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
The Porte, in deciding how far it is safe to affront foreign
Governments, has even ranked the United States below some of the
European States. The Porte during the past year has treated General
Wallace as if he were the representative of a Danubian Principality.
Remonstrance after remonstrance against fresh violations of the treaties
it has left unanswered, and it has repeatedly omitted the courtesy of a
bare acknowledgment of their receipt. In fact, Turkey has been relying
upon the distance of the United States. Perhaps its officials even
suppose that the American navy is afraid to risk adventures so far from
home as the coasts of the Levant.
General Wallace found it necessary, for the sake of the safety of
American citizens in Turkey, to press for some definition of the
situation. During nearly five weeks he had been refused a personal
interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the ground of
“indisposition.” During all that time the representative of that
Minister declined to enter upon any discussion of the important
questions at issue. Four times the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States had been turned away from the door of the Sublime Porte by
the refusal of the Grand Vizier to see him. Each time plausible reasons
were assigned which seemed to render any insistance on the part of the
General uncourteous. Yet it became daily more evident that all these
plausible excuses for declining negotiation on the injuries done by
Turkey to American commerce and to American citizens were part of a
settled purpose not to redress the wrongs.—_New York Semi-Weekly
Tribune_, March 28, 1884.
THE RESULT.
The ten years that have elapsed since the above was written clearly show
that what seemed then to be a “settled purpose” has become the settled
policy of the Ottoman Government in regard to Americans and their rights
in Turkey.
In regard to the outcome of the case of Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, the
humiliating fact must be recorded that not one cent of the indemnity
demanded by the United States of America has to this day been obtained.
The monster, Moussa Bey, was allowed by the Turkish Government to
continue his outrages on the Armenian villages of the great Moosh plain,
until his record became so appalling, that under European pressure the
Porte summoned him to Constantinople, where he was entertained as the
Sultan’s guest. He was whitewashed by the courts, but the Sultan was
prevailed upon to invite him to make a pilgrimage to Medina at his
expense, and there spend the remainder of his days in religious
exercises.
APPENDIX B.
U. S. CONSULATES IN EASTERN TURKEY.
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