isolated from the rest of the confederacy by the
opening of the Mississippi. The close of the rebell-
ion found Texas with an increased black and a
decreased white population. June 17, 1865, A. J.
Hamilton was appointed military governor, and
under his control the convention of 1866 was held
and the revised constitution adopted. The " con-
servative," or democratic, party nominated Gov.
Throckmorton, who was elected by 48,631 votes
to 12,051 for E. M. Pease, republican. The new
legislature, almost entirely democratic, refused to
ratify the 14th amendment, and requested the
withdrawal of federal troops from the state. In
1867 the reconstruction acts took effect. March
19, Maj. Gen. P. H. Sheridan took command of
the department. He almost immediately became
dissatisfied with the state government, and re-
moved Gov. Throckmorton July 30, and most of
the other state officers Aug. 29, replacing them by
republicans. Aug. 29, Sheridan was superseded
by Gen. Hancock, who soon came into collision
with the new governor, Pease. The latter dis-
trusted the state courts, and wished to have crimi-
nals tried by military commission, which Hancock
declined to allow. July 28, 1868, Gen. J. J.
Reynolds took command of the state.
- The pro-
visions of the reconstruction acts for registration
and voting had reduced the democratic party to
a nullity. In the dominant party there were two
factions. The radical republicans, headed by E. J.
Davis, wished to maintain the disfranchisement
of ex-rebels, and to divide the state. The con-
servative republicans, headed by the former mili-
tary governor, Hamilton, opposed both of the lead-
ing features of the radical programme. The lat-
ter naturally received all the support which the
democrats could give them. The convention of
1868-9 was stormy throughout, and at its final
adjournment Davis and Hamilton became the
opposing candidates for governor. Davis was
elected, and the radicals also obtained a plurality
in the legislature over both the conservatives and
the democrats. The new legislature authorized
the governor, under specified conditions, to declare
martial law; and organized a state police force.
In 1870, during the sitting of the legislature, mar-
tial law was accordingly declared in three counties,
and on one of them a penalty of $50,000 was im-
posed and collected. The legislature protested
against this action; the democrats and conserva-
tives united to oppose it; and in the autumn
elections they secured three of the state's four
congressmen. In 1873 the republican party of the
state was finally overthrown. For governor,
Richard Coke had 85,549 votes, and Davis 42,663,
and the democratic majorities for other officers
were equally heavy. Jan. 5, 1874, the state su-
preme court declared the law unconstitutional
under which the election had been conducted.
Gov. Davis therefore refused to give up his office,
and appealed to President Grant for federal troops
to support him. They were refused, for the reasor
that the governor had signed the election law, had
run for office under it, and should now submit to

the result of the election. He then desisted from opposition. Since that time the state has been overwhelmingly democratic in all elections. In 1880 the vote for governor was 166,303 for Roberts, democrat; 64,372 for Davis, republican; and 33,670 for Hamman, greenbacker. In 1882 there were twenty-nine democrats and two republicans in the state senate, and sixty-eight democrats, seven republicans, six independents, and two greenbackers in the house. One of the state's six congressmen, 1879-83, is a democratic greenbacker. — Among the political leaders of the state have been the following, all democrats unless otherwise specified | Richard Coke, governor 1873-7, United States senator 1877-83; David B. Culberson, congressman 1875-83; Andrew J. Hamilton, congressman 185961, military governor in 1862, provisional governor 1865-6; Morgan C. Hamilton (elder brother of the preceding), radical republican United States senator 1870-77; John Hancock, district judge 1851-5,congressman 1872-7; Sam Houston (see his name); David S. Kaufmann, representative and senator 1839-45, congressman 1846–51; S. B. Maxey, confederate major general, and United States senator 1875-87; Roger Q. Mills, congressman 1873-83; John H. Reagan, congressman 1857-61, confederate postmaster general 1861-5, congressman 1875– 83; Thos. J. Rusk, secretary of war of the republic 1836-8, chief justice 1838-42, and United States. senator 1846-56; Gustave Schleicher, congressman 1875-9; James W. Throckmorton, one of the seven voters against secession in 1861, governor 1866-7, congressman 1875-9; Lewis T. Wigfall, United States senator 1860-61, confederate states senator 1862-5.-See authorities under ANNEXATIONS, III. COMPROMISES, V.; 2 Poore's Federal and State Constitutions; 2 Hough's American Constitutions, Kennedy's Rise and Progress of Texas (1844); H. S. Foote's Texas and the Texans (1841); Rankin's Texas in 1850; Olmsted's Journey through Texas (1857); De Cordova's Resources and Public Men of Texas (1858), 16 Democratic Review, 282 (the presidents of Texas); Lester's Sam Houston and his Republic, and review of it in 5 Whig Review, 566; Yoakum's History of Texas (to 1846); Gouge's Fiscal History of Texas (1852); Jones' Official Correspondence relating to the Republic of Texas (1859); Green's Expedition against Mier; Kendall's Texan Santa Fé Expedition (1850); Smith's Reminiscences of the Texas Republic (1876); Texas Almanac, 1873-5. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON.

THIRD ESTATE. The Tiers État in French history. Few political pamphlets made so great a noise as that published by the Abbé Siéyès in 1789, at the moment when France had elected the constituent assembly, and which can be summed up in the following terms: "What is the third estate? Everything. What has it been in the political order up to the present moment? Nothing. What does it ask? To be something." *

*The third edition of this pamphlet has this note: "This work, written during les Notables of 1788, was published in the first days of January, 1789.

'There are three grave errors in these words. In
the France of 1789, the third estate was not every-
thing. In the political order previous to 1789, the
third estate, far from being nothing, was daily be-
coming greater and more powerful. What M.
Siéyès and his friends asked for it in 1789 was not
that it should become something, but that it
should be everything. That the third estate was
not everything is proved by the revolution of
1789, which was its victory. Whatever may have
been the weaknesses and faults of its opponents, it
had to struggle greatly to overcome them, and the
struggle was so violent that the third estate was
decomposed in the struggle, and paid dearly for
the triumph which it won. Let the reader com-
pare to-day the pamphlet of the Abbé Siéyès with
the work of Léonce de Lavergne on the provincial
assemblies under Louis XIV. (Assemblées pro-
vinciales sous Louis XIV.), and he will see in the
light of contemporary documents, that if the third
estate was not everything in 1789, it was much,
enough indeed to become free and preponderant
without destroying everything that was not the
third estate. Excessive pretension arouses intract-
able resistance. The Abbé Siéyès did not tell all
that the third estate was in 1789, nor what its flat-sorbed the conquerors, and immobility remained
terers wished it might be. What his words con-
tain is not the truth of things, but a revolutionary
lie. — To take French history in its totality and
through all its phases, the third estate was the
most active and most decisive clement in French
civilization. Considered from the social point of
view, and in its relations with the various classes
which have lived together on French soil, what
has been called the third estate progressively ex-
tended and raised itself, and first greatly modified
and then decidedly rose above the others. If we
look from the political point of view, and follow
the third estate in its relations with the general
government of France, we shall find it at first an
ally during six centuries of royalty, laboring in
cessantly for the ruin of the feudal aristocracy,
and putting in its place a single power, a pure
monarchy, very near, in principle at least, to abso-
lute monarchy. But as soon as it gained this
victory and accomplished this revolution, the third
estate sought a new one; it attacked the single
power which it had so much contributed to estab-
dish, and it undertook to change the pure mon-
archy into a constitutional one. Under whatever
aspect we may consider it, whether we study the
progressive formation of French society, or that
of its governments, the third estate is the most
persistent and most powerful of the forces which
presided over French civilization. This fact is
unique in the history of the world. We recognize
in the destinies of the principal nations of Asia
and of ancient Europe, nearly all the great facts
which have agitated that of France; we find the
mingling of various races, the conquest of one
people by another, profound inequalities between
classes, and frequent changes in the forms of gov-
ernment and the extent of power. But nowhere
do we see a class appear which, beginning in a very

low estate, weak, despised, almost imperceptible
at its origin, rising by a continual movement and.
laboring without interruption, gaining strength
from time to time, acquiring successively all that
it lacked, wealth, enlightenment, influence, power;
changes the nature of society, the nature of the
government, and at last becomes dominant to
such a degree that one may venture to call it the
country itself. More than once in the history of
the world the external phenomena of this or that
political society have been the same as these men-
tioned here, but the similarity is merely apparent.
In India, for example, foreign invasions, the pas-
sage and settlement of various races on the same
soil, were frequently repeated; what was the re-
sult? The permanence of castes was not affected
thereby; society remained divided into distinct
and almost immovable classes-no invasion of one
caste by another, no general abolition of the rule
of castes by the triumph of one of them. After
India take China: there also history shows many
conquests similar to those of Europe by the Ger-
mans; there also, more than once, barbarous con-
querors settled in the midst of a conquered people.
What was the result? The conquered almost ab-

the ruling characteristic of the social condition. In western Asia, since the invasion of the Turks, the gulf between the victors and the vanquished could not be bridged over; no class of society, no event of history, had the power to abolish this first effect of the conquest. In Persia similar events have taken place; different races have struggled and mingled; they attained nothing but invincible anarchy, which lasts for centuries without change in the social condition of the country and without a prospect of developing a civilization. Leaving Asia, we turn to Grecian and Roman Europe. At the first glance, we seem to find some analogy between the progress of these brilliant societies and that of our own; but the analogy is merely apparent; there also we find nothing resembling the third estate and its history. The only fact which has appeared, to ingenious minds, somewhat similar to the struggle of the bourgeoisie of the middle ages against the feudal aristocracy, is the struggle between the plebeians and patricians of Rome; they have been sometimes compared. The comparison is altogether false. The struggle between the plebeians and patricians of Rome commenced in the infancy of the republic; it was not, as in France in the middle ages, the result of a slow, difficult and incomplete development of a class for a long period, very much inferior in power, in wealth and in credit, which gradually grows in extent and prominence, and at last engages in a real struggle with the highest class in the state. Niebuhr has proved, in his

History of Rome," that the struggle of the plebeians against the patricians was a consequence, and, as it were, a prolongation, of the war of conquest, the effort of the aristocracy of the cities conquered by Rome to share in the rights of the conquering aristocracy. The plebeian families

|

merous and considerable inequalities, which the unity of legislation and the similarity of civil rights neither prevent nor destroy. Among own. ers of real or movable property, land or capital, there are rich and poor; there are large, medium and small landowners. The great landowners may be less numerous and less wealthy, the medium and small may be more numerous and more powerful than formerly; that does not prevent the difference from being real, and great enough to create, in the social order, conditions profoundly different and unequal. In the professions called liberal, which live by their science and intelligence; among lawyers, physicians, scholars and literary men of every kind; some rise to the first rank, attract business and success, acquire fame, wealth and influence; others satisfy the wants of their families and the demands of their position with difficulty; others yet vegetate obscurely in distress, almost without employment. In other walks of life, in which labor is chiefly material and man: ual, there are also varieties and inequalities of condition: some, by intelligence and good conduct, accumulate capital and enter into paths of ease and advancement; others, either unintelligent or indolent or disorderly, remain in the narrow and precarious conditions of existence depending on wages alone. In all the extent of French civil society, in the midst of labor as well as property, the diversity and inequality of conditions appear, or continue, and co-exist with the unity of legislation and the similarity of rights. — How could it be otherwise? Let all human societies be examined, in all places and times: whatever be the variety of their origin, of their organization, of their government, of their extent, of their dura tion, of the kinds or degrees of their civilization, three types of social condition will be found in them all, always the same in essence: 1, men liv

were the principal families of the conquered populations; placed, by defeat, in an inferior position, they were none the less aristocratic families, formerly powerful in their city, surrounded by clients, and capable, from the first moment, of disputing power with their conquerors. There is nothing in this like that slow, obscure, painful labor of the modern bourgeoisie emancipating itself with great labor from the bonds of servitude, or a condition bordering on servitude, and employing centuries, not to dispute political power, but to win a civil existence. The more we examine the more we see that the French third estate is a new fact in the history of the world, and one which belongs exclusively to the civilization of modern Europe. - Not only is this fact new, but it has an altogether special interest for France. Nowhere has the bourgeoisie, the third estate, had a destiny so great, so fruitful, as that which fell to it in France. There were communes in all Europe, in Italy, in Spain, in Germany, in England, just as in France. Not only were these communes everywhere to be found, but the communes of France were not those which, as com munes, played the greatest rôle in history under that designation and in the middle ages. The Italian communes gave birth to glorious republics; the German communes became free sovereign cities, which have had their own history, and exercised much influence on the general history of Germany. The communes of England allied themselves to a part of the feudal aristocracy, and formed, together with it, the ruling house in the British parliament; and in this way played, at an early period, a powerful part in the history of their country. The French communes, in their period of activity under this name, were very far from rising through such political importance to this historical rank. And still it is in France that the population, the communes, the bourgeoi-ing from the income of their landed or movable. sie, were developed most completely, most efficiently, and ended by acquiring, in general society, the most decided preponderance. There have been communes in all Europe; there was really a third estate only in France; and the revolution of 1789, surely the greatest of European revolutions, was the work of the third estate. Since the outbreak and through all the vicissitudes, liberal or illiberal, of that mighty event, it is a commonplace unceasingly repeated, that there are no longer any classes in French society, but simply a nation of thirty-seven millions of persons. If it is meant by this that there are no longer privileges in France, that is to say, special laws or particular rights for certain families, certain estates, or certain occupations, and that legislation is the same, and movement perfectly free for all through all the degrees of the social scale, it is true; unity of legislation and similarity of rights are the essential and characteristic feature of civil society in France; an immense and excellent fact, new in the history of human societies. But under the rule of this fact, within this national unity and civil equality, there exist evident diversities, nu.

property, from land or capital, without seeking to increase it by their own assiduous labor; 2, men occupied in working and increasing by their own assiduous labor, real or personal property, land or capital, which they possess; 3, men living by their daily labor, without income from land or capital. And these diversities, these inequalities in the social condition of men, are not accidental facts, or peculiar to a given age or country; they are universal facts produced naturally in every human society, under circumstances and under laws dif· fering most widely from one another. — These facts exist in our time and among the French, as they have in other times and places. Modern society in France includes, and will not cease to include, social situations profoundly different and unequal, whether they be termed classes or not. What redounds to its honor is this, that privilege and immobility are no longer. attached to this. diversity of conditions; that there are no longer, among Frenchmen, special advantages legally granted to some, and inaccessible to others; that all paths to advancement are open and free to all; that personal merit and labor have, in the carcer

of numerous bloody persecutions resulted in a roll of converts numbering, in 1854, 500,000. Severe persecutions since that time have greatly reduced these figures. The murder of several French priests and a Spanish bishop led to the Franco-Spanish intervention of 1858. During the century of intercourse with France, these various "revolts" of the Annamese and subsequent negotiations have usually resulted in the gain of fresh slices of land and new commercial privileges. France sends her Jesuits, or secular priests, first, and the brandy and civilization" follow at the cannon's mouth. The treaty of 1874 gained her the six southern provinces of Cochin China, opened the port of Ha-noi, in Tonquin, to foreign trade, and guaranteed free transit from the sea to Yunnan. As usual with European powers in dealing with Asiatic nations, the French compelled the acceptance of their tariff; and custom house officers were duly installed at Haiphong and Ha-noi (called also Ke-cho, or the market). Owing to the unsettled state of the interior, caused by the ravages of the "Black Flags "-whether allies, invaders, or paid mercenaries of Annam, does not clearly appear-the Red river was not opened even in 1882, seven years after the treaty, and even the French settlement at Ha-noi was in danger. As a precautionary measure, the Saigon authorities dispatched re-enforcements to their nationals at the capital of Tonquin. The local mandarins, interpreting this as a menace, closed the Ha-noi citadel, and concentrated their forces. The French, taking alarm, resolved to precipitate the crisis, and on April 23, 1882, began to bombard the citadel (which, nearly a hundred years before, had been laid out by French engi neers), and carried it on the 26th by assault. They then proceeded to administer the custom house for the benefit of the French treasury. Meanwhile China had not been an indifferent spectator of French aggression carried on under cover of

graphical and commercial importance from its | easy access into the rich Chinese province of Yunnan. The Hong-kiang is practically a navigable stream, and the three southern provinces of China, Kwang-tung, Kwang-si and Yunnan border on Tonquin, which has a coast sufficiently accessible. Added to these advantages, its salubrity, and its resources of grain, timber and the precious metals, make it a most desirable acquisition for a European power anxious to extend its possessions in the east, or to magnify abroad prestige lost at home. The most valuable part of Tonquin is the delta near the sea formed by the four mouths of the Red river, near or in which are situated the chief towns of the province. These are Ha-noi, the capital, Nin-hai, Hai-phong, Bac-nin, Nambin and Min-bin. The climate is much healthier than in the two lower provinces of Annam, Cochin China or Saigon, the thermometer in December falling to 41°. The season from April to August is intensely hot, and the heavy rains are accom. panied by storms and typhoons, when the Red river overflows its banks, and spreads a fertilizing flood over the country, which afterward produces heavy crops of rice and other cereals. The delta is intersected by a multitude of watercourses both natural and artificial. The chief exports are rice, sugar, cotton, spices and varied tropical products, but the manufactures are restricted mainly to gongs and articles inlaid with mother-of-pearl. In religion, the mass of the natives are devotees to a form of Buddhism much corrupted by local superstitions; the literati are Confucianists. Their language, reduced to writing by the French missionaries, is a dialect of archaic Chinese, purely monosyllabic, and with a very limited range of articulation, depending for its variety upon tones, which modify and multiply the meanings of each vocable. In ethnology, the Tonquinese are descendants of tribes of southern China, that are mentioned in the ancient chronicles as people with the big toe noticeably large. They have a well-protecting her citizens. When the treaty of 1874 marked physiognomy and anatomical structure, in which personal beauty or grace of movement is not conspicuous. Until about the tenth century of our era, Tonquin (Chinese, tong, east, and king, capital, eastern capital; the name of the chief city, in distinction from Si-king, or western capital of Cochin China) was ruled by princes or governors of Chinese origin, but since 960 A. D. the country has been practically independent, though ever acknowledging China as suzerain, and regularly paying tribute. Tonquin, until near the close of the eighteenth century, was the dominant state of the Annamese empire, but since that time, it has formed one of its three great political divisions, and the dynasty founded in 1803 A. D. by Gya-long by French assistance reigns still at Hué, in Cochin China, the central state. Christianity was first introduced by refugees from Japan as early as 1615, and in 1624 the French Jesuit priests began proselyting labors, which, with assistance later from Spanish Dominicans and French Lazarists, have, in spite

was communicated to China and the other powers, the government of Peking protested against its provisions as an invasion of her suzerain rights, and formally gave notice that Annam was still her vassal, and whatever affected her international relations was of deep concern to the Chinese government. Since her reconquest of Ili, or Chinese Turkestan, which secured its formal retrocession from Russia, China has reaffirmed and in some cases enforced her ancient claim of suzerainty upon her vassals. That over Corea and Riu Kiu as against Japan, and perhaps the United States, in the case of Corea, is still unsettled. But her interest in Annam, both as neighbor and tributary, as manifested by military preparations, was so great, that the French evacuated the citadel at Ha-noi, though they fortified their settlement. In making a sortie May 24, 1883, the French commander, Riviere, and a number of his men were killed. The government at Paris at once resolved that France would "revenge her glorious children," and on May 26 declared war against China's