Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 111)

M. Willson, American History, book 3, part 2, chapters 4-5.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 7 (Mexico, volume 3), chapters 29-33, and volume 8, chapters 1-2.

MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828. Free-Masonry in politics. The rival branches of the order. The Escocés and the Yorkinos.

For some years a furious contest raged between two political societies, "known as the 'Escocés' and 'Yorkinos'—or, as we should call them, Scotch Free-Masons and York Free-Masons—whose secret organizations were employed for political purposes by two rival political parties. At the time of the restoration of the Constitutional Government of Spain in 1820, Free-Masonry was introduced into Mexico; and as it was derived from the Scotch branch of that order, it was called, after the name of the people of Scotland, 'Escocés.' Into this institution were initiated many of the old Spaniards still remaining in the country, the Creole aristocracy, and the privileged classes—parties that could ill endure the elevation of a Creole colonel, Iturbide, to the Imperial throne. When Mr. Poinsett was sent out as Embassador to Mexico [1822], he carried with him the charter for a Grand Lodge from the American, or York order of Free-Masons in the United States. Into this new order the leaders of the Democratic party were initiated. The bitter rivalry that sprung up between these two branches of the Masonic body kept the country in a ferment for ten years, and resulted finally in the formation of a party whose motto was opposition to all secret societies, and who derived their name of Anti-Masons from the party of the same name then flourishing in the United States. When the Escocés had so far lost ground in popular favor as to be in the greatest apprehension from their prosperous but imbittered rivals, the Yorkinos, as a last resort, to save themselves, and to ruin the hated organization, they pronounced against all secret societies. … 'General Bravo,' Vice-President of Mexico, and leader of the Escocés, having issued his proclamation declaring that, as a last resort, he appealed to arms to rid the republic of that pest, secret societies, and that he would not give up the contest until he had rooted them out, root and branch, took up his position at Tulansingo—a village about 30 miles north of the City of Mexico. Here, at about daylight on the morning of the 7th January, 1828, he was assailed by General Guerrero, the leader of the Yorkinos, and commander of the forces of government.' After a slight skirmish, in which eight men were killed and six wounded, General Bravo and his party were made prisoners; and thus perished forever the party of the Escocés. This victory was so complete as to prove a real disaster to the Yorkinos. The want of outside pressure led to internal dissensions; so that when two of its own members, Guerrero and Pedraza, became rival candidates for the presidency, the election was determined by a resort to arms."

R. A. Wilson, Mexico: its Peasants and its Priests, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 2.

MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844. The rise of Santa Anna. Dissolution of the Federal System. The Unitary Republic established. Recognition by Spain. The Pastry War. Retrogradation and decline.

"After the death of Iturbide, by far the most powerful person in the nation was the Creole general Santa Anna, who, at the age of 24, had already destroyed the military empire of his chief. Santa Anna at first interested himself in the visionary project of Bolivar for framing a general confederation of the new nations of South America.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

This project … failed completely; and for several years he settled down as governor of Vera Cruz, reconciled himself to the Federal Republic, and took no part in public life. In 1828, however, the Presidential election led to a civil war in which Santa Anna and his favourite Veracrusanos first found out their capabilities; and they had an opportunity of testing them again in the next year, when the feeble force of Barrados, the last military attempt made by Spain to reduce Mexico, was cut to pieces at Tampico. From that movement Santa Anna became the sole controller of the destinies of the country: and in 1833 he was elected President. Forty years ago all Europe knew the picture of Santa Anna, with his tall spare figure, sunburnt face, and black hair curling over his forehead; how he lived on his hacienda of Manga de Clavo, cockfighting, gambling, and horse-racing, occasionally putting himself at the head of his bronzed troops, and either making a dash at an insurrection, or making a pronunciamento on his own account. Mexican histories tell how gallantly he defended Vera Cruz in 1839, against the French invasion under Prince de Joinville [called 'the Pastry War,' because consequent on the non-payment of French claims, among which there was prominence given to a certain pastry-cook's claim for goods destroyed in the riot of a revolution at the capital in 1828]; how his leg, having been shattered by a ball, was buried with a solemn service and a funeral oration in the cemetery of Santa Paula in Mexico; and how, in a few years, when Santa Anna was in disgrace with the people, they destroyed the tomb, and kicked Santa Anna's limb about the streets with every mark of hatred and contempt. … {2173} The manifold difficulties of government in Mexico sufficiently attested the weakness of the Federal constitution; and in 1835, after a trial of eleven years, the state governments were dissolved, and the Republic, one and indivisible, set up for a time in their place. There was now to be a President, elected by an indirect vote for eight years, a Senate, and a House of Deputies, both elected by a direct popular vote, and an elective Supreme Court. Santa Anna, who was identified with the Unitary principle, was re-elected three times; so that with some intermission he governed Mexico for 20 years. The dissolution of the Federal government naturally strengthened the hands of Santa Anna; and in 1836 Mexico was for the first time recognized by Spain. But the unitary republic was a time of disaster and disgrace; and from the point of view of progress it was a period of reaction. … Europe looked forward, almost without jealousy, to the time when the great nation of North America would absorb this people of half-civilized Indians mixed with degenerate Spaniards. Events which now happened greatly strengthened this impression."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 20, sections 6-7.

MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837. The Abolition of Slavery.

"The general affairs of the country in the second half of 1829 were in a chaotic state. Disorganization fettered every branch of the government. … And yet, amidst its constant struggle, Guerrero's administration decreed several progressive measures, the most important of which was the abolition of slavery. African slavery had indeed been reduced to narrow limits. The Dominican provincial of Chiapas, Father Matias Cordoba, gave freedom to the slaves on the estates of his order. On the 16th of September, 1825, President Victoria had liberated in the country's name the slaves purchased with a certain fund collected for that purpose, as well as those given up by their owners to the patriotic junta. The general abolition, however, was not actually carried out for some time, certain difficulties having arisen; and several states, among which was Zacatecas, had decreed the freedom of slaves before the general government arrived at a final conclusion on the subject. As a matter of fact, the few remaining slaves were in domestic service, and treated more like members of families than as actual chattels. At last Deputy Tornel, taking advantage of the time when Guerrero was invested with extraordinary powers, drew up and laid before him a decree for total abolition. It was signed September 15, 1829, and proclaimed the next day, the national anniversary. The law met with no demur save from Coahuila and Texas, in which state were about 1,000 slaves, whose manumission would cost heavily, as the owners held them at a high valuation. It seems that the law was not fully enforced; for on the 5th of April, 1837, another was promulgated, declaring slavery abolished without exception and with compensation to the owners."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 4.

MEXICO: A. D. 1845. The Annexation of Texas to the United States.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846. The American aggression which precipitated war.

"Texas had claimed the Rio Grande as her western limit, though she had never exercised actual control over either New Mexico or the country lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. The groundless character of the claims of Texas to the Rio Grande as its western boundary was even admitted by some friends of the measure. … Silas Wright, … referring to the boundaries of Texas, declared that 'they embraced a country to which Texas had no claims, over which she had never asserted jurisdiction, and which she had no right to cede.' Mr. Benton denounced the treaty [of annexation and cession of territory] as an attempt to seize 2,000 square miles of Mexican territory by the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte, which would be an act of direct aggression. … In ordering, therefore, General Taylor to pass a portion of his forces westward of the river Nueces, which was done before annexation was accomplished, President Polk put in peril the peace and the good name of the country. In his Annual Message of December of that year [1845] he stated that American troops were in position on the Nueces, 'to defend our own and the rights of Texas.' But, not content with occupying ground on and westward of the Nueces, he issued, on the 13th of January, 1846, the fatal order to General Taylor to advance and 'occupy positions on or near the left bank of the Rio del Norte.' That movement of the army from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande, a distance of more than 100 miles, was an invasion of Mexican territory,—an act of war for which the President was and must ever be held responsible by the general judgment of mankind."

H. Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, volume 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, volume 2, chapter 149.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847. The American conquest of California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847. War with the United States. The first movements of American invasion. Palo Alto. Resaca de la Palma. Monterey. Buena Vista. Fremont in California.

"The annexation of Texas accomplished [see TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836, and 1836-1845], General Taylor, the United States commander in the Southwest, received orders to advance to the Rio Grande. Such was the impoverished and distracted condition of Mexico that she apparently contemplated no retaliation for the injury she had sustained, and, had the American army remained at the Nueces, a conflict might perhaps have been avoided. But, on Taylor's approaching the Rio Grande, a combat ensued [May 8, 1846] at Palo Alto with Arista, the Mexican commander, who crossed over that stream. It ended in the defeat of the Mexicans, and the next day another engagement took place at Resaca de la Palma, with the same result. These actions eventually assumed considerable political importance. They were among the causes of General Taylor's subsequent elevation to the Presidency. As soon as intelligence of what had occurred reached Washington, President Polk, forgetting that the author of a war is not he who begins it, but he who has made it necessary, addressed a special message to Congress announcing that the Mexicans 'had at last invaded our territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil.' Congress at once (May 13th, 1846) passed an act providing money and men. {2174} Its preamble stated, 'Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that country and the United States, be it enacted,' etc. As long previously as 1843, Mr. Bocanegra, the Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations, had formally notified the American government that the annexation of Texas would inevitably lead to war. General Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, in a note to Mr. Upshur, the Secretary of State, said that, 'in the name of his nation, and now for them, he protests, in the most solemn manner, against such an aggression; and he moreover declares, by express order of his government, that, on sanction being given by the executive of the Union to the incorporation of Texas into the United States, he will consider his mission ended, seeing that, as the Secretary of State will have learned, the Mexican government is resolved to declare war as soon as it receives intimation of such an act.' War being thus provoked by the American government, General Scott received orders (November 18th, 1846) to take command of the expedition intended for the invasion of Mexico."

J. W. Draper, History of the American Civil War, chapter 23 (volume 1).

After his defeat at Resaca de la Palma, the Mexican general Arista "retreated in the direction of San Luis Potosi, and was superseded by General Pedro Ampudia. General Taylor marched his forces across the Rio Grande on the 17th of May and the invasion of Mexico was begun in earnest. From the 21st to the 24th of September, he was engaged with 7,000 men in the attack upon Monterey, the capital of Nueva Leon, garrisoned by a force of 9,000. He met with the same success which had attended his former engagements. General Ampudia was also forced to retire to San Luis Potosi. The brilliant features of this attack were the assault upon Obispado Viejo by General Worth on the first day of the fight, and the storming of the heights above on the following day. … Upon the defeat of Ampudia, Santa Anna, having then just attained to the chief magistracy of Mexico [the American blockading squadron at Vera Cruz had permitted him to return to the country, expecting that his presence would be advantageous to the invaders], and left it in the hands of his Vice-President, Gomez Farias, took the command of the Mexican forces and set out to check the advance of General Taylor. On the 23d of February, 1847, the bloody battle of Angostura, as it is called by the Mexicans (known to the Americans as the battle of Buena Vista), was fought, and lost by the Mexican army. Santa Anna returned to San Luis Potosi, whence he was called to the capital to head off the insurrection against Gomez Farias, by the party called derisively the Polkos, because their insurrection at that time was clearly favorable to the movements of the American army, and because James K. Polk was then the President of the United States and head of the American party favorable to the war. It was at this time that the army of Taylor was reduced to about 5,000 men in order to supply General Winfield Scott with forces to carry out his military operations, and the field of war was transferred to the region between Vera Cruz and the capital. While these events were in progress an expedition under General John C. Fremont had been made over-land through New Mexico and into California [see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847; and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], and under the directions of the United States government the Mexicans of California had been incited to revolt."

A. H. Noll, Short History of Mexico, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: H. Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the U. S., volume 3, chapters 4-9.

H. O. Ladd, History of the War with Mexico, chapters 4-8.

E. D. Mansfield, History of the Mexican War, chapters 2-4 and 8.

O. O. Howard, General Taylor, chapters 8-19.

MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (March-September). General Scott's campaign. From Vera Cruz to the capital. Cerro Gordo. Contreras. Churubusco. Molino del Rey. Chapultepec. The conquest complete.

"General Winfield Scott was ordered to Mexico, to take chief command and conduct the war according to his own plan. This was, in brief, to carry an expedition against Vera Cruz, reduce its defences, and then march on the city of Mexico by the shortest route. … On the 7th of March [1847], the fleet with Scott's army came to anchor a few miles south of Vera Cruz, and two days later he landed his whole force—nearly 12,000 men—by means of surf-boats. Vera Cruz was a city of 7,000 inhabitants, strongly fortified. … On the 22d the investment was complete. A summons to surrender being refused, the batteries opened, and the bombardment was kept up for four days, the small war vessels joining in it. The Mexican batteries and the castle [of San Juan de Ulloa, on a reef in the harbor] replied with spirit, and with some little effect; but the city and castle were surrendered on the 27th. The want of draught animals and wagons delayed till the middle of April the march upon the capital of the country, 200 miles distant. The first obstacle was found at Cerro Gordo, 50 miles northwest of Vera Cruz, where the Mexicans had taken position on the heights around a rugged mountain pass, with a battery commanding every turn of the road. A way was found to flank the position on the extreme left, and on the morning of April 18th the Americans attacked in three columns. … The divisions of Twiggs and Worth … attacked the height of Cerro Gordo, where the Mexicans were most strongly intrenched, and where Santa Anna commanded in person. This being carried by storm, its guns were turned first upon the retreating Mexicans, and then upon the advanced position that Pillow was assaulting in front. The Mexicans, finding themselves surrounded, soon surrendered. Santa Anna, with the remainder of his troops, fled toward Jalapa, where Scott followed him and took the place."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the United States, volume 4, chapter 14.

"Less than a month later [after the battle of Cerro Gordo] the American army occupied the city of Puebla. Scott remained at Puebla during June and July, awaiting reinforcements and drilling them as they arrived. On the 7th of August he set out for the capital, which was now defended by about 30,000 troops. A series of encounters took place on the 19th, and on the next day three battles were fought, at Contreras, Churubusco, and San Antonio. They were in reality parts of one general engagement. The troops on both sides fought with stubbornness and bravery, but in the end the Mexicans were completely routed, and the pursuit of the flying enemy reached almost to the gates of the capital. A commissioner, Nicholas P. Trist, having been previously appointed to negotiate with the Mexicans, an armistice was now agreed upon, to begin on the 23d of August. {2175} The armistice, from a strategic point of view, was a mistake, the advantage of the overwhelming victories of the 19th and 20th was in great part lost, and the Mexicans were enabled to recover from the demoralization which had followed their defeat. The position of the American army, in the heart of the enemy's country, where it might be cut off from reinforcements and supplies, was full of danger, and the fortifications which barred the way to the capital, Molino del Rey, Casa Mata, and Chapultepec, were exceedingly formidable. On the 7th of September the armistice came to an end. The negotiations had failed, and General Scott prepared to move on the remaining works. A reconnoisance was made on that day, and on the 8th Scott attacked the enemy. The army of Santa Anna was drawn up with its right resting on Casa Mata and its left on Molino del Rey. Both these positions were carried by assault, and the Mexicans, after severe loss, were defeated and driven off the field. The next two days were occupied in preparing for the final assault upon Chapultepec. A careful disposition was made of the troops, batteries were planted within range, and on the 12th they opened a destructive fire. On the 13th a simultaneous assault was made from both sides, the troops storming the fortress with great bravery and dash, and the works were carried, the enemy flying in confusion. The army followed them along the two causeways of Belen and San Cosmé, fighting its way to the gates of the city. Here a struggle continued till after nightfall, the enemy making a desperate defence. Early the next morning, a deputation of the city council waited upon General Scott, asking for terms of capitulation. These were refused, and the divisions of Worth and Quitman entered the capital. Street fighting was kept up for two days longer, but by the 16th the Americans had secured possession of the city. Negotiations were now renewed, and the occupation of the territory, meanwhile, continued. The principal towns were garrisoned, and taxes and duties collected by the United States. Occasional encounters took place at various points, but the warfare was chiefly of a guerrilla character. Towards the close of the war General Scott was superseded by General Butler. But the work had been already completed."

J. R. Soley, The Wars of the United States, 1789-1850 (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 7, chapter 6).

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 17-20.

General W. Scott, Memoirs, by himself, chapters 27-32 (volume 2.)

President's Message and Documents, December 7, 1847 (Senate Ex. Doc., No. 1, 30th Cong., 1st Session).

MEXICO: A. D. 1848. The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. Territory ceded to the United States.

"The Mexican people had now succumbed to the victorious armies of the 'barbarians of the North.' The Mexican Government was favorable to the settlement of the questions which had caused this unhappy war. A new administration was in power. General Anaya on the 11th of November was elected President of the Mexican Republic until the 8th of January, 1848, when the constitutional term of office would expire. … National pride … bowed to the necessities of the republic, and the deputies assembled in the Mexican Congress favored the organization of a commission for the purpose of reopening negotiations with Mr. Trist, who still remained in Mexico, and was determined to assume the responsibility of acting still as agent of the United States [although his powers had been withdrawn]. The lack of coöperation by the adherents of Santa Anna prevented immediate action on the part of these commissioners. On the 8th of January, 1848, General Herrera was elected Constitutional President of the Mexican Republic. … Under the new administration negotiations were easily opened with a spirit of harmony and concession which indicated a happy issue. Mexico gave up her claim to the Nueces as the boundary-line of her territory, and the United States did not longer insist upon the cession of Lower California and the right of way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The previous offer of money by the United States for the cession of New Mexico and Upper California was also continued. … On the 2d of February a treaty of peace was unanimously adopted and signed by the commissioners at the city of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. … The ratifications of the Mexican Congress and of the United States Senate were exchanged May 30th, 1848. The United States, by the terms of this treaty, paid to Mexico $15,000,000 for the territory added to its boundaries. They moreover freed the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico for damages, which the United States agreed to pay to the amount of $3,250,000. The boundary-line was also fixed between the two republics. It began in the Gulf of Mexico three miles from the mouth of the Rio Grande del Norte, running up the centre of that river to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; then westward along that southern boundary which runs north of Elpaso, to its western termination; thence northward along the western line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila, thence down the middle of the Gila until it empties into the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California to the Pacific Ocean, one marine league south of the port of San Diego. On the 12th of June, the last of the United States troops left the capital of Mexico. … The partisan supporters of President Polk's administration did not hesitate to avow that the war with Mexico was waged for conquest of territory. … The demands of indemnity from Mexico first made by the United States were equal, exclusive of Texas, to half of the domain of Mexico, embracing a territory upward of 800,000 square miles. … The area of New Mexico, as actually ceded by treaty to the United States, was 526,078 square miles. The disputed ground of Texas, which rightfully belonged to Mexico, and which was also yielded in the treaty of peace, contained no less than 125,520 square miles. The acquisition of the total amount of 651,591 square miles of territory was one of the direct results of this war, in which President Polk was ever pretending 'to conquer a peace.' To this must be added the undisputed region of Texas, which was 325,520 square miles more, in order adequately to represent the acquisition of territory to the United States, amounting to 851,590 square miles. This has been computed to be seventeen times the extent of the State of New York. … The territory thus acquired included ten degrees of latitude on the Pacific coast, and extended east to the Rio Grande, a distance of 1,000 miles, … Five thousand miles of sea-coast were added to the possessions of the United States. … The mineral resources of the conquered territory, including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Western Colorado, Utah, and Nevada, have been developed to such an extent that their value is beyond computation."

H. O. Ladd, History of the War with Mexico, chapters 30-31.

ALSO IN: Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other Countries (edition of 1889), pages 681-694.

{2176}

MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861. The succession of Revolutions and the War of the Reform. The new Constitution. The government of Juarez and the Nationalization of Church property.

"For a brief period, after the withdrawal of the American army, the Mexican people drew the breath of peace, disturbed only by outbreaks headed by the turbulent Paredes. … In June, 1848, Señor Herrera (who had been in power at the opening of the war with the United States) took possession of the presidential chair. For the first time within the memory of men then living, the supreme power changed hands without disturbance or opposition. … The army … was greatly reduced, arrangements were made with creditors abroad, and for the faithful discharge of internal affairs. General Mariano Arista, formerly minister of war, assumed peaceful possession of power, in January, 1851, and continued the wise and economical administration of his predecessor. But Mexico could not long remain at peace, even with herself; she was quiet merely because utterly prostrated, and in December, 1852, some military officers, thirsting for power, rebelled against the government. They commenced again the old system of 'pronunciamientos'; usually begun by some man in a province distant from the seat of government, and gradually gaining such strength that when finally met by the lawful forces they were beyond control. Rather than plunge his country anew into the horrors of a civil war, General Arista resigned his office and sailed for Europe, where he died in poverty a few years later. It may astonish anyone except the close student of Mexican history to learn the name of the man next placed in power by the revolutionists, for it was no one else than General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna! Recalled by the successful rebels from his exile in Cuba and South America, Santa Anna hastened to the scene of conflict. … He commenced at once to extend indefinitely the army, and to intrench himself in a position of despotic power, and, in December, 1853, he issued a decree which, in substance, declared him perpetual dictator. This aroused opposition all over the country, and the Liberals, who were opposed to an arbitrary centralized government, rose in rebellion. The most successful leaders were Generals Alvarez and Comonfort, who, after repeated victories, drove the arch conspirator from the capital, on the 9th of August, 1855. Santa Anna secretly left the city of Mexico, and a few days later embarked at Vera Cruz for Havana. During several years he resided in Cuba, St. Thomas, Nassau, and the United States, constantly intriguing for a return to power in Mexico."

F. A. Ober, Young Folks' History of Mexico, chapter 33.

"Upon the flight of Santa Anna, anarchy was imminent in the capital. The most prominent promoters of the revolution assembled quickly, and elected General Romulo Diaz de la Vega acting-president, and he succeeded in establishing order. … By a representative assembly General Martin Carrera was elected acting-president, and he was installed on the 15th of August, 1855, but resigned on the 11th of the following month, when the presidency devolved a second time upon General Romulo Diaz de la Vega. The revolution of Alvarez and Comonfort, known as the Plan de Ayotla, was entirely successful, and under the wise and just administration of Diaz de la Vega, the country was brought to the wholly abnormal state of quiet and order. Representatives of the triumphant party assembled in Cuernavaca and elected General Juan Alvarez president ad interim, and upon the formation of his cabinet he named Comonfort his Minister of War. Returning to the capital, he transferred the presidency to his Minister of War, and on the 12th of December, 1855, General Ignacio Comonfort entered upon the discharge of his duties as acting-president. He was made actual president by a large majority in the popular election held two years later, and was reinstalled on the 1st of December, 1857. He proved to be one of the most remarkable rulers of Mexico, and his administration marks the beginning of a new era in Mexican history. Scarcely had Comonfort begun his rule as the substitute of Alvarez, when revolutions again broke out and assumed formidable proportions. Puebla was occupied by 5,000 insurgents. Federal troops sent against them joined their cause. Comonfort succeeded in raising an army of 16,000 men, well equipped, and at its head marched to Puebla and suppressed the revolution before the end of March. But in October another rebellion broke out in Puebla, headed by Colonel Miguel Miramon. The government succeeded in suppressing this, as well as one which broke out in San Luis Potosi, and another, under the leadership of General Tomas Mejia, in Queretaro. It was by Comonfort that the war between the Church and the government, so long threatened, was precipitated. In June, 1856, he issued a decree ordering the sale of all the unimproved real estate held by the Church, at its assessed value. The Church was to receive the proceeds, but the land was to become thereby freed from all ecclesiastical control." Upon information of a conspiracy centering in one of the monasteries of the city of Mexico, the president sent troops to take possession of the place, and finally ordered it to be suppressed. These measures provoked an implacable hostility on the part of the supporters of the Church. "On the 5th of February, 1857, the present Constitution of Mexico was adopted by Congress. Comonfort, as Provisional President, subscribed it, and it was under its provisions that he was elected actual president. But ten days after his inauguration in December, 1857, and his taking the oath to support the new Constitution, the President, supposing that he could gain the full support of the Liberals, and claiming that he had found the operation of the Constitution impracticable, dissolved Congress and set the Constitution aside. He threw his legal successor, Benito Juarez, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, and one of the supporters of the new Constitution, into prison." Revolution upon revolution now followed in quick succession. Comonfort fled the country. Zuloaga, Pezuela, Pavon, Miramon, were seated in turn in the presidential chair for brief terms of a half recognized government. {2177} "Constitutionally (if we may ever use that word seriously in connection with Mexican affairs), upon the abandonment of the presidency by Comonfort, the office devolved upon the President of the Supreme Court of Justice. That office was held at the time by Don Benito Juarez, who thereupon became president de jure of Mexico. … The most curious specimen of the nomenclature adopted in Mexican history is that which gives to the struggle between the Church party and its allies and the Constitutional government the name of the War of the Reform. … What was thereby reformed it would be difficult to say, … further than the suppression of the outreaching power, wealth, and influence of the Church, and the assertion of the supremacy of the State. … But the 'War of the Reform' had all the bitterness of a religious war. … Juarez, who is thus made to appear as a reformer, was the most remarkable man Mexico has ever produced. He was born in 1806 in the mountains of Oaxaca. … He belonged to the Zapoteca tribe of Indians. Not a drop of Spanish blood flowed in his veins. … Upon the flight of Comonfort, Juarez was utterly without support or means to establish his government. Being driven out of the capital by Zuloaga he went to Guadalajara, and then by way of the Pacific coast, Panama, and New Orleans, to Vera Cruz. There he succeeded in setting up the Constitutional government, supporting it out of the customs duties collected at the ports of entry on the Gulf coast. It was war to the knife between the President in Vera Cruz and the Anti-Presidents in the capital. … On the 12th of July, 1859, Juarez made a long stride in advance of Comonfort by issuing his famous decree, 'nationalizing'—that is, sequestrating, or more properly confiscating—the property of the Church. It was enforced in Vera Cruz at once. … The armies of the two rival governments met in conflict on many occasions. It was at Calpulalpam, in a battle lasting from the 21st to the 24th of December, 1860, that Miramon was defeated and forced to leave the country. General Ortega, in command of the forces of Juarez, advanced to the capital and held it for the return of his chief. When the army of Juarez entered the capital, on the 27th of December, the decree of sequestration began to be executed there with brutal severity. … Monasteries were closed forthwith, and the members of the various religious orders were expelled [from] the country. … It is said that from the 'nationalized' church property the government secured $20,000,000, without, as subsequent events showed, deriving any permanent benefit from it. It helped to precipitate another war, in which it was all dissipated, and the country was poorer than ever. … The decree issued by Juarez from Vera Cruz in 1859, nationalizing the property of the Church, was quickly followed up by a decree suspending for two years payment on all foreign debts. The national debt at that time amounted to about $100,000,000, according to some statements, and was divided up between England, Spain, and France. England's share was about $80,000,000. France's claim was comparatively insignificant. They were all said to have been founded upon usurious or fraudulent contracts, and the French claim was especially dubious. … Upon the issuing of the decree suspending payment on these foreign debts, the three creditor nations' at once broke off diplomatic relations with Mexico, and Napoleon III., of France, proceeded to carry out a plan which had for some time occupied his mind."

A. H. Noll, Short History of Mexico, chapters 10-11.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapters 20-30, and volume 9 (6), chapter 1.

See CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

MEXICO: A. D. 1853. Sale of Arizona to the United States. The Gadsden Treaty.

See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867. The French intervention. Maximilian's ill-starred empire and its fate.

The expedition against Mexico "was in the beginning a joint undertaking of England, France, and Spain. Its professed object, as set forth in a convention signed in London on October 31st, 1861, was 'to demand from the Mexican authorities more efficacious protection for the persons and properties of their (the Allied Sovereigns') subjects, as well as a fulfilment of the obligations contracted toward their Majesties by the Republic of Mexico.' … Lord Russell, who had acted with great forbearance towards Mexico up to this time, now agreed to co-operate with France and Spain in exacting reparation from Juarez. But he defined clearly the extent to which the intervention of England would go. England would join in an expedition for the purpose, if necessary, of seizing on Mexican custom-houses, and thus making good the foreign claims. But she would not go a step further. She would have nothing to do with upsetting the Government of Mexico, or imposing any European system on the Mexican people. Accordingly, the Second Article of the Convention pledged the contracting parties not to seek for themselves any acquisition of territory or any special advantage, and not to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the form of its government. The Emperor of the French, however, had already made up his mind that he would establish a sort of feudatory monarchy in Mexico. He had long had various schemes and ambitions floating in his mind concerning those parts of America on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, which were once the possessions of France. … At the very time when he signed the convention with the pledge contained in its second article, he had already been making arrangements to found a monarchy in Mexico. If he could have ventured to set up a monarchy with a French prince at its head, he would probably have done so; but this would have been too bold a venture. He, therefore, persuaded the Archduke Maximilian, brother of the Emperor of Austria, to accept the crown of the monarchy he proposed to set up in Mexico. The Archduke was a man of pure and noble character, but evidently wanting in strength of mind, and he agreed, after some hesitation, to accept the offer. Meanwhile the joint expedition sailed. We [the English] sent only a line-of-battle ship, two frigates, and 700 marines. France sent in the first instance about 2,500 men, whom she largely reinforced immediately after. Spain had about 6,000 men, under the command of the late Marshal Prim. The Allies soon began to find that their purposes were incompatible. There was much suspicion about the designs of France. … Some of the claims set up by France disgusted the other Allies. The Jecker claims were for a long time after as familiar a subject of ridicule as our own Pacifico claims had been. {2178} A Swiss house of Jecker & Company had lent the former Government of Mexico $750,000, and got bonds from that Government, which was on its very last legs, for $15,000,000. The Government was immediately afterwards upset, and Juarez came into power. M. Jecker modestly put in his claim for $15,000,000. Juarez refused to comply with the demand. He offered to pay the $750,000 lent and five per cent. interest, but he declined to pay exactly twenty times the amount of the sum advanced. M. Jecker had by this time become somehow a subject of France, and the French Government took up his claim. It was clear that the Emperor of the French had resolved that there should be war. At last the designs of the French Government became evident to the English and Spanish Plenipotentiaries, and England and Spain withdrew from the Convention. … The Emperor of the French 'walked his own wild road, whither that led him.' He overran a certain portion of Mexico with his troops. He captured Puebla after a long and desperate resistance [and after suffering a defeat on the 5th of May, 1862, in the battle of Cinco de Mayo]; he occupied the capital, and he set up the Mexican Empire, with Maximilian as Emperor. French troops remained to protect the new Empire. Against all this the United States Government protested from time to time. … However, the Emperor Napoleon cared nothing just then about the Monroe doctrine, complacently satisfied that the United States were going to pieces, and that the Southern Confederacy would be his friend and ally. He received the protests of the American Government with unveiled indifference. At last the tide in American affairs turned. The Confederacy crumbled away; Richmond was taken; Lee surrendered; Jefferson Davis was a prisoner. Then the United States returned to the Mexican Question, and the American Government informed Louis Napoleon that it would be inconvenient, gravely inconvenient, if he were not to withdraw his soldiers from Mexico. A significant movement of American troops under a renowned General, then flushed with success, was made in the direction of the Mexican frontier. There was nothing for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw [March, 1867]. … The Mexican Empire lasted two months and a week after the last of the French troops had been withdrawn. Maximilian endeavoured to raise an army of his own, and to defend himself against the daily increasing strength of Juarez. He showed all the courage which might have been expected from his race, and from his own previous history. But in an evil hour for himself, and yielding, it is stated, to the persuasion of a French officer, he had issued a decree that all who resisted his authority in arms should be shot. By virtue of this monstrous ordinance, Mexican officers of the regular army, taken prisoners while resisting, as they were bound to do, the invasion of a European prince, were shot like brigands. The Mexican general, Ortega, was one of those thus shamefully done to death. When Juarez conquered, and Maximilian, in his turn, was made a prisoner, he was tried by court-martial, condemned and shot. … The French Empire never recovered the shock of this Mexican failure."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 44.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 9 (Mexico, volume 6), chapters 1-14.

H. M. Flint, Mexico under Maximilian.

F. Salm-Balm, My Diary in Mexico (1867).

S. Schroeder, The Fall of Maximilian's Empire.

Count E. de Keratry, The Rise and Fall of the Emperor Maximilian.

J. M. Taylor, Maximilian and Carlotta.

U. R. Burke, Life of Benito Juarez.

MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1892. The restored Republic.

"On the 15th of July [1867] Juarez made a solemn entry into the capital. Many good citizens of Mexico, who had watched gloomily the whole episode of the French intervention, now emerged to light and rejoiced conspicuously in the return of their legitimate chief. … He was received with genuine acclamations by the populace, while high society remained within doors, curtains close-drawn, except that the women took pride in showing their deep mourning for the death of the Emperor. … Peace now came back to the country. A general election established Juarez as President, and order and progress once more consented to test the good resolutions of the Republic." Santa Anna made one feeble and futile attempt to disturb the quiet of his country, but was arrested without difficulty and sent into exile again. But Juarez had many opponents and enemies to contend with. "As the period of election approached, in 1871, party lines became sharply divided, and the question of his return to power was warmly contested. A large body still advocated the re-election of Juarez, as of the greatest importance to the consolidation of the Constitution and reform, but the admirers of military glory claimed the honors of President for General Diaz, who had done so much, at the head of the army, to restore the Republic. A third party represented the interests of Lerdo, minister of Juarez all through the epoch of the intervention, a man of great strength of character and capacity for government. … The campaign was vigorous throughout the country. … The election took place; the Juaristas were triumphant. Their party had a fair majority and Juarez was re-elected. But the Mexicans not yet had learned to accept the ballot, and a rebellion followed. The two defeated parties combined, and civil war began again. Government defended itself with vigor and resolution, and, in spite of the popularity of General Diaz as a commander, held its own during a campaign of more than a year. Its opponents were still undaunted, and the struggle might have long continued but for the sudden death of Juarez, on the 19th of July, 1872. … Don Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada, then President of the Supreme Court, assumed the government, was elected President, and the late agitation of parties was at an end. For three years peace reigned in Mexico, and then began another revolution. Towards the end of 1875, rumors of dissatisfaction were afloat. … Early in the next year, a 'Plan' was started, one of those fatal propositions for change which have always spread like wildfire through the Mexican community. By midsummer, the Republic was once more plunged in civil war. Although he had apparently no hand in the 'Plan' of Tuxtepec, General Porfirio Diaz appeared at the head of the army of the revolutionists. … During the summer there was fighting and much confusion, in the midst of which the election took place for the choice of President for another term of four years. {2179} The result was in favor of Lerdo de Tejada, but he was so unpopular that he was obliged soon after to leave the capital, on the 20th of November, accompanied by his ministers and a few other persons. The other Lerdistas hid themselves, Congress dissolved, and the opposition triumphed. Thus ended the government of the Lerdistas, but a few days before the expiration of its legal term. On the 24th of November, General Porfirio Diaz made his solemn entry into the capital, and was proclaimed Provisional President. After a good deal of fighting all over the country, Congress declared him, in May, 1877, to be Constitutional President for a term to last until November 30, 1880. … President Diaz was able to consolidate his power, and to retain his seat without civil war, although this has been imminent at times, especially towards the end of his term. In 1880, General Manuel Gonsalez was elected, and on the 1st of December of that year, for the second time only in the history of the Republic, the retiring President gave over his office to his legally elected successor. … The administration of Gonsalez passed through its four years without any important outbreak. … At the end of that term General Diaz was re-elected and became President December 1, 1884. The treasury of the country was empty, the Republic without credit, yet he has [1888] … succeeded in placing his government upon a tolerably stable financial basis, and done much to restore the foreign credit of the Republic."

S. Hale, The Story of Mexico, chapter 41-42.

"At the close of Maximilian's empire Mexico had but one railroad, with 260 miles of track. To-day she has them running in all directions, with an [aggregate] of 10,025 kilometers (about 6,300 miles), and is building more. Of telegraph lines in 1867 she had but a few short connections, under 3,000 kilometers; now she has telephone and telegraph lines which aggregate between 60,000 and 70,000 kilometers. … In his … message to Congress (1891) President Diaz said: 'It is gratifying to me to be able to inform Congress that the financial situation of the republic continues to improve. … Without increasing the tariff, the custom-houses now collect $9,000,000 more than they did four years ago.' … The revenues of the republic have more than doubled in the past twenty years. In 1870 they were $16,000,000; they are estimated now at over $36,000,000." The third term of President Diaz, "now [1892] drawing to a close, has been one of great prosperity. … As we write popular demonstrations are being made in favor of another term."

W. Butler, Mexico in Transition, pages 284-287.

President Diaz was re-elected for a fourth term, which began December 1, 1892, and will expire in 1896.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 9 (Mexico volume 6), chapter 19.

—————MEXICO: End—————

MIAMIS, The. See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

MICESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 964-1000.

Miceslaus II., King of Poland, 1025-1037.

Miceslaus III., Duke of Poland, 1173-1177.

MICHAEL The first of the Romanoffs, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1613-1645.

Michael I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 811-813.

Michael II. (called the Armorian), Emperor in the East, 820-829.

Michael III., Emperor in the East, 842-867.

Michael IV., Emperor in the East, 1034-1041.

Michael V., Emperor in the East, 1041-1042.

Michael VI., Emperor in the East, 1056-1057.

Michael VII., Emperor in the East, 1071-1078.

Michael VIII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1260-1261; Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1261-1282.

Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, 1670-1674.

—————MICHIGAN: Start—————

MICHIGAN: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, and OJIBWAYS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1680. Traversed by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1686-1701. The founding of the French post at Detroit.

See DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1760. The surrender to the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763. Cession to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763. The King's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1763-1764. Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1774. Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1775-1783. Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779, CLARK'S CONQUESTS.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1784. Included in the proposed states of Cherronesus and Sylvania.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1785-1786. Partially covered by the western land claims of Massachusetts and Connecticut, ceded to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1787. The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1805. Detached from Indiana Territory and distinctly named and organized.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1811. Tecumseh and his League. Battle of Tippecanoe.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1812. The surrender of Detroit and the whole territory to the British arms by General Hull.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1813. Recovery by the Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1817. The founding of the University of Michigan.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1837.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1818-1836. Extension of Territorial limits to the Mississippi, and then beyond.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837. Admission into the Union as a State. Settlement of Boundaries.

A conflict between the terms of the constitution under which the state of Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803 and the Act of Congress which, in 1805, erected the Territory of Michigan, gave rise to a serious boundary dispute between the two. The Michigan claim rested not only upon the Act of 1805, but primarily upon the great Ordinance of 1787. {2180} It involved the possession of a wedge-shaped strip of territory, which "averaged six miles in width, across Ohio, embraced some 468 square miles, and included the lake-port of Toledo and the mouth of the Maumee river." In 1834, Michigan began to urge her claims to statehood. "Without waiting for an enabling act, a convention held at Detroit in May and June, 1835, adopted a state constitution for submission to congress, demanding entry into the Union, 'in conformity to the fifth article of the ordinance' of 1787—of course the boundaries sought being those established by the article in question. That summer, there were popular disturbances in the disputed territory, and some gunpowder harmlessly wasted. In December, President Jackson laid the matter before congress in a special message. Congress quietly determined to 'arbitrate' the quarrel by giving to Ohio the disputed tract, and offering Michigan, by way of partial recompense, the whole of what is to-day her upper peninsula. Michigan did not want the supposedly barren and worthless country to her northwest, protested long and loud against what she deemed to be an outrage, declared that she had no community of interest with the north peninsula, and was separated from it by insurmountable natural barriers for one-half of the year, while it rightfully belonged to the fifth state, to be formed out of the Northwest Territory. But congress persisted in making this settlement of the quarrel one of the conditions precedent to the admission of Michigan into the Union. In September, 1836, a state convention, called for the sole purpose of deciding the question, rejected the proposition on the ground that congress had no right to annex such a condition, according to the terms of the ordinance; a second convention, however, approved of it on the 15th of December following, and congress at once accepted this decision as final. Thus Michigan came into the sisterhood of states, January 26, 1837, with the territorial limits which she possesses to-day."

R. G. Thwaites, The Boundaries of Wisconsin (Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 11, pages 456-460).

ALSO IN: B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 17.

MICHIGAN: A. D. 1854. Early organization and victory of the Republican Party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

—————MICHIGAN: End—————

—————MICHIGAN, Lake: Start—————

MICHIGAN, Lake: The Discovery.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

MICHIGAN, Lake: Navigated by La Salle.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

—————MICHIGAN, Lake: End—————

MICHIGANIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

MICHILLIMACKINAC.

See MACKINAW.

MICHMASH, War of.

One of Saul's campaigns against the Philistines received this name from Jonathan's exploit in scaling the height of Michmash and driving the garrison in panic from their stronghold.

I. Samuel XIV.

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 21 (volume 2).

MICKLEGARTH.

"Constantine had transplanted the Roman name, the centre of Roman power, and much of what was Roman in ideas and habits, to Byzantium, the New Rome.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

The result was that remarkable empire [see BYZANTINE EMPIRE] which, though since its fall it has become a by-word, was, when it was standing, the wonder and the envy of the barbarian world, the mysterious 'Micklegarth,' 'the Great City, the Town of towns,' of the northern legends."

R. W. Church, The Beginning of the Middle Ages, chapter 6.

MICMACS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

MICROSCOPE IN MEDICINE, The.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and after.

MIDDLE AGES.

"The term Middle Ages is applied to the time which elapsed between the fall of the Roman Empire and the formation of the great modern monarchies, between the first permanent invasion of the Germans, at the beginning of the 5th century of our era [see GAUL: A. D. 406-409], and the last invasion, made by the Turks, ten centuries later, in 1453."

V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, author's preface.

"It is not possible to fix accurate limits to the Middle Ages; … though the ten centuries from the 5th to the 15th seem, in a general point of view, to constitute that period."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, preface to first edition.

"We commonly say that ancient history closed with the year 476 A. D. The great fact which marks the close of that age and the beginning of a new one is the conquest of the Western Roman Empire by the German tribes, a process which occupied the whole of the fifth century and more. But if we are to select any special date to mark the change, the year 476 is the best for the purpose. … When we turn to the close of medieval history we find no such general agreement as to the specific date which shall be selected to stand for that fact. For one author it is 1453, the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire through the capture of Constantinople by the Turks; for another, 1492, the discovery of America; for another, 1520, the full opening of the Reformation. This variety of date is in itself very significant. It unconsciously marks the extremely important fact that the middle ages come to an end at different dates in the different lines of advance—manifestly earlier in politics and economics than upon the intellectual side. … It is a transition age. Lying, as it does, between two ages, in each of which there is an especially rapid advance of civilization, it is not itself primarily an age of progress. As compared with either ancient or modern history, the additions which were made during the middle ages to the common stock of civilization are few and unimportant. Absolutely, perhaps, they are not so. … But the most important of them fall within the last part of the period, and they are really indications that the age is drawing to a close, and a new and different one coming on. Progress, however much there may have been, is not its distinctive characteristic. There is a popular recognition of this fact in the general opinion that the medieval is a very barren and uninteresting period of history—the 'dark ages'—so confused and without evident plan that its facts are a mere disorganized jumble, impossible to reduce to system or to hold in mind. This must be emphatically true for every one, unless there can be found running through all its confusion some single line of evolution which will give it meaning and organization. … Most certainly there must be some such general meaning of the age. {2181} The orderly and regular progress of history makes it impossible that it should be otherwise. Whether that meaning can be correctly stated or not is much more uncertain. It is the difficulty of doing this which makes medieval history seem so comparatively barren a period. The most evident general meaning of the age is … assimilation. The greatest work which had to be done was to bring the German barbarian, who had taken possession of the ancient world and become everywhere the ruling race, up to such a level of attainment and understanding that he would be able to take up the work of civilization where antiquity had been forced to suspend it and go on with it from that point. … Here, then, is the work of the middle ages. To the results of ancient history were to be added the ideas and institutions of the Germans; to the enfeebled Roman race was to be added the youthful energy and vigor of the German. Under the conditions which existed this union could not be made—a harmonious and homogeneous Christendom could not be formed, except through centuries of time, through anarchy, and ignorance, and superstition."

G. B. Adams, Civilization During the Middle Ages, introduction.

"We speak, sometimes, of the 'Dark Ages,' and in matters of the exact sciences perhaps they were dark enough. Yet we must deduct something from our youthful ideas of their obscurity when we find that our truest lovers of beauty fix the building age of the world between the years 500 and 1500 of our era. Architecture, more than any other art, is an index to the happiness and freedom of the people; and during this period of 1,000 years, 'an architecture, pure in its principles, reasonable in its practice, and beautiful to the eyes of all men, even the simplest,' covered Europe with beautiful buildings from Constantinople to the north of Britain. In presence of this manifestation of free and productive intelligence, unmatched even in ancient Greece and Rome, and utterly unmatchable to-day, we may usefully reflect upon the expressive and constructive force of the spirit of Christendom, even in its darkest hours. The more closely we examine the question, the less ground we shall find for the conception of the Middle Ages as a long sleep followed by a sudden awakening. Rather we should consider that ancient Greece was the root, and ancient Rome the stem and branches of our life; that the Dark Ages, as we call them, represent its flower, and the modern world of science and political freedom the slowly-matured fruit. If we consider carefully that the Christian humanistic spirit held itself as charged from the first with the destinies of the illiterate and half-heathen masses of the European peoples, whereas, neither in Greece nor in the Roman Empire was civilisation intended for more than a third or a fourth part of the inhabitants of their territories, we shall not be surprised at an apparent fall of intellectual level, which really meant the beginning of a universal rise hitherto unknown in the history of the world. Ideas of this kind may help us to understand what must remain after all a paradox, that we have been taught to apply the term 'Dark Ages' to the period of what were in some respects the greatest achievements of the human mind, for example, the Cathedral of Florence and the writings of Dante. … It is perfectly obvious now to all who look carefully at these questions, that the instinct of our physical science and naturalistic art, of our evolutionist philosophy and democratic politics, is not antagonistic to, but is essentially one with the instinct which, in the Middle Ages, regarded all beauty and truth and power as the working of the Divine reason in the mind of man and in nature. What a genuine though grotesque anticipation of Charles Darwin is there in Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds!"

B. Bosanquet, The Civilization of Christendom, chapter 3.

"'I know nothing of those ages which knew nothing.' I really forget to which of two eminent wits this saying belongs; but I have often thought that I should have liked to ask him how he came to know so curious and important a fact respecting ages of which he knew nothing. Was it merely by hearsay? Everybody allows, however, that they were dark ages. Certainly; but what do we mean by darkness? Is not the term, as it is generally used, comparative? Suppose I were to say that I am writing 'in a little dark room,' would you understand me to mean that I could not see the paper before me? Or if I should say that I was writing 'on a dark day,' would you think I meant that the sun had not risen by noon? Well, then, let me beg you to remember this, when you and I use the term, dark ages. … Many causes … have concurred to render those ages very dark to us; but, for the present, I feel it sufficient to remind the reader, that darkness is quite a different thing from shutting the eyes: and that we have no right to complain that we can see but little until we have used due diligence to see what we can. As to the other point—that is, as to the degree of darkness in which those ages were really involved, and as to the mode and degree in which it affected those who lived in them, I must express my belief, that it has been a good deal exaggerated. There is no doubt that those who lived in what are generally called the 'middle' or the 'dark' ages, knew nothing of many things which are familiar to us, and which we deem essential to our comfort, and almost to our existence; but still I doubt whether, even in this point of view, they were so entirely dark as some would have us suppose."

S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, introduction.

"In the Middle Ages both sides of human consciousness—that which was turned within as that which was turned without—lay dreaming or half-awake beneath a common veil. The veil was woven of faith, illusion, and childish prepossession, through which the world and history were seen clad in strange hues. Man was conscious of himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation—only through some general category. In Italy this veil first melted into air; an objective treatment and consideration of the state and of all the things of this world became possible. The subjective side at the same time asserted itself with corresponding emphasis; man became a spiritual individual, and recognised himself as such."

J. Burckhardt, The Renaissance in Italy, part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

See, also, EUROPE (page 1010-1048): EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL; LIBRARIES, MEDIÆVAL; MEDICAL SCIENCE, MEDIÆVAL; MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

MIDDLEBURG: Taken by the Gueux of Holland (1574).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

MIDDLESEX, Origin of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

{2182}

MIDDLESEX ELECTIONS, John Wilkes and the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.

MIDIANITES, The.

"The name of Midian, though sometimes given peculiarly to the tribe on the south-east shores of the Gulf of Akaba, was extended to all Arabian tribes on the east of the Jordan,—'the Amalekites, and all the children of the East.'"

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 15 (volume 1).

MIGDOL.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

MIGHTY HOST, Knights of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

MIGNONS OF HENRY III., The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

MIKADO.

"Though this is the name by which the whole outer world knows the sovereign of Japan, it is not that now used in Japan itself, except in poetry and on great occasions. The Japanese have got into the habit of calling their sovereign by such alien Chinese titles as Tenshi, 'the Son of Heaven'; Ten-o, or Tenno, 'the Heavenly Emperor'; Shujo, 'the Supreme Master.' His designation in the official translations of modern public documents into English is 'Emperor.' … The etymology of the word Mikado is not quite clear. Some—and theirs is the current opinion—trace it to 'mi,' 'august,' and 'kado,' a 'gate,' reminding one of the 'Sublime Porte' of Turkey. … The word Mikado is often employed to denote the monarch's Court as well as the monarch himself."

B. H. Chamberlain, Things Japanese, page 229.

MIKASUKIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

MILAN, King, Abdication of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889.

—————MILAN: Start————

MILAN: B. C. 223-222. The capital of the Insubrian Gauls (Mediolanum). Taken by the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

MILAN: A. D. 268. Aureolus besieged.

During the miserable and calamitous reign of the Roman emperor Gallienus, the army on the Upper Danube invested their leader, Aureolus, with the imperial purple, and crossed the Alps to place him on the throne. Defeated by Gallienus in a battle fought near Milan, Aureolus and his army took refuge in that city and were there besieged. During the progress of the siege a conspiracy against Gallienus was formed in his own camp, and he was assassinated. The crown was then offered to the soldier Claudius—afterwards called Claudius Gothicus—and he accepted it. The siege of Milan was continued by Claudius, the city was forced to surrender and Aureolus was put to death.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11.

MILAN: A. D. 286. The Roman imperial court.

"Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman princes who fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary residence in the provinces. … The court of the emperor of the west [Maximian] was, for the most part, established at Milan, whose situation, at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more convenient than that of Rome, for the important purpose of watching the motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan soon assumed the splendour of an imperial city. The houses are described as numerous and well-built; the manners of the people as polished and liberal."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.

MILAN: A. D. 313. Constantine's Edict of Toleration.

See ROME: A. D. 313.

MILAN: A. D. 374-397. The Ambrosian Church.

The greatness of the Milanese, in later times, "was chiefly originated and promoted by the prerogatives of their Archbishop, amongst which that of crowning, and so in a manner constituting, the King of Italy, raised him in wealth and splendour above every other prelate of the Roman Church, and his city above every other city of Lombardy in power and pride. … It is said that the Church of Milan was founded by St. Barnabas; it is certain that it owed its chief aggrandisement, and the splendour which distinguished it from all other churches, to St. Ambrose [Archbishop from 374 to 397], who, having come to Milan in the time of Valentinian as a magistrate, was by the people made Bishop also, and as such was able to exalt it by the ordination of many inferior dignitaries, and by obtaining supremacy for it over all the Bishops of Lombardy. … This church received from St. Ambrose a peculiar liturgy, which was always much loved and venerated by the Milanese, and continued longer in use than any of those which anciently prevailed in other churches of the West. To the singing in divine service, which was then artless and rude, St. Ambrose, taking for models the ancient melodies still current in his time, the last echoes of the civilisation of distant ages, imparted a more regular rhythm [known as 'the Ambrosian Chant']; which, when reduced by St. Gregory to the grave simplicity of tone that best accords with the majesty of worship, obtained the name of 'Canto fermo'; and afterwards becoming richer, more elaborate, and easier to learn through the many ingenious inventions of Guido d' Arezzo, … was brought by degrees to the perfection of modern counterpoint. … St. Ambrose also composed prayers for his church, and hymns; amongst others, according to popular belief, that most sublime and majestic one, the Te Deum, which is now familiar and dear to the whole of Western Christendom. It is said that his clergy were not forbidden to marry. Hence an opinion prevailed that this church, according to the ancient statutes, ought not to be entirely subject to that of Rome."

G. B. Testa, History of the War of Frederick I. against the Communes of Lombardy, pages 23-24.

MILAN: A. D. 404. Removal of the Imperial Court.

See ROME: A. D.404-408.

MILAN: A. D. 452. Capture by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452.

MILAN: A. D. 539. Destroyed by the Goths.

When Belisarius, in his first campaign for the recovery of Italy from the Goths, had secured possession of Rome, A. D. 538, he sent a small force northward to Milan, and that city, hating its Gothic rulers, was gladly surrendered to him. It was occupied by a small Roman garrison and unwisely left to the attacks upon it that were inevitable. Very soon the Goths appeared before its walls, and with them 10,000 Burgundians who had crossed the Alps to their assistance. Belisarius despatched an army to the relief of the city, but the generals in command of it were cowardly and did nothing. After stoutly resisting for six months, suffering the last extremes of starvation and misery, Milan fell, and a terrible vengeance was wreaked upon it. "All the men were slain, and these, if the information given to Procopius was correct, amounted to 300,000. The women were made slaves, and handed over by the Goths to their Burgundian allies in payment of their services. The city itself was rased to the ground: not the only time that signal destruction has overtaken the fair capital of Lombardy."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 5, chapter 11.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 535-553.

{2183}

"The Goths, in their last moments, were revenged by the destruction of a city second only to Rome in size and opulence."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 41.

MILAN: 11th Century. Acquisition of Republican independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

MILAN: A. D. 1162. Total destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

MILAN: A. D. 1167. The rebuilding of the city.

See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.

MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447. The rise and the reign of the Visconti. Extension of their Tyranny over Lombardy. The downfall of their House.

"The power of the Visconti in Milan was founded upon that of the Della Torre family, who preceded them as Captains General of the people at the end of the 13th century. Otho, Archbishop of Milan, first laid a substantial basis for the dominion of his house by imprisoning Napoleone Della Torre and five of his relatives in three iron cages in 1277, and by causing his nephew Matteo Visconti to be nominated both by the Emperor and by the people of Milan as imperial Vicar. Matteo, who headed the Ghibelline party in Lombardy, was the model of a prudent Italian despot. From the date 1311, when he finally succeeded in his attempts upon the sovereignty of Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313], to 1322, when he abdicated in favour of his son Galeazzo, he ruled his states by force of character, craft, and insight, more than by violence or cruelty. Excellent as a general, he was still better as a diplomatist, winning more cities by money than by the sword. All through his life, as became a Ghibelline chief at that time, he persisted in fierce enmity against the Church. … Galeazzo, his son, was less fortunate than Matteo, surnamed Il Grande by the Lombards. The Emperor Louis of Bavaria threw him into prison on the occasion of his visit to Milan in 1327 [see ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330], and only released him at the intercession of his friend Castruccio Castracane. To such an extent was the growing tyranny of the Visconti still dependent upon their office delegated from the Empire. … Azzo [the son of Galeazzo] bought the city, together with the title of Imperial Vicar, from the same Louis who had imprisoned his father. When he was thus seated in the tyranny of his grandfather, he proceeded to fortify it further by the addition of ten Lombard towns, which he reduced beneath the supremacy of Milan. At the same time he consolidated his own power by the murder of his uncle Marco in 1329, who had grown too mighty as a general. … Azzo died in 1339, and was succeeded by his uncle Lucchino," who was poisoned by his wife in 1349. "Lucchino was potent as a general and governor. He bought Parma from Obizzo d' Este, and made the town of Pisa dependent upon Milan. … Lucchino left sons, but none of proved legitimacy. Consequently he was succeeded by his brother Giovanni, son of old Matteo il Grande and Archbishop of Milan. This man, the friend of Petrarch, was one of the most notable characters of the 14th century. Finding himself at the head of 16 cities, he added Bologna to the tyranny of the Visconti, in 1350, and made himself strong enough to defy the Pope. … In 1353 Giovanni annexed Genoa to the Milanese principality, and died in 1354, having established the rule of the Visconti over the whole of the north of Italy, with the exception of Piedmont, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, and Venice. The reign of the Archbishop Giovanni marks a new epoch in the despotism of the Visconti. They are now no longer the successful rivals of the Della Torre family, or dependents on imperial caprice, but self-made sovereigns, with a well-established power in Milan and a wide extent of subject territory. Their dynasty, though based on force and maintained by violence, has come to be acknowledged; and we shall soon see them allying themselves with the royal houses of Europe. After the death of Giovanni, Matteo's sons were extinct. But Stefano, the last of his family, had left three children, who now succeeded to the lands and cities of the house. They were named Matteo, Bernabo, and Galeazzo. Between these three princes a partition of the heritage of Giovanni Visconti was effected. … Milan and Genoa were to be ruled by the three in common." Matteo was put out of the way by his two brothers in 1355. Bernabo reigned brutally at Milan, and Galeazzo with great splendor at Pavia. The latter married his daughter to the Duke of Clarence, son of Edward III. of England, and his son to Princess Isabella, of France. "Galeazzo died in 1378, and was succeeded in his own portion of the Visconti domain by his son Gian Galeazzo," who was able, seven years afterwards, by singular refinements of treachery, to put his uncle to death and take possession of his territories. "The reign of Gian Galeazzo, which began with this coup-de-main (1385-1402), forms a very important chapter in Italian history. … At the time of his accession the Visconti had already rooted out the Correggi and Rossi of Parma, the Scotti of Piacenza, the Pelavicini of San Donnino, the Tornielli of Novara, the Ponzoni and Cavalcabò of Cremona, the Beccaria and Languschi of Pavia, the Fisiraghi of Lodi, the Brusati of Brescia. … But the Carrara family still ruled at Padua, the Gonzaga at Mantua, the Este at Ferrara, while the great house of Scala was in possession of Verona. Gian Galeazzo's schemes were at first directed against the Scala dynasty. Founded, like that of the Visconti, upon the imperial authority, it rose to its greatest height under the Ghibelline general Can Grande and his nephew Mastino in the first half of the 14th century (1312-1351). Mastino had himself cherished the project of an Italian Kingdom; but he died before approaching its accomplishment. The degeneracy of his house began with his three sons. The two younger killed the eldest; of the survivors the stronger slew the weaker and then died in 1374, leaving his domains to two of his bastards. One of these, named Antonio, killed the other in 1381, and afterwards fell a prey to the Visconti in 1387. In his subjugation of Verona Gian Galeazzo contrived to make use of the Carrara family, although these princes were allied by marriage to the Scaligers, and had everything to lose by their downfall. {2184} He next proceeded to attack Padua, and gained the co-operation of Venice. In 1388 Francesco da Carrara had to cede his territory to Visconti's generals, who in the same year possessed themselves for him of the Trevisan Marches. It was then that the Venetians saw too late the error they had committed in suffering Verona and Padua to be annexed by the Visconti. … Having now made himself master of the north of Italy with the exception of Mantua, Ferrara, and Bologna, Gian Galeazzo turned his attention to these cities." By intrigues of devilish subtlety and malignity, he drew the Marquis of Ferrara and the Marquis of Mantua into crimes which were their ruin, and made his conquest of those cities easy. "The whole of Lombardy was now prostrate before the Milanese viper. His next move was to set foot in Tuscany. For this purpose Pisa had to be acquired; and here again he resorted to his devilish policy of inciting other men to crimes by which he alone would profit in the long run. Pisa was ruled at that time by the Gambacorta family, with an old merchant named Pietro at their head." Gian Galeazzo caused Pietro to be assassinated, and then bought the city from the assassins (1399). "In 1399 the Duke laid hands on Siena; and in the next two years the plague came to his assistance by enfeebling the ruling families of Lucca and Bologna, the Guinizzi and the Bentivogli, so that he was now able to take possession of those cities. There remained no power in Italy, except the Republic of Florence and the exiled but invincible Francesco da Carrara, to withstand his further progress. Florence [see FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402] delayed his conquests in Tuscany. Francesco managed to return to Padua. Still the peril which threatened the whole of Italy was imminent. … At last, when all other hope of independence for Italy had failed, the plague broke out with fury in Lombardy," and Gian Galeazzo died of it in 1402, aged 55. "At his death his two sons were still mere boys. … The generals refused to act with them, and each seized upon such portions of the Visconti inheritance as he could most easily acquire. The vast tyranny of the first Duke of Milan fell to pieces in a day." The dominion which his elder son lost (see ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406) and which his younger son regained (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447) slipped from the family on the death of the last of them, in 1447.

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots, chapter 2.

"At the end of the fourteenth century their [the Visconti's] informal lordship passed by a royal grant [from the Emperor Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo; A. D. 1395] into an acknowledged duchy of the Empire. The dominion which they had gradually gained, and which was thus in a manner legalized, took in all the great cities of Lombardy, those especially which had formed the Lombard League against the Swabian Emperors. Pavia indeed, the ancient rival of Milan, kept a kind of separate being, and was formed into a distinct county. But the duchy granted by Wenceslaus to Gian-Galeazzo stretched far on both sides of the lake of Garda."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 8, section 3.

ALSO IN: J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics, chapter 4.

G. Procter (G. Perceval, pseudonym), History of Italy, chapters 4-5 (volume 1).

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 4, chapters 4-6 (volume 2).

MILAN: A. D. 1360-1391. Wars with Florence and with the Pope. Dealings with the Free Companies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

MILAN: A. D. 1422. The sovereignty of Genoa surrendered to the Duke.

See GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.

MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454. Competitors for the ducal succession to the Visconti. The prize carried off by Francesco Sforza. War of Milan and Florence with Venice, Naples, Savoy, and other states.

John Galeazzo Visconti had married (as stated above) a daughter of King John of France. "Valentine Visconti, one of the children of this marriage, married her cousin, Louis, duke of Orleans, the only brother of Charles VI. In their marriage contract, which the pope confirmed, it was stipulated that, upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year 1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession. Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti. Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that, upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti, the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master, and established a republican form of government. But during the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which they contended was seized by one from whom none of them apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his father in the command of the adventurers who followed his standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on the ducal throne."

W. Robertson, History of Charles the Fifth: View of the Progress of Society, section 3.

"Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny, was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the formation of a political system which, however great its weakness, was the most reasonable under existing circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de' Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative: either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy. In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote in Sforza's favour. … {2185} Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan, which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed. And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself with Florentine money till he had established his position and re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and, four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V., successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453, Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened, more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9, 1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence, Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."

A. von Reumont, Lorenzo de' Medici, book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: W. P. Urquhart, Life and Times of Francesco Sforza.

A. M. F. Robinson, The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti.

The French Claim to Milan.

MILAN: A. D. 1464. Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.

See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.

MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496. The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor. His invitation to Charles VIII. of France. The French invasion of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500. Conquest by Louis XII. of France. His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.

See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

MILAN: A. D. 1501. Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke, by the Emperor Maximilian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

MILAN: A. D. 1512. Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.

Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France, and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword. The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan, with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part of the people."

Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 37 (volume 2).

MILAN: A. D. 1515. French reconquest by Francis I. Final overthrow of the Sforzas.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.

MILAN: A. D. 1517. Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522. The French again expelled.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525. Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529. Renewed attack of the French king. Its disastrous end. Renunciation of the French claim.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

MILAN: A. D. 1544. Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I. The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638. Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

MILAN: A. D. 1713. Cession of the duchy to Austria.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

MILAN: A. D. 1745. Occupied by the Spaniards and French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

MILAN: A. D. 1746. Recovered by the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792. Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.

MILAN: A. D. 1796. Occupation by the French. Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1799. Evacuation by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

MILAN: A. D. 1800. Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1805. Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808. Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815. Restored to Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE); and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849. Insurrection. Expulsion of the Austrians. Failure of the struggle.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

MILAN: A. D. 1859. Liberation from the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

—————MILAN: End—————

MILAN DECREE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

MILANESE, MILANESS, The.

The district or duchy of Milan.

MILESIANS, Irish.

In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races which colonized Ireland.

T. Wright, History of Ireland, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

—————MILETUS: Start—————

{2186}

MILETUS.

Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city anew.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished. Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in an increasing measure to demand importation from without of all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.

See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not been identified with certainty;

MILETUS: B. C. 412. Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

—————MILETUS: End—————

MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.

See HOSPITALLERS; TEMPLARS; TEUTONIC KNIGHTS; and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.

MILL SPRING, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

MILLENIAL YEAR, The.

"It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi, and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world, however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."

R. Flint, History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc., pages 101-102.

MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

MILTIADES: Victory at Marathon. Condemnation and death.

See GREECE: B. C. 490; also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.

MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).

See ROME: B. C. 78-68.

MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

MINA.

See TALENT; also, SHEKEL.

MINCIO, Battle of the.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

MINDEN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

MING DYNASTY, The.

See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.; and 1294-1882.