The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance, With a Consideration of Some of the Factors Which Enter Into the Solution of This Phase of the Eastern QuestionGreene, Frederick Davis
History
The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance, With a Consideration of Some of the Factors Which Enter Into the Solution of This Phase of the Eastern Question
Greene, Frederick Davis
Armenian massacres, 1894-1896; Armenian question
“Notwithstanding the favorable opinion entertained by many, it is
difficult to believe in the improvement of the Turks. It is true that,
under the pressure of the moment, benevolent decrees may be issued;
but these, except under the eye of some Foreign Minister, are entirely
neglected. Their whole system is radically vicious and inhuman. I do
not refer to fables which may be invented at St. Petersburg or Vienna,
but to numerous dispatches of Lord Stratford (de Redcliffe) himself,
and of our own consuls, who describe a frightful picture of lawless
oppression and cruelty.” (Sir Theodore Martin’s _Life of the Prince
Consort_, vol. ii., p. 528.) Quoted by Canon MacColl, _The
Contemporary Review_, January, 1895.
Footnote 18:
Judge.
Footnote 19:
Local districts.
Footnote 20:
Report of Mr. Wilson, _Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 8 (1881), page 57, No.
48.
Footnote 21:
_The Mohammedan Missionary Problem_, p. 31. Jessup. Philadelphia,
Presb. Pub. Soc.
Footnote 22:
_Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 6, 1881, reports of Wilson, Bennett,
Chermside, Trotter, Stewart, Clayton, Everett, and Bilotti.
Footnote 23:
_Blue-Book_, Turkey, 1881, p. 242.
Footnote 24:
Published by John Heywood, London, 1891, pp. 82–89.
Footnote 25:
Freeman, _The Turks in Europe_.
Footnote 26:
“Diplomatist,” “The Armenian Question” in _The New Review_, January,
1895.
Footnote 27:
Pp. 158–9. London: Cassell, Petter, & Galpin.
Footnote 28:
Speech in St. James’s Hall, December, 1876.
Footnote 29:
_The Nineteenth Century_, January, 1878.
Footnote 30:
From a descendant of Dahir Billah, the thirty-fifth caliph of Bagdad,
Sultan Selim I. “procured the cession of his claims, and obtained the
right to deem himself the shadow of God upon earth. Since then the
Ottoman padishah has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and
Haroun, and to be the legitimate commander of the faithful, and, as
such, possessed of plenary temporal and spiritual authority over the
followers of Mohammed.”[31] The Persians and Moors, however, reject
this claim, and at the close of the Russian War not a few of the Arab
muftis declared that the caliphate had been forfeited by the
inglorious defeat of the Turks, and should now return to the Arab
family of Koreish.
Footnote 31:
Freeman, _The Saracens_, p. 158. Quoted by Jessup, _The Mohammedan
Missionary Problem_, p. 21. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Publication, 1879.
Footnote 32:
Hughes, _Notes on Muhammadanism_, pp. 209, 210.
Footnote 33:
Hughes, _Notes on Muhammadanism_, p. 10.
Footnote 34:
Parts of this chapter are taken from an article, “Notes on the
Armenian Massacre,” in _The Independent_, New York, January 31, 1895,
by a high authority, who is compelled to sign himself “A Student of
Modern History.”
Footnote 35:
Latham, _Russian and Turk_, p. 417. London: W. H. Allen, 1878.
Footnote 36:
Layard’s _Nineveh_.
Footnote 37:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account