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-1845 Part IV NEXT-1846 Part II    
 
 
     
1840 - 1849
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840-1849
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part I
Bebel August
Maximilian of Mexico
Carlota
Convention of London
British North America Act
Francia Jose Gaspar
Macdonald Jacques
William I of the Netherlands
William II of the Netherlands
Retour des cendres
Lambton John George
Vaillant Edouard-Marie
Sampson William
Smith William Sidney
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part II
Ridpath John Clark
Sankey Ira David
James Fenimore Cooper: "The Pathfinder"
Blunt Wilfrid Scawen
Broughton Rhoda
Robert Browning: "Sordello"
Daudet Alphonse
Alphonse Daudet
"Tartarin de Tarascon"
Dobson Austin
Hardy Thomas
Thomas Hardy 
"Tess of the d'Urbervilles"
Lemercier  Nepomucene
Lermontov: "A Hero of Our Times"
Modjeska Helena
Symonds John Addington
Verga Giovanni
Zola Emile
Emile Zola
"
J'accuse" (I accuse)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part III
Delacroix: "Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople"
Makart Hans
Hans Makart
Monet Claude
Claude Monet
Nasmyth Alexander
Alexander Nasmyth
Nast Thomas
Nelson's Column
Rodin Auguste
Auguste Rodin
Redon Odilon
Odilon Redon
Blechen Carl
Karl Blechen
Debain Alexandre-Francois
Donizetti: "La Fille du Regiment"
Haberl Franz Xaver
Tchaikovsky Peter Ilich
Tchaikovsky - The Seasons
Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky
Schneckenburger Max
Wilhelm Karl
"Die Wacht am Rhein"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part IV
Olbers Wilhelm
Blumenbach Johann Friedrich
Ball Robert
Kohlrausch Friedrich Wilhelm
Agassiz Louis
Basedow Carl Adolph
Graves disease
Maxim Hiram
Eyre Edward John
Brummell Beau
Father Damien
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Washington Temperance Society
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part I
Second Battle of Chuenpee
Barere Bertrand
Fisher John Arbuthnot
British Hong Kong
Luzzatti Luigi
Merriman John
Harrison William Henry
Tyler John
Espartero Baldomero
Hirobumi Ito
Clemenceau Georges
Edward VII
Creole case
Laurier Wilfrid
New Zealand
Lamb William
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part II
Cheyne Thomas Kelly
Ludwig Feuerbach: "The Essence of Christianity"
Holmes Oliver Wendell
Holst Hermann Eduard
Jebb Richard Claverhouse
Ward Lester Frank
Black William
Robert Browning: "Pippa Passes"
Buchanan Robert
Fenimore Cooper: "The Deerslayer"
Coquelin Benoit
Dickens: "The Old Curiosity Shop"
Ewing Juliana Horatia
Sill Edward Rowland
Frederick Marryat: "Masterman Ready"
Mendes Catulle
Mounet-Sully Jean
"Punch, or The London Charivari"
Sealsfield Charles
Scott Clement William
White Joseph Blanco
Ruskin: "The King of the Golden River"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part III
Chantrey Francis
Morisot Berthe
Berthe Morisot
Renoir Pierre-Auguste
Pierre-Auguste Renoir
Wagner Otto
Wallot Paul
Olivier Ferdinand
Johann Heinrich Ferdinand Olivier
Bazille Frederic
Frederic Bazille
Zandomeneghi Federico
Federico Zandomeneghi
Guillaumin Armand
Armand Guillaumin
Chabrier Emmanuel
Chabrier - Espana
Emmanuel Chabrier
Dibdin Thomas John
Dvorak Anton
Antonin Dvorak: Rusalka
Antonin Dvorak
Pedrell Felipe
Felip Pedrell: Els Pirineus
Felipe Pedrell
Rossini: "Stabat Mater"
Sax Antoine-Joseph
Schumann: Symphony No. 1
Sgambati Giovanni
Sgambati - Piano Concerto in G minor
Giovanni Sgambati
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part IV
Cooper Astley
Braid James
Hypnosis
Candolle Austin
Aniline
Kocher Emil Theodor
Kolliker Rudolf Albert
Petzval Joseph
Hudson William Henry
Warming Eugenius
Whitworth Joseph
Barnum's American Museum
Bradshaw George
Cook Thomas
Hyer Tom
"The New York Tribune"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part I
Pozzo di Borgo Charles-Andre
Las Cases Emmanuel
Webster-Ashburton Treaty
Treaty of Nanking
General Strike of 1842
O’Higgins Bernardo
Giolitti Giovanni
Fiske John
Hartmann Eduard
Hyndman Henry Mayers
James William
Kropotkin Peter Alekseyevich
Anarchism
Anarchism
Lavisse Ernest
Robertson George Croom
Sorel Albert
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part II
Banim John
Sue Eugene
Eugene Sue: "The Mysteries of Paris"
Bierce Ambrose
Brandes Georg
Bulwer-Lytton: "Zanoni"
Graham Maria
Coppee Francois
Cunningham Allan
Espronceda Jose
Gogol: "Dead Souls"
Howard Bronson
Lanier Sidney
Lover Samuel
MacKaye Steele
Maginn William
Mallarme Stephane
May Karl
Рое: "The Masque of the Red Death"
Quental Antero Tarquinio
Woodworth Samuel
Macaulay: "Lays of Ancient Rome"
Tupper Martin Farquhar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part III
Vereshchagin Vasily
Vasily Vereshchagin
Boldini Giovanni
Giovanni Boldini
Boito Arrigo
Arrigo Boito: Mefistofele Finale
Arrigo Boito
Glinka: "Russian and Ludmilla"
Hopkinson Joseph
"Hail, Columbia"
Lortzing: "Der Wildschiitz"
Massenet Jules
Massenet "Elegie"
Jules Massenet
Millocker Karl
Millocker: Gasparone
Karl Millocker
New York Philharmonic
Sullivan Arthur
Arthur Sullivan - The Mikado - Overture
Arthur Sullivan
Wagner: "Rienzi"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part IV
Dewar James
Doppler Christian Andreas
Flammarion Camille
Hansen Emile Christian
Long Crawford Williamson
Matthew Fontaine Maury
Charting the Ocean Depths
Mayer Julius Robert
Pelletier Pierre Joseph
Marshall Alfred
Strutt John William
Retzius Gustaf
Fremont John Charles
Darling Grace
Polka
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part I
McKinley William
Braga Teofilo
Wairau Affray
Dilke Charles
Avenarius Richard
Borrow George
Carlile Richard
Thomas Carlyle: "Past and Present"
Creighton Mandell
Liddell and Scott: "Greek-English Lexicon"
Liddell Henry
Scott Robert
Ward James
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part II
Bulwer-Lytton: "The Last of the Barons"
Elisabeth of Romania
Dickens: "Martin Chuzzlewit"
Doughty Charles Montagu
Dowden Edward
Emmett Daniel Decatur
Hood Thomas
Thomas Hood: "Song of the Shirt"
Horne Richard Hengist
James Henry
Rosegger Peter
Suttner Bertha
Harris George Washington
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part III
Allston Washington
Washington Allston
John Ruskin: "Modern Painters"
Trumbull John
John Trumbull
Werner Anton
Anton von Werner
Clairin Georges
Georges Clairin
Donizetti: "Don Pasquale"
Grieg Edward
Grieg - Solveig Song
Edward Grieg
Nilsson Christine
Patti Adelina
Richter Hans
Schumann: "Paradise and the Peri"
Wagner: "The Flying Dutchman"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part IV
British Archaeological Association
Chamberlin Thomas Chrowder
Ferrier David
Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever"
Holmes Oliver Wendell
Joule James Prescott
Koch Robert
Erbium
Brunel Marc Isambard
Thames Tunnel
Dix Dorothea Lynde
Guy's, Kings and St. Thomas' Rugby Football Club
Sequoyah
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part I
Lowe Hudson
Drouet Jean-Baptiste
Oscar I of Sweden
Dole Sanford Ballard
Laffitte Jacques
Franco-Moroccan War
Polk James Knox
Herrera Jose Joaquin
Treaty of Wanghia
Breshkovsky Catherine
Comstock Anthony
Emerson: "Essays"
Grundtvig Nikolaj Frederik Severin
Hall Granville Stanley
Nietzsche Friedrich
Friedrich Nietzsche
Rice Edmund Ignatius
Riehl Alois
Stanley Arthur Penrhyn
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part II
Bernhardt Sarah
Sarah Bernhardt
Dumas, pere: "Le Comte de Monte Cristo"
Bridges Robert
Cable George Washington
Carte Richard
Cary Henry Francis
Disraeli: "Coningsby"
France Anatole
Hopkins Gerard Manley
Lang Andrew
Liliencron Detlev
O'Reilly John Boyle
O’Shaughnessy Arthur
Sterling John
William Thackeray: "Barry Lyndon"
Verlaine Paul
Paul Verlaine
"Poems"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part III
Eakins Thomas
Thomas Eakins
Ezekiel Moses Jacob
Moses Ezekiel
Luke Fildes Luke
Luke Fildes
Leibl Wilhelm
Wilhelm Leibl
Munkacsy Mihaly
Mihaly Munkacsy
Repin Ilya
Ilya Repin
Rousseau Henri
Henri Rousseau
Cassatt Mary
Mary Cassatt
Flotow: "Alessandro Stradella"
Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto in E minor
Rimsky-Korsakov Nikolay
The Best of Korsakov
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Sarasate Pablo
Pablo de Sarasate - Zigeunerweisen
Pablo de Sarasate
Verdi: "Ernani"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part IV
Grassmann Hermann Gunther
Baily Francis
Boltzmann Ludwig Eduard
DeLong George Washington
Golgi Camillo
Kielmeyer Carl Friedrich
Kinglake Alexander William
Strasburger Eduard Adolf
Huc Evariste Regis
Gabet Joseph
Sturt Charles Napier
Leichhardt Friedrich
Beckford William
Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers
"Fliegende Blatter"
Hagenbeck Carl
Keller Friedrich Gottlob
Pasch Gustaf Erik
Young Men’s Christian Association
Williams George
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part I
Root Elihu
Texas
Florida
Flagstaff War
Ludwig II of Bavaria
First Anglo-Sikh War
Sonderbund
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part II
Friedrich Engels: "The Condition of the Working Class in England"
Stirner Max
Disraeli: "Sybil, or The Two Nations"
Hertz Henrik
Prosper Merimee: "Carmen"
Рое: "The Raven"
Spitteler Carl
Wergeland Henrik
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part III
Bode Wilhelm
Hill David Octavius
Ingres: The Comtesse d'Haussonville
Oberlander Adam Adolf
Crane Walter
Walter Crane
Faure Gabriel
Faure - Pavane
Gabriel Faure
Lortzing: "Undine"
Wagner: "Tannhauser"
Widor Charles-Marie
Widor - Piano Concerto No. 1
Charles Marie Widor
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part IV
Armstrong William George
Bigelow Erastus Brigham
Cayley Arthur
Cornell Ezra
Submarine communications cable
Heilmann Joshua
Humboldt: "Cosmos"
Kolbe Hermann
Laveran Alphonse
McNaught William
Metchnikoff Elie
Charting the Northwest
Layard Austen Henry
Cartwright Alexander
United States Naval Academy
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1846 Part I
Battle of Aliwal
Battle of Sobraon
Treaty of Lahore
Greater Poland Uprising
Krakow Uprising
Mexican-American War
Battle of Monterrey
First Battle of Tabasco
Iowa
Pasic Nikola
Evangelical Alliance
Eucken Rudolf Christoph
Pius IX
Whewell William
Young Brigham
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1846 Part II
Balzac: "La Cousine Bette"
De Amicis Edmondo
Dostoevsky: "Poor Folk"
Jokai Maurus
Lear Edward
Melville Herman
Herman Melville: "Typee"
Herman Melville
"Moby Dick or The Whale"
Sienkiewicz Henryk
George Watts: "Paolo and Francesca"
De Nittis Giuseppe
Giuseppe de Nittis
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1846 Part III
Berlioz: "Damnation de Faust"
Lortzing: "Der Waffenschmied"
Mendelssohn: "Elijah"
Deere John
Deere & Company
Henle Friedrich
Howe Elias
Waitz Theodor
Mohl Hugo
Green William Thomas
Sobrero Ascanio
Heaphy Charles
Brunner Thomas
Europeans in New Zealand
"The Daily News"
Horsley John Callcott
Smithsonian Institution
Zeiss Carl
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1847 Part I
Liberia
Second Battle of Tabasco
Battle of Churubusco
BATTLE OF MEXICO CITY
Hindenburg Paul
Sonderbund War
Beecher Henry Ward
Blanc Louis
Proudhon Pierre-Joseph
roudhon: "Philosophy of Poverty"P
Karl Marx: "The Poverty of Philosophy"
Salt Lake City
Charlotte Bronte: "Jane Eyre"
Bronte Emily
Marryat: "The Children of the New Forest"
Thackeray: "Vanity Fair"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1847 Part II
Hildebrand Adolf
Liebermann Max
Max Liebermann
Friedrich von Flotow: "Martha"
Verdi: "Macbeth"
Boole George
Edison Thomas Alva
Bell Alexander Graham
Semmelweis Ignaz Philipp
Colenso William
Factory Act of 1847
Fawcett Millicent
Siemens & Halske
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part I
Frederick VII
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Revolutions of 1848
French Revolution of 1848
June Days Uprising
Cavaignac Louis-Eugene
French Constitution of 1848
French Second Republic
Revolutions of 1848 in the Austrian Empire
Hungarian Revolution of 1848
Slovak Uprising 1848-1849
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Europe, 1815-48 (part I)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part II
First Italian War of Independence
Skirmish of Pastrengo
Battle of Goito
Battle of Custoza
Revolutions of 1848 in the Italian states
Revolutions of 1848 in the German states
Revolution of 1848 in Luxembourg
Greater Poland Uprising
Moldavian Revolution of 1848
Pan-Slav Congress of 1848
Pan-Slavism
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Europe, 1815-48 (part II)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part III
Second Anglo-Sikh War
Nasr-ed-Din
Ibrahim Pasha
Abbas I
Wisconsin
Balfour Arthur James
Seneca Falls Convention
Stanton Elizabeth Cady
Delbruck Hans
Macaulay: "History of England"
"The Communist Manifesto"
John Mill: "Principles of Political Economy"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part IV
Augier Emile
Chateaubriand: "Memoires d'Outre-Tombe"
Dumas fils: "La Dame aux Camelias"
Gaskell Elizabet
Elizabeth Gaskell: "Mary Barton"
Murger Louis-Henri
Henri Murger: "Scenes de la vie de Boheme"
Terry Ellen
Surikov Vasily
Vasily Surikov
Uhde Fritz
Fritz von Uhde
Gauguin Paul
Paul Gauguin
Caillebotte Gustave
Gustave Caillebotte
Millais: "Ophelia"
Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part V
Parry Hubert Hastings
Jerusalem by Hubert Parry
Hubert Parry
Duparc Henri
Duparc Henri: "L'invitation au voyage"
Henri Duparc
Bottger Rudolf Christian
Parsons William
Frege Gottlob
"New Prussian Newspaper"
"Neue Rheinische Zeitung"
Grace William Gilbert
Kneipp Sebastian
Lilienthal Otto
Starr Belle
California Gold Rush
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part I
Battle of Chillianwala
Battle of Gujrat
Roman Republic on February 9, 1849
Battle of Novara
Victor Emmanuel II
Virginia Oldoini, Countess of Castiglione
Virginia Oldoini, Countess of Castiglione
Peace of Milan
Taylor Zachary
Dresden Rebellion of 1849
Surrender at Vilagos
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part II
Kemble John Mitchell
Key Ellen
Arnold Matthew
Dickens: "David Copperfield"
Kingsley Charles
Scribe: "Adrienne Lecouvreur"
Strindberg August
Smith Horace
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part III
Waterhouse John William
John William Waterhouse
John Ruskin: "The Seven Lamps of Architecture"
Carriere Eugene
Eugene Carriere
Liszt: "Tasso"
Meyerbeer: "Le Prophete"
Otto Nicolai: "The Merry Wives of Windsor"
Schumann: "Manfred"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part IV
Fizeau Armand
Frankland Edward
Livingstone David
Explorations of David Livingstone
Baines Thomas
"Who's Who"
Bedford College
Bloomer Amelia
Bloomers (clothing)
Stead William Thomas
 
 
 

The charge of the British 16th Lancers at Aliwal on 28 January 1846, during the Anglo-Sikh war
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1846 Part I
 
 
 
1846
 
 
Battle of Aliwal
 

The Battle of Aliwal was fought on 28 January 1846 between the British and the Sikhs. The British were led by Sir Harry Smith, while the Sikhs were led by Ranjodh Singh Majithia. The British won a victory which is sometimes regarded as the turning point of the First Anglo-Sikh War.

 
 

 
 
 
Background
The First Anglo-Sikh War began six years after the death of Ranjit Singh, who had established the Sikh Empire in the Punjab. The Punjab became increasingly disordered, while the British increased their military forces on their border with the Punjab. Eventually, the increasingly turbulent Khalsa, the army of the Sikh empire, was goaded into crossing the Sutlej River and invading British territory, under leaders who were distrustful of their own troops.

On 21 December and 22 December 1845, the army of the British East India Company commanded by Sir Hugh Gough and the Governor-General of Bengal, Sir Henry Hardinge, fought the bloody Battle of Ferozeshah. The Sikh armies under Vizier Lal Singh and Commander in Chief Tej Singh eventually retreated, but the British army was shaken by its heavy losses. They did not renew hostilities for some weeks, and Hardinge sought to relieve Gough of his command, blaming his tactics for the heavy casualties.

The Sikhs too were temporarily disheartened by the retreats ordered by their commanders. However, they were reinforced by troops who had not yet seen action, and moved back across the Sutlej to occupy a bridgehead at Sobraon, while, a detachment under Ranjodh Singh Majithia (sometimes transcribed as Runjoor Singh), with 7,000 men and 20 guns, crossed higher up the Sutlej to besiege the British-held fortress of Ludhiana and menace Gough's and Hardinge's supply lines. The British commanders detached a division under Sir Harry Smith to clear this threat to their rear.

  Campaign
On 16 January 1846, Smith recovered two outposts which the Sikhs had seized at Fategarh and Dharmkot.

Although Runjodh Singh's irregular cavalry had raided over a wide area and set fire to part of the British cantonments at Ludhiana, his main body was advancing only slowly on Ludhiana.

Harry Smith first intended to attack Runjodh Singh's army at Buddowal. However, on learning of the Sikh strength, and receiving further orders from Gough, he instead force-marched his troops via Jagraon, collecting a British regiment there, to reach Ludhiana ahead of the Sikh main body.

On 21 January, as he left Buddowal, the Sikh irregular cavalry (the Gorchurras) continually attacked his rearguards.

They captured most of Smith's baggage animals (mules, bullocks and elephants), and cut down any straggling troops. Nevertheless, Smith succeeded in reaching Ludhiana, with his troops exhausted.

A brigade of troops from Delhi, including two Gurkha battalions, reinforced him.

After resting his troops, Smith once again advanced to Buddowal. The Sikhs had withdrawn to Aliwal on the Sutlej, awaiting reinforcements.

On 28 January, Smith advanced against them, cautiously at first.

 
 

The charge of the British 16th Lancers at Aliwal on 28 January 1846, during the Anglo-Sikh war
 
 
Battle
The Sikhs had occupied a position 4 miles (6.4 km) long, which ran along a ridge between the villages of Aliwal, on the Sutlej, and Bhundri. The Sutlej ran close to their rear for the entire length of their line, making it difficult for them to manoeuvre and also potentially disastrous if they were forced to retreat.

After the initial artillery salvoes, Smith determined that Aliwal was the Sikh weak point. He sent two of his four infantry brigades to capture the village, from where they could enfilade the Sikh centre. They seized the village, and began pressing forwards to threaten the fords across the Sutlej.

As the Sikhs tried to swing back their left, pivoting on Bhundri, some of their cavalry tried to threaten the open British left flank. A British and Indian cavalry brigade, led by the 16th Lancers, charged and dispersed them.

  The 16th Lancers then attacked a large body of Sikh infantry.
These were battalions organised and trained in contemporary European fashion by Neapolitan mercenary, Paolo Di Avitabile. They formed square to receive cavalry, as most European armies did. Nevertheless, the 16th Lancers broke them, with heavy casualties.

The infantry in the Sikh centre tried to defend a nullah (dry stream bed), but were enfiladed and forced into the open by a Bengal infantry regiment, and then cut down by fire from Smith's batteries of Bengal Horse Artillery.

Unlike most of the battles of both Anglo-Sikh Wars, when the Sikhs at Aliwal began to retreat, the retreat quickly turned into a disorderly rout across the fords. Most of the Sikh guns were abandoned, either on the river bank or in the fords, along with all baggage, tents and supplies. They lost 2,000 men and 67 guns.

 
 
Aftermath
Smith wrote afterwards:

“ I have gained one of the most glorious battles ever fought in India ... Never was victory more complete, and never was one fought under more happy circumstances, literally with the pomp of a field day; and right well did all behave. ”
Many commentators referred to Smith's victory as the "Battle without a mistake". Except for the 16th Lancers, who lost 144 men out of about 300, few of Smith's units had heavy casualties.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Battle of Sobraon
 

The Battle of Sobraon was fought on 10 February 1846, between the forces of the East India Company and the Sikh Khalsa Army, the army of the Sikh Empire of the Punjab. The Sikhs were completely defeated, making this the decisive battle of the First Anglo-Sikh War.

 
Background
The First Anglo-Sikh war began in late 1845, after a combination of increasing disorder in the Sikh empire following the death of Ranjit Singh in 1839 and provocations by the British East India Company led to the Khalsa invading British territory. The British had won the first two major battles of the war through a combination of luck, the steadfastness of British and Bengal units and equivocal conduct bordering on deliberate treachery by Tej Singh and Lal Singh, the senior commanders of the Khalsa.

On the British side, the Governor General, Sir Henry Hardinge, had been dismayed by the head-on tactics of the Bengal Army's commander-in-chief, Sir Hugh Gough, and was seeking to have him removed from command. However, no commander senior enough to supersede Gough could arrive from England for several months. Then the army's spirits were revived by the victory gained by Sir Harry Smith at the Battle of Aliwal, in which he eliminated a threat to the army's lines of communication, and the arrival of reinforcements including much-needed heavy artillery and two battalions of Gurkhas.

  The Sikhs had been temporarily dismayed by their defeat at the Battle of Ferozeshah, and had withdrawn most of their forces across the Sutlej River.

The Regent Jind Kaur who was ruling in the name of her son, the infant Maharaja Duleep Singh, had accused 500 of her officers of cowardice, even flinging one of her garments in their faces.

The Khalsa had been reinforced from districts west of Lahore, and now moved in strength into a bridgehead across the Sutlej at Sobraon, entrenching and fortifying their encampment.
Any wavering after their earlier defeats was dispelled by the presence of the respected veteran leader, Sham Singh Attariwala.

Unfortunately for the Khalsa, Tej Singh and Lal Singh retained the overall direction of the Sikh armies. Also, their position at Sobraon was linked to the west, Punjabi, bank of the river by a single vulnerable pontoon bridge. Three days' continuous rain before the battle had swollen the river and threatened to carry away this bridge.

 
 

Battle of Sobraon -Our fighting services
 
 
The battle
Gough had intended to attack the Sikh army as soon as Smith's division rejoined from Ludhiana, but Hardinge forced him to wait until a heavy artillery train had arrived. At last, he moved forward early on 10 February. The start of the battle was delayed by heavy fog, but as it lifted, 35 British heavy guns and howitzers opened fire. The Sikh cannon replied. The bombardment went on for two hours without much effect on the Sikh defences. Gough was told that his heavy guns were running short of ammunition and is alleged to have replied, "Thank God! Then I'll be at them with the bayonet."

Two British divisions under Harry Smith and Major General Sir Walter Gilbert made feint attacks on the Sikh left, while another division under Major General Robert Henry Dick made the main attack on the Sikh right, where the defences were of soft sand and were lower and weaker than the rest of the line. (It is believed that Lal Singh had supplied this information to Major Henry Lawrence, the Political Agent at Gough's headquarters.) Nevertheless, Dick's division was driven back by Sikh counter-attacks after initially gaining footholds within the Sikh lines. Dick himself was killed. As the British fell back, some frenzied Sikh soldiers attacked British wounded left in the ditch in front of the entrenchments, enraging the British soldiers.

  The British, Gurkhas and Bengal regiments renewed their attacks along the entire front of the entrenchment, and broke through at several points. On the vulnerable Sikh right, engineers blew a breach in the fortifications and British cavalry and horse artillery pushed through it to engage the Sikhs in the centre of their position.

Tej Singh had left the battlefield early. It is alleged in many Sikh accounts that he deliberately weakened the pontoon bridge, casting loose the boat at its centre, or that he ordered his own artillery on the west bank to fire on the bridge on the pretext of preventing British pursuit. British accounts claim that the bridge simply broke under the weight of the numbers of soldiers trying to retreat across it, having been weakened by the swollen river. Whichever account is correct, the bridge broke, trapping nearly 20,000 of the Khalsa on the east bank.

None of the trapped Sikh soldiers attempted to surrender. Many detachments, including one led by Sham Singh, fought to the death. Some Sikhs rushed forward to attack the British regiments sword in hand; others tried to ford or swim the river. British horse artillery lined the bank of the river and continued to fire into the crowds in the water. By the time the firing ceased, the Sikhs had lost about 10,000 men. The British had also captured 67 guns.

 
 

Map of the battle
 
 
Aftermath
The destruction of the bridge did not delay Gough at all, if this had indeed been Tej Singh's intention. The first British units began to cross the river on the evening of the day of battle, and on 13 February, Gough's army was only 30 miles (48 km) from Lahore, the capital. Although detachments of the Khalsa remained intact in outlying frontier districts of the Punjab, they could not be concentrated quickly enough to defend Lahore.

The central durbar of the Punjab nominated Gulab Singh, the effective ruler of Jammu, to negotiate terms for surrender. By the Treaty of Lahore, the Sikhs ceded the valuable agricultural lands of the Jullundur Doab (between the Sutlej and Chenab Rivers) to the East India Company, and allowed a British Resident at Lahore with subordinates in other principal cities. These Residents and Agents would indirectly govern the Punjab, through Sikh Sardars. In addition, the Sikhs were to pay an indemnity of 1.2 million pounds. Since they could not readily find this sum, Gulab Singh was allowed to acquire Kashmir from the Punjab by paying 750,000 pounds to the East India Company.

Another clause of the treaty granted the Koh-i-noor diamond to Britain.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Treaty of Lahore
 

The Treaty of Lahore of 9 March 1846, was a peace treaty marking the end of the First Anglo-Sikh War. The Treaty was concluded, for the British, by the Governor-General Sir Henry Hardinge and two officers of the East India Company and, for the Sikhs, by the seven-year-old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and seven members of the Lahore Durbar acting on his behalf.

 
The terms of the Treaty were punitive. Sikh territory was reduced to a fraction of its former size, losing Jammu, Kashmir, Hazara, the territory to the south of the river Sutlej and the forts and territory in the Jalandhar Doab between the rivers Sutlej and Beas. In addition, controls were placed on the size of the Lahore army and thirty-six field guns were confiscated. The control of the rivers Sutlej and Beas and part of the Indus passed to the British, with the proviso that this was not to interfere with the passage of passenger boats owned by the Lahore Government. Also, provision was made for the separate sale of all the hilly regions between River Beas and Indus, including Kashmir, by the East India Company at a later date to Gulab Singh, the Raja of Jammu.
 
 
The Anglo-Sikh treaties of 1846
Background

Maharaja Ranjit Singh Sukerchakia had made Lahore the capital of the Sikh Empire of the Punjab, which he built up between 1799 and his death in 1839. After his death, factions and assassinations destroyed the unity of the State, causing alarm to the British because it weakened the buffer against the perceived threat of invasion from the north. Provocative acts by both the British and the Sikhs escalated tension and, on 13 December 1845, Hardinge issued a proclamation declaring war on the Sikhs.

The course of the First Anglo-Sikh War is described in detail in the article on that subject. The British came very near to defeat at the Battle of Ferozeshah, but were eventually victorious and, after the defeat of the Sikhs at the Battle of Sobraon, the British marched unopposed into Lahore on 20 February 1846.

The Peace Treaty
The peace treaty was negotiated and drafted by Frederick Currie, assisted on military aspects by Brevet-Major Henry Lawrence, acting under powers vested in them by Hardinge. The text is given later in this article. Currie's diplomatic skills so impressed Hardinge that the home authorities rewarded him with a baronetcy in January 1847.

On 11 March 1846, two days after the signing of the Treaty, a supplement, comprising eight Articles of Agreement, was signed by the same parties. It provided that a British force would remain in Lahore until no longer than the end of the year "for the purpose of protecting the person of the Maharajah and the inhabitants of the City of Lahore, during the reorganization of the Sikh Army". This supplementary agreement was at the request of the Lahore Durbar. The Lahore army would vacate the City, convenient quarters would be provided for the British troops and the Lahore Government would pay the extra expenses.

The Agreement also provided that the British would respect the bona fide rights of jagirdars in the Lahore territories and would assist the Lahore Government in recovering the arrears of revenue justly due to the Lahore Government from the kardars and managers in the territories ceded by the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty.

  The Treaty of Amritsar
The British demanded payment of 15 million rupees (one and a half crore) as reparations for the cost of the war.

As the Lahore Government was unable to pay the whole of this sum immediately, it ceded some of the territories mentioned above, including Hazara and Kashmir, as equivalent to 10 million rupees (one crore). The Maharaja was also required to pay 6 million rupees (60 lakhs) immediately.

The British then sold Kashmir to the Raja of Jammu, Gulab Singh, for 7.5 million rupees (75 lakhs).

The treaty of sale was concluded on 16 March 1846, in the Treaty of Amritsar and signed by Gulab Singh, Hardinge, Currie and Lawrence. Gulab Singh thus became the founder and first Maharaja of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Treaty of Bhyroval
The supplementary Articles of Agreement had specified that the British troops would remain in Lahore until no later than the end of 1846.

When the time approached for the British to leave, the Durbar requested that the troops should remain until the Maharaja attained the age of 16.
The British consented to this and new articles of agreement were drawn up, forming the Treaty of Bhyroval.

This was signed on 26 December 1846, by Currie, Lawrence and 13 members of the Durbar and later ratified by Hardinge and the young Maharaja.

A key condition of the British agreement was that a Resident British officer, with an efficient establishment of assistants, was to be appointed by the Governor-General to remain at Lahore, with "full authority to direct and control all matters in every Department of the State".

The Regent, Maharani Jindan Kaur, mother of the Maharaja, was awarded an annual pension of 150,000 rupees and replaced by a Council of Regency composed of leading Chiefs and Sirdars acting under the control and guidance of the British Resident. This effectively gave the British control of the Government.

 
 
The Text of the 1846 Treaty of Lahore
Treaty between the British Government and the State of Lahore - 1846:

"Whereas the treaty of amity and concord, which was concluded between the British government and the late Maharajah Runjeet Sing, the ruler of Lahore, in 1809, was broken by the unprovoked aggression, on the British Provinces, of the Sikh army, in December last; and whereas, on that occasion, by the proclamation, dated 13th December, the territories then in the occupation of the Maharajah of Lahore, on the left or British bank of the river Sutlej, were confiscated and annexed to the British Provinces; and since that time hostile operations have been prosecuted by the two Governments; the one against the other, which have resulted in the occupation of Lahore by the British troops; and whereas it has been determined that, upon certain conditions, peace shall be re-established between the two Governments, the following treaty of peace between the Honourable East India Company and Maharajah Dhuleep Sing Bahadoor, and his children, heirs and successors, has been concluded on the part of the Honourable Company by Frederick Currie, Esquire, and Brevet-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence, by virtue of full powers to that effect vested in them by the Right Hon'ble Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., one of her Britannic Majesty's Most Hon'ble Privy Council, Governor-General, appointed by the Honourable Company to direct and control all their affairs in the East Indies, and on the part of His Highness Maharajah Dhuleep Sing by Bhaee Ram Sing, Rajah Lal Sing, Sirdar Tej Sing, Sirdar Chuttur Sing Attareewalla, Sirdar Runjore Sing Majeethia, Dewan Deena Nath and Fakeer Nooroodden, vested with full powers and authority on the part of His Highness.

 
 
Article 1. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the British Government on the one part and Maharajah Dhuleep Sing, his heirs and successors on the other.

Article 2. The Maharajah of Lahore renounces for himself, his heirs and successors, all claim to, or connection with, the territories lying to the south of the River Sutlej, and engages never to have any concern with those territories or the inhabitants thereof.

Article 3. The Maharajah cedes to the Hon'ble Company, in perpetual sovereignty, all his forts, territories and rights in the Doab or country, hill and plain, situated between the Rivers Beas and Sutlej.

Article 4. The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State, as indemnification for the expenses of the war, in addition to the cession of territory described in Article 3, payment of one and half crore of Rupees, and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of this sum at this time, or to give security satisfactory to the British Government for its eventual payment, the Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one crore of Rupees, all his forts, territories, rights and interests in the hill countries, which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus, including the Provinces of Cashmere and Hazarah.

Article 5. The Maharajah will pay to the British Government the sum of 60 lakhs of Rupees on or before the ratification of this Treaty.

Article 6. The Maharajah engages to disband the mutinous troops of the Lahore Army, taking from them their arms and His Highness agrees to reorganize the Regular or Aeen Regiments of Infantry upon the system, and according to the Regulations as to pay and allowances, observed in the time of the late Maharajah Runjeet Sing. The Maharajah further engages to pay up all arrears to the soldiers that are discharged, under the provisions of this Article.

Article 7. The Regular Army of the Lahore State shall henceforth be limited to 25 Battalions of Infantry, consisting of 800 bayonets each with twelve thousand Cavalry - this number at no time to be exceeded without the concurrence of the British Government.

Should it be necessary at any time - for any special cause - that this force should be increased, the cause shall be fully explained to the British Government, and when the special necessity shall have passed, the regular troops shall be again reduced to the standard specified in the former Clause of this Article.

Article 8. The Maharajah will surrender to the British Government all the guns - thirty-six in number - which have been pointed against the British troops and which, having been placed on the right Bank of the River Sutlej, were not captured at the battle of Subraon.

Article 9. The control of the Rivers Beas and Sutlej, with the continuations of the latter river, commonly called the Gharrah and the Punjnud, to the confluence of the Indus at Mithunkote and the control of the Indus from Mithunkote to the borders of Beloochistan, shall, in respect to tolls and ferries, rest with the British Government.

The provisions of this Article shall not interfere with the passage of boats belonging to the Lahore Government on the said rivers, for the purpose of traffic or the conveyance of passengers up and down their course.

  Regarding the ferries between the two countries respectively, at the several ghats of the said rivers, it is agreed that the British Government, after defraying all the expenses of management and establishments, shall account to the Lahore Government for one-half the net profits of the ferry collections.

Article 10. If the British Government should, at any time, desire to pass troops through the territories of His Highness the Maharajah, for the protection of the British territories, or those of their Allies, the British troops shall, on such special occasion, due notice being given, be allowed to pass through the Lahore territories. In such case the officers of the Lahore State will afford facilities in providing supplies and boats for the passage of rivers, and the British Government will pay the full price of all such provisions and boats, and will make fair compensation for all private property that may be damaged. The British Government will, moreover, observe all due consideration to the religious feelings of the inhabitants of those tracts through which the army may pass.

Article 11. The Maharajah engages never to take or to retain in his service any British subject - nor the subject of any European or American State - without the consent of the British Government.

Article 12. In consideration of the services rendered by Rajah Golab Sing of Jummoo, to the Lahore State, towards procuring the restoration of the relations of amity between the Lahore and British Governments, the Maharajah hereby agrees to recognize the Independent sovereignty of Rajah Golab Sing in such territories and districts in the hills as may be made over to the said Rajah Golab Sing, by separate Agreement between himself and the British Government, with the dependencies thereof, which may have been in the Rajah's possession since the time of the late Maharajah Khurruck Sing, and the British Government, in consideration of the good conduct of Rajah Golab Sing, also agrees to recognize his independence in such territories, and to admit him to the privileges of a separate Treaty with the British Government.

Article 13. In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the Lahore State and Rajah Golab Sing, the same shall be referred to the arbitration of the British Government, and by its decision the Maharajah engages to abide.

Article 14. The limits of the Lahore territories shall not be, at any time, changed without the concurrence of the British Government.

Article 15. The British Government will not exercise any interference in the internal administration of the Lahore State, but in all cases or questions which may be referred to the British Government, the Governor-General will give the aid of his advice and good offices for the furtherance of the interests of the Lahore Government.

Article 16. The subjects of either State shall, on visiting the territories of the other, be on the footing of the subjects of the most favoured nation.

This Treaty consisting of sixteen articles, has been this day settled by Frederick Currie, Esquire, and Brevet-Major Henry Montgomery Lawrence acting under the directions of the Right Hon'ble Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor-General, on the part of the British Government, and by Bhaee Ram Sing, Rajah Lal Sing, Sirdar Tej Sing, Sirdar Chuttur Sing Attareewalla, Sirdar Runjore Sing Majeethia, Dewan Deena Nath, and Faqueer Noorooddeen, on the part of the Maharajah Dhuleep Sing, and the said Treaty has been this day ratified by the seal of the Right Hon'ble Sir Henry Hardinge, G.C.B., Governor-General, and by that of His Highness Maharajah Dhuleep Sing.

 
 
Done at Lahore, this ninth day of March, in year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six; corresponding with the, tenth day of Rubbee-ool-awul, 1262 Hijree, and ratified on the same date.

(Sd.) H. Hardinge (L.S.)
(Sd.) Maharajah Dhuleep Sing (L.S.)
Bhaee Ram Sing (L.S.)
Rajah Lal Sing (L.S.)
Sirdar Tej Sing (L.S.)
Sirdar Chuttur Sing Attareewalla (L.S.)
Sirdar Runjore Sing Majeethia (L.S.)
Dewan Deena Nath (L.S.)
Faqueer Noorooddeen (L.S.)"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Greater Poland Uprising
 

The 1846 Wielkopolska Uprising (Polish: powstanie wielkopolskie 1846 roku) was a planned military insurrection by Poles in the land of Greater Poland against the Prussian forces, designed to be part of a general Polish uprising in all three partitions of Poland, against the Russians, Austrians and Prussians.

 
Plans
Plans to start an uprising across all parts of the partitioned Poland simultaneously on 21 February 1846 were made by several Polish organisations.
In the Prussian Grand Duchy of Posen, Ludwik Mierosławski, who had recently arrived in Poznań out of French exile, was supposed to lead the military operations. While the Kraków Uprising in the Austrian partition was started but failed, the insurgents in Poznań were betrayed by a conspirator and the leaders of the organization were arrested by Prussian authorities two weeks before actions were supposed to start. No serious hostilities occurred that year.
  Aftermath
254 insurgents were charged with high treason at the Berlin Kammergericht. The trial was the first one after a new criminal trial law was invented in Prussia. The hearing was now publicly accessible and caused a large interest among the populace of Berlin and Prussia in sympathy with the defendants. The trial ended on 2 December 1847, when 134 of the defendants were acquitted and returned to the Grand Duchy of Posen. 8 defendants, including Mierosławski, who had written his book "Débat en la révolution et la contrerévolution en Pologne" throughout his custody, were sentenced to death, the rest to prison in the Berlin-Moabit prison.
 
 
The death sentences were not enforced and all convicts were amnestied by King Frederick William IV of Prussia on the demand of the revolutionary populace of Berlin in the Spring of Nations in March 1848.

They immediately joined the Greater Poland Uprising of 1848.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Krakow Uprising
 

The Krakow Uprising of February 1846 was an attempt, led by Polish insurgents such as Jan Tyssowski and Edward Dembowski, to incite a fight for national independence. The uprising was centered on the city of Kraków, the capital of a small state of Free City of Kraków. It was directed at the powers that partitioned Poland, in particular, the nearby Austrian Empire. The uprising lasted about nine days, and ended with Austrian victory.

 
History
The uprising was primarily organized and supported by members of the Polish nobility and middle class, who desired the restoration of Polish independence after the 1795 partitions of Poland ended its existence as a sovereign state; there was also support for the political and social reforms (such as the demands for the emancipation of peasants and an end to serfdom). Many of the insurgents' ideas were developed in exile (see Great Emigration) by activists from organizations such as the Polish Democratic Society.

The uprising was supposed to take place in other locations, but poor coordination and arrests by authorities broke many other cells, most notably in Greater Poland. The uprising was also supported by some local peasants from the Free City and the miners of the Wieliczka salt mine. The Free City of Kraków, nominally independent, was a central place for pro-Polish independence activists to discuss their plans.

The Uprising begun on the night of 20 February. The uprising was successful in a short term, briefly taking over the city of Kraków. Faced with riots, demonstrations and barricades, a small Austrian force in the city under General Ludwig Collin quickly retreated. A provisional government formed on 22 February. That day it issued a radical "Manifesto for the Polish Nation", in which it ordered the end of many elements of serfdom, such as corvée, declared universal suffrage, and other revolutionary ideas inspired by the French Revolution.

Most of the uprising was limited to the Free City of Kraków, where its leaders included Jagiellonian University philosophy professor Michał Wiszniewski, and lecturer and lawyer Jan Tyssowski, who declared himself a dictator on 24 February (Tyssowski was assisted by radical democrat, acting as his secretary, Edward Dembowski, who according to some might have been the real leader of the revolutionary government). On 27 September a struggle for power developed, and Wiszniewski who attempted to take the power was exiled by Tyssowski and Dembowski within matter of hours.

  Austrian forces in the area were led by Ludwig von Benedek. The revolutionaries, despite support from the Free City and its immediate surroundings, fared badly in the wider countryside. They had up to 6,000 volunteers, but these were badly trained and poorly armed. The rebels suffered a defeat on 26 February at the Battle of Gdów and were quickly dispersed by von Benedek's forces. The Polish commander, Colonel Adam Suchorzewski, was criticized for poor leadership, and for not taking sufficient precautions despite scout reports of an approaching enemy force. The battle was very short, as the Polish forces collapsed almost immediately, with most of the infantry being either captured or killed by the peasants accompanying the Austrian forces.

The uprising was soon suppressed by the Austrian army with help from local peasants. The peasant counter-revolt, known as the Galician slaughter, was likely encouraged by the Austrian authorities, who exploited the peasants' dissatisfaction with the landowners. It was ironic, as historian Eric Hobsbawm has noted, that the peasants turned their anger on the revolutionaries, whose ideals included the improvement of peasant situation. Instead, most peasants trusted the Austrian officials, some of whom even promised the peasants to end serfdom and pay a stipend for their participation in the militia aimed at quashing the Polish noble insurgents. It is estimated that about 1,000 to 2,000 Polish nobility who supported the uprising died in the conflict.

According to Lerski, Dembowski was apprehended and executed by the Austrians. Others, such as Nance, Davies and Zamoyski however provide another account of his death; according to these sources he died on 27 February fighting the Austrian army, after a religious procession with which he attempted to quell the peasants was attacked. The government of Tyssowski surrendered, just nine days after taking power, and Kraków was occupied first by Russians (on 3 March), and soon afterward (perhaps on the same day), by the Austrians under Collin. (Davies however writes that Russians joined Austrians on 4 March). Tyssowski, who crossed the Prussian border with about 1,500 soldiers on 4 March, was interned, and later emigrated to the United States.

 
 

Attack of Krakusi on Russians in Proszowice during the 1846 uprising. Juliusz Kossak painting.
 
 
Aftermath
Austria and Russia signed a treaty on 16 November, deciding to end the status of Kraków as the Free City. Subsequently Kraków and its surrounding area were annexed to the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, a province of the Austrian Empire, with its capital at Lemberg (Lwów, Lviv). This violation of the 1815 Treaty of Vienna caused a short lived scandal in European politics of the day. Kraków would be relegated to the role of a provincial capital in the Empire.
 
 

"Rzeź galicyjska" (Galician slaughter) by Jan Lewicki
 
 
Significance
As noted by Anderson, despite its failure, the uprising was seen by some scholars, including Karl Marx, as a "deeply democratic movement that aimed at land reform and other pressing social questions." The uprising was praised by Marx and Friedrich Engels for being "the first in Europe to plant the banner of social revolution", and seen by them, as well as some modern scholars, precursor to the coming Spring of Nations. This view is common in the Polish historiography.

The Uprising, and related events in partitioned Poland (namely, Greater Poland Uprising 1846 and the Galician slaughter), were widely discussed in the contemporary European press.

As soon as the Kraków Uprising was put down, the Austrians pacified the insurgent peasantry, briefly restoring the feudal order. Those peasants who stood down and followed the authorities, like the peasant leader Jakub Szela, were rewarded. Nonetheless, in Austria, reforms were spurred by the Kraków Uprising of 1846 and the Spring of Nations in 1848, resulting in the abolishment of serfdom in 1848.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Mexican-American War
 

Mexican-American War, also called Mexican War, Spanish Guerra de 1847 or Guerra de Estados Unidos a Mexico (“War of the United States Against Mexico”), war between the United States and Mexico (April 1846–February 1848) stemming from the United States’ annexation of Texas in 1845 and from a dispute over whether Texas ended at the Nueces River (Mexican claim) or the Rio Grande (U.S. claim). The war—in which U.S. forces were consistently victorious—resulted in the United States’ acquisition of more than 500,000 square miles (1,300,000 square km) of Mexican territory extending westward from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean.

 
“American blood on American soil”: Polk and the prelude to war
Mexico severed relations with the United States in March 1845, shortly after the U.S. annexation of Texas. In September U.S. Pres. James K. Polk sent John Slidell on a secret mission to Mexico City to negotiate the disputed Texas border, settle U.S. claims against Mexico, and purchase New Mexico and California for up to $30 million. Mexican Pres. José Joaquín Herrera, aware in advance of Slidell’s intention of dismembering the country, refused to receive him. When Polk learned of the snub, he ordered troops under Gen. Zachary Taylor to occupy the disputed area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande (January 1846).

On May 9, 1846, Polk began to prepare a war message to Congress, justifying hostilities on the grounds of Mexican refusal to pay U.S. claims and refusal to negotiate with Slidell. That evening he received word that Mexican troops had crossed the Rio Grande on April 25 and attacked Taylor’s troops, killing or injuring 16 of them. In his quickly revised war message—delivered to Congress on May 11—Polk claimed that Mexico had “invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil.”

 
 

Overview map of the war.
 
 
Spot Resolutions and Civil Disobedience: American opposition to the war
Congress overwhelmingly approved a declaration of war on May 13, but the United States entered the war divided. Democrats, especially those in the Southwest, strongly favoured the conflict. Most Whigs viewed Polk’s motives as conscienceless land grabbing. Indeed, from the outset, Whigs in both the Senate and the House challenged the veracity of Polk’s assertion that the initial conflict between U.S. and Mexican forces had taken place in U.S. territory.

Further, legislators were at odds over whether Polk had the right to unilaterally declare that a state of war existed. Principally at issue was where the encounter had actually taken place and the willingness of Americans to acknowledge the Mexican contention that the Nueces River formed the border between the two countries. Active Whig opposition not only to the legitimacy of Polk’s claim but also to the war itself continued well into the conflict. In December 1846 Polk accused his Whig doubters of treason. In January 1847 the by-then Whig-controlled House voted 85 to 81 to censure Polk for having “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” initiated war with Mexico.

Among the most-aggressive challenges to the legitimacy of Polk’s casus belli was that offered by future president Abraham Lincoln, then a first-term member of the House of Representatives from Illinois. In December 1847 Lincoln introduced eight “Spot Resolutions,” which placed the analysis of Polk’s claim in a carefully delineated historical context that sought to

obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was, or was not, our own soil at that time.

Ultimately, the House did not act on Lincoln’s resolutions, and Polk remained steadfast in his claim that the conflict was a just war.

Abolitionists saw the war as an attempt by the slave states to extend slavery and enhance their power with the creation of additional slave states out of the soon-to-be-acquired Mexican lands. One abolitionist who agreed with that interpretation was author Henry David Thoreau, who was incarcerated in July 1846 when he refused to pay six years’ worth of back poll taxes because he felt the U.S. government’s prosecution of the war with Mexico was immoral. Although he spent only a single night in jail (his aunt, against his wishes, paid the taxes, thus securing his release), Thoreau documented his opposition to the government’s actions in his famous book-length essay Civil Disobedience (1849), insisting that if an injustice of government is

of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.

  Invasion and war
When war broke out, former Mexican president and general Antonio López de Santa Anna (the vanquisher of the Texan forces at the Alamo in 1836) contacted Polk. The U.S. president arranged for a ship to take Santa Anna from his exile in Cuba to Mexico for the purpose of working for peace. Instead of acting for peace, however, on his return, Santa Anna took charge of the Mexican forces.

Following its original plan for the war, the United States sent its army from the Rio Grande, under Taylor, to invade the heart of Mexico while a second force, under Col. Stephen Kearny, was to occupy New Mexico and California. Kearny’s campaign into New Mexico and California encountered little resistance, and the residents of both provinces appeared to accept U.S. occupation with a minimum of resentment. Meanwhile, Taylor’s army fought several battles south of the Rio Grande, captured the important city of Monterrey, and defeated a major Mexican force at the Battle of Buena Vista in February 1847. But Taylor showed no enthusiasm for a major invasion of Mexico, and on several occasions he failed to pursue the Mexicans vigorously after defeating them. In disgust, Polk revised his war strategy. He ordered Gen. Winfield Scott to take an army by sea to Veracruz, capture that key seaport, and march inland to Mexico City. Scott took Veracruz in March after a siege of three weeks and began the march to Mexico City. Despite some Mexican resistance, Scott’s campaign was marked by an unbroken series of victories, and he entered Mexico City on September 14, 1847. The fall of the Mexican capital ended the military phase of the conflict.

Ultimately, infection and disease took many more U.S. casualties than combat did. At least 10,000 troops died of illness, whereas some 1,500 were killed in action or died of battle wounds (estimates of the war’s casualties vary). Poor sanitation contributed to the spread of illness, with volunteers—who were less disciplined in their sanitary practices than regular troops were—dying in greater numbers than the regulars. Yellow fever was particularly virulent, but other diseases—such as measles, mumps, and smallpox—took their toll too, especially on troops from rural environments whose immunities were less developed than those of their urban compatriots.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the war’s legacy
Polk had assigned Nicholas Trist, chief clerk in the State Department, to accompany Scott’s forces and to negotiate a peace treaty. But after a long delay in the formation of a new Mexican government capable of negotiations, Polk grew impatient and recalled Trist. Trist, however, disobeyed his instructions and on February 2, 1848, signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. According to the treaty, which was subsequently ratified by both national congresses, Mexico ceded to the United States nearly all the territory now included in the states of New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, California, Texas, and western Colorado for $15 million and U.S. assumption of its citizens’ claims against Mexico.
 
 

Captain Charles A. May's squadron of the 2d Dragoons slashes through the Mexican Army lines. Resaca de la Palma, Texas, May 9, 1846
 
 
Zachary Taylor emerged as a national hero and succeeded Polk as president in 1849. The war reopened the slavery-extension issue, which had been largely dormant since the Missouri Compromise. On August 8, 1846, Rep. David Wilmot of Pennsylvania attempted to add an amendment to a treaty appropriations bill. The Wilmot Proviso—banning slavery from any territory acquired from Mexico—was never passed, but it led to acrimonious debate and contributed greatly to the rising sectional antagonism. The status of slavery in the newly acquired lands was eventually settled by the Compromise of 1850, but only after the nation had come perilously close to civil war. When the Civil War came in 1861, many of the most-noteworthy generals on both sides had profited from the their battle experience in the Mexican-American War, including Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee, Thomas (“Stonewall”) Jackson, James Longstreet, George Pickett, Albert Sidney Johnston, and P.G.T. Beauregard, as well as Union Generals Ulysses S. Grant (who later called the Mexican War “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation”), George Gordon Meade, George H. Thomas, Joseph Hooker, and Lewis Armistead.

In Mexico the war discredited the conservatives but left a stunned and despondent country. It also reinforced the worst stereotypes each country held about the other. Normalization of relations after the war proceeded slowly.

Encyclopćdia Britannica

 
 
 
Battle of Monterrey
 

In the Battle of Monterrey (September 21–24, 1846) during the Mexican–American War, General Pedro de Ampudia and the Mexican Army of the North was defeated by the Army of Occupation, a force of United States Regulars, Volunteers and Texas Rangers under the command of General Zachary Taylor.

 

US troops marching on Monterrey during the Mexican–American War, lithograph by Carl Nebel.
 
 
Background
Following the Battle of Resaca de la Palma, Taylor crossed the Rio Grande on 18 May, while in early June, Mariano Arista turned over command of what remained of his army, 2,638 men, to Francisco Mejia, who led them to Monterrey. On 8 June, United States Secretary of War William L. Marcy ordered Taylor to continue command of operations in northern Mexico, suggested taking Monterrey, and defined his objective to "dispose the enemy to desire an end to the war." On 8 August, Taylor established the headquarters for his Army of Occupation in Camargo, Tamaulipas and then in Cerralvo on 9 Sept. with 6.640 men. Taylor resumed the march to Monterrey on 11 Sept., reaching Marin on 15 Sept. and departing on 18 Sept.

In early July, General Tomas Requena garrisoned Monterrey with 1,800 men, with the remnants of Arista's army and additional forces from Mexico City arriving by the end of August such that the Mexican forces totaled 7,303 men.

  General Pedro de Ampudia received orders from Antonio López de Santa Anna to retreat further to the city of Saltillo, where Ampudia was to establish a defensive line, but Ampudia disagreed, sensing glory if he could stop Taylor's advance.

Ampudia's forces included reinforcements from Mexico City totaling 3,140 men: 1,080 men of the Garcia-Conde Brigade (Gen. Jose Garcia Conde) (Aguascalientes and Querétaro Battalions, two squadrons 3d Line Cavalry, three guns (3-8 lb)), a thousand men of the Azpeitia Brigade ( Col. Florencio Azpeitia) (3d Line, two squadrons Jalisco lancers, two squadrons Guanajuato Cavalry Regiment, six guns (8 & 12 lbs.) and an Ambulance), 1,060 men of the Simeon Ramirez Brigade (Acting Gen Ramirez) (3d and 4th Light, three guns (1-8 lbs, 2-12 lbs) & 3 howitzers 7" (Capt P.Gutierrez & Comdte A. Nieto)) and an artillery unit, the largely Irish-American volunteers for Mexico called San Patricios (or the Saint Patrick's Battalion), in their first major engagement against U.S. forces.
 
 

Gen. Worth's division marches on Monterrey from the west.
 
 
Battle
Taylor's army, with the Texas Division leading under the command of Major General and Texas Governor James Pinckney Henderson, reached the plain in front of Monterrey at 9 AM on the morning of 19 Sept., when they were fired upon by Col. Jose Lopez Uraga's 4th Infantry guns atop the citadel. Taylor ordered the army to camp at Bosque de San Domingo while engineers under the command of Major Joseph K. Mansfield reconnoitered.
Besides the citadel, Mexican strong points within the city included: the "Black Fort" commanded by Col. Tyrore Uraga, "the Tannery," La Teneria, with the 2d Ligero under Col. Jose M. Carrasco and the Queretro Battalion under Col. Jose Maria Carrasco, El Fortin del Rincon del Diablo under Lt. Col. Calisto Bravo and Col. Ignacio Joaquin del Arenal, La Purisima bridge and tete-de-pont with the Activos of Aguascalientes under Col. Jose Ferro and the Querétaro under Lt. Col. Jose Maria Herrera. West of the city atop Independencia stood Ft. Libertad and the Obispado (bishop's place) with the Activo of Mexico commanded by Lt. Col. Franciso de Berra, and atop Federacion was a redan and Fort Soldado. In reserve at la Plaza was the 3d Ligero under Lt. Col. Juan Castro and Lt. Agustin Espinosa.

General Zachary Taylor decided to attack western Monterrey using William J. Worth's Division in a giant north and west "hook" movement while simultaneously attacking with his main body from the east. Worth started at 2 PM on 20 Sept. along with Col. John Coffee Hays's Texas Regiment screening the advance, but they camped for the night three miles from the Saltillo road.

By 6 AM on 21 September, Worth continued his advance repulsing a Jalisco cavalry charge by Col. Juan Najera, and an advance guard consisting of General Manuel Romero's brigade and Lt. Col. Mariano Moret's Guanajuato Regiment.

 
Map of the town's defences that appeared in Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. Forts de La Teneria and Diablo are to the east of the city. Fort Soldado is in the lower left.
 
 
By 8:15 AM, Worth had severed the Saltillo road from Monterrey and sent Capt. Charles F. Smith with 300 infantry and Texans, plus Capt. Dixon Miles's 7th Infantry and Persifor Smith's 2d Brigade to take Federacion and Fort Soldado, which they quickly did.

In the mean time Taylor launched a diversion against eastern Monterrey with Col. John Garland's 1st and 3d Infantry plus Lt. Col. William H. Watson's Maryland and District of Columbia Battalion, which quickly grew into an assault. By 8 AM, Capt. Electus Backus's company of the 1st Infantry had taken the tannery and by noon, with Col. William B. Campbell's 1st Tennessee and Mississippi Rifles, had taken Fort de La Teneria.

No attacks or sorties occurred on 22 Sept.

 
 

Monterrey disposition of forces
 
 
At 3 AM on 23 Sept., Worth sent the Texas Rangers and the 4th and 8th Infantry under Lt. Col. Thomas Childs to take Fort Libertad on Independencia, which they did by day break. With the help of James Duncan's battery, they soon took the Obispado and had control of western Monterrey. By then, the Mexicans had abandoned their outer defenses on the east side of Monterrey, concentrating in the Plaza Mayor, and John A. Quitman's brigade held the eastern Monterrey by 11 AM.

By 2 PM on 23 September 23, General Worth advanced into the city from the west, burrowing house to house, supported in the late afternoon by a mortar set up in Plaza de la Capella, and were within a block west of the plaza by 11 PM.The Texan volunteers taught the U.S. regulars new techniques for fighting in the city, techniques that they did not employ on the 21st, which led to staggering casualties. Armed with these new urban warfare skills, the U.S. Army along with Texan, Mississippian, and Tennessee volunteers moved house to house, rooting out Mexican soldiers hiding on rooftops and inside the thick, adobe-walled houses of northern Mexico. By 2 PM Taylor and Quitman were within two blocks east of the plaza when Taylor ordered a withdrawal before nightfall.

General Ampudia decided to negotiate on the 24th. Taylor negotiated a two-month armistice, along the line Rinconada Pass-Linares_San Fernando de Parras, in return for the surrender of the city. The Mexican Army was allowed to march from the city on the 26th, 27th and 28th of the month, with their personal arms and one field battery of six guns.

 
 

Storming of Palace Hill at the Battle of Monterey by Tompkins Harrison Matteson, c. 1855
 
 
Aftermath
Ampudia had moved beyond the armistice line by 30 Sept. and San Luis Potosi by early Nov.

The resulting armistice signed between Taylor and Ampudia had major effects upon the outcome of the war. Taylor was lambasted by some in the federal government, where President James K. Polk insisted that the U.S. Army had no authority to negotiate truces, only to "kill the enemy." In addition, his terms of armistice, which allowed Ampudia's forces to retreat with battle honors and all of their weapons, were seen as foolish and short-sighted by some U.S. observers. For his part, some have argued that Ampudia had begun the defeat of Mexico. Many Mexican soldiers became disenchanted with the war. In a well-fortified, well-supplied position, an army of ten thousand Mexican soldiers had resisted the U.S. Army for three days, only to be forced into surrender by American urban battle tactics, heavy artillery and possibly further division in the Mexican ranks.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
First Battle of Tabasco
 

The First Battle of Tabasco was fought during the Mexican–American War, in October 1846, in an attempt to capture cities along the Tabasco coast.

 
Background
Commodore David Conner of the Home Squadron, received orders from Secretary of the Navy George Bancroft to "exercise all the rights that belong to you as commander-in-chief of a belligerent squadron" in establishing a blockade of the Mexican east coast. On 14 May 1846, Conner established his base at Anton Lizardo, Veracruz and placed Veracruz, Alvarado, Tampico, and Matamoros under blockade. Commodore Matthew C. Perry was named as Conner's replacement in the fall of 1846, and suggested capturing "Tabasco", otherwise known as San Juan Bautista along the Tabasco River. On 16 Oct., Perry left Anton Lizardo with the steamboats Mississippi, Vixen and McLane and the schooners Reefer,Bonita, Nonata, and Forward.
On 23 Oct., Perry captured Frontera and moved upriver, finding Tabasco the next morning at 9 AM.
  Battle
Lt. Col. Juan B. Traconis withdrew his 300 men from the town allowing Perry to occupy the town by 5 PM, capturing five Mexican vessels.
However, at night, Perry recalled his landing party and Traconis's forces returned to the city, barricading themselves inside buildings. Traconis received a delegation of U.S. Marines who requested their surrender, but responded "Tell Commodore Perry that I would sooner die with my garrison before handing over this place."

Perry realized that a bombardment of the city was the only option to drive out the Mexican troops, but would harm noncombantants, so he decided to retreat to Frontera with his prizes.
On the morning of October 26, the Mexicans started firing on Perry's ships who replied in kind.

 
 
As the U.S troops began to bombard the town, the flagpole of the Mexican headquarters was shot though and fell. The Americans, believing that this signalled a surrender, stopped firing and sent a delegation to investigate, receiving the same answer as before from Traconis, who then fixed the flagpole to the tower of the Church, and the battle recommenced, continuing until evening. The foreign merchants asked for a ceasefire, which Perry complied with, but when one of his prizes was grounded and then fired upon, Perry once again returned fire, while continuing on to Frontera.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III) escapes from the fortress of Ham to London
 
 

The room in the fortress of Ham where Louis-Napoleon studied,
wrote, and conducted scientific experiments.
He later often referred to what he had learned at "the University of Ham."
 
 
 
1846
 
 
Iowa becomes a state of the U.S.
 
 
Iowa
 

Iowa, constituent state of the United States of America. It was admitted to the union as the 29th state on Dec. 28, 1846. As a Midwestern state, Iowa forms a bridge between the forests of the east and the grasslands of the high prairie plains to the west. Its gently rolling landscape rises slowly as it extends westward from the Mississippi River, which forms its entire eastern border. The Missouri River and its tributary, the Big Sioux, form the western border, making Iowa the only U.S. state that has two parallel rivers defining its borders. Iowa is bounded by the states of Minnesota to the north, Wisconsin and Illinois to the east, Missouri to the south, and Nebraska and South Dakota to the west. Des Moines, in the south-central part of the state, is the capital. The state name is derived from the Iowa Native American people who once inhabited the area.

 
Iowa is one of the leading U.S. states in number of farms. More than nine-tenths of its land is devoted to agriculture, making it one of the top states in agricultural production. With rich soils, gently rolling hills, and ample precipitation, the state is particularly suitable for mechanized agriculture and has become a national leader in agribusiness. Traditionally most of Iowa’s industrial enterprises were tied to agricultural production; however, economic downswings and the collapse of land values in the 1980s made it essential for the state to diversify its economy as well as its workforce. By the end of the 20th century, more emphasis had been placed on banking, insurance, biotechnology, and research and development.

Iowans are particularly proud of what their state offers: four seasons, open land, effective health care, a low crime rate, and a congenial social environment. Moreover, Iowa plays a unique role in the U.S. presidential election process, becoming the focus of national attention every four years when it kicks off the presidential primary season by holding its “first in the nation” caucuses, the statewide local political gatherings at which attendees express their preferences for presidential candidates. Iowa residents’ pride in their heartland lifestyle is given imaginative expression in the answer to the question posed in the motion picture Field of Dreams as the ghosts of baseball players past cavort on the diamond cut into a cornfield: “Is this heaven?” “No, it’s Iowa.” Area 56,273 square miles (145,746 square km). Population (2010) 3,046,355; (2014 est.) 3,107,126.

 
 

Iowa
 
 
History

Early history

The first inhabitants of what is now the state of Iowa were Paleo-Indians, the earliest ancestors of Native Americans. They probably occupied ice-free land during the time when the Des Moines lobe was covered by glaciers, about 14,000 years ago.

The earliest archaeological evidence of settlement, however, dates from about 8,500 years ago. The hunters and food gatherers of this period existed at the subsistence level, enduring the periodic droughts that continue to plague the region today.
Even after the advent of sedentary agriculture in western Iowa about 800 ce, entire villages occasionally disappeared. In eastern Iowa, effigy mound builders occupied settlements from about 300 ce until the 17th century.

Most of the early Native Americans were of the Siouan language family, although Algonquian-speaking tribes were important in eastern Iowa after the 17th century, often displacing the western tribes in bloody conflicts. The Iowa people were virtually annihilated shortly before the advent of dense Euro-American settlement. All the tribes ceded their lands through treaty and purchase, mostly in the 1830s and ’40s.

The last purchase was of Sioux lands in northern Iowa in 1851. (The Fox and Sauk returned in 1857 to buy back a small reservation—the Mesquakie Settlement—near Tama in central Iowa, the only reservation in the state today.)
  From territory to statehood
The first Europeans to reach Iowa were probably the French explorers Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette in 1673. Permanent settlement, however, did not take place until the early 1830s, though Spanish land grants were occupied in the late 1700s, principally to exploit the lead-mining potential around the site of Dubuque. In the interim, both pioneers and Native Americans moved through the area exploring or hunting. The combined French and Native American history can be seen in geographic names throughout the state: Des Moines, Dubuque, and Le Mars; and Ottumwa, Keokuk, and Onawa.

The area that today constitutes the modern state of Iowa was included in the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803, and during the War of 1812 a U.S. garrison was driven from Fort Madison on the Mississippi River. Following the purchase of eastern Iowa from the Fox and Sauk in the 1830s, settlers rapidly moved in to till the land. The Territory of Iowa was established in 1838, with a population of 23,242. In 1846 Iowa was admitted to the union as part of a compromise between the slaveholding South and the free North. The population of Iowa more than tripled during the 1850s, and the Spirit Lake Massacre in 1857 marked the final instance of Native American hostility in the state. By 1860 there were nearly 675,000 people in the state, and with the construction of railroads the frontier was pushed farther westward. The years immediately prior to the American Civil War (1861–65) were Iowa’s frontier days, however, with lawlessness, vigilantes, and lynchings accompanying the unsteady beginnings of a settled society.

 
 
Iowa was deeply involved on both sides of the issues that led to the Civil War. The state played an important role in the Underground Railroad, which helped slaves escape to Canada from the South, and contributed more troops in proportion to its population than any other state. No battles were actually fought in Iowa, but a Confederate guerrilla raid from Missouri occurred in 1864. Although Iowa was one of the few states without the Jim Crow laws that were passed in the late 1870s, de facto racial discrimination was practiced there until 1948, when a series of civil rights cases were won under the 1884 Iowa Civil Rights Act.
 
 

Iowa farm, 1875.
 
 
Economic stabilization
Railroad expansion, the end of the Civil War, and the removal of the Native Americans opened the prairie to settlement by massive waves of immigrants from the eastern states and from Europe. By 1900 claims to the land had filled the state, but the population showed a slight decline in the decade that followed because the children of the initial settlers had moved out of the state. The wide use of barbed wire permitted diversified agriculture, and the draining of wetlands began the development of efficient agricultural production. Corn (maize) formed the basis of Iowa’s agriculture, with nearly all of the crop being fed to livestock.

World War I created short-term demands for maximum production, generating high prices, and since then the state has had recurring agricultural surpluses, low prices, and high land values. The various economic panics and depressions of the 19th and 20th centuries were only temporary impediments to this pattern of growth. During the 20th century, Iowa politicians appeared most prominently on the national scene when farm crises were major issues: Iowan Henry A. Wallace served as secretary of agriculture during the first two terms of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration before he became Roosevelt’s vice president in his third term.

The last significant case of exploitation of natural resources occurred in the coalfields of southern Iowa, beginning in the mid-19th century and reaching its peak in the first two decades of the 20th century. Most of the coal was quickly exhausted, and the miners moved on, leaving behind decaying towns and a deteriorating landscape.

Neil E. Salisbury

  Economic and societal changes
Agriculture continued to thrive in Iowa throughout the 20th century. Greater productivity meant lower prices and even keener competition between farmers. However, rural Iowa remained a place of out-migration not only because more farmers’ children chose not to farm but also because the less-successful farms were going out of business.

The consequence was fewer farmers and larger farms; the average farm was about 350 acres (142 hectares) at the end of the 20th century, an increase from about 170 acres (69 hectares) in 1950.

By the turn of the 21st century, the service industry had become the state’s dominant economic sector, as Iowans faced the new millennium still fiercely proud of their agricultural heritage while embracing a more diversified economy focused on biotechnology and research and development.

The state became more ethnically diverse, mainly because of the increasing number of Hispanic residents. Also, Iowa became more competitive politically when Democrats surpassed Republicans in voter registration, ending the Republican Party’s traditional dominance in the state. Changing social attitudes were reflected in a 2009 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that overturned a state law banning same-sex marriage.

Yet at the same time, many Iowans opposed to the ruling called for a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to heterosexual couples.

Rex D. Honey

Encyclopćdia Britannica

 
 
     
 



World Countries



United States of America
     
 
 
 
1846
 
 
Pasic Nikola
 

Nikola Pasic, (born December 19 [December 31, New Style], 1845, Zaječar, Serbia—died December 10, 1926, Belgrade), prime minister of Serbia (1891–92, 1904–05, 1906–08, 1909–11, 1912–18) and prime minister of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918, 1921–24, 1924–26). He was one of the founders, in 1918, of the kingdom that would later (from 1929 to 2003) be called Yugoslavia.

 

Nikola Pasic
  Early career
Pašić, who was born into a family of modest means, studied engineering in Belgrade and then graduated from the Zürich Polytechnikum, where his interest in contemporary liberalism and democratic institutions was stimulated by the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. Returning to Serbia (1873), he joined the Socialist group led by Svetozar Marković and, as editor of the newspaper Oslobodjenje (“Liberation”), became an important exponent of Marković’s views. Having concluded that King Milan Obrenović’s oligarchy was depriving Serbia both of progressive leadership and of national perspective, Pašić decided to enter politics actively. Elected to parliament in 1878, he worked, as leader of the opposition, against the authoritarian monarchy in an endeavour to establish a parliamentary democracy. He also helped to found the Radical Party (1881).
When a popular rising instigated against Milan’s government by the Radicals in the Timok region (1883) led to further repression and to the severe punishment of many Radical leaders, Pašić was forced to flee through Austria to Bulgaria. After Milan’s abdication in favour of his son Alexander (1889), Pašić returned to Serbia from exile and was then elected president of the Skupština (Parliament) and, on two occasions, mayor of Belgrade. Pašić served as premier for the first time from February 1891 to August 1892 and as foreign minister accompanied the new king, Alexander Obrenović, on a state visit to Russia (1892), where Pašić established firm personal and political ties with the tsarist regime. He became Serbian minister to St. Petersburg in 1893 but resigned in protest at former king Milan’s illegal return to Serbia (1894).
 
 
After an unsuccessful attempt on Milan’s life in 1899, trumped-up charges of regicide were brought against the members of the Radical Party. Pašić, who was among those sentenced to death, won himself an amnesty and then left the country voluntarily, to return only when Milan had finally withdrawn.

When Alexander was overthrown and the Karadjordjević dynasty, in the person of King Peter I, was restored by the bloody coup d’état of 1903, Pašić finally emerged as the dominant political figure in Serbia. As leader of the Radical Party, he concentrated his efforts on establishing the party both as the backbone of the new regime and as the moving force in Serbian politics. From December 1904 to May 1905 he served as premier and as minister for foreign affairs—displaying great skill by counteracting Austria-Hungary’s attempts to impose a tariff war on Serbia. He held both posts again from May 1906 to June 1908 and was again reappointed premier in October 1909, only to be replaced in 1911 by Milovan Milovanović, his greatest political rival. Though Pašić cooperated with Milovanović in concluding a pact with Bulgaria—from which was eventually to develop the Balkan League, whose aim was war against Turkey—younger politicians and many military leaders continually conspired to remove him from his position as party leader, and in 1912 his imminent dismissal was avoided only by Milovanović’s sudden death. Thenceforth reinstated as premier and minister for foreign affairs, Pašić led Serbia through two victorious wars, the first against Turkey (1912) and the second against Bulgaria (1913).

Despite his increased prestige, further attempts were made to oust Pašić from office in the months preceding the start of World War I. The accession as regent of Prince Alexander (King Peter’s younger son) on June 24, 1914, gave Pašić some support, however, and his position was further confirmed when the threat of war with Austria-Hungary prevented forthcoming new elections from being held.

 
 
Leadership during World War I
After the murder of Archduke Francis Ferdinand by Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip at Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Pašić was most compliant in dealing with the formidable terms of Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia but was nevertheless unable to avert the Austrian declaration of war on Serbia on July 28. World War I initially silenced Serbian political discord: parliament, which had already been dissolved, reassembled at Niš, and in November 1914 a coalition government under Pašić’s premiership was formed.

The Austro-German conquest of Serbia forced Pašić’s government and the army to withdraw from Serbia to Corfu (winter 1915). Pašić remained prime minister of the government-in-exile throughout World War I. He also remained interested in the union of Serbia with provinces inhabited predominantly by Serbs, but not in the formation of a federal Yugoslavia with Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes autonomous and equal. When the coalition government broke up in 1917, Pašić continued to govern with a homogeneous Radical Cabinet. When his position was still further weakened by the fall of Russia’s tsarist regime (1917), he was obliged temporarily to abandon his strict Pan-Serbian attitude and to negotiate on equal terms with Ante Trumbić’s Yugoslav Committee, a body of South Slav exiles from Austria-Hungary with its seats in London and Paris. The resulting Corfu Declaration (July 20, 1917) laid down the broad lines for a postwar unified Yugoslav state.

  Postwar career
As World War I neared its end, Pašić stubbornly insisted that Serbia, as the dominant political and military force among the South Slavs, had the exclusive right to speak on the Allied side on their behalf. In November 1918, however, Pašić, under pressure from the Serbian opposition and from the Allied governments, joined delegates from the Yugoslav Committee, from the National Council recently formed in Zagreb and from the Serbian opposition, in signing a declaration that provisionally envisaged a Yugoslavia in which the Serbian government would share power with the representatives of Austria-Hungary’s former South Slav subjects. But the Serbian government, which Pašić himself had secretly dissuaded, rejected the declaration. As a result, when Austria-Hungary collapsed, the Allies were unable to agree on a solution for the relations of the South Slavs with Serbia, while Italy reasserted its territorial claims to South Slav territory under a secret wartime pact (Treaty of London) made between it and the Allied Powers. Despite the danger, Pašić persevered in his obstructive tactics toward the Yugoslav Committee and the National Council in Zagreb.

Nevertheless, an uneasy compromise was finally achieved when Serbia and the South Slav provinces were united on December 1, 1918, as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Though he was denied the premiership of the kingdom, Pašić went with Trumbić and Vesnić as one of the new state’s delegates to the Peace Conference at Versailles (1919).

 
 
Pašić failed to comprehend fully the fateful difference between Serbia’s homogeneity and the complexity of the new kingdom, which comprised several nations, each with its own distinct historical development and cultural identity. Ignoring requests for individual recognition from Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Bosnian Muslims, he continued to regard them simply as Serbs—albeit Serbs of three religions and several names. When, therefore, he was reappointed premier in 1921 he immediately pushed through parliament a unitary constitution for the new nation that, under the guise of establishing a homogeneous state, actually confirmed the existing Serbian hegemony and, by abolishing historic and autonomous provinces, established a strongly centralized regime under a powerful monarchy. He eliminated the Democrats from the government (winter 1921) and formed an entirely Radical Cabinet. He failed to secure a majority in the elections of March 1923 but stayed safely in office, thanks to blunders by the opposition. Though from July to October 1924 he had to give way to a coalition government under Ljubomir Davidović, by adroit interparty maneuvering he was able immediately afterward to return to power much stronger than before. His relations with King Alexander and with the Anticentralist Croats and Slovenes nevertheless became increasingly strained. In February 1925 Pašić was forced to dissolve parliament, but by adopting drastic measures—among them the imprisonment of Stjepan Radić and other Croatian Peasant Party leaders—he secured a small working majority. A temporary political collaboration with Radić later the same year failed to produce a stable government, and, when Radić publicly criticized the still-increasing tendency toward centralization and unification, Pašić had to resign in March 1926. A man of strict honesty in his public life, he was deeply wounded by the implication of his son in a corruption scandal, and he died in December 1926, shortly before his 81st birthday.

Encyclopćdia Britannica

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Evangelical Alliance
 

An association of Protestants belonging to various denominations founded in 1846, whose object, as declared in a resolution passed at the first meeting, is "to enable Christians to realize in themselves and to exhibit to others that a living and everlasting union binds all true believers together in the fellowship of the Church" (Report of the Proceedings of the First General Conference).

 
The points of belief, which the members accept as being the substance of the Gospel, are contained in a document adopted at the first conference and known as the Basis. They are nine in number:

1. The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scripture;
2. the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture;
3. the unity of the Godhead and the Trinity of Persons therein;
4. the utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the fall;
5. the Incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for sinners, and his mediatorial intercession and reign;
6. the justification of the sinner by faith alone;
7. the work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner;
8. the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked;
9.the Divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 
 
"It being, however, distinctly declared that this brief summary is not to be regarded, in any formal or ecclesiastical sense, as a creed or confession, nor the adoption of it as involving an assumption of the right authoritatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood, but simply as an indication of the class of persons whom it is desirable to embrace within the Alliance. In this Alliance, it is also distinctly stated that no compromise of the views of any member, or sanction of those of others, on the points wherein they differ, is either required or expected; but that all are held free as before to maintain and advocate their religious convictions, with due forbearance and brotherly love. It is not contemplated that the Alliance should assume or aim at the character of a new ecclesiastical organization, claiming and exercising the functions of a Christian Church. Its simple and comprehensive object, it is strongly felt, may be successfully promoted without interfering with, or disturbing the order of, any branch of the Christian Church to which its members may respectively belong.

The Alliance thus lays claim to no doctrinal or legislative authority. In a pamphlet issued by the society itself this feature is thus explained: "Then it is an Alliance—not a union of Church organizations, much less an attempt to secure an outward uniformity—but the members of the Alliance are allies: they belong to different ecclesiastical bodies—yet all of the One Church. They are of different nations as well as of many denominations—yet all holding the Head, Christ Jesus. Unum corpus sumus in Christo. We are one body in Christ—banded together for common purposes, and to manifest the real unity which underlies our great variety. We are all free to hold our own views in regard to subsidiary matters, but all adhere to the cardinal principles of the Alliance as set forth in its Basis."
  The Alliance arose at a time when the idea of unity was much before men's minds. During the years that witnessed the beginning of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, there progressed a movement in favour of union among men whose sympathies were diametrically opposed to those of the Tractarians, but who in their own way longed for a healing of the divisions and differences among Christians. In 1842 the Presbyterian Church of Scotland tried, though without success, to establish relations with other Protestant bodies. In England the progress of the Tractarian Movement led many distinguished Evangelical Nonconformists to desire "a great confederation of men of all Churches who were loyal in their attachment to Evangelical Protestantism in order to defend the faith of the Reformation" (Dale, History of Eng. Congregationalism, 637). At the annual assembly of the Congregational Union held in London, May, 1842, John Angell James (1785-1859), minister of Craven Chapel, Bayswater, London, proposed the scheme that ultimately developed into the Evangelical Alliance. He asked: "Is it not in the power of this Union to bring about by God's blessing, a Protestant Evangelical Union of the whole body of Christ's faithful followers who have at any rate adopted the voluntary principle? … Let us only carry out the principle of a great Protestant Union and we may yet have representatives from all bodies of Protestant Christians to be found within the circle of our own United Empire" (Congregational Magazine, 1842, 435-6). The first definite step towards this was taken by Mr. Patton, an American minister, who proposed a general conference of delegates from various bodies, with the result that a preliminary meeting was held at Liverpool in October, 1845, at which the basis of such a conference was arranged. On 10 Aug., 1846, at a meeting of eight hundred delegates, representing fifty denominations, held in the Freemasons Hall, London, the Evangelical Alliance was founded.
 
 
All who would accept the Basis were eligible as members, and the representatives of the various nations were recommended to form national organizations or branches, of which the British Organization, formed in 1846, was the first. These organizations were independent of one another and were at liberty to carry on their work in such a manner as should be most in accordance with the peculiar circumstances of each district. They have been formed in the United States Germany, France, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Australia, India, and several missionary countries. The French national branch abandoned the Basis in 1854 and substituted for it a wider form of a Unitarian character. The Alliance meets and acts as a whole only in the international and general conferences, which are held from time to time. The first of these was held in London, 1851, and has been succeeded by others as follows: Paris, 1855; Berlin, 1857; Geneva, 1861; Amsterdam, 1867; New York, 1873; Basle, 1879; Copenhagen, 1884; Florence, 1891; London, 1896 (Celebration of the Jubilee); London, 1907, on which occasion the Diamond Jubilee of the Alliance was celebrated.

These international conventions are regarded as of special value in the promotion of the aims of the Alliance. Another matter to which much importance is attached is the annual "Universal Week of Prayer", observed the first complete week in January of each year since 1846. At this time the Alliance invites all Christians to join in prayer, the programme being prepared by representatives of all denominations and printed in many different languages. The relief of persecuted Christians is another department of work in which the Alliance claims to have accomplished much good. Finally, in 1905, the Alliance Bible School was founded with headquarters at Berlin, under the direction of Pastor Köhler and Herr Warns, "to place before the students the history and doctrine of the Bible in accordance with its own teaching". The reports of the conferences claim considerable success for these various works, a claim which cannot here be investigated. From its principles the Evangelical Alliance is necessarily opposed to the doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church; and Catholics, while sympathizing with the desire for union among Christians, realize that the unity by which we are made one in Christ is not to be won by such methods. The motto of the Alliance is Unum corpus sumus in Christo.

Catholic Encyclopedia

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Eucken Rudolf Christoph
 

Rudolf Christoph Eucken, (born Jan. 5, 1846, Aurich, East Friesland [now in Germany]—died Sept. 14, 1926, Jena, Ger.), German Idealist philosopher, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature (1908), interpreter of Aristotle, and author of works in ethics and religion.

 

Rudolf Christoph Eucken
  Eucken studied at the University of Göttingen under the German thinker Rudolf Hermann Lotze, a teleological Idealist, and at Berlin under Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg, a German philosopher whose ethical concerns and historical treatment of philosophy attracted him. Appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Basel, Switz., in 1871, Eucken left in 1874 to become professor of philosophy at the University of Jena, a position he held until 1920. Distrusting abstract intellectualism and systematics, Eucken centred his philosophy upon actual human experience. He maintained that man is the meeting place of nature and spirit and that it is his duty and his privilege to overcome his nonspiritual nature by incessant active striving after the spiritual life. This pursuit, sometimes termed ethical activism, involves all of man’s faculties but especially requires efforts of the will and intuition. A strident critic of naturalist philosophy, Eucken held that man’s soul differentiated him from the rest of the natural world and that the soul could not be explained only by reference to natural processes. His criticisms are particularly evident in Individual and Society (1923) and Der Sozialismus und seine Lebensgestaltung (1920; Socialism: An Analysis, 1921). The second work attacked Socialism as a system that limits human freedom and denigrates spiritual and cultural aspects of life. Eucken’s Nobel Prize diploma referred to the “warmth and strength in presentation with which in his numerous works he has vindicated and developed an idealist philosophy of life.” His other works include Der Sinn und Wert des Lebens (1908; The Meaning and Value of Life, 1909) and Können wir noch Christen sein? (1911; Can We Still Be Christians?, 1914).

Encyclopćdia Britannica

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Pope Gregory XVI d; succeeded by Cardinal Mastai-Ferretti as Pope Pius IX (-1878)
 
 
Pius IX
 

Pius IX, original name Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti (born May 13, 1792, Senigallia, Papal States—died February 7, 1878, Rome; beatified September 3, 2000; feast day February 7), Italian head of the Roman Catholic church whose pontificate (1846–78) was the longest in history and was marked by a transition from moderate political liberalism to conservatism. Notable events of his reign included the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (1854), the Syllabus of Errors (1864), and the sessions of the First Vatican Council (1869–70), during which the doctrine of papal infallibility was authoritatively defined.

 

Pius IX
 

Prepontifical life and early reign
Pius IX was the fourth son of Girolamo Mastai-Ferretti, gonfalonier of Senigallia, and the countess Caterina Solazzi. He first came into prominence as archbishop of Spoleto from 1827 to 1832, a time of revolutionary disturbance. He was made bishop of the important diocese of Imola in 1832, but it was not until 1840 that he received the hat, as cardinal priest of Saints Piero e Marcellino. He was not, in 1846, the most prominent liberal candidate likely to succeed Gregory XVI; but it took the conclave only two days to determine his election and so prevent that of the conservative Luigi Lambruschini. He took the name of Pius in deference to the memory of Pius VII, who had been his friend and who had, like him, been bishop of Imola. The choice was in some sense prophetic, for “Pio Nono,” as his predecessor had done, began his career as a supporter of liberal ideas only to learn from bitter experience that liberals often tended to be anticlerical. In 1846, however, all this lay in the future and Europe was agog at the unusual spectacle of a liberal pope.

The new pope was confronted by a difficult situation. All Europe, save perhaps Metternich of Austria, considered the Papal States in urgent need of reform.

A memorandum of 1831 by the French, English, Austrian, Russian, and Prussian ambassadors in Rome had suggested that councils should be elected to assist in local government, that a central body, composed partly of elected representatives, control finance, and that the dominant position held by the clergy in the administration and in the judicial system be terminated.

 
 
Liberal opinion clung to these measures as absolutely essential throughout the pontificate of Gregory XVI. In addition, the papacy was constantly under attack by Italian nationalists as one of the instruments through which Austria maintained its domination over the peninsula.
 
 

Pius IX
 

The Revolutions of 1848
The year of revolutions began in Sicily; soon all Europe was ablaze and Pius was faced with demands, both liberal and nationalist, much beyond what he had been prepared to grant (see Revolutions of 1848). On March 14 he was compelled to grant a constitution establishing a two-chamber parliament with full legislative and fiscal powers subject only to the pope’s personal veto. On March 23 Charles Albert of Sardinia declared war on Austria. For a time Pius continued to endeavour to steer a middle course, claiming in his address to the cardinals of April 29 that he was a disinterested spectator of the revolutionary activities sweeping Italy and that his program of reform was merely the fulfillment of the program long pressed upon the papacy by the powers. In the atmosphere of the time such sentiments were judged as displaying absolute hostility to the national cause, and the papacy was never again able to appear in Italy as anything other than a bulwark of reaction.

To prevent revolution from breaking out in Rome itself, Pius consented to the appointment of popular ministries, but none of the appointees was able to control the situation. A steadily deteriorating situation culminated in the assassination of one of them on November 15. A radical ministry was appointed; when the Swiss guards were disbanded the pope was a virtual prisoner.

On November 24–25, with the aid of the French and Bavarian ambassadors, he fled to Gaeta in the kingdom of Naples.

 
 
In his absence, elections were held for a constituent assembly; this, on February 9, 1849, declared the temporal power at an end and a democratic republic to be established. The papacy thereupon issued a formal appeal to the rulers of France, Austria, Spain, and Naples for assistance.

Although it was generally considered that the pope’s restoration could take place only with some sort of undertaking to maintain constitutional government in the Papal States, and although Louis-Napoléon, the newly elected president of France, was in favour of such a policy, Pius held out against any concessions and asserted his determination to exercise his temporal power without any restrictions whatsoever. The upshot of a period of military and diplomatic maneuvers on the part of France and Austria was the unconditional restoration of papal rule, and Pius returned to his capital on April 12, 1850.
 
 

Pius IX
 

The Roman question
It has often been asserted that Pius returned to Rome a changed man, that the former liberal had become a narrow reactionary. That his policy had changed there is no doubt, but his fundamental attitude remained the same. The interests of the church had always been his first concern. He had been prepared to countenance both nationalism and liberalism while they left the church intact, but experience had taught him that both led to revolution, which he had never been prepared to countenance.

Furthermore, political concessions on his part had led to attacks on his spiritual power, and he considered that it could be protected only by his continued exercise of a temporal authority. Once these two aspects of his dominion had become indissolubly linked, it is easy to see why Pius considered himself obliged to oppose any alteration of his position as a temporal ruler.

In 1846 Pius had considered that a new departure was necessary to meet the legitimate demands for reform within the Papal States and perhaps also those for a change in the Italian system of states. Most of the administrative reforms carried out immediately after Pius’s accession remained, and the papal territories benefited from the general increase in European prosperity after 1850.

But constitutional government was never restored; the amnesty granted on the pope’s return was riddled with exceptions; and to all expressions of national sentiment the papacy proved hostile. It was not that papal government was tyrannical but that it formed an absolute barrier in the way of Italian unification upon which politically minded Italians were set.

 
 
On September 20, 1870, Italian troops occupied Rome, and in October a plebiscite was held in which an overwhelming majority of the votes cast were for the incorporation of Rome in the kingdom of Italy. Pius remained for the rest of his days a prisoner, as he regarded himself, in the Vatican. He refused any intercourse with the Italian government, so that their relations rested upon a law passed by the Italian parliament in November. The sovereignty of the pope was declared to be untouched by the loss of his dominion in compensation for which he was to receive an annual sum of money. He was to be entitled to conduct his own diplomatic relations with other powers and to have exclusive authority within the Vatican itself and a small district around it. In the rest of Italy, church and state were to be separated. So, though the papacy did not formally recognize the fact until the concordat of 1929, the Roman question had been settled.
 
 
Ultramontanism
Important as the events just described were for the papacy, the doctrinal developments of Pius’s pontificate, which spring directly out of these political disasters, constitute its most significant contribution. Ultramontanism began with Joseph de Maistre, as a reaction against Gallicanism and against Josephinism, seeking to free the church from the chains of secular control by binding it more closely with the papacy. Félicité Lamennais developed it by suggesting that the church would benefit from a general increase in political freedom. Gregory XVI condemned Lamennais’s teaching because he saw that freedom might mean freedom to deny religion altogether. Pius IX decided in 1846 to experiment with liberalism but later became convinced that Gregory XVI had rightly suspected it. Nevertheless, if Italy taught Pius one lesson, developments in France, where the church prospered more under the liberal regime of Louis-Philippe than it had under the clerical Charles X, suggested quite the opposite conclusions to the liberal Catholics there, whose spokesman was Charles de Montalembert. On the other hand, the coming of the Second Empire stimulated the party led by Louis Veuillot, whose Ultramontanism was of the older sort, completely divorced from liberalism and seeking freedom for the church in an authoritarian state that would guard it against revolution.

For a period after 1850, Pius’s policy took little heed of either brand of Ultramontanism. Cardinal Giacomo Antonelli, the papal secretary of state, followed the paths of Ercole Consalvi, Pius VII’s secretary of state, in seeking to procure more favourable concordats with Catholic rulers. Such agreements might be politically valuable but were no defense against intellectual anticlericalism, and Pius became increasingly convinced that the real danger to the church lay in the modern secular ideas that the liberal Catholics were endeavouring to incorporate into its doctrines. The events of 1860 finally convinced him that the notion of a “free church in a free state” was a snare. The encyclical Jamdudum Cernimus (1861) denounced not only Piedmontese aggression but all modern political doctrines. The Risorgimento not only convinced Pius that liberalism in the church must be destroyed but also placed the liberal Catholics in the difficult position of appearing to support those who had caused him so much distress. The alternative to Montalembert’s doctrine was no longer an unconditional attachment to the principles of the ancien régime but a new kind of Ultramontanism, asserting the need for concentrating church authority in the pope’s hands. The ground was being prepared for the First Vatican Council and the doctrine of papal infallibility. But first the strong liberal party in the Catholic church had to be defeated. In 1863 Montalembert was invited to address a large Catholic congress at Malines, and he took the opportunity to defend the concept of a free church in a free state and to condemn intolerance in principle.

  Pius was content in reply to point out that on these two points he was running counter to authoritative pronouncements of Pius VI and Gregory XVI. This was sufficient to deter Montalembert from accepting a second invitation to Malines in 1864, but his supporter Félix-Antoine-Philibert Dupanloup proved an able substitute. Meanwhile, at a congress at Munich in 1863, Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger had pleaded for the right of a scholar to pursue independent inquiry. It was clear to everyone that the church stood in need of authoritative pronouncements about its relations with the state and with modern society, and discussion began about the possibility of calling an ecumenical council for this purpose. But once again the Roman question intervened decisively in the struggle.
On September 15, 1864, the French and Italian governments came to an agreement whereby the French garrison was to be withdrawn from Rome within two years. The garrison did leave, but it returned following Garibaldi’s incursion into what remained of the Papal States (1867) and was not permantly withdrawn until the Franco-Prussian War (1870).

The conclusion of the September convention was sufficient to make Pius decide to take immediate action against liberalism. On December 8, 1864, he issued the encyclical Quanta Cura with, attached to it, the famous Syllabus listing 80 of the “principal errors of our times.” As the errors listed had already been condemned in allocutions, encyclicals, and other apostolic letters, the Syllabus said nothing new and so could not be contested. Its importance lay in the fact that it published to the world what had previously been preached in the main only to the bishops, and that it made general what had been previously specific denunciations concerned with particular events. Thus perhaps the most famous article, the 80th, stigmatizing as an error the view that “the Roman Pontiff can and should reconcile himself to and agree with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization,” sought its authority in the pope’s refusal, in Jamdudum Cernimus, to have any dealings with the new Italian kingdom. On both scores, the Syllabus undermined the liberal Catholics’ position, for it destroyed their following among intellectuals and placed their program out of court.

Though Dupanloup tried to explain away the Syllabus by insisting upon its context and by stressing its purely negative aspect, the Syllabus nevertheless dealt a mortal blow at liberal Catholicism, which ceased after 1864 to be the main issue taxing Catholic controversialists. While some of Louis Veuillot’s followers hoped that at the forthcoming council a positive statement of the orthodox doctrine of the position of the church in society would replace the negative denunciations of the Syllabus, the majority looked upon that battle as won and so turned to the question of defining the pope’s infallibility, the keystone of the neo-Ultramontane program of centralizing the authority of the church in Rome so as to escape from the control of the secular state.

 
 

The First Vatican Council presided by Pius IX
 
 
First Vatican Council
In the doctrine of papal infallibility itself there was nothing new. It had been employed to define, on December 8, 1854, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which asserted that the freeing of the Virgin Mary from all taint of original sin had occurred at the moment of her conception. The pope had previously made extensive inquiries among the bishops and other divines and there was little opposition to such an exercise of his undoubted prerogative. When, however, at a gathering of bishops and other dignitaries of the church in Rome in 1862 and again at another in 1867 it had been suggested that the doctrine of infallibility should be authoritatively defined, Dupanloup had led a successful opposition to the project. It was objected that such a definition was inopportune, tending to widen the breach between the church and modern society, and that it would present a one-sided view of the source of authority in the church; for while the pope possessed powers issuing directly from God, so too did the bishops, for instance, whose ordinary jurisdiction arose, not out of their nomination or institution but equally from divine origin; so that the pope’s powers ought not to be defined without reference to other aspects of the nature of the church. The criticism that must attach to Pius is that he allowed the council to put aside discussion on the wider issue, which was its original program, in favour of the narrower definition. This was, of course, precisely what the Ultramontane party desired.
 
 

A hagiographic presentation of Pius IX from 1873
 

The Ultramontanes, indeed, undoubtedly possessed the backing of by far the greater part of the church, partly because of the reaction engendered by the political misfortunes of the last decade, partly because of the immense prestige enjoyed by Pius as a result of his long and tragic pontificate, but to a larger extent because of the contemporary movement away from intellectualism and in favour of devotional religion.

The First Vatican Council opened on December 8, 1869. The opposition, consisting of the German, French, and U.S. bishops, was strong enough to prevent a definition of the doctrines and nature of the church on the lines suggested by the Syllabus; but the Ultramontane party brought forward the question of infallibility, upon which their position was much stronger. Pius intervened decisively to alter the procedure of the council on February 20, 1870, and again on April 29. The outcome was to postpone all deliberation except that upon infallibility. The decisive vote came on July 13 when 451 voted for it, 88 against it, and 62 in favour of some amendment. Thereupon the minority left Rome and the final definition was carried on July 18 by 533 votes to 2. Infallibility was confined to those occasions upon which the pope made pronouncements ex cathedra.

Pius reigned for another eight years, during which he became further estranged from the Italian government and witnessed a general outbreak of anticlericalism in western Europe. In Germany this culminated in Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, which Pius condemned in the encyclical Quod Nunquam of February 5, 1875, leaving the solution of the problem to his successor. Pius died three years later, having seen in his long pontificate the creation of the modern papacy.

 
 

Assessment
The exact responsibility of Pius for the events of his pontificate is still a matter of controversy, but it may be said that Pius IX took the first steps toward the modern papacy. Church and state were increasingly separated, authority in the church was centralized in Rome, and the church was ranged in opposition to some of the dominant movements of the modern age, including liberal capitalism, communism, extreme nationalism, and the racism that culminated in Nazism. Under the direction of Pius IX the papacy abandoned the political preoccupations and responsibilities imposed by the temporal power it once possessed and concentrated on spiritual and religious issues.

In 2000 Pius IX was beatified by Pope John Paul II.

Ivor F. Burton
Douglas Woodruff

Encyclopćdia Britannica

 
 
 
1846
 
 
Vischer Friedrich Theodor: "Aesthetics"
 
 
 
1846
 
 
William Whewell: "Elements of Morality"
 
 
Whewell William
 
William Whewell, (born May 24, 1794, Lancaster, Lancashire, Eng.—died March 6, 1866, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire), English philosopher and historian remembered both for his writings on ethics and for his work on the theory of induction, a philosophical analysis of particulars to arrive at a scientific generalization.
 

William Whewell
  Whewell spent most of his career at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he studied, tutored, and served as professor of mineralogy (1828–32), professor of moral philosophy (1838–55), and college master (1841–66). He was also vice chancellor of the university (1842). His interests in the physical sciences ranged from mechanics and dynamics to tidal phenomena, all subjects for his early writings. Later studies in history and the philosophy of science were followed, after 1850, by his writings on moral theology and by an intensive analysis of the work of Immanuel Kant.

Whewell is best known for his History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, 3 vol. (1837), and The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon Their History (1840), which later was expanded to three separate books: History of Scientific Ideas, 2 vol. (1858), Novum Organon Renovatum (1858), and On the Philosophy of Discovery (1860). The second of these books refers to Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum (1620), dealing with inductive reasoning.
Although his work on the theory of induction was overshadowed by that of John Stuart Mill, Whewell’s contribution lay in his resurrection of inductive reasoning as an important issue for philosophers and scientists alike.
 
 
In particular, he stressed the need to see scientific progress as a historical process and asserted that inductive reasoning could be employed properly only if its use throughout history was closely analyzed.

Whewell’s theological views, which gave rise to his ethical theories, have been assigned an importance secondary to his work in induction. Among his writings in moral philosophy are The Elements of Morality, Including Polity (1845) and Lectures on Systematic Morality (1846). Whewell also wrote sermons, poetry, essays, and several editions and translations of others’ works.

Encyclopćdia Britannica
 
 
 
1846
 
 
Brigham Young leads the Mormons from Nauvoo City, III., to the Great Salt Lake, Utah (-1847)
 
 
Young Brigham
 

Brigham Young, (born June 1, 1801, Whitingham, Vt., U.S.—died Aug. 29, 1877, Salt Lake City, Utah), American religious leader, second president of the Mormon church, and colonizer who significantly influenced the development of the American West.

 

Brigham Young
  A carpenter, joiner, painter, and glazier, Young settled in 1829 at Mendon, N.Y., near where the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The book soon attracted Young’s interest, and he was baptized into Joseph Smith’s new church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) on April 14, 1832. In the spring of 1834 he joined in the march to Missouri to help dispossessed Mormons regain their lands. He was named third of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1835. In 1838, when the Mormons were driven out of Missouri, Young, who had become senior member of the Quorum, directed the move to Nauvoo, Ill. In 1839 he went to England, where he established a mission that contributed many British converts to the Mormon church in America and that opened the way to winning converts on the European continent, especially in Scandinavia.

When Joseph Smith was murdered (June 1844), Young was in Boston, pressing his leader’s presidential campaign. He returned to Nauvoo and took command of the church. In the face of mob pressure, he led the Mormons westward out of Illinois in 1846. He got no farther than the Missouri River that summer, but in 1847 he conducted a pioneer company to the Rocky Mountains. After selecting the site of Salt Lake City as a gathering place for the Mormons, Young returned to Winter Quarters (Florence, Neb., now a part of Omaha) and in December 1847 became president of the church. He returned to Utah with the Mormon emigration of 1848 and remained there for the rest of his life.

With Salt Lake City as the base for Mormon colonizing, Young dispatched missions not only in Utah but to areas now in California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

 
 
In 1849 the Mormons established the provisional state of Deseret, with Young as governor. The next year this area became the territory of Utah, again with Young as governor. He was appointed to a second term in 1854, but friction between the Mormons and the federal government—worsened by the Mountain Meadows massacre (1857), in which Mormons in southwestern Utah killed more than 100 members of a passing wagon train—led President James Buchanan to replace him, at which time an army was sent to establish the primacy of federal rule in Utah. Young never again held political office, but, as president of the Mormon church, he effectively ruled the people of Utah until his death.

An eminently practical man, Young made few doctrinal contributions. He was an iron-fisted administrator who stabilized Mormon society and gave it a cohesion made possible, in part, by its comparative isolation. Young encouraged education and the theatre, always stressed self-sufficiency, and became a notably wealthy man. Having accepted the doctrine of plural marriage, he took more than 20 wives and fathered 47 children.

Encyclopćdia Britannica

 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1845 Part IV NEXT-1846 Part II