Kas Robespierre oli brittide palgas?

Kas Robespierre oli brittide palgas?

Otsisin huvitavaid raamatuid Prantsuse revolutsioonist, kui sattusin 1700ndate lõpus Briti spionaaži ajalukku. Raamat on mitusada dollarit, nii et ma ei saa seda hankida, kui ma ei võta vaevaks ülikooli raamatukokku matkata. Silma jäi see, et tippülevaade väidab, et raamatust nähtub, et Robespierre oli Briti valitsuse palgal, kes tahtis terrorit julgustada lootuses, et see murrab revolutsioonilise valitsuse.

Mõlemad väited lõhnavad tugevalt vandenõuteooriate järele. Kuid vähemalt selle autori nekroloogi järgi (ma ei suutnud tema kohta muud leida) oli ta iseharitud, kuid lugupeetud ajaloolane, kes põhines raamatul ulatuslikel arhiiviuuringutel. Tal olid akadeemilised väljaanded ja tema tööd võeti üldiselt hästi vastu. Tema raamatut tsiteeritakse isegi peavooluajaloos "Terrori valimine".

Loomulikult ei tähenda see kõik, et ta ei saaks täielikult eksida või isegi vandenõuteoreetik. Arvustus ei pruugi ka tema raamatut täpselt esindada. See on põhjus, miks ma lootsin siin nõude kohta küsida.

Kas on tõesti mingeid usaldusväärseid tõendeid selle kohta, et "mereroheline rikkumatu" Robespirre oli brittide palgas? Või et Briti valitsus tahtis terrorit julgustada? Kui need osutuvad tõsisteks väideteks, siis kuidas need sobivad revolutsiooni uusima ajalookirjutusega?


Kui me lähtume puhtalt Elizabeth Sparrow "salateenistuses" esitatud tõenditest, siis ma ütleksin, et Robespierre "ei tegutsenud Briti maksemeistri juhiste järgi". Tundub, et Sparrow on tema teemat põhjalikult uurinud, kasutades mitte ainult Briti ja Prantsusmaa avalikke ja eraarhiive, vaid ka teisi Šveitsis, Saksamaal ja Rootsis.

Raamat algab sisuliselt 1792. aastal Briti jõupingutustega oma maja haldamiseks. Prantsusmaal toimunud revolutsiooni tulemusel on paljud prantsuse mehed ja naised reisinud Suurbritanniasse. Mõned olid kuninglikud pagulased ja mõned revolutsioonilised agendid (mõlemad nuhkisid oma Briti ja Prantsuse vaenlaste järele ja õhutasid revolutsioonilisi tundeid Briti alamklassides). Selle tulemusena pidid Briti ametivõimud kehtestama seadused ja looma oma politsei, mis jälgiks sõpru ja vaenlasi ning selgitaks välja kumb.

Selleks ajaks, kui britid olid piisavalt organiseerunud (1794. aasta lõpus), et hakata Euroopas ja Prantsusmaal ise oma luurajate võrgustikke looma, oli terror oma teed saatnud ja Robespierre oli surnud. Ei mainitagi, et britid tema poole pöörduksid, rääkimata neilt raha võtmisest või millestki muust. Tegelikult ei vääri ta isegi raamatu registrisse sissekannet.

Allikas: Salateenistus, Briti agendid Prantsusmaal 1792-1815, E.Sparrow (Boydell Press, 1999)


Ei, puhtast loogikast on see võimatu.

Kuigi Robespierre ei olnud veel rahvusliku konventsiooni komitee juht, ei olnud ta terrorist. Pärast temast saamist sai temast koos Saint-Justiga praktiliselt Prantsusmaa pooldiktaator ja absoluutseid valitsejaid, vabandust, ei saa raha eest osta. See oleks liiga kallis.

Talle võiks pakkuda turvalisust ja varjupaika, kuid isegi kui ta oleks enne võimule saamist palgaline agent, ei jääks ta kunagi selleni, kui ta selleni on jõudnud. Kuidas ta saaks neid raha kasutada? Prantsuse raha? Revolutsiooni huvides võis vajadusel trükkida suvalise numbri. Briti naela? Nende olemasolu tähendas, et olete reetur.

Isegi väljapressimine ei töötaks - ta võiks kuulutada selle propagandaks ja lihtsalt tappa võimalikud tunnistajad Prantsusmaal. Ja tunnistajad väljaspool olid isolatsiooni tõttu absoluutselt ebaolulised. Kas Stalin kartis mingeid välismaiseid süüdistusi? Ei! - ja NSV Liit oli palju vähem isoleeritud kui revolutsiooniline Prantsusmaa.

Mis puutub tõenditesse, siis tema järeltulijad võisid neist hiljem kindlasti hunnikuid luua. Ja nüüd ei saa me neid loogika järgi kontrollida. Kasutagem seda!

Beria NSV Liidus kuulutati ka inglise agendiks. Ma arvan, et pole ühtegi intelligentset olendit, kes sellesse usuks. Ja ole kindel, tõendeid oli!


Milline oli jakobiinide roll Prantsuse revolutsioonis?

Jakobiinid olid Prantsuse revolutsiooni ajal vabariikluse peamised edendajad ning nad viisid Prantsusmaa lühikese kontrolli ajal läbi erinevaid reforme võrdõiguslikkuse ja isikuvabaduse edendamiseks. Siiski alustasid nad Terrori valitsemisaega - ajavahemikku, mil jakobiinid otsisid üles ja hukkasid kõik, kelle poliitilised tõekspidamised erinesid isegi nende omadest.

Jakobiinid olid ametlikult tuntud kui põhiseaduse sõprade selts. Klubi asutasid algselt Bretoni esindajad 1789. aasta kinnisvaraosakonnale, kuid lõpuks laienes see Bretagne'ist kaugemale, kuni kogu Prantsusmaal olid peatükimajad. Jacobini nimi tuleneb asjaolust, et nad kohtusid Pariisis Dominikaani kloostris, selle ordu munkasid kutsuti ka jakobiinideks, sest nende esimene maja asus St. Jacques'i tänaval.

Põhiseaduse sõprade selts ei nõudnud monarhia lõpetamist, kuid neil õnnestus saada rahvuskonvendi suurjõuks. Lõpuks korraldasid nad riigipöörde ja 1793. aastal asus jakobiinide juht Maximilien Robespierre uut Prantsuse Vabariiki valitsema. Kuigi ta võttis algselt vastu Prantsusmaa lihtrahva abistamiseks mitmeid seadusi, näiteks fikseeris hinnad inflatsiooniga võitlemiseks, hakkas ta peagi taga kiusama kõiki, kelle veendumused olid tema arvates vasturevolutsioonilised. Algselt sihtis ta monarhia toetajaid, kaupmehi ja teisi teisitimõtlejaid, kuid peagi hukati giljotiiniga isegi teised jakobiinid, kes Robespierre'iga vaid pisut nõustusid.

Lõpuks pöördusid teised jakobiinid Robespierre'i poole, kes seejärel hukati. Kuid ilma, et nende organisatsioon neid siduks, kaotasid jakobiinid peagi kodanluse liikmetele võimu. Paljud jakobiinireformid lõpetati peagi, kuid nende tugev toetus vabadusele ja võrdsusele mõjutas jätkuvalt Prantsuse Vabariigi hilisemaid poliitilisi rühmitusi.


22 Ajakirjad ajakirjanikele, kes maksavad kirjanikele

Ajalooajakirjad meeldivad nišiturule lihtsalt sellepärast, et laiem avalikkus seda teeb mitte huvitatud ajaloolistest uudistest ja sündmustest. Kuigi see fakt tundub et seda tüüpi väljaannetesse raskem tungida, on olukord vastupidine. Kuna sellel areenil võistleb vabakutseliste kohtade pärast piiratud arv ajalookirjanikke, muudab see teie ülesande palju lihtsamaks, kui olete uus ajalookirjanik, kes otsib kirjutamistööd.

Siin on teile tutvumiseks ja esitlemiseks kakskümmend kaks ajalooajakirja.

Märge: Siit saate isegi rohkem ajakirju, mis maksavad kirjanikele ja#8212 rohkem kui 20 nišis —.

Maksma: 10 senti

Ajakiri Renaissance hõlmab mitmesuguseid teemasid, mis on seotud renessansi, hilise ja keskaja ning#8217 ja ajalooartiklitega. Nad kutsuvad vabakutselisi esitama kuni 2000 sõna pikkuseid artikleid ja maksma avaldatud sõna eest 10 senti. Kirjanikud võivad tasu oodata umbes 3 nädalat pärast avaldamist.

Pange tähele, et see väljaanne aktsepteerib soovimatut materjali, kuid tehke kõigepealt päring, veendumaks, et teie valitud teema pole juba määratud.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Ajakiri American Spirit keskendub Ameerika varasele ajaloole, suguvõsale, ajaloolisele säilitamisele, naiste ajaloole ja kodanikuharidusele. Neile meeldivad tulevased vabakutselised, kes esitavad loole ideid ja kavandatava artikli pikkust toimetajale. Makse arutatakse väljakirjutamisel.

See väljaanne eelistab kirjanikele esitada mõned oma varem avaldatud tööd, kui neile päringuid esitatakse.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Ajakiri Arheology on pühendatud inimkonna minevikku käsitlevate jutustuste avaldamisele igast maailma nurgast. Samuti annab see ülevaate kultuuride algusest ja lõpust. See väljaanne julgustab kirjanikke edastama oma artikliideed toimetajale e -posti teel ja maksmist arutatakse.

Ajakiri Arheology ootab, et nende vabakutselised töötajad saaksid oma valitud teema kohta olulisi teadmisi, seega tõstke päringu tegemisel esile oma kvalifikatsioon (oma tüki kirjutamiseks).

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Kanada ajalugu avaldab artikleid, mis valgustavad erinevaid kogemusi ja keerulisi tegelasi, mis on aegade jooksul Kanadat kujundanud. Nad julgustavad vabakutselisi esitama artikleid, mille pikkus on 600–3000 sõna.

Makse arutatakse ajakirja esitamisel ja makstakse väljaandmisel. Selle ajakirja lehel on tugevad ja otsesed juhised, seega lugege seda kõike enne, kui otsustate, kas teie töö sobib nende kirjeldusega või mitte.

Varajane Ameerika elu hõlmab kõike, mis on seotud ajaloo, arhitektuuri, antiigi, stuudiokäsitöö ja reisimisega. Nende üleskutse on mõeldud artiklitele pikkusega 700–2500 sõna. Nad maksavad uute kirjanike funktsioonide eest 500 dollarit. Kogenud ja kogenud kirjanikud saavad rohkem teenida.

Maksmine toimub avaldamisel ja ka fotod on teretulnud.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Vanad head päevad on pühendatud tõeliste lugude avaldamisele inimestest, kes elasid ja kasvasid aastatel 1935–1960. Nad eelistavad artikleid vahemikus 300 kuni 1000 sõna. Good Old Days eeldab, et esitate oma ideed e -posti või posti teel ning maksmise üle peetakse läbirääkimisi.

Sellel väljaandel on konkreetsed teemad, mis on reserveeritud vabakutselistele, seega tutvuge enne kirjutamist nende saidi ja juhistega.

Maksma: 8 senti sõna kohta

Ajakiri Ajakiri hõlmab laia valikut konkreetse nähtuse, sündmuste, lahingute, sõdade ja elulugudega seotud teemasid. Nad eeldavad, et artiklite pikkus on 400–2500 sõna. Nad maksavad avaldatud sõna eest 8 senti ja makse tehakse 60 päeva pärast numbri avaldamist.

See väljaanne julgustab tulevasi vabakutselisi enne nende kirjutamist küsima.

Ajakiri Range on laialdaselt loetud ja lugupeetud väljaanne, mis hõlmab teatavasti lääneriike ähvardavaid küsimusi. Neile meeldib, kui artiklid on 500–2000 sõna pikkused. Nad maksavad kuni 400 dollarit artikli kohta ja#8211 avaldamisel.

Ajakiri Range nõuab, et kirjanikud esitaksid oma koopiatega fotosid, nii et palun olge sellest teadlikud. Selle aspekti kohta leiate lisateavet nende veebisaidilt.

Maksma: 25 senti sõna kohta

True West keskendub Ameerika piiri ajaloo jäädvustamisele kirjandusliku mitteilukirjanduse kaudu. Nende üleskutse on mõeldud 450–150 sõna pikkuste artiklite jaoks. See väljaanne eeldab, et kirjanikud esitavad oma ideid e -posti või telefoni teel. Nad maksavad avaldamisel 25 senti sõna eest ja#8211.

Pange tähele, et see ajakiri kasutab artiklite ja päringute esitamiseks kindlat viisi. Vaadake nende saidi üksikasjalikku kirjeldust.

Lääne-Pennsylvania ajalugu on lugupeetud väljaanne, mis keskendub praeguste ja ajalooliste sündmuste esialgsele analüüsile. Nad eelistavad mänguartiklite pikkust 3000–4000 sõna.

Ajakiri Western Pennsylvania History Magazine kutsub kirjanikke oma ideid e -posti teel esitama. Nad maksavad avaldamisel kindla tasu 250 dollarit ja#8211 dollarit.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Ajakiri History Today hõlmab laia valikut ajalooga seotud teemasid. Neile meeldib, kui iga tükk pakub autoriteetset ja kaasahaaravat ajaloolist teemat. Artiklite pikkus on eeldatavasti 600–2200 sõna.

Tasumine lepitakse kokku ajakirja esitamisel. See väljaanne sisaldab kolme tüüpi artikleid, nii et palun vaadake nende saiti, et näha, millise artikliga soovite töötada.

Michigani ajalugu on pikaajaline väljaanne, mida turustatakse lugejatele, kes armastavad lugeda Michigani värvikast minevikust. Nad kutsuvad tulevasi vabakutselisi üles esitama käsikirju või artikleid, mis ei ületa 2500 sõna.

Artiklite ideed tuleks saata e -posti teel. Nad maksavad 150–400 dollarit artikli kohta ja#8211 avaldamisel.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Teise maailmasõja ajakiri avaldab materjali, mis on seotud teise maailmasõja ajastuga. Need hõlmavad ka artikleid Ameerika kodusõja, Ameerika ajaloo ja muu kohta. Konkreetset sõnade arvu pole, kuid vabakutselistel palutakse tellitud artikli saamiseks oma ideed e -posti teel esitada.

Tasu osas tuleb ajakirja esitamisel kokku leppida. Pange tähele, et enamikku sellest väljaandest ja#8217 tööst katavad personalikirjutajad, seega uurige enne päringu tegemist põhjalikult.

Ajakiri Naval History Magazine on laialdaselt loetav väljaanne, mis on pühendatud USA mereväe ajaloole, ulatudes lahingutest sündmusteni. Nad ootavad, et artiklid ei oleks pikemad kui 3000 sõna ja nagu potentsiaalsed kirjanikud esitavad oma ideid e -posti teel.

Mereväe ajalugu maksab avaldamisel kuni 150 dollarit 1000 sõna kohta ja#8211. Nende saidil on ranged kvalifikatsioonid, mis on suunatud tulevastele vabakutselistele, nii et uurige neid hoolikalt enne, kui midagi kirjutate.

Wartime Magazine on Austraalia ajalooajakiri, mis keskendub Austraalia sõjakogemusele. Artiklite jaoks ei ole konkreetset sõnade arvu, kuid neile meeldib, kui kirjanikud esitavad tellitud artikli saamiseks oma ideid toimetajale.

See väljaanne maksab 300 dollarit 1000 sõna kohta ja makse tehakse avaldamisel.

Ajakiri Pennsylvania Heritage Heritage on pühendatud Pennsylvania osariigi rikkaliku kultuuri ja pärandi valgustamisele. Artiklid ei tohiks olla pikemad kui 3500 sõna ja nad eeldavad, et saadate oma ideed ja artiklid toimetajale.

Avaldamisel tehakse makse vahemikus 250–500 dollarit. Pennsylvania pärandil on eriline hääl, nii et vabakutselised peaksid sellega enne tüki kirjutamist tutvuma.

Maksma: 40 senti sõna kohta

Ajakiri New Mexico püüab oma külastajatele teadvustada osariigi mitmekultuurilist pärandit, kliimat ja keskkonna unikaalsust. Konkreetset sõnade arvu pole, kuid kirjanikke julgustatakse ajakirjale oma ideid ja konspekti esitama.

Maksmise üle peetakse läbirääkimisi esitamisel ja seda tehakse vastuvõtmisel. Saidil on tihedad ja üksikasjalikud juhised, seega lugege neid enne ajakirja esitamist.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Ajakiri Traces on laialdaselt loetav väljaanne, mis hõlmab elulugude, sisserände, perekonna ja kultuuripärandiga seotud artikleid, sealhulgas Indiana ajalugu. Nad kutsuvad potentsiaalseid vabakutselisi esitama artikleid, mille pikkus on 600–4000 sõna.

Ideed tuleks esitada e -posti teel. Makse lepitakse kokku ja tehakse avaldamisel.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Ajakiri Gateway on laialt levitatud väljaanne, mis on pühendatud St. Louis'i ja#8217 ning Missouri kultuurilistele, ajaloolistele, sotsiaalsetele ja poliitilistele küsimustele. Nad eeldavad, et esseed ei ületa 2500 sõna.

Palun esitage oma ideed e -posti teel. Maksmine on läbirääkimiste teel. Nende eelistused esitamiseks on nende saidil loetletud, seega vaadake seda.

Maksma: 10 senti sõna kohta

Riigiühendus keskendub sisule Ontario ajaloo, looduse, keskkonna, pärandi, reisimise ja kunsti kohta. Neile meeldib saada artikleid pikkusega 1000 kuni 1500 sõna.

Esitage oma ideed enne kirjutamist kõigepealt ajakirjale. Nad maksavad sõna eest 10 senti 90 päeva jooksul pärast avaldamist, kuid pidage meeles, et tulevaste probleemide teemad ja teemad on nende saidil välja toodud. See tähendab, et kirjanikud peavad oma artikleid ette planeerima.

Sojourns Magazine on laialdaselt loetav ja laialt levitatud väljaanne, mis on pühendatud Colorado tähelepanuväärsete maade loodus- ja kultuuriloo tutvustamisele. Nad eelistavad, et tulevased vabakutselised esitaksid kõigepealt oma ideed ajakirjale ja telliksid tüki. Nad maksavad 500–1200 dollarit artikli kohta.

Pange tähele, et nende saidil on ulatuslikud esitamisjuhised, seega tutvuge sellega enne päringu tegemist. Oodatud on ka fotod ja kunstiteosed.

Maksma: Täpsustamata

Meie osariigi ajakiri on pikaajaline väljaanne, mis avaldab teavet Põhja-Carolina ajaloo, paikade, kultuuri ja inimeste kohta. Nende üleskutse esitatakse artiklitele, mille pikkus on keskmiselt 1500 sõna. Kirjanikke kutsutakse enne kirjutamist oma ideed ajakirjale esitama.


Esimene oopiumisõda

Oopiumi kasutamist kirjeldati kunagi kui „paradiisivõtmete omamist”, seega oli see veenev ja maitsev kogemus. Selle kommentaari tegi Thomas De Quincey ja ta peaks teadma, arvestades, et ta kirjutas kuulsa „Inglise oopiumisööja ülestunnistused” 1821. aastal. Võib -olla pole siis üllatav, et aine oli nii Suurbritannias kui ka Hiinas uskumatult populaarseks saanud kaheksateistkümnes sajand. Tegelikult nii populaarne, et põhjustas kaudselt kaks sõda kahe suure rahva vahel.

Suurbritannia müüs Hiinale oopiumi ja põhjustas riigis tugeva sõltuvuskriisi. Püüdes sellele punkti panna, lõpetas Hiina kaks korda sõda Suurbritanniaga ja#8211. Hiinal oli oopiumi keelustamine juba siis, kui britid sellega kauplema hakkasid, kuid see ei heidutanud neid. Järelikult viis keeld selleni, et Briti kauplejad hakkasid uute kasutajate meelitamiseks pakkuma oma tootest tasuta näidiseid. Arvestades, et brittidele kuuluval Ida-India kaubandusettevõttel oli toona oopiumikaubanduse monopol, oli ehk paratamatu, et Hiina hakkas peagi Briti toodet nõudma. Irooniline, et see katse tagada Hiina sõltuvus oopiumist pidi rahustama väga tüüpilist Briti sõltuvust. Oopium oli lahendus harjumuse toitmiseks, mille Suurbritannia oli juba välja töötanud väga erineva, kuid mitte vähem tugeva aine jaoks: tee.

Tea Caddy, 18. sajandi lõpp

18. sajandi Hiina rivaalitses ja mõnede sõnul isegi edestas Suurbritanniat rikkuse ja jõukuse poolest. Need kaks riiki sobitati mitmel viisil ühtlaselt, sealhulgas sõltuvus. Suurbritannia oli teesõltuvuses, tegelikult oli rahvas üleminekud alkoholikesksest riigist uutele luksuskaupadele: suhkur, šokolaad ja tee. Peaaegu igas riigi majapidamises toimus kultuuriline nihe tavalisema õlle (või veelgi kangema džinni!) Joomiselt eksootilisele ja äsja kättesaadavale teele.

Kogu riigi toitumine ja suhtumine on muutunud. Nii palju Briti kultuuri hakkas sel ajal tulema nende kolooniatest, sealhulgas tee. Colombia ülikool on väitnud, et Victoria ajastul kulus keskmiselt 5% iga Londoni leibkonna sissetulekust teele, mis on hämmastav summa.

Suurbritannial oli aga probleem, kuidas nad jätkavad kogu selle tee eest maksmist? Tavaliselt toimus riikide vahel kaupade kauplemise element, mis tähendab, et kaupu ei ostetud täielikult rahaga, vaid kaubeldi osaliselt teiste kaupade vastu. Suurbritannial oli aga väga vähe, mida Hiina kaupade osas soovis, ja veritses hõbedat, et maksta Hiinale tee eest ja toita oma harjumust. Nende kaubandus Hiinaga oli muutunud ohtlikult ebaühtlaseks ning Hiina omas Suurbritannia olukorra üle palju suuremat kontrolli. Hiina sai tuntuks hõbeda surnuaiana väärismetalli kalduvuse tõttu, mida kasutati tol ajal Hiinale kaupade eest tasumiseks, mitte ainult Suurbritannia.

Niisiis, mida tuli teha? Ideaalis sooviks Hiina Briti toodet sama palju kui Suurbritannia teed ja siis saaks kaubandust vastavalt ümber kalibreerida. Selle ainulaadse anglo-hiina probleemi lahenduseks osutus oopium.

Prantsuse satiir, mis näitab inglast, kes käskis Hiina keisril osta oopiumi. Hiinlane lamab surnult põrandal, väed taustal. Tekst ütleb: “Te peate selle mürgi kohe ostma. Soovime, et mürgitaksite end täielikult, sest vajame palju teed, et lihaveise praadida. ”

Aastal 1773 oli Suurbritannia juhtiv oopiumi müüja ja Briti toode (mida kasvatati India kolooniates laialdastel moonipõldudel) oli tuntud ka maailma parima kvaliteedina, nii et Hiinas oli selle järele tohutu nõudlus. Kuid 1796. aastaks muutis keiser Jiaqing (Qingi dünastia) oopiumi kaubanduse, impordi ja kasvatamise ebaseaduslikuks. See tähendas, et Ida -India kaubandusettevõte ei saanud seaduslikult oopiumi Hiinasse tuua. See aga ei heidutanud britte ja selle asemel kasutati aine vedamiseks salakaubavedajatele teisi kaubalaevu, kes võisid selle siis ebaseaduslikult riiki tuua, kasutades sisuliselt piraatlaevade salakaubaveo võrgustikku.

Kuigi brittid tegelikult oopiumi Hiinasse ei toonud, oli see ravim Hiinas olnud juba 5. sajandist. Assüürlaste, kreeklaste ja isegi araablaste poolt iidse ravimina toodud oopiumi oli sajandeid kasutatud valuvaigistina ning seda võeti pillide või vedelal kujul.

Kaks vaest Hiina oopiumi suitsetajat. (Photo Credit: Wellcome Images)

Kuulsa oopiumitoru kasutuselevõtt, kui ravimit suitsetati, oli palju kaasaegsem ja eksponentsiaalselt ohtlikum kalduvus, mis võttis kasutusele 16. sajandil. 1729. aastaks oli oopiumi suitsetamine muutunud Hiinas tõsiseks probleemiks, nii et 1729. aastal muutis keiser Jiaqing oopiumi müügi ja suitsetamise ebaseaduslikuks. Ja siiani saate riigis endiselt osta traditsioonilisi oopiumitorusid. Kuna keeld ei aidanud inimesi narkootikumide tarvitamisest eemale peletada, määras keiser Jiaqing voliniku Lin Tse-Hsu, kes tegeleb probleemiga kogu riigis.

Ta tutvustas mitmeid meetodeid, et püüda piirata tema riigis levinud Hiina narkootikumide harjumust. Ta korraldas sõltlaste ravi ja karistas karmilt kodumaiseid narkodiilereid, kuid tulutult. Pinged kahe suurriigi vahel kasvasid, kuna tundus, et oopiumi Hiinasse voolamise peatamiseks ei saa midagi teha. Hiina elanikkond oli ainest sõltuvuses ja ostis seda, ükskõik kui ebaseaduslik või ohtlik see oli, ja britid ei kavatsenud selle müüki lõpetada seni, kuni nad said selle eest hõbedat või kaupa.

Kantonis jõudsid asjad murdepunkti, kui Lin konfiskeeris 20 000 barrelit Briti oopiumi (umbes 1400 tonni väärtuses) ja viskas need merre. Tundlikkuse tugevuse demonstreerimiseks ajal, mil oopium ei olnud lihtsalt maha visatud, põletati see tule, soola ja lubjaga ning kallutati 3. juunil 1839. aastal merre. (3. juuni jääb täna Hiinas uimastivastaseks päevaks) .

Oopiumi konfiskeerimine ja hävitamine Lin Tse-Hsu korraldusel

Pärast oopiumi hävitamist sagenesid üha enam konfliktijuhtumeid uimastite salakaubaveo piraatlaevade ja Hiina sõjategelaste vahel. Lisaks mõrvati samal ajal purjus Briti meremehed Kow Loonis Hiina kaupmeest, olukord halvenes veelgi, kui britid keeldusid meremehi Hiina ametivõimudele karistuseks üle andmast. Hiinlased maksid provintsile kätte toidu embargoga ja 4. septembril 1839. aastal tulistati Briti laevadelt Hiina embargolaevade pihta. See sai tuntuks kui Kowlooni lahing ja see oli sõja esimene relvastatud konflikt. Pinged olid selgelt jõudnud keemistemperatuurini.

Pärast mitmeid parlamendiarutelusid algatas Suurbritannia peaminister Lord Palmerston 1840. aastal ametlikult sõja Hiinaga. Britid ei olnud üldiselt rahul oopiumi müügiga Hiinale, mõned nimetasid seda ebamoraalseks. Noor William Gladstone kritiseeris seda poliitikat isegi laialdaselt parlamendis. Üksmeel oli siiski sõtta minna, sest oopiumikaubandus oli lihtsalt liiga tulus, et sellest loobuda.

Juunis 1840 jõudis Hongkongi 16 sõjalaeva ja sõda algas tõsiselt. See ei kestnud aga kaua. Hiina lihtsalt ei sobinud Briti mereväe võimuga, mis oli sel ajal kogu maailmas võrreldamatu. Pärast mitmeid inglaste lüüasaamisi ja isegi pärast seda, kui nad pidid maksma 6 miljoni dollari suuruse lunaraha oma saare tagastamise eest, alustasid hiinlased brittidega läbirääkimisi.

Nankingu lepingu allkirjastamine, 1842

Pärast ebaõnnestunud esialgset kokkulepet 1841. aastal jõudsid nad 29. augustil 1842 lõpuks kokkuleppele ja allkirjastasid nankimislepingu. Seda hakati nimetama ebavõrdseks lepinguks või esimeseks ebavõrdseks lepinguks. Selle põhjuseks oli tõsine eelarvamus brittide kasuks. Hiinlased maksid sisuliselt laevastiku eest, kes nende vastu võitles, nad maksid põletatud oopiumi eest, Hongkong (ehkki tol ajal sageli nimetati seda "The Barren Rock ’") anti brittidele ja isegi Briti konsule lubati Hiinasse, mis oli varem väga suletud riik. Kokku oli hiinlaste maksma sunnitud hüvitis umbes 21 miljonit dollarit. Hiina oli esimese oopiumisõja suurejooneliselt kaotanud. Kummalisel kombel polnud ka Suurbritannia täpselt võitnud. Nad saavutasid mitmeid järeleandmisi ja rahalisi hüvitisi, kuid oopiumi teemal valitses märkimisväärne vaikus. Lepingus ei mainitud seda kusagil. Britid soovisid toote vabakaubandust ja hiinlased poleks kunagi nõustunud, nii et seda küsimust ei käsitletud kunagi.

Esimese oopiumisõja tulemus oli see, et asjad pöördusid väga palju tagasi endisesse olukorda. Suurbritannia smugeldas oopiumi ebaseaduslikult Hiinasse, hiinlased suitsetasid seda ja Hiina jätkas Ühendkuningriiki tee saatmist. See suhe oli aga parimal juhul nõrk ja ei lähe kaua aega, kui probleem taas eskaleerus. Sellega ei pidanud oopiumi põhjustatud konfliktid lõppema. Võrgutav narkootikum pidi saatma taas hätta ...


Avatud meistrivõistluste ajalugu

Aastal 1860 toimunud avaüritusel, mis teeb sellest vanima pidevalt toimuva meistrivõistluse spordis, tähistab 2019. aasta British Open 148. korda. 1860 Šotimaal Prestwicki golfiklubis toimunud turniir koosnes kaheksast professionaalist, kes mängisid kolm 12-augulise golfi vooru. Ürituse võitis Willie Park vanem. Alles 1872. aastal sai võitnud golfimängija Claret Jugi.

Alates kontseptsioonist on British Openit mängitud igal aastal kas Šotimaal või Inglismaal, välja arvatud 1951. aastal, kui see toimus Põhja -Iirimaal Royal Portrushis - samuti selle aasta turniiril. Lingikursustel oli selge koduväljaku eelis kuni 1922. aastani, mil Walter Hagenist sai esimene Ameerikas sündinud võitja.

Alates 1970. aastast on ameeriklased kaks korda üle tiigi pikka aega domineerinud. Jack Nicklaus ja Tom Watson tõid esile ajavahemiku 1970–83, mil ameeriklased võitsid 14 turniirist 12. Hiljuti, alustades John Dalyga 1995. aastal ja lõpetades Tiger Woodsi kolmanda British Openi võiduga 2006. aastal, nõudsid ameeriklased 10 tiitlit 12st.


Sissejuhatus

11 736 individuaalset rekordit iga -aastaste maksete kohta asjaajajad töötab Ida -India ettevõte sellel veebisaidil olevad veebisaidid loodi osana põhjalikust pikisuuringust Ida -India ettevõtte ja selle töötajate karjääri ja majandusliku käekäigu kohta. Valmis 1999. aastal ja seda juhtis dr H. M. Boot, kogu andmekogum (sh teave ajavahemiku 1820–1850 kohta) ja projekti kirjeldus on saadaval Ühendkuningriigi andmearhiivi kaudu:

Andmekogum postitati London Lives hõlmab andmekogumi esimest kuuskümmend aastat kuni 31. detsembrini 1819 ja on saadaval ainult märksõnade ja nimede otsimiseks. Kui soovite selle materjali statistilist analüüsi teha, pääsete täieliku andmekogumi juurde erinevates vormingutes aadressilt http://www.data-archive.ac.uk. Selle materjali autoriõigused jäävad esialgsele uurijale Hector Macdonald Bootile ja andmeid reprodutseeritakse siin litsentsiga, ainult mitteäriliseks kasutamiseks.

Selle andmekogumi hõlmatud periood hõlmab ettevõtte suurima võimu perioodi. Pärast Bengaliga kaubavahetuse monopoli kehtestamist 1757. aastal ja ülejäänud kaheksateistkümnenda sajandi jooksul valitses ettevõte sisuliselt Indiat, tegutsedes iseseisva osariigina. Selle võim ja volitused anti järk -järgult üle Briti valitsusele, ehkki see jätkas iseseisva ettevõttena tegutsemist ka XIX sajandi esimesel poolel. Aastal 1801 töötas ettevõttes enam kui 3670 inimest, kes asusid Leadenhalli tänaval asuvas Ida -India majas, kuid hõlmasid ka laia valikut sadama- ja laopindu.

Kategooria asjaajaja, mis on selle andmekogumi aluseks, hõlmab suurt osa ettevõtte kodutöötajatest, alates madalatest teenistujatest kuni täitevvõimu omavate tippjuhtideni. Dr Booti sõnadega:


Peamised faktid ja teave

Kvartalitegude taust

  • Briti riigivõlg 72 miljonit naela oli Prantsuse ja India sõja ajal kasvanud peaaegu 130 miljonile naelale.
  • Briti ohvitseridel, sealhulgas Põhja-Ameerika Briti vägede ülemjuhatajal, kindralleitnant Thomas Gage’il, kes võitles Prantsuse ja India sõjas, oli raske veenda kolooniaassambleid maksma sõdurite neljaks jaotamise ja varustamise eest. marssima.
  • Vägedele piisava toidu ja peavarju pakkumiseks palus Gage parlamendil leida lahendus.
  • Pärast brittide võitu Prantsuse ja India sõjas andis Suurbritannia kuningas George III välja 1763. aasta kuningliku väljakuulutamise, millega kavatseti keelata asulatel ületada Apalatši mäed lääne suunas, kus nõuti väljakuulutamisjoont (suur piir kolonisti ja põliselanike vahel). ametikohtade mehitamine põlisameeriklaste piiril, milles Briti administratsioon kolonistide kaitseks pooldas kvartaliseaduse rakendamist.
  • Suurbritannia riigivõlga tasumiseks vajas Suurbritannia administratsioon tugevat sõjalist kohalolekut, et jõustada kolooniates uued maksumeetmed, ja ainus toiming, mis aitaks neil seda saavutada, oli kvartaliseadus.
    24. märtsil 1765 võttis Suurbritannia parlament vastu kvartaliseaduse.

Kvartaliteod 1765 sätted

  • Kolonistidelt maksude kogumiseks ja kolooniate piiride kaitsmiseks saatsid britid kolooniatesse täiendavalt 40 000 sõdurit.
  • Ameeriklased varustasid Briti sõdureid kasarmute ja rahvamajadega.
  • Lisaks märgiti selles, et kui sõdurite arv ületab kasarmu ja olemasoleva eluaseme, peavad nad majutama Briti sõdurid oma kohalikesse võõrastemajadesse ja tagama neile põhivajadused, nagu nõud, veinid, liköörid, toit, küünlad ja voodipesu, kõik ilma kompensatsioonita.
  • Ja kui võõrastemajaid pole piisavalt, võiks sõdureid majutada takistusteta majades, kõrvalhoonetes, aitades ja eramajades.

Ameerika kolonistid olid vastu

  • 1766. aastal saabus New Yorki 1500 Briti sõdurit. New Yorgi provintsi assamblee keeldus aga kvartaliseadusest kinni pidamast ega pakkunud Briti sõduritele maju ja majutust.
  • Briti sõdurid pidid jääma oma laevadele.
  • New Yorgi kolooniaassamblee leidis, et see seadus rikub 1689. aasta Inglise õiguste seadust.
  • Ettemaksu, kasarmute ja Briti sõdurite toidu eest tasumiseks maksustati koloniste ilma nende nõusolekuta, mida nad pidasid ebaõiglaseks.
  • Mõned kolonistid kahtlustasid, et nende vastu võidakse kasutada alalist armeed.
  • Hoolimata kolonisti pingutustest ja protestidest kasutasid Briti sõdurid kodudesse ja võõrastemajadesse sisenemiseks jõudu.
  • New Yorgi provintsi assamblee jäi trotslikuks kuni 1771. aastani, kui eraldas lõpuks raha Briti vägede eraldamiseks.

Bostoni veresaun

  • Kvartaliseaduse abiga võttis Suurbritannia parlament 1767. aastal vastu Townshendi seadused. See sai oma nime Charles Townshendi järgi, kes neid sponsoreeris.
  • Townshendi seadusega maksustati kolooniatesse imporditud kaupu (paber, värv, plii, klaas ja tee). Kuid kolooniad, kellel polnud esindust, tundsid seda võimu kuritarvitamisena.
  • The Americans protested the new Act, which led to the civil unrest in the city. The British Government ordered the British redcoats to post in Boston.
  • Due to the provisions of the Quartering Act, in March 5, 1770, on King Street in Boston, a street brawl occurred between the colonists and the British soldiers, throwing snowballs, stones, and sticks that quickly escalated to manslaughter.
  • Eight people were wounded and five colonists were shot and killed (a black sailor named Crispus Attucks, ropemaker Samuel Gray, a mariner named James Caldwell, Samuel Maverick, and Patrick Carr) by the the British soldiers. The event was widely known as the “Boston Massacre”.
  • The British soldiers were accused of manslaughter and murder. The two soldiers were found guilty for manslaughter while British Officer Captain Thomas Preston and his other men were released

The Boston Tea Party

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

The Quartering Act of 1774

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

Quartering Act of 1774 – The Intolerable Acts

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

Quartering Act Worksheets

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

Kaasasolevate töölehtede täielik loetelu

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

Linkige/tsiteerige seda lehte

Kui viitate oma veebisaidil mõnele selle lehe sisule, kasutage allolevat koodi, et viidata sellele lehele algallikana.

Kasutage koos mis tahes õppekavaga

Need töölehed on spetsiaalselt loodud kasutamiseks mis tahes rahvusvahelise õppekavaga. Neid töölehti saate kasutada nii, nagu need on, või muuta neid Google'i esitluste abil, et muuta need konkreetsemaks teie õpilaste võimete taseme ja õppekava standardite suhtes.


A Summary View of the Rights of British America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study Questions

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

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

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


THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE BRITISH NORMANDY MEMORIAL

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

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

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

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

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


History of Nigeria before Independence (1900 – 1960)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Vaata videot: Maximilien Robespierre: The Reign of Terror