The story

Peace of Bologna, 23 June 1796

Peace of Bologna, 23 June 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.

Peace of Bologna, 23 June 1796

The Peace of Bologna (23 June 1796) ended Napoleon's first invasion of the Papal States, carried out to satisfy the French Directory. In June 1796 Napoleon captured Ferrara and Bologna, in the northern Papal States. Pope Pius VI responded to this by requesting an armistice. Napoleon had no interest in conducting a long campaign in central Italy, and imposed relatively generous terms. The French were allowed to occupy Bologna and Ferrara, securing the southern approaches to Mantua, then in the first month of the eight month long siege. The Pope also had to pay 21 millions francs and surrender 100 pictures, 500 manuscripts and busts of Junius and Marcus Brutus, two Republic heroes.

The French Directory was not satisfied with the Peace of Bologna and refused to ratify it until the Pope agreed to revoke a number of Briefs relating to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, one of the key planks of the French Revolution. Pius would not accept these terms, and after the fall of Mantua Napoleon conducted a second campaign against the Papal States. The Peace of Tolentino of 19 February 1797 stripped much more territory from the Pope.

Napoleonic Home Page | Books on the Napoleonic Wars | Subject Index: Napoleonic Wars

Peace of Bologna, 23 June 1796 - History

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, with additional article also Ship-Signals Agreement. The treaty was sealed at Morocco with the seal of the Emperor of Morocco June 23, 1786 (25 Shaban, A. H. 1200), and delivered to Thomas Barclay, American Agent, June 28, 1786 (1 Ramadan, A. H. 1200). Original in Arabic. The additional article was signed and sealed at Morocco on behalf of Morocco July 15, 1786 (18 Ramadan, A. H. 1200). Original in Arabic. The Ship-Signals Agreement was signed at Morocco July 6, 1786 (9 Ramadan, A. H. 1200). Original in English.

Certified English translations of the treaty and of the additional article were incorporated in a document signed and sealed by the Ministers Plenipotentiary of the United States, Thomas Jefferson at Paris January 1, 1787, and John Adams at London January 25, 1787.

Treaty and additional article ratified by the United States July 18, 1787. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Treaty and additional article proclaimed July 18, 1787.

Ship-Signals Agreement not specifically included in the ratification and not proclaimed but copies ordered by Congress July 23, 1787, to be sent to the Executives of the States (Secret Journals of Congress, IV, 869 but see the notes as to this reference).

[Certified Translation of the Treaty and of the Additional Article, with Approval by Jefferson and Adams)

To all Persons to whom these Presents shall come or be made known- Whereas the United States of America in Congress assembled by their Commission bearing date the twelvth day of May One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty four thought proper to constitute John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson their Ministers Plenipotentiary, giving to them or a Majority of them full Powers to confer, treat & negotiate with the Ambassador, Minister or Commissioner of His Majesty the Emperor of Morocco concerning a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, to make & receive propositions for such Treaty and to conclude and sign the same, transmitting it to the United States in Congress assembled for their final Ratification, And by one other (commission bearing date the Eleventh day of March One thousand Seven hundred & Eighty five did further empower the said Ministers Plenipotentiary or a majority of them, by writing under the* hands and Seals to appoint such Agent in the said Business as they might think proper with Authority under the directions and Instructions of the said Ministers to commence & prosecute the said Negotiations & Conferences for the said Treaty provided that the said Treaty should be signed by the said Ministers: And Whereas, We the said John Adams & Thomas Jefferson two of the said Ministers Plenipotentiary (the said Benjamin Franklin being absent) by writing under the Hand and Seal of the said John Adams at London October the fifth, One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty five, & of the said Thomas Jefferson at Paris October the Eleventh of the same Year, did appoint Thomas Barclay, Agent in the Business aforesaid, giving him the Powers therein, which by the said second Commission we were authorized to give, and the said Thomas Barclay in pursuance thereof, hath arranged Articles for a Treaty of Amity and Commerce between the United States of America and His Majesty the Emperor of Morocco, which Articles written in the Arabic Language, confirmed by His said Majesty the Emperor of Morocco & seal'd with His Royal Seal, being translated into the Language of the said United States of America, together with the Attestations thereto annexed are in the following Words, To Wit.

In the name of Almighty God,

This is a Treaty of Peace and Friendship established between us and the United States of America, which is confirmed, and which we have ordered to be written in this Book and sealed with our Royal Seal at our Court of Morocco on the twenty fifth day of the blessed Month of Shaban, in the Year One thousand two hundred, trusting in God it will remain permanent.

We declare that both Parties have agreed that this Treaty consisting of twenty five Articles shall be inserted in this Book and delivered to the Honorable Thomas Barclay, the Agent of the United States now at our Court, with whose Approbation it has been made and who is duly authorized on their Part, to treat with us concerning all the Matters contained therein.

If either of the Parties shall be at War with any Nation whatever, the other Party shall not take a Commission from the Enemy nor fight under their Colors.

If either of the Parties shall be at War with any Nation whatever and take a Prize belonging to that Nation, and there shall be found on board Subjects or Effects belonging to either of the Parties, the Subjects shall be set at Liberty and the Effects returned to the Owners. And if any Goods belonging to any Nation, with whom either of the Parties shall be at War, shall be loaded on Vessels belonging to the other Party, they shall pass free and unmolested without any attempt being made to take or detain them.

A Signal or Pass shall be given to all Vessels belonging to both Parties, by which they are to be known when they meet at Sea, and if the Commander of a Ship of War of either Party shall have other Ships under his Convoy, the Declaration of the Commander shall alone be sufficient to exempt any of them from examination.

If either of the Parties shall be at War, and shall meet a Vessel at Sea, belonging to the other, it is agreed that if an examination is to be made, it shall be done by sending a Boat with two or three Men only, and if any Gun shall be Bred and injury done without Reason, the offending Party shall make good all damages.

If any Moor shall bring Citizens of the United States or their Effects to His Majesty, the Citizens shall immediately be set at Liberty and the Effects restored, and in like Manner, if any Moor not a Subject of these Dominions shall make Prize of any of the Citizens of America or their Effects and bring them into any of the Ports of His Majesty, they shall be immediately released, as they will then be considered as under His Majesty's Protection.

If any Vessel of either Party shall put into a Port of the other and have occasion for Provisions or other Supplies, they shall be furnished without any interruption or molestation.

If any Vessel of the United States shall meet with a Disaster at Sea and put into one of our Ports to repair, she shall be at Liberty to land and reload her cargo, without paying any Duty whatever.

If any Vessel of the United States shall be cast on Shore on any Part of our Coasts, she shall remain at the disposition of the Owners and no one shall attempt going near her without their Approbation, as she is then considered particularly under our Protection and if any Vessel of the United States shall be forced to put into our Ports, by Stress of weather or otherwise, she shall not be compelled to land her Cargo, but shall remain in tranquillity untill the Commander shall think proper to proceed on his Voyage.

If any Vessel of either of the Parties shall have an engagement with a Vessel belonging to any of the Christian Powers within gunshot of the Forts of the other, the Vessel so engaged shall be defended and protected as much as possible untill she is in safety And if any American Vessel shall be cast on shore on the Coast of Wadnoon (1) or any coast thereabout, the People belonging to her shall be protected, and assisted untill by the help of God, they shall be sent to their Country.

If we shall be at War with any Christian Power and any of our Vessels sail from the Ports of the United States, no Vessel belonging to the enemy shall follow untill twenty four hours after the Departure of our Vessels and the same Regulation shall be observed towards the American Vessels sailing from our Ports.-be their enemies Moors or Christians.

If any Ship of War belonging to the United States shall put into any of our Ports, she shall not be examined on any Pretence whatever, even though she should have fugitive Slaves on Board, nor shall the Governor or Commander of the Place compel them to be brought on Shore on any pretext, nor require any payment for them.

If a Ship of War of either Party shall put into a Port of the other and salute, it shall be returned from the Fort, with an equal Number of Guns, not with more or less.

The Commerce with the United States shall be on the same footing as is the Commerce with Spain or as that with the most favored Nation for the time being and their Citizens shall be respected and esteemed and have full Liberty to pass and repass our Country and Sea Ports whenever they please without interruption.

Merchants of both Countries shall employ only such interpreters, & such other Persons to assist them in their Business, as they shall think proper. No Commander of a Vessel shall transport his Cargo on board another Vessel, he shall not be detained in Port, longer than he may think proper, and all persons employed in loading or unloading Goods or in any other Labor whatever, shall be paid at the Customary rates, not more and not less.

In case of a War between the Parties, the Prisoners are not to be made Slaves, but to be exchanged one for another, Captain for Captain, Officer for Officer and one private Man for another and if there shall prove a deficiency on either side, it shall be made up by the payment of one hundred Mexican Dollars for each Person wanting And it is agreed that all Prisoners shall be exchanged in twelve Months from the Time of their being taken, and that this exchange may be effected by a Merchant or any other Person authorized by either of the Parties.

Merchants shall not be compelled to buy or Sell any kind of Goods but such as they shall think proper and may buy and sell all sorts of Merchandise but such as are prohibited to the other Christian Nations.

All goods shall be weighed and examined before they are sent on board, and to avoid all detention of Vessels, no examination shall afterwards be made, unless it shall first be proved, that contraband Goods have been sent on board, in which Case the Persons who took the contraband Goods on board shall be punished according to the Usage and Custom of the Country and no other Person whatever shall be injured, nor shall the Ship or Cargo incur any Penalty or damage whatever.

No vessel shall be detained in Port on any presence whatever, nor be obliged to take on board any Article without the consent of the Commander, who shall be at full Liberty to agree for the Freight of any Goods he takes on board.

If any of the Citizens of the United States, or any Persons under their Protection, shall have any disputes with each other, the Consul shall decide between the Parties and whenever the Consul shall require any Aid or Assistance from our Government to enforce his decisions it shall be immediately granted to him.

If a Citizen of the United States should kill or wound a Moor, or on the contrary if a Moor shall kill or wound a Citizen of the United States, the Law of the Country shall take place and equal Justice shall be rendered, the Consul assisting at the Tryal, and if any Delinquent shall make his escape, the Consul shall not be answerable for him in any manner whatever.

If an American Citizen shall die in our Country and no Will shall appear, the Consul shall take possession of his Effects, and if there shall be no Consul, the Effects shall be deposited in the hands of some Person worthy of Trust, untill the Party shall appear who has a Right to demand them, but if the Heir to the Person deceased be present, the Property shall be delivered to him without interruption and if a Will shall appear, the Property shall descend agreeable to that Will, as soon as the Consul shall declare the Validity thereof.

The Consuls of the United States of America shall reside in any Sea Port of our Dominions that they shall think proper And they shall be respected and enjoy all the Privileges which the Consuls of any other Nation enjoy, and if any of the Citizens of the United States shall contract any Debts or engagements, the Consul shall not be in any Manner accountable for them, unless he shall have given a Promise in writing for the payment or fulfilling thereof, without which promise in Writing no Application to him for any redress shall be made.

If any differences shall arise by either Party infringing on any of the Articles of this Treaty, Peace and Harmony shall remain notwithstanding in the fullest force, untill a friendly Application shall be made for an Arrangement, and untill that Application shall be rejected, no appeal shall be made to Arms. And if a War shall break out between the Parties, Nine Months shall be granted to all the Subjects of both Parties, to dispose of their Effects and retire with their Property. And it is further declared that whatever indulgences in Trade or otherwise shall be granted to any of the Christian Powers, the Citizens of the United States shall be equally entitled to them.

This Treaty shall continue in full Force, with the help of God for Fifty Years.

We have delivered this Book into the Hands of the before-mentioned Thomas Barclay on the first day of the blessed Month of Ramadan, in the Year One thousand two hundred.

I certify that the annex'd is a true Copy of the Translation made by Issac Cardoza Nunez, Interpreter at Morocco, of the treaty between the Emperor of Morocco and the United States of America.

Cisalpine Republic

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Cisalpine Republic, French République Cisalpine, Italian Repubblica Cisalpina, republic formed by General Napoleon Bonaparte in June 1797 in conquered territories centred in the Po River valley of northern Italy. Its territory first embraced Lombardy, then extended to Emilia, Modena, and Bologna (collectively known for some months previously as the Cispadane Republic q.v.), and then drew from parts of the Venetian hinterland and from the Swiss cantons of the Valtellina. The republic was confirmed in the Franco-Austrian Treaty of Campo Formio (Oct. 17, 1797).

The Cisalpine Republic had a constitution and government modeled on that of the Directory in France. It was nominally independent, maintaining an embassy in Paris, but French troops and monthly subsidies tied it firmly to France. In 1801 it was reconstituted as the Italian Republic with Bonaparte as its dictatorial head, and it ceased existence altogether in 1805 in the creation of the Kingdom of Italy.


With the retirement of Washington after two terms, both parties sought the presidency for the first time. Before the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804, each elector was to vote for two persons, but was not able to indicate which vote was for president and which was for vice president. Instead, the recipient of the most electoral votes would become president and the runner-up vice president. As a result, both parties ran multiple candidates for president, in hopes of keeping one of their opponents from being the runner-up. These candidates were the equivalent of modern-day running mates, but under the law they were all candidates for president. Thus, both Adams and Jefferson were technically opposed by several members of their own parties. The plan was for one of the electors to cast a vote for the main party nominee (Adams or Jefferson) and a candidate besides the primary running mate, thus ensuring that the main nominee would have one more vote than his running mate.

Federalist candidates Edit

The Federalists' nominee was John Adams of Massachusetts, the incumbent vice president and a leading voice during the Revolutionary period. Most Federalist leaders viewed Adams, who had twice been elected vice president, as the natural heir to Washington. Adams's main running mate was Thomas Pinckney, a former governor of South Carolina who had negotiated the Treaty of San Lorenzo with Spain. Pinckney agreed to run after the first choice of many party leaders, former Governor Patrick Henry of Virginia, declined to enter the race. Alexander Hamilton, who competed with Adams for leadership of the party, worked behind the scenes to elect Pinckney over Adams by convincing Jefferson electors from South Carolina to cast their second votes for Pinckney. Hamilton did prefer Adams to Jefferson, and he urged Federalist electors to cast their votes for Adams and Pinckney. [6]

Democratic-Republican candidates Edit

The Democratic-Republicans united behind former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who had co-founded the party with James Madison and others in opposition to the policies of Hamilton. Congressional Democratic-Republicans sought to also unite behind one vice presidential nominee. With Jefferson's popularity strongest in the South, many party leaders wanted a Northern candidate to serve as Jefferson's running mate. Popular choices included Senator Pierce Butler of South Carolina and three New Yorkers: Senator Aaron Burr, Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, and former Governor George Clinton, to be the party's 1796 candidate for vice president. A group of Democratic-Republican leaders met in June 1796 and agreed to support Jefferson for president and Burr for vice president. [6] [7]

Tennessee was admitted into the United States after the 1792 election, increasing the Electoral College to 138 electors.

Under the system in place prior to the 1804 ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, electors were to cast votes for two persons for president the runner-up in the presidential race was elected vice-president. If no candidate won votes from a majority of the Electoral College, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to select the winner. Each party intended to manipulate the results by having some of their electors cast one vote for the intended presidential candidate and one vote for somebody besides the intended vice-presidential candidate, leaving their vice-presidential candidate a few votes shy of their presidential candidate. However, all electoral votes were cast on the same day, and communications between states were extremely slow at that time, making it very difficult to coordinate which electors were to manipulate their vote for vice-president. Additionally, there were rumors that southern electors pledged to Jefferson were coerced by Hamilton to give their second vote to Pinckney in hope of electing him president instead of Adams.

Campaigning centered in the swing states of New York and Pennsylvania. [8] Adams and Jefferson won a combined 139 electoral votes from the 138 members of the Electoral College. The Federalists swept every state north of the Mason-Dixon line, with the exception of Pennsylvania. However, one Pennsylvania elector voted for Adams. The Democratic-Republicans won the votes of most Southern electors, but the electors of Maryland and Delaware gave a majority of their votes to Federalist candidates, while North Carolina and Virginia both gave Adams one electoral vote.

Nationwide, most electors voted for Adams and a second Federalist or for Jefferson and a second Democratic-Republican, but there were several exceptions to this rule. One elector in Maryland voted for both Adams and Jefferson, and two electors cast votes for Washington, who had not campaigned and was not formally affiliated with either party. Pinckney won the second votes from a majority of the electors who voted for Adams, but 21 electors from New England and Maryland cast their second votes for other candidates, including Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth. Those who voted for Jefferson were significantly less united in their second choice, though Burr won a plurality of the Jefferson electors. All eight electors in Pinckney's home state of South Carolina, as well as at least one elector in Pennsylvania, cast their ballots for Jefferson and Pinckney. In North Carolina, Jefferson won 11 votes, but the remaining 13 votes were spread among six different candidates from both parties. In Virginia, most electors voted for Jefferson and Governor Samuel Adams of Massachusetts. [9]

The end result was that Adams received 71 electoral votes, one more than required to be elected president. If any two of the three Adams electors in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina had voted with the rest of their states, it would have flipped the election. Jefferson received 68 votes, nine more than Pinckney, and was elected vice president. Burr finished in a distant fourth place with 30 votes. Nine other individuals received the remaining 48 electoral votes. If Pinckney had won the second votes of all of the New England electors who voted for Adams, he would have been elected president over Adams and Jefferson.

Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote (a), (b), (c) Electoral vote
Count Percentage
John Adams Federalist Massachusetts 35,726 53.4% 71
Thomas Jefferson Democratic-Republican Virginia 31,115 46.6% 68
Thomas Pinckney Federalist South Carolina 59
Aaron Burr Democratic-Republican New York 30
Samuel Adams Democratic-Republican Massachusetts 15
Oliver Ellsworth Federalist Connecticut 11
George Clinton Democratic-Republican New York 7
John Jay Federalist New York 5
James Iredell Federalist North Carolina 3
George Washington Independent Virginia 2
John Henry Federalist [10] Maryland 2
Samuel Johnston Federalist North Carolina 2
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Federalist South Carolina 1
Total 66,841 100.0% 276
Needed to win 70

Source (Popular Vote): U.S. President National Vote. Our Campaigns. (February 11, 2006).
Source (Popular Vote): A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825 [11]
Source (Electoral Vote): "Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996". National Archives and Records Administration . Retrieved July 30, 2005 .

(a) Votes for Federalist electors have been assigned to John Adams and votes for Democratic-Republican electors have been assigned to Thomas Jefferson.
(b) Only 9 of the 16 states used any form of popular vote.
(c) Those states that did choose electors by popular vote had widely varying restrictions on suffrage via property requirements.

Electoral votes by state Edit

State Candidates
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
New York 12 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Carolina 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
South Carolina 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
Total 138 71 68 59 30 15 11 7 5 3 2 2 2 1

Popular vote by state Edit

While popular vote data is available for some states, presidential elections were vastly different in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Instead of the name of the presidential candidates, voters would see the name of an elector. Confusion over who the elector would vote for was common. Several states also elected a statewide slate of electors (for example, since Thomas Jefferson won the popular vote in Georgia, the slate of four Jefferson electors was chosen) but because of the archaic voting system, votes were tallied by elector, not candidate. The popular vote totals used are the elector from each party with the highest total of votes. The vote totals of Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee appear to be lost.

The Bologna Massacre, the ‘Strategy of Tension’ and Operation Gladio

On the sweltering morning of August 2, 1980, a powerful explosion blew apart the central train station in Bologna, Italy, killing 85 people and wounding 200 more. To this day, it is uncertain exactly who is behind the deadliest terrorist attack in modern Italian history. It is clear that right-wing extremists including neo-fascists, Italian secret service agents and rogue outlaw Freemasons carried out the attack. What is less clear is whether, or to what extent, the bombing was part of a clandestine, Europe-wide right-wing state terror operation.

Years of Lead

The period from the late 1960s through the 1980s was one of social and political turmoil in Italy known as the anni di piombo, or years of lead. Terrorism from both the far right and far left was commonplace during these deadly decades, in which some 12,000 attacks claimed hundreds of lives. Until Bologna, the most infamous of these was the kidnapping and murder of former prime minister Aldo Moro by the communist Red Brigades in 1978.

Bologna, capital of the prosperous Emilia-Romagna region in northeastern Italy, was — and remains — a hotbed of political activity. Home to the world’s oldest university, the city is known by locals as Bologna la dotta, or Bologna the Learned. It is also called Bologna la rossa, or Bologna the Red, as the city has long been a stronghold of the Communist Party. Home to some of the world’s finest food and wine and brimming with cultural treasures, the city has been described as the perfect combination of hedonism and communism.

Still, there was bloodshed in Bologna during those Years of Lead. After police shot and killed Francesco Lorusso, a 24-year-old far-left militant, on March 11, 1977, the city erupted in street clashes that lasted for days. The Italian government sent armored combat vehicles into the university quarter and other hot spots to quash what Francesco Cossiga, the interior minister, called “guerrilla warfare.”

On June 27, 1980, Itavia Flight 870, a DC-9 passenger jet en route from Bologna to Palermo in Sicily, crashed into the Tyrrhenian Sea near the island of Ustica, killing all 81 passengers and crew on board. Like the Bologna station bombing, the cause and the culprit behind the disaster remain shrouded in much mystery. At the time, Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga said the plane was accidentally shot down by French fighter jets engaged in a dogfight with Libyan warplanes over the Mediterranean Sea. However, a 1994 report concluded that a terrorist bomb had brought down the plane. This solved nothing, for in 2013 Italy’s top criminal court affirmed the stray missile theory. Regardless of who is responsible for the Ustica massacre, the tragedy weighed heavily on Bologna’s public consciousness during the summer of 1980, the nadir of the Years of Lead.

Ticking Time Bomb

It was sun, sand and sea, not death and destruction, that were on the minds of many of the thousands of travelers who packed into Bologna’s main train station, the Stazione di Bologna Centrale, on that hot morning of August 2, 1980. Summer holidays were just beginning and many of the travelers that day were students on their way to the Adriatic seashore. As the temperature soared, the air-conditioned second-class waiting room quickly filled to capacity. No one noticed the suitcase someone slipped into the crowded room, right up against a load-bearing wall to maximize death and destruction. No one knew that packed inside were 23 kilograms (50 pounds) of military-grade explosives timed to go off at 10:25 am.

Tonino Braccia was a 19-year-old policeman waiting for a train to Rome, where he was to attend his cousin’s wedding. “It was a really beautiful day, he recalled. “Scorching hot.” Braccia said he was “feeling really good” that morning, as his commander had granted him three days’ special leave to travel to the capital. “I was smoking a cigarette and I went into the waiting room but there wasn’t anywhere to sit, it was completely full,” he told the BBC. “So I leaned against the door and looked outside.”

Malcolm Quantrill, a 44-year-old university professor from London, had just reached the ticket window in the booking hall when he suddenly saw a flash of yellow light. “I did not hear any explosion, just the crash of masonry falling and the sound of breaking glass as the ticket window disintegrated,” he said.

Braccia doesn’t remember the explosion either. “I have tried and tried to remember the moment of the explosion but I really can’t remember anything, even the noise,” he said. “Probably because I was too near it — just two meters away.” The next thing he remembers is waking up under a train as water from a firefighters’ hose dripped down on his face. Most of his clothes had been blown off.

“I heard people screaming and shouting,” recalled Braccia. “There were people running. An acrid smell. My mouth tasted bitter and horrible. There was smelly dust everywhere. Everything was yellow. Blood was pouring out of my mouth, my eyes, my ears, my nose.” He would lose one of his eyes, as well as the use of one of his arms. He is also partially deaf. The young policeman would spend two weeks in an induced coma and undergo 24 operations over the coming years.

Giuseppe Rosa, a bus driver parked outside the station, will never forget the blast. Rosa said he “heard an enormous bang” and then “part of the roof lifted into the air and fell down on itself.” A massive, gaping hole had been blown in the center of the station, the twisted steel girders a testament to the sheer power of the bomb. Rubble was strewn about. From the chaos Quantrill, the British professor, emerged, shocked and disoriented. “There was blood all over me. Everyone was running, shouting and screaming.”

Amid the smoldering debris, weeping rescue workers collected blasted bodies and bits of bodies. Bologna residents joined travelers in offering first aid to injured victims and in digging dead and wounded people from the rubble. Buses, taxis and private cars rushed victims to hospital.

The bombing of Bologna Centrale — the strage di Bologna to Italians — remains the most devastating terrorist attack in Italian history. In the history of modern terror attacks up to that time, only the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants led by future Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin killed more people. The final death toll in Bologna was 85, with 200 others injured. The youngest to die that day was a 3-year-old girl. The oldest victim was 86 years old.

Strategy of Tension

At first, Italian government and police officials attributed to blast to an accidental explosion, perhaps of an old boiler. Authorities soon received calls from people on both the far right and far left claiming responsibility for the attack. However, it was soon apparent that this was no communist plot. Rather, it was the result of not-so-secret collusion between state officials, fascist terrorists and agents provocateurs, the notorious strategia della tensione, or Strategy of Tension. 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

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

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. All rights reserved.
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.

Watch the video: Bologna, where every day is special. (August 2022).