Priča

Bolonjski mir, 23. juna 1796

Bolonjski mir, 23. juna 1796



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Bolonjski mir, 23. juna 1796

Bolonjskim mirom (23. juna 1796.) okončana je Napoleonova prva invazija na Papinsku državu, izvršena da zadovolji francuski imenik. U junu 1796. Napoleon je zauzeo Ferraru i Bolognu u sjevernim Papinskim Državama. Papa Pio VI je na to odgovorio tražeći primirje. Napoleon nije imao interesa voditi dugu kampanju u središnjoj Italiji i nametnuo je relativno velikodušne uslove. Francuzima je bilo dozvoljeno da zauzmu Bolonju i Feraru, osiguravajući južne prilaze Mantovi, zatim u prvom mjesecu osmomjesečne opsade. Papa je također morao platiti 21 milion franaka i predati 100 slika, 500 rukopisa i bista Junija i Marka Bruta, dva republička heroja.

Francuski imenik nije bio zadovoljan Bolonjskim mirom i odbio ga je ratificirati sve dok Papa nije pristao opozvati brojne podneske koji se odnose na građanski ustav svećenstva, jedan od ključnih dasaka Francuske revolucije. Pio nije prihvatio ove uvjete i nakon pada Mantove Napoleon je proveo drugu kampanju protiv Papinske države. Tolentinski mir od 19. februara 1797. oduzeo je Papi mnogo više teritorija.

Napoleonova početna stranica | Knjige o Napoleonovim ratovima | Indeks predmeta: Napoleonovi ratovi


Bolonjski mir, 23. juna 1796. - Povijest

Ugovor o miru i prijateljstvu, s dodatnim članom i Sporazum o brodskim signalima. Ugovor je zapečaćen u Maroku pečatom cara Maroka 23. juna 1786. (25. Shaban, A. H. 1200) i dostavljen Thomasu Barclayu, američkom agentu, 28. juna 1786. (1. Ramazan, A. H. 1200). Original na arapskom. Dodatni članak potpisan je i zapečaćen u Maroku u ime Maroka 15. jula 1786. (18 Ramazan, A. H. 1200). Original na arapskom. Ugovor o brodskim signalima potpisan je u Maroku 6. jula 1786. (9. ramazan, A. H. 1200). Original na engleskom jeziku.

Ovjereni prijevodi ugovora i dodatnog članka na engleski ugrađeni su u dokument koji su potpisali i zapečatili opunomoćeni ministri Sjedinjenih Država, Thomas Jefferson u Parizu 1. januara 1787. i John Adams u Londonu 25. januara 1787. godine.

Ugovor i dodatni član koji su Sjedinjene Države ratificirale 18. jula 1787. Što se tiče ratifikacije općenito, pogledajte napomene. Ugovor i dodatni član proglašeni 18. jula 1787.

Sporazum o brodskim signalima koji nije izričito uključen u ratifikaciju i nije proglašen, već kopije koje je naredio Kongres 23. jula 1787. godine, da se pošalju rukovodiocima država (Secret Journal of Congress, IV, 869, ali pogledajte napomene u vezi s ovom referencom) .

[Ovjereni prijevod Ugovora i Dodatnog članka, uz odobrenje Jeffersona i Adamsa]

Svim osobama kojima će ti pokloni doći ili biti poznati- budući da su Sjedinjene Američke Države u Kongresu, okupljene od strane Komisije, sa datumom dvanaestog maja hiljadu sedamsto osamdeset i četiri, smatrale da je prikladno da čine John Adams, Benjamin Franklin i Thomas Jefferson, njihovi opunomoćeni ministri, dajući njima ili većini njih puna ovlaštenja za davanje, liječenje i pregovaranje s veleposlanikom, ministrom ili povjerenikom Njegovog Veličanstva imperatorom Maroka u vezi s Ugovorom o prijateljstvu i trgovini, da daju i primaju prijedloge za takvog Ugovora i da isti zaključe i potpišu, proslijedivši ga Sjedinjenim Državama u Kongresu koji je okupljen radi njihove konačne ratifikacije, a jednim drugim (komisija sa datumom jedanaesti dan marta hiljadu sedamsto osamdeset i pet je dodatno ovlastila navedene ministre Opunomoćenik ili većina njih, pisanjem pod* ruke i pečate da imenuju takvog agenta u navedenom poslu kako bi mogli sukladno ovlaštenjima prema uputama i uputama navedenih ministara da započnu i procesuiraju navedene pregovore i konferencije za navedeni Ugovor, pod uvjetom da spomenuti Ugovor trebaju potpisati navedeni ministri: dvojica od spomenutih opunomoćenih ministara (spomenuti Benjamin Franklin je odsutan) napisavši pod rukom i pečatom spomenutog Johna Adamsa u Londonu petog oktobra, hiljadu sedamsto osamdeset i osam, i spomenutog Thomasa Jeffersona u Parizu oktobra Jedanaeste iste godine, je li imenovao Thomasa Barclaya, gore navedenog agenta, dajući mu ovlaštenja u njemu, koja smo od spomenute druge Komisije imali ovlaštenje dati, a spomenuti Thomas Barclay je u skladu s tim uredio članove Ugovora prijateljstva i trgovine između Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Njegovog Veličanstva cara Maroka, koje su članci napisani na arapskom jeziku, potvrdili Njegovo veličanstvo car Maroka i zapečaćen svojim kraljevskim pečatom, preveden na jezik pomenutih Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, zajedno sa potvrdama koje su priložene u sljedećim su riječima, do pameti.

U ime Svemogućeg Boga,

Ovo je Ugovor o miru i prijateljstvu uspostavljen između nas i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, koji je potvrđen i za koji smo naredili da bude zapisan u ovoj knjizi i zapečaćen našim kraljevskim pečatom na našem sudu u Maroku dvadeset petog dana blagoslovljeni mjesec šaban, hiljadu dvije stotine godine, vjerujući u Boga, ostat će trajan.

Izjavljujemo da su se obje strane složile da se ovaj Ugovor koji se sastoji od dvadeset pet članova unese u ovu knjigu i dostavi časnom Thomasu Barclayu, agentu Sjedinjenih Država koji je sada na našem Sudu, s čijim je odobrenjem potpisan i koji je propisno ovlašteni sa svoje strane, da s nama postupaju u vezi sa svim pitanjima koja se u njima nalaze.

Ako će bilo koja od strana biti u ratu s bilo kojom nacijom, druga stranka neće uzeti komisiju od neprijatelja niti će se boriti pod njihovim bojama.

Ako će bilo koja od strana biti u ratu s bilo kojom nacijom i uzeti nagradu koja pripada toj naciji, a na brodu će se naći Subjekti ili efekti koji pripadaju bilo kojoj od Strana, Predmeti će biti postavljeni na slobodu i efekti će biti vraćeni vlasnicima. A ako se bilo koja roba koja pripada bilo kojoj naciji, s kojom će bilo koja od strana biti u ratu, utovari na plovila koja pripadaju drugoj stranci, ona će proći slobodna i nepokretna bez pokušaja da ih se uzme ili zadrži.

Signal ili propusnica bit će dana svim plovilima koja pripadaju objema stranama, po kojima će biti poznati kada se sastanu na moru, a ako zapovjednik ratnog broda bilo koje strane ima druge brodove pod svojim konvojem, deklaracija samo zapovjednika bit će dovoljni da bilo koga od njih oslobodi ispitivanja.

Ako će jedna od strana biti u ratu i sastat će se s brodom na moru koje pripada drugoj, dogovara se da će se, ako se izvrši pregled, to učiniti slanjem broda samo s dva ili tri čovjeka, i ako se bilo koji pištolj uzgoji i povrijedi bez razloga, Strana koja je prekršila nadoknadit će svu štetu.

Ako bilo koji Moor dovede građane Sjedinjenih Država ili njihove efekte u Njegovo Veličanstvo, Građani će biti smješteni na slobodu i učinci vraćeni, i na sličan način, ako bilo koji Moor koji nije predmet ovih gospodara dobije nagradu za bilo koju od Građani Amerike ili njihovi efekti i dovedu ih u bilo koju od luka Njegovog Veličanstva, oni će biti odmah pušteni, jer će se tada smatrati da su pod zaštitom Njegovog Veličanstva.

Ako bilo koje plovilo bilo koje strane pristane u drugu luku i ima priliku za odredbe ili drugu robu, morat će se nabaviti bez ikakvog prekida ili zlostavljanja.

Ako se bilo koje plovilo Sjedinjenih Država suoči s katastrofom na moru i stavi ga u jednu od naših luka na popravak, bit će na slobodi iskrcati i pretovariti svoj teret, bez ikakve naknade.

Ako bilo koje plovilo Sjedinjenih Država bude bačeno na obalu na bilo koji dio naše obale, ono će ostati na raspolaganju vlasnicima i nitko neće pokušavati prići joj u blizini bez njihovog odobrenja, jer se tada smatra posebno pod našom zaštitom i ako bilo koje plovilo Sjedinjenih Država bude prisiljeno ući u naše luke, uslijed vremenskih uvjeta ili na neki drugi način, neće biti prisiljeno iskrcati svoj teret, već će ostati u miru sve dok zapovjednik ne misli da je ispravno nastaviti putovanje.

Ako bilo koje plovilo bilo koje od strana ima angažman s plovilom koje pripada bilo kojoj od kršćanskih sila unutar pucnjave iz utvrda druge, tako angažirano plovilo će se braniti i štititi što je više moguće dok ne bude u sigurnosti. ako bilo koje američko plovilo bude bačeno na obalu obale Wadnoon (1) ili bilo koje druge obale u tom području, ljudi koji joj pripadaju bit će zaštićeni, a sve dok im Božja pomoć ne pomogne, bit će poslani u svoju zemlju.

Ako ćemo biti u ratu s bilo kojom kršćanskom silom i bilo koje naše plovilo isplovljava iz luka Sjedinjenih Država, nijedno neprijateljsko plovilo neće slijediti sve do dvadeset četiri sata nakon odlaska naših plovila, a ista će se odredba poštivati ​​prema američka plovila koja plove iz naših luka.-budite im neprijatelji Mavri ili kršćani.

Ako bilo koji ratni brod koji pripada Sjedinjenim Državama uđe u bilo koju od naših luka, ona se neće ispitivati ​​ni pod kakvim izgovorom, iako bi na brodu trebala imati odbjegle Robove, niti će ih guverner ili zapovjednik mjesta prisiliti na biti dovedeni na Shore pod bilo kojim izgovorom, niti zahtijevati bilo kakvo plaćanje za njih.

Ako će ratni brod bilo koje strane ući u drugu luku i pozdraviti, bit će vraćen iz tvrđave, s jednakim brojem oružja, a ne s većim ili manjim.

Trgovina sa Sjedinjenim Državama bit će na istim osnovama kao i trgovina sa Španjolskom ili ona s najpovlaštenijom državom za sada i njihovi građani bit će poštovani i cijenjeni i imati potpunu slobodu da prođu i vrate našu zemlju i more Pristaništa kad god žele bez prekida.

Trgovci obje zemlje zapošljavat će samo takve prevoditelje i takve druge osobe kako bi im pomogli u njihovom poslovanju, ako smatraju da je to ispravno. Nijedan zapovjednik plovila ne smije prevoziti svoj teret na drugom plovilu, neće biti zadržan u luci duže nego što misli da je ispravno, a sve osobe zaposlene na utovaru ili istovaru robe ili u bilo kojoj drugoj radnoj snazi ​​bit će plaćene u Uobičajene stope, ni više ni manje.

U slučaju rata između stranaka, zarobljenike ne treba činiti robovima, već ih razmjenjivati ​​jedni za druge, kapetane za kapetane, oficire za oficire i jednog privatnog čovjeka za drugog, a ako se pokaže nedostatak s obje strane, to će se nadoknaditi uplatom od sto meksičkih dolara za svaku osobu koja želi. Dogovoreno je da se svi zatvorenici zamijene u dvanaest mjeseci od trenutka odvođenja, te da tu zamjenu može izvršiti trgovac ili bilo koji drugi drugo lice koje je jedna od strana ovlastila.

Trgovci neće biti primorani da kupuju ili prodaju bilo koju vrstu robe, već takvu koju smatraju ispravnom i mogu kupovati i prodavati sve vrste robe, ali one koje su zabranjene drugim kršćanskim narodima.

Sva roba se vaga i pregleda prije nego što se pošalje na brod, a kako bi se izbjeglo potpuno zadržavanje plovila, kasnije se neće vršiti pregled, osim ako se prvo ne dokaže da je krijumčarena roba poslana na brod, u tom slučaju osobe koji je uzeo krijumčarenu robu na brod bit će kažnjen u skladu s običajima i običajima zemlje, a niko drugi neće biti povrijeđen, niti će brod ili teret pretrpjeti bilo kakvu kaznu ili štetu.

Nijedno plovilo ne smije biti zadržano u Luci ni u kakvom prisustvu, niti će morati biti primljeno na brod bez pristanka zapovjednika, koji će imati potpunu slobodu dogovoriti se o prijevozu robe koju unese na brod.

Ako bilo koji od građana Sjedinjenih Država ili bilo koja osoba pod njihovom zaštitom ima međusobnih sporova, konzul će odlučiti između stranaka i kad god će konzul zahtijevati bilo kakvu pomoć ili pomoć od naše vlade kako bi izvršio svoje odluke, će mu se odmah odobriti.

Ako bi građanin Sjedinjenih Država trebao ubiti ili raniti Mavara, ili naprotiv, ako bi Moor ubio ili ranio građanina Sjedinjenih Država, tada će se primijeniti zakon te zemlje i donijeti jednaka pravda, pomaže konzul u Tryalu, i ako neki Delinkvent pobegne, konzul neće odgovarati za njega ni na koji način.

Ako će američki građanin umrijeti u našoj zemlji i neće se pojaviti nikakva oporuka, konzul će ovladati njegovim efektima, a ako konzula ne bude bilo, efekti će biti deponirani u rukama neke osobe vrijedne povjerenja, sve do strane pojavit će se ko ima pravo to zahtijevati, ali ako je nasljednik umrle osobe prisutan, imovina će mu se predati bez prekida, a ako se pojavi oporuka, imovina će se spustiti u skladu s tom oporukom, čim Konzul proglašava njegovu valjanost.

Konzuli Sjedinjenih Američkih Država boravit će u bilo kojoj morskoj luci naših vladavina za koju smatraju da je ispravna, i bit će poštovani i uživati ​​sve privilegije koje uživaju konzuli bilo koje druge nacije, a ako i bilo koji od građana Sjedinjenih Država Države će ugovoriti sve dugove ili angažmane, konzul neće na bilo koji način odgovarati za njih, osim ako je u pisanom obliku dao obećanje za plaćanje ili ispunjenje istog, bez kojeg pismeno obećanje neće podnijeti zahtjev za bilo kakvu nadoknadu made.

Ako dođe do bilo kakvih razlika od strane bilo koje strane koja krši bilo koji član ovog Ugovora, mir i harmonija ostaju bez obzira na najveću snagu, sve dok se ne podnese prijateljska Zahtjev za aranžman, i dok se ta prijava ne odbije, nema žalbe dostavlja se oružju. A ako izbije rat između stranaka, svim subjektima obje strane bit će dodijeljeno devet mjeseci za raspolaganje njihovim efektima i penziju sa svojom imovinom. Nadalje se objavljuje da će bilo koji od oprosta u trgovini ili na drugi način biti odobren bilo kojoj od kršćanskih sila, građani Sjedinjenih Država imaju jednako pravo na njih.

Ovaj Ugovor će ostati na snazi, uz Božju pomoć, pedeset godina.

Ovu smo knjigu predali u ruke ranije spomenutog Thomasa Barclayja prvog dana blagoslovljenog mjeseca ramazana, hiljadu dvije stotine godine.

Potvrđujem da je aneks'd istinska kopija prijevoda koji je sačinio Issac Cardoza Nunez, tumač u Maroku, ugovora između cara Maroka i Sjedinjenih Američkih Država.


Cisalpinska Republika

Naši urednici će pregledati ono što ste poslali i odlučiti da li želite da prepravite članak.

Cisalpinska Republika, Francuski Republika Cisalpine, Italian Repubblica Cisalpina, republiku koju je formirao general Napoleon Bonaparte u junu 1797. godine na osvojenim teritorijima sa središtem u dolini rijeke Po u sjevernoj Italiji. Njeno područje je prvo obuhvatilo Lombardiju, a zatim se proširilo na Emiliju, Modenu i Bolognu (kolektivno poznatu prije nekoliko mjeseci kao Cispadanska Republika q.v.), a zatim crpili iz dijelova mletačkog zaleđa i iz švicarskih kantona Valtellina. Republika je potvrđena Francusko-austrijskim ugovorom Campo Formio (17. oktobra 1797).

Cisalpinska Republika imala je ustav i vlastitu vlast po uzoru na Direktorij u Francuskoj. Bila je nominalno nezavisna, održavajući ambasadu u Parizu, ali su je francuske trupe i mjesečne subvencije čvrsto vezale za Francusku. Godine 1801. rekonstituirana je kao Italijanska republika s Bonapartom kao njenim diktatorskim poglavarom, a potpuno je prestala postojati 1805. godine stvaranjem Kraljevine Italije.


Sadržaj

Odlaskom Washingtona u penziju nakon dva mandata, obje stranke su prvi put tražile mjesto predsjednika. Prije ratifikacije 12. amandmana 1804. godine, svaki je birač trebao glasovati za dvije osobe, ali nije mogao naznačiti koji je glas bio za predsjednika, a koji za potpredsjednika. Umjesto toga, primalac najviše izbornih glasova postao bi predsjednik, a drugoplasirani potpredsjednik. Kao rezultat toga, obje stranke kandidovale su više kandidata za predsjednika, u nadi da će spriječiti da jedan od njihovih protivnika bude drugoplasirani. Ovi kandidati su bili ekvivalent današnjim kandidatima, ali prema zakonu svi su bili kandidati za predsjednika. Stoga se i Adamsu i Jeffersonu tehnički suprotstavilo nekoliko članova njihovih partija. Plan je bio da jedan od birača da glas za glavnog kandidata stranke (Adams ili Jefferson) i za kandidata pored primarnog kandidata, čime bi se osiguralo da će glavni kandidat imati jedan glas više od svog druga.

Federalistički kandidati Uredi

Kandidat federalista bio je John Adams iz Massachusettsa, aktuelni potpredsjednik i vodeći glas tokom perioda revolucije. Većina federalističkih vođa smatralo je Adamsa, koji je dva puta izabran za potpredsjednika, prirodnim nasljednikom Washingtona. Adamsov glavni partner bio je Thomas Pinckney, bivši guverner Južne Karoline koji je pregovarao sa Španijom o sporazumu iz San Lorenza. Pinckney se složio da se kandiduje nakon što je prvi izbor mnogih stranačkih lidera, bivši guverner Virginije Patrick Henry, odbio da se uključi u trku. Alexander Hamilton, koji se takmičio s Adamsom za vođu stranke, radio je iza scene izabravši Pinckneyja umjesto Adamsa ubjeđujući birače Jeffersona iz Južne Karoline da daju svoj drugi glas za Pinckneyja. Hamilton je ipak više volio Adamsa nego Jeffersona i pozvao je federalističke birače da daju svoj glas za Adamsa i Pinckneyja. [6]

Demokratsko-republikanski kandidati Urediti

Demokratsko-republikanci ujedinili su se iza bivšeg državnog sekretara Thomasa Jeffersona, koji je suosnivač stranke s Jamesom Madisonom i drugima, suprotstavljajući se politici Hamiltona. Demokratski republikanci u Kongresu nastojali su se ujediniti i iza jednog kandidata za potpredsjednika. S Jeffersonovom najvećom popularnošću na jugu, mnogi stranački lideri željeli su da kandidat sa Sjevera služi kao Jeffersonov kandidat. Među popularnim izborima bili su senator Pierce Butler iz Južne Karoline i tri Njujorčana: senator Aaron Burr, kancelar Robert R. Livingston i bivši guverner George Clinton, koji je 1796. kandidat stranke za potpredsjednika. Grupa demokratsko-republikanskih vođa sastala se u junu 1796. godine i složila se da podrži Jeffersona za predsjednika i Burra za potpredsjednika. [6] [7]

Tennessee je primljen u Sjedinjene Američke Države nakon izbora 1792. godine, čime je izborni koledž povećan na 138 birača.

Prema sistemu koji je bio na snazi ​​prije ratifikacije Dvanaestog amandmana 1804. godine, birači su trebali glasovati za dvije osobe za predsjednika, a drugoplasirani u predsjedničkoj utrci izabran je za potpredsjednika. Ako nijedan kandidat ne osvoji glasove većine izbornog kolegija, Predstavnički dom bi održao uslovne izbore za odabir pobjednika. Svaka stranka namjeravala je manipulirati rezultatima tako što će neki od njihovih birača dati jedan glas za predviđenog predsjedničkog kandidata i jedan glas za nekoga osim za predviđenog potpredsjedničkog kandidata, ostavljajući svom potpredsjedničkom kandidatu nekoliko glasova sramežljivo od svog predsjedničkog kandidata. Međutim, svi izborni glasovi dati su istog dana, a komunikacija između država je u to vrijeme bila izuzetno spora, pa je bilo vrlo teško koordinirati koji će birači manipulirati njihovim glasom za potpredsjednika. Osim toga, pojavile su se glasine da je Hamilton prisilio južne birače koji su se obavezali na Jeffersona da daju svoj drugi glas Pinckneyu u nadi da će ga izabrati za predsjednika umjesto Adamsa.

Kampanja je usredsređena u saveznim državama New York i Pennsylvania. [8] Adams i Jefferson osvojili su ukupno 139 elektorskih glasova od 138 članova izbornog kolegija. Federalisti su zahvatili svaku državu sjeverno od linije Mason-Dixon, s izuzetkom Pennsylvanije. Međutim, jedan birač iz Pensilvanije glasao je za Adamsa. Demokratski republikanci osvojili su glasove većine južnih birača, ali su birači u Marylandu i Delawareu dali većinu svojih glasova federalističkim kandidatima, dok su Sjeverna Karolina i Virginia dale Adamsu jedan izborni glas.

U cijeloj zemlji većina birača glasala je za Adamsa i drugog federalistu ili za Jeffersona i drugog demokratsko-republikanca, ali bilo je nekoliko izuzetaka od ovog pravila. Jedan birač u Marylandu glasao je i za Adamsa i za Jeffersona, a dva birača za Washington, koji nije vodio kampanju i nije bio formalno povezan ni s jednom strankom. Pinckney je osvojio druge glasove od većine birača koji su glasali za Adamsa, ali 21 birač iz Nove Engleske i Marylanda dao je svoj drugi glas za druge kandidate, uključujući vrhovnog sudiju Olivera Ellswortha. Oni koji su glasali za Jeffersona bili su znatno manje ujedinjeni u svom drugom izboru, iako je Burr osvojio veći broj Jeffersonovih birača. Svih osam birača u Pinckney -ovoj matičnoj državi Južna Karolina, kao i najmanje jedan birač u Pensilvaniji, glasali su za Jeffersona i Pinckneya. U Sjevernoj Karolini, Jefferson je osvojio 11 glasova, ali je preostalih 13 glasova raspodijeljeno među šest različitih kandidata iz obje stranke. U Virdžiniji je većina birača glasala za Jeffersona i guvernera Samuela Adamsa iz Massachusettsa. [9]

Krajnji rezultat je bio da je Adams dobio 71 izborni glas, jedan više nego što je potrebno za izbor predsjednika. Da su bilo koja od tri Adamova birača u Pensilvaniji, Virdžiniji i Sjevernoj Karolini glasala sa ostalim državama, izbori bi bili poništeni. Jefferson je dobio 68 glasova, devet više od Pinckneya, i izabran je za potpredsjednika. Burr je završio na udaljenom četvrtom mjestu sa 30 glasova. Devet drugih pojedinaca dobilo je preostalih 48 izbornih glasova. Da je Pinckney osvojio druge glasove svih birača u Novoj Engleskoj koji su glasali za Adamsa, on bi bio izabran za predsjednika umjesto Adamsa i Jeffersona.

Predsjednički kandidat Party Matična država Narodno glasanje (a), (b), (c) Izborno glasanje
Count Postotak
John Adams Federalista Massachusetts 35,726 53.4% 71
Thomas Jefferson Demokratsko-republikanski Virginia 31,115 46.6% 68
Thomas Pinckney Federalista Južna Karolina 59
Aaron Burr Demokratsko-republikanski Njujork 30
Samuel Adams Demokratsko-republikanski Massachusetts 15
Oliver Ellsworth Federalista Connecticut 11
George Clinton Demokratsko-republikanski Njujork 7
John Jay Federalista Njujork 5
James Iredell Federalista Sjeverna Karolina 3
George Washington Nezavisna Virginia 2
John Henry Federalist [10] Maryland 2
Samuel Johnston Federalista Sjeverna Karolina 2
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Federalista Južna Karolina 1
Ukupno 66,841 100.0% 276
Potrebno za pobedu 70

Izvor (popularno glasanje): Nacionalni glas američkog predsjednika. Naše kampanje. (11. februar 2006).
Izvor (popularno glasanje): Glasovi nove nacije: Američki izbori vraćeni 1787-1825 [11]
Izvor (Izborni glas): "Izborni boks bodova 1789–1996". Nacionalna uprava za arhive i evidencije. Pristupljeno 30. jula 2005.

(a) Glasovi za federalističke birače dodijeljeni su Johnu Adamsu, a glasovi za demokratsko-republikanske birače dodijeljeni su Thomasu Jeffersonu.
(b) Samo 9 od 16 država koristilo je bilo koji oblik narodnog glasanja.
(c) One države koje su birače birale narodnim glasanjem imale su različita ograničenja biračkog prava putem imovinskih zahtjeva.

Izborni glasovi po državi Edit

State Kandidati
S E J. Adams Jefferson T. Pinckney Burr S. Adams Ellsworth Clinton Jay Iredell Johnston Washington Henry C. Pinckney
Connecticut 9 9 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
Delaware 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Georgia 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kentucky 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maryland 10 7 4 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Massachusetts 16 16 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
New Hampshire 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
New Jersey 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Njujork 12 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sjeverna Karolina 12 1 11 1 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1
Pennsylvania 15 1 14 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rhode Island 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Južna Karolina 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tennessee 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vermont 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Virginia 21 1 20 1 1 15 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
Ukupno 138 71 68 59 30 15 11 7 5 3 2 2 2 1

Narodno glasanje države Edit

Iako su za neke države dostupni podaci o glasanju, predsjednički izbori su se u 18. i ranom 19. stoljeću uvelike razlikovali. Umjesto imena predsjedničkih kandidata, birači bi vidjeli ime birača. Zabuna oko toga za koga će birač glasati bila je uobičajena. Nekoliko država također je izabralo biračke spiskove za cijelu državu (na primjer, budući da je Thomas Jefferson pobijedio na glasanju u Gruziji, izabran je spisak četiri birača Jeffersona), ali zbog arhaičnog sistema glasanja glasove su brojali birači, a ne kandidati. Popularni ukupni broj glasova su birači iz svake stranke sa najvećim brojem glasova. Čini se da je ukupan broj glasova u Kentuckyju, Sjevernoj Karolini i Tennesseeju izgubljen.


Bolonjski masakr, „Strategija napetosti“ i operacija Gladio

U sparno jutro 2. avgusta 1980. snažna eksplozija raznijela je centralnu željezničku stanicu u Bologni u Italiji, ubivši 85 ljudi, a ranivši još 200. Do danas je neizvjesno ko stoji iza najsmrtonosnijeg terorističkog napada u modernoj talijanskoj historiji. Jasno je da su desničarski ekstremisti, uključujući neofašiste, talijanske agente tajnih službi i odmetničke masone, izvršili napad. Ono što je manje jasno je da li je, ili u kojoj mjeri, bombardovanje bilo dio tajne desničarske državne terorističke operacije u cijeloj Evropi.

Godine olova

Period od kasnih 1960 -ih do 1980 -ih bio je jedan od društvenih i političkih previranja u Italiji poznat kao anni di piombo, ili godine vođstva. Terorizam s krajnje desnice i s krajnje ljevice bio je uobičajen u ovim smrtonosnim decenijama, u kojima je oko 12.000 napada odnijelo stotine života. Do Bolonje, najzloglasniji od njih bili su otmica i ubistvo bivšeg premijera Alda Mora od strane komunističkih Crvenih brigada 1978.

Bolonja, glavni grad prosperitetne regije Emilia-Romagna na sjeveroistoku Italije, bio je-i ostao-žarište političkih aktivnosti. Dom najstarijeg univerziteta na svijetu, grad je mještanima poznat kao Bologna la dottaili Bolonja naučeni. Takođe se naziva Bologna la rossa, ili Bolonja Crvena, jer je grad dugo bio uporište Komunističke partije. Dom neke od najboljih svjetskih jela i vina i prepun kulturnog blaga, grad je opisan kao savršena kombinacija hedonizma i komunizma.

Ipak, tokom tih godina olova bilo je krvoprolića u Bologni. Nakon što je policija 11. marta 1977. godine pucala i ubila Francesca Lorussa, 24-godišnjeg ekstremno lijevog militanta, grad je izbio u uličnim sukobima koji su trajali danima. Italijanska vlada poslala je oklopna borbena vozila u univerzitetsku četvrt i druga žarišta kako bi poništila ono što je Francesco Cossiga, ministar unutrašnjih poslova, nazvao "gerilskim ratom".

Dana 27. juna 1980., let 870 Itavije, putnički avion DC-9 na putu od Bologne do Palerma na Siciliji, srušio se u Tirensko more u blizini ostrva Ustica, usmrtivši svih 81 putnika i posadu na brodu. Poput bombardovanja stanice Bologna, uzrok i krivac katastrofe ostali su obavijeni velikom tajnom. Tada je premijer Francesco Cossiga rekao da su avion slučajno oborili francuski borbeni avioni koji su se sukobili s libijskim ratnim avionima iznad Sredozemnog mora. Međutim, u izvještaju iz 1994. zaključeno je da je avion srušila teroristička bomba. Time se ništa nije riješilo, jer je 2013. godine najviši talijanski krivični sud potvrdio teoriju zalutalih projektila. Bez obzira na to ko je odgovoran za masakr u Ustici, tragedija je tokom ljeta 1980. godine, najniže u godinama olova, imala veliki uticaj na svijest javnosti o Bolonji.

Otkucavanje vremenske bombe

Bilo je to sunce, pijesak i more, a ne smrt i uništavanje, na umu mnogih od hiljada putnika koji su se tog vrelog jutra 2. avgusta 1980. ukrcali na glavnu željezničku stanicu u Bologni, Stazione di Bologna Centrale. praznici su tek počinjali i mnogi putnici tog dana bili su studenti na putu prema jadranskoj obali. S porastom temperature klimatizirana čekaonica druge klase brzo se napunila do posljednjeg mjesta. Niko nije primijetio da je kofer ušao u prepunu prostoriju, ravno do nosivog zida kako bi povećao smrt i uništenje. Niko nije znao da je unutra spakovano 23 kilograma (50 funti) eksploziva vojne klase koji je trebao eksplodirati u 10:25 ujutro.

Tonino Braccia bio je 19-godišnji policajac koji je čekao voz za Rim, gdje je trebao prisustvovati vjenčanju svog rođaka. “Bio je to zaista lijep dan, prisjetio se. “Vruće prži.” Braccia je rekao da se tog jutra "osjećao jako dobro", jer mu je komandant odobrio trodnevno posebno doputovanje za putovanje u glavni grad. "Pušio sam cigaretu i ušao sam u čekaonicu, ali nije bilo gdje sjesti, bilo je potpuno puno", rekao je za BBC. "Pa sam se naslonio na vrata i pogledao van."

Malcolm Quantrill, 44-godišnji univerzitetski profesor iz Londona, upravo je stigao do blagajne u dvorani za rezervacije kad je odjednom ugledao bljesak žutog svjetla. "Nisam čuo nikakvu eksploziju, samo udar zida koji pada i zvuk razbijanja stakla pri raspadanju prozora", rekao je.

Ni Braccia se ne sjeća eksplozije. "Pokušao sam i pokušao zapamtiti trenutak eksplozije, ali zaista se ne sjećam ničega, čak ni buke", rekao je. "Vjerojatno zato što sam mu bio previše blizu - samo dva metra dalje." Sljedeće čega se sjeća je buđenje ispod voza dok mu je voda iz vatrogasnog crijeva curila po licu. Većina njegove odjeće je raznesena.

"Čula sam ljude kako vrište i viču", prisjetila se Braccia. “Trčali su ljudi. Oštar miris. Usta su mi bila gorka i užasna. Svuda je bilo smrdljive prašine. Sve je bilo žuto. Krv mi je curila iz usta, iz očiju, iz ušiju, iz nosa. ” Izgubio bi jedno oko, kao i upotrebu jedne ruke. On je takođe delimično gluv. Mladi policajac proveo bi dvije sedmice u induciranoj komi i podvrgnut 24 operacije u narednim godinama.

Giuseppe Rosa, vozač autobusa parkiran ispred stanice, nikada neće zaboraviti eksploziju. Rosa je rekla da je "čuo ogroman tresak", a zatim se "dio krova podigao u zrak i pao na sebe". Ogromna rupa koja je zjapila probijena je u središtu stanice, iskrivljeni čelični nosači svjedoče o snazi ​​bombe. Nasulo se krhotine. Iz haosa je izašao Quantrill, britanski profesor, šokiran i dezorijentisan. “Krv je bila svuda po meni. Svi su trčali, vikali i vrištali. ”

Usred tinjajućeg ruševina, uplakani spasioci prikupili su minirana tijela i komade tijela. Stanovnici Bologne pridružili su se putnicima u pružanju prve pomoći povrijeđenim žrtvama i iskopavanju mrtvih i ranjenih ljudi iz ruševina. Autobusi, taksiji i privatni automobili odvezli su žrtve u bolnicu.

Bombardovanje Bologne Centrale strage di Bologna Talijanima - ostaje najrazorniji teroristički napad u talijanskoj povijesti. U istoriji modernih terorističkih napada do tada, samo je bombardovanje hotela King David u Jerusalimu 1946. godine od strane cionističkih militanata predvođenih budućim izraelskim premijerom Menachemom Beginom ubilo više ljudi. Konačan broj poginulih u Bolonji bio je 85, a 200 je povrijeđeno. Najmlađa koja je tog dana umrla bila je trogodišnja djevojčica. Najstarija žrtva imala je 86 godina.

Strategija napetosti

Isprva su zvaničnici italijanske vlade i policije pripisivali eksploziju slučajnom eksplozijom, možda starog kotla. Vlasti su ubrzo primile pozive od ljudi s krajnje desnice i krajnje ljevice koje preuzimaju odgovornost za napad. Međutim, ubrzo se pokazalo da to nije bila komunistička zavjera. Prije je to bio rezultat ne tako tajnog dogovora državnih službenika, fašističkih terorista i agenata provokatora, ozloglašenih strategia della tensioneili Strategija napetosti. This unholy alliance of shadowy right-wing forces including corrupt politicians, secret service officers, fascist militants, clergymen and rogue Freemasons would stop at nothing to keep communists from power.

The Strategy of Tension, under which violence and chaos were encouraged rather than suppressed, was ultimately meant to terrorize Italians into voting for the oligarchic Christian Democrats instead of the Italian Communist Party (PCI). The policy was backed by the United States, which had a decades-long history of meddling in Italian politics. The Central Intelligence Agency funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-communist parties to influence the outcome of numerous Italian elections beginning in the late 1940s. The CIA also engaged in forgery and other disinformation in a bid to discredit the popular PCI.

The Bologna massacre happened just three hours before a court in the city started the trial of a group of right-wing terrorists, including the notorious fascist Mario Tuti, for the August 4, 1974 bombing of the Italicus Express train from Rome to Brenner, an attack that killed 12 innocent people. Investigators quickly zeroed in on militant fascists, attributing the Bologna bombing to the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (NAR), a neo-fascist terrorist group led by 21-year-old Francesca Mambro and her future husband Valerio Fioravanti, who was 22 at the time. The Bologna prosecutor issued 28 arrest warrants for members of NAR and Terza Posizione, another far-right group.

Terror on Trial

Trials began in March 1987. Prosecutors asserted the terrorists were hoping to spark a revolt that would end with Italy returning to fascist dictatorship, under which it had been ruled as recently as 35 years earlier. Among the defendants were fascist financier Licio Gelli, who once served as a liaison between Rome and Nazi Germany and who was grand master of the banned P2 Masonic Lodge, Pietro Musumeci, a former army general and deputy director of military secret service who was a leading member of P2 and two former professional footballers. It was a veritable Who’s Who of the Italian far right.

In July 1988, four people — Mambro, Fioravanti, Massimiliano Fachini and Sergio Picciafuoco — were convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Two others were acquitted. However, the four murder convictions were overturned on appeal in 1992. A new trial began the following year all of the defendants were again sentenced to life behind bars, except for Fachini, who was acquitted. Lesser sentences for crimes including forming an armed gang, subversive association, obstruction and defamation were also handed down to many of the defendants.

Mambro, who was paroled in 2013, maintains her innocence to this day, although she and Fioravanti have accepted moral responsibility for NAR terror attacks. Speaking about the Bologna bombing in a 1997 interview, she said she “remembers the day perfectly.”

“I heard about it on the news and I thought, ‘what kind of people could do a thing like that?’” Mambro said. “So wanton. So indiscriminate. I wanted to cry.”

Operation Gladio?

In 1984, convicted fascist Vincenzo Vinciguerra testified to Italian investigators that he had been recruited for a 1972 car bombing in Peteano as part of Operation Gladio — Latin for “sword” — which was launched by the Italian secret service in the 1950s as a stay-behind guerrilla resistance operation in the event of a Soviet invasion or communist takeover of NATO countries. “There exists in Italy a secret force parallel to the armed forces, composed of civilians and military men, in an anti-Soviet capacity, to organize a resistance on Italian soil against a Russian army,” Vinciguerra testified. “Lacking a Soviet military invasion, which might not happen, [they] took up the task, on NATO’s behalf, of preventing a slip to the left in the political balance of the country. This they did, with the assistance of the official secret services and the political and military forces.”

Vinciguerra’s testimony is corroborated by other prominent Italian officials. Gen. Vito Miceli, former head of military intelligence, testified that “the incriminated organization… was formed under a secret agreement with the United States and within the framework of NATO.” Former defense minister Paulo Taviani told a magistrate that during his time in office, “the Italian secret services were bossed and financed by CIA agents,” while Giandelio Maletti, a former secret service general, said “the CIA gave its tacit approval to a series of bombings in Italy in the 1970s to sow instability and keep communists from taking power.” Former secret service chief Gen. Gerardo Serravalle said that as Gladio evolved into a terrorist operation, “representatives of the CIA were always present” at meetings, although the Americans did not have voting rights. Serravalle also said that Gladio agents trained a British military base. A parliamentary terrorism committee also revealed that the US funded a training base for “stay behind” operators in Germany.

Although the CIA denied involvement in Gladio, one of the agency’s former directors, William Colby, detailed in his memoir how the CIA was involved in stay-behind operations in Scandinavian countries. Declassified CIA documents also prove that the US helped set up German stay-behind networks, which involved former Nazis including two SS colonels, Hans Rues and Walter Kopp, who the agency described as an “unreconstructed Nazi.”

Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti publicly acknowledged the existence of Gladio in 1990. The Christian Democrat said that 127 weapons caches had been dismantled and claimed that Gladio was not involved in any of the bombings during the Years of Lead. Andreotti also said that in 1964 Italy’s military had joined the Allied Clandestine Committee, which was created seven years earlier by the US, France, Belgium and Greece, and was in charge of directing Gladio operations. That same year the European Parliament condemned NATO and the US for their role in Gladio terrorism and for “jeopardizing the democratic structures” of European nations.

Agonizing Uncertainty

While it cannot be said with any great certainty that the Bologna bombing was a Gladio operation, the attacks certainly bears the hallmarks of Operation Gladio. Explosives experts determined that the blast was caused by “retrieved military explosives” of the same sort used in the 1972 Peteano car bombing. On the 20th anniversary of the bombing, Andreotti gave an interview in which he said that there were forces in what would today be called the “deep state” who would stop at nothing to defeat communism. “In the Italian secret services, and in parallel apparatus, there was a conviction that they were involved in a Holy War, that they had been given a sacred mission,” the former prime minister said. “And that anything that passed as anti-communist was legitimate and praiseworthy.”

Forty years later, the terror trail of August 2, 1980 refuses to go cold. In January 2020, Gilberto Cavallini, a 67-year-old former NAR member, was convicted of providing logistical support for the bombing and sentenced to life in prison. Many of those accused or convicted in connection with the massacre maintain their innocence, and Bologna and the world are no closer to knowing for sure who is behind the attack.

For some victims, the uncertainty is agonizing. “I can’t accept that they took my life away from me,” said Braccia, the former policeman. “I had such a zest for life and they destroyed it. We don’t know the truth, and that is the difficulty. We want the truth. Who really did this?”

There is a clock on the wall outside the main entrance to Bologna Centrale. It is permanently stopped at 10:25. Like the unrepaired blast crater and memorial wall in the station hall, it is an eternal reminder of the horrors of that infernal August morning 40 years ago, and of questions that may never be fully answered.

Brett Wilkins is staff writer for Common Dreams and a member of Collective 20.


Treaty Between the United States and Tripoli

It is not often that an obscure treaty from the late 18th century becomes a touch point in a 21st century philosophical debate, but such is the case with the 1796 treaty between the United States and Tripoli.

At issue is not the treaty itself — it exists and is well-documented. What is at issue is Article 11 of that treaty, which says that the United States and Tripoli should never enter into hostilities because of religious differences. Sounds innocent enough, but the phrasing used in the preamble to the Article has made it controversial.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," the Article begins. And so, for those who advocate for the complete separation of church and state, the article is seen as an early vindication of the position, especially since the treaty was approved by a Senate that recently approved the Bill of Rights.

Others, more keen on closer ties between the church and state, dismiss the line completely, the result of translation error or paraphrasing, or prefer to see the preamble as a throw-away line, meant to assuage the Dey of Tripoli (also known as the Bey of Tripoli and the Pasha of Tripoli).

Which position is correct? As in many things, there are elements of truth to both sides.

The treaty with Tripoli is just one of many made with the Barbary States around the turn of the century. The basic issue was state-sponsored piracy. For years, the Barbary States had supported piracy, and American shipping had enjoyed the protection of the British Navy. After independence, the British thoughtfully informed the Barbary states that American shipping was no longer under British protection, and American shipping came under attack. In 1785, in fact, the Dey of Algiers declared war on the United States and seized several ships. The Confederation Congress was unable to either raise a navy nor funds to pay tribute which would have allowed American shipping to proceed unhindered.

Actions like this took place over the course of fifty years, with treaties being signed and tributes paid then tributes went unpaid and war was declared and shipping was threatened. One of the earliest Barbary treaties was between the United States and Morocco in 1786 one of the latest was also between the U.S. and Morocco in 1836.

In 1796, a treaty was negotiated between the United States and Tripoli by Captain Richard O'Brien. Joel Barlow was the U.S. consul general in Algiers, and it is his translation of the Arabic text of the treaty that follows. The treaty was finalized in 1797. The treaty was signed by the Americans on June 10, 1797.

The text reproduced below is what was signed and ratified by the United States. An examination of the Arabic text, however, reveals that Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic text, at least not in the form presented in the English text. In the Arabic version, the text between Articles 10 and 12 is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. State Department review of the translation in 1800 called it "extremely erroneous." An Italian translation of the Arabic done at the same time, as Italian was widely used in Tripoli, is much closer to the original Arabic. The differences in the key provisions of the treaty, however, are not significant.

For the Americans, the terms of the treaty were quickly rendered moot. Citing late payments of tribute, the Pasha of Tripoli, in 1801, declared war on the United States. The United States fought back this time, and sent the Navy and Marines to Tripoli (to the famed "shores of Tripoli"), where the Pasha's forces were defeated. A new treaty, finalized in 1805, included a payment of ransom for U.S. prisoners, but no further payment of tribute.

Sources: Barbary Wars, 1801-1805 and 1815-1816, The United States Department of State. Treaties with The Barbary Powers : 1786-1836, The Avalon Project. Source for the text of the treaty: The Avalon Project. Spelling errors in the text were corrected and some abbrevations were expanded for reproduction here.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

There is a firm and perpetual Peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guaranteed by the most potent Dey & regency of Algiers.

If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

If any citizens, subjects or effects belonging to either party shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And, considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers belonging to such vessels shall be sufficient for their protection.

A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel condemned by the other party or by any other nation, the certificate of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Vessels of either party putting into the ports of the other and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in from a disaster at sea and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and reembark her cargo without paying any duties. But in no case shall she be compelled to land her cargo.

Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people no pillage shall be allowed the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners, and the crew protected and succoured till they can be sent to their country.

If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy within gun-shot of the forts of the other she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized or attacked when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port within twenty four hours after her departure.

The commerce between the United States and Tripoli, — the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels and seamen, — the reciprocal right of establishing consuls in each country, and the privileges, immunities and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such consuls, are declared to be on the same footing with those of the most favoured nations respectively.

The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part and on the part of his subjects for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such part as is promised on the part of the United States to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli, of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no presence of any periodical tribute or farther payment is ever to be made by either party.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

In case of any dispute arising from a notation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the consul residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3rd day of Jumad in the year of the Higera 1211 - corresponding with the 4th day of November 1796 by

JUSSUF BASHAW MAHOMET Bey
SOLIMAN Kaya
MAMET Treasurer
GALIL Genl of the Troops
AMET Minister of Marine
MAHOMET Coml of the city
AMET Chamberlain
MAMET Secretary
ALLY-Chief of the Divan

Signed and sealed at Algiers the 4th day of Argib 1211 - corresponding with the 3rd day of January 1797 by

HASSAN BASHAW Dey
and by the Agent plenipotentiary of the United States of America Joel BARLOW

Web site designed and maintained by Steve Mount.
© 1995-2010 by Craig Walenta. Sva prava zadržana.
Contact the Webmaster.
Site Bibliography.
How to cite this site.
Please review our privacy policy.
Last Modified: 24 Jan 2010
Valid HTML 4.0


Top 10 Bizarre Wars

War is fought over many things. It can be about honor, glory, liberating a land that you believe is rightfully yours &ndash the list goes on, but alongside those there have been a number of decidedly unusual wars, fought for trivial, or even contemptible, reasons. So, without further delay, I bring to you history&rsquos top ten most bizarre wars. These are listed in no particular order.

In 1883, the citizens of Lijar, a small village in southern Spain were infuriated when they heard reports that, while visiting Paris, the Spanish king, Alfonso XII had been insulted and even attacked in the streets by Parisian mobs. In response, the mayor of Lijar, Don Miguel Garcia Saez, and all 300 citizens of Lijar declared war on France on October 14, 1883. Not a single shot was fired, and not a single casualty sustained on either side during the confrontation, but despite the anticlimactic war, Mayor Saez was declared &ldquoThe Terror Of The Sierras,&rdquo for his exploit.
A full ninety-three years later, in 1976, King Juan-Carlos of Spain made a trip to Paris, during which he was treated with great respect by the citizens of the French capital. In 1981, the town council of Lijar ruled that &ldquoin view of the excellent attitude of the French,&rdquo they would end hostilities and agree to a ceasefire with France.

War duration: (1883-1981) Ninety-eight years.
Casualties: None.

This war began in 1325, when a rivalry between the independent city states of Modena and Bologna spiraled out of control over the most unlikely of things: a wooden bucket. The trouble started when a band of Modena soldiers raided Bologna and stole a large wooden bucket. The raid was successful, but Bologna, wishing to secure both its bucket and its pride, declared war on Modena. The war raged on for twelve whole years but Bologna never did manage to get its bucket back. To this day the bucket is still stored in Modena&rsquos bell tower.

War duration: (1325-1337) Twelve years.
Casualties: Unknown.

The President of Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez, was a huge admirer of Napoleon Bonaparte. He fancied himself a skilled tactician and excellent commander, but lacked one thing, a war. So to solve this problem, in 1864 he declared war on Paraguay&rsquos three surrounding neighbors, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. The outcome of the war? Paraguay was very nearly annihilated. It is estimated that 90% of its male population died during the war, of disease, starvation and battles with enemy armies. This was perhaps one of the most needless wars in history since Lopez had almost no reason to declare war on his more powerful neighbors.

War Duration: (1864-1870) Six years.
Casualties: 400,000 on both sides.

In 1925, Greece and Bulgaria were not friends. They had fought each other during the First World War and those wounds had not yet healed. Tensions were perpetually high along the border, especially along an area called Petrich. Those tensions reached a boiling point on October 22, 1925, when a Greek soldier chased his dog across the Bulgarian border and was shot dead by a Bulgarian sentry. Greece vowed retaliation and, true to its word, it invaded Petrich the very next day. They quickly cleared Bulgarian forces from the area but were halted by the League of Nations, who sanctioned Greece and ordered them to leave Petrich and pay Bulgaria for damages. Greece withdrew its forces ten days later and paid Bulgaria 45,000 pounds.

War duration: (October 23-November 2, 1925) Ten days.
Casualties: Fifty-two dead on both sides.

The Aroostook War was a military confrontation between the United States and Great Britain over the border of Maine. After the War of 1812, British forces had occupied most of eastern Maine and, despite having no troops in the area, still regarded it as British territory. In the winter of 1838, American woodcutters cut firewood in the disputed area and, as a result, incited the ire of Great Britain, who moved troops into the area. American troops moved over as well, and it looked like a war was imminent. However logistics on each side got snarled and the Americans received enormous amounts of pork and beans due to a mistake in the supplies department. This led to the war&rsquos most popular nickname, &ldquoThe War Of Pork And Beans.&rdquo For nearly a year, British and American troops waited each other out before their respective governments finally reached an agreement. Britain agreed to give America back eastern Maine and, in return, American troops backed down. The Aroostook War was devoid of military combat but there were still hundreds of deaths from disease and accidental injuries.

War duration: (December 1838-November 1839) Eleven months.
Casualties: 550 dead on both sides.

Another British/American war, The Pig War was started when a British infantryman shot a pig that was wandering on American soil. The local American militia responded by gathering at the border and waiting for the British to make a move. Eventually the British apologized and the brief war ended, leaving the pig as the only casualty.

War duration: (June-October 1859) Four months.
Casualties: One pig.

This war was fought between the Netherlands and the Isle of Scilly, which is located off the southwest coast of Great Britain. The war started in 1651, but like many wars of that era it was not taken seriously and soon forgotten about. Three centuries passed before the two countries finally agreed to a peace treaty in 1986, making their war the longest in human history.

War duration: (1651-1986) Three hundred and thirty-five years.
Casualties: None.

Some wars begin with a surprise attack, others a massacre, but this one began with a football game between El Salvador and Honduras, in 1969. El Salvador lost the game and tensions rose and rose until, on June 14, the El Salvadoran Army launched an attack on Honduras. Surprised by the sudden violence the Organization of American States organized a cease-fire that was put into effect on June 20, just one hundred hours after the first shots were fired.

War duration: (June 14-20 1969) Four days.
Casualties: 3,000 dead on both sides.

This war began shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the former Soviet bloc country of Moldova experienced a crisis. Two-thirds of the country wanted closer ties with Romania, but the remaining third wanted to remain close with Russia. As a result, war erupted. But what makes this war truly strange is the fact that the men fighting each other during the day often gathered in no man&rsquos land at night to mingle and drink. Soldiers even made pacts not to shoot each other if they saw each other during battle the next day. And this wasn&rsquot a one time thing, it happened nearly every night for the duration of the war. One soldier wrote in his journal: &ldquoThe war is like a grotesque party, during the day we kill our enemy, during the night we drink with them. What a bizarre thing war is.&rdquo

War duration: (March 2-July 21 1992) Four months.
Casualties: 1,300 dead on both sides.

This is perhaps the only formal war where one of the belligerents was not human, but rather avian. In 1932, the emu population in Australia was growing out of control, with an estimated 20,000 emus running around the Australian desert and causing havoc among crops. In response, the Australian military sent out a task force of soldiers armed with machine guns to kill the emus and even jokingly declared war on them. In mid-November they drove out into the desert and proceeded to hunt down any emus they could find. However, they ran into complications the emus proved remarkably resilient, even when struck by multiple machine gun bullets they continued to run away, easily outstripping the heavily laden soldiers. The Emu War lasted for nearly a week before Major Meredith, the commander of the emu-killing task-force gave up in disgust after the soldiers only bagged a fraction of the elusive birds.

War duration: (November 11-18 1932) Seven days.
Casualties: 2,500 emus.


Francesco Melzi d’Eril, 1753-1816, Duc de Lodi (1807), Italian politician, vice president of the Italian Republic, Chancelier garde des sceaux of the Kingdom of Italy

Born in Milan on 6 October, 1753, into a patrician family, to a Milanese father and a Spanish mother of noble birth, Teresa d’Eril. After having travelled in France, England, and Spain, he returned to Milan where he became a member of the municipality.

In 1796, when the road to Milan was opened before Bonaparte, Melzi accepted the nomination as director of the delegation charged with handing the keys to the city to the conqueror and presenting the town’s best wishes. This meeting took place on 11 May, 1796, in Lodi, Corso Roma 102, in the ex-Palazzo Ghisi. From this moment on, Bonaparte appreciated Melzi and did not stop considering him as one of the most distinguished men in Italy.

Just like Marescalchi, Melzi d’Eril was to play an important role in the contect of Cisalpine Republic (1797-1805), and later in the Kingdom of Italy (1805-1814).


To Friends in the United States: Facilitate Global Vaccine Manufacturing

Fri Apr 23 2021 00:00:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time)

The COVID-19 crisis in India is devastating. The Biden administration must consider exceptions to the Defense Production Act and ease the global vaccine supply chain.

  • On AfricaZainab Usman examines how vaccine geopolitics could derail Africa&rsquos post-pandemic recovery
  • On Europe Luke Cooper discusses how global vaccination is tied to democracy promotion

President John Adams oversees passage of first of Alien and Sedition Acts

President John Adams oversees the passage of the Naturalization Act, the first of four pieces of controversial legislation known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts, on June 18, 1798. Strong political opposition to these acts succeeded in undermining the Adams administration, helping Thomas Jefferson to win the presidency in 1800.

At the time, America was threatened by war with France, and Congress was attempting to pass laws that would give more authority to the federal government, and the president in particular, to deal with suspicious persons, especially foreign nationals. The Naturalization Act raised the requirements for aliens to apply for U.S. citizenship, requiring that immigrants reside in the U.S. for 14 years before becoming eligible. The earlier law had required only five years of residence before an application could be made.

Adams, in fact, never enforced the Naturalization Act. Nevertheless, he came under heavy fire from opponents, led by Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the Naturalization Act and its companion legislation was unconstitutional and smacked of despotism. So disgusted was Jefferson with Adams’ enthusiastic support of the law that he could no longer support the president and left Washington during the Congressional vote. 

Former President George Washington, on the other hand, supported the legislation. Adams signed the second piece of the legislation, the Alien Act, on June 25. This act gave the president the authority to deport aliens during peacetime. The Alien Enemies Act, which Adams signed on July 6, gave him the power to deport any alien living in the U.S. with ties to U.S. wartime enemies. Finally, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14, gave Adams tremendous power to define treasonable activity including any false, scandalous and malicious writing. The intended targets of the Sedition Act were newspaper, pamphlet and broadside publishers who printed what he considered to be libelous articles aimed primarily at his administration. Abigail Adams urged her husband to pass the Sedition Act, calling his opponents criminal and vile.

Of the four acts, the Sedition Act was the most distressing to staunch First Amendment advocates. They objected to the fact that treasonable activity was vaguely defined, was defined at the discretion of the president and would be punished by heavy fines and imprisonment. The arrest and imprisonment of 25 men for supposedly violating the Sedition Act ignited an enormous outcry against the legislation. Among those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was the editor of the Republican-leaning Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Citing Adams’ abuse of presidential powers and threats to free speech, Jefferson’s party took control of Congress and the presidency in 1800.


Pogledajte video: RUSSIA: COSMONAUTS GIVE MIR SPACE STATION VOTE OF CONFIDENCE (Avgust 2022).