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-1830-1839 NEXT-1830 Part II    
 
 
     
1830 - 1839
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830-1839
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part I
Webster Daniel
Hayne Robert Young
Webster–Hayne debate
Blaine James
Gascoyne-Cecil Robert Arthur Talbot
French conquest of Algeria
French Revolution of 1830
Charles X
Louis-Philippe
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part II
Francis Joseph I
Elisabeth of Austria
Diaz Porfirio
Gran Colombia
Wartenburg Johann David Ludwig
Petar II Petrovic-Njegos
Grey Charles
November Uprising (1830–31)
Milos Obrenovic I
Mysore
Red Jacket
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part III
William Cobbett: "Rural Rides"
Coulanges Numa Denis
Smith Joseph
Mormon
Honore de Balzac: La Comedie humaine
Dickinson Emily
Emily Dickinson
"Poems"
Genlis Comtesse
Goncourt Jules
Hayne Paul Hamilton
Heyse Paul
Victor Hugo: "Hernani"
Mistral Frederic
Rossetti Christina
Smith Seba
Stendhal: "Le Rouge et le Noir"
Tennyson: "Poems, Chiefly Lyrical"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part IV
Bierstadt Albert
Albert Bierstadt
Corot: "Chartres Cathedral"
Delacroix: "Liberty Guiding the People"
Leighton Frederic
Frederic Leighton
Pissarro Camille
Camille Pissarro
Impressionism Timeline
Ward John Quincy Adams
Waterhouse Alfred
Auber: "Fra Diavolo"
Bellini: "The Capulets and the Montagues"
Bulow Hans
Donizetti: "Anna Bolena"
Goldmark Karl
Karl Goldmark - Violin Concerto No 1
Karl Goldmark
Leschetizky Teodor
Remenyi Eduard
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1830 Part V
Reclus Jean Jacques Elisee
Markham Clements Robert
Brown Robert
Hessel Johann Friedrich Christian
Liverpool and Manchester Railway
Lyell Charles
Raoult Francois Marie
Reichenbach Karl
Royal Geographical Society
Thimonnier Barthelemy
Thomson Wyville
Lander Richard Lemon
Charting the Coastline
John Biscoe
Lockwood Belva Ann
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part I
Battle of Ostroleka
Caprivi Leo
Charles Albert
Leopold I of Belgium
Belgian Revolution (1830-1831)
Goschen George Joachim
Turner Nat
Gneisenau August Wilhelm Antonius
Labouchere Henry
Clausewitz Carl
Garfield James Abram
Egyptian–Ottoman War (1831–33)
Russell John
Pedro II of Brazil
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part II
Blavatsky Helena
Gregory XVI
Farrar Frederic William
Gilman Daniel Coit
Harrison Frederic
Miller William
Adventist
White Helen Gould Harmon
Roscoe William
Thomas Isaiah
Winsor Justin
Wright William Aldis
Rutherford Mark
Darby John Nelson
Plymouth Brethren
Balzac: "La Peau de chagrin"
Calverley Charles Stuart
Donnelly Ignatius
Victor Hugo: "Notre Dame de Paris"
Jackson Helen Hunt
Leskov Nikolai
Raabe Wilhelm
Sardou Victorien
Trumbull John
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part III
Begas Reinhold
Reinhold Begas
Meunier Constantin
Constantin Meunier
Bellini: "La Sonnambula"
Bellini: "Norma"
Joachim Joseph
Joseph Joachim - Violin Concerto, Op 11
Joseph Joachim
Meyerbeer: "Robert le Diable"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1831 Part IV
Barry Heinrich Anton
Guthrie Samuel
Liebig Justus
Chloroform
Colomb Philip Howard
Darwin and the Beagle
Maxwell James Clerk
North Pole
Routh Edward John
Sauria Marc Charles
Great cholera pandemic
Garrison William Lloyd
Godkin Edwin Lawrence
Hirsch Moritz
Hood John Bell
French Foreign Legion
London Bridge
Pullman George Mortimer
Schofield John
Smith Samuel Francis
Stephan Heinrich
Whiteley William
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part I
Reform Bill
Gentz Friedrich
Roberts Frederick Sleigh
Democratic Party
Clay Henry
Calhoun Caldwell John
"Italian Youth"
Falkland Islands
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Europe, 1815-1832
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part II
Bancroft Hubert Howe
Fowler Thomas
Krause Karl Christian Friedrich
Rask Rasmus
Stephen Leslie
Vaughan Herbert Alfred
White Andrew Dickson
Alcott Louisa May
Alger Horatio
Arnold Edwin
Balzac: "Le Colonel Chabert"
Bjornson Bjornstjerne Martinius
Busch Heinrich
Carroll Lewis
Lewis Carroll
Lewis Carroll - photographer

"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" 
"
Through the Looking-Glass" 
Delavigne Casimir
Echegaray Jose
Washington Irving: "Tales of the Alhambra"
Kennedy John Pendleton
Pellico Silvio
Aleksandr Pushkin: "Eugene Onegin"
Tennyson: "Lady of Shalott"
Watts-Dunton Theodore
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part III
Constable: "Waterloo Bridge from Whitehall Stairs"
Dore Gustave
Gustave Dore
Manet Edouard
Edouard Manet
Orchardson William
William Orchardson
Hughes Arthur
Arthur Hughes
Berlioz: "Symphonie Fantastique"
Damrosch Leopold
Donizetti: "L'Elisir d'Amore"
Garcia Manuel Vicente Rodriguez
Malibran Maria
Viardot Pauline
Garcia Manuel
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1832 Part IV
Wundt Wilhelm
Crookes William
Hayes Isaac Israel
Bolyai Janos
Koenig Rodolph
Nordenskiold Nils Adolf Erik
Reaching for the Pole
Nares George Strong
Scarpa Antonio
Vambery Armin
Conway Moncure Daniel
Declaration of Independence, 1776
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part I
Gordon Charles George
Otto of Greece
Amalia of Oldenburg
Randolph John
Harrison Benjamin
Isabella II
Santa Anna Antonio Lopez
Whig Party
Muhammad Ali dynasty
Zollverein
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part II
Bopp Franz
Bradlaugh Charles
Dilthey Wilhelm
Fawcett Henry
Furness Horace Howard
Ingersoll Robert Green
Pusey Edward Bouverie
Alarcon Pedro Antonio
Balzac: "Eugenie Grandet"
Booth Edwin
Charles Dickens: "Sketches by Boz"
George Cruikshank. From Charles Dickens, Sketches by Boz, 1836.
Gordon Adam Lindsay
Lamb: "Last Essays of Elia"
Longfellow: "Outre-Mer"
Morris Lewis
George Sand: "Lelia"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part III
Burne-Jones Edward
Edward Burne-Jones
Rops Felicien
Felicien Rops
Guerin Pierre-Narcisse
Pierre-Narcisse Guerin
Herold Ferdinand
Ferdinand Herold - Piano Concerto No.2
Ferdinand Herold
Brahms Johannes
Brahms - Hungarian Dances
Johannes Brahms
Chopin: Etudes Op.10 & 25
Heinrich Marschner: "Hans Heiling"
Mendelssohn: "Italian Symphony"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1833 Part IV
Weber Wilhelm Eduard
Muller Johannes Peter
Roscoe Henry Enfield
Wheatstone bridge
Back George
Factory Acts
Burnes Alexander
Home Daniel Dunglas
Nobel Alfred
SS "Royal William"
Slavery Abolition Act 1833
General Trades Union in New York
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part I
Grenville William Wyndham
Grand National Consolidated Trades Union
Quadruple Alliance
Peel Robert
South Australia Colonisation Act 1834
Xhosa Wars
Cape Colony
Carlism
First Carlist War
Battle of Alsasua
Battle of Alegria de Alava
Battle of Venta de Echavarri
Battle of Mendaza
First Battle of Arquijas
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part II
Acton John Emerich
Eliot Charles William
Gibbons James
Seeley John Robert
Spurgeon Charles
Treitschke Heinrich
Maurier George
Balzac: "Le Pere Goriot"
Bancroft George
Blackwood William
Edward Bulwer-Lytton: "The Last Days of Pompeii"
Dahn Felix
Frederick Marryat: "Peter Simple"
Alfred de Musset: "Lorenzaccio"
Pushkin: "The Queen of Spades"
Shorthouse Joseph Henry
Stockton Frank Richard
Browne Charles Farrar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part III
Perov Vasily
Vasily Perov
Bartholdi Frederic Auguste
Degas Edgar
Edgar Degas
Ingres: "Martyrdom of Saint Symphorian"
Whistler James McNeill
James McNeill Whistler
Morris William
William Morris
Adolphe Adam: "Le Chalet"
Barnett John
John Barnett: "The Mountain Sylph"
John Barnett
Berlioz: "Harold en Italie"
Borodin Aleksandr
Alexander Borodin: Prince Igor
Aleksandr Borodin
Elssler Fanny
Kreutzer Conradin
Kreutzer - Das Nachtlager in Granada
Konradin Kreutzer
Santley Charles
Ponchielli Amilcare
 Amilcare Ponchielli - Dance of the Hours
Amilcare Ponchielli
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1834 Part IV
Haeckel Ernst
Arago Francois
Buch Leopold
Faraday: "Law of Electrolysis"
Langley Samuel Pierpont
McCormick Cyrus Hall
Mendeleyev Dmitry
Runge Friedlieb Ferdinand
Phenol
Steiner Jakob
Depew Chauncey Mitchell
Burning of Parliament
Gabelsberger Franz Xaver
Hansom Joseph Aloysius
Hunt Walter
Lloyd's Register
Poor Law Amendment Act 1834
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part I
Ferdinand I of Austria
Bernstorff Christian Gunther
Brisson Henri
Masayoshi Matsukata
Olney Richard
Lee Fitzhugh
Municipal Corporations Act 1835
Palma Tomas Estrada
Riyad Pasha
White George Stuart
Second Seminole War
Texas Revolution (1835 – 1836)
Battle of Gonzales
Siege of Bexar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part II
Leake William Martin
Abbott Lyman
Brooks Phillips
Caird Edward
Dahlmann Friedrich
Finney Charles Grandison
Harris William Torrey
Hensen Viktor
Jevons William Stanley
Skeat Walter William
Cousin Victor
Strauss David Friedrich
Giacomo Leopardi: "Canti"
Austin Alfred
Butler Samuel
Gaboriau Emile
Hemans Felicia Dorothea
Hogg James
Ireland William Henry
Mathews Charles
Menken Adah Isaacs
Simms William Gilmore
Mark Twain
Carducci Giosue
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part III
Constable: "The Valley Farm"
Corot: "Hagar in the Desert"
Defregger Franz
Kunichika Toyohara
Toyohara Kunichika
Cui Cesar
Cesar Cui "Orientale"
Cesar Cui
Donizetti: "Lucia di Lammermoor"
Halevy Fromental
Halevy: "La Juive"
Placido Domingo - Rachel, quand du Seigneur
Fromental Halevy
Saint-Saens Camille
Camille Saint-Saens - Danse Macabre
Camille Saint-Saens
Thomas Theodore
Wieniawski Henri
Wieniawski - Polonaise de Concert in D major No. 1, Op. 4
Henri Wieniawski
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1835 Part IV
Newcomb Simon
Schiaparelli Giovanni Virginio
Geikie Archibald
Chaillu Paul
Locomotive: Electric traction
Talbot Wiliam Henry Fox
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society
Sacher-Masoch Leopold Ritter
Masochism
Heth Joice
Bennett James Gordon
Carnegie Andrew
Chubb Charles
Colt Samuel
Field Marshall
Green Henrietta Howland
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part I
Crockett Davy
Houston Sam
Battle of the Alamo
Battle of San Jacinto
BATTLE OF SAN JACINTO
Cannon Joseph Gurney
Chartism
Arkansas
Chamberlain Joseph
Campbell-Bannerman Henry
Great Trek
Voortrekker
Xhosa
Inoue Kaoru
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part II
Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Nature"
Ramakrishna
Aldrich Thomas Bailey
Besant Walter
Frederick Marryat: "Mr. Midshipman Easy"
Burnand Francis Cowley
Carlyle: "Sartor Resartus"
Dickens: "Pickwick Papers"
Eckermann Johann Peter
Gilbert William Schwenk
Gogol: "The Government Inspector"
Harte Bret
Newell Robert Henry
Reuter Fritz
Pusckin: "The Captain's Daughter"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part III
Alma-Tadema Lawrence
Lawrence Alma-Tadema
Corot: "Diana Surprised by Actaeon"
Fantin-Latour Henri
Henri Fantin-Latour
Homer Winslow
Winslow Homer
Lefebvre Jules Joseph
Jules Joseph Lefebvre
Lenbach Franz
Franz von Lenbach
Poynter Edward
Edward Poynter
Tissot James
James Tissot
Carle Vernet
Carle Vernet
Adolphe Adam: "Le Postilion de long jumeau"
Delibes Leo
Delibes - Lakme - Flower duet
Leo Delibes
Reicha Antoine
Glinka: "A Life for the Tzar"
Mendelssohn: "St. Paul"
Meyerbeer: "Les Huguenots"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1836 Part IV
Bergmann Ernst
Daniell John Frederic
Davy Edmund
Ericsson John
Gray Asa
Lockyer Norman
Colt's Manufacturing Company
Crushed stone
Schwann Theodor
Pepsin
Schimper Karl Friedrich
Gould Jay
"The Lancers"
Ross Betsy
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part I
William IV, King of Great Britain
Michigan
Van Buren Martin
Cleveland Grover
Itagaki Taisuke
Holstein Friedrich
Boulanger Georges
Carnot Sadi
Caroline affair
Ernest Augustus I of Hanover
Rebellions of 1837
Lafontaine Louis-Hippolyte
Baldwin Robert
Sitting Bull
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part II
Thomas Carlyle: "The French Revolution"
Green John Richard
Lyon Mary
Mount Holyoke College
Mann Horace
Moody Dwight
Murray James
Oxford English Dictionary
Old School–New School Controversy
Balzac: "Illusions perdues"
Nathaniel Hawthorne: "Twice-told Tales"
Braddon Mary Elizabeth
Eggleston Edward
Ebers Georg
Howells William Dean
Swinburne Algernon Charles
Wyndham Charles
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part III
Carolus-Duran
Carolus-Duran
Legros Alphonse
Alphonse Legros
Marees Hans
Hans von Marees
Auber: "Le Domino  noir"
Balakirev Mily
Balakirev - Symphony No.1
Mily Balakirev
Berlioz: "Requiem"
Dubois Theodore
Theodore Dubois - Piano Concerto No. 2
Theodore Dubois
Lesueur Jean-Francois
Lesueur: Coronation music for Napoleon I
Jean-François Lesueur
Lortzing: "Zar und Zimmermann"
Cosima Wagner
Waldteufel Emile
Emile Waldteufel - waltzes
Emile Waldteufel
Zingarelli Niccolo
Nicola Antonio Zingarelli - Tre ore dell'Agonia
Nicola Zingarelli
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1837 Part IV
Analytical Engine
Borsig August
Burroughs John
Cooke William
Telegraph
d'Urville Jules Dumont
Kuhne Wilhelm
Van der Waals Johannes Diderik
Fitzherbert Maria Anne
Hanna Mark
Lovejoy Elijah
Morgan John Pierpont
Pitman Isaac
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part I
Osceola
Gambetta Leon
Weenen Massacre
Battle of Blood River
Anti-Corn Law League
Cobden Richard
Bright John
Rodgers John
Weyler Valeriano
Wood Henry Evelyn
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part II
Adams Henry
Bowditch Nathaniel
Bryce Viscount
Montagu Corry, 1st Baron Rowton
Lecky William Edward Hartpole
Lounsbury Thomas Raynesford
Mach Ernst
Mohler Johann Adam
Sacy Antoine Isaac Silvestre
Sidgwick Henry
Trevelyan George Otto
Lytton: "The Lady of Lyons"
Daly Augustin
Dickens: "Oliver Twist"
Victor Hugo: "Ruy Blas"
Irving Henry
Villiers de l'Isle-Adam
Rachel Felix
Roe Edward Payson
Schwab Gustav Benjamin
Scudder Horace Elisha
Creevey Thomas
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part III
Dalou Jules
Jules Dalou
Mauve Anton
Anton Mauve
Richardson Hobson Henry
Henry Hobson Richardson
Fortuny Maria
Maria Fortuny
Berlioz: "Benvenuto Cellini"
Bizet Georges
Bizet - Carmen - Habanera
Georges Bizet
Bruch Max
Max Bruch - Violinkonzert Nr. 1
Max Bruch
Lind Johanna Maria
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1838 Part IV
Abbe Cleveland
Cournot Antoine-Augustin
Daguerre-Niepce method of photography
Dulong Pierre-Louis
Hyatt Alpheus
Muir John
Perkin William Henry
Stevens John
Zeppelin Ferdinand
Belleny John
United States Exploring Expedition
Wilkes Charles
Hill Octavia
Wanamaker John
Woodhull Victoria
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part I
Uruguayan Civil War (1839-1851)
Rudini Antonio Starabba
Treaty of London
First Opium War (1839-1842)
Richter Eugen
Frederick VI of Denmark
Christian VIII of Denmark
Natalia Republic
Abdulmecid I
Ranjit Singh
Van Rensselaer Stephen
Cervera Pascual
First Anglo-Afghan War
Anglo-Afghan Wars
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part II
Fesch Joseph
Paris Gaston
Peirce Charles Sanders
Reed Thomas
Anzengruber Ludwig
Sparks Jared
Galt John
Herne James
Longfellow: "Hyperion"
De Morgan William
Ouida
Dickens:  "Nicholas Nickleby"
Pater Walter
Рое: "The Fall of the House of Usher"
Praed Winthrop Mackworth
Smith James
Sully-Prudhomme Armand
Stendhal: "La Chartreuse de Parme"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part III
Beechey William
William Beechey
Cezanne Paul
Paul Cezanne
Sisley Alfred
Alfred Sisley
Thoma Hans
Hans Thoma
Yoshitoshi Tsukioka
Tsukioka Yoshitoshi
Gomes Antonio Carlos
Antonio Carlos Gomes - Il Guarany - Ouverture
Antonio Carlos Gomes
Moussorgsky Modest
Moussorgsky - Boris Godunov
Modest Mussorgsky
Paine John Knowles
John Knowles Paine - Symphony No.1
John Knowles Paine
Randall James Rider
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1839 Part IV
Crozier Francis Rawdon Moira
Grey George
Into the Interior
Garnier Frangois
Goodyear Charles
Vulcanization
Jacobi Moritz
Mosander Carl Gustaf
Przhevalsky Nikolay
Smith William
Mond Ludwig
Stephens John Lloyd
Catherwood Frederick
George Henry
Kundt August
Schonbein Christian Friedrich
Steinheil Carl August
Doubleday Abner
Macmillan Kirkpatrick
Cadbury George
Cunard Samuel
Cunard Line
Grand National
Lowell John
Lowell Institute
Rockefeller John
Stanhope Hester Lucy
Weston Edward Payson
Willard Frances
 
 
 

Attack of Algiers from the sea, on 29 June 1830, by Théodore Gudin.
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1830 Part I
 
 
 
1830
 
 
In a debate with Robert Y. Hayne, Daniel Webster negates States' Rights doctrine
 
 
Webster Daniel
 

Daniel Webster, (born January 18, 1782, Salisbury, New Hampshire, U.S.—died October 24, 1852, Marshfield, Massachusetts), American orator and politician who practiced prominently as a lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court and served as a U.S. congressman (1813–17, 1823–27), a U.S. senator (1827–41, 1845–50), and U.S. secretary of state (1841–43, 1850–52). He is best known as an enthusiastic nationalist and as an advocate of business interests during the period of the Jacksonian agrarianism.

 

Daniel Webster
  Youth and early career
Born on the New Hampshire frontier in the town of Salisbury, Daniel was the ninth of 10 children of Ebenezer Webster, a veteran of the American Revolution, farmer and tavern-keeper, and leading townsman. Dark-complexioned “little Black Dan,” a rather frail boy, became the pet of his parents and older brothers and sisters, some of whom taught him to read at an early age. He often entertained the family and the tavern guests with readings and recitations. As he grew older he attended classes at the various houses where the schoolmaster boarded in succession around the township. At 14 he spent part of a year at Phillips Exeter Academy, and at 15 he entered Dartmouth College, where he excelled at public speaking. After graduation he taught school and read law, going to Boston and studying in the office of a prominent lawyer. He began his own practice near home but moved to Portsmouth in 1807, married Grace Fletcher, a clergyman’s daughter, and soon became a prominent member of the thriving seaport’s distinguished bar.

Webster identified his own interests with those of the Portsmouth shipowners and merchants, who had been prospering through trade with Great Britain and France, despite the occasional seizures of American ships by both warring powers.
The Portsmouth businessmen objected to the federal government’s effort to retaliate by limiting and even stopping overseas commerce, and, as their spokesman, Webster denounced the Jefferson administration’s embargo as unconstitutional; he also opposed the declaration of war against Great Britain in 1812.

 
 
That same year he was elected to the national House of Representatives as a member of the conservative pro-British Federalist Party, which favoured a strong, centralized government and encouragement of commerce. He was twice reelected (1814, 1816). In Congress he resisted the passage of practically all war measures, including a conscription bill, which was voted down. Against conscription he took an extreme states-rights position, even hinting at nullification of federal laws when he said the state governments had a solemn duty to “interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power.”
 
 

Daniel Webster
  Rising lawyer and orator
In 1816 Webster moved with his wife and two children to the more promising metropolis of Boston. Thereafter, he represented the city’s leading businessmen in the law courts and, from 1823 to 1827, again in the national House of Representatives. He became one of the most highly paid lawyers in the entire country.

Arguing a series of important cases before the Supreme Court, he influenced a number of Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinions and, through them, the development of constitutional law.

In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) he maintained that a state’s grant of a charter to do business was a contract that the state could not impair. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he contended that a state could not tax a federal agency (a branch of the Bank of the United States), for the power to tax was a “power to destroy.”

In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) he argued that a state could not encroach upon the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

In arguing these and other cases—which had the effect of enlarging the authority of the federal government while encouraging corporate enterprise—Webster appears to have forgotten his recent states-rights arguments in opposition to the War of 1812.

 
 
Defense of the Constitution
Webster nevertheless remained a strict constructionist of the Constitution on the tariff question, opposing the protective tariffs of 1816 and 1824, which were harmful to the dominant commercial interests of New England. He reasoned that such a stimulus to manufacturers was both unconstitutional and inexpedient, for Congress had been given the power to levy duties only for raising revenue, and the growth of factories would create a propertyless working class that would threaten society. Inspired by political theorists, ancient and modern, he declared that “power naturally and necessarily follows property,” adding that property must remain diffused if widespread suffrage is to be safely maintained. These ideas Webster expressed on various occasions, including, in 1820, the bicentennial celebration of the landing at Plymouth of the Mayflower carrying the first permanent settlers in North America, where he gave the first of several occasional addresses that were to bring him fame as America’s peerless orator.

In 1827, now a senator from Massachusetts, Webster started for Washington with his wife, but she died on the way. Rather shy and plain, she had usually remained at home to look after her five children, only three of whom survived her (and only one of whom was to survive Webster himself). After two years, at 47, he married Caroline Le Roy, 31, the pretty and vivacious daughter of a New York merchant. His second wife was less inclined than the first to restrain her husband’s propensities for high living and careless spending.

With the rise of textile mills, Massachusetts had acquired a large and powerful manufacturing interest, and Webster voted for the Tariff of 1828. Then and thereafter, as a leading protectionist, he refuted his former arguments against the tariff. He now found a constitutional sanction for it in the congressional power to regulate commerce and a social justification for it in the claim that it would diffuse property by stimulating a general prosperity. But South Carolinians blamed the tariff for their economic difficulties, and in 1830 a South Carolina senator, Robert Y. Hayne, presented the theory postulated by Vice President John C. Calhoun that a state could nullify such an obnoxious and unconstitutional law and, as a last resort, could secede from the Union. In his second reply to Hayne, Webster eloquently defended the powers of the federal government as opposed to the alleged rights of the states. He concluded with the appeal: “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” The speech made him a hero of nationalists throughout the North. In 1832–33, when South Carolina, under the leadership of the nullification theory’s author, John C. Calhoun, now a senator from South Carolina, undertook to put the theory into practice, Webster, though an opponent of President Andrew Jackson, supported him in resisting the attempt.

  Whig leadership
After the nullification crisis had been settled, Webster made overtures for a political alliance with Jackson, an alliance that presumably would have brought Webster to the presidency as Jackson’s successor.

But the two men disagreed on many issues, especially on the question of the Bank of the United States, which Jackson attacked as a dangerous and undemocratic monopoly and which Webster served in the capacities of legal counsel, director of the Boston branch, and Senate champion, along with Henry Clay of Kentucky.

Clay and Webster emerged as leaders of the Whig Party, a rather heterogeneous group opposed to Jackson and the Democrats. The Whigs failed to get the bank rechartered and thus lost the “Bank War.”

Identified with the unpopular bank and stigmatized as a friend of the rich, Webster carried only his own state when he ran as one of three Whig presidential candidates in 1836.

In 1841, however, he was appointed secretary of state after the Whigs had won the election with an Ohio war hero, William Henry Harrison, and a renegade Virginia Democrat, John Tyler, as vice president.

After Harrison’s death, Webster remained in Tyler’s cabinet, even though Clay induced the other members to resign in protest against Tyler’s antibank and antitariff stand.

Webster again had hopes of forming a new political combination, this time with Tyler. He also hoped to arrange a settlement of the Maine boundary dispute and other controversies with Great Britain.

This he succeeded in doing by means of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty (1842), for which he gained popular approval with newspaper propaganda he paid for with secret State Department funds. But he had no chance to realize the dream of a Tyler-Webster party, and he left the cabinet in 1843.

To persuade Webster to go back to the Senate in 1845, the businessmen of Boston and New York raised a fund to supplement his income, as they had done on previous occasions. House Democrats charged that he was “the pensioned agent of the manufacturing interest.”

Along with other Whigs in Congress, he accused President James K. Polk of maneuvering the country into war with Mexico, and he demanded that the war (in which one of his sons died) be brought to an early end.

Some of his colleagues supported the Wilmot Proviso—to prohibit slavery in all lands acquired from Mexico—but he went even further and opposed the acquisition of any territory.

 
 
Advocate of sectional compromise
During the postwar sectional crisis Webster nevertheless spoke out, March 7, 1850, in favour of Clay’s compromise proposals, one of which would organize territories in the Mexican cession with no prohibition of slavery. His argument that such a prohibition was unnecessary because the West was geographically unsuitable for the plantation system pleased businessmen but infuriated antislavery Whigs. As secretary of state in President Millard Fillmore’s cabinet, 1850–52, he used all the influence at his disposal in trying to enforce the provision of the Compromise of 1850 that was most unpopular in the North—the new law for the return of fugitive slaves. He was prompted by the belief that conservatives in both the North and the South might combine in a “Union” Party to make him president in 1852, and he could not restrain his bitterness when his presidential ambition was again thwarted.

For years it had been Webster’s custom, when frustrated in politics, to seek refuge in the avocation of gentleman farmer, an expensive hobby that helped to keep his personal finances precarious. He owned farms in several states, but his favourite was the one located at Marshfield on the Massachusetts coast. And there, in 1852, he died.

 
 

Daniel Webster
  Assessment
During the first generation after his death, former abolitionists and their sympathizers, remembering Webster’s support of the Compromise of 1850, often pictured him as a man whose career had come to ruin because of his character defects. The memoirs of President John Quincy Adams, published in the 1870s, contained a reference to “the gigantic intellect, the envious temper, the ravenous ambition, and the rotten heart of Daniel Webster.”

Meanwhile, his former intimates recalled him as the “godlike Daniel,” a man of irresistible charm as well as surpassing statesmanship. Some writers said his patriotic phrases inspirited the Union during the Civil War, and certainly Abraham Lincoln echoed a number of those phrases.

During the second generation after Webster’s death, his fame as a nationalist came to prevail over his disrepute as a compromiser. School-children recited his second reply to Hayne, and most Americans considered him the greatest of the “great triumvirate”—Webster, Calhoun, and Clay.

By the second half of the 20th century Webster had ceased to be as well known or as highly rated. Still, he remained a timely figure on account of his conservative philosophy.

 
 
Like him, the later spokesmen for business assumed that government could promote the general welfare by aiding corporate enterprise. They could have invoked his authority, but they seldom quoted or even mentioned him.

Richard N. Current

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
Hayne Robert Young
 

Robert Young Hayne (November 10, 1791 – September 24, 1839) was an American political leader who served in the United States Senate from 1823 to 1832, was Governor of South Carolina 1832-1834, and as Mayor of Charleston 1836-1837. He was notable as a proponent of the states' rights doctrine, in collaboration with John C. Calhoun and James Hamilton, Jr.

 

Robert Young Hayne
  Robert Young Hayne, (born Nov. 10, 1791, Colleton District, S.C., U.S.—died Sept. 24, 1839, Asheville, N.C.), American lawyer, political leader, and spokesman for the South, best-remembered for his debate with Daniel Webster (1830), in which he set forth a doctrine of nullification.

Hayne entered the U.S. Senate in 1823 and soon became prominent as a spokesman for the South and for the doctrine of states’ rights. In his debate with Webster, Hayne argued that the federal Constitution was a compact among the states, and that any state might nullify a federal law that it considered in violation of the constitutional compact.

In 1832, as a member of the South Carolina nullification convention, he helped pass an ordinance declaring federal tariff laws null and void in the state.

Hayne resigned from the Senate in 1832, and after serving as governor of South Carolina (1832–34) and mayor of Charleston (1834–37), he became president of the abortive Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad (1837–39).

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
Webster–Hayne debate
 

The Webster–Hayne debate was a famous debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that took place on January 19–27, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. The heated speeches between Webster and Hayne themselves were unplanned, and stemmed from debate over a resolution by Connecticut Senator Samuel A. Foot calling for the temporary suspension of further land surveying until land already on the market was sold (this would effectively stop the introduction of new lands onto the market). Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" was generally regarded as "the most eloquent speech ever delivered in Congress."

Webster's description of the U.S. government as "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people," was later paraphrased by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address in the words "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

 
Analysis
Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's "Second Reply" to South Carolina Senator Robert Y. Hayne has long been thought of as a great oratorical celebration of American nationalism in a period of sectional strife. The 1830 Webster–Hayne debate centered around the South Carolina nullification crisis of the late 1820s, but historians have largely ignored the sectional interests underpinning Webster's argument on behalf of Unionism and a transcendent nationalism. In many respects, his speech betrays the mentality of Massachusetts conservatives seeking to regain national leadership and advance their particular ideas about the nation. Webster realized that if the social, political, and economic elite of Massachusetts and the Northeast were to once again lay claim to national leadership, he had to justify New England's previous history of sectionalism within a framework of nationalistic progression. Though Webster made an impassioned argument, the political, social, and economic traditions of New England informed his ideas about the threatened nation. Even more pointedly, his speech reflected a decade of arguments from other Massachusetts conservatives who argued against supposed threats to New England's social order.
 
 
Schouler's analysis
South Carolina nullification was now coming in sight, and a celebrated debate which belongs to the first session exposed its claims and its fallacies to the country. The arena selected for a first impression was the Senate, where the arch-heretic himself presided and guided the onset with his eye. Hayne, South Carolina's foremost Senator, was the chosen champion; and the cause of his State, both in its right and wrong sides, could have found no abler exponent while Calhoun's official station kept him from the floor. It has been said that Hayne was Calhoun's sword and buckler, and that he returned to the contest refreshed each morning by nightly communions with the Vice-President, drawing auxiliary supplies from the well-stored arsenal of his powerful and subtle mind. Be this as it may, Hayne was a ready and copious orator, a highly-educated lawyer, a man of varied accomplishments, shining as a writer, speaker, and counselor, equally qualified to draw up a bill or to advocate it, quick to memories, well fortified by wealth and marriage connections, dignified, never vulgar nor unmindful of the feelings of those with whom he mingled, Hayne moved in an atmosphere where lofty and chivalrous honor was the ruling sentiment. But it was the honor of a caste; and the struggling bread-winners of society, the great commonalty, he little studied or understood. This was the man to fire an aristocracy of fellow citizens ready to arm when their interests were in danger, and upon him it devolved to advance the cause of South Carolina, break down the tariff, and fascinate the Union with the new rattlesnake theories.

The great debate, which culminated in Hayne's encounter with Webster, came about in a somewhat casual way. Senator Foote, of Connecticut, submitted a proposition inquiring into the expediency of limiting the sales of public lands to those already in the market. This seemed like an Eastern spasm of jealousy at the progress of the West. Benton was rising in renown as the advocate not only of Western settlers, but of a new theory that the public lands should be given away instead of sold to them. He joined Hayne in using this opportunity to try to detach the West from the East, and restore the old cooperation of the West and the South against New England. The discussion took a wide range, going back to topics that had agitated the country before the Constitution was formed. It was of a partizan and censorious character, and drew nearly all the chief senators out. But the topic which became the leading feature of the whole debate and gave it an undying interest was that of nullification, in which Hayne and Webster came forth as chief antagonists. . . .

Hayne launched his confident javelin at the New England States. He accused them of a desire to check the growth of the West in the interests of protection. Webster replied to his speech the next day, and left not a shred of the charge, baseless as it was. Inflamed and mortified at this repulse, Hayne soon returned to the assault, primed with a two-days' speech, which at great length vaunted the patriotism of South Carolina and bitterly attacked New England, dwelling particularly upon her conduct during the late war. It was a speech delivered before a crowded auditory, and loud were the Southern exultations that he was more than a match for Webster. Strange was it, however, that in heaping reproaches upon the Hartford Convention he did not mark how nearly its leaders had mapped out the same line of opposition to the national Government that his State now proposed to take, both relying upon the arguments of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798–99.

  Webster rose the next day in his seat to make his reply. He had allowed himself but a single night from eve to morn to prepare for a critical and crowning occasion. But his reply was gathered from the choicest arguments and the richest thoughts that had long floated through his brain while this crisis was gathering; and bringing these materials together in lucid and compact shape, he calmly composed and delivered before another crowded and breathless auditory a speech full of burning passages, which will live as long as the American Union, and the grandest effort of his life. Two leading ideas predominated in this reply, and with respect to either Hayne was not only answered but put to silence. First, New England was vindicated. As a pious son of Federalism, Webster went the full length of the required defense.

Some of his historical deductions may be questioned; but far above all possible error on the part of her leaders, stood colonial and Revolutionary New England, and the sturdy, intelligent, and thriving people whose loyalty to the Union had never failed, and whose home, should ill befall the nation, would yet prove liberty's last shelter. Next, the Union was held up to view in all its strength, symmetry, and integrity, reposing in the ark of the Constitution, no longer an experiment, as in the days when Hamilton and Jefferson contended for shaping its course, but ordained and established by and for the people, to secure the blessings of liberty to all posterity. It was not a Union to be torn up without bloodshed; for nerves and arteries were interwoven with its roots and tendrils, sustaining the lives and interests of twelve millions of inhabitants. No hanging over the abyss of disunion, no weighing of the chances, no doubting as to what the Constitution was worth, no placing of liberty before Union, but "liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable." This was the tenor of Webster's speech, and nobly did the country respond to it. . . .

Some of Webster's personal friends had felt nervous over what appeared to them too hasty a period for preparation. But his cool, unperturbed manner reassured them in an instant. He entered the Senate on that memorable day with slow and stately step, and took his seat as though unconscious of the loud buzz of expectant interest with which the crowded auditory greeted his appearance. He was dressed with scrupulous care, in a blue coat with metal buttons, a buff vest rounding over his full abdomen, and his neck encircled with a white cravat. He rose, the image of conscious mastery, after the dull preliminary business of the day was dispatched, and with a happy figurative allusion to the tossed mariner, as he called for a reading of the resolution from which the debate had so far drifted, lifted his audience at once to his level. Then he began his speech, his words flowing on so completely at command that a fellow-senator who heard him has likened his elocution to the steady flow of molten gold. There was an end of all apprehension. Eloquence threw open the portals of eternal day. New England, the Union, the Constitution in its integrity, all were triumphantly vindicated; and the excited crowd which had packed the Senate chamber, filling every seat on the floor and in the galleries, and all the available standing room, dispersed after the orator's last grand apostrophe had died away on the air, with national pride throbbing at the heart.

Massachusetts men, gloomy and downcast of late, now walked the avenue as though the fife and drum were before them. Hayne's few but zealous partizans shielded him still, and South Carolina spoke with pride of him. His speech was indeed a powerful one from its eloquence and personalities. But his standpoint was purely local and sectional.

 
 
The people read Webster's speech and marked him for the champion henceforth against all assaults upon the Constitution. An undefinable dread now went abroad that men were planning against the peace of the nation, that the Union was in danger; and citizens looked more closely after its safety and welfare. Webster's speech aroused the latent spirit of patriotism. Even Benton, whose connection with the debate made him at first belittle these grand utterances, soon felt the danger and repudiated the company of the nullifiers. He remained through his long public career a Southern Unionist, and a good type of the growing class of statesman devoted to slave interests who loved the Union as it was and doted upon its compromises.
—from James Schouler, History of the United States. (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. (1891), copyright expired

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 

Webster Replying to Hayne by George P.A. Healy
 
 

"This, sir, is my case. It is the case not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in our land... Sir, you may destroy this little institution; it is weak; it is in your hands! I know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. You may put it out. But if you do so you must carry through your work! You must extinguish, one after another, all those greater lights of science which for more than a century have thrown their radiance over our land. It is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!"

Daniel Webster (Dartmouth College v. Woodward)

 
 

"When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic... not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart,— Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

Daniel Webster (Second Reply to Hayne)

 
 
1830
 
 
Blaine James
 

James G. Blaine, in full James Gillespie Blaine (born Jan. 31, 1830, West Brownsville, Pa., U.S.—died Jan. 27, 1893, Washington, D.C.), a leading Republican politician and diplomat for 25 years (1868–93), who was particularly influential in launching the Pan-American Movement with Latin-American countries.

 

James G. Blaine
  Blaine graduated from Washington (now Washington and Jefferson) College in Washington, Pa., in 1847 and then taught school for the next six years. He moved to Augusta, Maine, in 1854 to become editor and part owner of the Kennebec Journal, a crusading Republican newspaper. In 1856 he attended the first national convention of the newly organized Republican Party. He served in the Maine state legislature from 1858 until his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1862. After the Civil War, he favoured a more moderate Reconstruction policy than the radicals of his party, although he was a strong advocate of black suffrage.

In 1868 Blaine was elected speaker of the House, where his eloquence and leadership won him a devoted body of followers. He became known as the “Plumed Knight,” an appellation given him by Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll of Illinois, who offered Blaine’s name in nomination at the National Republican Convention of 1876. Blaine failed, however, to reply convincingly to charges that he had used his office for personal gain, and on the seventh ballot he lost the nomination to Rutherford B. Hayes. Immediately after the election Blaine was appointed to the Senate to fill a vacancy, and he soon won election to a full term. In 1880 he again lost a bid for the presidential nomination, and, on the election of James A. Garfield, he resigned his Senate seat to become secretary of state.

 
 
In this office he envisaged a system of inter-American arbitration to relieve tensions and strengthen the Monroe Doctrine, and in 1881 he revived the idea—conceived earlier in the century—of calling an inter-American conference to consider an arbitration plan designed to prevent wars in the Western Hemisphere.
 
 
This idea marked the beginning of the Pan-American Movement. The assassination of President Garfield (1881), however, brought Blaine’s resignation, and his Pan-American Conference was shelved by his successor.

Blaine finally won nomination for the presidency in 1884, only to lose by an extremely narrow margin to the Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, after an especially virulent campaign. By 1889 the Republicans were back in power, and Blaine again became secretary of state. As such, he assumed the chairmanship of the first Pan-American Conference, which had been authorized by Congress the previous year. The recommendation of separately negotiated reciprocity treaties was the only positive action of the conference. Blaine’s proposals for a customs union and arbitration were defeated.

Blaine resigned as secretary of state in June 1892, partly as a result of failing health, and he was dead within seven months.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
An anti-Cleveland cartoon highlights the Halpin scandal.
 
 
 
1830
 
 
Gascoyne-Cecil Robert Arthur Talbot
 

Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd marquess of Salisbury, (born Feb. 3, 1830, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, Eng.—died Aug. 22, 1903, Hatfield), Conservative political leader who was three-time prime minister (1885–86, 1886–92, 1895–1902) and four-time foreign secretary (1878, 1885–86, 1886–92, 1895–1900), who presided over a wide expansion of Great Britain’s colonial empire.

 

Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil
  Robert Cecil was the second surviving son of the 2nd Marquess of Salisbury, who had married Frances Gascoyne, an heiress to large landed estates. Cecil’s elder brother suffered from a debilitating illness all his life and died in 1865; thus Lord Robert Cecil became heir to the estates, and, on the death of his father in 1868, he became the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. His family background allowed him easy entry into any profession, but only merit and ability could ensure high office.

Robert Cecil’s childhood was unhappy and lonely. He was exceptionally clever but not especially strong, and he hated games. His father was conscientious but lacking in warmth. His mother, by all accounts sociable and vivacious, died when he was only 10. He was sent to Eton, where he was perpetually bullied. He was by nature pessimistic, withdrawn, and shy, but his courtesy, modesty, and fair-minded tolerance combined to make an attractive personality. Taken from school when he was 15, he was tutored privately. His love for scholarship was deep.
At 18 he entered Christ Church, Oxford, but his stay was cut short by a breakdown in health. On the advice of his doctors, he set out on a long sea voyage to Australia and New Zealand. He was absent from England for almost two years. During this time his character matured. He regained his health and acquired self-confidence. He was still uncertain as to his future career; both the church and politics attracted him. When he was offered a seat in Parliament for Stamford in 1853, he chose politics and was elected to the House of Commons.

 
 
He fell in love with Georgina Alderson, but his father objected to the marriage, regarding her lack of social standing and wealth as an impediment to an alliance with the Cecil family. Nonetheless, the marriage took place in 1857. They had five sons and two surviving daughters. Salisbury was a man of strong religious faith and enjoyed a happy home life. Lady Salisbury was intelligent and sociable, and all the Cecils came to regard Hatfield as their home. Hatfield also became one of the great houses in which distinguished visitors were entertained.
 
 
During the years from 1853 to 1874, Salisbury was only briefly a government minister (secretary of state for India, July 1866 to March 1867) but resigned office in disagreement over the Conservative government’s espousal of parliamentary reform. He became deeply suspicious of the new Conservative leader, Benjamin Disraeli. Out of the government he was active as a member of the House of Commons and as a writer; he frequently contributed political articles to the Saturday Review and The Quarterly Review. He also interested himself in science, especially in botany and in electricity and magnetism; later he had his own laboratory built at Hatfield.

In February 1874 Salisbury was persuaded to join Disraeli’s ministry and once more became secretary of state for India. During their seven years together in and out of office, Salisbury, overcoming his earlier prejudice, came to regard Disraeli with admiration and affection.

Succeeding the inept Lord Derby as foreign secretary, Salisbury first became responsible for Britain’s foreign relations in April 1878, at a time of great crisis in the Balkans. It seemed probable that war would break out between Britain and Russia over the control of Constantinople. By masterly diplomacy Salisbury ensured that the Russians came to the conference table at the Congress of Berlin (June–July 1878). Disraeli occupied the limelight, but Salisbury’s careful and patient diplomacy secured the essential compromises. For their success Disraeli and Salisbury were granted the Order of the Garter, the highest decoration Queen Victoria could bestow.

  After Disraeli’s death (1881), Salisbury led the Conservative opposition in the House of Lords. He became prime minister during the brief Conservative administration from June 1885 to January 1886. Ireland and imperial problems were then the chief issues. Salisbury opposed Gladstone on the question of Home Rule for Ireland and three times won the electoral support necessary to become prime minister (1886–92, 1895–1900, and 1900–02).

During the greater part of these years, Salisbury combined the offices of prime minister and foreign secretary. He was not autocratic but left wide discretion to individual ministers. Weak control by the government as a whole sometimes had harmful results. This was one of the causes of the South African War (1899–1902), which occurred when Joseph Chamberlain was colonial secretary. But at the Foreign Office, Salisbury succeeded in avoiding serious conflict with the great European powers despite major crises and rivalries.

The partition of Africa largely preoccupied Salisbury’s second ministry (1886–92) and remained a source of serious Anglo-French conflict until 1898, when France accepted British dominance on the Nile after the Fashoda Crisis. Salisbury was an imperialist: he believed a phase of European, preferably British, rule indispensable for the advancement of the “backward” races and had no hesitation in imposing this rule by force, as he did in the Sudan (1896–99). His foreign policy was directed toward the defense and enlargement of the British Empire. He had no sympathy for older empires, such as the Ottoman, whose rulers he regarded as corrupt oppressors.
 
 
Salisbury attempted but failed to gain the cooperation of the European powers to intervene against Turkey to bring to a halt the Armenian massacres (1895–96). He refused to be frightened either by U.S. threats over Venezuela (1895) or by the Kaiser’s telegram (1896) to Paul Kruger, president of the Transvaal, congratulating him on repelling a raid from the British-controlled Cape Colony.

During the last decade of the 19th century, when the principal powers grouped into alliances, Salisbury maintained a free hand for Britain. He was opposed to alliance commitments, fearing that when the time came a democratic electorate might refuse to go to war; he also regarded alliances for Britain as unnecessary and dangerous. He did not back Chamberlain’s unsuccessful efforts to conclude an alliance with Germany (1898–1901).
 
 

Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil
  History has reevaluated Salisbury’s contribution and acquitted him of the charge of “secret diplomacy”; nor was Salisbury an “isolationist,” since his diplomacy was active wherever Britain’s interests extended.

During the last two years of his ministry, from the autumn of 1900 until the summer of 1902, old age and ill health forced him to give up the Foreign Office, though he continued as prime minister.

With Lord Lansdowne as the new foreign secretary, he saw his principles of diplomacy partially abandoned when Britain concluded an alliance with Japan in January 1902. Later that year, in July, Salisbury retired.

Salisbury was the last aristocratic statesman to head a British government while in the House of Lords and not the elected Commons. He represented a tradition that passed away with him. His contemporaries recognized his greatness as a statesman.

He combined a realism and clarity of view with a fundamentally ethical approach to diplomacy, which sought to conciliate and pacify while maintaining important national interests.

John A.S. Grenville

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
1830
 
 
Antonio Jose de Sucre (Sucre Antonio Jose), S. American liberator, d. (b. 1795)
 
 

Death of Antonio José de Sucre by Arturo Michelena.
 
 
 
1830
 
 
French conquest of Algeria
 

The French conquest of Algeria took place between 1830 and 1847. Using an 1827 diplomatic slight by Hussein Dey, the ruler of the Ottoman Regency of Algiers, against its consul as a pretext, France invaded and quickly seized Algiers in 1830, and rapidly took control of other coastal communities. Amid internal political strife in France, decisions were repeatedly taken to retain control over the territory, and additional military forces were brought in over the following years to quell resistance in the interior of the country.

 

1877 map of the three French departments of Alger, Oran and Constantine
 
 
Algerian resistance forces were divided between forces under Ahmed Bey at Constantine, primarily in the east, and nationalist forces in Kabylie and the west. Treaties with the nationalists under `Abd al-Qādir enabled the French to first focus on the elimination of the remaining Ottoman threat, achieved with the 1837 capture of Constantine. Al-Qādir continued to give stiff resistance in the west. Finally driven into Morocco in 1842 by large-scale and heavy-handed French military action, he continued to wage a guerilla war until the Moroccan government, under French diplomatic pressure following its defeat in the First Franco-Moroccan War, drove him out of Morocco. He surrendered to French forces in 1847.
 
 

Chronological map of the French conquest.
 
 
Background
The conquest of Algeria was initiated in the last days of the Bourbon Restoration by Charles X as an attempt to increase his popularity amongst the French people, particularly in Paris, where many veterans of the Napoleonic Wars lived. He believed he would bolster patriotic sentiment and turn eyes away from his domestic policies.

The territory now known as Algeria was only partially under the Ottoman Empire's control in 1830. The dey ruled the entire Regency of Algiers, but only exercised direct control in and around Algiers, with Beyliks established in a few outlying areas, including Oran and Constantine. The remainder of the territory (including much of the interior), while nominally Ottoman, was effectively under the control of local Arab and Berber tribal leaders. The dey acted largely independently of the Ottoman Emperor, although he was supported by (or controlled by, depending on historical perspective) Turkish Janissary troops stationed in Algiers. The territory was bordered to the west by the Sultanate of Morocco and to the east by the Ottoman Regency of Tunis. The western border, nominally the Tafna River, was particularly porous since there were shared tribal connections that crossed it.

 
 
The Fan Affair
In 1795-1796, the French Republic had contracted to purchase wheat for the French army from two Jewish merchants in Algiers, and Charles X was apparently uninterested in paying off the Republic's debt. These merchants, who had debts to Hussein Dey, the Ottoman ruler of Algiers, claimed inability to pay those debts until France paid its debts to them. The dey had unsuccessfully negotiated with Pierre Deval, the French consul, to rectify this situation, and he suspected Deval of collaborating with the merchants against him, especially when the French government made no provisions for repaying the merchants in 1820. Deval's nephew Alexandre, the consul in Bône, further angered the dey by fortifying French storehouses in Bône and La Calle against the terms of prior agreements.

After a contentious meeting in which Deval refused to provide satisfactory answers on 29 April 1827, the dey struck Deval with his fly-whisk (then called a fan). Charles X used this slight against his diplomatic representative to first demand an apology from the dey, and then to initiate a blockade against the port of Algiers. The blockade lasted for three years, and was primarily to the detriment of French merchants who were unable to do business with Algiers, while Barbary pirates were still able to evade the blockade.
 
The "Fan Affair" which was the pretext for the invasion.
 
 
When France in 1829 sent an ambassador to the dey with a proposal for negotiations, he responded with cannon fire directed toward one of the blockading ships. The French then determined that more forceful action was required.

Following the failure of the ambassador's visit, Charles appointed as Prime Minister Jules, Prince de Polignac, a hardline conservative, an act that outraged the liberal French opposition, which was then in a majority in the Chamber of Deputies. Polignac opened negotiations with Muhammad Ali of Egypt to essentially divide up North Africa. Ali, who was strongly under British influence (in spite of nominally being a vassal of the Ottomans), eventually rejected this idea. As popular opinion continued to rise against Polignac and the King, they came to the idea that a foreign policy victory such as the taking of Algiers would turn opinion in their favour again.

 
 

Attack of Algiers from the sea, on 29 June 1830, by Théodore Gudin.
 
 
Invasion of Algiers in 1830
Admiral Duperré took command in Toulon of an armada of 600 ships and then headed for Algiers. Following a plan for the invasion of Algeria originally developed under Napoleon in 1808, General de Bourmont then landed 34,000 soldiers 27 kilometres (17 mi) west of Algiers, at Sidi Ferruch, on 14 June 1830. To face the French, the dey sent 7,000 janissaries, 19,000 troops from the beys of Constantine and Oran, and about 17,000 Kabyles. The French established a strong beachhead and pushed toward Algiers, thanks in part to superior artillery and better organization. On 19 June the French defeated the dey's army at the battle of Staouéli, and entered Algiers on 5 July after a three-week campaign. The dey accepted capitulation in exchange for his freedom and the offer to retain possession of his personal wealth. Five days later, he went into exile in Naples with his family. The Turkish Janissaries also quit the territory, leaving for Turkey. The dey's departure ended 313 years of Ottoman rule of the territory.

While the French command had nominally agreed to preserve the liberties, properties, and religious freedoms of the inhabitants, French troops immediately began plundering the city, arresting and killing people for arbitrary reasons, seizing property, and desecrating religious sites. By mid-August, the last remnants of Turkish authority were summarily deported without opportunity to liquidate significant assets. One estimate indicates that more than fifty million francs of assets were diverted into private hands during the plunder. This activity had a profound effect on future relations between the French occupiers and the natives. A French commission in 1833 wrote that "we have sent to their deaths on simple suspicion and without trial people whose guilt was always doubtful ... we massacred people carrying safe conducts ... we have outdone in barbarity the barbarians".

  One important side effect of the expulsion of the Turks was that it created a power vacuum in significant parts of the territory, from which resistance to French occupation immediately began to arise.

Hardly had the news of the capture of Algiers reached Paris than Charles X was deposed during the Three Glorious Days of July 1830, and his cousin Louis-Philippe, the "citizen king", was named to preside over a constitutional monarchy.

The new government, composed of liberal opponents of the Algiers expedition, was reluctant to pursue the conquest begun by the old regime. However, the victory was enormously popular, and the new government of Louis-Philippe only withdrew a portion of the invasion force. General Bourmont, who had sent troops to occupy Bône and Oran, withdrew them from those places with the idea of returning to France to restore Charles to the throne. When it was clear that his troops were not supportive of this effort, he resigned and went into exile in Spain. Louis-Philippe replaced him with Bertrand Clauzel in September 1830.

The bey of Titteri, who had participated in the battle at Staouéli, attempted to coordinate resistance against the French with the beys of Oran and Constantine, but they were unable to agree on leadership. Clauzel in November led a French column of 8,000 to Médéa, Titteri's capital, losing 200 men in skirmishes. After leaving 500 men at Blida he occupied Médéa without resistance, as the bey had retreated.

After installing a supportive bey and a garrison, he returned toward Algiers. On arrival at Blida, he learned that the garrison there had been attacked by the Kabyles, and in resisting them, had killed some women and children, causing the town's population to rise against them. Clauzel decided to withdraw that garrison as the force returned to Algiers.

 
 

At Sidi-Ferruch by Pierre-Julien Gilbert.
 
 
Colonization begins
Clauzel introduced a formal civil administration in Algiers, and began recruiting zouaves, or native auxiliaries to the French forces, with the goal of establishing a proper colonial presence. He and others formed a company to acquire agricultural land and to subsidize its settlement by European farmers, triggering a land rush. Clauzel recognized the farming potential of the Mitidja Plain and envisioned the production there of cotton on a large scale. During his second term as governor general (1835–36), he used his office to make private investments in land and encouraged army officers and bureaucrats in his administration to do the same. This development created a vested interest among government officials in greater French involvement in Algeria.
 
 

The attack of Admiral Duperré during the taking of Algiers in 1830.
 
 
Commercial interests with influence in the government also began to recognize the prospects for profitable land speculation in expanding the French zone of occupation. Over a ten-year period they created large agricultural tracts, built factories and businesses, and bought cheap local labor.

Clauzel also attempted to extend French influence into Oran and Constantine by negotiating with the bey of Tunis to supply "local" rulers that would operate under French administration. The bey refused, seeing the obvious conflicts inherent in the idea. The French foreign ministry objected to negotiations Clauzel conducted with Morocco over the establishment of a Moroccan bey in Oran, and in early 1831 replaced him with Baron Berthezène.

Berthezène was a weak administrator opposed to colonisation. His worst military failure came when he was called to support the bey at Médéa, whose support for the French and corruption had turned the population there against him. Berthezène led troops to Médéa in June 1831 to extract the bey and the French garrison. On their way back to Algiers they were continually harassed by Kabyle resistance, and driven into a panicked retreat that Berthezène failed to control. French casualties during this retreat were significant (nearly 300), and the victory fanned the flames of resistance, leading to attacks on colonial settlements. The growing colonial financial interests began insisting on a stronger hand, which Louis-Philippe provided in Duke Rovigo at the end of 1831.

Rogivo regained control of Bône and Bougie (present-day Béjaïa), cities that Clauzel had taken and then lost due to resistance by the Kabyle people. He continued policies of colonisation of the land and expropriation of properties. His suppression of resistance in Algiers was brutal, with the military presence extended into its neighborhoods. He was recalled in 1833 due to the overtly violent nature of the repression, and replaced by Baron Voirol. Voirol successfully established French occupation in Oran, and another French general, Louis Alexis Desmichels, was given an independent command that gained control over Arzew and Mostaganem.

On 22 June 1834, France formally annexed the occupied areas of Algeria, which had an estimated Muslim population of about two million, as a military colony. The colony was run by a military governor who had both civilian and military authority, including the power of executive decree. His authority was nominally over an area of "limited occupation" near the coast, but the realities of French colonial expansion beyond those areas ensured continued resistance from the local population. The policy of limited occupation was formally abandoned in 1840 for one of complete control.

Voirol was replaced in 1834 by Jean-Baptiste Drouet, Comte d'Erlon, who became the first governor of the colony, and who was given the task of dealing with the rising threat of `Abd al-Qādir and continuing French failures to subdue Ahmed Bey, Constantine's ruler.

  The rise of Abdul Kader
The superior of a religious brotherhood, Muhyi ad Din, who had spent time in Ottoman jails for opposing the bey's rule, launched attacks against the French and their makhzen allies at Oran in 1832. In the same year, tribal elders in the territories near Mascara chose Muhyi ad Din's son, twenty-five-year-old `Abd al-Qādir, to take his place leading the jihad. Abd al-Qādir, who was recognized as Amir al-Muminin (commander of the faithful), quickly gained the support of tribes in the western territories.

In 1834 he concluded a treaty with General Desmichels, who was then military commander of the province of Oran. In the treaty, which was reluctantly accepted by the French administration, France recognized Abd al-Qādir as the sovereign of territories in Oran province not under French control, and authorized Abd al-Qādir to send consuls to French-held cities. The treaty did not require Abd al-Qādir to recognize French rule, something glossed over in its French text. Abd al-Qādir used the peace provided by this treaty to widen his influence with tribes throughout western and central Algeria.

While d'Erlon was apparently unaware of the danger posed by Abd al-Qādir's activities, General Camille Alphonse Trézel, then in command at Oran, did see it, and attempted to separate some of the tribes from Abd al-Qādir. When he succeeded in convincing two tribes near Oran to acknowledge French supremacy, Abd al-Qādir dispatched troops to move those tribes to the interior, away from French influence. Trézel countered by marching a column of troops out from Oran to protect the territory of those tribes on 16 June 1835.

After exchanging threats, Abd al-Qādir withdrew his consul from Oran and ejected the French consul from Mascara, a de facto declaration of war. The two forces clashed in a bloody but inconclusive engagement near the Sig River. However, when the French, who were short on provisions, began withdrawing toward Arzew, al-Qādir led 20,000 men against the beleaguered column, and in the Battle of Macta routed the force, killing 500 men. The debacle led to the recall of Comte d'Erlon.

General Clausel was appointed a second time to replace d'Erlon. He led an attack against Mascara in December of that year, which Abd al-Qādir, with advance warning, had evacuated. In January 1836 he occupied Tlemcen, and established a garrison there before return to Algiers to plan an attack against Constantine.

Abd al-Qādir continued to harry the French at Tlemcen, so additional troops under Thomas Robert Bugeaud, a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars who was experienced in irregular warfare, were sent from Oran to secure control up to the Tafna River and to resupply the garrison.

Abd al-Qādir retreated before Bugeaud, but decided to make a stand on the banks of the Sikkak River. On July 6, 1836, Bugeaud decisively defeated al-Qādir in the Battle of Sikkak, losing less than fifty men to more than 1,000 casualties suffered by Abd al-Qādir. The battle was one of the few formal battles al-Qādir engaged in; after the loss he restricted his actions as much as possible to guerrilla-style attacks.

 
 

Battle of Zaatcha.
 
 
Constantine
Ahmed Bey had continuously resisted any attempts by the French or others to subjugate Constantine, and continued to play a role in resistance against French rule, in part because he hoped to eventually become the next dey. Clausel and Ahmed had tangled diplomatically over Ahmed's refusal to recognize French authority over Bône, which he considered to still be Ottoman territory, and Clausel decided to move against him.

In November 1836 Clausel led 8,700 men into the Constantine beylik, but was repulsed in the Battle of Constantine; the failure led to Clausel's recall. He was replaced by the Comte de Damrémont, who led an expedition that successfully captured Constantine the following year, although he was killed during the siege and replaced by Sylvain Charles, comte Valée.
 
 

La prise de Constantine by Horace Vernet
 
 
Al-Qādir's resistance renewed
In May 1837, General Thomas Robert Bugeaud, then in command of Oran, negotiated the Treaty of Tafna with al-Qādir, in which he effectively recognized al-Qādir's control over much of the interior of what is now Algeria. Al-Qādir used the treaty to consolidate his power over tribes throughout the interior, establishing new cities far from French control. He worked to motivate the population under French control to resist by peaceful and military means. Seeking to again face the French, he laid claim under the treaty to territory that included the main route between Algiers and Constantine. When French troops contested this claim in late 1839 by marching through a mountain defile known as the Iron Gates, al-Qādir claimed a breach of the treaty, and renewed calls for jihad. Throughout 1840 he waged guerrilla war against the French in the provinces of Algiers and Oran. Valée's failures to end the war led to his replacement in December 1840 by General Bugeaud.

Bugeaud instituted a strategy of scorched earth, combined with fast-moving cavalry columns not unlike those used by al-Qādir to progressively take territory from al-Qādir. The troops' tactics were heavy-handed, and the population suffered significantly. Al-Qādir was eventually forced to establish a mobile headquarters that was known as a smala or zmelah. In 1843 French forces successfully raided this camp while he was away from it, capturing more than 5,000 fighters and al-Qādir's warchest.

 
 

Capture of the Smala of Abd El-Kader, 16 May 1843 by Horace Vernet
 
 
Al-Qādir was forced to retreat into Morocco, from which he had been receiving some support, especially from tribes in the border areas. When French diplomatic efforts to convince Morocco to expel al-Qādir failed, the French resorted to military means with the First Franco-Moroccan War in 1844 to compel the sultan to change his policy.

Eventually hemmed between French and Moroccan troops on the border in December 1847, al-Qādir chose to surrender to the French, under terms that he be allowed to enter exile in the Middle East. The French violated these terms, holding him in France until 1852, when he was allowed to go to Damascus.

The Ottomans lodged a formal protest over the invasion of Algeria, but they never conceded the loss of the province. A map of "Ottoman Africa" from 1905 still shows the empire as possessing a border with Morocoo to the west of the "region" (hitta, a term for a territory with vague borders) of Algeria.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1830
 
 
French Revolution of 1830
 

The French Revolution of 1830 (26–29 July 1830), also known as the July Revolution, Second French Revolution or Trois Glorieuses in French, saw the overthrow of King Charles X, the French Bourbon monarch, and the ascent of his cousin Louis-Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who himself, after 18 precarious years on the throne, would in turn be overthrown. It marked the shift from one constitutional monarchy, the Bourbon Restoration, to another, the July Monarchy; the transition of power from the House of Bourbon to its cadet branch, the House of Orléans; and the substitution of the principle of popular sovereignty for hereditary right. Supporters of the Bourbon would be called Legitimists, and supporters of Louis Philippe Orléanists.

 

Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix: a tableau of the July Revolution
 
 
Background
On 16 September 1824, Charles X ascended to the throne of France. He was the younger brother of Louis XVIII, who, upon the defeat of Napoleon I, and by agreement of the Allied powers, had been installed as King of France. The fact that both Louis and Charles ruled by hereditary right rather than popular consent was the first of two triggers for Les Trois Glorieuses, the "Three Glorious Days" of the July Revolution.

Upon the abdication of Napoleon in 1814, continental Europe, and France in particular, was in a state of disarray. The Congress of Vienna met to redraw the continent's political map. Although there were many European countries attending the congress, there were four major powers that controlled the decision making: United Kingdom, represented by her foreign secretary Viscount Castlereagh; Austria, represented by the chief minister (and chairman of the congress) Klemens, Fürst von Metternich; Russia, represented by Emperor Alexander I; and Prussia, represented by King Frederick William III. Another very influential person at the Congress was Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, a French diplomat under Napoleon. Although France was considered an enemy state, Talleyrand was allowed to attend the Congress because he claimed that he had only cooperated with Napoleon under duress.

Talleyrand proposed that Europe be restored to its "legitimate" (i.e. pre-Napoleon) borders and governments; a plan that, with some changes, was accepted by members of the Congress. France returned to its 1789 borders and the House of Bourbon, deposed by the Revolution, was restored to the throne. The Congress however forced Louis to grant the Charte constitutionnelle française, the French Constitution otherwise known as La Charte. This document was the second trigger of the July Revolution.

 
 

Charles X by Baron Gérard, c.1829
  Charles X's reign
On September 16, 1824, after a lingering illness of several months, the 69-year-old Louis XVIII died childless. Therefore his younger brother, Charles, aged 66, inherited the throne of France. On 27 September Charles X as he was now known, made his state entry into Paris to popular acclaim. During the ceremony, while presenting the King the keys to the city, the comte de Chabrol, Prefect of the Seine, declared: "Proud to possess its new king, Paris can aspire to become the queen of cities by its magnificence, as its people aspire to be foremost in its fidelity, its devotion, and its love." But eight months later, the mood of the capital had sharply worsened in its opinion of the new king. The causes of this dramatic shift in public opinion were many, but the main two were:

- The imposition of the death penalty for anyone profaning the Eucharist.

- The provisions for financial indemnities for properties confiscated by the 1789 Revolution and the First Empire of Napoleon. These indemnities to be paid to any one, whether noble or non-noble, who had been declared "enemies of the Revolution".

Critics of the first accused the king and his new ministry of pandering to the Catholic Church, and by so doing violating guarantees of equality of religious belief as specified in La Charte.
The second matter, that of financial indemnities, was far more opportunistic than the first.
 
 
This was because since the restoration of the monarchy, there had been demands from all groups to settle matters of property ownership; to reduce, if not eliminate, the uncertainties in the real estate market both in Paris and in France.

But opponents, many of whom were frustrated Bonapartists, began a whispering campaign that Charles X was only proposing this in order to shame those who had not emigrated. Both measures, they claimed, were nothing more than clever subterfuge meant to bring about the destruction of La Charte.

Up to this time, thanks to the popularity of the Charte constitutionnelle and the Chamber of Deputies with the people of Paris, the king's relationship with the élite – both of the Bourbon supporters and Bourbon opposition – had remained solid. This, too, was about to change. On 12 April, propelled by both genuine conviction and the spirit of independence, the Chamber of Deputies roundly rejected the government's proposal to change the inheritance laws. The popular newspaper Le Constitutionnel pronounced this refusal "a victory over the forces of counter-revolutionaries and reactionism"

 
 

Consecration of Charles X as king of France in the Cathedral of Reims, by François Gérard
 
 
The popularity of both the Chamber of Peers and the Chamber of Deputies skyrocketed, and the popularity of the king and his ministry dropped.

This became unmistakable when on 16 April 1827, while reviewing the Garde Royale in the Champ de Mars, the king was greeted with icy silence, many of the spectators refusing even to remove their hats. Charles X "later told [his cousin] Orléans that, 'although most people present were not too hostile, some looked at times with terrible expressions'."

Because of what it perceived to be growing, relentless, and increasingly vitriolic criticism of both the government and the Church, the government of Charles X introduced into the Chamber of Deputies a proposal for a law tightening censorship, especially in regard to the newspapers. The Chamber, for its part, objected so violently that the humiliated government had no choice but to withdraw its proposals.

On 17 March 1830, the majority in the Chamber of Deputies made the Address of the 221 (motion of no confidence) against the king and Polignac's ministry. The following day, Charles dissolved parliament, and then alarmed the Bourbon opposition by delaying elections for two months.

  During this time, the liberals championed the '221' as popular heroes, whilst the government struggled to gain support across the country as prefects were shuffled around the departments of France. The elections that followed returned an overwhelming majority, thus defeating the government. This came after another event: on the grounds that it had behaved in an offensive manner towards the crown, on 30 April the king abruptly dissolved the National Guard of Paris, a voluntary group of citizens and an ever reliable conduit between the monarchy and the people. Cooler heads were appalled: "[I] would rather have my head cut off", wrote a noble from the Rhineland upon hearing the news, "than have counseled such an act: the only further measure needed to cause a revolution is censorship."

That came in July 1830 when, on Sunday, 25 July Charles X signed the July Ordinances, also known as "The Ordinances of Saint-Cloud". These, among other steps, suspended the liberty of the press, dissolved the newly elected Chamber of Deputies and excluded the commercial middle-class from future elections. On Monday 26 July, they were published in the leading conservative newspaper in Paris, Le Moniteur. On Tuesday 27 July, the revolution began in earnest Les trois journées de juillet, and the end of the Bourbon monarchy.

 
 

Taking of the Hôtel de Ville (revolutionaries went there in 1789, and later 1848 and 1870), by Amédée Bourgeois
 
 
The Three Glorious Days
Monday, 26 July 1830
It was a hot, dry summer, pushing those who could afford it to leave Paris for the country. Most businessmen could not, and so were among the first to learn of the Saint-Cloud "Ordinances", which banned them from running as candidates for the Chamber of Deputies, membership of which was the sine qua non of those who sought the ultimate in social prestige. In protest, members of the Bourse refused to lend money, and business owners shuttered their factories. Workers were unceremoniously turned out into the street to fend for themselves. Unemployment, which had been growing through early summer, spiked. "Large numbers of... workers therefore had nothing to do but protest."

While newspapers such as the Journal des débats, Le Moniteur, and Le Constitutionnel had already ceased publication in compliance with the new law, nearly 50 journalists from a dozen city newspapers met in the offices of Le National. There they signed a collective protest, and vowed their newspapers would continue to run.

That evening, when police raided a news press and seized contraband newspapers, they were greeted by a sweltering, unemployed mob angrily shouting, "À bas les Bourbons!" (Down with the Bourbons!) "Vive la Charte!" (Long live the Charter!) Armand Carrel, a journalist, wrote in the next day's edition of Le National:

France... falls back into revolution by the act of the government itself... the legal regime is now interrupted, that of force has begun... in the situation in which we are now placed obedience has ceased to be a duty... It is for France to judge how far its own resistance ought to extend.

Despite public anger over the police raid, the Paris Préfet de police wrote that evening, " ...the most perfect tranquility continues to reign in all parts of the capital. No event worthy of attention is recorded in the reports that have come through to me."

  Tuesday, 27 July 1830: Day One
Throughout the day, Paris grew quiet as the milling crowds grew larger. At 4:30 pm commanders of the troops of the First Military division of Paris and the Garde Royale were ordered to concentrate their troops, and guns, on the Place du Carrousel facing the Tuileries, the Place Vendôme, and the Place de la Bastille. In order to maintain order and protect gun shops from looters, military patrols throughout the city were established, strengthened and expanded.

However, no special measures were taken to protect either the arm depots or gunpowder factories. For a time, those precautions seemed premature, but at 7:00 pm, with the coming of twilight, the fighting began. "Parisians, rather than soldiers, were the aggressor. Paving stones, roof tiles, and flowerpots from the upper windows... began to rain down on the soldiers in the streets". At first, soldiers fired warning shots into the air. But before the night was over, twenty-one civilians were killed. Rioters then paraded the corpse of one of their fallen throughout the streets shouting "Mort aux Ministres!" "À bas les aristocrates!" ("Death to the ministers! Down with the aristocrats".)

One witness wrote:

[I saw] a crowd of agitated people pass by and disappear, then a troop of cavalry succeed them... In every direction and at intervals... Indistinct noises, gunshots, and then for a time all is silent again so for a time one could believe that everything in the city was normal. But all the shops are shut; the Pont Neuf is almost completely dark, the stupefaction visible on every face reminds us all too much of the crisis we face....

In 1828, the city of Paris had installed some 2,000 street lamps. These lanterns were hung on ropes looped-on-looped from one pole to another, as opposed to being secured on posts.

The rioting lasted well into the night until most of them had been destroyed by 10:00 PM, forcing the crowds to slip away.

 
 

Battle outside the Hôtel de Ville, by Jean Victor Schnetz
 
 
Wednesday, 28 July 1830: Day Two
Fighting in Paris continued throughout the night. One eyewitness wrote:

It is hardly a quarter past eight, and already shouts and gun shots can be heard. Business is at a complete standstill.... Crowds rushing through the streets... the sound of cannon and gunfire is becoming ever louder.... Cries of "À bas le roi !', 'À la guillotine!!" can be heard....

Charles X ordered Maréchal Auguste Marmont, Duke of Ragusa, the on-duty Major-General of the Garde Royale, to repress the disturbances. Marmont was personally liberal, and opposed to the ministry's policy, but was bound tightly to the King because he believed such to be his duty; and possibly because of his unpopularity for his generally perceived and widely criticized desertion of Napoleon in 1814.

The king remained at Saint-Cloud, but was kept abreast of the events in Paris by his ministers, who insisted that the troubles would end as soon as the rioters ran out of ammunition.

Marmont's plan was to have the Garde Royale and available line units of the city garrison guard the vital thoroughfares and bridges of the city, as well as protect important buildings such as the Palais Royal, Palais de Justice, and the Hôtel de Ville. This plan was both ill considered and wildly ambitious; not only were there not enough troops, but there were also nowhere near enough provisions.

The Garde Royale was mostly loyal for the moment, but the attached line units were wavering: a small but growing number of troops were deserting; some merely slipping away, others leaving, not caring who saw them.

  In Paris, a committee of the Bourbon opposition, composed of banker-and-kingmaker Jacques Laffitte, Casimir Perier, Generals Étienne Gérard and Georges Mouton, comte de Lobau, among others, had drawn up and signed a petition in which they asked for the ordonnances to be withdrawn. The petition criticized "not of the King, but his ministers", thereby refuting Charles X's conviction that his liberal opponents were enemies of his dynasty."

After signing the petition, committee members went directly to Marmont to beg for an end to the bloodshed, and to plead with him to become a mediator between Saint-Cloud and Paris. Marmont acknowledged the petition, but stated that the people of Paris would have to lay down arms first for a settlement to be reached. Discouraged but not despairing, the party then sought out the king's chief minister, de Polignac – "Jeanne d'Arc en culottes". From Polignac they received even less satisfaction. He refused to see them, perhaps because he knew that discussions would be a waste of time. Like Marmont, he knew that Charles X considered the ordonnances vital to the safety and dignity of the throne of France. Thus, the King would not withdraw the ordonnances.

At 4 pm, Charles X received Colonel Komierowski, one of Marmont's chief aides. The colonel was carrying a note from Marmont to his Majesty:

Sire, it is no longer a riot, it is a revolution. It is urgent for Your Majesty to take measures for pacification. The honour of the crown can still be saved. Tomorrow, perhaps, there will be no more time... I await with impatience Your Majesty's orders.

The king asked Polignac for advice, and the advice was to resist.

 
 

Battle at the Rue de Rohan, by Hippolyte Lecomte
 
 
Thursday, 29 July 1830: Day Three

"They (the king and ministers) do not come to Paris", wrote the poet, novelist and playwright Alfred de Vigny, "people are dying for them ... Not one prince has appeared. The poor men of the guard abandoned without orders, without bread for two days, hunted everywhere and fighting."

Perhaps for the same reason, royalists were nowhere to be found; perhaps another reason was that now the révoltés were well organized and very well armed. In only a day and a night over 4,000 barricades had been thrown up throughout the city. The tricolor flag of the revolutionaries – the "people's flag" – flew over buildings, an increasing number of them important buildings.
 
 
Marmont lacked either the initiative or the presence of mind to call for additional troops from Saint-Denis, Vincennes, Lunéville or Saint-Omer; neither did he ask for help from reservists or those Parisians still loyal to Charles X. The Bourbon opposition and supporters of the July Revolution swarmed to his headquarters demanding the arrest of Polignac and the other ministers, while supporters of the Bourbon and city leaders demanded he arrest the rioters and their puppet masters. Marmont refused to act on either request, instead awaiting orders from the king.

By 1:30 pm, the Tuileries Palace had been sacked. "A man wearing a ball dress belonging to the duchesse de Berry, with feathers and flowers in his hair, screamed from a palace window: "Je reçois! Je reçois!" Others drank wine from the palace cellars." Earlier that day, the Louvre had fallen, even more quickly.

The Swiss Guards, seeing the mob swarming towards them, and manacled by the orders of Marmont not to fire unless fired upon first, ran away. They had no wish to share the fate of a similar contingent of Swiss Guards back in 1792, who had held their ground against another such mob and were torn to pieces.

By mid-afternoon the greatest prize, the Hôtel de Ville, had been captured. It should be noted that the amount of looting during these three days was surprisingly small; not only at the Louvre – whose paintings and objets d'art were protected by the crowd – but the Tuileries, the Palais de Justice, the Archbishop's Palace, and other places as well.

 
The arrival of the duc d'Orléans (Louis Phillipe) at the Palais-Royal, by Jean-Baptiste Carbillet
 
 
A few hours later, politicians entered the battered complex and set about establishing a provisional government. Though there would be spots of fighting throughout the city for the next few days, the revolution, for all intents and purposes, was over.
 
 
Result
The revolution of July 1830 created a constitutional monarchy. On August 2, Charles X and his son the Dauphin abdicated their rights to the throne and departed for Great Britain. Although Charles had intended that his grandson, the Duke of Bordeaux, would take the throne as Henry V, the politicians who composed the provisional government instead placed on the throne a distant cousin, Louis Philippe of the House of Orléans, who agreed to rule as a constitutional monarch. This period became known as the July Monarchy. Supporters of the exiled senior line of the Bourbon dynasty became known as Legitimists.

The July Column, located on Place de la Bastille, commemorates the events of the Three Glorious Days.

 
 

Louis-Phillipe going from the Palais Royal to the Hôtel de Ville, 31 July 1830, by Horace Vernet
 
 
This renewed French Revolution sparked an August uprising in Brussels and the Southern Provinces of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, leading to separation and the establishment of the Kingdom of Belgium. The example of the July Revolution also inspired unsuccessful revolutions in Italy and Poland.

Two years later Parisian students, disillusioned by the outcome and underlying motives of the uprising, revolted in an event known as the June Rebellion. Although the insurrection was crushed within less than a week, the July Monarchy remained unpopular and was eventually overthrown in 1848.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
Charles X
 

Charles X, also called (until 1824) Charles-philippe, Comte (count) D’artois, byname (1795–1824) Monsieur (born Oct. 9, 1757, Versailles, Fr.—died Nov. 6, 1836, Gorizia, Friuli), king of France from 1824 to 1830. His reign dramatized the failure of the Bourbons, after their restoration, to reconcile the tradition of the monarchy by divine right with the democratic spirit produced in the wake of the Revolution.

 

Charles X in coronation robes
  The fifth son of the dauphin Louis and Maria Josepha of Saxony, Charles was given the title of comte d’Artois. He spent his early life in scandalous dissipation; his service with the French Army at the siege of Gibraltar in 1782 was undertaken rather for distraction than from serious concern with a military career. Eventually he abandoned his libertine lifestyle and directed his talents toward politics. In the events leading up to the Revolution he emerged as an opponent of concessions to the Third Estate. Ordered by his brother Louis XVI to leave France soon after the fall of the Bastille (July 14, 1789), Charles went first to the Austrian Netherlands and then to Turin in Piedmont, thus becoming the first member of the royal family to go into exile, in which he was not joined by his brother the Comte de Provence (later Louis XVIII) until 1791. When the Comte de Provence became titular king he made Charles lieutenant general of the kingdom. Until the Bourbon Restoration in 1814, Charles travelled to Austria, Prussia, Russia, and England. During this period he made an unsuccessful attempt to land in the Vendée to lead the royalist rising there. Returning to France in 1814, he became the leader of the Ultras, the party of extreme reaction during Louis XVIII’s reign.

Upon Louis XVIII’s death in 1824, Charles became king as Charles X. His popularity waned as his reign passed through three reactionary ministries.
During the first, former émigrés were compensated for their nationalized lands, largely at the expense of bourgeois holders of government bonds; greater power was granted to the clergy, and the death penalty was imposed for certain “sacrileges.”
 
 
The second government, though more moderate, lasted only from January 1828 to August 1829, when liberals joined with the extreme right to defeat it. Losing patience and ignoring public opinion, Charles called upon an extreme clericalist reactionary, the highly unpopular prince Jules de Polignac, to form a government. A formidable agitation sprang up which, making the King only more obstinate, culminated in the July Revolution of 1830.

In March 1830, when liberal members objected to the Polignac ministry, Charles dissolved the Chamber. The May elections returned a majority unfavourable to the King. On July 26 he issued four ordinances which, through their repressive measures, provoked revolution by the Paris radicals. Unprepared for such an outbreak, Charles fled first to Versailles and then to Rambouillet, where he learned to his surprise that the insurrection could not be resisted. On August 1 he appointed Louis-Philippe, duc d’Orléans, lieutenant general of the kingdom and on August 2 abdicated in favour of his grandson, the Duc de Bordeaux. On Louis-Philippe’s acceptance of the crown, Charles withdrew to England and then to Scotland. He eventually established himself at Prague, where he resided until shortly before his death.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
Louis-Philippe
 

Louis-Philippe, also called (1793–1830) Louis-Philippe, Duke (duc) d’Orléans, byname Citizen King, French Roi Citoyen (born Oct. 6, 1773, Paris, France—died Aug. 26, 1850, Claremont, Surrey, Eng.), king of the French from 1830 to 1848; basing his rule on the support of the upper bourgeoisie, he ultimately fell from power because he could not win the allegiance of the new industrial classes.

 

Louis Philippe, King of the French (1830–1848), succeeded Charles X to the throne
  Louis-Philippe was the eldest son of Louis-Philippe Joseph de Bourbon-Orléans, Duke de Chartres, and Adélaïde de Bourbon-Penthièvre. At first styled Duke de Valois, he became Duke de Chartres when his father inherited the title Duke d’Orléans in 1785. On the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, Louis-Philippe joined the group of progressive nobles who supported the Revolutionary government. He became a member of the Jacobin Club in 1790, and, when France went to war with Austria in April 1792, he joined the Army of the North, receiving a commission as lieutenant general in September. Within a year, however, in April 1793, he joined his commander, Charles-François Dumouriez, in deserting to the Austrians. He took refuge in Switzerland and taught under an assumed name at the college at Reichenau. He became Duke d’Orléans on the execution of his father by the Jacobin government in November 1793. After living in the United States for more than two years, Louis-Philippe decided to return to Europe. When he arrived in England in early 1800 and found that there was no hope of rallying opposition to Napoleon, he reconciled the house of Orléans with the elder branch of the Bourbon family, headed by Louis XVIII, the exiled titular king of France. After a long residence at Twickenham in England, Louis-Philippe joined the Neapolitan royal family at Palermo, Sicily, in 1809; on November 25 he married Marie-Amélie, a daughter of King Ferdinand IV of Naples. He returned to France on the First Restoration of King Louis XVIII (1814) and regained possession of that portion of the Orléans estates that had not been sold after his emigration. When Napoleon again seized power in March 1815, he fled to England. After the Second Restoration of Louis XVIII (July 1815), Louis-Philippe was a consistent adherent of the liberal opposition.
 
 
In 1830 Charles X’s attempt to enforce repressive ordinances touched off a rebellion (July 27–30) that gave Louis-Philippe his long-awaited opportunity to gain power. He was elected lieutenant general of the kingdom by the legislature on July 31, two days before Charles abdicated the throne. On August 9 Louis-Philippe accepted the crown.
 
 
The revolution that brought Louis-Philippe to power constituted a victory for the upper bourgeoisie over the aristocracy; the new ruler was titled Louis-Philippe, king of the French, instead of Philip VII, king of France. He consolidated his power by steering a middle course between the right-wing extreme monarchists (the Legitimists) on the one side and the socialists and other republicans (including the Bonapartists) on the other.

The numerous rebellions and attempts on his life caused the king increasingly to resort to repressive measures; by the end of the 1830s his opponents had been either silenced or driven underground.

Meanwhile, Louis-Philippe was strengthening France’s position in Europe. He cooperated with the British in forcing the Dutch to recognize Belgian independence.

The industrial and agricultural depression of 1846 aroused widespread popular discontent at a time when the king had already embittered the lower bourgeoisie through his refusal to extend to them the franchise. Faced with an insurrectionary movement of proletarian and middle-class elements, Louis-Philippe abdicated on Feb. 24, 1848, and withdrew to Surrey in England, where he died.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
The famous 1831 caricature of Louis Philippe turning into a pear would mirror the deterioration of his popularity. (Honoré Daumier, after Charles Philipon, who was jailed for the original.)
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1830-1839 NEXT-1830 Part II