upon failure of heirs male in the family of Visconti; the
duchy of Milan should descend to the posterity of Valentine
and the duke of Orleans. That event took place. In the year
1447, Philip Maria, the last prince of the ducal family of
Visconti, died. Various competitors claimed the succession.
Charles, duke of Orleans, pleaded his right to it, founded on
the marriage contract of his mother, Valentine Visconti.
Alfonso, king of Naples, claimed it in consequence of a will
made by Philip Maria in his favor. The emperor contended that,
upon the extinction of male issue in the family of Visconti,
the fief returned to the superior lord, and ought to be
re-annexed to the empire. The people of Milan, smitten with
the love of liberty which in that age prevailed among the
Italian states, declared against the dominion of any master,
and established a republican form of government. But during
the struggle among so many competitors, the prize for which
they contended was seized by one from whom none of them
apprehended any danger. Francis Sforza, the natural son of
Jacomuzzo Sforza, whom his courage and abilities had elevated
from the rank of a peasant to be one of the most eminent and
powerful of the Italian condottieri, having succeeded his
father in the command of the adventurers who followed his
standard, had married a natural daughter of the last duke of
Milan [see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447]. Upon this shadow of a
title Francis founded his pretensions to the duchy, which he
supported with such talents and valor as placed him at last on
the ducal throne."
W. Robertson,
History of Charles the Fifth:
View of the Progress of Society,
section 3.
"Francesco Sforza possessed himself of the supreme power by
treachery and force of arms, but he saved for half a century
the independence of a State which, after 170 years of tyranny,
was no longer capable of life as a commonwealth, and furthered
its prosperity, while he powerfully contributed to the
formation of a political system which, however great its
weakness, was the most reasonable under existing
circumstances. Without the aid of Florence and Cosimo de'
Medici, he would not have attained his ends. Cosimo had
recognised his ability in the war with Visconti, and made a
close alliance with him. … It was necessary to choose
between Sforza and Venice, for there was only one alternative:
either the condottiere would make himself Duke of Milan, or the
Republic of San Marco would extend its rule over all Lombardy.
In Florence several voices declared in favour of the old ally
on the Adriatic. … Cosimo de' Medici gave the casting-vote
in Sforza's favour. …
{2185}
Without Florentine money; Sforza would never have been able to
maintain the double contest—on the one side against Milan,
which he blockaded and starved out; and on the other against
the Venetians, who sought to relieve it, and whom he repulsed.
And when, on March 25, 1450, he made his entry into the city
which proclaimed him ruler, he was obliged to maintain himself
with Florentine money till he had established his position and
re-organised the State. … Common animosity to Florence and
Sforza drew Venice and the king [Alfonso, of Naples] nearer to
one another, and at the end of 1451 an alliance, offensive and
defensive, was concluded against them, which Siena, Savoy, and
Montferrat joined. … On May 16, 1452, the Republic, and,
four weeks later, King Alfonso, declared war, which the
Emperor Frederick III., then in Italy, and Pope Nicholas V.,
successor to Eugenius IV. since 1447, in vain endeavoured to
prevent." The next year "a foreign event contributed more than
all to terminate this miserable war. … On May 29, 1453,
Mohammed II. stormed Constantinople. The West was threatened,
more especially Venice, which had such great and wealthy
possessions in the Levant, and Naples. This time the excellent
Pope Nicholas V. did not exert himself in vain. On April 9,
1454, Venice concluded a tolerably favourable peace with
Francesco Sforza at Lodi, in which King Alfonso, Florence,
Savoy, Montferrat, Mantua, and Siena, were to be included. The
king, who had made considerable preparations for war, did not
ratify the compact till January 26 of the following year. The
States of Northern and Central Italy then joined in an
alliance, and a succession of peaceful years followed."
A. von Reumont,
Lorenzo de' Medici,
book 1, chapter 7 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
W. P. Urquhart,
Life and Times of Francesco Sforza.
A. M. F. Robinson,
The End of the Middle Ages: Valentine Visconti.
The French Claim to Milan.
MILAN: A. D. 1464.
Renewed surrender of Genoa to the Duke.
See GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
MILAN: A. D. 1492-1496.
The usurpation of Ludovico, the Moor.
His invitation to Charles VIII. of France.
The French invasion of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.
MILAN: A. D. 1499-1500.
Conquest by Louis XII. of France.
His claim by right of Valentine Visconti.
See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.
MILAN: A. D. 1501.
Treaty for the investiture of Louis XII. as Duke,
by the Emperor Maximilian.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
MILAN: A. D. 1512.
Expulsion of the French and restoration of the Sforzas.
Notwithstanding the success of the French at Ravenna, in their
struggle with the Holy League formed against them by Pope
Julius II. (see ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513), they could not hold
their ground in Italy. "Cremona shook off the yoke of France,
and city after city followed her example. Nor did it seem
possible longer to hold Milan in subjection. That versatile
state, after twice bending the neck to Louis, a second time
grew weary of his government; and greedily listened to the
proposal of the Pope to set upon the throne Massimiliano
Sforza, son of their late Duke Ludovico. Full of this project
the people of Milan rose simultaneously to avenge the
cruelties of the French; the soldiers and merchants remaining
in the city were plundered, and about 1,500 put to the sword.
The retreating army was harassed by the Lombards, and severely
galled by the Swiss; and after encountering the greatest
difficulties, the French crossed the Alps, having preserved
none of their conquests in Lombardy except the citadel of
Milan, and a few other fortresses. … At the close of the
year, Massimiliano Sforza made his triumphal entry into Milan,
with the most extravagant ebullitions of delight on the part
of the people."
Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 37 (volume 2).
MILAN: A. D. 1515.
French reconquest by Francis I.
Final overthrow of the Sforzas.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1515; and 1515-1518.
MILAN: A. D. 1517.
Abortive attempt of the Emperor Maximilian against the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
MILAN: A. D. 1521-1522.
The French again expelled.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
MILAN: A. D. 1524-1525.
Recaptured and lost again by Francis I. of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
MILAN: A. D. 1527-1529.
Renewed attack of the French king.
Its disastrous end.
Renunciation of the French claim.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
MILAN: A. D. 1544.
Repeated renunciation of the claims of Francis I.
The duchy becomes a dependency of the Spanish crown.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
MILAN: A. D. 1635-1638.
Invasion of the duchy by French and Italian armies.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
MILAN: A. D. 1713.
Cession of the duchy to Austria.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
MILAN: A. D. 1745.
Occupied by the Spaniards and French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
MILAN: A. D. 1746.
Recovered by the Austrians.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
MILAN: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under Austrian rule after the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
MILAN: A. D. 1796.
Occupation by the French.
Bonaparte's pillage of the Art-galleries and Churches.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
MILAN: A. D. 1799.
Evacuation by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
MILAN: A. D. 1800.
Recovery by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
MILAN: A. D. 1805.
Coronation of Napoleon as king of Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
MILAN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's adornment of the city and its cathedral.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).
MILAN: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Austria.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
MILAN: A. D. 1848-1849.
Insurrection.
Expulsion of the Austrians.
Failure of the struggle.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
MILAN: A. D. 1859.
Liberation from the Austrians.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.
----------MILAN: End----------
MILAN DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;
also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.
MILANESE,
MILANESS, The.
The district or duchy of Milan.
MILESIANS, Irish.
In Irish legendary history, the followers of Miled, who came
from the north of Spain and were the last of the four races
which colonized Ireland.
T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).
See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.
----------MILETUS: Start----------
{2186}
MILETUS.
Miletus, on the coast of Asia Minor, near its southwestern
extremity, "with her four harbours, had been the earliest
anchorage on the entire coast. Phœnicians, Cretans, and
Carians, had inaugurated her world-wide importance, and Attic
families, endowed with eminent energy, had founded the city
anew.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
True, Miletus also had a rich territory of her own in her
rear, viz., the broad valley of the Mæander, where among other
rural pursuits particularly the breeding of sheep flourished.
Miletus became the principal market for the finer sorts of
wool; and the manufacture of this article into variegated
tapestry and coloured stuffs for clothing employed a large
multitude of human beings. But this industry also continued in
an increasing measure to demand importation from without of
all kinds of materials of art, articles of food, and slaves.
See ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
In no city was agriculture made a consideration so secondary
to industry and trade as here. At Miletus, the maritime trade
even came to form a particular party among the citizens, the
so-called 'Aeinautæ,' the 'men never off the water.'"
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book. 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).
Miletus took an early leading part in the great Ionian
enterprises of colonization and trade, particularly in the
Pontus, or Black Sea, where the Milesians succeeded the
Phœnicians, establishing important commercial settlements at
Sinope, Cyzicus and elsewhere. They were among the last of the
Asiatic Ionians to succumb to the Lydian monarchy, and they
were the first to revolt against the Persian domination, when
that had taken the place of the Lydian. The great revolt
failed and Miletus was practically destroyed.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
Recovering some importance it was destroyed again by
Alexander. Once more rising under the Roman empire, it was
destroyed finally by the Turks and its very ruins have not
been identified with certainty;
MILETUS: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
----------MILETUS: End----------
MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS.
See HOSPITALLERS;
TEMPLARS;
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS;
and ST. LAZARUS. KNIGHTS OF.
MILL SPRING, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
MILLENIAL YEAR, The.
"It has often been stated that in the tenth century there was
a universal belief that the end of the world was to happen in
the year 1000 A. D. This representation has recently been
subjected to a critical scrutiny by Eiken, Le Roy, and Orsi,
and found to be an unwarrantable exaggeration. It would be
still less applicable to any century earlier or later than the
tenth. A conviction of the impending destruction of the world,
however, was not uncommon at almost any period of the middle
age. It is frequently found expressed in the writings of
Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Lambert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of
Aurach, and Otto of Freisingen."
R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
pages 101-102.
MILOSCH OBRENOVITCH, The career of.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
MILTIADES:
Victory at Marathon.
Condemnation and death.
See GREECE: B. C. 490;
also, ATHENS: B. C. 501-490, and B. C. 489-480.
MILVIAN BRIDGE, Battle of the (B. C. 78).
See ROME: B. C. 78-68.
MIMS, Fort, The massacre at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
MINA.
See TALENT;
also, SHEKEL.
MINCIO, Battle of the.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
MINDEN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).
MINE RUN MOVEMENT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
MING DYNASTY, The.
See CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE, &c.;
and 1294-1882.
MINGELSHEIM, Battle of (1622).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
MINGOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MINGOES.
MINIMS.
"Of the orders which arose in the 15th century, the most
remarkable was that of Eremites [Hermits] of St. Francis, or
Minims, founded … by St. Francis of Paola, and approved by
Sixtus IV. in 1474." St. Francis, a Minorite friar of
Calabria, was one of the devotees whom Louis XI. of France
gathered about himself during his last days, in the hope that
their intercessions might prolong his life. To propitiate him,
Louis "founded convents at Plessis and at Amboise for the new
religious society, the members of which, not content with the
name of Minorites, desired to signify their profession of
utter insignificance by styling themselves Minims."
J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 8, pages 369 and 224.
MINISTRY.
MINISTERIAL GOVERNMENT, The English.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
MINNE.
See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.
----------MINNESOTA: Start--------
MINNESOTA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
MINNESOTA: A. D. 1803.
Part of the state, west of the Mississippi,
acquired in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
MINNESOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.
Joined to Michigan Territory; then to Wisconsin; then to Iowa.
See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.
MINNESOTA: A. D. 1849-1858.
Territorial and State organizations.
Minnesota was organized as a Territory in 1849, and admitted
to the Union as a State in 1858.
----------MINNESOTA: End--------
MINNETAREES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HIDATSA, and SIOUAN FAMILY.
----------MINORCA: Start----------
MINORCA: 13th Century.
Conquest by King James of Aragon.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
{2187}
MINORCA: A. D. 1708.
Acquisition by England.
In 1708, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Port Mahon,
and the whole island of Minorca, were taken by an English
expedition from Barcelona, under General Stanhope, who
afterwards received a title from his conquest, becoming
Viscount Stanhope of Mahon. Port Mahon was then considered the
best harbor in the Mediterranean and its importance to England
was rated above that of Gibraltar.
Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 10.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
At the Peace of Utrecht Minorca was ceded to Great Britain and
remained under the British flag during the greater part of the
18th century.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
Taken by the French.
At the outbreak of the Seven Years War, in 1756, there was
great dread in England of an immediate French invasion; and
"the Government so thoroughly lost heart as to request the
King to garrison England with Hanoverian troops. This dread
was kept alive by a simulated collection of French troops in
the north. But, under cover of this threat, a fleet was being
collected at Toulon, with the real design of capturing
Minorca. The ministry were at last roused to this danger, and
Byng was despatched with ten sail of the line to prevent it.
Three days after he set sail the Duke de Richelieu, with
16,000 men, slipped across into the island, and compelled
General Blakeney, who was somewhat old and infirm, to withdraw
into the castle of St. Philip, which was at once besieged. On
the 19th of May—much too late to prevent the landing of
Richelieu—Byng arrived within view of St. Philip, which was
still in the possession of the English. The French Admiral, La
Galissonnière, sailed out to cover the siege, and Byng, who
apparently felt himself unequally matched—although West, his
second in command, behaved with gallantry and success—called
a council of war, and withdrew. Blakeney, who had defended his
position with great bravery, had to surrender. The failure of
Byng, and the general weakness and incapacity of the ministry,
roused the temper of the people to rage; and Newcastle,
trembling for himself, threw all the blame upon the Admiral,
hoping by this means to satisfy the popular cry. … A court
martial held upon that officer had been bound by strict
instructions, and had found itself obliged to bring in a
verdict of guilty, though without casting any imputation on
the personal courage of the Admiral. On his accession to power
Pitt was courageous enough, although he rested on the popular
favour, to do his best to get Byng pardoned, and urged on the
King that the House of Commons seemed to wish the sentence to
be mitigated. The King is said to have answered in words that
fairly describe Pitt's position, 'Sir, you have taught me to
look for the sense of my subjects in another place than the
House of Commons.' The sentence was carried out, and Byng was
shot on the quarter-deck of the 'Monarque' at Portsmouth
(March 14, 1757)."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1021-1022.
MINORCA: A. D. 1763.
Restored to England by the Treaty of Paris.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
MINORCA: A. D. 1782.
Captured by the Spaniards.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
MINORCA: A. D. 1802.
Ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Amiens.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
----------MINORCA: End----------
MINORITES, The.
The Franciscan friars, called by their founder "Fratri
Minori," bore very commonly the name of the Minorites.
See MENDICANT ORDERS.
MINQUAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SUSQUEHANNAS.
MINSIS,
MUNSEES,
MINISINKS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES;
and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.
MINTO, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
MINUTE-MEN.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1774.
MINYI, The.
"The race [among the Greeks] which … first issues forth with
a history of its own from the dark background of the Pelasgian
people is that of the Minyi. The cycle of their heroes
includes Iason and Euneus, his son, who trades with Phœnicians
and with Greeks. … The myths of the Argo were developed in
the greatest completeness on the Pagasæan gulf, in the seats
of the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
movement of the Pelasgean tribes beyond the sea—in other
words, a Greek history in Europe—begins. The Minyi spread
both by land and sea. They migrated southwards into the
fertile fields of Bœotia, and settled on the southern side of
the Copæic valley by the sea. … After leaving the low
southern coast they founded a new city at the western
extremity of the Bœotian valley. There a long mountain ridge
juts out from the direction of Parnassus, and round its
farthest projection flows in a semicircle the Cephissus. At
the lower edge of the height lies the village of Skripu.
Ascending from its huts, one passes over primitive lines of
wall to the peak of the mountain, only approachable by a rocky
staircase of a hundred steps, and forming the summit of a
castle. This is the second city of the Minyi in Bœotia, called
Orchomenus: like the first, the most ancient walled royal seat
which can be proved to have existed in Hellas, occupying a
proud and commanding position over the valley by the sea. Only
a little above the dirty huts of clay rises out of the depths
of the soil the mighty block of marble, more than twenty feet
high, which covered the entrance of a round building. The
ancients called it the treasury of Minyas, in the vaults of
which the ancient kings were believed to have hoarded the
superfluity of their treasures of gold and silver, and in
these remains endeavoured to recall to themselves the glory of
Orchomenus sung by Homer."
E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).
See, also, BŒOTIA;
and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.
MIR, The Russian.
"The 'mir' is a commune, whose bond is unity of autonomy and
of possession of land. Sometimes the mir is a single village.
In this case the economic administration adapts itself exactly
to the civil. Again, it may happen that a large village is
divided into many rural communes. Then each commune has its
special economic administration, whilst the civil and police
administration is common to all. Sometimes, lastly, a number
of villages only have one mir. Thus the size of the mir may
vary from 20 or 30 to some thousands of 'dvors.' … The
'dvor,' or court, is the economic unit: it contains one or
several houses, and one or several married couples lodge in
it. The 'dvor' has only one hedge and one gate in common for
its inmates. … With the Great Russians the mir regulates
even the ground that the houses stand on; the mir has the
right to shift about the 'dvors.' …
{2188}
Besides land, the communes have property of another kind:
fish-lakes, communal mills, a communal herd for the
improvement of oxen and horses; finally, storehouses, intended
for the distribution to the peasants of seeds for their fields
or food for their families. The enjoyment of all these various
things must be distributed among the members of the commune,
must be distributed regularly, equally, equitably. Thus, a
fair distribution today will not be fair five or six years
hence, because in some families the number of members will
have increased, in others diminished. A new distribution,
therefore, will be necessary to make the shares equal. For a
long time this equalization can be brought about by partial
sharings-up, by exchange of lots of ground between the private
persons concerned, without upsetting everybody by a general
redistribution. … The Russian mir is not an elementary unit.
It is made up of several primordial cells—of small circles
that form in perfect freedom. The mir only asks that the
circles (osmaks) are equal as to labour-power. This condition
fulfilled, I am free to choose my companions in accordance
with my friendships or my interests. When the village has any
work to do, any property to distribute, the administration or
the assembly of the commune generally does not concern itself
with individuals, but with the 'osmak' … Each village has an
administration; it is represented by a mayor (selskï
starosta), chosen by the mir. But this administration has to
do only with affairs determined upon in principle by the
communal assembly. The starosta has no right of initiating any
measures of importance. Such questions (partition of the land,
new taxes, leases of communal property, etc.) are only
adjudicated and decided by the assembly of the mir. All the
peasants living in the village come to the assembly, even the
women. If, for example, the wife, by the death of her husband,
is the head of the family, at the assembly she has the right
to vote. … The peasants meet very frequently. … The
assemblies are very lively, … courageous, independent."
L. Tikhomirov,
Russia, Political and Social,
book 3, chapter 2, with foot-note,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
D. M. Wallace,
Russia,
volume 1, chapter 8.
W. T. Stead,
The Truth about Russia,
book 4, chapter 2.
A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars,
part 1, book 8.
MIRABEAU, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY). to 1790-1791.
MIRACULOUS VICTORY, The.
See THUNDERING LEGION.
MIRAFLORES, Battle of (1881).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
MIRANDA, Revolutionary undertakings of.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800;
and COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
MIRANHA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
MIRISZLO, Battle of (1600).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-18TH CENTURIES.
MISCHIANZA, The.
See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.
MISCHNA, The.
Rabbi Jehuda, the Patriarch at Tiberius, was the author (about
A. D. 194) of "a new constitution to the Jewish people. He
embodied in the celebrated Mischna, or Code of Traditional
Law, all the authorized interpretations of the Mosaic Law, the
traditions, the decisions of the learned, and the precedents
of the courts or schools. … The sources from which the
Mischna was derived may give a fair view of the nature of the
Rabbinical authority, and the manner in which it had
superseded the original Mosaic Constitution. The Mischna was
grounded,
1. On the Written Law of Moses.
2. On the Oral Law, received by Moses on Mount Sinai,
and handed down, it was said, by uninterrupted tradition.
3. The decisions or maxims of the Wise Men.
4. Opinions of particular individuals, on which the
schools were divided, and which still remained open.
5. Ancient usages and customs.
The distribution of the Mischna affords a curious
exemplification of the intimate manner in which the religious
and civil duties of the Jews were interwoven, and of the
authority assumed by the Law over every transaction of life.
The Mischna commenced with rules for prayer, thanksgiving,
ablutions; it is impossible to conceive the minuteness or
subtlety of these rules, and the fine distinctions drawn by
the Rabbins. It was a question whether a man who ate figs,
grapes, and pomegranates, was to say one or three graces; …
whether he should sweep the house and then wash his hands, or
wash his hands and then sweep the house. But there are nobler
words."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 19.
See, also, TALMUD.
MISE OF AMIENS, The.
See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.
MISE OF LEWES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.
MISENUM, Treaty of.
The arrangement by which Sextus Pompeius was virtually
admitted (B. C. 40) for a time into partnership with the
triumvirate of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus, was so called.
See ROME: B. C. 44-42.
MISR.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
MISSI DOMINICI.
"Nothing was more novel or peculiar in the legislation of Karl
[Charlemagne] than his institution of imperial deputies,
called Missi Dominici, who were regularly sent forth from the
palace to oversee and inspect the various local
administrations. Consisting of a body of two or three officers
each, one of whom was always a prelate, they visited the
counties every three months, and held there the local assizes,
or 'placita minores.' … Even religion and morals were not
exempted from this scrutiny."
P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 17.
See, also, PALATINE, COUNTS.
MISSIONARY RIDGE:
Its position, and the battle fought on it.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE);
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
----------MISSISSIPPI: Start--------
MISSISSIPPI:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, and CHEROKEES.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Chesterfield, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1732.
Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1763.
Partly embraced in West Florida, ceded to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES;
FLORIDA: A. D. 1763;
and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
{2189}
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783.
Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1783-1787.
Partly in dispute with Spain.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.
The Territory constituted and organized.
"The territory heretofore surrendered by the Spanish
authorities, and lying north of the 31st degree of latitude,
with the consent and approbation of the State of Georgia, was
erected into a territory of the United States by act of
Congress, approved April 7th, 1798, entitled 'an act for the
amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, and
authorizing the establishment of a government in the
Mississippi Territory. The territory comprised in the new
organization, or the original Mississippi Territory, embraced
that portion of country between the Spanish line of
demarkation and a line drawn due east from the mouth of the
Yazoo to the Chattahoochy River. The Mississippi River was its
western limit and the Chattahoochy its eastern. The
organization of a territorial government by the United States
was in no wise to impair the rights of Georgia to the soil,
which was left open for future negotiation between the State
of Georgia and the United States." In 1802 the State of
Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to lands
south of the State of Tennessee, stipulating to receive
$1,250,000" out of the first nett proceeds of lands lying in
said ceded territory." In 1804 "the whole of the extensive
territory ceded by Georgia, lying north of the Mississippi
Territory, and south of Tennessee, was … annexed to the
Mississippi Territory, and was subsequently included within
its limits and jurisdiction. The boundaries of the Mississippi
Territory, consequently, were the 31st degree on the south,
and the 35th degree on the north, extending from the
Mississippi River to the western limits of Georgia, and
comprised the whole territory now embraced in the States of
Alabama and Mississippi, excepting the small Florida District
between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers. Four fifths of this
extensive territory were in the possession of the four great
southern Indian confederacies, the Choctâs, the Chickasâs, the
Creeks, and the Cherokees, comprising an aggregate of about
75,000 souls, and at least 10,000 warriors. The only portions
of this territory to which the Indian title had been
extinguished was a narrow strip from 15 to 50 miles in width,
on the east side of the Mississippi, and about 70 miles in
length, and a small district on the Tombigby."
J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the
Valley of the Mississippi,
book 5, chapter 13 (volume 2).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1803.
Portion acquired by the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1812-1813.
Spanish West Florida annexed to Mississippi Territory
and possession taken.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1817.
Constitution as a State and admission into the Union.
The sixth and seventh of the new States added to the original
Union of thirteen were Indiana and Mississippi. "These last
almost simultaneously found representation in the Fifteenth
Congress; and of them Indiana, not without an internal
struggle, held steadfastly to the fundamental Ordinance of
1787 under which it was settled, having adopted its free State
constitution in June, 1816; Mississippi, which followed on the
slave side, agreeing upon a constitution, in August, 1817,
which the new Congress, at its earliest opportunity [December
10, 1817] after assembling, pronounced republican in form, and
satisfactory."
J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 3, page 100.
At the same time, the part of Mississippi Territory which
forms the present State of Alabama was detached and erected
into the Territory of Alabama.
See ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1861 (January).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
The taking of Corinth by the Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (May-July).
First Union attempts against Vicksburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1862 (September-October).
The battles of Iuka and Corinth.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-May).
Grierson's raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-MAY: MISSISSIPPI).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (April-July).
Federal siege and capture of Vicksburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1863 (July).
Capture and destruction of Jackson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1864 (February).
Sherman's raid to Meridian.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE—MISSISSIPPI).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
Wilson's raid.
The end of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional government set up under
President Johnson's plan of Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1865-1870.
State reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------MISSISSIPPI: End--------
----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: Start--------
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1519.
Discovery of the mouth by Pineda, for Garay.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1528-1542.
Crossed by Cabeça de Vaca, and by Hernando de Soto.
Descended by the survivors of De Soto's company.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1673.
Discovery by Joliet and Marquette.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1682.
Exploration to the mouth by La Salle.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1712.
Called the River St. Louis by the French.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1783-1803.
The question of the Right of Navigation
disputed between Spain and the United States.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800, and 1798-1803.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER: A. D. 1861-1863.
Battles and Sieges of the Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI), Belmont;
1862 (MARCH-APRIL), NEW
Madrid and Island No. 10;
1862 (APRIL), New Orleans;
1862 (MAY-JULY), First Vicksburg attack;
1862 (JUNE), Memphis;
1862 (DECEMBER), Second Vicksburg attack;
1863 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (APRIL-JULY),
Siege and capture of Vicksburg;
1863 (MAY-JULY), Port Hudson and the clear opening of the River.
----------MISSISSIPPI RIVER: End--------
{2190}
MISSISSIPPI SCHEME, John Law's.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: Start--------
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1763.
Cession of the eastern side of the river to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: A. D. 1803.
Purchase of the western side by the United States.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
----------MISSISSIPPI VALLEY: End--------
MISSOLONGHI, Siege and capture of (1825-1826).
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------MISSOURI: Start--------
MISSOURI: A. D. 1719-1732.
First development of lead mines by the French.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1763-1765.
French withdrawal to the West of the Mississippi.
The founding of St. Louis.
See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1803.
Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1804-1812.
Upper Louisiana organized as the Territory of Louisiana.
The changing of its name to Missouri.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1804-1812.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1819.
Arkansas detached.
See ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1821.
Admission to the Union.
The Compromise concerning Slavery.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1854-1859.
The Kansas Struggle.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (February-July).
The baffling of the Secessionists.
Blair, Lyon and the Home Guards of St. Louis.
The capture of Camp Jackson.
Battle of Boonville.
A loyal State Government organized.
The seizure of arsenals and arms by the secessionists of the
Atlantic and Gulf States "naturally, directed the attention of
the leaders of the different political parties in Missouri to
the arsenal in St. Louis, and set them to work planning how
they might get control of the 40,000 muskets and other
munitions of war which it was known to contain. …
Satisfied that movements were on foot among irresponsible
parties, Unionist as well as Secessionist, to take possession
of this post, General D. M. Frost, of the Missouri state
militia, a graduate of West Point and a thorough soldier, is
said to have called Governor Jackson's attention to the
necessity of 'looking after' it. … Jackson, however, needed
no prompting. … He did not hesitate to give Frost authority
to seize the arsenal, whenever in his judgment it might become
necessary to do so. Meanwhile he was to assist in protecting
it against mob violence of any kind or from any source. …
Frost, however, was not the only person in St. Louis who had
his eyes fixed upon the arsenal and its contents. Frank Blair
was looking longingly in the same direction, and was already
busily engaged in organizing the bands which, supplied with
guns from this very storehouse, enabled him, some four months
later, to lay such a heavy hand upon Missouri. Just then, it
is true, he could not arm them, … but he did not permit this
to interfere with the work of recruiting and drilling. That
went on steadily, and as a consequence, when the moment came
for action, Blair was able to appear at the decisive point
with a well-armed force, ten times as numerous as that which
his opponents could bring against him. In the mean time,
whilst these two, or rather three, parties (for Frost can
hardly be termed a secessionist, though as an officer in the
service of the State he was willing to obey the orders of his
commander) were watching each other, the federal government
awoke from its lethargy, and began to concentrate troops in
St. Louis for the protection of its property. … By the 18th
of February, the day of the election of delegates to the
convention which pronounced so decidedly against secession,
there were between four and five hundred men behind the
arsenal walls. … General Harney, who was in command of the
department and presumably familiar with its condition, under
date of February 19, notified the authorities at Washington
that there was no danger of an attack, and never had been. …
Such was not the opinion of Captain Nathaniel Lyon, who had
arrived at the arsenal on the 6th of February, and who was
destined, in the short space of the coming six months, to
write his name indelibly in the history of the State. …
Under the stimulating influence of two such spirits as Blair
and … [Lyon] the work of preparation went bravely on. By the
middle of April, four regiments had been enlisted, and Lyon,
who was now in command of the arsenal, though not of the
department, proceeded to arm them in accordance with an order
which Blair had procured from Washington. Backed by this
force, Blair felt strong enough to set up an opposition to the
state government, and accordingly, when Jackson refused to
furnish the quota of troops assigned to Missouri under
President Lincoln's call of April 15, 1861 [see UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)], he telegraphed to Washington
that if an order to muster the men into the service was sent
to Captain Lyon 'the requisition would be filled in two days.'
The order was duly forwarded, and five regiments having been
sworn in instead of four, as called for, Blair was offered the
command. This he declined, and, on his recommendation, Lyon
was elected in his place. On the 7th and 8th of May another
brigade was organized. … This made ten regiments of
volunteers, besides several companies of regulars and a
battery of artillery, that were now ready for service; and as
General Harney, whose relatives and associates were suspected
of disloyalty, had been ordered to Washington to explain his
position, Lyon was virtually in command of the department. …
Jackson, … though possessed of but little actual power, was
unwilling to give up the contest without an effort. He did not
accept the decision of the February election as final. …
Repairing to St. Louis, as soon as the adjournment of the
General Assembly had left him free, he began at once, in
conjunction with certain leading secessionists, to concert
measures for arming the militia of the State. …
{2191}
To this end, the seizure of the arsenal was held to be a
prerequisite, and General Frost was preparing a memorial
showing how this could best be done, when the surrender of
Fort Sumter and the President's consequent call for troops
hurried Jackson into a position of antagonism to the federal
government. … He sent messengers to the Confederate
authorities at Montgomery, Alabama, asking them to supply him
with the guns that were needed for the proposed attack on the
arsenal; and he summoned the General Assembly to meet at
Jefferson City on the 2d of May, to deliberate upon such
measures as might be deemed necessary for placing the State in
a position to defend herself. He also ordered, as he was
authorized to do under the law, the commanders of the several
military districts to hold the regular yearly encampments for
the purpose of instructing their men in drill and discipline.
… Practically its effect was limited to the first or Frost's
brigade, as that was the only one that had been organized
under the law. On the 3d of May, this little band, numbering
less than 700 men, pitched their tents in a wooded valley in
the outskirts of the city of St. Louis, and named it Camp
Jackson, in honor of the governor. It is described as being
surrounded on all sides, at short range, by commanding hills;
it was, moreover, open to a charge of cavalry in any and every
direction, and the men were supplied with but five rounds of
ammunition each, hardly enough for guard purposes. In a word,
it was defenseless, and this fact is believed to be conclusive
in regard to the peaceful character of the camp as it was
organized. … Lyon … announced his intention of seizing the
entire force at the camp, without any ceremony other than a
demand for its surrender. … Putting his troops in motion
early in the morning of the 10th of May; he surrounded Camp
Jackson and demanded its surrender. As Frost could make no
defense against the overwhelming odds brought against him, he
was of course obliged to comply; and his men, having been
disarmed, were marched to the arsenal, where they were
paroled. … After the surrender, and whilst the prisoners
were standing in line, waiting for the order to march, a crowd
of men, women and children collected and began to abuse the
home guards, attacking them with stones and other missiles. It
is even said that several shots were fired at them, but this
lacks confirmation. According to Frost, who was at the head of
the column of prisoners, the first intimation of firing was
given by a single shot, followed almost immediately by volley
firing, which is said to have been executed with precision
considering the rawness of the troops. When the fusillade was
checked, it was found that 28 persons had been killed or
mortally wounded, among whom were three of the prisoners, two
women, and one child. … Judging this action by the reasons
assigned for it, and by its effect throughout the State, it
must be pronounced a blunder. So far from intimidating the
secessionists, it served only to exasperate them; and it drove
not a few Union men, among them General Sterling Price, into
the ranks of the opposition and ultimately into the
Confederate army."
L. Carr,
Missouri,
chapter 14.
When news of the capture of Camp Jackson reached Jefferson
City, where the legislature was in session, Governor Jackson
at once ordered a bridge on the railroad from St. Louis to be
destroyed, and the legislature made haste to pass several
bills in the interest of the rebellion, including one which