recognizes the Greeks as a nation at war, thus recognizing de facto the Greek Independence.

1824, 7–8 June: The civilization of the island of Kasos is completely destroyed by the Turkish-Egyptian forces of Hussein Rushdi Pasha. About 7,000 people perish.
1824, 21 June: More than 15,000 Greeks of Psara are slaughtered by the forces of Husrev Pasha.
1824: The First Siege of Missolonghi occurs.


1825, 22 May: Laskarina Bouboulina is assassinated in Spetses.
1825, 5 June: Odysseas Androutsos is assassinated in Athens.
1825, 22 June: Ibrahim Pasha retakes Tripoli, kills the Greek population and destroys the city and its walls.
1825, 6 November: Beginning of the Third Siege of Missolonghi.

1826, 10–11 April: The Sortie of Missolonghi occurs. Approximately 8,000 Greek soldiers and civilians perish.
1826, 24 June: Battle of Vergas.
1826, 11 November: Prime Minister Andreas Zaimis transfers the site of the government to Aegina.

1827, 22–24 April: Battle of Phaleron. Georgios Karaiskakis is killed in action.
1827, July 6: Signing of the Treaty of London.
1827, 20 October: Battle of Navarino.

1828, 24 January: John Capodistria is elected Governor of Greece.
1828, 31 January: Alexander Ypsilantis dies in Vienna.

1829. First Hellenic Republic (1829–1832)
The First Hellenic Republi is a historiographic term used for a series of councils and "Provisional Governments" during the Greek War of Independence. During the first stages of the rebellion, various areas elected their own regional governing councils. These were replaced by united administration at the First National Assembly of Epidaurus during early 1822, which also adopted the first Greek Constitution. A series of National Assemblies ensued, while Greece was threatened with collapse due to civil war and the victories of Ibrahim Pasha. During 1827, the Third National Assembly at Troezen selected Count Ioannis Capodistrias as Governor of Greece for seven years. He arrived during 1828 and established the Hellenic State, commanding with quasi-dictatorial powers. He was assassinated by political rivals during 1831 and was succeeded by his brother, Augustinos Kapodistrias until the Great Powers declared Greece a Kingdom and selected the Bavarian Prince Otto to be its king.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1824
 
 
First Siege of Missolonghi
 

The First Siege of Missolonghi  was an attempt by Ottoman forces to capture the strategically located port town of Missolonghi during the early stages of the Greek War of Independence.

 
Siege
After Battle of Peta Omer Vryonis initially tried to take the town by negotiations, against the opinion of Reşid Mehmed and Yussuf Pasha of Patras. The besieged Greeks took advantage of this, dragging the negotiations out until November 8, when they were reinforced by sea with over 1,500 fighters. Then the Ottomans realized their mistake, and resumed the siege in earnest. After a month of bombardment and sorties, the main Ottoman assault was set for the night of December 24, before Christmas, calculating that the Greeks would be caught by surprise. The Greeks however were warned by Vryonis' Greek secretary, and the attack failed. The siege was subsequently lifted on December 31.

Aftermath
Missolonghi remained under Greek control, and resisted another Ottoman attempt at its capture a year later. Its resistance achieved wider fame when Lord Byron arrived there, dying in the town of fever in April 1824. The city was besieged for a third and final time, resisting both Ottoman and Egyptian armies for almost a year, until its final fall on April 10, 1826.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Alexandros Mavrokordatos defends Missolonghi by Peter von Hess
 
 
 
1824
 
 
U.S. House of Representatives elects Adams John Quincy  as president when none of the four candidates wins a majority in the national election
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Constitution of Mexico
 

The Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1824 (Spanish: Constitución Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos de 1824) was enacted on October 4 of 1824, after the overthrow of the Mexican Empire of Agustin de Iturbide. In the new constitution, the republic took the name of United Mexican States, and was defined as a representative federal republic, with Catholicism as the official and unique religion. It was replaced by the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1857.

 
Independence
When Mexico achieved its independence in September 1821, few imagined that the country would soon become a republic, much less a federal republic. The autonomists, the members of the national elite who gained power at independence, favored establishing a constitutional monarchy with the king of Spain or a member of the spanish royal family as sovereign. When the Spanish Monarchy rejected their proposal, the country's political leaders formed a national government.
 
 
The first legislatures
The newly independent Mexicans followed the precedents of the Hispanic Constitution of 1812. In 1821 they formed a Junta Provisional Gubernativa (Provisional Governing Junta) to function as the legislative branch until a Mexican Cortes was convened. After drafting and approving the declaration of independence, the Junta appointed a Regency Council. It named Agustín de Iturbide president of the Regency and head of the army.

However, his political power was to be limited. As occurred in Cádiz the Junta assumed the title sovereign, not the Regency, which was charged with executing the mandates of the Junta. The conflict between two traditions—executive power versus legislative dominance—erupted immediately. The autonomists believed that they had achieved independence and that the ideas of 1808 had been fulfilled in 1821. Iturbide, on the other hand, was convinced that he had liberated the nation with his army, and that he therefore embodied the national will. The conflict intensified during the drafting of the convocatoria (decree of convocation) to elect the constituent Cortes. The Sovereign Junta believed that it had to follow the precedents of the Hispanic Constitution and elect deputies on the basis of population. Iturbide, however, insisted on an election based on traditional estates as well as the number of districts in each province. Faced with military force, the Sovereign Junta acquiesced.
  The empire
The election of the Constituent Cortes did not settle the dispute between the legislative and executive branches. After months of contention, Iturbide and his military allies forced the Cortes to elect him emperor on 21 May 1822. While it is evident that congress had acted under duress, it is also clear that many deputies sincerely believed that they could maintain the authority and sovereignty of the legislature. They had, after all, elected a constitutional, not an absolute monarch. Indeed, they made that point forcefully when they declared that congress was sovereign and required the new emperor to swear obedience to the constitution and the acts of the legislature.

In the months that followed Iturbide's ascension to the throne, the Cortes sought to restore a semblance of normality and slowly attempted to reassert its authority. Soon a conspiracy, involving leading members of congress, emerged. The plotters intended to capture the emperor, nullify his election, reorganize the government and ensure that the army was brought under the complete control of the Cortes. The imperial government eventually uncovered the plot and ordered the detention of seventy persons, including twenty-one deputies, on 26 August 1822. The legislature opposed the violations of the civil rights of those arrested, particularly the government's disregard of congressional immunity. After months of impasse, Iturbide dissolved congress on 31 October 1822, claiming that the legislature was abusing its authority.

 
 
The rise of the provinces
Discontent with the national government flowered into rebellion in the provinces. Although several revolts erupted throughout the country, opposition to the emperor coalesced around senior army officers. Brigadier Antonio López de Santa Anna initiated the insurrection. Other generals, including Spaniards who had chosen to serve the new nation, carried the revolt to its conclusion when they issued the Plan of Casa Mata on 1 February 1823.

The plan won the support of the provinces because it included a provision granting local authority to the provincial deputations. The election of a new legislature constituted the plan’s principal demand, because provincial leaders considered the composition of the first congress to be flawed. Following the precedent of the Hispanic Cortes, Mexican political leaders considered the executive to be subservient to the legislature.

Thus, a new congress, which did not possess the liabilities of the old, could restore confidence even if the executive remained in place. Mexican politicians, of course, expected the new body to keep the emperor in check.
Misunderstanding the intention of the provinces, Iturbide reconvened the Constituent Cortes and abdicated on 19 March 1823.
  The conflict about sovereignty
The failure of Iturbide’s short-lived empire ensured that any future government would be republican. The reconvened Mexican Cortes appointed a triumvirate called the Supreme Executive Power which would alternate the presidency among its members on a monthly basis. But the question of how the nation was to be organized remained unresolved. The Mexican Cortes, following the Cádiz model, maintained that it was sovereign since it represented the nation. The provinces, however, believed that they possessed sovereignty, a portion of which they collectively ceded to form a national government. The Cortes insisted on writing the nation’s constitution, but the provinces maintained that it could only convene a new constituent congress based on the electoral regulations of the Constitution of Cádiz. Neither side was willing to cede. In the months that followed, the provinces assumed control of their governments through their provincial deputations. Four provinces, Oaxaca, Yucatán, Guadalajara, and Zacatecas, converted themselves into states. To avoid civil war, the Cortes acquiesced and elected a new constituent congress. Elections for a second constituent assembly, based on a convocatoria issued 26 June 1821 by the Hispanic Cortes, were held throughout the nation in August and September. The executive branch was not restructured, because both the provinces and the new constituent congress considered it subservient to the legislature.
 
 
The second Constituent Congress
The new congress, which the provinces had insisted upon since March, finally met on 7 November 1823. The second Constituent Congress was quite different from the first. It represented the provinces more equitably, and some of its members possessed instructions to form only a federal republic. Oaxaca, Yucatán, Jalisco, and Zacatecas, which had become states, elected state congresses, rather than provincial deputations, as the convocatoria required. The Mexico City-based national elite, which had been struggling for power since 1808, and which had taken control in 1821, lost it two years later to the provincial elites. Although some members of the national elite were elected to the new constituent congress, they formed a distinct minority. Indeed, only thirty-five of the one hundred-forty-four deputies and alternates elected to the new legislature had served in the earlier Mexican Cortes.

The constituent congress, which convened on 7 November 1823, faced very different circumstances from its predecessor. Not only had the provinces declared their sovereignty, but they had also restricted the authority of their delegates. Valladolid, Michoacán, for example, declared: "This province in the federation does not wish to relinquish the major portion of its liberty and other rights; it only grants [its deputies] the authority absolutely necessary to keep the portion it retains." Mérida, Yucatán, decreed that "the elected deputies are granted only the power (...) to constitute the nation in a government that is republican, representative and federal", and that: "The federal constitution that they form and agree with the other deputies of the Constituent Congress will not have the force of law in the nation until the majority of the federated states ratify it." Zacatecas, Zacatecas, was even more explicit, asserting that "The deputies to the future congress cannot constitute the nation as they deem convenient, but only as a federal republic." Guadalajara insisted that the pueblos of Jalisco wanted only a popular, representative and republican form of government. Other provinces made similar declarations.

The new congress represented regional interests. Therefore, the debate in the legislature focused on the division of power between the national and the provincial governments, not on whether Mexico would be a federal or a central republic. The delegates were divided into a confederalist, two federalist, and one centralist faction. The confederalists, extreme defenders of local rights like Juan de Dios Cañedo, argued that only the provinces possessed sovereignty, a portion of which they collectively ceded to the union to form a national government. This interpretation meant that the provinces, or states, as Oaxaca, Yucatán, Jalisco and Zacatecas now called themselves, could subsequently reclaim the power they had relinquished. They were opposed by federalists like Servando Teresa de Mier who believed that only the nation was sovereign. In their view, although the country was organised into provinces, or states, for political purposes, the people, not the states, possessed sovereignty. The deputies, therefore, did not represent the states, but the people who constituted the nation. As the representative of the Mexican people, Congress possessed greater power and authority than the state legislatures. In a sense, they were reasserting the position which had prevailed in Cádiz in 1812. Midway between these extremes stood men like the federalist Ramos Arizpe, who believed that the national government and the states shared sovereignty. Although they favoured states’ rights, they nevertheless believed that the national government had to command sufficient power to function effectively. The confederalist/federalist factions were opposed by a tiny minority of centralists who argued that sovereignty was vested in the nation and that Mexico needed a strong national government.

  Drafting a constitution
A committee consisting of Ramos Arizpe, Cañedo, Miguel Argüelles, Rafael Mangino, Tomás Vargas, José de Jesús Huerta, and Manuel Crescencio Rejón, submitted an Acta Constitutiva (draft of a constitution) on 20 November. The group completed the draft of the charter in a few days. This was possible because the document was based on the shared Hispanic political theory and practice that Mexicans, the former novohispanos, knew well, since they had played a significant role in shaping it. In the years since Napoleon had invaded Spain in 1808, the political entities that formed the Mexican nation in 1821 had undergone a series of rapid political changes that politicised the majority of the population and led to a vibrant political discourse.

The Hispanic Constitution of 1812 and its institutions of government were well known; moreover, seven proposals for a Mexican constitution had been debated throughout the country in the previous months. The constituent congress, therefore, was filled with educated individuals with diverse ideas and extensive political experience at the local, state, national, and international levels. A few, like Ramos Arizpe and Guridi y Alcocer, had served in the Cortes in Spain and had participated in the discussions of the Constitution of 1812. In addition, Ramos Arizpe had been working on a federal constitution for some time.

The nature of the constitution
The Acta Constitutiva submitted by the committee was modelled on the Hispanic Constitution of 1812. Most of its articles were based on the Peninsular document; a few were adopted verbatim from that charter. For example, on the question of sovereignty the Hispanic Constitution stated: "Sovereignty resides essentially in the nation and, therefore, it [the nation] possesses the exclusive right to adopt the form of government that seems most convenient for its conservation and prosperity". Article 3 of the Mexican Acta Constitutiva read: "Sovereignty resides radically and essentially in the nation and, therefore, it [the nation] possesses the exclusive right to adopt by means of its representatives the form of government and other fundamental laws that seem most convenient for its conservation and greater prosperity". Although the deputies relied on their first constitutional experience, the Constitution of 1812, they did not slavishly copy the Hispanic model.

Guridi y Alcocer, for example, explained that ever since he had served on the constitutional commission in the Hispanic Cortes he had maintained that sovereignty resided radically in the nation, by which he meant that the nation, as the institutional representative of el Pueblo, could not lose its sovereignty. His principal critics were radical federalists like Juan de Dios Cañedo, deputy from Jalisco, who challenged the need for an article declaring national sovereignty. He asked: that the article be deleted because in a republican federal government each state is sovereign. (…) Therefore, it is impossible to conceive how sovereignty, which is the origin and source of authority and power, can be divided among the many states. [T]hat is why the first constitution of the United States [the Articles of Confederation] (…) does not mention national sovereignty. And, therefore, (…) Article 1 which discusses the nation should not be approved because it is not appropriate in the system we now have.

The Acta, unlike the Hispanic constitution, did not grant exclusive or even preponderant sovereignty to the nation, because the states also claimed sovereignty. Accordingly, Article 6 stated: "Its integral parts are independent, free, and sovereign States in that which exclusively concerns their administration and interior government". The issue of sovereignty remained at heart a question of the division of power between the national and the state governments.
It was an issue that would be debated at length in the months to come.

 
 
The struggle among confederalists, federalists, and centralists
The proponents of state sovereignty—the confederalists—were challenged by some less radical federalist delegates who argued that only the nation could be sovereign. Because these men stressed the need to endow the national government with sufficient power to sustain national interests, they are often mistakenly considered centralists. Servando Teresa de Mier, their outstanding spokesman, argued that people wrongly considered him a centralist, an error that arose from an unnecessarily restrictive definition of federalism. He indicated that federalism existed in many forms: Holland, Germany, Switzerland and the United States were federations, yet each was different. Mier advocated the establishment of a unique brand of federalism suited to Mexico. He believed that local realities precluded the adoption of the extreme form of federalism—confederalism—championed by states’ righters. He declared: "I have always been in favour of a federation, but a reasonable and moderate federation. (...) I have always believed in a medium between the lax federation of the United States, whose defects many writers have indicated, (…) and the dangerous concentration [of executive power] in Colombia and Peru." In his view, Mexico needed a strong federal system because the country required an energetic and decisive national government to lead it during the crucial early years of nationhood, particularly since Spain refused to recognise Mexico’s independence and the Holy Alliance threatened to intervene. For these reasons, Mier voted in favour of Article 5, which established a federal republic, while opposing Article 6, which granted sovereignty to the states.

Neither the advocates of states' rights, like Cañedo, nor the proponents of national sovereignty, like Mier, triumphed. Instead, a compromise emerged: shared sovereignty, as advocated by moderate federalists such as Ramos Arizpe. Throughout the debates, he and others argued that although the nation was sovereign, the states should control their internal affairs. The group saw no conflict between Article 3, which declared that sovereignty resided in the nation, and Article 6, which granted sovereignty to the states on internal matters. The moderates were able to forge shifting coalitions to pass both articles. First, they brought Article 3 to a vote. A coalition of the proponents of national sovereignty, the advocates of shared sovereignty, and a few centralists passed the article by a wide margin. To secure passage of Article 6, those favouring approval succeeded in having the question brought to the floor in two parts. The first vote, on the section of Article 6 which indicated that the states were independent and free to manage their own affairs, passed by a wide margin, since the wording pleased all the confederalist/federalist groups, including the one led by Father Mier. Only seven centralist deputies opposed the measure. Then Congress examined the section of Article 6 which declared that the states were sovereign. The coalition divided on this issue: Father Mier and his supporters joined the centralists in voting against the measure. Nevertheless, the proponents of states' rights and those who believed in shared sovereignty possessed enough strength to pass the measure by a margin of 41 to 28 votes.

The states did not just share sovereignty with the national government; they obtained the financial means to enforce their authority. They gained considerable taxing power at the expense of the federal government, which lost approximately half the revenue formerly collected by the viceregal administration. To compensate for that loss, the states were to pay the national government a contingente assessed for each state according to its means. As a result, the nation would have to depend upon the goodwill of the states to finance or fulfil its responsibilities.

  A weak executive branch
The constituent congress’s decision to share sovereignty, moreover, did not settle the question of the division of power within the national government. Although all agreed on the traditional concept of separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, most congressmen believed that the legislature should be dominant. Recent Hispanic and Mexican experience had fostered a distrust of executive power. Therefore, the earlier Mexican Cortes had established a plural executive, the Supreme Executive Power. Since that body was perceived as subservient to the legislature, neither the provinces nor the Second Constituent Congress bothered to appoint a new executive. The authors of the Acta Constitutiva, however, proposed in Article 16 that executive power be conferred “on an individual with the title of president of the Mexican Federation, who must be a citizen by birth of said federation and have attained at least thirty-five years of age”. The proposal led to a heated debate that transcended the former division between states’ righters and strong nationalist coalitions. While Cañedo supported Ramos Arizpe in favouring a single executive, others, including Rejón and Guridi y Alcocer, insisted on the need to weaken executive power by establishing a plural executive.

Ramos Arizpe proposed that the president govern with the aid of a council of government. But that was not sufficient to mollify the opposition, which had the majority in congress. The opponents of a single executive presented several counter-proposals. Demetrio Castillo of Oaxaca suggested that a president, a vice-president and an alternate, called designee, should govern. Each would have a vote, but the president would cast the deciding one. Rejón, instead, recommended that three individuals form the Supreme Executive Power; their terms would be staggered so that one member would always possess seniority, but no individual would serve more than three years. Guridi y Alcocer proposed that the executive power be conferred on two persons. He argued that the best solution was to merge the experiences of ancient Rome, Spain, and the United States. Therefore, he urged that the two members of the executive power be backed by two alternates, who might resolve any differences that arose between the two members of the executive.

Article 16 of the Acta Constitutiva was put to a vote on 2 January 1824 at an extraordinary session. It was defeated by a vote of 42 to 25. As a result, the congress did not address Article 17, which dealt with the vice-president. The proposal to establish a president and a vice-president was one of the few instances in which the second constitution of the United States served as a model. The majority did not agree with the proposal because it feared the possibility of one individual dominating Congress through military or popular forces, as Iturbide had done. The commission on the constitution revised the articles on the executive a number of times, but could not obtain support for its proposals.

The fear of provincial disorder also influenced the debate. After Articles 5 and 6 of the Acta Constitutiva had been approved, several provinces decided to implement their right to form their own government. The national administration viewed their actions with concern, particularly because some movements were also anti-European Spaniards. The revolt of 12 December in Querétaro, for example, demanded the expulsion of gachupines (Spaniards who had come to Mexico) from the country. A similar uprising occurred later in Cuernavaca. In both instances, the national government sent forces to restore order.

Then, on 23 December, Puebla declared itself a sovereign, free, and independent state. The authorities in Mexico City immediately concluded that the military commander of the province, General José Antonio de Echávarri, was responsible for the "revolt".

 
 
Therefore, the government dispatched an army under the command of Generals Manuel Gómez Pedraza and Vicente Guerrero to restore order. The forces of the national government approached the capital city of Puebla at the end of December 1823. After lengthy negotiations, General Gómez Pedraza proposed that, since Congress was about to issue the convocatoria for national and state elections, the leaders of Puebla renounce their earlier action and hold new elections. The Poblanos agreed. The convocatoria was received in Puebla on 12 January 1824. Elections were held throughout the province and a new state government was inaugurated on 22 March 1824.

Although the national government had maintained order in the nation, the revolt led by General Jose María Lobato on 20 January 1824 demonstrated that the plural executive could not act with the unity of purpose and the speed necessary to quell a large scale uprising in the capital. The rebels demanded the dismissal of Spaniards from government jobs and their expulsion from the country. Lobato managed to win support of the garrisons in the capital and the government seemed on the verge of capitulation when the Supreme Executive Power convinced Congress to declare Lobato an outlaw and to grant the executive sufficient power to quell the rebellion.

As a result of the crisis, the majority in Congress eventually decided to establish an executive branch composed of a president and a vice-president. The creation of a single executive, however, did not mean that Congress had accepted a strong presidency. Most Mexicans continued to favour legislative supremacy. The Mexican charter, like the Hispanic constitution, severely restricted the power of the chief executive. The Constitution of 1824 created a quasi-parliamentary system in which the ministers of state answered to the congress. Consequently, the minister of interior and foreign relations acted as a quasi-prime minister.

The creation of a national government did not end the tensions between the provinces and Mexico City. The debate over the location of the country's capital sparked a new conflict. The national elite favoured making the "Imperial City of Mexico" the capital of the republic. The regional elites were divided. During 1823, while discussing the importance of local control, they also emphasised the need to maintain a "centre of unity", that is, a capital. However, a significant number pointedly refused to bestow that honour upon Mexico City. The special committee on the nation's capital recommended to the Constituent Congress on 31 May 1824 that another city, Querétaro, become the capital, and that the territory around it become the federal district. After a heated debate, Congress rejected the proposal to move the capital from Mexico City. Thereafter, the discussion centred on whether or not a federal district should be created. The ayuntamiento and the provincial deputation of Mexico were vehemently against such action. Indeed, the provincial legislature threatened secession and civil war if Mexico City were federalised. Nevertheless, on 30 October Congress voted fifty-two to thirty-one to make Mexico City the nation’s capital and to create a federal district.

 
 
The Constitution of 1824
After months of debate, Congress ratified the constitution, on 4 October 1824. The new charter affirmed that:

Article 3: The religion of the Mexican nation is and will permanently be the Roman, Catholic, Apostolic [religion]. The nation protects her with wise and just laws and prohibits the exercise of any other [religion].

Article 4. The Mexican nation adopts for its government a representative, popular, federal republic.

Article 5. The parts of this federation are the following states and territories: the states of Chiapas, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Texas, Durango, Guanajuato, México, Michoacán, Nuevo León, Oaxaca, Puebla de los Ángeles, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Sonora and Sinaloa, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Xalisco, Yucatán and Zacatecas; and the territories of: Alta California, Baja California, Colima and Santa Fe de Nuevo México. A constitutional law will determine the status of Tlaxcala.

Article 74. The supreme executive power of the federation is deposited in only one individual who shall be called President of the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos).

Article 75. There will also be a vice president who, in case of the physical or moral incapacity of the president, will receive all his authority and prerogatives.

 
Original front of the 1824 Constitution
 
 
Like the Acta Constitutiva, the Constitution of 1824 was modelled on the Hispanic Constitution of 1812, not, as is often asserted, on the U.S. Constitution of 1787. Although superficially similar to the second U. S. Charter, and although it adopted a few practical applications from the U.S. Constitution, such as the executive, the Mexican document was based primarily on Hispanic constitutional and legal precedents. For example, although the Constitution of 1824 created a president, in Mexico the office was subordinate to the legislature. Since the Mexican republic was essentially confederalist rather than federalist, the Mexican Charter was closer in spirit to the U.S.’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, than to the U.S. Constitution of 1787. Entire sections of the Cádiz Charter were repeated verbatim in the Mexican document because Mexicans did not reject their Hispanic heritage, and because some of the individuals who drafted the new republican constitution had served in the Cortes of Cádiz and had helped write the 1812 Charter. Both the Hispanic Constitution of 1812 and the Mexican Constitution of 1824 established powerful legislatures and weak executives. But it would be an error to consider the Constitution of 1824 a mere copy of the 1812 document.

Events in Mexico, particularly the assertion of states’ rights by the former provinces, forced Congress to frame a constitution to meet the unique circumstances of the nation. The principal innovations—republicanism, federalism, and a presidency—were adopted to address Mexico's new reality. The monarchy was abolished because both Fernando VII and Agustín I had failed as political leaders, not because Mexicans imitated the United States' charter. Federalism arose naturally from Mexico's earlier political experience.
  The provincial deputations created by the Constitution of Cádiz simply converted themselves into states. However, unlike the 1812 document, the Mexican charter gave the states significant taxing power.

Although modelled on the Hispanic Constitution of 1812, the new charter did not address a number of issues included in the earlier document because the new Mexican federation shared sovereignty between the national government and the states. Thus, unlike the Constitution of Cádiz, which defined citizenship, the Mexican Constitution of 1824 remained silent on the subject. Similarly, it didn't define who possessed the suffrage, nor did it determine the size of the population required to establish ayuntamientos, two significant factors in determining the popular nature of the Hispanic constitutional system. These decisions were the prerogatives of the states. The constitutions of the states of the Mexican federation varied, but they generally followed the precedents of the Constitution of Cádiz. Most state constitutions explicitly defined the people in their territory as being citizens of the state; they were chiapanecos, sonorenses, chihuahuenses, duranguenses, guanajuatenses, etc. Some states, such as Mexico and Puebla, simply referred to "the natives and citizens of the estate". Following the Cádiz model, all states established indirect elections. A few, however, introduced property qualifications. Many also followed the constitution of 1812 in allowing ayuntamientos in towns with more than 1,000 persons, but some raised the population requirements to 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000. Tabasco only permitted the cabeceras of the partido (district head towns) to have ayuntamientos. Article 78 of Veracruz's constitution stated that the jefe of the department "will arrange the number and function of the ayuntamientos".

 
 
Conclusion
Had an acceptable political accommodation been found at any time between September 1821 and March 1823, it is likely that Mexico would not have become a federal republic. If Iturbide had agreed to the Plan of Casa Mata and convened a new congress, it is possible that he could have remained on the throne and that Mexico could have become a strong federal monarchy. At independence, most people favoured a constitutional monarchy, and the provinces were content to obtain moderate home rule. But Iturbide's political failure, and the subsequent unwillingness of the national elite to recognise provincial aspirations, increased the scope of regional demands until a federal republic became the only possible solution to the nation’s political crisis.

The framers of the Constitution of 1824 carefully considered the needs of their country. They granted the states the important role demanded by the regions, and that accommodation contributed significantly to maintaining national unity. It is no accident that despite numerous centrifugal forces, Mexico remained united while Central America and South America fragmented into many smaller nations.

On 10 October 1824, Guadalupe Victoria was elected the first president of the United States of Mexico for the period 1825-1829, and on the same day he and vice president Nicolás Bravo took their oaths of office. Guadalupe Victoria served as interim president from October 10 to March 31 of 1825. His constitutional term in office began on 1 April 1825.

  Content
The 1824 Constitution was composed of 7 titles and 171 articles, and was based on the Constitution of Cadiz for American issues, on the United States Constitution for the formula for federal representation and organization, and on the Constitutional Decree for the Liberty of Mexican America of 1814, which abolished the monarchy. It introduced the system of federalism in a popular representative republic with Catholicism as official religion. The 1824 constitution does not expressly state the rights of citizens. The right to equality of citizens was restricted by the continuation of military and ecclesiastical courts. The most relevant articles were:

1. The Mexican nation is sovereign and free from the Spanish government and any other nation.
3. The religion of the nation is the Roman Catholic Church and is protected by law and prohibits any other.
4. The Mexican nation adopts as its form of government a popular federal representative republic.
6. The supreme power of the federation is divided into Legislative power, Executive power and Judiciary power.
7. Legislative power is deposited in a Congress of two chambers—a Chamber of Deputies and a Chamber of Senators.
50. Political freedom of press in the federation and the states (paragraph 1).
74. Executive power is vested in a person called the President of the United Mexican States.
75. It provides the figure of vice president, who in case of physical or moral impossibility of the president, exercise the powers and prerogatives of the latter.

 
 
95. The term of the president and vice president shall be four years.
123. Judiciary power lies in a Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts and the District Courts.
124. The Supreme Court consists of eleven members divided into three rooms and a prosecutor.
157. The individual state governments will be formed by the same three powers.
Although this was not stipulated in the constitution, slavery was prohibited in the Republic. Miguel Hidalgo promulgated the abolition in Guadalajara on 6 December 1810. President Guadalupe Victoria declared slavery abolished too, but it was President Vicente Guerrero who made the decree of Abolition of Slavery on 15 September 1829.

“ Slavery is abolished in the Republic.
Therefore are free those who until this day were considered as slaves.
When circumstances of the treasury permit it, it will compensate slave owners in the terms that are held by law.”

 
 
Reactions
Due to the influence of Spanish liberal thought, the fragmentation that had been gradually consolidated by the Bourbon Reforms in New Spain, the newly won Independence of Mexico, the size of the territory—almost 4,600,000 km² (1,776,069 sq mi)—and lack of easy communication across distances, there resulted a federal system with regional characteristics. The central states—Mexico, Puebla, Querétaro, Guanajuato, Veracruz and Michoacán—which were the most populated, worked as an administrative decentralization. The states of the periphery—Zacatecas, Coahuila y Texas, Durango, Chihuahua, Jalisco, San Luis Potosí and Nuevo León—acquired a moderate confederalism. The states furthest from the center—Yucatán, Sonora y Sinaloa, Tamaulipas and Las Californias—acquired a radical confederalism.

Without the existence of established political parties, three political tendencies are distinguished. The first still supported the empire of Iturbide, but was a minority. The second was influenced by the Yorkist Lodge of freemasonry, whose philosophy was radical Federalism and also encouraged an anti-Spanish sentiment largely promoted by the American plenipotentiary Joel Roberts Poinsett. And the third was influenced by the Scottish Lodge of freemasonry, which had been introduced to Mexico by the Spaniards themselves, favored Centralism, and yearned for the recognition of the new nation by Spain and the Holy See.

With the consummation of independence, the "Royal Patronage" was gone, the federal government and state governments now considered these rights to belong to the State. The way to manage church property was the point that most polarized the opinions of the political class. Members of the Yorkist Lodge intended to use church property to clean up the finances, the members of the Scottish Lodge considered the alternative anathema.

According to the federal commitment, states should provide an amount of money and men for the army, or blood quota. The federal budget was insufficient to pay debt, defense, and surveillance of borders, and states resisted meeting the blood quota, sometimes meeting that debt with criminals.

Some state constitutions were more radical and took supplies to practice patronage locally, under the banner of "freedom and progress". The constitutions of Jalisco and Tamaulipas decreed government funding of religion, the constitutions of Durango and the State of Mexico allowed the governor the practice of patronage, the constitution of Michoacán gave the local legislature the power to regulate the enforcement of fees and discipline of clergy, and the constitution of Yucatán, in a vanguardist way, decreed freedom of religion.

  Repeal and resettlement
In 1835, there was a drastic shift to the new Mexican Nation. The triumph of conservative forces in the elections unleashed a series of events that culminated on 23 October 1835, during the interim presidency of Miguel Barragán (the constitutional president was Antonio López de Santa Anna, but he was out of office), when the "Basis of Reorganization of the Mexican Nation" was approved, which ended the federal system and established a provisional centralist system. On 30 December 1836, interim president José Justo Corro issued the Seven Constitutional Laws, which replaced the Constitution. Secondary laws were approved on 24 May 1837.

The Seven Constitutional Laws, among other things, replaced the "free states" with French-style "departments", centralizing national power in Mexico City. This created an era of political instability, unleashing conflicts between the central government and the former states. Rebellions arose in various places, the most important of which were:

Texas declared its independence following the change from the federalist system, and refused to participate in the centralized system. American settlers held a convention in San Felipe de Austin and declared the people of Texas to be at war against Mexico's central government, therefore ignoring the authorities and laws. Thus arose the Republic of Texas.
Yucatán under its condition of Federated Republic declared its independence in 1840 (officially in 1841). The Republic of Yucatán finally rejoined the nation in 1848.
The states of Nuevo León, Tamaulipas, and Coahuila became de facto independent from Mexico (in just under 250 days). The Republic of the Rio Grande never consolidated, because independence forces were defeated by the centralist forces.
Tabasco decreed its separation from Mexico in February 1841, in protest against centralism, rejoining in December 1842.
The Texas annexation and the border conflict after the annexation led to the Mexican-American War. As a result, the Constitution of 1824 was restored by interim President José Mariano Salas on 22 August 1846. In 1847, The Reform Act was published, which officially incorporated, with some changes, the Federal Constitution of 1824, to operate while the next constitution was drafted. This federalist phase culminated in 1853.

The Plan of Ayutla, which had a federalist orientation, was proclaimed on 1 March 1854. In 1855, Juan Álvarez, interim President of the Republic, issued the call for the Constituent Congress, which began its work on 17 February 1856 to produce the Federal Constitution of the United Mexican States of 1857.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Battle of AyacuchoBattle of Ayacucho
 

Battle of Ayacucho, (Dec. 9, 1824), in the Latin-American wars of independence, revolutionary victory over royalists on the high plateau near Ayacucho, Peru.

 

The Battle of Ayacucho
 
It freed Peru and ensured the independence of the nascent South American republics from Spain. The revolutionary forces, numbering about 6,000 men—among them Venezuelans, Colombians, Argentines, and Chileans, as well as Peruvians—were under the leadership of Simón Bolívar’s outstanding lieutenant, the Venezuelan Antonio José de Sucre. The Spanish army numbered about 9,000 men and had 10 times as many artillery pieces as their foe. Just before the battle, large numbers of officers and troops crossed over to embrace their friends and brothers in the opposing battle lines.

Sucre opened the attack with a brilliant cavalry charge led by the daring Colombian José María Córdoba, and in a short time the royalist army had been routed, with about 2,000 men killed. The Spanish viceroy and his generals were taken prisoner. The terms of surrender stipulated that all Spanish forces be withdrawn from both Peru and Charcas (Bolivia); the last of them departed from Callao, the port of Lima, in January 1826.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 


Battle of Ayacucho

 
 

Battle of Ayacucho

 

9 December 1824

Forces Engaged
South American:
5,780 men. Commander: Antonio Jose de Sucre.

Spanish: 9,310 men. Commander: Jose de La Serna.

Importance
This last major battle of the revolution in South America marked the end of Spanish colonial rule on the continent.

 
Historical Setting
 
Since the voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1492, Spain had enjoyed dominance over Central and South America. Other than the Portuguese colony of Brazil, all of Latin America was exploited by Spain for its natural wealth. Until the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the Spanish kings had grown amazingly wealthy on the riches of the Americas with no competition at all; after that time, they still maintained a stranglehold on the trade with the colonies. Not until the rise of British and French maritime power in the seventeenth century, displayed in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico via piracy, did any outside nation have the chance to enter Latin American markets. Although Spanish economic dominance remained, it dwindled through the eighteenth century, reflecting the relative shifts in international power displayed by Spain and Britain.
In the Americas, a power struggle was going on within the Spanish sphere. The conflict was between the Creoles (those of pure Spanish blood, but born in the colonies) and the gachupines (officials sent over from Spain to watch out for royal interests). As the Creoles engaged in increasingly profitable trade with other European nations, they also wanted to exercise greater local political control and they chafed at the meddling of the gachupines. That sense of independence was enhanced by the introduction into Latin America of the writings of Enlightenment philosophers, just as those works influenced the revolutionaries in the British colonies in North America. The growing discontent widi official Spanish interference reached a head during the Napoleonic Wars.
Napoleon established his influence over Spain in the first years of the nineteenth century, but in 1808 that turned into complete control when King Ferdinand VII was removed from the throne and replaced by Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon's brother. Although the Latin American colonies swore loyalty to Ferdinand, they reveled in their grater freedom of action, although attempts by some colonies to declare independence were suppressed by royalist garrisons.
  When Ferdinand was restored to die throne in 1814, he wanted to completely restore his power in the Western Hemisphere as well. Unknowing or uncaring of the attitudes of the Creoles, he attempted to reestablish his authority and was prepared to use force.

The center of the independence movement in South America was the northwestern section, die Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata, making up the modern countries of Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Colombia. The leading revolutionary was Simon Bolivar, a native of Caracas, Venezuela. He fought under the command of Francisco de Miranda in an abortive revolt in 1810 and then led a successful invasion that captured Caracas in 1812. Bolivar established a short-lived dictatorship, but was forced to flee by royalist forces in 1814. He returned at the head of a force of European mercenaries in 1817, setting up a revolutionary government in Angostura (modern Ciudad Bolivar). In 1819, he led troops across the Andes into New Granada (Colombia) and fought Spanish royal forces at Boyaca. This victory, on 7 August 1819, marked the beginning of the end of Spanish colonial rule in South America. In the wake of this victory, die Republic of Colombia (which included modern Venezuela) was proclaimed, with Bolivar as president.
Bolivar went from strength to strength. Another victory over the royalists at Carabobo in the summer of 1821 confirmed the new republic's independence, and the following year Bolivar led troops into the district of Quito (Equador). Fighting alongside Bolivar was Antonio Jose de Sucre, also from Caracas, who became the primary military leader of the revolution when Bolivar began exercising more political power. In 1822, Bolivar met with Jose de San Martin, whose campaigns in the south had liberated Argentina and Chile. The two tried to cooperate on a plan to expel the final Spanish forces from Peru, but their personalities and visions of die future were incompatible. San Martin withdrew from the scene to leave Bolivar in control. In 1824, the revolutionaries launched the final offensive into the interior of Peru.
 
 
The Battle
On 6 August 1824, a cavalry battle was fought at Junfn. No shots were fired in the 45-minute struggle; it was strictly the cold steel of sabers that was employed, and the revolutionaries emerged victorious. The commander of royalist forces, Jose de La Serna, withdrew his troops farther into the interior of the country and began gathering as many men as he could, for he knew that the fate of his monarch's authority in Soudi America rested on the outcome of the next battle. Sucre's forces came out of the battle with high morale, which translated into greater recruitment for his army as well as the ability to obtain much-needed supplies and equipment from local sources. The two armies parried for several months until the royalists ambushed Sucre's rear guard near the village of Corpa-huayco on 3 December 1824. Alerted to the presence of the enemy, Sucre prepared for battle. On the afternoon of 8 December, the two forces deployed on the pampa of Ayacucho, a small plain measuring some 1,300 yards in an east-west direction and 650 to 850 yards north-south. Along the eastern flank, the plateau ended in a series of gorges, whereas on the west it was bordered by hills. At the northern end of the plateau stood Condor-qanqui Mountain. The battlefield was also bisected by a dry riverbed running north-south through the center of both armies. The name Ayacucho is from the native Quechua language meaning "dead corner," referring to a slaughter there during the early Spanish conquest. The royalist army actually contained very few Spaniards, only about 500, primarily the officers and noncommissioned officers. The bulk of the force was comprised of locals pressed into service or prisoners of war given their freedom in exchange for changing sides. Field commander Lieutenant General Jose Canterac deployed this force on the slopes of Condorqanqui. He positioned five infantry battalions in the center, flanked by another five on the left, across the riverbed, supported by three cavalry squadrons.
 
Surrender at Ayacucho (Daniel Hernández)
 
 
 
On the right was more infantry with cavalry on the outer flank, with an elite halberdier unit just behind, commanded by Viceroy La Serna. The seven cannon available to the Spanish were held in reserve along with ten cavalry squadrons. The plan was to pin down the enemy forces with the flanks and then finish them off with the center. Sucre deployed his army, the United Army for the Liberation of Peru, with three battalions of partisans (the Montoneros) on the left and four infantry battalions on the right. There really was no center, but five cavalry squadrons, which were soldiers from San Martins southern army and commanded by an English mercenary, William Miller, were held back in reserve along with some infantry. The revolutionaries possessed but one cannon. The night before die battle, Sucre sent his band and a number of soldiers forward. The band played for the Spanish while the soldiers kept up a fairly regular fire into their camp; both kept the Spanish army awake all night and kept diem from deploying early onto the plain.
After an exchange of greetings with comrades in each others' force, the battle commenced at 1000 on 9 December.

The royalist left wing, on the far side of the riverbed, advanced first. Little cannon fire was evident, and the two forces on the east side of the battlefield closed with each other. The royalists suffered the most. On the western flank, however, more artillery support assisted the royalists in pushing the revolutionaries back, but Sucre committed some of his reserves and stabilized the line. Rather than press his early advantage on his left flank, Spanish General Canterac ordered his center forward, hoping that would encourage his faltering right flank. The advancing troops, coming down off the hillside, were unable to maintain their formation. As their line became extended, Sucre ordered Miller's cavalry to strike them before they could re-form on level ground. At the same time, he ordered his right flank to charge the unsuccessful Spanish left. The commander on the right, General Cordoba, "placed himself about fifteen yards in front of his division__Having dismounted, he plunged his sword into the heart of his charger, and turning to the troops, exclaimed, 'There lies my last horse; I have now no means of escape, and we must fight it out together!' Then waving his hat above his head, he continued, 'Adelante, con paso de vencedores (onwards with the step of conquerors)'" (Miller, in Famous Battles, p. 88). Canterac led his reserves to that flank to bolster his wavering troops, but it was too late. The onslaught of rebel cavalry in the center and inspired infantry on the right was too much for the poorly trained and motivated royalist conscripts to stand. By 1300, the king's forces were in flight.
 
 

Battle of Ayacucho
 
 
Results
 
The pursuit lasted until dark. Viceroy La Serna and 60 of his officers surrendered, and another 1,000 of his men were captured. All of his artillery fell into revolutionary hands, and about 1,800 of his men had been killed. Sucre's force had suffered the loss of 309 killed and 670 wounded. For his victory, Sucre was named "Grand Marshal of Ayacucho" by Bolivar. General Canterac signed the surrender documents on 10 December, ceding all the garrisons under his command. Commanders of two of his forts refused the order. General Olaneta in southern Peru established a terrorist force loyal to Spain, but Sucre defeated his troops at the battle of Tumusla the following April.

That victory officially freed southern Peru, which was renamed Bolivia in honor of "The Liberator," Simon Bolivar. Sucre became the country's first president. The other recalcitrant force holed up in the port city of Callao under the command of Brigadier General Jose Ramon Rodil. His force of 400 did not surrender until the end of a siege that lasted just over a year.
The Spanish defeat at Ayacucho destroyed the last seriously organized Spanish force in South America. They had been losing control gradually since 1819, but Ayacucho was the coup de grace. The tide of change had been swelling for too long for the Spanish to recover their former power and glory.
   Had King Ferdinand been willing to offer some serious concessions to local autonomy, he may have been able to maintain his colonies, perhaps in the form that Britain maintained its Commonwealth. Apparently his nature argued against such an option, but the occasion of his temporary removal from power because of a revolution in Spain (1820-1823) certainly gave the South Americans further incentive to break away from the homeland. Bolivar and San Martin became the founders of South American independence, but, unlike their counterparts in North America, they were unable to forge a unified country. Too many factions within South American politics, as well as the poor infrastructure that made communication and trade extremely slow, militated against any sort of single national government. Thus, most of the nations of both Central and South America date their existence from this time period.
Spain, once the mightiest nation in the world because of American riches, slid into mediocrity. Even a victory at Ayacucho probably would not have stopped that decline, but only postponed it. Of its far-flung empire, Spain retained only Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Western Hemisphere and the Philippines in the east. Spain remained a minor player in European politics, but after its defeat in 1898, Spain's last remaining colonies fell to the United States, who replaced it in the small club of world powers.
 
 
 
1824
 
 
August Bockh: "Corpus Inscriptionum Graecum"
 
 
Bockh August
 

August Bockh (German: [bœk]; November 24, 1785 – August 3, 1867) was a German classical scholar and antiquarian.

 
Biography
He was born at Karlsruhe, and educated at the local gymnasium; in 1803 he left for the University of Halle, where he studied theology. F.A. Wolf was teaching there, and creating an enthusiasm for classical studies; Böckh transferred from theology to philology, and became the best of Wolf's scholars. In 1807, he established himself as Privatdozent in the University of Heidelberg and was shortly afterwards appointed professor extraordinarius, becoming professor two years later.

In 1811, he removed to the new Humboldt University at Berlin, where he had been appointed professor of eloquence and classical literature. He remained there till his death. He was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences of Berlin in 1814, and for a long time acted as its secretary. Many of the speeches contained in his Kleine Schriften were delivered in this latter capacity.

Böckh died at Berlin in 1867.

 
 

August Bockh
  Works
Böckh worked out the ideas of Wolf in regard to philology and illustrated them by his practice. Discarding the old idea that philology consisted in a minute acquaintance with words and the exercise of the critical art, he regarded it as the entire knowledge of antiquity (totius antiquitatis cognitio), historical and philosophical. He divides philology into five parts: first, an inquiry into public acts, with a knowledge of times and places, into civil institutions, and also into law; second, an inquiry into private affairs; third, an exhibition of the religions and arts of the ancient nations; fourth, a history of all their moral and physical speculations and beliefs, and of their literatures; and fifth, a complete explanation of the language.

Böckh set forth these ideas in a Latin oration delivered in 1822 (Gesammelte kleine Schriften, i.). In his speech at the opening of the congress of German philologists in 1850, he defined philology as the historical construction of the entire life — therefore, of all forms of culture and all the productions of a people in its practical and spiritual tendencies. He allows that such a work is too great for any one person; but the very infinity of subjects is the stimulus to the pursuit of truth, and scholars strive because they have not attained. An account of Böckh's division of philology will be found in Freund's Wie studiert man Philologie?.

 
 
From 1806, till his death Böckh's literary activity was unceasing. His principal works include an edition of Pindar, the first volume of which (1811) contains the text of the Epinician odes; a treatise, De Metris Pindari, in three books; and Notae Criticae: the second (1819) contains the Scholia; and part ii. of volume ii. (1821) contains a Latin translation, a commentary, the fragments and indices. It was for a long time the most complete edition of Pindar.
 
 
But it was especially the treatise on the metres which placed Böckh in the first rank of scholars. This treatise forms an epoch in the treatment of the subject. In it the author threw aside all attempts to determine the Greek metres by mere subjective standards, pointing out at the same time the close connection between the music and the poetry of the Greeks. He investigated minutely the nature of Greek music as far as it can be ascertained, as well as all the details regarding Greek musical instruments; and he explained the statements of the ancient Greek writers on rhythm. In this manner he laid the foundation for a scientific treatment of Greek metres.

His Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener (1817; 2nd ed. 1851, with a supplementary volume Urkunden über das Seewesen des attischen Staats; 3rd ed. 1886) was translated into English under the title of The Public Economy of Athens. In it he investigated a subject of peculiar difficulty with profound learning.
He amassed information from the whole range of Greek literature, carefully appraised the value of the information given, and shows throughout every portion of it rare critical ability and insight. A work of a similar kind was his Metrologische Untersuchungen über Gewichte, Münzfüsse, und Masse des Alterthums (1838).

In regard to the taxes and revenue of the Athenian state he derived a great deal of his most trustworthy information from inscriptions, many of which are given. in his book. When the Berlin Academy of Sciences projected the plan of a Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Böckh was chosen as the principal editor. This work (1828-1877) is in four volumes, the third and fourth volumes being edited by J. Franz, E. Curtius, A. Kirchhoff and H. Röhl.

  Böckh's activity was continually digressing into widely different fields. He gained for himself a foremost position amongst the investigators of ancient chronology, and his name occupies a place by the side of those of Ideler and Mommsen. His principal works on this subject were: Zur Geschichte der Mondcyclen der Hellenen (1855); Epigraphisch-chronologische Studien (1856); Über die vierjährigen Sonnenkreise der Alten (1863), and several papers which he published in the Transactions of the Berlin Academy. Böckh also occupied himself with philosophy. One of his earliest papers was on the Platonic doctrine of the world, De Platonica corporis mundani fabrica et de vera Indole, Astronomiae Philolaice (1810), to which may be added Manetho und die Hundsternperiode (1845).

In opposition to Otto Gruppe, he denied that Plato affirmed the diurnal rotation of the earth (Untersuchungen über das kosmische System des Platon, 1852), and when in opposition to him Grote published his opinions on the subject (Plato and the Rotation of the Earth) Böckh was ready with his reply. Another of his earlier papers, and one frequently referred to, was Commentatio Academica de simultate quae Platonicum Xenophonic intercessisse fertur (1811). Other philosophical writings were Commentatio in Platonis qui vulgo fertur Minoem (1806), and Philolaos des Pythagoreers Lehren nebst den Bruchstücken
(1819), in which he endeavoured to show the genuineness of the fragments.

Besides his edition of Pindar, Böckh published an edition of the Antigone of Sophocles (1843) with a poetical translation and essays. An early and important work on the Greek tragedians is his Graecae Tragoediae Principum ... num ea quae supersunt et genuine omnia sint et forma primitive servata (1808).

 
 
Editions
The smaller writings of Böckh began to be collected in his lifetime. Three of the volumes were published before his death, and four after (Gesammelte kleine Schriften, 1858-1874). The first two consist of orations delivered in the university or academy of Berlin, or on public occasions. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth contain his contributions to the Transactions of the Berlin Academy, and the seventh contains his critiques. Böckh's lectures, delivered from 1809-1865, were published by Bratusehek under the title of Encyclopadie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften (2nd ed Klussmann, 1886). His philological and scientific theories are set forth in Elze, Über Philologie als System (1845), and Reichhardt, Die Gliederung der Philologie entwickelt (1846). His correspondence with Karl Otfried Müller appeared at Leipzig in 1883.

John Paul Pritchard has made an abridged translation of Böckh's Encyclopaedie und Methodologie der philologischen Wissenschaften: August Boeckh, On Interpretation and Criticism, University of Oklahoma Press, 1968.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1824
 
 
Carlo Botta: "History of Italy, 1789-1814"
 
 
Botta Carlo Giuseppe Guglielmo
 

Carlo Giuseppe Guglielmo Botta (November 6, 1766, San Giorgio Canavese, Piedmont – August 10, 1837, Paris) was an Italian historian.

 

Carlo Giuseppe Guglielmo Botta
  Biography
He was born at San Giorgio Canavese in Piedmont. He studied medicine at the University of Turin, and obtained his doctors degree when about twenty years of age. Having rendered himself obnoxious to the government during the political commotions that followed the French Revolution, he was imprisoned for over a year; and on his release in 1795 he withdrew to France, only to return to his native country as a surgeon in the French army, whose progress he followed as far as Venice. Here he joined the expedition to Corfu, from which he did not return to Italy till 1798. At first he favored French policy in Italy, contributed to the annexation of Piedmont by France in 1799, and was an admirer of Napoleon; but he afterwards changed his views, realizing the necessity for the union of all Italians and for their freedom from foreign control. After the separation of Piedmont from France in 1814, he retired into private life, but, fearing persecution at home, became a French citizen. In 1817 he was appointed rector of the University of Rouen, but in 1822 was removed owing to clerical influence. Amid all the vicissitudes of his early manhood Botta had never allowed his pen to be long idle, and in the political quiet that followed 1816 he naturally devoted himself more exclusively to literature. In 1824 he published a history of Italy from 1789 to 1814 (4 vols.), on which his fame principally rests; he himself had been an eyewitness of many of the events described.
 
 
His continuation of Guicciardini, which he was afterwards encouraged to undertake, is a careful and laborious work, but is not based on original authorities and is of small value.

Though living in Paris, he was in both these works the ardent exponent of that recoil against everything French which took place throughout Europe. A careful exclusion of all Gallicisms, as a reaction against the French influences of the day, is one of the marked features of his style, which is not infrequently impassioned and eloquent, though at the same time cumbrous, involved and ornate. Botta died at Paris on 10 August 1837, in comparative poverty, but in the enjoyment of an extensive and well-earned reputation.

 
 
Works
The works of Carlo Botta are Storia naturale e medica deli Isola di Corfu (1798); an Italian translation of Born's Joannis Physiophili specimen monachologiae (1801); Souvenirs d'un voyage en Dalmatie (1802); Storia della guerra dell' Independenza d'America (1809); Camillo, a poem (1815); Storia d'Italia dal 1789 al 1814 (1824, new ed., Prato, 1862); Storia d'Italia in continuazione al Guicciardini (1832, new ed, Milan, 1878).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1824
 
 
Leopold von Ranke (Ranke Leopold): "History of the Latin and Teutonic People, 1494-1535"
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Lord Byron George Gordon, d. (b. 1788) at Missolonghi, in Turko-Greek war
 
 

Lord Byron on his deathbed, by Joseph-Denis Odevaere c. 1826.
 
 
 
     
 
George Gordon, Lord Byron 

"Don Juan"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Dumas Alexandre, fils
 
Alexandre Dumas, fils, (born July 27, 1824, Paris, Fr.—died Nov. 27, 1895, Marly-le-Roi), French playwright and novelist, one of the founders of the “problem play”—that is, of the middle-class realistic drama treating some contemporary ill and offering suggestions for its remedy. He was the son (fils) of the dramatist and novelist Alexandre Dumas, called Dumas père.
 

Alexandre Dumas, fils
  Dumas fils possessed a good measure of his father’s literary fecundity, but the work of the two men could scarcely be more different.

His first success was a novel, La Dame aux camélias (1848), but he found his vocation when he adapted the story into a play, known in English as Camille, first performed in 1852. (Giuseppe Verdi based his opera La Traviata, first performed in 1853, on this play.) Although Dumas père had written colourful historical plays and novels, Dumas fils specialized in drama set in the present. The unhappy witness of the ruin brought on his father by illicit love affairs, Dumas fils—himself the child of one of these affairs—devoted his plays to sermons on the sanctity of the family and of marriage.

Le Demi-Monde (performed 1855), for example, dealt with the threat to the institution of marriage posed by prostitutes.

Modern audiences usually find Dumas’s drama verbose and sententious, but in the late 19th century eminent critics praised his plays for their moral seriousness. He was admitted to the Académie Française in 1875.

Among his most interesting plays are Le Fils naturel (1858; “The Natural Son”) and Un Père prodigue (1859), a dramatization of Dumas’s interpretation of his father’s character.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
     
 
Dumas Alexandre, fils

"The Lady of the Camellias"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1824
 
 
W. S. Landor: "Imaginary Conversations"
 
 
Landor Walter Savage
 
Walter Savage Landor, (born Jan. 30, 1775, Warwick, Warwickshire, Eng.—died Sept. 17, 1864, Florence, Italy), English poet and writer best remembered for Imaginary Conversations, prose dialogues between historical personages.
 

Walter Savage Landor
  Educated at Rugby School and at Trinity College, Oxford, Landor spent a lifetime quarreling with his father, neighbours, wife, and any authorities at hand who offended him.

Paradoxically, he won the friendship of literary men from Robert Southey, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Charles Lamb to Charles Dickens and Robert Browning. Imaginary Conversations, 2 vol. (1824; vol. 3, 1828; and thereafter sporadically to 1853), is his most-celebrated work, though the dialogues’ ponderously ornate style obscures their intellectual vigour.

Landor’s longer poems, Gebir (1798) and the verse drama Count Julian (1812), are similarly laborious.

He is at his best in the cool Classicism of his Hellenics (1847), some of which were originally composed in Latin, and above all in his brief but exquisite epigrams. In short poems such as “Ternissa! you are fled!” and “I strove with none; for none was worth my strife,” as well as “Dirce,” Landor achieves a brilliant combination of wit and tenderness.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Leopardi Giacomo: "Canzoni" and "Versi"
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Mitford Mary Russell: "Our Village"
 
 

Mary Mitford: "Our Village"
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1824
 
 
Walter Scott: "Redgauntlet"

 

Redgauntlet (1824) is a historical novel by Sir Scott Walter, set in Dumfries, Scotland in 1765, and described by Magnus Magnusson (a point first made by Andrew Lang) as "in a sense, the most autobiographical of Scott's novels." It describes the beginnings of a fictional third Jacobite Rebellion, and includes "Wandering Willie's Tale", a famous short story which frequently appears in anthologies.
 
Plot introduction
The novel's hero is a young man named Darsie Latimer. Early in the novel he is kidnapped by Hugh Redgauntlet, and taken to a village in Dumfries. Darsie's friend Alan Fairford sets out to rescue him. After much intrigue Darsie discovers that Redgauntlet is his uncle, and he is also reunited with his sister. He also discovers that a number of prominent Jacobites, and Prince Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie or the Young Pretender) himself are staying in the village. Redgauntlet has summoned them all to start a new Jacobite rebellion, and he wants Darsie to join them. However, the Prince is still reeling from the French naval defeats at Quiberon Bay and Lagos, which represented Charles's last realistic chance to recover the British throne for the Stuart dynasty. Furthermore, Redgauntlet discovers that his fellow Jacobites are not as committed as he, and their stated objection is that they suspect the Prince's mistress, Clementina Walkinshaw, of being a spy. During these discussions, General Campbell arrives amongst them to announce that he and the government know what the conspirators are up to. The Prince is allowed to go into exile, and his followers peacefully disperse. Redgauntlet, seeing that the Jacobite cause is now lost, joins the Prince in exile. Darsie is set free having always remained loyal to the current king, and Alan marries Darsie's sister.
 
 
Plot summary
Darsie had been Alan Fairford's favourite schoolfellow, and, to please his son, Mr Fairford had consented that Darsie, who received an ample allowance on the understanding that he was to make no inquiries respecting his family until he completed his twenty-fifth year, should live with them. Alan was studying for the law, but his companion had started for his first country ramble, and the story commences with a long correspondence between them. As he returned from fishing in the Solway Firth, with Benjie as his instructor, Darsie was overtaken by the tide, and carried by Mr Herries, dressed as a fisherman, on horseback to a cottage, where his niece Lilias said grace at supper-time; and next morning he was placed under the guidance of Joshua Geddes. The Quaker, who was part owner of some fishing nets in the river, invited him to spend a few days at his house; and while there he heard from Alan that a young lady had called to warn him that his friend was in considerable danger, and to urge that he should at once return to Edinburgh. A letter, however, from old Mr Fairford determined him not to do so; and having made acquaintance with the blind fiddler, who told him a tale of the Redgauntlet family, Darsie went with him to a fishers' merry-making, where he danced with Lilias, who reproached him for leading an idle life, and begged him to leave the neighbourhood.
Mr Fairford had arranged that Peter Peebles, an eccentric plaintiff, should be his son's first client, and Alan was pleading the cause before the Lords Ordinary when his father, by mistake, handed him a letter from Mr Crosbie, announcing that Darsie had mysteriously disappeared. Alan instantly rushed out of court, and started in search of his friend, who had accompanied the Quaker to await an attack on his fishing station, and been made prisoner by the rioters, of whom Mr Herries was the leader.
 
Walter Scott. "Redgauntlet"
 
 
After being nearly drowned, and recovering from a fever, he awoke in a strange room, to which he was confined for several days, when he was visited by his captor, and conducted by him to an interview with Squire Foxley, who, acting as a magistrate, declined to interfere with Mr Herries' guardianship. As the squire was leaving, however, Mr Peebles arrived to apply for a warrant against Alan for throwing up his brief, and startled Mr Herries by recognising him as a Redgauntlet and an unpardoned Jacobite. Darsie obtained a partial explanation from him, and was told to prepare for a journey disguised as a woman. Meanwhile, Alan had applied to the provost, and, having obtained from his wife's relation, Mr Maxwell, a letter to Herries, he started for Annan, where, under the guidance of Trumbull, he took ship for Cumberland. On landing at Crakenthorp's inn, he was transported by Nanty Ewart, and a gang of smugglers, to Fair-ladies' House, where he was nursed through a fever, and introduced to a mysterious Father Buonaventure. After being closely questioned and detained for a few days, he was allowed to return with a guide to the inn.
Darsie was also travelling thither with Herries and his followers, when he discovered that Lilias, who accompanied them, was his sister, and learnt from her his own real name and rank. He was also urged by his uncle to join a rising in favour of the Pretender; and, having hesitated to do so, was detained in custody when they reached their destination, where Alan, as well as other visitors and several of the neighbouring gentry, had already arrived. He was then introduced to a conference of Charles Edward Stuart's adherents, and afterwards to the prince himself, who refused to agree to their conditions, and decided to abandon the contemplated attempt in his favour.
  Ewart was, accordingly, ordered to have his brig in readiness, when Nixon suggested that he should turn traitor, upon which they fought and killed each other. Sir Arthur now learned that Fairford and Geddes were in the house; but, before he was allowed to see them, they had been shown into the room where Lilias was waiting, when Alan became aware that his fair visitor at Edinburgh was his friend's sister, and heard from her lips all the particulars of her brother's history. Their conversation was interrupted by the entrance of Benjie, in whose pocket a paper was found indicating that Nixon had communicated with the Government; and, during the confusion which ensued, the Hanoverian General Campbell arrived, unarmed and unaccompanied, and after explaining that the Jacobites had been betrayed weeks before, announced that he was sufficiently supported with cavalry and infantry. The Rebellion was over before it could begin. His instructions, however, from King George were to allow all concerned in the plot to disperse, and he intimated that as many as wished might embark in the vessel which was in waiting.

The Pretender was, accordingly, led by the Laird of Redgauntlet to the beach, and Lilias offered to accompany her uncle in his voluntary exile. This, however, he would not permit, and, after an exchange of courtesies with the general, the prince departed amidst the tears and sobs of the last supporters of his cause, and henceforward the term Jacobite ceased to be a party name. Lilias, of course, married Alan, and Herries, who had asked his nephew's pardon for attempting to make a rebel of him, threw away his sword, and became the prior of a monastery.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
     
 
Sir Walter Scott

"Ivanhoe"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1823 Part II NEXT-1824 Part II