Kinh Nghiệm về What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? 2022

Bạn đang tìm kiếm từ khóa What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? được Cập Nhật vào lúc : 2022-10-10 05:31:46 . Với phương châm chia sẻ Bí kíp về trong nội dung bài viết một cách Chi Tiết 2022. Nếu sau khi tìm hiểu thêm Post vẫn ko hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comments ở cuối bài để Tác giả lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha.

Nội dung chính

    Background[edit]Framework[edit]Implementation[edit]Language versions[edit]Terminology[edit]European
    influence[edit]Domestic and foreign
    reactions[edit]Initial Suspension of the
    Constitution[edit]Second Constitutional
    Era[edit]Final Suspension of the
    Constitution[edit]Significance of the constitution[edit]See
    also[edit]Notes[edit]References[edit]Reference notes[edit]Further reading[edit]External
    links[edit]What is significant about the Constitution of 1876?What is the main theme throughout the Constitution?What are the four key principles found in the Constitution of 1876?What was the main focus of the framers when writing the Texas Constitution of 1876?

Summary: Article provides brief introduction to current state constitution and links to other pages that contain text of and analysis on each section.

The Texas Constitution of 1876 is the fifth since statehood. Framed by the Constitutional Convention of 1875, it was approved by Texas voters on February 15, 1876.

It originally had 289 sections. Over the years, 225 sections have been added. However, 66 of the original sections and 52 of the added sections have been repealed.

On Texas Legal Guide, the preamble, each article and each section of the state constitution has its own page:

    Preamble to the Texas ConstitutionArticle I of the Texas ConstitutionArticle II of the Texas ConstitutionArticle III of the Texas ConstitutionArticle IV of the Texas ConstitutionArticle V of the Texas ConstitutionArticle VI of the Texas ConstitutionArticle VII of the Texas ConstitutionArticle VIII of the Texas ConstitutionArticle IX of the Texas ConstitutionArticle X of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XI of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XII of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XIII of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XIV of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XV of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XVI of the Texas ConstitutionArticle XVII of the Texas Constitution

The Constitution of 1876 remains in force. Unlike the 1869 constitution, the 1876 constitution generally reflected public opinion in Texas its time of drafting. While still in force, the 1876 constitution has been amended hundreds of times. Since 1876, 216 new sections have been added to the constitution, while 66 of the original sections and 51 of the added sections have been removed. The Texas Legislative Council’s Amendments to the Texas Constitution
Since 1876 (://.tlc.state.tx.us/docs/amendments/Constamend1876.pdf) details the changes to the 1876 constitution over the past almost 150 years.

Cover of the
Ottoman constitution of 1876

The Constitution of the Ottoman Empire (Ottoman Turkish: قانون اساسى; Turkish: Kanûn-u Esâsî; English:
“Basic Law”; French: Constitution ottomane) also known as the Constitution of 1876, was the first constitution of the
Ottoman Empire.[1] Written by members of the Young Ottomans, particularly Midhat
Pasha, during the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876–1909), the constitution was in effect from 1876 to 1878 in a period known as the First Constitutional Era, and from 1908 to 1922 in the
Second Constitutional Era. After Abdul Hamid’s political downfall in the 31 March Incident, the Constitution was amended to transfer more power from the sultan and the appointed
Senate to the popularly-elected lower house: the Chamber of Deputies.

In the course of their studies in Europe, some members of the new Ottoman elite concluded that the secret of Europe’s success rested not only
with its technical achievements but also with its political organizations. Moreover, the process of reform itself had imbued a small segment of the elite with the belief that constitutional government would be a desirable check on autocracy and provide it with a better opportunity to influence policy. Sultan Abdülaziz’s chaotic rule led to his deposition in 1876 and, after a few troubled months, to the
proclamation of an Ottoman constitution that the new sultan, Abdul Hamid II, pledged to uphold.[2]

Background[edit]

The
Ottoman Constitution was introduced after a series of reforms were promulgated in 1839 during the Tanzimat era. The goal of the Tanzimat era was to reform the Ottoman Empire under the auspices of Westernization.[3] In the context of the reforms, Western educated Armenians of the
Ottoman Empire drafted the Armenian National Constitution in 1863.[4] The Ottoman Constitution of 1876 was under direct influence of the Armenian National Constitution and its
authors.[5] The Ottoman Constitution of 1876 itself was drawn up by Western educated Ottoman Armenian Krikor Odian, who was the advisor of
Midhat
Pasha.[5][6][7]

Attempts reform within the empire had long been
made. Under the reign of Sultan Selim III, there was a vision of actual reform. Selim tried to address the military’s failure to effectively function in battle; even the basics of fighting were lacking, and military leaders lacked ability to command. Eventually his efforts led to his assassination by the
Janissaries.[8] This action soon led to Mahmud II becoming Sultan. Mahmud can be considered to be the “first real Ottoman reformer,”
[9] since he took a substantive stand against the Janissaries by removing them as an obstacle in the Auspicious
Incident.[9]

This led to what was known as The Tanzimat era, which lasted from 1839 to 1876. This era was defined as an effort of reform to distribute power from the Sultan (even trying to remove his efforts) to the newly formed government led by a Parliament. These were the intentions of the
Sublime Porte, which included the newly formed government.[10] The purpose of the Tanzimat Era was reform, but mainly, to divert power from the Sultan to the Sublime Porte. The first indefinable act of the
Tanzimat period was when Sultan Abdülmecid I issued Edict of Gülhane.[11] This document or statement expressed the principles that the liberal statesmen
wanted to become an actual reality. The Tanzimat politicians wanted to prevent the empire from falling completely into ruin.

During this time the Tanzimat had three different sultans: Abdulmejid I (1839 – 1861), Abdülaziz I (1861-1876) and
Murad V (who only lasted 3 months in 1876).[12] During the Tanzimat period, the man from the Ottoman Empire with the most respect in Europe was Midhat
Pasha.[13] Midhat dreamed of an Empire in which “there would be neither Muslim nor non-Muslim but only Ottomans.”
[13] Such ideology led to the formation of groups such as the Young Ottomans and the
Committee of Union and Progress (who merged with the Ottoman Unity Society).[citation needed] These movements attempted to bring about real
reform not by means of edicts and promises, but by concrete action.[citation needed] Even after Abdulhamid II suspended the constitution, it was still printed in the salname, or yearbooks made by the Ottoman
government.[14]

Johann Strauss, author of “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the Kanun-ı Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages,” wrote that the Constitution of
Belgium and the Constitution of Prussia (1850) “seem to have influenced the Ottoman Constitution”.[15]

Aim[edit]

The Ottoman Porte believed that once the Christian population was represented in the legislative assembly, no
foreign power could legitimize the promotion of her national interests under pretext of representing the rights of these people of religious and ethnic bonds. Particularly, if successfully implemented, it was thought that it would rob Russia of any such claims.[16] However, its potential was never realized and the tensions with the Russian Empire culminated in
the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878).

Framework[edit]

After Sultan Murad V was removed from office, Abdul Hamid II
became the new Sultan. Midhat Pasha was afraid that Abdul Hamid II would go against his progressive visions; consequently he had an interview with him to assess his personality and to determine if he was on
board.[17] The Constitution proposed a bicameral parliament, the General Assembly, consisting of the Sultan-selected
Senate and the generally elected Chamber of Deputies (although not directly; the populace chose delegates who would then choose the Deputies). There were also elections held every four years to keep the parliament changing and to
continually express the voice of the people. This same framework carried over from the Constitution as it was in 1876 until it was reinstated in 1908. All in all the framework on the Constitution did little to limit the Sultan’s power. Some of the retained powers of the Sultan were: declaration of war, appointment of new ministers, and approval of
legislation.[18]

Implementation[edit]

Although talks about the implementation of a constitution were in place
during the rule of Murad V, they did not come to fruition.[19] A secret meeting between Midhat Pasha, the main author
of the constitution, and Abdul Hamid II, the brother of the sultan, was arranged in which it was agreed that a constitution would be drafted and promulgated immediately after Abdul Hamid II came to the
throne.[20] Following this agreement, Murat V was deposed on 1876 by a fetva on the grounds of insanity. A committee of 24 (later 28) people, led my
Midhat Pasha, was formed to work on the new constitution. They submitted the first draft on 13 November 1876 which was obstreperously rejected by Abdul Hamid II’s ministers on the grounds of the abolishment of the office of the
Sadrazam.[19] After strenuous debates, a constitution acceptable to all sides was established and the constitution was signed by
Abdul Hamid II on the morning of December 13, 1876.

Language versions[edit]

According to Strauss, the authorities seemed to have had prepared
multiple language versions of the constitution the same time prior to release as their publication year was 1876: he stated that such release “apparently occurred simultaneously”.[14] They were officially published in various newspapers, owned by their respective publishers, according to language, and there were other
publications that re-printed them.[21]

Strauss divides the translations into “Oriental-style” versions – ones made for adherents of Islam, and “Western-style” versions – ones made for Christian and Jewish people, including Ottoman citizens and foreigners residing in the
empire.[22]

Versions for Muslims[edit]

The version in Ottoman Turkish was used as the basis of translations of versions for Muslims, in Arabic and Persian

The constitution was originally made in Ottoman Turkish with a Perso-Arabic script. The Ottoman government printed it, as did printing presses from private
individuals.[14]

There are a total of ten Turkish terms, and the document instead relies on words from Arabic, which Strauss argues is “excessive”.[23] In
addition, he stated that other defining aspects include “convoluted sentences typical of Ottoman chancery style”, izafet, and a “deferential indirect style” using
honorifics.[23] Therefore Strauss wrote that due to its complexity, “A satisfactory translation into Western languages is difficult, if not
impossible.”[23] Max Bilal Heidelberger wrote a direct translation of the Ottoman Turkish version and published it in a book chapter by Tilmann J Röder, “The Separation of Powers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives.”

A Latin script rendition of the Ottoman Turkish appeared in 1957, in the
Republic of Turkey, in Sened-i İttifaktan Günümüze Türk Anayasa Metinleri, edited by Suna Kili and A. Şeref Gözübüyük and published by Türkiye İş Bankası
Kültür Yayınları.[14]

In addition to the original Ottoman Turkish, the document had been translated into Arabic and Persian. Language versions for Muslims were derived from the Ottoman Turkish
version,[24] and Strauss wrote that the vocabularies of the Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, and Persian versions were “almost identical”.[25] Despite the Western
concepts in the Ottoman Constitution, Strauss stated that “The official French version does not give the impression that the Ottoman text is a translation of it.”[23]

The Arabic version was published in
Al-Jawā ́ ib.[21] Strauss, who also wrote “Language and power in the late Ottoman Empire,” stated that the terminology used in the Arabic version “stuck almost
slavishly” to that of the Ottoman Turkish,[24] with Arabic itself “almost exclusively” being the source of the terminology; as newer Arabic words were replacing older ones used by Ottoman Turkish, Strauss argued that this closeness “is more surprising” compared to the closeness of the Persian version to the Ottoman original,
and that the deliberate closeness to the “Ottoman text is significant, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory explanation for this practice.”[22]

From 17 January 1877 a Persian version appeared in
Akhtar.[21] Strauss stated that the closeness of the Persian text to the Ottoman original was not very surprising as Persian adopted Arabic-origin Ottoman Turkish words related to
politics.[22]

Versions for non-Muslim
minorities[edit]

This version in French was used as the basis for translations into languages used by Christian and Jewish minorities and into English (printed in
Législation ottomane Volume 5)

Versions for non-Muslims included those in Armenian, Bulgarian,
Greek, and Judaeo-Spanish (Ladino).[24] There was also a version in
Armeno-Turkish, Turkish written in the Armenian alphabet.[26] These
versions were respectively printed in Masis, Makikat,
Vyzantis, De Castro Press, and La
Turquie.[21]

Strauss stated that versions for languages used by non-Muslims were based on the French version,[24] being the “model and the
source of the terminology”.[27] Strauss pointed to the fact that honorifics and other linguistic features in Ottoman Turkish were usually not present in these
versions.[23] In addition each language version has language-specific terminology that is used in place of some terms from Ottoman Turkish.[28] Different
versions either heavily used foreign terminology or used their own languages’ terminologies heavily but they generally avoided using the Ottoman Turkish one; some common French-derived Ottoman terms were replaced with other words.[29] Based on the differences between the versions for non-Muslims and the Ottoman Turkish
version, Strauss concluded that “foreign influences and national traditions – or even aspirations” shaped the non-Muslim versions,[22] and that they “reflect religious, ideological and other divisions existing in the Ottoman
Empire.”[27]

Since the Armenian version, which Strauss describes as “puristic”, uses Ottoman terminology not found in the French version and on some occasions in lieu of native Armenian terms, Strauss described it as having “taken into account the Ottoman
text”.[30] The publication Bazmavep (“Polyhistore”) re-printed the Armenian version.[21]

The Bulgarian version was re-printed in four other
newspapers: Dunav/Tuna, Iztočno Vreme, Napredŭk or Napredǎk (“Progress”) and Zornitsa (“Morning
Star”).[31] Strauss wrote that the Bulgarian version “corresponds exactly to the French version”; the title page of the copy in the collection of Christo S. Arnaudov (Bulgarian: Христо С.
Арнаудовъ; Post-1945 spelling: Христо С. Арнаудов) stated that the work was translated from Ottoman Turkish, but Strauss said this is not the case.[32]

Strauss stated that the Greek version “follows the French translation” while adding Ottoman synonyms of Greek terminology and Greek synonyms of Ottoman
terminology.[33]

Strauss wrote that “perhaps the Judaeo-Spanish – version may have been checked against the original Ottoman text”.[27]

Strauss also
wrote “There must have also been a Serbian version available in [Bosnia Vilayet]”.[21] Arsenije Zdravković published a Serbian
translation after the Young Turk Revolution.[21]

Versions for
foreigners[edit]

There were versions made in French and English. The former was intended for diplomats and was created by the Translation Office (Terceme
odası).[26] Strauss stated that a draft copy of the French version had not been located and there is no evidence that states that one had ever been
made.[23] The French version has some terminology originating from Ottoman Turkish.[34]

A 1908 issue of the
American Journal of International Law printed an Ottoman-produced English version but did not specify its origin.[26] After analysing a passage from it, Strauss concluded
“Clearly, the “contemporary English version” was also translated from the French version.”[33][note 1]

Strauss wrote “I have not come across a Russian translation of the Kanun-i
esasi. But it is highly probable that it existed.”[32]

Terminology[edit]

Versions
in several languages for Christians and Jews used variants of the word “constitution”: konstitutsiya in Bulgarian, σύνταγμα (syntagma) in Greek, konstitusyon in Judaeo-Spanish, and ustav in Serbian. The Bulgarian version used a term in Russian, the Greek version used a calque from the French word “constitution”, the Judaeo-Spanish derived its term from the French, and the Serbian version
used a word from Slavonic.[21] The Armenian version uses the word sahmanadrut‘iwn (also Sahmanatrov;ivn,
Western Armenian: սահմանադրութիւն; Eastern style: Armenian:
սահմանադրություն).[23]

Those in Ottoman Turkish, Arabic, and Persian used a word meaning “basic law”, Kanun-i esasi in Turkish, al-qānūn al-asāsī in Arabic, and qānūn-e asāsī in Persian.
Strauss stated that the Perso-Arabic term is closer in meaning to “Grundgesetz”.[21]

European
influence[edit]

As European power increased over the 18th century, the Ottomans saw a lack of progress
themselves.[10] In the Treaty of Paris (1856), the Ottomans were now considered part of the European world. This was the beginning of intervention by Europeans (i.e.
Great Britain and France) in the Ottoman Empire. One of the reasons they were taking a step into Ottoman territory was for the protection of Christianity in the Ottoman Empire. There
had been perennial conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Empire.[35] This was the focal point for the Russians to interfere, and the Russians were perhaps the Ottomans’ most disliked enemy. The Russians looked for many ways to become involved in political affairs especially when unrest in the Empire reached their borders. The
history of the Russo-Turkish wars was long, for many different reasons. The Ottomans saw the Russians as their most fierce enemy and not one to be trusted.

Domestic and foreign
reactions[edit]

Reactions within the Empire and around Europe were both widely acceptable and potentially a cause for some concern. Before the Constitution was enacted and made official, many of the
Ulema were against it because they deemed it to be going against the Shari’a.[36] However, throughout the Ottoman Empire, the people were extremely happy and looking forward to life under this new
regime.[37] Many people celebrated and joined in Muslim-Christian relations which formed, and there now seemed to be a new national identity: Ottoman.[38] However many provinces and people within the Empire were against it and
many acted out their displeasure in violence. Some Muslims agreed with the Ulema that the constitution violated Shari’a law. Some acted out their protests by attacking a priest during mass.[39] Some of the provinces referred to in the constitution were alarmed, such as Rumania, Scutari and Albania,
because they thought it referred to them having a different change of government or no longer being autonomous from the Empire.[39]

Yet the most important reaction, only second to that of the people, was that of the Europeans. Their reactions were quite to the contrary from the people; in fact
they were completely against it—so much so that England was against supporting the Sublime Porte and criticized their actions as reckless.[40] Many across European saw this constitution as unfit or a last attempt to save the Empire. In fact only two small nations were in favor of the constitution but only because they disliked the Russians as well. Others
considered the Ottomans to be grasping for straws in trying to save the Empire; they also labeled it as a fluke of the Sublime Porte and the Sultan.[41]

Initial Suspension of the
Constitution[edit]

After the Ottomans were defeated in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) a truce was signed on the 31st
of January 1878 in Edirne. 14 days after this sự kiện, on February 14, 1878, Abdul Hamid II took the opportunity to prorogue the parliament, citing social unrest.[42] This afforded him
the opportunity to not carry out new elections. Abdul Hamid II, increasingly withdrawn from society to the Yildiz Palace, was therefore able rule the most part of 3 decades in an absolutist
manner.[43]

Second Constitutional
Era[edit]

The Constitution was put back into effect in 1908 as Abdul Hamid II came under pressure, particularly from some of his military leaders.
Abdul Hamid II’s fall came as a result of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution, and the Young Turks put the 1876 constitution back into effect. The
second constitutional period spanned from 1908 until after World War I when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved. Many political groups and parties were formed during this period, including the
Committee of Union and Progress (CUP).

Final Suspension of the
Constitution[edit]

On the 20th of January 1920, the Grand National Assembly met and ratified the
Turkish Constitution of 1921. However, since this document did not clearly state whether the Ottoman Constitution of 1876 was superseded, consequentially, only provisions contradictory to the 1921 Constitution became null and void
(lex posterior derogat legi priori).[44] The rest of the constitution resumed its implementation up until the 20th of April 1924, when both the Constitutions of 1876 and 1921 were replaced by an entirely new document, the
Constitution of 1924.

Significance of the constitution[edit]

The Ottoman
Constitution represented more than the immediate effect it had on the country. It was extremely significant because it made all subjects Ottomans under the law. By doing so, everyone, regardless of their religion had the right to liberties such as freedom of press and không lấy phí education. Despite the latitude it gave to the sovereign, the constitution provided clear evidence of the extent to which European influences operated among a section of the Ottoman bureaucracy. This showed the effects of the
pressure from Europeans on the issue of discrimination of religious minorities within the Ottoman Empire, although, Islam was still the recognized religion of the state.[45] The constitution also reaffirmed the equality of all Ottoman subjects, including their right to serve in the new
Chamber of Deputies. The constitution was more than a political document; it was a proclamation of Ottomanism and Ottoman patriotism, and it was an assertion that the empire was capable of resolving its problems and that it had the right to remain intact as it then existed. The Ottoman Constitution of 1876 was followed by the Nationality Law of
1869[clarification needed], which further emphasized the idea of a common citizenship shared by all Ottoman subjects. The goal of the Nationality Law was to keep the state
together.[46][47]

Ultimately, although the constitution created an elected chamber of deputies and an appointed senate, it only placed minimal restriction on the Sultan’s power. Under the constitution, the Sultan retained
the power to declare war and make peace, to appoint and dismiss ministers, to approve legislation, and to convene and dismiss the chamber of deputies.[48] The sultan remained the theocratic legitimized sovereign to which the state organization was made-to-measure. Thus, despite a de jure intact constitution, the sultan ruled in the absolutist
manner.[43] This was particularly evident in the closure of Parliament only eleven months after the declaration of the Constitution. Although the basic rights guaranteed in the constitution were not all insignificant in Ottoman legal history, they were severely limited by the pronouncements of the ruler.
Instead of overcoming sectarian divisions through the institution of universal representation, the elections reinforced the communitarian basis of society by allotting quotas to the various religious communities based on projections of population figures derived from the census of 1844. Furthermore, in order to appease the European powers,
the Ottoman administration drafted an exceedingly uneven representational scheme that favored the European provinces by an average 2:1 ratio.[49]

See
also[edit]

    Ottoman lawGeneral
    Assembly of the Ottoman EmpireConstitution of Turkey

Notes[edit]

^ For a scientific English translation directly from the Ottoman Turkish version of the constitution, done by Max Bilal Heidelberger, see below. It originates from the copy published in the Düstūr (Ottoman Official Gazette) 1st series (tertïb-i evvel), Volume 4, Pages
4-20. Röder, Tilmann J. (2012-01-11). “The Separation of Powers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives”. In Grote, Rainer; Tilmann J. Röder (eds.). Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries. Oxford University Press USA. pp. 321-372. ISBN 9780199759880.
– Old ISBN 019975988X The article includes the following documents in “Annex: Constitutional Documents from the Ottoman and Iranian Empires”:

    “The Basic Law [Kanūn-ı Esāsī] of the Ottoman Empire of December 23, 1876”; p..
    341-352

“B. Revisions of the Basic Law” – Start p.. 352

    Law No. 130 on the Revision of Some Articles of the Basic Law of 7th Zi’lhijjeh 1293 (5th Sha’ban 1327 /
    August 8, 1909)Law No. 318 Revising the Articles 7, 35, and 43 Revised on 5th Sha’ban 1327 (2nd Rejeb 1332 – May 15, 1914)Law No. 80 Revising the Article 102 of the Basic Law of the 7th Zi’lhijjeh 1293 and the Articles 7 and 43 Revised on 2nd Rejeb 1332 (26th Rebi’ü-’l-Evvel 1333 – January 29, 1914)Law No. 307 Revising the Revision of Article 76 of 5th Sha’ban 1327 (4th Jumada-‘l-Ula 1334 – February 25, 1916)Law on the Revision of the Revised Art. 7 of the
    Basic Law of 26th Rebi’ü-’l-Evvel 1333 and the Deletion of the Revised Art. 35 of 2nd Rejeb 1332 (4th Jumada-‘l-Ula 1334 – February 25, 1916)Law No. 370 Revising Article 72 of the Basic Law of 7th Zi’lhijjeh 1293 (15th Jumada-‘l-Ula 1334 – March 7, 1916); Law No 102 Revising Art. 69 of the Basic Law (8th Jumada-‘l-Ula 1334 – March 21, 1918).

The translation in Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries does not include the edict of
Abdulhamid II to Midhat Pasha, which was from Düstūr 1st Series, Volume 4, Pages 2-3.

References[edit]

    Strauss, Johann (2010). “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the Kanun-ı Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages”. In Herzog, Christoph; Malek Sharif (eds.).
    The First Ottoman Experiment in Democracy. Wurzburg: Orient-Institut Istanbul. pp. 21–51.
    (info page on book Martin Luther University)

Reference notes[edit]

^ For a modern English translation of the constitution and related laws, see Tilmann J. Röder, The Separation of Powers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, in: Grote/Röder, Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries (Oxford University Press 2011).^ Cleveland, William (2013). A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p.. 79. ISBN 0813340489.
^ Cleveland, William L & Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East: 4th Edition, Westview Press: 2009, p.. 82.^ Joseph,
John (1983). Muslim-christian relations & inter-christian rivalries in the middle east : the case of the jacobites. [S.l.]: Suny Press. p.. 81. ISBN 9780873956000. Retrieved 21 January
2013.
^ a b H. Davison, Roderic (1973).
Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876 (2, reprint ed.). Gordian Press. p.. 134. Retrieved 21 January 2013. But it can be shown that Midhat Pasa, the principal author of the 1876 constitution, was directly influenced by the
Armenians.^ United States Congressional serial set, Issue 7671 (Volume ed.). United States Senate: 66th Congress. 2nd session. 1920. p.. 6. Retrieved 21 January 2013. In 1876 a constitution for Turkey was drawn up by the Armenian Krikor Odian, secretary to Midhat
Pasha the reformer, and was proclaimed and almost immediately revoked by Sultan Abdul
Hamid^ Bertrand Bereilles, La Diplomatie turco-phanarote. Introduction till Rapport secret de Karatheodory Pacha sur le Congrès de Berlin, Paris, 1919, p.. 25. Quote translated from French: “The majority of the government officials in the Ottoman Empire selected a Greek or an Armenian as their advisor in reform.” The author mentions two names amongst these “advisors”, Dr. Serop
Vitchenian, who was the adviser to Fuad Pasha, and Grigor Odian, deputy to Midhat Pasha, who is the author of the Ottoman constitution of 1876.^ Devereux, Robert (1963). The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
p.. 22.^
a b Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print,
p.. 22^ a b Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat
Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 21^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 25^ Findley, Carter V. (1980). Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire The Sublime Porte 1789 – 1922. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
p.. 152.
^ a b Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution
and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 30^ a b
c d Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 32 (PDF p.. 34/338).^ Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 36 (PDF p.. 38/338).^ 6) Berkes, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey.Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964. pp.
224-225^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 43^ A history of the Modern Middle East, Cleveland and Bunton p.. 79^ a
b Berkes, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey.Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964. pp. 224-225,242-243, 248-249.^ No reliable information
is available on this meeting, although the following source can be consulted with caution: Celaleddin, Mir’-i Hakikat, I, pp. 168.^ a b
c d e
f g h
i Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 34 (PDF p.. 36/338).^ a
b c d Strauss, “A Constitution for a
Multilingual Empire,” p.. 50 (PDF p.. 52/338).^ a b
c d e
f g Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 35 (PDF p.. 37/338).^
a b c
d Strauss, Johann (2022-07-07). “Language and power in the late Ottoman Empire”. In Murphey, Rhoads (ed.). Imperial Lineages and Legacies in the Eastern Mediterranean: Recording the Imprint of Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Rule.
Routledge. p.. PT193. ISBN 9781317118442. Page from Google Books. In Chapter no. 7. Volume 18 of Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies. Old ISBN 1317118448.^ Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 49 (PDF p.. 51/338).^ a
b c Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 33 (PDF p.. 35/338).^
a b c Strauss, “A Constitution for a
Multilingual Empire,” p.. 51 (PDF p.. 53/338).^ Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 41 (PDF p.. 43/338).^ Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 50-51 (PDF p.. 52-53/338).^ Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 47 (PDF p..
49/338).^ Strauss, Johann. “Twenty Years in the Ottoman capital: the memoirs of Dr. Hristo Tanev Stambolski of Kazanlik (1843-1932) from an Ottoman point of view.” In: Herzog, Christoph and Richard Wittmann (editors). Istanbul – Kushta – Constantinople: Narratives of Identity in the Ottoman
Capital, 1830-1930. Routledge, 10 October 2022. ISBN 1351805223, 9781351805223. p.. 267.^
a b Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire,” p.. 46 (PDF p.. 50/338).^
a b Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the Kanun-ı Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages,” p.. 46 (PDF p.. 48/338).^ Strauss, “A Constitution for a Multilingual Empire: Translations of the Kanun-ı Esasi and Other Official Texts into Minority Languages,” p.. 38 (PDF p.. 40/338).^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 24^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman
Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 45^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 82^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 84^
a b Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print,
p.. 85^ Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 87^
Devereux, Robert, The First Ottoman Constitutional Period A Study of the Midhat Constitution and Parliament, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1963, Print, p.. 88^ Gottfried Plagemann: Von Allahs Gesetz zur Modernisierung per Gesetz. Gesetz und Gesetzgebung im Osmanischen Reich und der Republik Türkei. Lit Verlag
^ a b Cf. Jean Deny: ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd. In: The Encyclopedia of Islam. New Edition. Vol. 2, Brill, Leiden 2002, pp.
64-65.^ Gözler, Kemal (2008). Türk Anayasa Hukukuna Giriş. Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi. p.. 32.^
Boğaziçi University, Atatürk Institute of Modern Turkish History^ Cleveland, William (2013). A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p.. 77. ISBN 0813340489.^ Cleveland, William (2013).
A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 79–80. ISBN 0813340489.
^ Cleveland, William L & Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East: 4th Edition, Westview Press: 2009, p.. 79.^ Hanioglu, Sukru
(2010). A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press. pp. 118–119.

Further reading[edit]

    Koçunyan, Aylin (2014-06-16). “The Transcultural Dimension of the Ottoman Constitution”. In Firges, Pascal; Tobias Graf; Christian Roth; Gülay Tulasoğlu (eds.).
    Well-Connected Domains: Towards an Entangled Ottoman History. Brill.
    doi:10.1163/9789004274686_015. ISBN 9789004274686.
    Korkut, Huseyin (2022). “CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE OTTOMAN CONSTITUTION (1876)”. Epiphany: Journal of Transdisciplinary
    Studies. 9 (1):
    114–123.
    – author is of Kırklareli UniversityMarcou, Jean (2005). “Turquie : la constitutionnalisation inachevée”.
    Égypte/Monde arabe (in French). 2: 53–73.
    doi:10.4000/ema.1054.
    – Updated trực tuyến 8 July 2008

Publications of the constitution in print

    Perso-Arabic Ottoman Turkish: Kanun-i esasi. Constantinople: Matbaa-i amire. 1876. (Ottoman year:
    1292)Latin script Ottoman Turkish: Kili, Suna; A. Şeref Gözübüyük, eds. (1957). Sened-i İttifaktan Günümüze Türk Anayasa Metinleri (1 ed.). Ankara: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. pp. 31–44. – There are reprintsOfficial French: Constitution ottomane promulguée le 7
    Zilhidjé 1294 (11/23 décembre 1876). Typographie et Lithographie centrales. 1876-12-23. – Julian date 11 December 1876

      Second
      print: Constitution ottomane promulguée le 7 Zilhidjé 1294 (11/23 décembre 1876) Rescrit (Hatt) de S.M.I. le Sultan. Constantinople:
      Loeffler. – Year may be 1876, but Strauss is uncertain

    Armeno-Turkish Kanunu esasi memaliki devleti
    osmaniye. Constantinople: La Turquie. 1876.Bulgarian:
    ОТТОМАНСКАТА КОНСТИТУЩЯ, ПРОВЪЗГЛАСЕНА на 7 зилхидже 1293 (11/23 Декемврш 1876) (Otomanskata konstitutsiya, provŭzglasena na 7 zilhidže 1293 (11/23 dekemvrii 1876)). Constantinople: “Hakikat” Press.
    1876.
    Greek: Оθωμανικόν Σύνταγμα ανακηρυχθέν τη 7 Ζιλχιτζέ 1293 (11/23 δεκεμβρίου 1876) (Othōmanikon Syntagma anakērychthen tē 7 Zilchitze 1293 (11/23 dekemvriou 1876). Constantinople: Typographion “Vyzantidos”.
    1876.
    Arabic: Tarjamat al-khaṭṭ ash-sharīf as-sulṭānī wa l-Qānūn al-asāsī. Constantinople: Al-Jawāʾib Press. –
    Islamic year 1293, circa 1876 GregorianArmenian: սահմանադրութիւն Օսմանյան պետութիւն (Sahmanadrut‘iwun Ôsmanean Petut‘ean). Istanbul: Masis.
    1877.
    Judaeo-Spanish: Konstitusyon del Imperio otomano proklamada el 7 zilhidje 1283 (7 Tevet 5637). Constantinople: Estamparia De Castro en Galata.
    1877. – Hebrew calendar 5637

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

    “1876 KANUN-I ESASİ” (in Turkish). Constitutional Court of Turkey.
    Archived from the original on 2022-06-09. Retrieved 2022-09-10. – About the
    constitutionArticle on the Kanûn-ı Esâsî

Copies of the constitution

    English translations:

      “The Ottoman Constitution, Promulgated the 7th Zilbridje, 1293 (11/23 December, 1876)”.
      The American Journal of International Law. Cambridge University Press. 2 (4 (Supplement: Official Documents (Oct., 1908))): 367–387. 1908-10-01.
      doi:10.2307/2212668. JSTOR 2212668.
      – Translation inclosed in dispatch No. 113 in the MS. Records, U.S. Department of State, dated December 26, 1876 (PDF version)Translation, including the “Tanzimat Fermani — The Rescript of
      Gülhane – Gülhane Hatt-i Hümayunu 3 November 1839”, Bilkent UniversityFull text of the First Ottoman Constitution (1876) – Translation posted by the Atatürk Institute of Modern
      Turkish History of Boğaziçi University, identity of the translator not stated. Alternate link with text of 1908 amendments. Alternate link of regular version
      European University Institute

    Original Ottoman Turkish version (basis of translation into languages used by Muslims)- the website of the
    Constitutional Court of Turkey (Modern Turkish transliteration (Ankara, 1982) with text version)French translation
    (the basis of translation into non-Muslim languages) published in:

      Annotated version: Ubicini, Abdolonyme (1877). La constitution ottomane du 7 zilhidjé 1293 (23 décembre 1876) Expliquée et Annotée par A. Ubicini. Paris: A.
      Cotillon et
      Co..
      – PDF fileDocuments diplomatiques: 1875-1876-1877. Paris: French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Imprimerie National. 1877. pp. 272–289. – PDF
      document pages 281-298/545Administration de la revue générale (1877). Revue générale treizième année.
      Vol. 25. Brussels: Imprimerie E. Guyott. pp. 319–330.
      – In the section “Documents historiques” (February, Chapter 10 which begins on page 319) – PDF document pages 332-343/1073Institut de droit international (1878). Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international. Paris: G. Pedone. pp. 296–316. –
      Read trực tuyến. Text available – Online on 17 January 2011

    Non-Muslim languages: Greek
    (PDF file) from the Turkish, published by Voutyras Press, the Veria Digital Library – From Sismanoglio Megaro of the Consulate Gen. of Greece in Istanbul ;
    Bulgarian

      Note the Greek is in the Katharevousa style; for a portion in modern Demotic Greek see
      “Έθνη και κράτη στη Νοτιοανατολική Ευρώπη” (PDF). pp. 70–71. – Translated from
      the Boğaziçi English version by Professor Spyros Marketos, released in 2006

Other

    Özbudun, Ergun. “Ottoman Constitution of 1876”.
    Oxford Constitutional
    Law.

What is significant about the Constitution of 1876?

The Constitution of 1876 began with a lengthy bill of rights. It declared that Texas was a không lấy phí and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, that all không lấy phí men have equal rights, and that the writ of habeas corpus could not be suspended or unduly delayed.

What is the main theme throughout the Constitution?

They declare that the Constitution derives its power not from a king or a Congress, but from the people themselves. This concept of popular sovereignty—power to the people—is the foundation upon which the entire Constitution depends.

What are the four key principles found in the Constitution of 1876?

Popular sovereignty, limited stated government through local control, separation of powers & personal rights & liberties.

What was the main focus of the framers when writing the Texas Constitution of 1876?

The Texas Constitution consists of 17 articles following the preamble. The framers of the 1876 Texas Constitution were reacting to perceived abuses by both the national and state governments under the Radical Republicans.
Tải thêm tài liệu liên quan đến nội dung bài viết What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876?

4252

Video What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? ?

Bạn vừa đọc Post Với Một số hướng dẫn một cách rõ ràng hơn về Clip What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? tiên tiến và phát triển nhất

Share Link Download What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? miễn phí

Pro đang tìm một số trong những Share Link Cập nhật What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? miễn phí.

Hỏi đáp vướng mắc về What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876?

Nếu sau khi đọc nội dung bài viết What is the most important theme of the Constitution of 1876? vẫn chưa hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comment ở cuối bài để Mình lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha
#important #theme #Constitution