3596) Video :Direct Relationship Between Armenian Genocide And American Missionaries, Missionary Reports, How They Expand Their Field Of Activities . . . By Prof Hans Lukas Kieser

Direct Relationship Between Armenian Genocide & American Missionaries,
Missionary Reports, How They Expand Their Field Of Activities . . .
Prof Hans Lukas Kieser,
University Of Zurich

Read Full Post !

3568) How Good Hearted People Were Brain Washed To Donate To Aid Christianity

Commentary by Sukru Server Aya

We have at hand some fifteen “News Bulletin” of the “American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief”, which by August 6, 1918 Congress incorporated the committee as the Near East Relief ,n official approval of the NER’s efforts to organize food.

In the August Posting # 3567, I had commented only on the most important of these Bulletins. Now I would like to “round up these Bulletins” with very short notes about their contents. In principle I am not for or against “decent missionaries of their faiths”! I was lucky to be educated by some of these honorable missionaries, quite a number of which rest in Istanbul Protestant Cemeteries and for which I had organized in the past memorial visits and church ceremonies with graduate friends. I think that readers enlightened by sufficient knowledge and intelligence, will detest the sufferings and blood baths made in the name of GOD (the merciful or revengeful)? It suffices to see what is going on today by Islamist fanatics, or remember other cases of the Thirty Years Wars, or myth of Catholic Pope Joan or Protestant Jim Jones and the end of his People’s Temple and followers!

. . .

Read Full Post !

3313) Protestant Diplomacy & The Near East: Missionary Influence On American Policy, 1810-1927

University of Minnesota Press 1971

For understand of the Middle East today, it is essential to know something of the historical background of that region, traditionally known as the Near East. In tracing the influence of American Protestant missionary activities on American foreign policy and diplomacy in the Near East, Professor Grabill contributes significantly to an understanding of contemporary affairs. It becomes clear, in this account, that missionaries and philanthropists were the most influential force in the United States relations with the Near East through the First World War and its aftermath. An important turning point in the history occurred in 1915 when officials of the Ottoman Empire massacred or deported several hundred thousand Turkish Armenians, among whom were the principal constituents of the American missionaries. This prompted the mission groups to shift their emphasis from evangelism and education to the development of the second largest relief organization in the United States history )eventually called Near East Relief). Through powerful lobbying, the missionaries got their government to consider seriously a protectorate over Armenia or all of Asia Minor. Despite their political failure, the religionists succeeded as cultural frontiersmen through their colleges, such as the American University of Beirut, and their technical assistance programs, which showed the way for the Fulbright, foreign aid, and Peace Corps programs. The archives of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Congregrational) and the Presbyterian Board of Missions provided rich source material for this book. The illustrations include photographs and maps. . . .

Read Full Post !

3125) Review Of The 106th Annual Report Of American Board Of Commissioners For Foreign Missions

Introduction: Chapter 5, of Volume 1, “Marvelous Missionaries” gave large selection of comments about the functions. This annual report sheds some light as regards the status of missionaries and their establishments in Turkey and what happened after USA decided to call back their Ambassador Morgenthau in February 1916, since they were entering into war with Germany, ally of the Ottomans.

. .

---

---

.

Read Full Post !

1358) Evangelization Of Armenians In Erzurum And Everek By American Board Missionaries

Assist Prof Dr. Şakir BATMAZ
Erciyes University Faculty of Arts and Science Department of History / Kayseri

Introduction

The Ottoman Empire had a constitution which allowed for different religions and races. The tolerance shown to non-Muslims in this constitution in terms of religion, language, customs, and traditions led Ottoman lands to be open to missionary activities in the period when the political power of the government was weak. The main reason for being active in the missionaries in the Ottoman lands were, of course, not of religious concerns, for the Ottoman Empire formed one of the pivotal points of the world geography politically and strategically since she was situated between the Mediterranean and . . the Basra (Persian/Arabic) Gulf through which one could reach the Far East in the shortest time1. Economically, rich mineral resources were found on the Ottoman lands. In addition, it had an extensive source of crude metal and its lands were fertile, which attracted the missionaries. Further, Jeruslem was still under the sovereignty of the Turkish Muslim world in spite of the

1 Bilal Şimşir, “Ermeni Propagandasının Amerikan Boyutu Üzerine”, Tarih Boyunca
Türklerin Enmeni Toplumu ile İlişkileri Sempozyumu, Ankara 1985, p.111.

fighting which lasted for years2. The richness of the resources of Anatolia and the Middle East under the rule of the Ottomans, the quality of the markets they owned and their means of access had aroused the interests of the United States since 1830. It will be appropriate to give information about the activities performed by the missionaries and the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire before talking about the organization’s activities in eastern Anatolia. The government of the United States had initiated a research immediately after the agreementn signed with the Ottoman Empire inquiring about the resources these lands had and how, and to what extend and in what means and ways theses riches could be exqloited for the benefit of the United States. The United States government made use of the missionaries directly to fulfill her aims.

According to the beliefs of Christians, Jesus (Isa) gave a sermon saying to his apostles gathered around him: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world3. The apostles were the first missionaries. When the words mission and missionary are considered with its special meaning used today, it is possible to call a mission the enterprise that the Christians carry out to convert non-Christian societies and missionary is the person who carries out the mission. While this is their main duty, they sometimes served as a means of rivalry among the Christian sects, too4. The activities of the members of the American Board in converting the Armenians into Protestantism in the period the Ottoman Empire will be discussed in this paper. Everek (modern Develi, district of Kayseri) and Erzurum, the two important centers of the eastern and western missions, are chosen as examples. All the activities carried out by the missionaries have been scrutinized using documents of the American Board and the memoirs of the missionaries, such as Eli Smith.

2 Necdet Sevinç, Ajan Okulları, İstanbul 1975, p.26.
3 King James Bible, Matt. 28:19-20
4 Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Pitmon Pres, England 1983,p.695.


1-The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions

The first Protestant missionaries began to come to the Ottoman territories beginning in the 17th century. This was followed by the American missionaries Pliny Fisk and Levi Parsons who arrived in Izmir on January 15, 1820. These two missionaries were members of the missionary organization called the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) which was founded in Boston in 1820 by the Congregationalists who follow Calvinistic doctrine. They were one of the three main representatives of Puritan movement beginning to develop in eastern England and America at the end of the 16th century and the 17th century. According to the constitution of ABCFM, fostered from donations of millions of dollars by thousands of devout Protestants in the US in 1868, its aim is to spread Christianity among the so-called atheists. There were more than 80 Protestant missionary organizations in 1886. The origin of 32 of them was in the US, 24 of them in England, and 25 of them in Europe. In 1896, America had more than 30-35% of the Protestant missionary organizations in the world. The largest portion belonged to ABCFM. The Ottoman Empire became the sphere of the American missionaries’ efforts when the Protestant missionary organization divided up the world among its member churches.

Even in the USA, ABCFM was sometimes accused of forming an administration against the existing political order, when it handed over its authority in all the fields to its missionaries. Formerly, no salaries were paid to the missionaries until 1843; only their expenses were covered by ABCFM. Until 1844, the strict Money Policy of the missions spared even one single horse as a means of transportation from the missionaries. In addition, they had a life of ease in the country they were in, and this caused a continual friction between the missionaries and local Christians5.

The Board’s main struggle had been to recognize the minority groups in the Ottoman Empire after the arrival of Fisk and Parsons in Izmir in

5 Uygur Kocabaşoğlu, Kendi Belgeleriyle Anadolu’da ki Amerika -19. Yüzyılda Osmanli İmparatorluğundaki Amerikan Misyoner Okulları, Akba Yayınları, İstanbul 1991, p.41.

1820. The initial activities of missionaries were directed at addressing not only the non-Muslim subjects but also everybody who was an Ottoman subject. In compliance with their mission the American missionaries began to get close contact with the convert Muslims who formerly were Jewish the Christians like Assyrian or Nestorian belonging to the old Eastern Churches, Orthodox Armenians, Greeks and Bulgarians.

Nearly a year later after the arrival of missionaries in Izmir, a Greek rebellion took place in 1821. These rebellions resulted in the foundation of independent Greek government which was welcomed with sympathy in the USA. Such a worm welcome towards this rebellion in America was the wort of the Hellenic Solidarity Movement in the USA. As a result of their activities, the American Board missionaries included the Greeks in their missionary activities they carried out their responsibilities around and in Izmir and Sakız where Ottoman subjects of Greeks were living6.

However, on the second research trip of two missionaries, Eli Smith and Harrison Gray Otis Dwight, which lasted nearly a year and took place nearly ten years after their first expedition, their report shows that the defiance of the Jews, the Muslims and others toward converting into Protestantism was not worth the effort and the investment. Thus, this approach was stopped. Then, it was decided that the Christian minorities which would offer a more productive area would be those whose spiritual and material condition were weak or corrupted such as the Armenians7.

The above mentioned approach beginning in 1850s with activities in Anatolia by the American missionaries made it necessary both to change the constitution of the organization and to establish a new kind of interaction with the local authorities. The organization had a period of growth between 1840 and 1870. The number of missionary stations being 5 in 1839 reached 17 in 1870; the number of the distant stations connected to them was over 180. This increase occurred from west to

6 Gülbadi Alan, Protestan Amerikan Misyonerleri, Anadolu’daki Rumlar ve Pontus Meselesi, Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol.10, Kayseri 2001, p.185.
7 Hülagü, ibid, p.23.

east with Istanbul as the main center. The reasons were that Istanbul was the biggest metropolis of the Ottoman Empire in terms of population, that the Armenians in this city were more intelligent, more intellectual or more educated than the Armenians in other parts of the Empire, that the Armenians from all over the world came there to work, that most of the Ottoman pashas in the hinterland depended on financial agents in Istanbul. These reasons multiplied the importance of the city in terms of missionary activity. Missionary stations were also established in Trabzon, Bursa and Izmir but keeping Istanbul the main center8.

In 1860, Antep became the capital city of the central Turkey Mission with its 5 stations and 20 outlying stations. The number of members registered to the 12 Protestant churches in the region reached 600; this rapid development obligated them to separate the areas between the missions. When it became certain that the activities would involve mainly Armenians, the name of the mission which was Western Turkey changed to the Armenian Mission. The activities aimed at Greeks and Jews were nearly stopped with the Armenians’ gaining importance for missionary work.

In the annual assembly held in Harput in 1860, the decision was made for the missionary activities, which were by now Armenian oriented, to be administered by three missions. This division would not change until the end of 19th century. The region west of the line from Trabzon to Mersin formed the Western Mission. The stations of this mission were Istanbul, Merzifon, Izmir, Kayseri, Bursa, Manisa and Sivas. The Central Turkey Mission existed in a triangle-shaped area remaining along the line from the south of Sivas to Mersin and from Mersin to Halep. Antep, Halep, Adana, Antakya and Maraş were the important stations of this mission and Antep was made the centre. The areas existing to the east of these two missions constituted the Eastern Turkey Mission9.

Kayseri was accepted as an important centre of the Western Mission and missionary activities began at the beginning of 1827. The first American Board missionary coming to Kayseri was the priest Elnathan

8 Kocabaşoğlu, ibid, pp.91-92.
9 Kocabaşoğlu, ibid, pp.94-95.

Gridley. Gridley left Boston in 1827 and arrived in Kayseri with his Armenian teacher to investigate Kayseri and its district and to learn Turkish. However, he contracted malaria and died in 1827. He was buried on the hillside of Erciyes Mountain, which was covered with snow. He had wanted to prove the theses of the ancient geographer Strabon, which claimed that both the Mediterranean and Blacksea could be viewed from the pinnadle of the mount Erciyes10.

Missionary groups came years later after the priest Gridley had tried to establish a mission in the region. Three stations tied to Kayseri were founded in 1870. They were Yozgat, Niğde, Aksaray, Sungurlu and Talas stations11. The Kayseri station began to take money, even it was little, from the Armenians as a compensation for their activities. Although the Talas mission was first founded as an outlying station tied to Kayseri mission in 1870, it became part of the central station in time. The Kayseri mission was integrated with Talas mission and over time Talas became the main station. Further, the missionaries rapidly increased their activities in Incesu, Muncusun, Tavlusun, Germir and Everek, the subject matter of this research and the centre of Develi, which was tied to the Kayseri Mission.

2-The First Missionaries In Everek

A missionary group of 20 people arrived in Everek in March, 1860 according to the information given by the first missionaries coming to Everek. The committee saw that the local people were fervent about their religious devotion, and this condition reflected positively on their works. The fact that an old woman gave 1000 piaster (40 dollars) for a small church to be built gave hope to the missionaries about being able to carry out extensive work. They saw Everek, including many outlying villages, as an important centre as Merzifon12. It was stated in the reports

10 Kocabaşoğlu, ibid, pp.91-92
11 Mustafa Dağlı, Anadolu’da Kurulan Yabancı Okullar ve Tesisler, Ph.D. Thesis, Kayseri 1991, p.26.
12 Papers of te American Board of Comissioner for Foreign Mission (ABCFM), Reel 583, No:618; Gülbadi Alan, Merzifofon Amerikan Koleji ve Anadolu’da ki Etkileri, Basılmamış Doktora Tezi Kayseri 2002.

of 1861-1862 that the work was given importance and Bible days were arranged as desired by the local people13.

The main reason for the missionaries’ intensifying their activities in Everek was the number of the Armenians there. It was mentioned in the missionary records that the Armenian population was nearly 4,000. It was stated in the 1878 (1295) yearbook of Kayseri that the male population of the town of Develi was 6,612; 3,526 were Muslim, 298 were Greek and 2,783 were Armenian14.

Another factor which made Everek attractive for missionaries was its access to other Greek and Armenian towns. This condition was focused on in the reports dated 1861-1862. In addition, it is also stated that the activities were being carried out intensively. The missionaries especially tried to convert the Armenian population by expressing that the things taught in Armenian churches were false and misleading. Further, they thought about opening a school. The missionaries coming here were seen as takva or devout by the local people. Wherever they went, the missionaries reflected themselves as patient, industrious and self-sacrifisind. The efforts of the missionaries declined with the passing time because they were not able to obtain the desired results from the work having begun with eagerness. Although this occasion was stated in the reports dated 1863-1864, its reasons were not mentioned. As a result of the operations which had continued for nearly four years, only a man aged over 60 chose to be a Protestant and donated all his property to the missionaries15. There were no reports of missionary activity in Develi after 1864.

This might lead one to think that the operations were stopped. However, this doesn’t mean that the American Missionaries stopped their activities completely after 1870. Taking the final decision about the issue was only possible with the search of archive documents of ABCFM after this date.

13 Papers of te American Board of Comissioner for Foreign Mission (ABCFM), Reel 583, No:625
14 Uygur Kocabaşoğlu- Murat Uluğtekin, Salnamelerde Kayseri, Kayseri 1998, p.48.
15 Papers of te American Board of Comissioner for Foreign Mission (ABCFM), Reel 583, No:636.


3-The Erzurum Armenians in the Travel Notes of Eli Smith

The Western Turkey mission consisted of Harput, Erzurum, Van, Bitlis and Mardin. The one which had the most important function among them was Harput. In addition to the schools opened there, health organizations, orphanages and organizations for aid showed the Board’s efforts to fulfill its organization’s aims in a wide area.

Erzurum station was one of the important stations in the Western Turkey Mission. It did not develop as Mardin and Harput stations in terms of religion and education in spite of its being founded many years earlier. The missionaries that came here were Eli Smith and Harrison Gay. The missionaries were idealistic enough to accept even death in their journey. They began their journey in Malta and from Istanbul followed the land route to Erzurum through Tokat. Joseph L. Grabill gave information about this journey in his book titled Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East. Besides, their aim was to widen the American culture on the minority that was not Jewish or Muslim, living in the cities along the coastal region. This movement on the Anatolian and Persian lands was started from Boston in January, 1830 by Eli Smith and Harrison Gay. After three weeks, Smith left both Malta and his newly married wife, Elizabeth, on their honeymoon. During the journey they made towards Istanbul, the two leaders had not got any Americans with them, except some westerners. They carried their camping equipment and their goods on mules in Anatolia. They were robbed. Smith became ill from cholera one or two times. He almost died the second time

Eli Smith’s organization sent him to this region to focus on the Armenians and in addition to study the commercial, social, historical and cultural structure of the city of Erzurum. He wrote about the community of Armenians in Erzurum in his memoirs which was published as Armenia in 1833:

The population of Erzurum was 100,000 a few years ago, before the big destruction of the plague. In our second visit, we were told that there were 11,733 Turkish homes and 4,645 Christian houses on which the government depended on the tax collection, and it was nearly 80,000 people in total at the time of the Russian invasion. The 50 houses of the Christian citizens belonged to the Greeks and 645 were Catholic Armenians, except nearly 19,000 people or 3,950 houses belonging to the Gregorian Armenians. Before we came there, nearly all the Christian folk had left from there. The city was so abandoned that I could not do more than tell briefly the conditions of it. Armenians were governed by bishops. The bishop’s leaving earlier prevented us from meeting him.

However, we got information from other people about his activities and character. He arranged seminaries for the people wishing to attend monasteries, and he did not assign people as priests who have not taken any lessons from him. It was probably a small organization and the studies were not in order. However lowly it was, this enterprise was very important. We had not got an opportunity to make a personal investigation because the last events made lots of damage to this situation. We learned in our investigations that no other schools were formed other than a special school for the education of Armenian priests. Although the number of the Armenians was a lot, it was interesting that they have only two churches. One of them was very small and the other was a dark and ugly building resembling a stable. The number of the priests was 32 which was sufficient. There were four Armenian monasteries with three or four Vartebeds [a doctor or teacher in the Armenian Church] living in two of them. They were not far from city, and they had enough funds to support themselves. However, all of them were abandoned now16.

Here, we first investigated examples of single graves separating the old burial places from one another in the big graveyard of the big church. They were made from stones carved into the shape of a ram. Armenians generally liked to process the gravestones which were the symbols of their occupation and the trade of death generaly in Smyrna [Izmir] and Constantinople. A catapult signifies that the person was married; scissors showed that he was a tailor; anvil and hammer represented a horseshoer; and a hammer, knife and a sole were the symbols of a shoemaker. A lot might be added to this kind of hieroglyphs. Most of them were stated with a table, a bottle, a cup or a violin; and a violin was on one of them. I did not know both the shapes of the graves and the motives of these absurd symbols but maybe in a pastoral country a symbol might be a

16 Eli Smith, Armenıa: Including a Journey, Boston 1833, p.127.

representative of a degree. The people mounting horse among the people fighting and the other symbols might be for conveying the items gained in abundance to the other generations as the good sides of life. These symbols were old and we searched the inscriptions to understand which nation erected them.

The Erzurum Armenian grammar school was extraordinarily big and developed by the support of the priest. The director of the school was a man of no profession who had 5 or 6 assistants, and the school was separated into different classes, including all the common branches from grammar to logic, and had 500 or 600 instructors. To obtain the exact number of the people living in a city in which the population was big was considerably hard. We were informed that half of the males could read. Although it was evident that the Armenians in Erzurum were more intelligent than the Turkish Armenians, the level of literacy rate was considerably higher than we expected. We did not learn that the Armenian women of the city were pleased with the school but we were persuaded that some of them could read.

In looking at the present state of the papal Armenians of these regions, it is important not to lose sight of the former Jesuit missions, to which they owe their existence as a sect. Erzurum was the headquarters of the Jesuits for Turkish Armenia, and was selected not only for its size, but because its commerce drew thither persons of other and distant nations, who might also feel their influence. Through the agency of the French embassador, they were furnished with strong fermans of protection, and took up their residence there in A.D. 1688. The Armenian bishop himself was among their first converts. But soon, other Armenian ecclesiastics raised a persecution, in which one of the Jesuits was put in irons, the rest were banished, and many of their converts heavily fined. The embassador’s influence restored them to the field of their labors, and such success attended them, that early in the last century they were obliged to divide their mission into two branches. One bearing the nane of St. Gregory the Illuminator, embraced Torzon (Tortoom) Hassan-kulaah, Kars, Bayezeed, Arabkir, and 40 villages. The other, named after St. Ignatius, embraced Ispir, Baiburt, Akhaltsikhe, Trabzon, Gümüshhane, and 27 villages. Each town contained more than 1500 papists. The number of papal Armenians in Erzurum, when it capitulated to the Russians, has been already stated at 645 houses. Two other informants estimated them at 400, and an Armenian bishop at only 200 or 300 houses. They had no church, their baptisms, burial services, and most of their marriages were performed by the Armenian clergy; and in apportioning taxes to the different sects, the government always included them among the Armenians17.

4-The Foundation of the Western Turkey Mission and Erzurum

The Western Turkey Mission presented a different significance in the name of American Board because the Armenian population was danser in this than other regions. The degree of education of the Armenians living there was lower than the Armenians living in the big cities and the western parts of the country. This led the American Board to give more importance to educational activities. Subsequently, they opened many elementary schools and high schools. By 1914, the total number of the students educated within the borders of the Eastern Turkey Mission was over 7,00018.

The first Protestant church in Erzurum was founded in 1847. When the missionaries’ first came to this region in 1830 the first activity was to open a church19. The Ottoman Empire’s efforts to increase the rights and freedom of the non-Muslim minority groups after administrative reforms in 1839, had, of course, powed the way for proliferation of such schools.

The missionaries made efforts to form outlying stations of Erzurum in addition to the church they opened to cover the religious needs of the small Protestant congregation in the city. However, this could not happen quickly. Trabzon and Humus were among the first external stations. The stations tied to Erzurum station spread to the southern Caucasia by crossing over the Ottoman borders at that time. The outer stations tied to Erzurum station and their years of foundation are as follows20:

17 Eli Smith, ibid, pp.128-130.
18 İdris Yücel, Kendi Belgeleri Işığında Amerikan Board’ın Osmanlı Ülkesinde Teşkilâtlanması, Master Thesis, Kayseri 2005, p.123.
19 James Barton, Daybreak in Turkey, Boston the Pılgrım Pres, Newyork, p.139.
20 Yücel, ibid, pp.124-125.

1835: Trabzon
1839: Erzurum
1853: Humus
1860: çevirme, Haramik
1862: Erzincan, Melikhan
1867: Elpis, Komatzor
1868: Ordu, Şane, Göklü
1869: Pert, Heslu, Kaghki, Karakilise, Kars
1870: Kozlu
1871: Boznaz, Yediveren, Hasdur
1872: Hazark, Pakariç, Karabazar, Beyazıt
1875: Semen
1876: Giresun
1880: Karaköprü, Sınren, Hazlag
1894: Suveren
1897: Esteku
1910: Karaçoban Russian part
1880: Houlican
1882: Karakale
1883: Echmiadzin
1885: Bayraktar
1886: Erivan
1888: Ganiköy, Hacıkara, Düşkent, çamurlu
1889: Baberli
1895: Alexandropol

The stations covered the places in the southern Caucasia besides the Anatolian lands where the population of Armenians lived. At the time of the foundation activities of Erzurum station in 1840, a man and a woman missionary were sent by the American Board. The first appointment of a priest was in 1855. While the priest left in 1860, a preacher teacher was appointed in place of him. They were Ottoman subjects. Whereas the number of the appointed American missionaries increased only from 1 to 4, the number of the local personnel was rising. The increase began especially towards the end of the reign of Abdulaziz and with the announcement of the First Constitutional Monarchy. The non-Muslim subjects tried their best of profit from the political loophale created by the declaration of the constitutional laws declared under the pressure of great powers had great influence on the liberation of the non-Muslims in the Ottoman State. With the increase of the number of schools opened in 1900, the number of teachers increased to 19. There were 35 people in total, including 4 missionaries, 4 priests, 3 preachers, 18 teachers and 2 helpers tied to Erzurum station in 1914 as indicated in the last records of the American Board.

Erzurum station had nearly 10 congregation members and a small church by 1840 and they preserved their position until 1847. They began to be organized around a religious centre with a Protestant church with a member of only 5 in 1847. We saw that this situation continued without much development until 1860. The number of the churches increased from 1 to 3 in that year. The number of the members rose to 36. The number of the place worship except the churches had increased rapidly from that year on. It increased to 4 in 1862, 6 in 1863 and 7 in 1864. Since the number of congregation members was 40 in 1861, it rose to 217 in 1862. The increasing in the congregation in 1883 made it necessary to build new churches. The number of the churches rose from 3 to 4 in 1883. We saw that this number increased to 5 in 1884.

The number of congregation members was 1000 in the same year. The number of churches suddenly increased to 7 in 1891. The number of the places of worship was 31. The number of the churches increased to 10 in 1892. This was the highest number of the churches that the Board had opened in Erzurum station. However, the number of the churches soon decreased to 7 a year later. The number of the places of worship belonging to missionaries decreased to 9. Whereas the number of the congregation was 1218, the sudden decrease in the number of places of worship was probably due to the political condition of the period. While the number of the churches was 9, the number of the members continuing to go to the churches decreased to 252. This condition continued till nearly 1914. The number of places of worship was 8, the number of the congregation was 1065, the number of the churches was 9 and the number of the members was 342.

The training activities began in Erzurum with the opening of a school in 1853. This was a mixed school where 22 girls and boys went together. This condition continued till 1865 when 5 more mixed schools were opened, and 133 girls and boys were educated in the 6 schools.


There seemed to be a big increase in the number of the new schools in 1870. The number of the schools increased to 12. One of them was a girls’ school and the others were mixed schools. The number of the students was 258 in total. The number of schools increased to 18 and the number of the students increased to 324 in 1875. The number of schools was 19 and the number of students was 480 in 1880. One of the schools was again a girls’ school; the other 18 schools were mixed schools. We saw that 3 new colleges were opened in Erzurum station in 1885. Thus, the number of existing schools increased to 23. After that, both the rate of having schools and the number of the students decreased critically. Three colleges were closed, and the number of mixed schools decreased to 17 in 1890. While the number of the schools decreased to 14, the number of the students was 443 in 1900. Later, all the colleges were closed. Even if an increase in the number of both the schools and the students had been evident again in 1910, this increase would not continue in 1914. The number of the schools was 13; the number of the students was 506 in 191421.

As a result of the activities of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, it was impossible to say how many Armenians living in Erzurum station converted to Protestantism. However, considering the Armenian population living in Echmiadzin and Erivan where Armenian population densely lived, the increase in the number of churches, schools, and congregations certainly reflects that the activities had an important influence on the Armenians.

CONCLUSİON

The reason for American Board Missionary Organization’s beginning their activities on Anatolian land was especially its geopolitical and geostrategic location and its resources. In addition, the efforts to put freedom of belief that the European States and Russia presented to the citizens of the Ottoman Empire with Administrative Reforms (1839) led to a comfortable working area for missionaries. After the first missionaries’ expeditions, the activities to change someone’s religion was initiated. Certainly, that the efforts beginning with the distribution of the Bible

21 Yücel, ibid, pp.126-130.

among Muslims ended without a conclusion also had an influence. The Armenian society had an extensive population in some important stations in the eastern and western missions of the American Board. The missionaries carried out activities to convert the Armenians with their schools, hospitals and churches that they opened in these stations. We did not find a lot of information about the missionary activities in Everek according to the Board Records which was a subject for our research, since Develi is a small residential area tied to Kayseri. However, a more systematic activity was held in Erzurum. The number of the schools Protestant missionaries opened in Erzurum stations was 18. It is impossible to say how many Armenians converted as a result of these activities, but it may be said that the missionaries were successful in their efforts by looking at the increasing congregation and churches.

Read Full Post !

1296) "In Defense of Armenians"

The following appeared in the rabidly pro-Armenian New York Times of Nov. 8, 1896; it appears the extremely rare article detailing the truth about the Armenians was allowed to see publication in the biased American press, and the New York Times made sure to try and nullify the effect by printing an article by an unsigned party. (This was identified as a "letter," but appeared on a page of articles (p. 16), and not the letters page.) The reason why it was unsigned was that the article was obviously written by a missionary (the author reveals he had been in "Turkey" for the past twenty years; the only Americans from the19th century who would have devoted such large blocs of life-time in such an alien culture, with very rare exceptions, would have come from the ranks of the religious fanatics; in addition, he reveals an "intimate" association with the missionary minded Robert College), which was wholly dishonest, since part of the author's mission was to defend the missionaries; it served the deceptive purpose of the "gentleman" to come across as an anonymous "neutral"). The author makes the most laughably absurd claims, which history has borne out to be lies and misrepresentations, and then wraps up by accusing the man he is criticizing as guilty of "perversions of fact." Quite the forerunner of today's Armenians, genocide scholars and other Turcophobes who similarly rush to the defense of their poisonous cause, once the rare "pro-Turk" article appears in the media. Back in 1896, the brainwashed Westerner might have been more susceptible in accepting the usual smoke-and-mirror propagandistic claims, although that is a hard call. Westerners of the 21st century are no less prejudiced, and open for voluntary mind manipulation; it's just so comfortable to think of the Armenians as poor, helpless, Christian martyrs, and the Turks as primitive savages.

The footnotes are Holdwater's. What will follow afterwards is the editorial by The New York Times on this matter, a piece that is remarkable in making clear the racism, hatred and subjectivity of the Times' editors.


IN DEFENSE OF ARMENIANS

CRITICISM ON F. HOPKINSON SMITH'S TURKISH INTERVIEW.

The Great Body of Armenians Are Not Revolutionists— The Sultan's Motives for the Massacres — Attitude of the Missionaries.

F. Hopkinson Smith's vigorous defense of the Sultan and sharp attack on the American missionaries in Turkey, published In last Sunday's Herald, has stirred up much discussion among those who have lived in the Sultan's domains. A gentleman who has resided many years In Constantinople and is thoroughly acquainted with the people, in a letter to THE NEW YORK TIMES comments upon the Interview.

F. Hopkinson Smith
Author and artist; a man of
honor and courage


In the interview, Mr. Smith stated that the existing sentiment in favor of the Armenians was ill advised. There are 100,000 Armenians in Constantinople, he said, and every one is an Anarchist and plotter at heart. [1] He believed they should be kept out of the United States. He asserted that in Constantinople an Armenian bureau was established for the sole purpose of manufacturing news for English and American consumption. [2] He said he knew that the Armenians had been responsible for every so-called outrage committed against them in Turkey. For years they had plotted and schemed against the Turkish Government.

"It is their nature to plot," he continued.

" They have to-day the same rights in Turkey as any people of foreign religion. They want to govern the country."

The Sultan was praised by Mr. Smith for his defense of his country and of law and order.

"There is not a missionary In Turkey," he said, "who is not a sympathizer or a revolutionist at heart. They despise the Mohammedan religion and the Turkish people. The missionary element in Armenia, with headquarters at Robert College, have taught the Armenian all about American liberty and have given them an education far ahead of their needs. Consequently, the Armenians are proceeding with their plots in the tall confidence that they will be recognized and supported not only by missionaries but by the Christians throughout the civilized world."

Mr. Smith said he believed that had It not been for the attitude of missionaries in Turkey many of the outrages would not have happened. [??] of willful mutilation of bodies of Armenians he denied. There never was any danger for Americans in Constantinople.

Mr. Smith's remedy for the troubles between the Turks and Armenians was to let the Sultan alone and allow him to manage his own affairs, and to keep English and American [??] mongers out of it." [3]

In reply the correspondent of THE NEW YORK TIMES says:

Mr. Smith [??] an excellent illustration of what happens when men originally prejudiced against missions and fascinated by the glamor which certain writers have cast over Mohammedanism, go to Constantinople, [spend?] a few weeks, dine and wine with Turkish officials, foreign merchants and diplomats, make a hasty visit to Robert College, read a popular history of Turkey and come away thinking that they understand the situation. Such men always make stupendous blunders, and Mr. Smith is no exception.[4] Take as an illustration his remarks about Robert College. It is on the Bosporus, not in Pera. It is not a "stronghold of missionary influence." It has never [received?] a foot of land from any Sultan, and so far as I know, and I have been for years intimately acquainted with its affairs, has never received a cent from the Sultan's private purse.[5]

"To parallel Mr. Smith's statements, what would New Yorkers say of an Englishman who should place Columbia College on the Battery and make it the headquarters for Mr. [Mooly's evangelical?] work and a beneficiary of Boss Tweed? The President and professors of Robert College are Christian men, but they are educators, not missionaries. [6]

Missionaries Oppose Revolution

"With regard to the missionaries themselves, Mr. Smith sensibly advertises his ignorance. Throughout these years they have had great sympathy for the Armenians in their oppression by the Turkish government, but they have never had any sympathy with the revolutionary movement. On the contrary, they have done their best to oppose it, and have repeatedly been threatened by the revolutionists because of opposition to their schemes. Instance after instance could be given of this, and Mr. Smith cannot name a single man or woman who has given the slightest countenance. He speaks of Mr. Knapp as on trial for such sympathy. The charges against him, presented by the authorities at Bitlis, were pronounced by the English Consul there as utterly absurd, and the fact that they have never been pressed in Constantinople in any form shows that the Government itself has no confidence in them. [7]

"To call the missionaries 'revolutionists at heart' is a most atrocious label. [8] Equally absurd is the statement that they practically "dictated the policy of the United States Legation." [9] Imagine a company of ministers dictating to Gen. Lew Wallace, George H. [Boxer], and Oscar S. Straus! Naturally, missionary affairs have taken up considerable time, but if Mr. Smith will go to these gentlemen, he will learn that it has been not so much on the ground of philanthropic and religious work as on the basis of the rights of American citizens, secured to them by treaties. Minister Terrell is the only Minister that has ever been in Constantinople who has come in conflict with them.


Revolutionists Are Russians

"As to Mr. Smith's opinion of the Armenians, it is very much like the opinion of Americans that would be formed by taking Gov. [Altgeld?] as a type. There are bad Armenians. The whole revolutionary movement is an absurdity and a crime, but it should be clearly understood that the Armenian revolutionists are not Turkish Armenians but Russian Armenians. The men who attacked the Ottoman Bank were every one of them Russians. [10] The one sole revolutionist in Sassun who furnished a flimsy pretext for the massacre there, which was a fact, notwithstanding Mr. Smith's [denial], was a Russian. The only revolutionist that the Turkish police ever succeeded in [cornering] was a Russian, in Marsovan. It is certainly within bounds that the entire Armenian people, who are natives of Turkey, have been from the beginning and are to-day, opposed to any such scheme as that of the revolutionists.

"It is significant that the man who, of all others, represents the best elements in the Armenian people, the late Patriarch of Constantinople,. Ismirlian, was open and strong in his opposition to and denunciation of the whole revolutionist movement.[11] It is absolutely false to say that 'the 100,000 Armenians of Constantinople are Anarchists.' It is true that the Armenians have some unfortunate characteristics, but no more than other Oriental races. They are not one [way?] more tricky than the Greeks, and their general standard of morality is fully as high, if not higher. [12] In the interior, under ordinary circumstances, Turks and Armenians live side by side on friendly and even cordial terms and repeatedly during the past year Turks of the better class have given succor to the terrified victims of the mob and teh soldiers.

"How, then, is it that they have been singled out for such wholesale slaughter? That opens up a large question, and I can only state that no one can understand it who has not lived in the country, not merely visited the seaboard cities. For more than twenty years, I have made a careful study of the situation, and am convinced that the personal and national character of the Armenians are no more the cause of these massacres than they are of the silver movement in this country. They have been throughout the tools and the victims of powerful influences which they could not in the slightest control. Mr. Smith's statement that they started the troubles Is absolutely erroneous [13], but to go into detail would take altogether too long. If he will take the time to read the English Parliamentary Blue Books, he will find what the English Consuls think, and if he will consult the missionaries, he will learn what men and women think who are of better education than himself, and whose character for truth has never yet been questioned by any who have known them.

Responsibility for the Massacres.

"Who then Is responsible for the massacres? That, too, is a large question, and a full answer would require a survey of Turkish history since the treaty of Berlin. In brief, however, it must be said that the Immediate responsibility rests upon the Sultan himself. A remoter though not less real cause is found in the Russian policy. To any one who knows how closely Abdul-Hamid II. has throughout his reign dictated the most minute affairs of his empire, Mr. Smith's statement that he 'stopped the massacres as soon as he knew of them' is absurd. It is simple fact that in every instance the local officials have been in constant telegraphic communication with the palace and it is the universal testimony of the soldiers and Kurds that they have acted under direct orders from Constantinople, and that means the Sultan and no one else. [14]

"It is the belief of those on the ground most competent to know, including some at least of the foreign Ambassadors, that the attack on the Ottoman Bank was plotted by the Turkish Government, and that the men entered the bank only on receiving official assurance of protection to themselves. It is openly claimed that the Patriarch Ismirlian was deposed and exiled not merely because he so ably defended the interests of his nation, but because he furnished the most effective check to the revolutionists. [15]


The Sultan's Motive.

" It is. of course, a natural question why the Sultan should thus cut off his best resources. The reason undoubtedly lies in his belief that the Christian element within his empire and the Christian powers around it were gradually crowding the Turk and Islam out, and in a [fit] of desperation he has taken this course to frighten if possible both his subjects and his neighbors into letting him alone. Undoubtedly this seems unreasonable to some, but not to those who have examined most carefully the history of the various massacres at [Sero], In Syria. Kurdistan, and Bulgaria. [16]

" It would be interesting to have Mr. Smith's authority for his characterization of the Sultan as the 'most just and liberal-mlnded monarch of Europe.' He says 'I know.' Has he come Into personal relations with him? [17]

"The worst part of Mr. Smith's statements Is when he protests against receiving these poor people to our country or helping to relieve their suffering in their own land. Remember, it was their land centuries before the Turk ever came to it. [18] Still worse is that clause appealing to us not to 'make martyrs of these devils.' It Is difficult to understand how an American can make such statements. The Armenians are not devils, and there have been many cases of as genuine martyrdom as have been known in the history of the Christian Church. Undoubtedly. Mr. Smith is right In his statement of the devotion of the Turk to his religion. He is not right, however, when he says that they 'are quite as fanatical as the Turks.' [19]

" There Is not much use, however, in going further. The whole interview is such a series of misstatements and perversions of fact that the most charitable supposition is that Mr. Smith, like some others, has been so intoxicated by the courtesies of Turkish officials that he has lost the power to recognize character or virtue in anything non-Turkish." [20]



(The article concludes with two typically wild pro-Armenian pieces, "Fund for Armenians" — "a fund for the relief of the sufferers from the Kurd and Turkish outrages" — and "Miss Willard Arrived Here," where the National Woman's Christian Temperance President "Talked of Her Work Among the Armenians In France." Referring to the "latest Armenians horrors," the "Constantinople riot": "I never before in my life saw such heartrending scenes... What little food was given to them they couldn't eat because they are not used to it. They demand bread as hard as bricks and lots of onions and garlic."

"I am so thankful that the good people of this city acted with so much Christian charity toward those poor, helpless creatures... The wholesale massacres are likely to break out at any time — the process of killing and despoiling is going on all the time. The six powers, which seem to be the six impotents, are doing nothing, and it is left for the people themselves to take care of the question. We hope to get the people of England and this country so thoroughly aroused that they will compel some action... I believe that after a while perhaps we may be able to arouse the Christian people of the world to action."

Good old New York Times.)


Holdwater's Notes



1. Around a decade after the formation of the first serious Armenian terror group (Hunchaks, est. 1887), where loyal Ottoman-Armenians were often made fatal examples of and the Armenians' natural feelings of racial pride and nationalism were stroked, this was a factual statement. Most Armenians' hearts belonged with the revolutionaries, whether by choice or by fear.

2. Most astute! Armenian "colonists" made certain to establish themselves in other lands, particularly powerful Christian ones. A notorious example was Ohannes Chatschumian, who made sure to steal the heart of an influential woman of America's cultural elite.

3. Every one of Mr. Smith's points is so astoundingly on the button, it's almost frightening to contemplate a Westerner was capable of getting to the heart of these matters.

4. This "gentleman" appears to be a graduate from the Vahakn Dadrian School of Insulting Your Opponent. Those are mighty big presumptions he is making, in regards to how Mr. Smith arrived at his conclusions... which are anything but "blunders," and remarkable for their rare insight. How can the "gentleman" know whether Mr. Smith, a Christian himself, was prejudiced against missions, just because he brought up well deserved criticisms? And in a Western world where Islam and the east are perceived as derogatorily, how many Westerners allowed themselves to lose touch with reality over their supposed fascination? And what popular history of Turkey was available in an English language book of the time that was whitewashed in favor of the Turks, and not infused with hateful stereotypes?

5. The "gentleman" got Mr. Smith on one minor error, the location of Robert College. But who started Robert College? It was the missionary, Cyrus Hamlin. While the college may have evolved into a respectable institution of higher learning in future years, at its inception in particular, it was nothing but a "stronghold of missionary influence." Hamlin was not going to spend $30,000 of his own money on the enterprise if the idea was not to spread his holy faith. And according to an article on the college, "a most beautifully situated plot of ground, overlooking Constantinople and the Bosporus was given to Dr. Hamlin." (This article may not have been correct, mind you, but that is what it said.)

6. How utterly dishonest to present the notion that the Christianity of the men behind Robert College was incidental, and that they were uninterested in mission work. If education was their pure and primary goal, they would have admitted more than a token number of Muslim students from the get-go.

7. The dishonesty continues. "Minister Alexander W. Terrell allegedly ... accused the missionaries of 'fomenting rebellion,'" (Protestant Diplomacy, p. 44.) Everyone knew the Armenians were into independence; if the missionary educators were empowering the Armenians, isn't it disingenuous to pretend the missionaries were not supporting the rebellions? Note the source belittling the Knaap case: it's the "unconflicted" British consul, whose duties were to further the imperialistic goals of his nation, even to the tune of gunboat diplomacy. (The Times itself reported on Sept. 3, 1896 ["Turkish Banks Reopened"] that "Sir Philip Currie, the British Ambassador to Turkey... is... to have free command of British naval aid to enforce such demands as he may make.") Lastly, if the government in Istanbul chose not to make an issue of Knaap, that had nothing to do with its invalidity. The sultan was under great pressure from the powers to "behave." He even pardoned the madmen behind the Ottoman bank takeover, who rained so much death and destruction upon innocents.

There were times when missionaries permitted churches and schools to be used as warehouses for Armenian arms. The New York Times, itself, for example, reported in the Sept. 3, 1896 article cited above that a telegram sent by the Sublime Porte to the Turkish legation in Washington read in part: "In the rooms of the ministers of the school for girls at Psomatia thirty-six bombs, dynamite, and firearms were discovered."

8. Atrocious but true; an Armenian's letter to the Herald, the same newspaper Smith's article appeared in, attested to the pride Cyrus Hamlin felt in his Bulgarian students "securing the freedom and independence of their country."

9. "Historian John A. DeNovo has remarked that the White House’s representatives were so relaxed that such missionaries as George Washington of Robert College and Howard Bliss of the Syrian Protestant College often felt they had become do-it-yourself diplomats." (Protestant Diplomacy, p. 39.)

10. True, most behind the secret societies were Caucasian-Armenians, principally the ones who set up shop for the Hunchaks and Dashnaks. Smaller groups, as the Black Cross and Armenakan that preceded the two biggies, and a couple that came after (Shant and Kurban, 1896), were mainly established by Ottoman-Armenians. The bulk of the trouble-makers were foreigners. Not all of the Dashnaks taking part in the Ottoman bank takeover (which involved a good number all over town, not only the men who were inside the bank) were Russians; Armen Garo was evidently an Ottoman-Armenian, for example, later having served in the Ottoman parliament.

11. A falsehood of the worst order; Izmirlian was engaged in subversive activity ever since his appointment to the Patriarchate, and the Ottoman bank takeover forced him to resign.

12. This section is amusing, trying to find out who is worse, the Greeks or the Armenians. Ironic too, comparison to a people also notorious for sacrificing truth.

13. Far from "erroneous," the Armenians have made a habit of firing the first shot. This is another amusing section, filled with double-talk. Yet that is a very valid question, "How, then, is it that [Armenians] have been singled out for such wholesale slaughter?" Why would a people known as the "Loyal Millet," a people allowed to prosper for centuries, suddenly be lined up in a shooting gallery? The missionary author ducks the question by sniffing that the explanation would be too long, and he actually has the nerve to suggest the biased British Blue Books be consulted (that was simply incredible). Before one can think the "gentleman" can sink no lower, however, he has the absolute shamelessness to suggest that Smith should "consult the missionaries... men and women... who are of better education than himself, and whose character for truth has never yet been questioned by any who have known them." (The missionaries' Godly duty was to vilify the Moslem Turks as evidenced in their prayers, and they made a habit of breaking the Ninth Commandment, the one about not bearing false witness against one's neighbor.)

14. Of course these forces were in communication with the "boss"; their orders were to bring the violent and rebellious Armenians under control, Armenians who were indiscriminately killing and maiming many innocent Muslims in the hopes of inciting them, giving European vultures the incentive to come in and take over. Yet there is a huge difference between trying to maintain order, and even going berserk once in a while, versus being ordered to commit a kind of "genocide"; furthermore, it is absolutely unconscionable of this missionary "gentleman" to suggest such a thing without offering the evidence.

15. If the reader was beginning to suspect our "gentleman" was a little around the bend, it was most accommodating of him to provide the proof. Actually, what he is demonstrating here is either derangement of the first order, or an immoral willingness to make any false statement in an attempt to cloud the realities.

16. "Kurdistan." Perhaps our missionary friend is getting his geography mixed up, as wouldn't that be (in Anatolia) the same as "Armenia"? (Anything but what this area really was, "the Ottoman Empire.") Hope you all followed his theory, the sultan's motive in exterminating Armenians was because the Christians were getting too big for their britches (which begs the question, why were the other Christians exempted from such an extermination policy?), and the sultan hoped in part such would frighten his neighbors into letting him alone. (A neighbor as, perhaps, Russia?)

17. And what are we getting at here, exactly? Could Abdul Hamid have slipped Mr. Smith some sort of mind-altering mickey? Or could Mr. Smith possibly be "an agent of the Turkish government"?

18. Parts of the geographic expression "Armenia" seen on ancient maps was the land of what are known today as Armenians, the Haiks; along with many other peoples that had similarly migrated to the region. Regardless of what was whose centuries ago, it is not as though Armenians had lost their land in a war with Turks; these lands were under the control of others well before the Turks had appeared.

19. The one time Mr. Smith was wrong. The extremists among the Armenians were much worse fanatics, compared to the usually tolerant Turks.

20. Who would have believed the barbaric Turks could have been so lovable? With such hypnotic powers, how did they manage to be regarded as among the most unpopular people around..?



The Amazing New York Times Editorial for the Above


The following appeared the next day, November 9, 1896, on p. 4, the editorial section of The New York Times:

DEFENDING THE SULTAN.

In a recent number of The Herald Mr. F. HOPKINSON SMITH has come to the defense of the Sultan In a manner more vigorous than convincing. He claims to have studied the Turkish question from all sides and all angles, but his conclusions ore so completely at variance with the testimony of those who have lived longest In the empire and are presumably better posted than any passing traveler can be that they will scarcely be accepted by the great majority of Americans. That the Sultan and the Turks in general havve some very estimable qualities is denied by no one, even those who have suffered the most from them. But, on the other hand, the Armenians are by no means the devils that Mr. SMITH calls them. That they have defects of character as a nation may be granted without condemning them by the wholesale. So also Mr. SMITH's attack upon the missionaries is absurd. Whatever any one may think of the wisdom of their undertaking, no one who knows anything about them questions their integrity or their credibility as witnesses. They are men and women of high education from the best circles of American society, and have repeatedly won the highest encomiums for their good Judgment and common sense, as well as their devotion, from such men as the English and American Ambassadors at Constantinople.

It Is too late to undertake any general defense of the Turk. Despite his good qualities, he Is at heart a barbarian; po- lite, affable, genial, very attractive In social and diplomatic intercourse, so long as he thinks it for his interest to be so, but relapsing Just so soon as the pressure is removed. The Armenian massacres of this past year are only a repetition of the Greek massacres early in this century, of the Druse massacres in Syria in 1860, the Nestorian massacres In 1843, and the Bulgarian atrocities In 1875. Committed under the very eye of Europe and after repealed promises of reform, these seem to be the worst, but it is really a matter of degree rather than of kind. Given another opportunity, and they will be repeated upon some other Christian community. The fact Is that the Turkish Government must go, not merely from Europe, but from Asia. As a citizen under a strong Government, the individual Turk can and does do well. As a ruler he is an outrage on humanity. He has desolated one of the fairest countries in the world and carried ruin wherever he has gone. As a matter of fact, there [is] not to-day in the Turkish Empire a single mark of progress due to him. Whatever of improvement there has been Is due to the very people whom be has sought to destroy. That he should be protected by Christian nations and [de?]fended by civilized men Is one the strangest anomalies of the time. It is significant that no one yet has [attempted?] that defense who has not so completely misstated facts as to deprive the [defense?] of any value whatever.


Ouch! More Low Blows


From The Fitchburg Daily Sentinel, December 21, 1896:

Armenian Society Meets Boston, Dec. 21. — The United Friends of Armenia society was presided over by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe at its annual meeting Saturday. One of the interesting items of business transacted was the unanimous adoption of the following resolution "That the recent attempt of F. Hopkinson Smith to cast opprobrium upon the persecuted Armenians and to ecuse the barbarous massacre of 60,000 unarmed Armenian Christians, by the express orders of the Turkish government. is an insult to the intelligence of the American people, and will forever associate his name with that of the great assassin."


Holdwater: The above is a little confusing. Did they gather to praise F. Hopkinson Smith, or to bury him? After all, we know how fetishistic Armenians can be regarding hero assassins.



The Daily Kennebec Journal, Dec. 1, 1895:

Garrulous Know-it-Alls.

Elisabeth Washburn Brainard doesn't agree with F. Hopkinson Smith that the missionaries are blamable for the Armenian massacres. This is refreshing, but she has the strongest condemnation for "hot-headed, revolutionary Armenians." She has been at Constantinople it seems. She found the Turk possessed of "very agreeable manners," especially she found the ladies "charming." To do her justice, however, Elizabeth concludes that the "gentle Turk," when his religious fanaticism is aroused, becomes like a wild beast.

We have a little mild curiosity as to just how much F. Hopkinson Smith and Elisabeth Wishburn Brainard know of the Turkish situation, anyway. We do not doubt that they have visited Constantinople and hobnobbed with the Moslem elite. People have visited New York in times past. Should they consequently assume to depict life upon an Apache reservation? Yet the polish of the Turkish court, judging from all we can learn, bears no close relation, in appearance at least, to the conditions existing among the lowest, the down trodden people of that benighted and tax ridden land. When we have the testimony of missionaries who have passed their lives among the scenes they depict, whose integrity is unquestionable; when we have the statements of Armenians, who have fled from persecutions at home to become respectable citizens in our own communities, what do we want of or care for the garrulous bids for notoriety, made by people who ought to know better but evidently don't?


Holdwater: Yes, undoubtedly F. Hopkinson Smith spoke his mind in his quest for "notoriety"! The difference between him and current opportunists like Orhan Pamuk and Elif Shafak is that career options open magically for the latter, whereas telling it like it really was opened the floodgates for horrible attacks on Smith's character, with nothing else, and zero rewards. These bigots from 1895 who simply and mindlessly accepted what deceptive and prejudiced parties told them were the forerunners of today's journalists and others in the media, who similarly never question the juggernaut of Armenian genocide propaganda claims. It's pretty frightening.

----------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater

The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows:

www.tallarmeniantale.com/defense-armenians.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Read Full Post !

929) Ottoman Official Attitudes Towards American Missionaries

Cagri Erhan
(Department of International Relations Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey)

(Thanks to reader Cihan)

Introduction

Dr. Cagri Erhan, Asso. Professor, Ankara Univ.;
he contributed to the book, "Turkish-American
Relations : Past, Present, and Future" (2003)

The history of Turkish-American relations go back to the 1790s when American sailors met with Turks in North Africa (Barbary Coast). During the period between 1800 and 1830s American travelers and merchants frequently visited Turkish harbors, such as Izmir (Smyrna), Alexandria and Beirut. However, official diplomatic relations were not inaugurated until 1830 when the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation was signed in Istanbul and a charge d’affaires, David Porter was appointed as the American representative to the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman Court) in 1831.[1]

Along with the commercial relations, American missionary efforts in the Ottoman lands always occupied a high place in the bilateral agenda. In fact, most of the diplomatic conflicts in the nineteenth and early twentieth century Turkish- American relations originated from the American missionaries’ gradually expanding activities and the Ottoman attitudes towards them.

This paper, after a brief survey on the expansion of the missionary activities in the Ottoman Empire, will touch upon the main points of dispute between the Sublime Porte and the missionaries under three headings: “Missionaries and Ottoman Subjects”; “Missionary Schools and other Facilities” and “Publishing Activities of the Missionaries”. Finally it will evaluate the affects of American missionary activities throughout Ottoman lands.

When the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM, the Board) was formed in Boston by members of the Congregational, Presbyterian and Reformed churches in 1810, its main target was to evangelize the Indians and Catholics on the American continent. However, shortly after its establishment, the Board identified a new target, “evangelization of the whole World”, and started to enlarge the scope of its activities.[2] In accordance with the decision taken in a meeting of the Board in 1818, two American missionaries Pliny Fisk and Levi Parsons were appointed to implement preparatory work in the Ottoman Empire.[3]

The first attempts at missionary work in the Ottoman lands were not directed particularly toward the Muslims, nor to the Oriental Churches, but to the Jews. In November 1819, Fisk and Parsons were sent out to work in Palestine, with their anticipated location at Jerusalem. But their instructions gave them ample range. From the heights of Zion they were to survey, not only the Holy Land, but surrounding countries, and then put to themselves two main questions: “What good can be done?” and “By what means?”. “What can be done for Mohammedans? What for Christians? What for the people in Palestine? What for those in Egypt, in Syria, in Persia, in Armenia, in other countries to which your inquiries may be extended?”[4]

Soon after they reached the Ottoman land in 1821, Parsons died. But Fisk continued his mission. He visited Beirut, Tripoli, Baalbek, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Hebron , Alexandretta and Latakia, collecting information on Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Druzes, Maronites, Greeks and Armenians. He was able to convert some Armenians including two ecclesiastics, Gregory Wortabet and Garabed Dionysius.[5] Fisk also established a missionary printing house in Malta in 1822 to publish religious books in regional languages such as Greek, Armenian and Arabic.[6]

As the first contacts with the missionaries were welcomed by the Armenian people, the Prudential Committee of the Board resolved to establish a mission among Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1829. Accordingly, Eli Smith and Henry Otis Dwight were chosen to explore the field. They started their tour in the spring of 1830, and after more than a year, returned with a mass of new information, regarding both Armenians and Nestorians. In 1831 William Goodell was instructed to proceed to Istanbul to establish a new station in order to work among the Armenians.[7]

Missionary work, which started in the late 1820s in a modest manner, turned into a systematic and large scale activity in the 1840s and reached its climax during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Forty-one missionaries were sent to the Ottoman Empire in 1836. Between 1836-1844, 54 new missionaries were appointed to posts in the Levant.[8] This number reached 137 in 1875, 177 in 1890 and 209 in 1913.[9]

This missionary influx to the Ottoman Empire naturally resulted in a growth in their religious and educational activities. In 1850 there were only seven churches and seven schools under the control of American missionaries in the Empire. Yet by 1860, there were 49 churches and 114 schools; in 1880, 97 churches and 331 schools. Finally in 1913, 163 churches and 450 schools were established and directed by the missionaries. The number of the Ottoman subjects attending those schools ranged from 13.095 in 1880 to 25.992 in 1913.[10]

At the beginning, the relations between the Sublime Porte and the missionaries were peaceful. While there was no diplomatic treaty between the Ottoman Empire and the United States until 1830 and the United States was not officially recognized by the Porte, American citizens, including the missionaries, conducted their activities in Ottoman lands under patronage of the British Embassy in Istanbul and through British consulates located in various cities of the Empire. For instance, the missionaries in Beirut received, travel permits (seyahat tezkeresi) from the Porte, through the British Consulate in that town. This method was valid for those who came to Istanbul before the American Legation was opened.[11] Early as 1813 the British Bible Society had become interested in the spiritual condition of the non-Muslim Ottoman subjects and its members paid visits to the Empire to distribute thousands of copies of the Bible. The Sublime Porte did not make any distinction between the British and the American missionaries and evaluated the members of English speaking Protestant churches under the same identity which was “British”. On the other hand, as the British Embassy and consulates had an enormous effect on the Ottoman central government and local authorities, British missionaries did not face any difficulties while traveling in the Empire. Thus Americans benefited from the same privileges as they were bearing documents of protégé signed by British officials.

When the Ottoman Empire and United States finally signed a treaty in 1830, the missionaries as well as other American citizens lost their privilege of being “British” subjects before the Ottoman Court. Since the American legation in Istanbul was not as powerful as the British and the American consulates were not spread around the Empire, the American missionaries continued to seek close relations with the British diplomats in order to secure their presence in Ottoman lands. Parallel to the increase in the missionary activities in 1830s and 1840s, more and more problems arose. The official attitude of the Sublime Porte towards the missionaries became less ecstatic in succeeding years.

The problems of this period may be classified under three main groups. First, the missionary activities among non- Muslim subjects of the Empire caused an initial reaction from the clergy of the Oriental churches, and eventually became a concern of the Sublime Porte. Second, the opening of missionary schools sometimes caused difficulties. And, third, the scope of missionary publishing activities contradictory to Ottoman law became a field of permanent friction.

Missionaries and the Ottoman Subjects

The Christian population of the Empire was not the primary objective of the American missionaries. The Jews were a tight- knit religious community and thus largely immune to Christian evangelical activities. The Muslims were hindered by the imperative in Islamic law that the punishment for apostasy is death. Therefore, the missionaries soon changed their a reas of activity and mostly concentrated on the non- Protestant Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. This new domain included the Greek and Arab Orthodox community, the Gregorian Armenians and Armenian Catholics, the Druze, the Nestorians and the Maronites who were Arab Catholics.

When the Syrian mission was established in Beirut in the first half of 1820s, its main objective was to conduct religious and educational activities among Christians other than Protestants. The work expanded quickly. In 1827, 13 missionary schools were to be found in and around Beirut with 600 pupils, of which more than 100 of them were girls. The first opposition to the missionaries came during this early period. Starting among the Roman Catholics, rather than among the Turks or Armenians, it was particularly directed against the missionary schools and the printing press. In addition to the influence of the Vatican, working through its priests, the French and Russian officials also sought to crush American missionary efforts. With such ecclesiastical interference and the political disturbance of the Greek insurrection in 1826, the situation appeared alarming to the missionaries. In the general lawlessness, houses of some missionaries were plundered. The Maronite Bishop (Patriarch), came down from his monastery in Mount Lebanon (Cebel-i Lubnan) and asked his people to drive out the missionaries, threatening at the same time to excommunicate anyone who should rent a house to them.[12] In 1841, after a peaceful period of 15 years, another serious Maronite reaction occurred in Mount Lebanon. The Maronite Bishop, who had earlier applied to the governor of Syria, Zekeriya Pasha, to complain about the “destructive” works among the local population, asked the Ottoman authorities to suspend activities of American missionaries. When the governor communicated the alarming situation to the capital in Lebanon, the Sublime Porte delivered a note ver bal to David Porter, then the United States minister resident in Istanbul, in May 1841 and asked him to urge the missionaries to leave Lebanon. The Porte also emphasized its concerns about the lives of the missionaries should the tensions increase. Porter, however, in his reply to the Porte, stated that the American legation could neither force the missionaries to withdraw from the region nor bear their responsibility.[13] Thus the missionaries continued their presence in Mount Lebanon. According to Chapseaud, the United States consul in Beirut, the tensions in the region were not caused by the missionaries, and the missionary schools were not located in the Maronite area.[14] But the facts were different. There was a historical feud between the Maronites and the Druzes who both had a large number of kins living in the Mount Lebanon. American missionaries, while building schools in the area dominated by the Druze, were using the intercommunal conflict to protect themselves from Maronite intervention. But the “Druze Shield” failed to protect them, when clashes between the Maronites and the Druze increased in the fall 1841. Along with many Druze buildings, some American mission stations and schools we re also destroyed by the Maronites. The Sublime Porte’s warning was critical and the missionaries withdrew from Mount Lebanon to Beirut.[15] They did not initiate any efforts in the region for a couple of years.

From 1844 onwards, the Armenian clergy also began to complain about the missionaries to the Sublime Porte . Matteos, the Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul, whom the Ottoman government recognized as the only representative of the Armenian “millet” (nation), accused the missionaries of forcing the Armenians to change their religion. During the early years of American missionary activities among the Armenians, the general atmosphere was friendly. Armenians, benefiting from American educational activities in a positive way, welcomed the missionaries. But, as the number of Armenian converts to Protestantism increased, the Armenian clergy changed its previous attitude. In 1839, there were 800 converts, a disturbing number for the Armenian Patriarchate.[16] In order to prevent more Armenians to change their religion, Matteos called all Armenians to cut any sort of relations with the American missionaries and threatened those who were in warm contacts with the Americans, with isolation from the community.[17]

Moves of the Armenian patriarchate were supported by the Sublime Porte that did not recognize a Protestant millet, thus interpreting the existence of Protestant Armenian subjects as illegal. One should also keep in mind that many Armenian Gregorians occupied high places in the Ottoman bureaucracy, and they were in touch with the Patriarchate in opposition to the missionaries. When more complaints from the Armenians reached to the Porte. The Ottoman government once more confronted with the United States legation in Istanbul. In June 1844, Armenians from Erzurum, Trabzon (Trebizond) and Bursa (Broosa) applied to the Porte and wanted the American missionaries to be expelled from their towns. The basic reason of the complaint was conversion. Rifat Pasha, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a note to the United States Legation and called for the missionaries’ withdrawal. But, as in the Lebanon case, John P. Brown, the American charge, stated that he could not urge the missionaries to leave the towns. This time, however, the Porte was more determined and by orders to the local authorities in those three towns, missionaries’ conversion efforts were banned and Protestantism among Armenians was once more proclaimed illegal.[18]

Another complaint from Armenians to the Porte came in 1845, when an Armenian woman in Beirut accused the American missionaries of kidnapping her three children and forcing them to change their religion. When the Ottoman governor in Damascus applied to the United States Consul in Beirut for release of these children, he replied that without an official instruction from the Legation in Istanbul, the Consul could not interfere in the affair. The Sublime Porte then sent a detailed note to the American Legation and asked for their cooperation. As soon as the American Consul, instructed from Istanbul, intervened the children were given back to their parents.[19]

Between the years 1844 and 1845, the number of notes between the Sublime Porte and the United States Legation i n c reased. Dabney S. Carr who was appointed as the American minister resident to Istanbul in 1843, dispatched to the Department of State in 1844 and 1845, that the Sublime Porte was not disturbed by the humanitarian dimension of the missionary activities. Carr summarized the three basic objections of the Porte. First, the Ottoman government was against conversion among its Christian subjects and found this practice illegal. Second, the Porte feared that if the number of converts would increase, it would cause an administrative chaos. And third, the increase in the number of protégé documents released to the Protestants in the Ottoman Empire by the United States consuls caused a deep concern to the Porte.[20]

Armenian Patriarch Matteos expelled the Protestant Armenians from the Armenian Gregorian Church in 1846. He also wrote a comprehensive letter of complaint to the Sublime Porte. Therefore the Porte once more applied to the United States Legation and wanted the American minister to stop the activities of missionaries among Armenians. This call, as previous ones, had no affirmative answer from neither the Legation nor from the missionaries.[21]

The Matteos’ move against Protestant Armenians created an administrative problem. The Sublime Porte classified the Ottoman subjects according to their religion. There were Muslim, Greek-Orthodox, Armenian, Jewish and Catholic nations (millet) in the Ottoman population. Since there was not a Protestant nation recognized by the Porte, those who converted to Protestantism were losing their official identity before the Sublime Porte. Thus, there was no an authority representing them. As the number of converts increased, the problem of identity and representation became more critical. In order to obtain a status of nation, the American missionaries during the 1840s ran an intensive campaign through the British Embassy and the United States Legation over the Sublime Porte.

The United Kingdom, who proclaimed herself as the protector of the Protestants in the Ottoman Empire, in seeking the recognition of a Protestant nation status, gave its support to the American missionaries. The British Ambassadors in Istanbul, Stratford Canning (the future Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) and Lord Cowley in their contacts with Mustafa Reshid Pasha, the Grand Vizier, mostly emphasized the British Empire’s will of the creation of Protestant millet. After a period of heavy diplomatic pressures on the Porte, Sultan Abdulmejid issued a imperial order (irade) on 15 November 1847 and granted the status. Following the decree, the Protestants of the Ottoman Empire chose a representative (vekil) who would in future conduct their relationship with the Sublime Porte.[22] The important points of the order were as follows:

“To His Excellency, the Pasha Comptroller of the City Revenue, Whereas the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Government professing Protestantism, have experienced difficulty and embarrassment from not being hitherto under a special and separate jurisdiction, and naturally the Patriarch and the heads of the sects from which they have separated not being able to superintend their affairs, and whereas it is in contravention to the supreme will of his Imperial Majesty our Gracious Lord and Benefactor (may Allah increase him in years and power) animated as he is with feelings of deep interest and clemency towards all classes of his subjects, that any of them should be subjected to grievance, and whereas the aforesaid Protestants, in conformity with the creed professed by them, do form a separate community, it is His Imperial Majesty’s supreme will and command that for the sole purpose of facilitating their affairs, and of securing the welfare of said Protestants, the administration thereof should be henceforward confided to Your Excellency, together with the allotment of the taxes to which they are subjected by law, that you do keep a separate register of their births and deaths in the bureau of your department, according to the system observed with regard to Latin subjects, that you do issue passports and permits of marriage, and that any person of established character and good conduct chosen by them to appear as their agent at the Porte for the transaction and settlement of their current affairs, be duly appointed for that purpose...” [23]

After the proclamation of the order, American missionaries in Istanbul sent a letter to the British ambassador at Istanbul and offered their “sincere congratulations on the successful termination of (his) efforts in behalf of the Protestant subjects of the Porte.” The missionaries depicted their gratitude in the following sentences:

“Through the humane interposition of his excellency, Sir Stratford Canning, the Protestant subjects of Turkey found substantial relief from the persecutions under which they were then suffering; and since, by the untiring efforts of your Lordship, the very important point has been conceded for them, that in regard to liberty of conscience and the enjoyment of civil rights, they shall be placed on the same footing with all other Christian subjects of the Porte.” [24]

The Protestant irade brought relief and a more conducive climate for the Protestant subjects of the Porte. Yet it did not curtail the American missionary activities in the Ottoman Empire.

Problems Arising from the Missionary Schools and Other Facilities

Missionary work spread in the Ottoman Empire through two means: mission stations and missionary schools. After the establishment of a mission in Istanbul as a center for all missionary activities in the Ottoman Empire, more stations were opened in Asian and European Turkey. Stations in Trabzon (1835), Erzurum (1839), Aintab (1849), Marash (1855), Adana, Aleppo, Tarsus, Hadjin, Alexandretta, Kilis, Salonica (1850) and Izmir (1859) were established.[25]

Alongside the missionary churches and stations, missionary schools were established widely in various parts of the Empire. This extensive educational activity caused problems mainly stemming from two different levels. The first problem was the reaction of local population and local authorities to the missionary establishment. The second and more important problem, was the attitude of the Sublime Porte, which was basically formed through local reactions.

All missionaries after 1840, who applied the Sublime Porte to obtain travel permits, were warned not to build schools in the mountainous areas. The Sublime Porte, as explained in a note to the United States Legation, was trying to prevent the missionaries from any kind of local assaults, because of their educational efforts. Therefore the Sublime Porte repeatedly stated that it had no responsibility of the well-being of Americans who without an imperial permit committed to build schools.[26] Parallel to the building of more missionary schools, the notes of complaint from the Sublime Porte to the Legation increased. The American minister resident Carr, in one of his dispatches to the State Department in 1848, stressed the change in the attitude of the Sublime Porte towards Americans in a negative way and confessed that the missionaries, who behaved solely independent from any authority, either Ottoman or American, would cause more complaints in future.[27] The missionary schools were a permanent matter of dispute throughout the nineteenth century because their numbers, and size increased. Beginning in 1860s, the American missionaries initiated the building of high schools and colleges all in certain urban centers of the Ottoman land. With the opening of the colleges, more Ottoman students, mostly non- Muslim, attended these facilities, and more estates owned by Ottoman subjects went under the control of American missionaries. These two factors incited the Porte to move against the missionaries.

The first college initiated by the Americans was opened in Beirut in 1866 under the name of Syria Protestant College. (It became American University of Beirut in the twentieth century). The language of instruction was Arabic and the people in the region got a chance to take education in medicine and pharmacy as well as social sciences.[28] Leaving aside minor local objections, the Beirut College did not attract any reaction from the capital. However, when Cyrus Hamlin, a senior missionary, who received a generous financial contribution from an American businessman, Christopher R. Robert, he intensified his efforts to built an American college out of a small seminary in Bebek, Istanbul. But the Sublime Porte refused to give required permits to open a college and to construct buildings.

Although not stated officially in any correspondence between the Porte and the American Legation, one of the reasons of this attitude was the Sublime Porte’s discontent with the opening of such a comprehensive foreign educational institution in its capital. This step, could be followed by the European powers such as France and Russia. The establishment of foreign colleges for non-Muslim pupils would create a new area of conflict between the Ottoman Government and the “Great Powers”. Secondly, the Sublime Porte had a great concern about the “negative” effects of the curricula of such institutions on its non-Muslim subjects. Some of the Western values such as liberalism and nationalism, which could have “destructive” reflections on a multi-national empire were to be kept away from the Ottoman subjects. If the role of graduates from American colleges in the rise of Bulgarian, Armenian and Albanian nationalism in the last quarter of the nineteenth century is taken into consideration, one might understand the sensitivity of the Sublime Porte.

Nevertheless, the contacts of the American minister in Istanbul, Edward Joy Morris within the Sublime Porte eventually enabled a positive result for the missionaries, and the objection to establish an American College in Istanbul was withdrawn. But, the Ottoman objection for the place of the school continued to be a point of dispute. The Sublime Porte, namely Ali Pasha, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was against the construction of a college building at Rumelihisari, the land which was bought by the missionaries solely for that purpose. Rumelihisari was then a quarter largely occupied by Muslims and such an institution was likely to cause more problems. In Istanbul, certain quarters, such as Pera, Fener and St. Stephanos were the places where non-Muslims lived and the Sublime Porte wanted to limit the churches, mission stations and missionary schools within those areas.[29]

Soon the building place of the Istanbul College became a subject of the bilateral diplomatic relations. The United States Secretary of State William Seward gave a note to the Ottoman minister resident in Washington, Blacque Bey, in the summer of 1868 and asked him to persuade the Sublime Porte to allocate the aforementioned estate in Rumeihisari for the college building.[30]

Admiral David G. Farragut (1810-1870),
America's first Admiral, born of Hispanic
heritage. Credited for the statement when
encountering mines in the Battle of
Mobile Bay: "Damn the torpedoes,
full speed ahead!”

Keeping in mind that the major donor for the College was an notable American businessman, it is easier to understand the basic motive behind Seward’s intervention. Just after this note to Blacque Bey, the Department of Navy instructed Admiral Farragut, commander of the United States Mediterranean Squadron, to move Istanbul on the deck of an American frigate and to “show his utmost effort” in the favor of a construction permit. Farragut’s mission in Istanbul in August 1868, resulted with a happy ending for the American missionaries. The Sublime Porte allowed the missionaries to build the school, which would be named Robert College because of Christopher Robert’s contribution.[31]

The establishment of Robert College gave an impetus to other initiatives. During the period between 1871-1903, seven more American Colleges, American Girls’ College in Istanbul, Euphrates College in Harput (Kharput), American College in Van, Central Turkey College in Marash, St. Paul College in Tarsus, Anatolian College in Merzifon (Marsovan) and International College in Izmir (Smyrna) were opened.[32]

The Establishment processes of all the American colleges caused some minor problems with the local authorities, but those difficulties were solved by peaceful means. However, in 1880’s and 1890s, two major problems emerged. These problems were intertwined with Sultan Abdulhamid’s centralized educational reforms and the American connection with Armenian nationalism.

Sultan Abdulhamid, ascended to the Ottoman throne in 1875, centralized the whole power in his hands. The Sublime Porte, which was the main center of government for almost 50 years, lost its privileges to conduct internal and diplomatic affairs alone. Abdulhamid, who found a correlation between the foreign intervention of the “Great Powers” and the increasing number of national insurrections of non-Muslim Ottoman subjects, decided to cut their means of external support. Along with some other measures he banned the transfer of property and the granting of new building permits for missionary schools. For the schools already built, he utilized new school laws that established standards for teacher certification, the curriculum, and the physical facilities of the school. Under the new law, some American schools had to be closed because the teachers could not produce the necessary credentials.[33]

The American missionaries, claiming the right to unrestricted operation of three categories of schools; those owned and taught by American citizens, those owned and directed by Americans but taught by the Ottoman subjects, and those owned and taught by the Ottoman subjects with a subsidy and some supervision from Americans. The American legation vigorously defended the missionary claims on the first category, while it held that schools in the third group, the majority of the American schools in the Empire, had no recognizable rights which could be protected by the United States government. The status of the second group of schools remained obscure. In addition, the American legation in its correspondence with the Ottoman Ministry of Foreign Affairs, repeatedly stressed that the newly organized schools should submit their programs of study, their textbook lists, and the diplomas or certificates of their teachers to the examination of the Turkish authorities, but objected for the same measures for existing schools.[34] When Armenian nationalists started a large scale insurrection in major towns of central and Eastern Anatolia in 1890, the Ottoman attitude towards the missionary schools sharpened. This was because most of the American schools in these sensitive areas had Armenian students and Armenian teachers who were in contact with the rebels. The crisis came in 18931895 when the American colleges in Merzifon, Harput and Marash and the houses of some American missionaries were damaged during the Ottoman army’s intervention. In addition, some of the Armenian teachers were arrested under the accusation of helping the rebels.[35] For the destruction of Anatolian College in Merzifon in 1893, the Ottoman government paid 500 Turkish pounds to the United States Legation in Istanbul, granted a permit for rebuilding of damaged parts, and released two Armenian teachers after the reports of confirmation prepared by Jewett, the American Consul in Sivas and Newsberry, secretary of the American Legation.[36]

Shelby Moore Cullom,
(1829 - 1914); lawyer,
Republican, Speaker of
the House in Congress,
Illinois governor, and
senator (1883-1913)

However, for the destruction of Euphrates College in Harput and Central Turkey College in Marash in 1895, the process did not follow in the same manner. American missionaries, through the American Legation, wanted the Ottoman Government to pay an indemnity of 100,000 dollars for the damages in those two colleges.[37] But the Ottoman Government did not accept the responsibility of the damage and refused to pay an indemnity.[38] On December 4, 1895, the United States Senate resolved that the President should issue a report about the damages to American citizens’ property in the Ottoman Empire to the Senate.[39] Following this resolution, President Cleveland gave a long report to the Senate in which he affirmed that no American citizen had been injured during the incidents, but a damage around 100,000 dollars had been occurred. The President also informed the Senate that he had instructed three battleships, (San Fransisco, Marblehead and Minneapolis) to visit Ottoman ports in order to prevent any further assaults to the American citizens and to secure an indemnity for the losses.[40] After the Presidential report, the Senate in 27 January 1896, passed a resolution, drafted by Senator Shelby M. Cullom, Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, which called the President to initiate the necessary steps to obtain indemnity from the Ottoman Government.[41]

The problem of indemnity remained unsolved until 1901, when an American cruiser Kentucky was sent to the harbor in Izmir with orders to sustain pre s s u re on the Ottoman Government until the payment was made. This military threat worked in the United States’ favor and the Ottoman Government paid 100,000 dollars to the United States Legation in June 1901.[42]

The same scenario was repeated in 1904. When the Ottoman authorities closed some American schools and arrested some Armenians whom were naturalized United States citizens, President Roosevelt sent a powerful fleet to the Izmir harbor and in the United States minister Leishman, in his audience with the Sultan, mentioned the possibility of a bombardment of Izmir. As a result, Armeno-Americans were released and the schools were permitted to open.

However, they did not enjoy normalized conditions until Sultan Abdulhamid was overthrown from power and a constitutional government was formed in 1909. The details of this period will be taken up in the concluding part.

Publishing Activities of the Missionaries

Another dimension of the missionary work in the Ottoman Empire was publication and distribution of religious and educational books and pamphlets. The printing house in Malta that was established by Pliny Fisk in 1822, published 350.000 copies of different books in Greek, Italian and Armeno-Turkish within just nine years. The printing house was moved to Izmir in 1833 and to the mission center, Istanbul in 1852. After serving in Pera for 20 years the printing house that was named the Bible House, was moved once more to Riza Pasha Yokusu, a region very close to the Sublime Porte.[43]

From its establishment to 1860, the number of pages of the books published and distributed by the missionaries were more than 21,000,000. While the majority of the books were on religious subjects, some popular magazines and scientific books were also published. For instance, Avedaper, a politico- cultural magazine in Armeno-Turkish was printed by the missionaries.[44]

Publishing activities, which targeted the non-Muslim subjects of the Empire, did not disturb the Sublime Porte. However, in the 1860s, some Muslims converted to Christianity as a result of missionary efforts, and the Bible House began to publish books in Turkish for the use of Muslims. Consequently, the Sublime Porte started to impose restrictions on missionary publications. At the same time, a general concern towards all foreign publications, including the ones distributed by Russians and Greeks, calling the Orthodox population to seek independence from the Ottoman Empire, arose in the Sublime Porte in 1860s. As a result, the Porte enforced new regulations for printing activities of the Ottoman subjects and the foreigners.

Ali Pasha, Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a circular to all embassies and legations in Istanbul on 27 November 1862, stating that the Sublime Porte will censor all books with contents of political or religious propaganda.[45] The effects of this new regulation were seen in a short time. Beginning with the first months of 1863, the Ottoman authorities started to collect books published by foreigners, including a vast number of missionary publication that created discontent among the Americans. The scope of this [dis]comfort increased when officials from the Ottoman police department (Zaptiye Nezareti) sealed a book shop owned by missionaries and confiscated some books in July 1864. When the American minister resident, Morris, applied to the Sublime Porte for return of the books, Ali Pasha replied that the missionaries largely distributed material among the Muslims containing false knowledge about Islam, and therefore such activities will not be allowed by the government.[46]

The Sublime Porte enlarged the restrictions by an Act of Publication that was entered into force at the end of 1864. According to the new legal regulation, all published materials, either printed in the Ottoman Empire or imported from foreign countries, were subject to the prior control and permission of the Sublime Porte for their distribution.[47] Morris, who visited Ali Pasha several times on behalf of the American missionaries, was told that the Sublime Porte was not against any religious material such as the Bible that was freely published and distributed. However all Christian propaganda against Muslims would not be tolerated.[48]

The restrictions on the publications were eased in the first half of the 1870, parallel to the intensive efforts of the American, British, French and Russian diplomatic missions. But, when the Bulgarian revolt erupted in the Spring of 1875, more restrictions were enforced. According to a new regulation, all publications were subjected to the approval of the Ministry of Public Instruction before their printing. Moreover, a sentence of identification was to be placed in the front page of the publication indicating its character, such as scientific, religious, or iterary. The major objection against those new rules came from the missionaries who unsuccessfully asked the Sublime Porte to make an exception for the publications that were ordered before the regulation.[49]

Despite the strict limitations, the missionaries continued their publication activities with or without permission of the Porte. This attitude only increased the disputes with the Porte. In 1880s, Ottoman authorities began to confiscate missionary books at customs. Although some publications, containing solely religious subjects, were returned to the owners due to the American Legation’s initiatives, some of them with a political content were kept and even destroyed by the Porte.[50] For instance in 1880, an American missionary from the Church of Missionary Society, without permission of the Sublime Porte, imported some religious books to Istanbul and hired an Ottoman Subject, Hoca Ahmet Efendi to translate the publications to Turkish. When the Porte heard this act, the books were confiscated by the police and the translator was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.[51]

One of the interesting examples of the Ottoman attitude towards missionary publication took place in 1883. Lewis Wallace, the United States minister in Istanbul, applied to the Ministry of Public Instruction to obtain a permit for republishing the Bible, which was out of print in the Ottoman Empire.[52] Getting no answer from the department, Wallace this time applied to the Sublime Porte with a note verbal. The Porte, in its reply to Wallace, stated that the Ottoman Government would allow republishing of the Bible only if a sentence, “Solely for the Use of Protestants” was printed in the first page of the book. Wallace, asserting that such a statement could not be found in any of the copies of Bible, which was translated into 250 languages, rejected the Sublime Porte’s condition.[53] Therefore the publication of the Bible was stopped in the Ottoman Empire.

The American missionaries sometimes applied to the Ottoman Government to seek redress for their confiscated books. But the Sublime Porte mostly did not make any payments and took an attitude of negligence against such applications. Like other activities of the missionaries, the publishing efforts continued to be a source of dispute at the end of the nineteenth and in the first years of the twentieth centuries.

Conclusion

After the foundation of a constitutional government in 1908, the Ottoman attitude towards the American missionaries became more positive. John G. Leishman, the United States ambassador in Istanbul, wrote in his re p o rts to the Department of State that the constitutional government would not only contribute to the development of the Ottoman society but also ease the pressures over the American citizens, including the missionaries.[54] Early statements on the rights of education and publication, from the members of the new government were satisfactory for the missionaries. In late September 1908, the restrictions on printing and distribution of books and limitations for travels of the missionaries were abolished.[55]

The new rule in the Empire was welcomed in the United States Congress too. The Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions, in which they congratulated and wished good luck to the new Ottoman government.[56] The changing atmosphere also gave a new impetus to the missionary activities mostly in the Eastern provinces of the Empire. Old schools were renovated and new ones were opened. The number of the American schools in the Empire reached 209, and the number of pupils enrolling in those schools reached 25.922 in 1913.[57]

However, as the Great War started in 1914, the official Ottoman attitude towards all foreigners once more changed. At the beginning, the American missionaries, as citizens of a neutral power had some privileges compared to the British or French. But, after 1917, parallel to the United States’ accession to the War, they were also subject to heavy restrictions.

The long adventure of the American missionaries in the Ottoman Empire ended in 1918 with the de facto collapse of the Empire. After 4 years of chaos in Anatolia, Mustafa Kemal founded the Turkish Republic in 1923. This was the opening of a new period for missionary activities in the region, and the circumstances were not easier than before.

Abbreviations:
BOA: Babakanlik Osmanli Arciv (Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives) Sultanahmet, Istanbul, Turkey.
C.H.: Cevdet Hariciye
I.S.K.D.: Irade-i Seniyye Kayit Defteri
CR: Congressional Record, Washington D.C., U.S. Governmental Printing Office.
FR: Foreign Relations of the United States, Washington D.C., U.S. Governmental Printing Office.
NARA: National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland, USA.
M-46: Despatches from U.S. Ministers to Turkey to the Department, 1818-1906.
M-99/96: Notes to the Turkish Legation in the United States from the Department.

Notes

1. John P. Brown, “An Audience with Sultan Abdul Mejid”, The Knickerbocker, XIX, (June 1842), 497.

2. A.C.A Schneider, Letters from Broosa Asia Minor (Pennsylvania: 1846), 39.

3. Uygur Kocabasoglu, Kendi Belgeleriyle Anadolu’daki Amerika (Istanbul:Arba, 1989), 22.

4. William E. Strong, The Story of the American Board, (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1910), 80.

5. H.G. Dwight, Christianity Revived in the East (New York: Baker & Scribner: 1850), 10-11; Strong, op.cit. 84.

6. Kocabasoglu, op.cit. 33.
7. Dwight, op.cit. 19-21.

8. H. G. Dwight, Constantinople, Settings and Traits ( New York: Harper & Brother, 1916), 227.

9. Robert Daniel, American Philantrophy in the Near East 1820-1960 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1970), 94.

10. Joseph L. Grabill, Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy 1810-1927 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971), 17; Daniel, op.cit. 94.

11. William Goodell, Forty Years in the Turkish Empire (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1883), 99.

12. Strong, op. cit. 83-84.
13. NARA, M-46, May 16, 1841.
14. NARA, M-46, Aug. 1, 1841.
15. NARA, M-46, Oct. 1, 1841.
16. Goodell, op.cit. 132.
17. Strong, op.cit. 105; Grabill, op.cit. 13; Dwight, op.cit. 269.
18. BOA, C.H., 2 C. 1260 (Jun. 19, 1844); 8 C. 1260 (Jun. 25, 1844).
19. BOA, C.H., 24 M. 1261 (Feb. 2 1845).
20. NARA, M-46, Dec. 9, 1844; Mar. 27, 1845.
21. NARA, M-46, Mar. 1, 1846.

22. Dwight, (1850) op. cit., 252-285; William Goodell, The Old and the New or Changes of Thirty Years in the East, (New York:1854), 83.

23. Dwight, (1850) op. cit. 285-286.
24. Ibid. 287.
25. James Barton, Daybreak in Turkey (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1908), 138.
26. NARA, M-46, Aug. 7, 1843.
27. NARA, M-46, Aug. 2, 1848.
28. Grabill, op.cit. 24.

29. Howard Joseph Kerner, Turco-American Diplomatic Relations 1860 1880 (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University (unpublished Ph. D Thesis, 1948), 160-171.

30. NARA, M-99/96, Jul. 1, 1868.
31. Kerner, op.cit. 181.
32. Grabill, op. cit. 26.
33. Daniel, op. cit. 114.
34. Kerner, op. cit. 115.

35. NARA, M-46, Feb. 5, 1893; Frederick Davis Greene, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896), 35-39.

36. NARA, Apr. 27, 1893; Jul. 5, 1893.
37. NARA, M-46, Nov. 27, 1895.
38. NARA, M-46, Dec. 4, 1895.
39. F.R., (1895), 1256.
40. Ibid. 1256-1265.
41. C.R., Senate, Vol:28, 54-1, (1895-96), 959-96.
42. NARA, M-46, Jun. 12, 1901; BOA, ISKD, 30 N. 1317, No: 1269.

43. Uygur Kocabasoglu, Osmanli Imparatorlugunda XIX. Yuzyilda Amerikan Yuksek Okullari (Ankara: Mulkiyeliler Birligi Vakfi, 1988), 270-271.

44. Daniel, op. cit. 102.
45. NARA, M-46, Nov.27; Dec.11, 1862.
46. NARA, M-46, Jul. 23, 1864.
47. NARA, M-46, Jan. 15, 1865.
48. NARA, M-46, Oct. 18, 1865; May 17, 1866.
49. NARA, M-46, Jun.30, 1875.
50. NARA, M-46, Apr. 29, 1881; Dec. 18, 1881; Apr. 25, 1882.
51. NARA, M-46, Jan.4, 1880.
52. NARA, M-46, May. 15, 1883.
53. NARA, M-46, Jun. 13, 1883.
54. NARA, M-46, Aug. 20, Sep. 28, 1908.
55. NARA, M-46, Sep. 28, 1908; F.R., (1908) 755-756.
56. F.R. (1908), 753-754.
57. Daniel, op. cit. 94.


----------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater

The source site of this article gets revised often, as better
information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, and
the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing
the direct link as follows:

www.tallarmeniantale.com/missionary-ottom-attitudes.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Read Full Post !