# data[].attributes.body
impressionism

# data[].attributes.body
romanticism

# data[].attributes.body
romanticism

# data[].attributes.body
realism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Nationalist Front of Mexico ( Spanish: Frente Nacionalista de México), formerly known as the Organization for the National Will ( Spanish: Organización por la Voluntad Nacional) and the Mexicanist Nationalist Front ( Spanish: Frente Nacional Mexicanista), is a far-right Mexican nationalist group, known for its use of National Socialist paraphernalia. Since its formation in 2006, the Nationalist Front of Mexico claims it was formed by people coming from different political tendencies, social positions and cultural backgrounds who fight legally and peacefully for the national renewal of their country and for the unity of the Mexican nation.

The organization opposes what it sees as "Anglo"-U.S. culture and influences and rejects the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as well as what its members consider the "American occupation" of territory formerly belonging to Mexico and now form the southwestern United States.

On its website, the front states:

"We reject the occupation of our nation in its northern territories, an important cause of poverty and emigration. We demand that our claim to all the territories occupied by force by the United States be recognized in our Constitution, and we will bravely defend, according to the principle of self-determination to all peoples, the right of the Mexican people to live in the whole of our territory within its historical borders, as they existed and were recognized at the moment of our independence."

Similarly, it promotes the reincorporation of Central America to Mexico, advocates the Second Mexican Empire, and deplores the establishment of the republic, which it considers decadent and against the nation. In recent years, the group has gained notoriety for honoring Maximilian I of Mexico and conservatives of the 19th century such as Miguel Miramón and Tomás Mejía Camacho.

Ideologically, it proposes a distributist economy, socialization and the Third-Positionist ideology as an alternative to both Marxism and capitalism. The group also wants Mexico to withdraw from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Bank.

In its official website, the organization declares its opposition to all forms of violence and states that its primary goal is to win Mexicans' approval and adherence to their nationalist points of view. However, the front held protests in various cities to demand the immediate expulsion of Haitian and African immigrants who came to Mexico's borders in the fall of 2016. Representatives of the front have also made open calls for Mexicans to join in their struggle against foreigners, sexual minorities and leftists. Human right advocates in Mexico raised their concerns about the group's rhetoric and increasing popularity among the youth.

It is not a political party and thus cannot nominate candidates directly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Nationalist Front of Mexico ( Spanish: Frente Nacionalista de México), formerly known as the Organization for the National Will ( Spanish: Organización por la Voluntad Nacional) and the Mexicanist Nationalist Front ( Spanish: Frente Nacional Mexicanista), is a far-right Mexican nationalist group, known for its use of National Socialist paraphernalia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Italian nationalism is a movement which believes that the Italians are a nation with a single homogeneous identity, and therefrom seeks to promote the cultural unity of Italy as a country. From an Italian nationalist perspective, Italianness is defined as claiming cultural and ethnic descent from the Latins, an Italic tribe which originally dwelt in Latium and came to dominate the Italian peninsula and much of Europe. Because of that, Italian nationalism has also historically adhered to imperialist theories. The romantic (or soft) version of such views is known as Italian patriotism, while their integral (or hard) version is known as Italian fascism.

Italian nationalism is often thought to trace its origins to the Renaissance, but only arose as a political force in the 1830s under the leadership of Giuseppe Mazzini. It served as a cause for Risorgimento in the 1860s to 1870s. Italian nationalism became strong again in World War I with Italian irredentist claims to territories held by Austria-Hungary, and during the era of Italian Fascism.

The origins of Italian nationalism have been traced to the Renaissance where Italy led a European revival of classical Greco-Roman style of culture, philosophy, and art. The Renaissance-era diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli, in his work (1532), appealing to Italian patriotism urged Italians "to seize Italy and free her from the Barbarians", by which he referred to the foreign powers occupying the Italian peninsula.

When France started to annex Corsica in the 18th century (and then incorporated during Napoleon's empire the regions of Piemonte, Liguria, Toscana and Lazio), the first movements to defend Italy's existence aroused with Paoli revolt and were later followed by the birth of the so-called "irredentism".

Paoli was sympathetic to Italian culture and regarded his own native language as an Italian dialect (Corsican is an Italo-Dalmatian tongue closely related to Tuscan and Sicilian). He was considered by Niccolò Tommaseo, who collected his Lettere (Letters), as one of the precursors of the Italian irredentism. The so-called Babbu di a Patria ("Father of the fatherland"), as Pasquale Paoli was nicknamed by the Corsican Italians, wrote in his Letters the following appeal in 1768 against the French:

We are Corsicans by birth and sentiment, but first of all we feel Italian by language, origins, customs, traditions; and Italians are all brothers and united in the face of history and in the face of God ... As Corsicans we wish to be neither slaves nor "rebels" and as Italians we have the right to deal as equals with the other Italian brothers ... Either we shall be free or we shall be nothing... Either we shall win or we shall die, weapons in hand ... The war against France is right and holy as the name of God is holy and right, and here on our mountains will appear for Italy the sun of liberty....[citation needed ]

The initial important figure in the development of Italian nationalism was Giuseppe Mazzini, who became a nationalist in the 1820s. In his political career, Mazzini held as objectives the liberation of Italy from the Austrian occupation, indirect control by Austria, princely despotism, aristocratic privilege, and clerical authority. Mazzini was captivated by ancient Rome that he considered the "temple of humanity" and sought to establish a united Italy as a " Third Rome" that emphasized Roman spiritual values that Italian nationalists claimed were preserved by the Catholic Church. Mazzini and Italian nationalists in general promoted the concept of (the Romanness), which claimed that Roman culture made invaluable contributions to the Italian and Western civilization. Since the 1820s, Mazzini supported a revolution to create a utopia of an ideal Italian republic based in Rome. Mazzini formed revolutionary patriotic Young Italy society in 1832. Upon Young Italy breaking apart in the 1830s, Mazzini reconstituted it in 1839 with the intention to gain the support of workers' groups. However, at the time Mazzini was hostile to socialism due to his belief that all classes needed to be united in the cause of creating a united Italy rather than divided against each other.

Vincenzo Gioberti in 1843 in his book On the Civil and Moral Primacy of the Italians, advocated a federal state of Italy led by the Pope.

Camillo Benso, the future Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sardinia and afterwards the Kingdom of Italy, worked as an editor for the nationalist Italian newspaper Il Risorgimento in the 1840s. Cavour was a clear example of civic nationalism with a high consideration for values including freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights compatible with a sober nationalism.

Economic nationalism influenced businessmen and government authorities to promote a united Italy. Prior to unification, tariff walls held between the Italian states and the disorganized railway system prevented economic development of the peninsula. Prior to the revolutions of 1848, Carlo Cattaneo advocated an economic federation of Italy.

Revolutions of 1848 to Risorgimento (1859 to 1870)

Supporters of Italian nationalism ranged from across the political spectrum: it appealed to both conservatives and liberals. The Revolutions of 1848 resulted in a major development of the Italian nationalist movement. Liberalization of press laws in Piedmont allowed nationalist activity to flourish.

Following the Revolutions of 1848 and the liberalization of press laws, the Italian nationalist organization, called the Italian National Society, was created in 1857 by Daniele Manin and Giorgio Pallevicino. The National Society was created to promote and spread nationalism to political moderates in Piedmont and raised money, held public meetings, and produced newspapers. The National Society helped to establish a base for Italian nationalism amongst the educated middle class. By 1860, the National Society influenced dominant liberal circles in Italy and won over middle class support for the union of Piedmont and Lombardy.

The statesman Daniele Manin seems to have believed in Italian unification years before Camillo Benso of Cavour, who actually unified the country with Giuseppe Garibaldi through diplomatic and military actions. During the 1856 Congress of Paris, Manin talked with Cavour about several plans and strategies to achieve the unification of Italy; Cavour clearly considered those plans vain things, and after the meeting wrote that Manin had talked about " l'unità d'Italia ed altre corbellerie" ("the unity of Italy and other nonsense").

The Risorgimento was an ideological movement that helped incite the feelings of brotherhood and nationalism in the imagined Italian community, which called for the unification of Italy and the pushing out of foreign powers. Literature, music, and other outlets of expression frequently alluded back to the glorious past of Rome and the miraculous feats their ancestors had accomplished in defending their homeland and kicking out the foreign occupants.

Post-Risorgimento, World War I and aftermath (1870 to 1922)

After the unification of Italy was completed in 1870, the Italian government faced domestic political paralysis and internal tensions, resulting in it resorting to embarking on a colonial policy to divert the Italian public's attention from internal issues.

In these years, one of the most prominent political figures was Francesco Crispi, whose actions as prime minister were characterised by a nationalism that often appeared as a form of obsession for the national unity and defence from hostile foreign countries. Italy managed to colonize the East African coast of Eritrea and Somalia, but failed to conquer Ethiopia with 15,000 Italians dying in the war and being forced to retreat. Then, Italy waged war with the Ottoman Empire from 1911 to 1912 and gained Libya and the Dodecanese Islands from Turkey. However, these attempts to gain popular support from the public failed, and rebellions and violent protests became so intense that many observers believed that the young Kingdom of Italy would not survive.

Tired of the internal conflicts in Italy, a movement of bourgeois intellectuals led by Gabriele d'Annunzio, Gaetano Mosca, and Vilfredo Pareto declared war on the parliamentary system, and their position gained respect among Italians. D'Annunzio called upon young Italians to seek fulfillment in violent action and put an end to the politically maneuvering parliamentary government. The Italian Nationalist Association ( ANI) was founded in Florence in 1910 by the jingoist nationalist Enrico Corradini who emphasized the need for martial heroism, of total sacrifice of individualism and equality to one's nation, the need of discipline and obedience in society, the grandeur and power of ancient Rome, and the need for people to live dangerously. Corradini's ANI's extremist appeals were enthusiastically supported by many Italians.

At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, Italy initially maintained neutrality, despite its official alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary since 1882 on the grounds that Germany and Austria-Hungary were waging an aggressive war that it refused to take part in. In 1915, Italy eventually decided to enter the war on the British and French side against Austria-Hungary and Germany.

Nationalist pride soared in Italy after the end of hostilities in November 1918, with the victory of Italy and Allied forces over Austria-Hungary and the seizure by Italy of former Austro-Hungarian territories. Italian nationalism became a major force at both elite and popular levels until 1945, when popular democracy became a much more important force.

Freemasonry was an influential semi-secret force in Italian politics with a strong presence among professionals and the middle class across Italy, as well as among the leadership in parliament, public administration, and the army. The two main organisation were the Grand Orient and the Grand Lodge of Italy. They had 25,000 members in 500 or more lodges. Freemasons took on the challenge of mobilizing the press, public opinion. and the leading political parties in support of Italy's joining the Allies. traditionally, Italian nationalism focused on unification, and undermining the power of the Catholic Church. In 1914-15 they dropped the traditional pacifistic rhetoric and used instead the powerful language of Italian nationalism. Freemasonry had always promoted cosmopolitan universal values, and by 1917 onwards they demanded a League of Nations to promote a new post-war universal order based upon the peaceful coexistence of independent and democratic nations.

Italy's demands in the Paris peace settlement of 1919 were not fully achieved: Italy did attain Trentino, Trieste, the Istrian peninsula, and South Tyrol from Austria-Hungary, though other territories previously promised to Italy were not given to it.

In particular, Italian nationalists were enraged by the Allies denying Italy the right to annex Fiume, that had a slight majority Italian population but was not included in Italy's demands agreed with the Allies in 1915, and a larger part of Dalmatia which had a vast majority Slavic population and an Italian minority, claiming that Italian annexation of large part of Dalmatia would violate Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points. D'Annunzio responded to this by mobilizing two thousand veterans of the war who seized Fiume by force; this action was met with international condemnation of d'Annunzio's actions but was supported by a majority of Italians. Though d'Annunzio's government in Fiume was forced from power, Italy annexed Fiume a few years later.

Fascism and World War II (1922 to 1945)

The seizure of power by the Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy in 1922 and his development of a fascist totalitarian state in Italy involved appeal to Italian nationalism, advocating a Roman-like Italian Empire in the Mediterranean Sea. Mussolini sought to build closer relations with Germany and the United Kingdom while showing hostility towards France and Yugoslavia.

Post-World War II and current situation

After the fall of Fascism and following the birth of the Republic, the interest in Italian nationalism by scholars, politicians and the masses was relatively low, mainly because of its close relation with Fascism and consequently with bad memories of World War II. The only notable and active political party who clearly declared Italian nationalism as its main ideology was the neo-fascist Italian Social Movement ( MSI), which became the fourth largest party in Italy by the early 1960s. In these years, Italian nationalism was considered an ideology linked to right-wing political parties and organisations. Nevertheless, two significant events seemed to revitalise Italian nationalism among Italians, the first one in 1953 with the Question of Trieste when the claim of Italy on the full control of the city of Trieste was largely endorsed by most of the Italian society with patriotic demonstrations, and the second one in 1985 during the Sigonella crisis between Italy and the United States.

In the 2000s, Italian nationalism seemed to gain a moderate support by the society, in particular during important days such as the National Day Festa della Repubblica (Republic day) and the Anniversary of the Liberation. The President of the Republic Carlo Azeglio Ciampi has often praised patriotism among Italians by mentioning in his speeches national events, including the Risorgimento or the Resistenza, and national symbols like the Flag of Italy and the National Anthem, although he seems to want to stress self-confidence rather than plain nationalism. In 2011, the 150th Anniversary of Italian Unification showed a moderately renewed interest in Italian nationalism among the society. Nationalist ideologies are often present during Italian anti-globalisation protests. Today, Italian nationalism is still mainly supported by right-wing political parties like Brothers of Italy and minor far-right political parties like The Right, CasaPound, Forza Nuova and Tricolour Flame. Nonetheless, in recent times Italian nationalism has been occasionally embraced as a form of banal nationalism by liberal[citation needed ] parties like Forza Italia, centrist parties like the Union of the Centre or even by centre-left parties like the Democratic Party.

Italian nationalism has also faced a great deal of opposition from within Italy itself. Regionalism and municipal identities have challenged the concept of a unified Italian identity, like those in Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Naples, Sardinia, Sicily and Veneto. Such regional identities evoked strong opposition after the Piedmontese-led unification of Italy to plans for "Piedmontization" of Italy. Italian identity has also been long strained by an ever growing North-South divide that developed partly from the economic differences of a highly industrialized North and a highly agricultural South.

Civil flag of Italy, originally designed in 1797. A symbol of the Italian nation since the early-19th century and symbol of the Italian Republic since 1946.

Civil flag of the Kingdom of Italy from 1861 to 1946. Presently used by Italian monarchists.

War flag of the Italian Social Republic, the incarnation of Fascist Italy from 1943 to 1945 after the Fascist regime in the Kingdom of Italy was dismantled in 1943. It is a prominent symbol used by Italian neo-fascists.

Barbour, Stephen and Cathie Carmichael, eds. (2000). Language and Nationalism in Europe (Oxford UP) chapter 8.

Cunsolo, Ronald S. "Italian nationalism in historical perspective." History of European Ideas 16.4-6 (1993): 759-766.

Cunsolo, Ronald S. Italian nationalism: from its origins to World War II (Krieger Pub Co, 1990).

Cunsolo, Ronald S. "Italian Emigration and Its Effect on the Rise of Nationalism." Italian Americana 12.1 (1993): 62-72. in JSTOR

Drake, Richard. "The Theory and Practice of Italian Nationalism, 1900-1906." Journal of Modern History (1981): 213-241. in JSTOR

Marsella, Mauro. "Enrico Corradini's Italian nationalism: the 'right wing' of the fascist synthesis." Journal of Political Ideologies 9.2 (2004): 203-224.

Motyl, Alexander J. (2001). Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume II. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-227230-7.

Noether, Emiliana Pasca. Seeds of Italian nationalism, 1700-1815 (Columbia University Press, 1951).

Noether, Emiliana P. "The intellectual dimension of italian nationalism: An overview." History of European Ideas 16.4-6 (1993): 779-784.

Patriarca, Silvana, and Lucy Riall, eds., The Risorgimento Revisited: Nationalism and Culture in Nineteenth-century Italy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)

Salvadori, Massimo. "Nationalism in Modern Italy-1915 and after." Orbis-A Journal of World Affairs 10.4 (1967): 1157-1175.

Sluga, Glenda A. "The Risiera di San Sabba: Fascism, anti‐Fascism and Italian nationalism." Journal of Modern Italian Studies 1.3 (1996): 401-412.

Tambini, Damian. Nationalism in Italian politics: The stories of the Northern League, 1980-2000 (Routledge, 2012).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Italian nationalism is a movement which believes that the Italians are a nation with a single homogeneous identity, and therefrom seeks to promote the cultural unity of Italy as a country. From an Italian nationalist perspective, Italianness is defined as claiming cultural and ethnic descent from the Latins, an Italic tribe which originally dwelt in Latium and came to dominate the Italian peninsula and much of Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The independence of Brazil comprised a series of political and military events that led to the independence of the Kingdom of Brazil from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves as the Brazilian Empire. It is celebrated on 7 September, the date when prince regent Pedro of Braganza declared the country's independence from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves on the banks of the Ipiranga brook in 1822 on what became known as the Cry of Ipiranga. Formal recognition by Portugal came with the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, signed in 1825.

In 1807, the French army invaded Portugal, which had refused to participate in the continental blockade against the United Kingdom. Unable to resist the invasion, the Portuguese royal family and government fled to Brazil, which was then the richest and most developed of the Portuguese colonies. The installation of the House of Appeals and other public bodies of the Portuguese government in Rio de Janeiro represented a series of political, economic and social transformations that led to then prince regent John of Braganza (later king John VI of Portugal), to elevate the State of Brazil to the status of a kingdom on 16 December 1815, united with its former metropolis.

In 1820, the liberal revolution broke out in Portugal and the royal family was forced to return to Lisbon. Before leaving Brazil, however, the now king John VI named his eldest son, Pedro of Braganza, as prince regent of Brazil. Although Pedro was faithful to his father, the desire of the Portuguese courts to repatriate him (including demoting him from prince regent to governor-of-arms, that is, a mere military commander of the Portuguese Army, no longer holding any political position) and returning Brazil to its former colonial status led him to rebel.

During the war of independence that ensued - which began with the expulsion of the Portuguese troops from Pernambuco in 1821 - the Brazilian Army was formed by hiring mercenaries, enlisting civilians and some Portuguese colonial troops. The army immediately opposed the Portuguese forces, which controlled some parts of the country, namely, in the then provinces of Cisplatina (currently Uruguay), Bahia, Piauí, Maranhão and Grão-Pará. At the same time that the conflict was taking place, a revolutionary movement broke out in Pernambuco and other neighboring provinces, which intended to form their own country, the Confederation of the Equator, with a republican government, but it was harshly repressed.

After four years of conflict, Portugal finally recognized Brazil's independence, and on 29 August 1825, the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance was signed between Brazil and Portugal. In exchange for recognition as a sovereign state, Brazil committed to paying a substantial compensation to Portugal and signing a trade treaty with the United Kingdom as compensation for its mediation.

Officially, the date celebrated for Brazil's independence is 7 September 1822, when the event known as the Cry of Ipiranga took place on the banks of the Ipiranga brook in the city of São Paulo. Pedro of Braganza was acclaimed Emperor of Brazil on 12 October 1822, being crowned and consecrated on 1 December 1822, and the country became known as the Empire of Brazil.

Landing of Pedro Álvares Cabral in Brazil, South America, 1500.

The land now called Brazil was claimed by the Kingdom of Portugal in April 1500, on the arrival of the Portuguese naval fleet commanded by Pedro Álvares Cabral. The Portuguese encountered Indigenous peoples divided into several tribes, most of whom shared the same Tupi-Guarani language family, and shared and disputed territory. But the Portuguese, like the Spanish in their North American territories, had brought diseases with them against which many Indians were helpless due to lack of immunity. Measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, and influenza killed tens of thousands.

Though the first settlement was founded in 1532, colonization only effectively started in 1534 when king John III divided the territory into fifteen hereditary captaincies. This arrangement proved problematic, however, and in 1549 the king assigned a governor-general to administer the entire colony. The Portuguese assimilated some of the native tribes while others slowly disappeared in long wars or by European diseases to which they had no immunity.

By the mid-16th century, sugar had become Brazil's main export due to the increasing international demand. To profit from the situation, by 1700 over 963,000 African slaves had been brought across the Atlantic Ocean to work in the plantations of Brazil. More Africans were brought to Brazil up until that date than to all the other places in the Americas (and the entire Western Hemisphere) combined.

Through wars against the French, the Portuguese slowly expanded their territory to the southeast, taking Rio de Janeiro in 1567, and to the northwest, taking São Luís in 1615. They sent military expeditions to the northwest of the South American continent to the Amazon River basin rainforest and conquered competing English and Dutch strongholds, founding villages and forts from 1669. In 1680 they reached the far southeast and founded Colônia do Sacramento on the bank of the Río de la Plata, in the Banda Oriental region (present-day Uruguay).

At the end of the 17th century, sugar exports started to decline, but beginning in the 1690s, the discovery of gold by explorers in the region that would later be called Minas Gerais, current Mato Grosso and Goiás saved the colony from imminent collapse. From all over Brazil, as well as from Portugal, thousands of immigrants came to the mines in an early gold rush.

The Spanish tried to prevent Portuguese expansion northwest, west, southwest and southeast into the territory that belonged to them according to the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas division of the New World by the Bishop and Pope of Rome, Alexander VI (1431-1503, reigned 1492-1503) and succeeded in conquering the Banda Oriental region in 1777. However, this was in vain as the Treaty of San Ildefonso, signed in the same year, confirmed Portuguese sovereignty over all lands proceeding from its territorial expansion, thus creating most of the current Brazilian southeastern border.

During the French invasion of Portugal by Emperor Napoleon I in 1807, the Portuguese royal family ( House of Braganza) fled across the Atlantic Ocean with the help of the British Royal Navy to Brazil, establishing Rio de Janeiro as the de facto capital of the Portuguese Empire during the ensuing worldwide Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). This had the side effect of soon creating within Brazil many of the institutions required to exist as an independent state; most importantly, it freed Brazil to trade with other nations at will.

After Napoleon's Imperial French army was finally defeated at Waterloo in June 1815, in order to maintain the capital in Brazil and allay Brazilian fears of being returned to colonial status, King John VI of Portugal raised the de jure status of Brazil to an equal kingdom and integral part of the new United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, rather than a mere colony, a status which it enjoyed for the next seven years, sending his son, Dom Pedro, as prince regent.

The Portuguese Cortes

In 1820 the Constitutionalist Revolution erupted in Portugal. The movement initiated by the liberal constitutionalists resulted in the meeting of the (or Constituent Assembly), that would have to create the kingdom's first constitution. The Cortes at the same time demanded the return of King Dom John VI, who had been living in Brazil since 1808, who elevated Brazil to a kingdom as part of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves in 1815 and who nominated his son and heir prince Dom Pedro as regent, to govern Brazil in his place on 7 March 1821. The king left for Europe on 26 April, while Dom Pedro remained in Brazil governing it with the aid of the ministers of the Kingdom (Interior) and Foreign Affairs, of War, of Navy and of Finance.

The Portuguese military officers headquartered in Brazil were completely sympathetic to the Constitutionalist movement in Portugal. The main leader of the Portuguese officers, General Jorge de Avilez Zuzarte de Sousa Tavares, forced the prince to dismiss and banish from the country the ministers of Kingdom and Finance. Both were loyal allies of Pedro, who had become a pawn in the hands of the military. The humiliation suffered by the prince, who swore he would never yield to the pressure of the military again, would have a decisive influence on his abdication ten years later. Meanwhile, on 30 September 1821, the Cortes approved a decree that subordinated the governments of the Brazilian provinces directly to Portugal. Prince Pedro became for all purposes only the governor of Rio de Janeiro Province. Other decrees that came after ordered his return to Europe and also extinguished the judicial courts created by João VI in 1808.

Dissatisfaction over the Cortes measures among most residents in Brazil (both Brazilian-born and Portuguese-born) rose to a point that it soon became publicly known. Two groups that opposed the Cortes' actions to gradually undermine Brazilian sovereignty appeared: Liberals, led by Joaquim Gonçalves Ledo (with the support of the Freemasons), and the Bonifacians, led by José Bonifácio de Andrada. The factions, with quite different views of what Brazil could and should be, agreed only on their desire to keep Brazil co-equal with Portugal, united in a sovereign monarchy, rather than Brazil being merely provinces controlled from Lisbon.

Prince Pedro (right) orders Portuguese officer Jorge de Avilez (left) to return to Portugal after his failed rebellion, 8 February 1822. José Bonifácio (in civilian clothes) can be seen next to the prince.

The Portuguese members of the Cortes showed no respect towards Prince Pedro and openly mocked him. And so the loyalty that Pedro had shown towards the Cortes gradually shifted to the Brazilian cause. His wife, princess Maria Leopoldina of Austria, favoured the Brazilian side and encouraged him to remain in the country which the Liberals and Bonifacians openly called for. Pedro's reply to the Cortes came on 9 January 1822, when, according to newspapers, he said: "As it is for the good of all and for the nation's general happiness, I am ready: Tell the people that I will stay".

After Pedro's decision to defy the Cortes and remain in Brazil, around 2,000 men led by Jorge Avilez rioted before concentrating on mount Castelo, which was soon surrounded by 10,000 armed Brazilians, led by the Royal Police Guard. Dom Pedro then "dismissed" the Portuguese commanding general and ordered him to remove his soldiers across the bay to Niterói, where they would await transport to Portugal.

Jose Bonifácio was nominated minister of Kingdom and Foreign Affairs on 18 January 1822. Bonifácio soon established a fatherlike relationship with Pedro, who began to consider the experienced statesman his greatest ally. Gonçalves Ledo and the Liberals tried to minimize the close relationship between Bonifácio and Pedro, offering to the prince the title of Perpetual Defender of Brazil. For the Liberals, the creation of a Constituent Assembly to prepare a Brazilian constitution was necessary, while the Bonifacians preferred that Pedro create the constitution himself, to avoid the possibility of anarchy similar to the first years of the French Revolution.

The prince acquiesced to the Liberals' desires, and signed a decree on 3 June 1822 calling for the election of deputies that would gather in a Constituent and Legislative General Assembly in Brazil.

Prince Pedro is surrounded by a cheering crowd in São Paulo after giving the news of the Brazilian independence on 7 September 1822.

Pedro departed to São Paulo Province to secure the province's loyalty to the Brazilian cause. He reached its capital on 25 August and remained there until 5 September. While on his way back to Rio de Janeiro on 7 September he received at Ipiranga mail from José Bonifácio and his wife, Leopoldina. The letter told him that the Cortes had annulled all acts of the Bonifácio cabinet, removed Pedro's remaining powers, and ordered him to return to Portugal. It was clear that independence was the only option left, which his wife supported. Pedro turned to his companions, that included his Guard of Honor, and said: "Friends, the Portuguese Cortes want to enslave and pursue us. From today on our relations are broken. No ties can unite us anymore". He removed his blue-white armband that symbolized Portugal: "Armbands off, soldiers. Hail to the independence, to freedom and to the separation of Brazil from Portugal!" He unsheathed his sword affirming that "For my blood, my honor, my God, I swear to give Brazil freedom," and later cried out: "Brazilians, Independence or death!". This event is known as the " Cry of Ipiranga", the declaration of Brazil's independence,

Returning to the city of São Paulo on the night of 7 September 1822, Pedro and his companions announced the news of Brazilian independence from Portugal. The Prince was received with great popular celebration and was called not only "King of Brazil", but also "Emperor of Brazil".

Pedro returned to Rio de Janeiro on 14 September and in the following days the Liberals had distributed pamphlets (written by Joaquim Gonçalves Ledo) that suggested that the Prince should be named Constitutional Emperor. On 17 September the President of the Municipal Chamber of Rio de Janeiro, José Clemente Pereira, sent to the other Chambers of the country the news that the Acclamation would occur on Pedro's birthday, 12 October.

Coronation ceremony of Emperor Pedro I in the Imperial Chapel, 1 December 1822.

The official separation would only occur on 22 September 1822 in a letter written by Pedro to João VI. In it, Pedro still calls himself Prince Regent and his father is considered the King of the independent Brazil. On 12 October 1822, in the Field of Santana (later known as Field of the Acclamation) Prince Pedro was acclaimed Dom Pedro I, Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil. It was at the same time the beginning of Pedro's reign and also of the Empire of Brazil. However, the Emperor made it clear that although he accepted the emperorship, if João VI returned to Brazil he would step down from the throne in favor of his father.

The reason for the imperial title was that the title of king would symbolically mean a continuation of the Portuguese dynastic tradition and perhaps of the feared absolutism, while the title of emperor derived from popular acclamation as in Ancient Rome or at least reigning through popular sanction as in the case of Napoleon. On 1 December 1822, Pedro I was crowned and consecrated.

According to the Brazilian government and researcher Rodrigo Wiese Randig, the first country to recognize Brazil was the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (today's Argentina), in June 1823, followed by the United States in May 1824, and the Kingdom of Benin in July 1824. However, according to historian Toby Green, the African states of Dahomey and Onim were the first two to recognize the new empire in 1822 and 1823 respectively. These states had traditionally maintained close diplomatic and economic contacts with South America.

Triumphal entry of the Imperial Army into Salvador after the surrender of the Portuguese forces in 1823.

Upon the declaration of the independence, the authority of the new regime only extended to Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and the adjacent provinces. The rest of Brazil remained firmly under the control of Portuguese juntas and garrisons. It would take a war to put the whole of Brazil under Pedro's control. The fighting began with skirmishes between rival militias in 1822 and lasted until January 1824, when the last Portuguese garrisons and naval units surrendered or left the country.

Meanwhile, the Imperial government had to create a regular Army and Navy. Forced enlistment was widespread, extending to foreign immigrants, and Brazil made use of slaves in militias, as well as freeing slaves to enlist them in army and navy. The campaigns on land and sea covered the vast territories of Bahia, Cisplatina, Grão-Pará, Maranhão, Pernambuco, Ceará and Piauí.

By 1822, Brazilian forces were firmly in control of Rio de Janeiro and the central area of Brazil. Loyal militias began insurrections in the aforementioned territories, but strong, and regularly reinforced Portuguese garrisons in the port cities of Salvador, Montevideo, São Luís and Belém continued to dominate the adjacent areas and to pose the threat of a reconquest that the irregular Brazilian militias and guerrilla forces, which were loosely besieging them by land supported by newly created units of the Brazilian army, would be unable to prevent.

For the Brazilians, the answer to this stalemate was to seize control of the sea. Eleven former Portuguese warships, great and small, had fallen into Brazilian hands in Rio de Janeiro and these formed the basis of a new navy. The problem was manpower: the crews of these ships were largely Portuguese who were openly mutinous, and although many Portuguese naval officers had declared allegiance to Brazil their loyalty could not be relied on. The Brazilian Government solved the problem by recruiting 50 officers and 500 seamen in secret in London and Liverpool, many of them veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, and appointed Thomas Cochrane as commander-in-chief. On 1 April 1823, a Brazilian squadron of 6 ships sailed for Bahia. After an initial disappointing engagement with a superior Portuguese fleet, Cochrane blockaded Salvador. Deprived now of supplies and reinforcements by sea and besieged by the Brazilian army on land, on 2 July the Portuguese forces abandoned Bahia in a convoy of 90 ships. Leaving the frigate 'Niteroi' under Captain John Taylor to harry them to the coasts of Europe, Cochrane then sailed north to São Luís (Maranhão). There he tricked the Portuguese garrison into evacuating Maranhão by pretending that a huge Brazilian fleet and army were over the horizon. He then sent Captain John Pascoe Grenfell to play the same trick on the Portuguese in Belém do Pará at the mouth of the Amazon. By November 1823, the whole of the north of Brazil was under Brazilian control, and the following month, the demoralized Portuguese also evacuated Montevideo and the Cisplatine Province. By 1824, Brazil was free of all enemy troops and was de facto independent.

There are still today no reliable statistics related to the numbers of, for example, the total of the war casualties. However, based upon historical registration and contemporary reports of some battles of this war as well as upon the admitted numbers in similar fights that happened in these times around the globe, and considering how long the Brazilian independence war lasted (22 months), estimates of all killed in action on both sides are placed from around 5,700 to 6,200.

In Piauí and Maranhão

In Grão-Pará

The last Portuguese soldiers left Brazil in 1824. The Treaty of Rio de Janeiro recognizing Brazil's independence was signed by Brazil and Portugal on 29 August 1825.

The Brazilian aristocracy had its wish: Brazil made a transition to independence with comparatively little disruption and bloodshed. But this meant that independent Brazil retained its colonial social structure: monarchy, slavery, large landed estates, monoculture, an inefficient agricultural system, a highly stratified society, and a free population that was 90 percent illiterate.

1. ^ Benton, William (11 November 2009). The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: : Macropaedia: knowledge in depth Volume 19. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Incorporated. ISBN 978-0852293157.

2. (in Portuguese) ^ pt:João Paulo Pimenta BRAZILIAN WARS OF INDEPENDENCE: NOTES ON THEIR HISTORY AND HIS- TORIOGRAPHY Guarulhos, Brasil 2022 [1], p. 13

3. ^ Keen, Benjamin; Haynes, Keith A. (2009). A History of Latin America (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. p. 221. ISBN 9780618783182. The Brazilian aristocracy had its wish: Brazil made a transition to independence with comparatively little disruption and bloodshed. But this meant that independent Brazil retained its colonial social structure: monarchy, slavery, large landed estates, monoculture, an inefficient agricultural system, a highly stratified society, and a free population that was 90 percent illiterate.

Armitage, John. História do Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Itatiaia, 1981. (in Portuguese)

Barman, Roderick J. Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. (in English)

Diégues, Fernando. A revolução brasílica. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2004. (in Portuguese)

Dolhnikoff, Miriam. Pacto imperial: origens do federalismo no Brasil do século XIX. São Paulo: Globo, 2005. (in Portuguese)

Green, Toby (2020). A Fistful of Shells: West Africa from the Rise of the Slave Trade to the Age of Revolution. New York City: Penguin Random House. ISBN 978-0-141-97766-9.

Gomes, Laurentino. 1822. Nova Fronteira, 2010. ISBN 85-209-2409-3 (in Portuguese)

Holanda, Sérgio Buarque de. O Brasil Monárquico: o processo de emancipação. 4. ed. São Paulo: Difusão Européia do Livro, 1976. (in Portuguese)

Lima, Manuel de Oliveira. O movimento da independência. 6. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Topbooks, 1997. (in Portuguese)

Lustosa, Isabel. D. Pedro I. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007. (in Portuguese)

Vainfas, Ronaldo. Dicionário do Brasil Imperial. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2002. (in Portuguese)

Vianna, Hélio. História do Brasil: período colonial, monarquia e república. 15. ed. São Paulo: Melhoramentos, 1994. (in Portuguese)

Wiese Randig, Rodrigo (2017). "Argentina, primeiro país a reconhecer a independência do Brasil" (PDF). Cadernos do CHDD. Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão. 16 (31): 501-524.

Media related to Independence of Brazil at Wikimedia Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The independence of Brazil comprised a series of political and military events that led to the independence of the Kingdom of Brazil from the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves as the Brazilian Empire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January Uprising

Part of the Polish-Russian wars

Poland - The Year 1863, by Jan Matejko, 1864, oil on canvas, 156 × 232 cm, National Museum, Kraków. Pictured is the aftermath of the failed January 1863 Uprising. Captives await transportation to Siberia. Russian officers and soldiers supervise a blacksmith placing shackles on a woman ( Polonia). The blonde girl next to her represents Lithuania.

Belligerents

Polish National Government

Garibaldi Legion
Foreign volunteers:

Supported by:
Land and Liberty
Dzyalynsky Committee

Russian Empire
Supported by:
Kingdom of Prussia

Commanders and leaders

Stefan Bobrowski
Romuald Traugutt
Marian Langiewicz
Ludwik Mierosławski

Alexander II
Friedrich Berg
Mikhail Muravyov

Strength

around 200,000 over the course of the uprising. Around 20 men of the Garibaldi Legion.

unknown

Casualties and losses

Polish estimates: 10,000 to 20,000
Russian estimates: 30,000[1] (22,000 killed and wounded, 7,000 captured[2])

Russian estimates: 4,500 killed, wounded and missing[3]

The January Uprising ( Polish: powstanie styczniowe; Lithuanian: 1863 metų sukilimas; Russian: Польское восстание; Belarusian: Паўстанне 1863-1864 гадоў) was an insurrection principally in Russia's Kingdom of Poland aimed at the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It began on 22 January 1863 and continued until the last insurgents were captured by the Russian forces in 1864.

It was the longest lasting insurgency in post-partition Poland. The conflict engaged all levels of society, and arguably had profound repercussions on contemporary international relations and ultimately provoked a social and ideological paradigm shift in national events that went on to have a decisive influence on the subsequent development of Polish society.

A confluence of factors rendered the uprising inevitable in early 1863. The Polish nobility and urban bourgeois circles longed for the semi-autonomous status they had enjoyed in Congress Poland before the previous insurgency, a generation earlier in 1830, while youth encouraged by the success of the Italian independence movement urgently desired the same outcome. Russia had been weakened by its Crimean adventure and had introduced a more liberal attitude in its internal politics which encouraged Poland's underground National Government to plan an organised strike against their Russian occupiers no earlier than the Spring of 1863. They had not reckoned with Aleksander Wielopolski, the pro-Russian arch-conservative head of the civil administration in the Russian partition, who got wind of the plans. Wielopolski was aware that his fellow countrymen's fervent desire for independence was coming to a head, something he wanted to avoid at all costs. In an attempt to derail the Polish national movement, he brought forward to January the conscription of young Polish activists into the Imperial Russian Army (for 20-year service). That decision is what triggered the January Uprising of 1863, the very outcome Wielopolski had wanted to avoid.

The rebellion by young Polish conscripts was soon joined by high-ranking Polish-Lithuanian officers and members of the political class. The insurrectionists, as yet ill-organised, were severely outnumbered and lacking sufficient foreign support, and were forced into hazardous guerrilla tactics. Reprisals were swift and ruthless. Public executions and deportations to Siberia eventually persuaded many Poles to abandon armed struggle. In addition, Tsar Alexander II hit the landed gentry hard, and as a result the whole economy, with a sudden decision in 1864 to finally abolish serfdom in Poland. The ensuing break-up of estates and destitution of many peasants convinced educated Poles to turn instead to the idea of " organic work", economic and cultural self-improvement.

Despite the Russian Empire's loss of the Crimean war and being weakened economically and politically, Alexander II warned in 1856 against further concessions with the words, "forget any dreams". There were two prevailing streams of thought among the population of the Kingdom of Poland at the time. One consisting of patriotic stirrings within liberal-conservative usually landed and intellectual circles centred around Andrzej Zamoyski. They were hoping for an orderly return to the constitutional status pre-1830. They became characterised as the . The alternative tendency, characterised as the represented a democratic movement uniting peasants, workers, and some clergy. For both streams central to their dilemma was the peasant question. However, estate owners tended to favour the abolition of serfdom in exchange for compensation, whereas the democratic movement saw the overthrow of the Russian yoke as entirely dependent on an unconditional liberation of the peasantry.

Just as the democrats organised the first religious and patriotic demonstrations in 1860, covert resistance groups began to form among educated youth. Blood was first shed in Warsaw in February 1861, when the Russian Army attacked a demonstration in Castle Square on the anniversary of the Battle of Grochów. There were five fatalities. Fearing the spread of spontaneous unrest, Alexander II reluctantly agreed to accept a petition for a change in the system of governance. Ultimately he agreed to the appointment of Aleksander Wielopolski to head a commission to look into Religious Observance and Public Education and announced the formation of a State Council and Self-governance for towns and Powiats. These concessions did not prevent further demonstrations. On 8 April there were 200 killed and 500 wounded by Russian fire. Martial law was imposed in Warsaw and brutally repressive measures taken against the organisers in Warsaw and Vilna by deporting them into deepest Russia.

In Vilna alone 116 demonstrations were held during 1861. In the autumn of 1861 Russians had introduced a state of emergency in Vilna Governorate, Kovno Governorate and Grodno Governorate.

These events led to a speedier consolidation of the resistance: Future leaders of the uprising gathered secretly in St. Petersburg, Warsaw, Vilna, Paris and London. Two bodies emerged from these consultations. By October 1861 the urban "Movement Committee" (Komitet Ruchu Miejski) was formed and in June 1862 the " Central National Committee", CNC came into being. Its leadership included, Stefan Bobrowski, Jarosław Dąbrowski, Zygmunt Padlewski, Agaton Giller, and Bronisław Szwarce. This body directed the creation of national structures intended to become a new secret Polish state. The CNC had not planned an uprising before the Spring of 1863 at the earliest. However, Wielopolski's move to start conscription to the Russian Army in mid-January forced its hand to call the uprising prematurely on the night of 22-23 January 1863.

The uprising broke out at a moment when general peace prevailed in Europe, and although there was vociferous support for the Poles, powers such as France, Britain and Austria were unwilling to disturb the international calm. The revolutionary leaders did not have sufficient means to arm and equip the groups of young men who were hiding in forests to escape Alexander Wielopolski's order of conscription into the Russian army. Initially, about 10,000 men rallied around the revolutionary banner. The volunteers came chiefly from city working classes and minor clerks, although there was also a significant number of the younger sons of the poorer (nobility) and a number of priests of lower rank. Initially, the Russian government had at its disposal an army of 90,000 men under Russian General Anders Edvard Ramsay in Poland.

It looked as if the rebellion might be crushed quickly. Undeterred the CNC's provisional government issued a manifesto in which it declared "all sons of Poland are free and equal citizens without distinction of creed, condition or rank." It decreed that land cultivated by the peasants, whether on the basis of rent or service, henceforth should become their unconditional property, and compensation for it would be given to the landlords out of State general funds. The provisional government did its best to send supplies to the unarmed and scattered volunteers who, during the month of February, had fought in eighty bloody skirmishes with the Russians. Meanwhile, the CNC issued an appeal for assistance to the nations of western Europe, which was received everywhere with supportive sentiments, from Norway to Portugal. Italian, French and Hungarian officers answered the call. Pope Pius IX ordered special prayers for the success of Catholic Poles in their defence against the Orthodox Russians, and was generally active in raising support for the Polish rebellion. By late spring, early summer of 1863, historian Jerzy Zdrada records there were 35,000 Poles under arms facing a Russian Army of 145,000 in the Polish Kingdom alone.

On 1 February 1863, the Uprising erupted in Lithuania. During April and May it had spread to Dinaburg, Latvia, and Witebsk, Belarus, to the Kiev Governorate, northern Ukraine and to the Wolynian Voivodship. Volunteers, weapons and supplies began to flow in over the borders from Galicia in the Austrian Partition and from the Prussian Partition. Volunteers also arrived from Italy, Hungary, France and from Russia itself. The greatest setback was that in spite of the liberation manifesto from the KCN, without prior ideological agitation, the peasantry could not be mobilised to participate in the struggle, except in those regions that were dominated by Polish units, which saw a gradual enrolment into the Uprising of agricultural workers.

The secret Polish state was directed by the Rada Narodowa, RN, (National Council) to which the civil and military structures on the ground were accountable. It was a "virtual coalition government" formed of the Reds and the Whites. It was led by Zygmunt Sierakowski, Antanas Mackevičius and Konstanty Kalinowski. The latter two supported their counterparts in Poland and adhered to common policies. Its diplomatic corps was centred on Paris under the direction of Wladyslaw Czartoryski. The eruption of armed conflict in the former Commonwealth of Two Nations had surprised western European capitals, even if public opinion responded with sympathy for the rebel cause. It had dawned on Paris, London, Vienna as well as on Saint Petersburg that the crisis could plausibly turn into a new war with Russia. For their part, Russian diplomats considered the uprising an internal matter, while European stability was generally predicated on the fate of Poland's aspiration.

The uncovering of the existence of the Alvensleben Convention signed on 8 February 1863 by Prussia and Russia in St. Petersburg to jointly suppress the Poles, internationalised the Uprising. It enabled Western powers to take the diplomatic initiative for their own ends. Napoleon III of France, already a sympathiser with Poland, was concerned to protect his border on the Rhine and turned his political guns on Prussia with a view to provoking a war with it. He was simultaneously seeking an alliance with Austria. The United Kingdom on the other hand, sought to prevent a Franco-Prussian war and to block an Austrian alliance with France and looked to scupper any rapprochement between France and Russia. Austria was competing with Prussia for the leadership of the German territories, but rejected French approaches for an alliance, spurning any support of Napoleon III as acting against German interests. There was no discussion of military intervention on behalf of the Poles, despite Napoleon's support for the continuation of the insurgency.

France, the United Kingdom and Austria agreed to a diplomatic intervention in defence of Polish rights and in April issued diplomatic notes that were intended to be no more than persuasive in tone. The Polish RN was hoping that the evolution of the insurgency would ultimately push western powers to adopt an armed intervention, which was the flavour of Polish diplomatic talks with those powers. The Polish line was that the establishment of continued peace in Europe was conditional on the return of an independent Polish state.

With the threat of war averted, St.Petersburg left the door open for negotiations, but was adamant in its rejection of any western rights to armed conflict. In June 1863 western powers iterated the conditions: an amnesty for the insurgents, the creation of a national representative structure and the development of autonomous concessions across the kingdom, a recall of a conference of Congress of Vienna (1815) signatories and a cease-fire for its duration. This fell well below the expectations of the leadership of the Uprising. While concerned by the threat of war, Alexander II felt secure enough with the support of his people to reject the proposals. Although France and the UK were insulted, they did not proceed with further interventions which enabled Russia to extend and finally break off negotiations in September 1863.

Apart from the efforts of Sweden, diplomatic intervention by foreign powers on behalf of Poland was on balance unhelpful in drawing attention away from the aim of Polish national unity towards its social divisions. It alienated Austria, which hitherto had maintained friendly neutrality towards Poland and had not interfered with Polish activities in Galicia. It prejudiced public opinion among radical groups in Russia who, until then, had been friendly because they regarded the uprising as a social rather than a national insurgency and it stirred the Russian government to ever more brutal suppression of hostilities and repression against its Polish participants that had grown in strength.

In addition to the thousands who fell in battle, 128 men were hanged under the personal supervision of Mikhail Muravyov 'Muravyov the Hangman', and 9,423 men and women were exiled to Siberia - 2,500 men according to Russia's own estimates. The historian Norman Davies gives the number as 80,000, noting it was the single largest deportation in Russian history. Whole villages and towns were burned down[verification needed ]. All economic and social activities were suspended and the szlachta was ruined through the confiscation of property and exorbitant taxes. Such was the brutality of Russian troops that their actions were condemned throughout Europe. Count Fyodor Berg, the newly appointed governor, Namiestnik of Poland, and successor to Muravyov, employed harsh measures against the population and intensified systematic Russification in an effort to eradicate Polish traditions and culture.

Insurgents of landed background constituted 60% of the uprising's participants (in Lithuania and Belarus around 50%, in Ukraine some 75%).

During the first 24 hours of the uprising armouries across the country were looted, and many Russian officials were executed on sight. 2 February 1863 saw the start of the first major military engagement of the uprising between Lithuanian peasants, mostly armed with scythes and a squadron of Russian hussars outside Čysta Būda, near Marijampolė. It ended with the massacre of the unprepared peasants. While there was still hope of a short war, insurgent groups merged into bigger formations and recruited new volunteers.

The provisional government had counted on an insurgency erupting in Russia, where wide discontent with the autocratic regime seemed to be brewing at the time. It also counted on the active support of Napoleon III, particularly after Prussia, expecting the inevitable armed conflict with France, had made overtures to Russia sealed in the Alvensleben Convention and offered assistance in suppressing the Polish uprising. Arrangements had already been completed on the 14 February and the British Ambassador to Berlin, Sir Alexander Malet, was able to inform his government that a Prussian military envoy

has concluded a military convention with the Russian Government, according to which the two governments will reciprocally afford facilities to each other for the suppression of the insurrectionary movements which have lately taken place in Poland and Lithuania. The Prussian railways are also to be placed at the disposal of the Russian military authorities for the transportation of troops through Prussian territory from one part of the former Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth to another.

This step by Bismarck led to protests from several governments and incensed the several constituent nations of the former Commonwealth. The result was the transformation of a relatively insignificant uprising into another "national war" against Russia. Encouraged by promises made by Napoleon III, all the provinces of the erstwhile Commonwealth, acting on the advice of Władysław Czartoryski, had taken to arms. Moreover, to Indicate their solidarity, all Commonwealth citizens holding office under the Russian government, including the Archbishop of Warsaw, Zymunt Feliński, resigned their positions and signed their allegiance to the newly constituted Government, which was composed of the five most prominent representatives of the Whites. The Reds meanwhile criticised the Polish National Government for being reactionary with its policy to incentivise Polish peasants to fight in the uprising. The Government justified its inaction on the back of hopes of foreign military intervention promised by Napoleon III. It never materialised.

It was only after Polish general Romuald Traugutt took matters into his own hands on 17 October 1863 to unite all classes under a single national banner that the struggle could be upheld. His restructuring in preparation for an offensive in spring 1864 was banking on a European wide war. On 27 December 1863 he enacted a decree of the former provisional government by granting peasants the land they worked. This land was to be provided by compensating the owners through state funds after the successful conclusion of the uprising. Traugutt called upon all Polish classes to rise against Russian oppression for the creation of a new Polish state. The response was moderate since the policy came too late. The Russian government had already begun working among peasants granting them generous parcels of land for the asking. Those peasants who had been bought off did not engage with Polish revolutionaries to any extent nor did they provide them with support.

Fighting continued intermittently during the winter of 1863-4 on the southern edge of the Kingdom near the Galician border from where assistance was still forthcoming. In late December in the Lublin Voivodeship General Michał Heydenreich's unit was overwhelmed. The most determined resistance continued in the Swietokrzyskie hills where general Józef Hauke-Bosak distinguished himself by taking several cities from the vastly superior Russian forces. Yet he too succumbed to a crushing defeat on 21 February 1864 which presaged the end of the armed struggle. On 29 February Austria imposed martial law and on 2 March the tsarist authorities brought in the abolition of serfdom in the Polish Kingdom. These two events neutralised Traugutt's concept of developing the uprising with a general mobilisation of the population in the Russian partition and reliance on assistance from Galicia. In April 1864 Napoleon III abandoned the Polish cause. Władysław Czartoryski wrote to Traugutt: "We are alone, and alone we shall remain".

Arrests eliminated key positions in the secret Polish state, while those who felt threatened sought refuge abroad. Traugutt was taken on the night of 10 April. After he and the last four members of the National Council, Antoni Jezioranski, Rafał Krajewski, Józef Toczyski and Roman Żuliński had been apprehended by Russian troops, they were imprisoned and executed by hanging on 5 August at the Warsaw Citadel. It marked the symbolic closure of the Uprising. Only Aleksander Waszkowski, head of the Warsaw insurgency eluded the police till December 1864, but then he too joined the list of "the lost" in February 1865. The war consisting of 650 battles and skirmishes with twenty-five thousand Polish and other insurgents killed, had lasted eighteen months. The insurgency persisted in Samogitia and Podlasie, where the Greek-Catholic population, outraged and persecuted for their religious observance, " Kryaki" (those baptised into the Greek Orthodox Church), and others like commander and priest Fr. Stanisław Brzóska, clung longest to the revolutionary banner until the spring of 1865.

After the collapse of the uprising, harsh reprisals followed. According to official Russian information, 396 persons were executed and 18,672 were exiled to Siberia. Large numbers of men and women were sent to the interior of Russia and to the Caucasus, Urals and other remote areas. Altogether about 70,000 persons were imprisoned and subsequently exiled from Poland and consigned to distant regions of Russia.

The abolition of serfdom early in 1864 was deliberately enacted in a move designed specifically to ruin the szlachta. The Russian government confiscated 1,660 estates in Poland and 1,794 in Lithuania. A 10% income tax was imposed on all estates as a war indemnity. Only in 1869 was the tax reduced to 5% on all incomes. It was the only time when peasants paid the market price for the redemption of the land (the average for the Russian Empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1864 was to be returned without compensation rights. Former serfs could sell land only to other peasants, not to szlachta. Ninety percent of the ex-serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were confined to the eight western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only people eligible for land grants after serfdom was abolished.

All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. In addition to the land granted to the peasants, the Russian government gave them a forest, pasture and other privileges (known under the name of servitutes) which proved to be a source of incessant irritation between the landowners and peasants over ensuing decades and an impediment to economic development.[citation needed ] The government took over all church estates, funds, abolished monasteries and convents. With the exception of religious instruction, all teaching in schools was ordered to be in Russian. Russian also became the official language of the country, used exclusively in all offices of central and local government. All traces of former Polish autonomy were removed and the Kingdom was divided into ten provinces, each with an appointed Russian military governor and all under the control of the Governor-General in Warsaw. All former Polish government functionaries were deprived of their positions and replaced by Russian officials. According to George Kennan, "thousands of Polish insurgents" were transported to the " Nerchinsk silver-mining district...after the unsuccessful insurrection of 1863."

These measures of cultural eradication proved to be only partially effective. In 1905, 41 years after Russia crushed the uprising, the next generation of Poles rose once again in the next insurrection. It too failed. The January Uprising was one in a centuries-long series of Polish uprisings. In its aftermath, two new movements began to evolve that set the political agenda for the next century. One, led by the descendant of Lithuanians, Jozef Pilsudski emerged as the Polish Socialist Party. The other, led by Roman Dmowski became the National Democracy movement sometimes referred to as Endecja whose roots lay in Catholic conservatism that sought national sovereignty along with the reversal of forced Russification and Germanisation through Polonisation of the partitioned territories in the former Commonwealth.

Francišak Bahuševič (1840-1900), Belarusian poet and writer, one of the founders of modern Belarusian literature

Stanisław Brzóska (1832-1865), was a Polish priest and commander at the end of the insurrection.

Saint Albert Chmielowski (1845-1916), founder of the Albertine Brothers and Sisters.

Jaroslaw Dabrowski (1836-1871), officer in the Russian Army, left-wing member of the "secret committee" of officers in St. Petersburg. He took over its leadership from Sierakowski. He died in Paris fighting for the Paris Commune.

Konstanty Kalinowski (also known as Kastus) (1838-1864), was one of the leaders of Lithuanian and Belarusian national revival and the leader of the January Uprising in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Saint Raphael Kalinowski (1835-1907), born Joseph Kalinowski in Lithuania, resigned as a Captain from the Russian Army to become Minister of War for the Polish insurgents. He was arrested and sentenced to death by firing squad, but the sentence was then changed to 10 years in Siberia, including a grueling nine-month overland trek to get there.

Apollo Korzeniowski (1820-1869), Polish playwright and father of Joseph Conrad.

Marian Langiewicz (1827-1887), Military Commander of the uprising. He had an English wife, Suzanne, next to whom he was buried in Istanbul.

Antanas Mackevičius (1828-1863), Lithuanian priest who organized some two hundred and fifty men, armed with hunting rifles and straightened scythes. After a defeat near Vilkija, he was captured and taken to the prison in Kaunas. After Mackevičius refused to betray other leaders of the uprising, he was hanged on 28 December 1863.

Ludwik Mierosławski (1814-1878), veteran of the November Uprising and of the Greater Poland uprising (1846), general, strategist, writer and emigrant with wide foreign contacts.

Władysław Niegolewski (1819-1885), was a liberal Polish politician and member of parliament, an insurgent in the Greater Poland Uprising of 1846 and 1848 and of the January 1863 Uprising, and a co-founder (1861) of the Central Economic Society and (1880) the People's Libraries Society.

Francesco Nullo (1826-1863) Italian general who headed the Garibaldi Legion, and that carried huge symbolic value. Nullo died at the Battle of Krzykawka.

Bolesław Prus (1847-1912), leading Polish writer of historical novels.

Anna Henryka Pustowójtówna (1838-1881), alias "Michał Smok", adjutant to Marian Langiewicz. She was of Russian-Polish descent and an activist from 1861. She later took part in the Paris Commune and the Franco-Prussian War. She died in Paris, and had four children.

François Rochebrune, (1830-1870), one of several French officers in the Uprising, he formed and led a Polish rebel unit called the Zouaves of Death and was promoted to General.

Aleksander Sochaczewski (1843-1923), Polish painter.

Romuald Traugutt (1826-1864), a Lieutenant colonel of German descent in the Russian Army, he was promoted general in the insurrection, was its leader for a spell and held the Foreign Affairs portfolio in the underground government. He was tortured and hanged by the Russians with several of his colleagues.

Falling into the late romantic period the events and figures of the Uprising inspired many Polish painters, including Artur Grottger, Juliusz Kossak and Michał Elwiro Andriolli and marked the delineation with the positivism that followed.

Polish poet Cyprian Norwid wrote a famous poem, "Chopin's Piano," describing the defenestration of the composer's piano during the January 1863 Uprising, when Russian soldiers maliciously threw the instrument out of a second-floor Warsaw apartment. Chopin had left Warsaw and Poland forever shortly before the outbreak of the November 1830 Uprising.

Eliza Orzeszkowa, a leading Polish positivist writer and nominee for the Nobel Prize in Literature wrote Nad Niemnem a novel set in and around the city of Grodno after the 1863 January Uprising.

Józef Jarzębowski has put together material from unknown people who lived through the Uprising in his Mówią Ludzie Roku 1863: Antologia nieznanych i małoznanych Głosów Ludzi współczesnych. London: Veritas, 1963. ("Voices from 1863: An Anthology of unknown and little known contemporary Perspectives").

In the initial draft of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne (but not in the published version), Captain Nemo was a Polish nobleman whose family had been brutally murdered by the Russians during the January 1863 Uprising. Since France had only recently signed an alliance with the Russian Empire, in the novel's final version Verne's editor, Pierre-Jules Hetzel, made him obscure Nemo's motives.[citation needed ]

In Guy de Maupassant's novel Pierre et Jean, the protagonist Pierre has a friend, an old Polish chemist who is said to have come to France after the bloody events in his motherland. This story is believed to refer to the January Uprising.

Kutolowski, John F. (1969). "Mid-Victorian Public Opinion, Polish Propaganda, and the Uprising of 1863". Journal of British Studies. 8 (2): 86-110. doi:10.1086/385572. JSTOR 175218.

Leslie, Robert Frank (1969). Reform and insurrection in Russian Poland, 1856-1865. Greenwood. ISBN 0-8371-2415-8.

Lincoln, W. Bruce (1970). "The Makings of a New Polish Policy: N. A. Milyutin and the Polish Question, 1861-1863". Polish Review. 15 (1): 54-66. JSTOR 25776889.

Zyzniewski, Stanley J. (1966). "The Russo-Polish Crucible of the 1860s: A Review of Some Recent Literature". Polish Review. 11 (2): 23-46. JSTOR 25776655.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
January Uprising Part of the Polish-Russian wars Poland - The Year 1863 , by Jan Matejko, 1864, oil on canvas, 156 × 232 cm, National Museum, Kraków. Pictured is the aftermath of the failed January 1863 Uprising. Captives await transportation to Siberia. Russian officers and soldiers supervise a blacksmith placing shackles on a woman ( Polonia).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mexican War of Independence | 3 Minute History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brazilian Independence | 3 Minute History