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 126)

B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: J. H. Perkins, Annals of the West, chapter 2.

B. Fernow The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days, chapter 5.

See, also, CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.

O. H. Marshall, De Celoron's Expedition to the Ohio in 1749 (Historical Writings, pages 237-274).

N. B. Craig, The Olden Time, volume 1, pages 1-10.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1754. The opening battle. Washington's first campaign.

The planting of the French at Forts Le Bœuf and Venango "put them during high water in easy communication by boat with the Alleghany River. French tact conciliated the Indians, and where that failed arrogance was sufficient, and the expedition would have pushed on to found new forts, but sickness weakened the men, and Marin, the commander, now dying, saw it was all he could do to hold the two forts, while he sent the rest of his force back to Montreal to recuperate. Late in the autumn Legardeur de Saint-Pierre arrived at Le Bœuf, as the successor of Marin. He had not been long there when on the 11th of December [1753] a messenger from Governor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, with a small escort, presented himself at the fort. The guide of the party was Christopher Gist; the messenger was George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia. Their business was to inform the French commander that he was building forts on English territory, and that he would do well to depart peaceably. … At Le Bœuf Washington tarried three days, during which Saint-Pierre framed his reply, which was in effect that he must hold his post, while Dinwiddie's letter was sent to the French commander at Quebec. It was the middle of February, 1754, when Washington reached Williamsburg on his return, and made his report to Dinwiddie. The result was that Dinwiddie drafted 200 men from the Virginia militia, and despatched them under Washington to build a fort at the forks of the Ohio. The Virginia assembly, forgetting for the moment its quarrel with the governor, voted £10,000 to be expended, but only under the direction of a committee of its own. Dinwiddie found difficulty in getting the other colonies to assist, and the Quaker element in Pennsylvania prevented that colony from being the immediate helper which it might, from its position, have become. Meanwhile some backwoodsmen had been pushed over the mountains and had set to work on a fort at the forks. A much larger French force under Contrecœur soon summoned them, and the English retired. The French immediately began the erection of Fort Duquesne [on the site now covered by the city of Pittsburgh]. While this was doing, Dinwiddie was toiling with tardy assemblies and their agents to organize a regiment to support the backwoodsmen. Joshua Fry was to be its colonel, with Washington as second in command. The latter, with a portion of the men, had already pushed forward to Will's Creek, the present Cumberland. Later he advanced with 150 men to Great Meadows, where he learned that the French, who had been reinforced, had sent out a party from their new fort, marching towards him. Again he got word from an Indian —who, from his tributary character towards the Iroquois, was called Half-King, and who had been Washington's companion on his trip to Le Bœuf—that this chieftain with some followers had tracked two men to a dark glen, where he believed the French party were lurking. Washington started with forty men to join Half-King, and under his guidance they approached the glen and found the French. Shots were exchanged. The French leader, Jumonville, was killed, and all but one of his followers were taken or slain. The mission of Jumonville was to scour for English, by order of Contrecœur, now in command of Duquesne, and to bear a summons to any he could find, warning them to retire from French territory. The precipitancy of Washington's attack gave the French the chance to impute to Washington the crime of assassination; but it seems to have been a pretence on the part of the French to cover a purpose which Jumonville had of summoning aid from Duquesne, while his concealment was intended to shield him till its arrival. Rash or otherwise, this onset of the youthful Washington began the war. The English returned to Great Meadows, and while waiting for reinforcements from Fry, Washington threw up some entrenchments, which he called Fort Necessity. The men from Fry came without their leader, who had sickened and died, and Washington, succeeding to the command of the regiment, found himself at the head of 300 men, increased soon by an independent company from South Carolina. Washington again advanced toward Gist's settlement, when, fearing an attack, he sent back for Mackay, whom he had left with a company of regulars at Fort Necessity. Rumors thickening of an advance of the French, the English leader again fell back to Great Meadows, resolved to fight there. It was now the first of July, 1754. Coulon de Villiers, a brother of Jumonville, was now advancing from Duquesne. The attack was made on a rainy day, and for much of the time a thick mist hung between the combatants. After dark a parley resulted in Washington's accepting terms offered by the French, and the English marched out with the honors of war. The young Virginian now led his weary followers back to Will's Creek. … Thus they turned their backs upon the great valley, in which not an English flag now waved."

J. Winsor, The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 5, chapter 8).

ALSO IN: W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapters 7-12.

H. C. Lodge, George Washington, volume 1, chapter 3.

N. B. Craig, The Olden Time, volume 1, pages 10-62.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1755. Braddock's defeat. The French possess the West and devastate the English frontiers.

"Now the English Government awoke to the necessity of vigorous measures to rescue the endangered Valley of the Ohio. A campaign was planned which was to expel the French from Ohio, and wrest from them some portions of their Canadian territory. The execution of this great design was intrusted to General Braddock, with a force which it was deemed would overbear all resistance. {2395} Braddock was a veteran who had seen the wars of forty years. … He was a brave and experienced soldier, and a likely man, it was thought, to do the work assigned to him. But that proved a sad miscalculation. Braddock had learned the rules of war; but he had no capacity to comprehend its principles. In the pathless forests of America he could do nothing better than strive to give literal effect to those maxims which he had found applicable in the well-trodden battlegrounds of Europe. The failure of Washington in his first campaign had not deprived him of public confidence. Braddock heard such accounts of his efficiency that he invited him to join his staff. Washington, eager to efface the memory of his defeat, gladly accepted the offer. The troops disembarked at Alexandria. … After some delay, the army, with such reinforcements as the province afforded, began its march. Braddock's object was to reach Fort Du Quesne, the great centre of French influence on the Ohio. … Fort Du Quesne had been built [or begun] by the English, and taken from them by the French. It stood at the confluence of the Alleghany and Monongahela; which rivers, by their union at this point, form the Ohio. It was a rude piece of fortification, but the circumstances admitted of no better. … Braddock had no doubt that the fort would yield to him directly he showed himself before it. Benjamin Franklin looked at the project with his shrewd, cynical eye. He told Braddock that he would assuredly take the fort if he could only reach it; but that the long slender line which his army must form in its march 'would be cut like thread into several pieces' by the hostile Indians. Braddock 'smiled at his ignorance.' Benjamin offered no further opinion. It was his duty to collect horses and carriages for the use of the expedition, and he did what was required of him in silence. The expedition crept slowly forward, never achieving more than three or four miles in a day; stopping, as Washington said, 'to level every mole-hill, to erect a bridge over every brook.' It left Alexandria on the 20th April. On the 9th July Braddock, with half his army, was near the fort. There was yet no evidence that resistance was intended. No enemy had been seen; the troops marched on as to assured victory. So confident was their chief that he refused to employ scouts, and did not deign to inquire what enemy might be lurking near. The march was along a road twelve feet wide, in a ravine, with high ground in front and on both sides. Suddenly the Indian war-whoop burst from the woods. A murderous fire smote down the troops. The provincials, not unused to this description of warfare, sheltered themselves behind trees and fought with steady courage. Braddock, clinging to his old rules, strove to maintain his order of battle on the open ground. A carnage, most grim and lamentable, was the result. His undefended soldiers were shot down by an unseen foe. For three hours the struggle lasted; then the men broke and fled in utter rout and panic. Braddock, vainly fighting, fell mortally wounded, and was carried off the field by some of his soldiers. The poor pedantic man never got over his astonishment at a defeat so inconsistent with the established rules of war. 'Who would have thought it?' he murmured, as they bore him from the field. He scarcely spoke again, and died in two or three days. Nearly 800 men, killed and wounded, were lost in this disastrous encounter —about one-half of the entire force engaged. All the while England and France were nominally at peace. But now war was declared."

R. Mackenzie, America: a history, book 2, chapter 3.

"The news of the defeat caused a great revulsion of feeling. The highest hopes had been built on Braddock's expedition. … From this height of expectation men were suddenly plunged into the yawning gulf of gloom and alarm. The whole frontier lay exposed to the hatchet and the torch of the remorseless red man. … The apprehensions of the border settlers were soon fully justified. Dumas, who shortly succeeded de Contrecœur in the command at Fort Duquesne, set vigorously to work to put the Indians on the war-path against the defenceless settlements. 'M. de Contrecœur had not been gone a week,' he writes, 'before I had six or seven different war parties in the field at once, always accompanied by Frenchmen. Thus far, we have lost only two officers and a few soldiers; but the Indian villages are full of prisoners of every age and sex. The enemy has lost far more since the battle than on the day of his defeat.' All along the frontier the murderous work went on."

T. J. Chapman, The French in the Allegheny Valley, pages 71-73.

ALSO IN: F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapters 7 and 10.

W. Sargent, History of Braddock's Expedition (Pennsylvania Historical Society Mem's, volume 5).

N. B. Craig, The Olden Time, volume 1, pages 64-133.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1758. Retirement of the French. Abandonment of Fort Duquesne.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763. Relinquishment to Great Britain by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1763. The king's proclamation excluding settlers.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D; 1763-1764. Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1765-1768. Indian Treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix. Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio. The Walpole Company and its proposed Vandalia settlement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1772-1782. The Moravian settlement and mission on the Muskingum.

See MORAVIAN BRETHREN.

OHIO:(Valley): A. D. 1774. Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians. The territorial claims of Virginia. The wrongs of Logan and his famous speech.

"On the eve of the Revolution, in 1774, the frontiersmen had planted themselves firmly among the Alleghanies. Directly west of them lay the untenanted wilderness, traversed only by the war parties of the red men, and the hunting parties of both reds and whites. No settlers had yet penetrated it, and until they did so there could be within its borders no chance of race warfare. … But in the southwest and the northwest alike, the area of settlement already touched the home lands of the tribes. … It was in the northwest that the danger of collision was most imminent; for there the whites and Indians had wronged one another for a generation, and their interests were, at the time, clashing more directly than ever. Much the greater part of the western frontier was held or claimed by Virginia, whose royal governor was, at the time, Lord Dunmore. {2396} … The short but fierce and eventful struggle that now broke out was fought wholly by Virginians, and was generally known by the name of Lord Dunmore's war. Virginia, under her charter, claimed that her boundaries ran across to the South Seas, to the Pacific Ocean. The king of Britain had graciously granted her the right to take so much of the continent as lay within these lines, provided she could win it from the Indians, French, and Spaniards. … A number of grants had been made with the like large liberality, and it was found that they sometimes conflicted with one another. The consequence was that while the boundaries were well marked near the coast, where they separated Virginia from the long-settled regions of Maryland and North Carolina, they became exceeding vague and indefinite the moment they touched the mountains. Even at the south this produced confusion, … but at the north the effect was still more confusing, and nearly resulted in bringing about an inter-colonial war between Pennsylvania and Virginia. The Virginians claimed all of extreme western Pennsylvania, especially Fort Pitt and the valley of the Monongahela, and, in 1774, proceeded boldly to exercise jurisdiction therein. Indeed a strong party among the settlers favored the Virginian claim. … The interests of the Virginians and Pennsylvanians not only conflicted in respect to the ownership of the land, but also in respect to the policy to be pursued regarding the Indians. The former were armed colonists, whose interest it was to get actual possession of the soil; whereas in Pennsylvania the Indian trade was very important and lucrative. … The interests of the white trader from Pennsylvania and of the white settler from Virginia were so far from being identical that they were usually diametrically opposite. The northwestern Indians had been nominally at peace with the whites for ten years, since the close of Bouquet's campaign. … Each of the ten years of nominal peace saw plenty of bloodshed. Recently they had been seriously alarmed by the tendency of the whites to encroach on the great hunting-grounds south of the Ohio. … The cession by the Iroquois of the same hunting-grounds, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768], while it gave the whites a colorable title, merely angered the northwestern Indians. Half a century earlier they would hardly have dared dispute the power of the Six Nations to do what they chose with any land that could be reached by their war parties; but in 1774 they felt quite able to hold their own against their old oppressors. … The savages grew continually more hostile, and in the fall of 1773 their attacks became so frequent that it was evident a general outbreak was at hand. … The Shawnees were the leaders in all these outrages; but the outlaw bands, such as the Mingos and Cherokees, were as bad, and parties of Wyandots and Delawares, as well as of the various Miami and Wabash tribes, joined them. Thus the spring of 1774 opened with everything ripe for an explosion. … The borderers were anxious for a war; and Lord Dunmore was not inclined to baulk them. … Unfortunately the first stroke fell on friendly Indians." Dunmore's agent or lieutenant in the country, one Dr. Conolly, issued an open letter in April which was received by the backwoodsmen as a declaration and authorization of war. One band of these, led by a Maryland borderer, Michael Cresap, proceeded to hostilities at once by ambushing and shooting down some friendly Shawnees who were engaged in trade. This same party then set out to attack the camp of the famous chief Logan, whose family and followers were then dwelling at Yellow Creek, some 50 miles away. Logan was "an Iroquois warrior, who lived at that time away from the bulk of his people, but who was a man of note … among the outlying parties of Senecas and Mingos, and the fragments of broken tribes that dwelt along the upper Ohio. … He was greatly liked and respected by all the white hunters and frontiersmen whose friendship and respect were worth having; they admired him for his dexterity and prowess, and they loved him for his straightforward honesty, and his noble loyalty to his friends." Cresap's party, after going some miles toward Logan's camp, "began to feel ashamed of their mission; calling a halt, they discussed the fact that the camp they were preparing to attack consisted exclusively of friendly Indians, and mainly of women and children; and forthwith abandoned their proposed trip and returned home. … But Logan's people did not profit by Cresap's change of heart. On the last day of April a small party of men, women, and children, including almost all of Logan's kin, left his camp and crossed the river to visit Greathouse [another borderer, of a more brutal type], as had been their custom; for he made a trade of selling rum to the savages, though Cresap had notified him to stop. The whole party were plied with liquor, and became helplessly drunk, in which condition Greathouse and his associated criminals fell on and massacred them, nine souls in all. … At once the frontier was in a blaze, and the Indians girded themselves for revenge. … They confused the two massacres, attributing both to Cresap, whom they well knew as a warrior. … Soon all the back country was involved in the unspeakable horrors of a bloody Indian war," which lasted, however, only till the following October. Governor Dunmore, during the summer, collected some 3,000 men, one division of which he led personally to Fort Pitt and thence down the Ohio, accomplishing nothing of importance. The other division, composed exclusively of backwoodsmen, under General Andrew Lewis, marched to the mouth of the Kanawha River, and there, at Point Pleasant, the cape of land jutting out between the Ohio and the Kanawha, they fought, on the 10th of October, a great battle with the Indians which practically ended the war. This is sometimes called the battle of Point Pleasant, and sometimes the battle of the Great Kanawha. "It was the most closely contested of any battle ever fought with the northwestern Indians; and it was the only victory gained over a large body of them by a force but slightly superior in numbers. … Its results were most important. It kept the northwestern tribes quiet for the first two years of the Revolutionary struggle; and above all it rendered possible the settlement of Kentucky, and therefore the winning of the West. Had it not been for Lord Dunmore's War, it is more than likely that when the colonies achieved their freedom they would have found their western boundary fixed at the Alleghany Mountains." {2397} For some time after peace had been made with the other chiefs Logan would not join in it. When he did yield a sullen assent, Lord Dunmore "was obliged to communicate with him through a messenger, a frontier veteran named John Gibson. … To this messenger Logan was willing to talk. Taking him aside, he suddenly addressed him in a speech that will always retain its place as perhaps the finest outburst of savage eloquence of which we have any authentic record. The messenger took it down in writing, translating it literally." The authenticity of this famous speech of Logan has been much questioned, but apparently with no good ground.

ALSO IN: J. H. Perkins, Annals of the West, chapter 5.

J. G. M. Ramsey, Annals of Tennessee, page 112.

V. A. Lewis, History of West Virginia, chapter 9.

J. R. Gilmore (E. Kirke), The Rear-guard of the Revolution, chapter 4.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1774. Embraced in the Province of Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1778-1779. Conquest of the Northwest from the British by the Virginia General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky District of Virginia.

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

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1781-1786. Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia, New York and Connecticut. Their cession to the United States, except the Western Reserve of Connecticut.

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

OHIO: (Valley): A: D. 1784. Included in the proposed States of Metropotamia, Washington, Saratoga and Pelisipia.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1788. The Ohio Company of Revolutionary soldiers and their settlement at Marietta.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1786-1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1786-1796. Western Reserve of Connecticut. Founding of Cleveland.

In September, 1786, Connecticut ceded to Congress the western territory which she claimed under her charter (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786; and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799), reserving, however, from the cession a tract "bounded north by the line of 42° 2', or, rather, the international line, east by the western boundary of Pennsylvania, south by the 41st parallel, and west by a line parallel with the eastern boundary and distant from it 120 miles—supposed, at the time, to be equal in extent to the Susquehanna tract given to Pennsylvania, 1782. … This territory Connecticut was said 'to reserve,' and it soon came to be called 'The Connecticut Western Reserve,' 'The Western Reserve,' etc. … On May 11, 1792, the General Assembly quit-claimed to the inhabitants of several Connecticut towns who had lost property in consequence of the incursions into the State made by the British troops in the Revolution, or their legal representatives when they were dead, and to their heirs and assigns, forever, 500,000 acres lying across the western end of the reserve, bounded north by the lake shore. … The total number of sufferers, as reported, was 1,870, and the aggregate losses, £161,548, 11s., 6½. The grant was of the soil only. These lands are known in Connecticut history as 'The Sufferers' Lands,' in Ohio history as 'The Fire Lands.' In 1796 the Sufferers were incorporated in Connecticut, and in 1803 in Ohio, under the title 'The Proprietors of the Half-million Acres of Land lying south of Lake Erie.' … In May, 1793, the Connecticut Assembly offered the remaining part of the Reserve for sale." In September, 1795, the whole tract was sold, without surveyor measurement, for $1,200,000, and the Connecticut School Fund, which amounts to something more than two millions of dollars, consists wholly of the proceeds of that sale, with capitalized interest. "The purchasers of the Reserve, most of them belonging to Connecticut, but some to Massachusetts and New York, were men desirous of trying their fortunes in Western lands. Oliver Phelps, perhaps the greatest land-speculator of the time, was at their head. September 5, 1795, they adopted articles of agreement and association, constituting themselves the Connecticut Land Company. The company was never incorporated, but was what is called to-day a 'syndicate.'" In the spring of 1796 the company sent out a party of surveyors, in charge of its agent, General Moses Cleaveland, who reached "the mouth of the Cuyahoga River, July 22d, from which day there have always been white men on the site of the city that takes its name from him." In 1830 the spelling of the name of the infant city was changed from Cleaveland to Cleveland by the printer of its first newspaper, who found that the superfluous "a" made a heading too long for his form, and therefore dropped it out.

B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 19, with foot-notes.

ALSO IN: C. Whittlesey, Early History of Cleveland, page 145, and after.

H. Rice, Pioneers of the Western Reserve, chapters 6-7.

R. King, Ohio, chapters 7-8.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1787. The Ordinance for the government of the Northwest Territory. Perpetual exclusion of Slavery.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1788. The founding of Cincinnati.

See CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

OHIO: (Valley): A. D. 1790-1795. Indian war. Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's decisive victory. The Greenville Treaty.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

OHIO: (Territory and State): A. D. 1800-1802. Organized as a separate Territory and admitted to the Union as a State.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1788-1802.

OHIO: A. D. 1812-1813. Harrison's campaign for the recovery of Detroit. Winchester's defeat. Perry's naval victory.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

OHIO: A. D. 1835. Settlement of Boundary dispute with Michigan.

See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1836.

OHIO: A. D. 1863. John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

—————OHIO: End————

OHOD, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST; A. D. 609-632.

OJIBWAS, OR CHIPPEWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAS; also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

OKLAHOMA, The opening of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

OL., OR OLYMP.

See OLYMPIADS.

OLAF II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1086-1095.

Olaf III., King of Denmark, 1376-

{2398}

1387; and VII. of Norway, 1380-1387.

Olaf III. (Tryggveson), King of Norway, 995-1000.

Olaf IV. (called The Saint), King of Norway, 1000-1030.

Olaf V., King of Norway, 1069-1093.

Olaf VI., King of Norway, 1103-1116.

OLBIA.

See BORYSTHENES.

OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

OLD COLONY, The.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.

OLD DOMINION, The.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.

OLD IRONSIDES.

This name was popularly given to the "Constitution," the most famous of the American frigates in the War of 1812-14 with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813; and 1814.

OLD LEAGUE OF HIGH GERMANY, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN, The.

See ASSASSINS.

OLD POINT COMFORT: Origin of its Name.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607.

—————OLD SARUM: Start————

OLD SARUM: Origin.

See SORBIODUNUM.

OLD SARUM: A Rotten Borough.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.

—————OLD SARUM: End————

OLD SOUTH CHURCH, The founding of the.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

OLD STYLE.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

OLDENBURG: The duchy annexed to France by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

OLERON, The Laws of.

"The famous maritime laws of Oleron (which is an island adjacent to the coast of France) are usually ascribed to Richard I, though none of the many writers, who have had occasion to mention them, have been able to find any contemporary authority, or even any antient satisfactory warrant for affixing his name to them. They consist of forty-seven short regulations for average, salvage, wreck, &c. copied from the antient Rhodian maritime laws, or perhaps more immediately from those of Barcelona."

D. Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, volume 1, page 358.

OLIGARCHY.

See ARISTOCRACY.

OLISIPO.

The ancient name of Lisbon.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OLIVA, Treaty of (1660).

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688; and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

OLIVETANS, The.

"The Order of Olivetans, or Brethren of St. Mary of Mount Olivet, … was founded in 1313, by John Tolomei of Siena, a distinguished professor of philosophy in his native city, in gratitude for the miraculous restoration of his sight. In company with a few companions, he established himself in a solitary olive-orchard, near Siena, obtained the approbation of John XXII. for his congregation, and, at the command of the latter, adopted the Rule of St. Benedict."

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, volume 3, page 149.

OLLAMHS.

The Bards (see FILI) of the ancient Irish.

OLMUTZ, Abortive siege of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

OLNEY, Treaty of.

A treaty between Edmund Ironsides and Canute, or Cnut, dividing the English kingdom between them, A. D. 1016. The conference was held on an island in the Severn, called Olney.

OLPÆ, Battle of.

A victory won, in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 426-5) by the Acarnanians and Messenians, under the Athenian general Demosthenes, over the Peloponnesians and Ambraciotes, on the shore of the Ambracian gulf.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2.

OLUSTEE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: FLORIDA).

OLYBRIUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 472.

OLYMPIA, Battle of (B. C. 365).

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

OLYMPIADS, The Era of the.

"The Era of the Olympiads, so called from its having originated from the Olympic games, which occurred every fifth year at Olympia, a city in Elis, is the most ancient and celebrated method of computing time. It was first instituted in the 776th year before the birth of our Saviour, and consisted of a revolution of four years. The first year of Jesus Christ is usually considered to correspond with the first year of the 195th olympiad; but as the years of the olympiads commenced at the full moon next after the summer solstice, i. e., about the first of July, … it must be understood that it corresponds only with the six last months of the 195th olympiad. … Each year of an olympiad was luni–solar, and contained 12 or 13 months, the names of which varied in the different states of Greece. The months consisted of 30 and 29 days alternately; and the short year consequently contained 354 days, while the intercalary year had 384. The computation by olympiads … ceased after the 364th olympiad, in the year of Christ 440."

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, pages 1-2.

OLYMPIC GAMES.

"The character of a national institution, which the Amphictyonic council affected, but never really acquired, more truly belonged to the public festivals, which, though celebrated within certain districts, were not peculiar to any tribe, but were open and common to all who could prove their Hellenic blood. The most important of these festivals was that which was solemnized every fifth year on the banks of the Alpheus, in the territory of Elis; it lasted four days, and, from Olympia, the scene of its celebration, derived the name of the Olympic contest, or games, and the period itself which intervened between its returns was called an olympiad. The origin of this institution is involved in some obscurity, partly by the lapse of time, and partly by the ambition of the Eleans to exaggerate its antiquity and sanctity. … Though, however, the legends fabricated or adopted by the Eleans to magnify the antiquity and glory of the games deserve little attention, there can be no doubt that, from very early times, Olympia had been a site hallowed by religion; and it is highly probable that festivals of a nature similar to that which afterwards became permanent had been occasionally celebrated in the sanctuary of Jupiter. … Olympia, not so much a town as a precinct occupied by a great number of sacred and public buildings, originally lay in the territory of Pisa, which, for two centuries after the beginning of the olympiads, was never completely subject to Elis, and occasionally appeared as her rival, and excluded her from all share in the presidency of the games. {2399} … It is probable that the northern Greeks were not at first either consulted or expected to take any share in the festival; and that, though never expressly confined to certain tribes, in the manner of an Amphictyonic congress, it gradually enlarged the sphere of its fame and attraction till it came to embrace the whole nation. The sacred truce was proclaimed by officers sent round by the Eleans: it put a stop to warfare, from the time of the proclamation, for a period sufficient to enable strangers to return home in safety. During this period the territory of Elis itself was of course regarded as inviolable, and no armed force could traverse it without incurring the penalty of sacrilege. … It [the festival] was very early frequented by spectators, not only from all parts of Greece itself, but from the Greek colonies in Europe, Africa, and Asia; and this assemblage was not brought together by the mere fortuitous impulse of private interest or curiosity, but was in part composed of deputations which were sent by most cities as to a religious solemnity, and were considered as guests of the Olympian god. The immediate object of the meeting was the exhibition of various trials of strength and skill, which, from time to time, were multiplied so as to include almost every mode of displaying bodily activity. They included races on foot and with horses and chariots; contests in leaping, throwing, wrestling, and boxing; and some in which several of the exercises were combined; but no combats with any kind of weapon. The equestrian contests, particularly that of the four-horsed chariots, were, by their nature, confined to the wealthy; and princes and nobles vied with each other in such demonstrations of their opulence. But the greater part were open to the poorest Greek, and were not on that account the lower in public estimation. … In the games described by Homer valuable prizes were proposed, and this practice was once universal; but, after the seventh olympiad, a simple garland, of leaves of the wild olive, was substituted at Olympia, as the only meed of victory. The main spring of emulation was undoubtedly the celebrity of the festival and the presence of so vast a multitude of spectators, who were soon to spread the fame of the successful athletes to the extremity of the Grecian world. … The Altis, as the ground consecrated to the games was called at Olympia, was adorned with numberless statues of the victors, erected, with the permission of the Eleans, by themselves or their families, or at the expense of their fellow citizens. It was also usual to celebrate the joyful event, both at Olympia and at the victor's home, by a triumphal procession, in which his praises were sung, and were commonly associated with the glory of his ancestors and his country. The most eminent poets willingly lent their aid on such occasions, especially to the rich and great. And thus it happened that sports, not essentially different from those of our village greens, gave birth to masterpieces of sculpture, and called forth the sublimest strains of the lyric muse. … Viewed merely as a spectacle designed for public amusement, and indicating the taste of the people, the Olympic games might justly claim to be ranked far above all similar exhibitions of other nations. It could only be for the sake of a contrast, by which their general purity, innocence, and humanity would be placed in the strongest light, that they could be compared with the bloody sports of a Roman or a Spanish amphitheatre, and the tournaments of our chivalrous ancestors, examined by their side, would appear little better than barbarous shows."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.

OLYMPIUM AT ATHENS, The.

The building of a great temple to Jupiter Olympius was begun at Athens by Peisistratus as early as 530 B. C. Republican Athens refused to carry on a work which would be associated with the hateful memory of the tyrant, and it stood untouched until B. C. 174, when Antiochus Epiphanes employed a Roman architect to proceed with it. He, in turn, left it still unfinished, to be afterwards resumed by Augustus, and completed at last by Hadrian, 650 years after the foundations were laid.

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, volume 1, appendix 10.

OLYMPUS.

The name Olympus was given by the Greeks to a number of mountains and mountain ranges; but the one Olympus which impressed itself most upon their imaginations, and which seemed to be the home of their gods, was the lofty height that terminates the Cambunian range of mountains at the east and forms part of the boundary between Thessaly and Macedonia. Its elevation is nearly 10,000 feet above the level of the sea and all travelers have seemed to be affected by the peculiar grandeur of its aspect. Other mountains called Olympus were in Elis, near Olympia, where the great games were celebrated, and in Laconia, near Sellasia. There was also an Olympus in the island of Cyprus, and two in Asia Minor, one in Lycia, and a range in Mysia, separating Bithynia from Galatia and Phrygia.

See THESSALY, and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

OLYNTHIAC ORATIONS, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

—————OLYNTHUS: Start————

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 383-379. The Confederacy overthrown by Sparta.

See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.

OLYNTHUS: B. C. 351-348. War with Philip of Macedon. Destruction of the city.

See GREECE: B. C. 351-348.

—————OLYNTHUS: End————

OMAGUAS, The.

See EL DORADO.

OMAHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OMAR I., Caliph, A. D. 634-643.

Omar II., Caliph, 717-720.

OMER, OR GOMER, The.

See EPHAH.

OMMIADES, OMEYYADES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661; 680; 715-750, and 756-1031.

OMNIBUS BILL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

ON.

"A solitary obelisk of red granite, set up at least 4,000 years ago, alone marks the site of On, also called the City of the Sun, in Hebrew Beth-shemesh, in Greek Heliopolis. Nothing else can be seen of the splendid shrine and the renowned university which were the former glories of the place. … The university to which the wise men of Greece resorted perished when a new centre of knowledge was founded in the Greek city of Alexandria. … It was during the temporary independence of the country under native kings, after the first Persian rule, that Plato the philosopher and Eudoxus the mathematician studied at Heliopolis. … The civil name of the town was An, the Hebrew On, the sacred name Pe-Ra, the 'Abode of the Sun.'"

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 9.

{2400}

The site of On, or Heliopolis, is near Cairo. There was another city in Upper Egypt called An by the Egyptians, but Hermonthis by the Greeks.

ONEIDAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

O'NEILS, The wars and the flight of the.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603; and 1607-1611.

ONONDAGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

ONTARIO: The Name.

See OHIO: THE NAME.

ONTARIO, Lake, The Discovery of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

ONTARIO, The province.

The western division of Canada, formerly called Upper Canada, received the name of Ontario when the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada was formed.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1876.

OODEYPOOR.

See RAJPOOTS.

OPEQUAN CREEK, OR WINCHESTER, Battle of.

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

OPHIR, Land of.

The geographical situation of the land called Ophir in the Bible has been the subject of much controversy. Many recent historians accept, as "conclusively demonstrated," the opinion reached by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde, that the true Ophir of antiquity was the country of Abhira, near the mouths of the Indus, not far from the present province of Guzerat. But some who accept Abhira as being the original Ophir conjecture that the name was extended in use to southern Arabia, where the products of the Indian Ophir were marketed.

OPIUM WAR, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

—————OPORTO: Start————

OPORTO: Early history. Its name given to Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

OPORTO: A. D. 1832. Siege by Dom Miguel.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889.

—————OPORTO: End————

OPPIAN LAW, The.

A law passed at Rome during the second Punic War (3d century, B. C.), forbidding any woman to wear a gay–colored dress, or more than half an ounce of gold ornament, and prohibiting the use of a car drawn by horses within a mile of any city or town. It was repealed B. C. 194.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: R. F. Horton, History of the Romans, chapter 16.

OPPIDUM.

Among the Gauls and the Britons a town, or a fortified place, was called an oppidum. As Cæsar explained the term, speaking of the oppidum of Cassivellaunus, in Britain, it signified a "stockade or enclosed space in the midst of a forest, where they took refuge with their flocks and herds in case of an invasion."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 19, note E (volume 2).

ALSO IN: Cæsar, Gallic War, book 5, chapter 21.

OPTIMATES.

"New names came into fashion [in Rome], but it is difficult to say when they were first used. We may probably refer the origin of them to the time of the Gracchi [B. C. 133-121]. One party was designated by the name of Optimates, 'the class of the best.' The name shows that it must have been invented by the 'best,' for the people would certainly not have given it to them. We may easily guess who were the Optimates. They were the rich and powerful, who ruled by intimidation, intrigue, and bribery, who bought the votes of the people and sold their interests. … Opposed to the Optimates were the Populares."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 20.

See ROME: B. C. 159-133.

ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

"Wherever the worship of Apollo had fixed its roots, there were sibyls and prophets; for Apollo is nowhere conceivable without the beneficent light of prophecy streaming out from his abode. The happy situation and moral significance of leading colleges of priests procured a peculiar authority for individual oracles. Among these are the Lycian Patara, the Thymbræan oracle near Troja (to which belongs Cassandra, the most famed of Apollo's prophetesses), the Gryneum on Lesbos, the Clarian oracle near Colophon, and finally the most important of all the oracles of Asia Minor, the Didymæum near Miletus, where the family of the Branchidæ held the prophetic office as a hereditary honorary right. Delos connects the Apolline stations on the two opposite sides of the water: here, too, was a primitive oracle, where Anius, the son of Apollo, was celebrated as the founder of a priestly family of soothsayers. … The sanctuaries of Ismenian Apollo in Thebes were founded, the Ptoïum on the hill which separates the Hylian plain of the sea from the Copæic, and in Phocis the oracle of Abæ. The reason why the fame of all these celebrated seats of Apollo was obscured by that of Delphi lies in a series of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances by which this place was qualified to become a centre, not only of the lands in its immediate neighbourhood, like the other oracles, but of the whole nation. … With all the more important sanctuaries there was connected a comprehensive financial administration, it being the duty of the priests, by shrewd management, by sharing in profitable undertakings, by advantageous leases, by lending money, to increase the annual revenues. … There were no places of greater security, and they were, therefore, used by States as well as by private persons as places of deposit for their valuable documents, such as wills, compacts, bonds, or ready money. By this means the sanctuary entered into business relations with all parts of the Greek world, which brought it gain and influence. The oracles became money-institutions, which took the place of public banks. … It was by their acquiring, in addition to the authority of religious holiness, and the superior weight of mental culture, that power which was attainable by means of personal relations of the most comprehensive sort, as well as through great pecuniary means and national credit, that it was possible for the oracle-priests to gain so comprehensive an influence upon all Grecian affairs. … With the extension of colonies the priests' knowledge of the world increased, and with this the commanding eminence of the oracle-god. … The oracles were in every respect not only the provident eye, not only the religious conscience, of the Greek nation, but they were also its memory."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 4.

{2401}

"The sites selected for these oracles were generally marked by some physical property, which fitted them to be the scenes of such miraculous manifestations. They were in a volcanic region, where gas escaping from a fissure in the earth might be inhaled, and the consequent exhilaration or ecstasy, partly real and partly imaginary, was a divine inspiration. At the Pythian oracle in Delphi there was thought to be such an exhalation. Others have supposed that the priests possessed the secret of manufacturing an exhilarating gas. … In each of the oracular temples of Apollo, the officiating functionary was a woman, probably chosen on account of her nervous temperament;—at first young, but, a love affair having happened, it was decided that no one under fifty should be eligible to the office. The priestess sat upon a tripod, placed over the chasm in the centre of the temple."

C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern, chapter 2, lecture 9.

—————ORAN: Start————

ORAN: A. D. 1505. Conquest by Cardinal Ximenes.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

ORAN: A. D. 1563. Siege, and repulse of the Moors.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565:

—————ORAN: End————

ORANGE, The Prince of: Assassination.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584, and 1584-1585.

ORANGE, The Principality.

"The little, but wealthy and delicious, tract of land, of which Orange is the capital, being about four miles in length and as many in breadth, lies in the Comté Venaissin, bordering upon that of Avignon, within a small distance of the Rhone; and made no inconsiderable part of that ancient and famous Kingdom of Arles which was established by Boso towards the end of the 9th century. …"

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 888-1032; and 1032.

"In the beginning of the 9th century, historians tell us of one William, sirnamed Cornet, of uncertain extraction, sovereign of this State, and highly esteemed by the great Emperor Charlemagne, whose vassal he then was. Upon failure of the male descendants of this prince in the person of Rambald IV.; who died in the 13th century, his lands devolved to Tiburga, great aunt to the said Rambald, who brought them in marriage to Bertrand II. of the illustrious house of Baux. These were common ancestors to Raymond V., father to Mary, with whom John IV. of Chalon contracted an alliance in 1386; and it was from them that descended in a direct male line the brave Philibert of Chalon, who, after many signal services rendered the Emperor Charles V., as at the taking of Rome more particularly, had the misfortune to be slain, leaving behind him no issue, in a little skirmish at Pistoya, while he had the command of the siege before Florence. Philibert had one only sister, named Claudia, whose education was at the French court," where, in 1515, she married Henry, of Nassau, whereby the principality passed to that house which was made most illustrious, in the next generation, by William the Silent, Prince of Orange. The Dutch stadtholders retained the title of Princes of Orange until William III. Louis XIV. seized the principality in 1672, but it was restored to the House of Nassau by the Peace of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

On the death of William III. it was declared to be forfeited to the French crown, and was bestowed on the Prince of Conti; but the king of Prussia, who claimed it, was permitted, under the Treaty of Utrecht, to bear the title, without possession of the domain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

J. Breval, History of the House of Nassau.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, Orange (Historical Essays, volume 4).

See, also, NASSAU.

ORANGE, The town: Roman origin.

See ARAUSIO.

ORANGE FREE STATE.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

ORANGE SOCIETY, The formation of the.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

ORARIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

ORATIONES, Roman Imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

ORATORY, Congregation of the.

See CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY.

ORBITELLO, Siege of (1646).

See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.

ORCHA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ORCHAN, Ottoman Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1325-1359.

ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

"In the year 181 B. C. [Rome] a law (the Lex Orchia) was designed to restrain extravagance in private banquets, and to limit the number of guests. This law proved ineffectual, and as early as 161 B. C. a far stricter law was introduced by the consul, C. Fannius (the Lex Fannia) which prescribed how much might be spent on festive banquets and common family meals. … The law, moreover, prohibited certain kinds of food and drink. By a law in the year 143 B. C. (the Lex Didia) this regulation was extended over the whole of Italy."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 12 (volume 4).

ORCHOMENOS.

See MINYI, THE.

ORCHOMENOS, Battle of (B. C. 85).

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

ORCYNIAN FOREST, The.

See HERCYNIAN.

ORDAINERS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDEAL, The.

"During the full fervor of the belief that the Divine interposition could at all times be had for the asking, almost any form of procedure, conducted under priestly observances, could assume the position and influence of an ordeal. As early as 592, we find Gregory the Great alluding to a simple purgatorial oath, taken by a Bishop on the relics of St. Peter, in terms which convey evidently the idea that the accused, if guilty, had exposed himself to imminent danger, and that by performing the ceremony unharmed he had sufficiently proved his innocence. But such unsubstantial refinements were not sufficient for the vulgar, who craved the evidence of their senses, and desired material proof to rebut material accusations. In ordinary practice, therefore, the principal modes by which the will of Heaven was ascertained were the ordeal of fire, whether administered directly, or through the agency of boiling water or red-hot iron; that of cold water; of bread or cheese; of the Eucharist; of the cross; the lot; and the touching of the body of the victim in cases of murder. {2402} Some of these, it will be seen, required a miraculous interposition to save the accused; others to condemn; some depended altogether on volition, others on the purest chance; while others, again, derived their power from the influence exerted on the mind of the patient. They were all accompanied with solemn religious observances. … The ordeal of boiling water ('æneum,' 'judicium aquæ ferventis,' 'cacabus,' 'caldaria') is probably the oldest form in which the application of fire was judicially administered in Europe as a mode of proof. … A caldron of water was brought to the boiling point, and the accused was obliged with his naked hand to find a small stone or ring thrown into it; sometimes the latter portion was omitted, and the hand was simply inserted, in trivial cases to the wrist, in crimes of magnitude to the elbow, the former being termed the single, the latter the triple ordeal. … The cold-water ordeal ('judicium aquæ frigidæ') differed from most of its congeners in requiring a miracle to convict the accused, as in the natural order of things he escaped. … The basis of this ordeal was the superstitious belief that the pure element would not receive into its bosom anyone stained with the crime of a false oath."

H. C. Lea, Superstition and Force, chapter 3.

See, also, LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1198-1199.

ORDERS, Monastic.

See AUSTIN CANONS; BENEDICTINE ORDERS; CAPUCHINS; CARMELITE FRIARS; CARTHUSIAN ORDER; CISTERCIAN ORDER; CLAIRVAUX; CLUGNY; MENDICANT ORDERS; RECOLLECTS; SERVITES; THEATINES; TRAPPISTS.

ORDERS IN COUNCIL, Blockade by British.

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

ORDERS OF KNIGHTHOOD.

See KNIGHTHOOD.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

ORDINANCES OF SECESSION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER); 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ORDINANCES OF 1311.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1310-1311.

ORDOÑO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 850-866.

Ordoño II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 914-923.

Ordoño III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 950-955.

ORDOVICES, The. One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

—————OREGON: Start————

OREGON: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY, and SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

OREGON: A. D: 1803. Was it embraced in the Louisiana Purchase? Grounds of American possession.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

OREGON: A. D. 1805. Lewis and Clark's exploring expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805.

OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846. The Boundary dispute with Great Britain and its settlement.

"The territory along the Pacific coast lying between California on the south and Alaska on the north —Oregon as it was comprehensively called—had been a source of dispute for some time between the United States and Great Britain. After some negotiations both had agreed with Russia to recognize the line of 54° 40' as the southern boundary of the latter's possessions; and Mexico's undisputed possession of California gave an equally well marked southern limit, at the 42d parallel. All between was in dispute. The British had trading posts at the mouth of the Columbia, which they emphatically asserted to be theirs; we, on the other hand, claimed an absolutely clear title up to the 49th parallel, a couple of hundred miles north of the mouth of the Columbia, and asserted that for all the balance of the territory up to the Russian possessions our title was at any rate better than that of the British. In 1818 a treaty had been made providing for the joint occupation of the territory by the two powers, as neither was willing to give up its claim to the whole, or at the time at all understood the value of the possession, then entirely unpeopled. This treaty of joint occupancy had remained in force ever since. Under it the British had built great trading stations, and used the whole country in the interests of certain fur companies. The Americans, in spite of some vain efforts, were unable to compete with them in this line; but, what was infinitely more important, had begun, even prior to 1840, to establish actual settlers along the banks of the rivers, some missionaries being the first to come in. … The aspect of affairs was totally changed when in 1842 a huge caravan of over 1,000 Americans made the journey from the frontiers of Missouri, taking with them their wives and their children, their flocks and herds, carrying their long rifles on their shoulders, and their axes and spades in the great canvas-topped wagons. The next year 2,000 more settlers of the same sort in their turn crossed the vast plains, wound their way among the Rocky Mountains through the pass explored by Fremont, Benton's son-in-law, and after suffering every kind of hardship and danger, and warding off the attacks of hostile Indians, descended the western slope of the great water–shed to join their fellows by the banks of the Columbia. When American settlers were once in actual possession of the disputed territory, it became evident that the period of Great Britain's undisputed sway was over. … Tyler's administration did not wish to embroil itself with England; so it refused any aid to the settlers, and declined to give them grants of land, as under the joint occupancy treaty that would have given England offense and cause for complaint. But Benton and the other Westerners were perfectly willing to offend England, if by so doing they could help America to obtain Oregon, and were too rash and headstrong to count the cost of their actions. Accordingly, a bill was introduced providing for the settlement of Oregon, and giving each settler 640 acres, and additional land if he had a family. … It passed the Senate by a close vote, but failed in the House. … The unsuccessful attempts made by Benton and his supporters, to persuade the Senate to pass a resolution, requiring that notice of the termination of the joint occupancy treaty should forthwith be given, were certainly ill-advised. However, even Benton was not willing to go to the length to which certain Western men went, who insisted upon all or nothing. … He sympathized with the effort made by Calhoun while secretary of state to get the British to accept the line of 49° as the frontier; but the British government then rejected this proposition. In 1844 the Democrats made their campaign upon the issue of 'fifty-four forty or fight'; and Polk, when elected, felt obliged to insist upon this campaign boundary. {2403} To this, however, Great Britain naturally would not consent; it was, indeed, idle to expect her to do so, unless things should be kept as they were until a fairly large American population had grown up along the Pacific coast, and had thus put her in a position where she could hardly do anything else. Polk's administration was neither capable nor warlike, however well disposed to bluster; and the secretary of state, the timid, shifty, and selfish politician, Buchanan, naturally fond of facing both ways, was the last man to wish to force a quarrel on a high-spirited and determined antagonist, like England. Accordingly, he made up his mind to back down and try for the line of 49°, as proposed by Calhoun, when in Tyler's cabinet; and the English, for all their affected indifference, had been so much impressed by the warlike demonstrations in the United States, that they in turn were delighted …; accordingly they withdrew their former pretensions to the Columbia River and accepted [June 15, 1846] the offered compromise."

T. Roosevelt, Life of Thomas H. Benton, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, volume 2, chapters 143, and 156-159.

Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other countries (edition of 1889), page 438.

W. Barrows, Oregon.

OREGON: A. D. 1859. Admission into the Union, with a constitution excluding free people of color.

"The fact that the barbarism of slavery was not confined to the slave States had many illustrations. Among them, that afforded by Oregon was a signal example. In 1857 she formed a constitution, and applied for admission into the Union. Though the constitution was in form free, it was very thoroughly imbued with the spirit of slavery; and though four fifths of the votes cast were for the rejection of slavery, there were seven eighths for an article excluding entirely free people of color. As their leaders were mainly proslavery, it is probable that the reason why they excluded slavery from the constitution was their fear of defeat in their application for admission. … On the 11th of February, 1859, Mr. Stephens reported from the Committee on Territories a bill for the admission of Oregon as a State. A minority report, signed by Grow, Granger, and Knapp, was also presented, protesting against its admission with a constitution so discriminating against color. The proposition led to an earnest debate;" but the bill admitting Oregon prevailed, by a vote of 114 to 103 in the House and 35 to 17 in the Senate.

H. Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, volume 2, chapter 49.

—————OREGON: End————

OREJONES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ORELLANA, and his discovery of the Amazons River (1541).

See AMAZONS RIVER.

ORESTÆ, The.

See MACEDONIA.

ORIENTAL CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054; ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY; and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORIFLAMME, The.

"The Oriflamme was originally the Banner of the Abbey of St. Denis, and was received by the Counts of the Vexin, as 'Avoués' of that Monastery, whenever they engaged in any military expedition. On the union of the Vexin with the Crown effected by Philip I., a similar connexion with the Abbey was supposed to be contracted by the Kings; and accordingly Louis the Fat received the Banner, with the customary solemnities, on his knees, bare-headed, and ungirt. The Banner was a square Gonfalon of flame-coloured silk, unblazoned, with the lower edge cut into three swallow-tails."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 3, foot-note.

"The Oriflamme was a flame-red banner of silk; three-pointed on its lower side, and tipped with green. It was fastened to a gilt spear."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 5, foot-note.

ORIK, OR OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

ORISKANY, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

ORKNEYS: 8-14th Centuries. The Norse Jarls.

See NORMANS: 8-9TH CENTURIES; and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

ORLEANISTS.

See LEGITIMISTS.

ORLEANS, The Duke of: Regency.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1723.

—————ORLEANS, The House of: Start————

ORLEANS, The House of: Origin.

See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ORLEANS, The House of: A. D. 1447. Origin of claims to the duchy of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

—————ORLEANS, The House of: End————

—————ORLEANS, The City: Start————

ORLEANS, The City: Origin and name.

"The Loire, flowing first northwards, then westwards, protects, by its broad sickle of waters, this portion of Gaul, and the Loire itself is commanded at its most northerly point by that city which, known in Caesar's day as Genabum, had taken the name Aureliani from the great Emperor, the conqueror of Zenobia, and is now called Orleans."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3 (volume 2).

See, also, GENABUM.

ORLEANS, The City: Early history.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 451. Siege by Attila.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 511-752. A Merovingian capital.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1429. Deliverance by Joan of Arc.

In the summer of 1428 the English, under the Duke of Bedford, having maintained and extended the conquests of Henry V., were masters of nearly the whole of France north of the Loire. The city of Orleans, however, on the north bank of that river, was still held by the French, and its reduction was determined upon. The siege began in October, and after some months of vigorous operations there seemed to be no doubt that the hard-pressed city must succumb. It was then that Joan of Arc, known afterwards as the Maid of Orleans, appeared, and by the confidence she inspired drove the English from the field. They raised the siege on the 12th of May, 1429, and lost ground in France from that day.

Monstrelet, Chronicles, book 2, chapters 52-60.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

ORLEANS, The City: A. D. 1870. Taken by the Germans. Recovered by the French. Again lost. Repeated battles.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1870-1871.

—————ORLEANS, The City: End————

ORLEANS, The Territory of.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812; and 1812.

ORMÉE OF BORDEAUX, The.

See BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

{2404}

OROPUS, Naval Battle at.

The Athenians suffered a defeat at the hands of the Spartans in a sea fight at Oropus, B. C. 411, as a consequence of which they lost the island of Eubœa. It was one of the most disastrous in the later period of the Peloponnesian War.

Thucydides, History, book 8, section 95.

ORPHANS, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

ORSINI, OR URSINI, The.

See ROME: 13-14TH CENTURIES.

ORTHAGORIDÆ, The.

See SICYON.

ORTHES, Battle of (1814).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ORTHODOX, OR GREEK CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054; also, ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, and FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

ORTOSPANA.

The ancient name of the city of Cabul.

ORTYGIA.

See SYRACUSE.

OSAGES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OSCANS, The.

"The Oscan or Opican race was at one time very widely spread over the south (of Italy]. The Auruncans of Lower Latium belonged to this race, as also the Ausonians, who once gave name to Central Italy, and probably also the Volscians and the Æquians. In Campania the Oscan language was preserved to a late period in Roman history, and inscriptions still remain which can be interpreted by those familiar with Latin."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, introduction, section 2.

See, also, ITALY: ANCIENT.

OSCAR I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1844-1859.

Oscar II., King of Sweden, 1872-.

OSI, The.

See ARAVISCI; also, GOTHINI.

OSISMI, The.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

OSMAN. OSMANLI.

See OTHMAN.

OSMANLIS.

See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.

OSNABRÜCK: A. D. 1644-1648. Negotiation of the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

OSRHOËNE, OSROËNE.

A small principality or petty kingdom surrounding the city of Edessa, its capital, in northwestern Mesopotamia. It appears to have acquired its name and some little importance during the period of Parthian supremacy. It was a prince of Osrhoëne who betrayed the ill-fated army of Crassus to the Parthians at Carrhæ. In the reign of Caracalla Osrhoëne was made a Roman province. Edessa, the capital, claimed great antiquity, but is believed to have been really founded by Seleucus. During the first ten or eleven centuries of the Christian era Edessa was a city of superior importance in the eastern world, under dependent kings or princes of its own. It was especially noted for its schools of theology.

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 2.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapters 8 and 47.

P. Smith, History of the World, volume 3 (American edition), page 151.

OSSA AND PELION.

See THESSALY.

—————OSTEND: Start————

OSTEND: A. D. 1602-1604. Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.

OSTEND: A. D. 1706. Besieged and reduced by the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OSTEND: A. D. 1722-1731. The obnoxious Company.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and 1726-1731.

OSTEND: A. D. 1745-1748. Taken by the French, and restored.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

—————OSTEND: End————

OSTEND MANIFESTO, The.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

OSTIA.

Ostia, the ancient port of Rome, at the mouth of the Tiber, was regarded as a suburb of the city and had no independent existence. Its inhabitants were Roman citizens. In time, the maintaining of a harbor at Ostia was found to be impracticable, owing to deposits of silt from the Tiber, and artificial harbors were constructed by the emperors Claudius, Nero and Trajan, about two miles to the north of Ostia. They were known by the names Portus Augusti and Portus Trajani. In the 12th century the port and channel of Ostia were partially restored, for a time, but only to be abandoned again. The ancient city is now represented by a small hamlet, about two miles from the sea shore.

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 14.

OSTMEN.

See NORMANS: 10-13TH CENTURIES.

OSTRACH, Battle of (1799).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799.(AUGUST-APRIL).

OSTRACISM.

"The state [Athens] required means of legally removing persons who, by an excess of influence and adherents, virtually put an end to the equality among the citizens established by law, and thus threatened the state with a revival of party-rule. For this purpose, in the days of Clisthenes, and probably under his influence, the institution of ostracism, or judgment by potsherds, was established. By virtue of it the people were themselves to protect civic equality, and by a public vote remove from among them whoever seemed dangerous to them. For such a sentence, however, besides a public preliminary discussion, the unanimous vote of six thousand citizens was required. The honour and property of the exile remained untouched, and the banishment itself was only pronounced for a term of ten years."

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

"The procedure (in ostracism] was as follows: —Every year, in the sixth or seventh Prytany, the question was put to the people whether it desired ostracism to be put in force or not. Hereupon of course orators came forward to support or oppose the proposal. The former they could only do by designating particular persons as sources of impending danger to freedom, or of confusion and injury to the commonwealth; in opposition to them, on the other side, the persons thus designated, and anyone besides who desired it, were of course free to deny the danger, and to show that the anxiety was unfounded. If the people decided in favour of putting the ostracism in force, a day was appointed on which it was to take place. On this day the people assembled at the market, where an enclosure was erected with ten different entrances and accordingly, it is probable, the same number of divisions for the several Phylæ. Every citizen entitled to a vote wrote the name of the person he desired to have banished from the state upon a potsherd. … At one of the ten entrances the potsherds were put into the hands of the magistrates posted there, the Prytanes and the nine Archons, and when the voting was completed were counted one by one. The man whose name was found written on at least six thousand potsherds was obliged to leave the country within ten days at latest."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece, part 3, chapter 3.

{2405}

OSTROGOTHS.

See GOTHS.

OSTROLENKA, Battle of (1831).

See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

OSTROVNO, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

OSWALD, King of Northumbria, A. D. 635-642.

—————OSWEGO: Start————

OSWEGO: A. D. 1722. Fort built by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1755. English position strengthened.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

OSWEGO: A. D. 1756. The three forts taken by the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1759. Reoccupied by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

OSWEGO: A. D. 1783-1796. Retained by the English after peace with the United States. Final surrender.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1796; and 1794-1795.

—————OSWEGO: End————

OSWI, King of Northumbria, A. D. 655-670.

OTADENI, OTTEDENI, The.

One of the tribes in Britain whose territory lay between the Roman wall and the Firth of Forth. Mr. Skene thinks they were the same people who are mentioned in the 4th century as the "Attacotti."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume l.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

OTCHAKOF, Siege of (1737).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

OTFORD, Battle of.

Won by Edmund Ironsides, A. D. 1016, over Cnut, or Canute, the Danish claimant of the English crown.

OTHMAN, Caliph, A. D. 643-655.

Othman, or Osman, founder of the Ottoman or Osmanli dynasty of Turkish Sultans, 1307-1325.

Othman II., Turkish Sultan, 1618-1622.

Othman III., Turkish Sultan, 1754-1757.

OTHO, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69.

Otho (of Bavaria), King of Hungary, 1305-1307.

Otho, or Otto I. (called the Great), King of the East Franks (Germany), 936-973; King of Lombardy, and Emperor, 962-973.

Otho II., King of the East Franks (Germany), King of Italy, and Emperor, 967-983.

Otho Ill., King of the East Franks (Germany), 983-1002; King of Italy and Emperor, 996-1002.

Otho IV., King of Germany, 1208-1212; Emperor, 1209-1212.

OTHRYS.

See THESSALY.

OTIS, James, The speech of, against Writs of Assistance.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1761.

OTOES, OTTOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY, and SIOUAN FAMILY.

OTOMIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OTOMIS.

OTRANTO: Taken by the Turks (1480).

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.

OTTAWA, Canada: The founding of the City.

"In 1826 the village of Bytown, now Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of Canada, was founded. The origin of this beautiful city was this: Colonel By, an officer of the Royal Engineers, came to survey the country with a view of making a canal to connect the tidal waters of the St. Lawrence with the great lakes of Canada. After various explorations, an inland route up the Ottawa to the Rideau affluent, and thence by a ship canal to Kingston on Lake Ontario, was chosen. Colonel By made his headquarters where the proposed canal was to descend, by eight locks, a steep declivity of 90 feet to the Ottawa River. 'The spot itself was wonderfully beautiful.' … It was the centre of a vast lumber-trade, and had expanded by 1858 to a large town."

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, page 168.

OTTAWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS; also PONTIAC'S WAR.

OTTERBURN, Battle of.

This famous battle was fought, August 19, 1388, between a small force of Scots, harrying the border, under Earl Douglas and a hastily assembled body of English led by Sir Henry Percy, the famous Hotspur. The English, making a night attack on the Scottish camp, not far from Newcastle, were terribly beaten, and Hotspur was taken prisoner; but Douglas fell mortally wounded. The battle was a renowned encounter of knightly warriors, and greatly interested the historians of the age. It is narrated in Froissart's chronicles (volume 3, chapter 126), and is believed to be the action sung of in the famous old ballad of Chevy Chase, or the "Hunting of the Cheviot."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 26 (volume 3).

OTTIMATI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1498-1500.

OTTO.

See OTHO.

OTTOCAR, OTOKAR, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1253-1278.

OTTOMAN EMPIRE.

See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326, and after.

OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

OTUMBA, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1520-1521.

OTZAKOF: Storming, capture, and massacre of inhabitants by the Russians (1788).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

OUAR KHOUNI, The.

See AVARS.

—————OUDE: Start————

OUDE, OR OUDH.

"Before the British settler had established himself on the peninsula of India, Oude was a province of the Mogul Empire. When that empire was distracted and weakened by the invasion of Nadir Shah [see INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748], the treachery of the servant was turned against the master, and little by little the Governor began to govern for himself. But holding only an official, though an hereditary title, he still acknowledged his vassalage; and long after the Great Mogul had shrivelled into a pensioner and pageant, the Newab–Wuzeer of Oude was nominally his minister. Of the earliest history of British connexion with the Court of the Wuzeer, it is not necessary to write in detail. There is nothing less creditable in the annals of the rise and progress of the British power in the East. The Newab had territory; the Newab had subjects; the Newab had neighbours; more than all, the Newab had money. {2406} But although he possessed in abundance the raw material of soldiers, he had not been able to organise an army sufficient for all the external and internal requirements of the State; and so he was fain to avail himself of the superior military skill and discipline of the white men, and to hire British battalions to do his work. … In truth it was a vicious system, one that can hardly be too severely condemned. By it we established a Double Government of the worst kind. The Political and Military government was in the hands of the Company; the internal administration of the Oude territories still rested with the Newab–Wuzeer. In other words, hedged in and protected by the British battalions, a bad race of Eastern Princes were suffered to do, or not to do, what they liked. … Every new year saw the unhappy country lapsing into worse disorder, with less disposition, as time advanced, on the part of the local Government to remedy the evils beneath which it was groaning. Advice, protestation, remonstrance were in vain. Lord Cornwallis advised, protested, remonstrated: Sir John Shore advised, protested, remonstrated. At last a statesman of a very different temper appeared upon the scene. Lord Wellesley was a despot in every pulse of his heart. But he was a despot of the right kind; for he was a man of consummate vigour and ability, and he seldom made a mistake. The condition of Oude soon attracted his attention; not because its government was bad and its people were wretched, but because that country might either be a bulwark of safety to our own dominions, or A sea of danger which might overflow and destroy us. … It was sound policy to render Oude powerful for good and powerless for evil. To the accomplishment of this it was necessary that large bodies of ill-disciplined and irregularly paid native troops in the service of the Newab-Wuzeer—lawless bands that had been a terror alike to him and to his people—should be forthwith disbanded, and that British troops should occupy their place. … The additional burden to be imposed upon Oude was little less than half a million of money, and the unfortunate Wuzeer, whose resources had been strained to the utmost to pay the previous subsidy, declared his inability to meet any further demands on his treasury. This was what Lord Wellesley expected—nay, more, it was what he wanted. If the Wuzeer could not pay in money, he could pay in money's worth. He had rich lands that might be ceded in perpetuity to the Company for the punctual payment of the subsidy. So the Governor-General prepared a treaty ceding the required provinces, and with a formidable array of British troops at his call, dragooned the Wuzeer into sullen submission to the will of the English Sultan. The new treaty was signed; and districts then yielding a million and a half of money, and now nearly double that amount of annual revenue, passed under the administration of the British Government. Now, this treaty—the last ever ratified between the two Governments—bound the Newab-Wuzeer to 'establish in his reserved dominions such a system of administration, to be carried on by his own officers, as should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and he calculated to secure the lives and properties of the inhabitants,' and he undertook at the same time 'always to advise with and to act in conformity to the counsels of the officers of the East India Company.' But the English ruler knew well that there was small hope of these conditions being fulfilled. … Whilst the counsels of our British officers did nothing for the people, the bayonets of our British soldiers restrained them from doing anything for themselves. Thus matters grew from bad to worse, and from worse to worst. One Governor-General followed another; one Resident followed another; one Wuzeer followed another; but still the great tide of evil increased in volume, in darkness, and in depth. But, although the Newab-Wuzeers of Oude were, doubtless, bad rulers and bad men, it must be admitted that they were good allies. … They supplied our armies, in time of war, with grain; they supplied us with carriage–cattle; better still, they supplied us with cash. There was money in the Treasury of Lucknow, when there was none in the Treasury of Calcutta; and the time came when the Wuzeer's cash was needed by the British ruler. Engaged in an extensive and costly war, Lord Hastings wanted more millions for the prosecution of his great enterprises. They were forthcoming at the right time; and the British Government were not unwilling in exchange to bestow both titles and territories on the Wuzeer. The times were propitious. The successful close of the Nepaul war placed at our disposal an unhealthy and impracticable tract of country at the foot of the Hills. This 'terai' ceded to us by the Nepaulese was sold for a million of money to the Wuzeer, to whose domains it was contiguous, and he himself expanded and bloomed into a King under the fostering sun of British favour and affection."

J. W. Kaye, History of the Sepoy War in India, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"By Lord Wellesley's treaty with the then Nawab-Vizier of Oude, that prince had agreed to introduce into his then remaining territories, such a system of administration as should be conducive to the prosperity of his subjects, and to the security of the lives and property of the inhabitants; and always to advise with, and act in conformity to the counsel of, the officers of the Company's Government. Advantage had been taken of this clause, from time to time, to remonstrate with the Oude princes on their misgovernment. I have no doubt that the charges to this effect were in great measure correct. The house of Oude has never been remarkable for peculiar beneficence as governors. A work lately published, the 'Private Life of an Eastern King,' affords, I suppose, a true picture of what they may have been as men. Still, the charges against them came, for the most part, from interested lips. … Certain it is that all disinterested English observers—Bishop Heber, for instance—entering Oude fresh from Calcutta, and with their ears full of the current English talk about its miseries, were surprised to find a well–cultivated country, a manly and independent people. … Under Lord Dalhousie's rule, however, and after the proclamation of his annexation policy, complaints of Oude misgovernment became—at Calcutta—louder and louder. Within Oude itself, these complaints were met, and in part justified, by a rising Moslem fanaticism. Towards the middle of 1855, a sanguinary affray took place at Lucknow" between Hindoos and Mussulmans, "in which the King took part with his co-religionists, against the advice of Colonel Outram, the then Resident. Already British troops near Lucknow were held in readiness to act; already the newspapers were openly speculating on immediate annexation. … At Fyzabad, new disturbances broke out between Hindoos and Moslems. {2407} The former were victorious. A Moolavee, or doctor, of high repute, named Ameer Alee, proclaimed the holy war. Troops were ordered against him. … The talk of annexation grew riper and riper. The Indian Government assembled 16,000 men at Cawnpore. For months the Indian papers had been computing what revenue Oude yielded to its native prince—what revenue it might yield under the Company's management. Lord Dalhousie's successor, Lord Canning, was already at Bombay. But the former seems to have been anxious to secure for himself the glory of this step. The plea—the sole plea—for annexation, was maltreatment of their people by the Kings of Oude. … The King had been warned by Lord William Bentinck, by Lord Hardinge. He had declined to sign a new treaty, vesting the government of his country exclusively in the East India Company. He was now to be deposed; and all who withheld obedience to the Governor-General's mandate were to be rebels (7th February, 1856). The King followed the example of Pertaub Shean of Sattara—withdrew his guns, disarmed his troops, shut up his palace. Thus we entered into possession of 24,000 square miles of territory, with 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 inhabitants, yielding £1,000,000 of revenue. But it was expected by officials that it could be made to yield £1,500,000 of surplus. Can you wonder that it was annexed?"

J. M. Ludlow, British India, part 2, lecture 15 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. Arnold, The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India, chapter 25 (volume 2).

Sir W. W. Hunter, The Marquess of Dalhousie, chapter 8.

W. M. Torrens, Empire in Asia: How we came by it, chapter 26.

OUDE: A. D. 1763-1765. English war with the Nawab.

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

—————OUDE: End————

OUDE, The Begums of, and Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

—————OUDENARDE: Start————

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1582. Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1659. Taken by the French and restored to Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1667. Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1668. Ceded to France.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1679. Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1706. Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1708. Marlborough's victory.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.

OUDENARDE: A. D. 1745-1748. Taken by the French, and restored.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE; THE CONGRESS.

—————OUDENARDE: End————

OUDH.

See OUDE.

OUIARS, OUIGOURS, The.

See AVARS.

OUMAS, HUMAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKOGEAN FAMILY.

OUR LADY OF MONTESA, The Order of.

This was an order of knighthood founded by King Jayme II., of Aragon, in 1317.

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, volume 4, page 238 (American edition).

OURIQUE, Battle of (1139).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

OVATION, The Roman.

See TRIUMPH.

OVIEDO, Origin of the kingdom of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

OVILIA.

See CAMPUS MARTIUS.

OXENSTIERN, Axel: His leadership in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

OXFORD, The Headquarters of King Charles.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

OXFORD, Provisions of.

A system or constitution of government secured in 1258 by the English barons, under the lead of Earl Simon de Montfort. The king, Henry III., "was again and again forced to swear to it, and to proclaim it throughout the country. The special grievances of the barons were met by a set of ordinances called the Provisions of Westminster, which were produced after some trouble in October 1259."

W. Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, page 190.

The new constitution was nominally in force for nearly six years, repeatedly violated and repeatedly sworn to afresh by the king, civil war being constantly imminent. At length both sides agreed to submit the question of maintaining the Provisions of Oxford to the arbitration of Louis IX. of France, and his decision, called the Mise of Amiens, annulled them completely. De Montfort's party thereupon repudiated the award and the civil war called the "Barons' War" ensued.

C. H. Pearson, History of England in the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, Select Charters, part 6.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

OXFORD, OR TRACT ARIAN MOVEMENT, The.

"Never was religion in England so uninteresting as it was in the earlier part of the 19th century. Never was a time when thought was so active, criticism so keen, taste so fastidious; and which so plainly demanded a religion intellectual, sympathetic, and attractive. This want the Tractarian, or Oxford movement, as it is called, attempted to supply. … But the Tractarians put before themselves an aim far higher than that. They attempted nothing less than to develope and place on a firm and imperishable basis what Laud and the Non-Jurors had tried tentatively to do; namely, to vindicate the Church of England from all complicity with foreign Protestantism, to establish her essential identity with the Church of the Apostles and Fathers through the mediæval Church, and to place her for the first time since the Reformation in her true position with regard to the Church in the East and the West. … Naturally the first work undertaken was the explanation of doctrine. The 'Tracts for the Times,' mainly written by Dr. Newman and Dr. Pusey, put before men what the writers believed to be the doctrine of the Church of England, with a boldness and precision of statement hitherto unexampled. The divine Authority of the Church. Her essential unity in all parts of the world. The effectiveness of regeneration in Holy Baptism. The reality of the presence of our Lord in Holy Communion. The sacrificial character of Holy Communion. The reality of the power to absolve sin committed by our Lord to the priesthood. {2408} Such were the doctrines maintained in the Tractarian writings. … They were, of course, directly opposed to the popular Protestantism of the day, as held by the Evangelical party. They were equally opposed to the Latitudinarianism of the Broad Church party, who—true descendants of Tillotson and Burnet—were under the leadership of men like Arnold and Stanley, endeavouring to unite all men against the wickedness of the time on the basis of a common Christian morality under the guardianship of the State, unhampered by distinctive creeds or definite doctrines. No two methods could be more opposite."

H. O. Wakeman, History of Religion in England, chapter 11.

"The two tasks … which the Tractarians set themselves, were to establish first that the authority of the primitive Church resided in the Church of England, and second, that the doctrines of the English Church were really identical with those of pre-Tridentine Christianity. … The Tractarians' second object is chiefly recollected because it produced the Tract which brought their series to an abrupt conclusion [1841]. Tract XC. is an elaborate attempt to prove that the articles of the English Church are not inconsistent with the doctrines of mediæval Christianity; that they may be subscribed by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and doctrine. … Few books published in the present century have made so great a sensation as this famous Tract. … Bagot, Bishop of Oxford, Mr. Newman's own diocesan, asked the author to suppress it. The request placed the author in a singular dilemma. The double object which he had set himself to accomplish became at once impossible. He had laboured to prove that authority resided in the English Church, and authority, in the person of his own diocesan, objected to his interpretation of the articles. For the moment Mr. Newman resolved on a compromise. He did not withdraw Tract XC., but he discontinued the series. … The discontinuance of the Tracts, however, did not alter the position of authority. The bishops, one after another; 'began to charge against' the author. Authority, the authority which Mr. Newman had laboured to establish, was shaking off the dust of its feet against him. The attacks of the bishops made Mr. Newman's continuance in the Church of England difficult. But, long before the attack was made, he had regarded his own position with dissatisfaction." It became intolerable to him when, in 1841, a Protestant bishop of Jerusalem was appointed, who exercised authority over both Lutherans and Anglicans. "A communion with Lutherans, Calvinists, and even Monophysites seemed to him an abominable thing, which tended to separate the English Church further and further from Rome. … From the hour that the see was established, his own lot was practically decided. For a few years longer he remained in the fold in which he had been reared, but he felt like a dying man. He gradually withdrew from his pastoral duties, and finally [in 1845] entered into communion with Rome. … A great movement never perishes for want of a leader. After the secession of Mr. Newman, the control of the movement fell into the hands of Dr. Pusey."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 21 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: J. H. Newman, History of my Religious Opinions (Apologia pro Vita Sua).

J. H. Newman, Letters and Correspondence to 1845.

R. W. Church, The Oxford Movement.

W. Palmer, Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times.

T. Mozley, Reminiscences.

Sir J. T. Coleridge, Life of John Keble.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND, and after.

OXGANG.

See BOVATE.

OXUS, The.

Now called the Amoo, or Jihon River, in Russian Central Asia.

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285.

P.

PACAGUARA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACAMORA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

PACHA.

See BEY.

PACIFIC OCEAN: Its Discovery and its Name.

The first European to reach the shores of the Pacific Ocean was Vasco Nuñez de Balboa, who saw it, from "a peak in Darien" on the 25th of September, 1513 (see AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517). "It was not for some years after this discovery that the name Pacific was applied to any part of the ocean; and for a long time after parts only of it were so termed, this part of it retained the original name of South Sea, so called because it lay to the south of its discoverer. The lettering of the early maps is here significant. All along from this time to the middle of the 17th century, the larger part of the Pacific was labeled 'Oceanus Indicus Orientalis,' or 'Mar del Sur,' the Atlantic, opposite the Isthmus, being called 'Mar del Norte.' Sometimes the reporters called the South Sea 'La Otra Mar,' in contradistinction to the 'Mare Oceanus' of Juan de la Cosa, or the 'Oceanus Occidentalis' of Ptolemy, as the Atlantic was then called. Indeed, the Atlantic was not generally known by that name for some time yet. Schöner, in 1520, terms it, as does Ptolemy in 1513, 'Oceanus Occidentalis'; Grynæus, in 1532, 'Oceanus Magnus'; Apianus, appearing in the Cosmography of 1575, although thought to have been drawn in 1520, 'Mar Atlicum.' Robert Thorne, 1527, in Hakluyt's Voy., writes' Oceanus Occiden.'; Bordone, 1528, 'Mare Occidentale'; Ptolemy, 1530, 'Occean Occidentalis'; Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central America, 'Mar del Nort,' and in the great ocean, both north and south, 'Mar Ociano'; Mercator, 1569, north of the tropic of cancer, 'Oceanius Atlanticvs'; Hondius, 1595, 'Mar del Nort'; West-Indische Spieghel, 1624, 'Mar del Nort'; De Laet, 1633, 'Mar del Norte'; Jacob Colon, 1663, 'Mar del Nort'; Ogilby, 1671, 'Oceanus Atlanticum,' 'Mar del Norte,' and 'Oceanus Æthiopicus'; Dampier, 1699, 'the North or Atlantick Sea.' The Portuguese map of 1518, Munich Atlas, iv., is the first upon which I have seen a name applied to the Pacific; and there it is given … as 'Mar visto pelos Castelhanos,' Sea seen by the Spaniards. … On the globe of Johann Schöner, 1520, the two continents of America are represented with a strait dividing them at the Isthmus. {2409} The great island of Zipangri, or Japan, lies about midway between North America and Asia. North of this island … are the words 'Orientalis Oceanus,' and to the same ocean south of the equator the words 'Oceanus Orientalis Indicus' are applied. Diego Homem, 1558, marks out upon his map a large body of water to the north-west of 'Terra de Florida,' and west of Canada, and labels it 'Mare leparamantium.' … Colon and Ribero call the South Sea 'Mar del Svr.' In Hakluyt's Voy. we find that Robert Thorne, in 1527, wrote 'Mare Australe.' Ptolemy, in 1530, places near the Straits of Magellan, 'Mare pacificum.' Ramusio, 1565, Viaggi, iii. 455, off Central America, places 'Mar del Sur,' and off the Straits of Magellan, 'Mar Oceano.' Mercator places in his atlas of 1569 plainly, near the Straits of Magellan, 'El Mar Pacifico,' and in the great sea off Central America 'Mar del Zur.' On the map of Hondius, about 1595, in Drake's' 'World Encompassed,' the general term 'Mare Pacificvm' is applied to the Pacific Ocean, the words being in large letters extending across the ocean opposite Central America, while under it in smaller letters is 'Mar del Sur.' This clearly restricts the name South Sea to a narrow locality, even at this date. In Hondius' Map, 'Purchas, His Pilgrimes,' iv. 857, the south Pacific is called 'Mare Pacificum,' and the central Pacific 'Mar del Sur.'"

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages 373-374, foot-note.

PACTA CONVENTA, The Polish.

See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

PACTOLUS, Battle of the (B. C. 395).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

PADISCHAH.

See BEY; also CRAL.

—————PADUA: Start————

PADUA: Origin.

See VENETI OF CISALPINE GAUL.

PADUA: A. D. 452. Destruction by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452; also VENICE: A. D. 452.

PADUA: 11-12th Centuries. Rise and acquisition of Republican independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

PADUA: A. D. 1237-1256: The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano. The Crusade against him. Capture and pillage of the city by its deliverers.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

PADUA: A. D. 1328-1338. Submission to Can' Grande della Scala. Recovery from his successor. The founding of the sovereignty of the Carrara family.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

PADUA: A. D. 1388. Yielded to the Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

PADUA: A. D. 1402. Struggle of Francesco Carrara with Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447; and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1406.