text:
Sun Quan

Sun Quan (182 – 21 May 252), courtesy name Zhongmou (仲謀), posthumously known as Emperor Da of Wu, was the founder of Eastern Wu, one of the Three Kingdoms of China. He inherited control of the warlord regime established by his elder brother, Sun Ce, in 200. He declared formal independence and ruled from November 222 to May 229 as the King of Wu and from May 229 to May 252 as the Emperor of Wu. Unlike his rivals Cao Cao and Liu Bei, Sun Quan was much younger than they were and governed his state mostly separate of politics and ideology. He is sometimes portrayed as neutral considering he adopted a flexible foreign policy between his two rivals with the goal of pursuing the greatest interests for the country.

Sun Quan was born while his father Sun Jian served as the adjutant of Xiapi County. After Sun Jian's death in the early 190s, he and his family lived at various cities on the lower Yangtze, until Sun Ce carved out a warlord regime in the Jiangdong region, based on his own followers and a number of local clan allegiances. When Sun Ce was assassinated by the retainers of Xu Gong in 200, the 18-year-old Sun Quan inherited the lands southeast of the Yangtze River from his brother. His administration proved to be relatively stable in those early years as Sun Jian and Sun Ce's most senior officers, such as Zhou Yu, Zhang Zhao, Zhang Hong, and Cheng Pu supported the succession. Thus throughout the 200s, Sun Quan, under the tutelage of his able advisers, continued to build up his strength along the Yangtze River. In early 207, his forces finally won complete victory over Huang Zu, a military leader under Liu Biao, who dominated the middle Yangtze. Huang Zu was killed in battle.

In winter of that year, the northern warlord Cao Cao led an army of approximately 220,000 to conquer the south to complete the reunification of China. Two distinct factions emerged at his court on how to handle the situation. One, led by Zhang Zhao, urged surrender whilst the other, led by Zhou Yu and Lu Su, opposed capitulation. Eventually, Sun Quan decided to oppose Cao Cao in the middle Yangtze with his superior riverine forces. Allied with Liu Bei and employing the combined strategies of Zhou Yu and Huang Gai, they defeated Cao Cao decisively at the Battle of Red Cliffs.

In late 220, Cao Pi, King of Wei, Cao Cao's son and successor, seized the throne and proclaimed himself to be the Emperor of China, ending and succeeding the nominal rule of the Han dynasty. At first Sun Quan nominally served as a Wei vassal with the Wei-created title of King of Wu, but after Cao Pi demanded that he send his son Sun Deng as a hostage to the Wei capital Luoyang and he refused. In November 222, he declared himself independent by changing his era name. It was not until May 229 that he formally declared himself emperor.

After the death of his original crown prince, Sun Deng, two opposing factions supporting different potential successors slowly emerged. When Sun He succeeded Sun Deng as the new crown prince, he was supported by Lu Xun and Zhuge Ke, while his rival Sun Ba was supported by Quan Cong and Bu Zhi and their clans. Over a prolonged internal power struggle, numerous officials were executed, and Sun Quan harshly settled the conflict between the two factions by exiling Sun He and forcing Sun Ba to commit suicide. Sun Quan died in May 252 at the age of 70 (by East Asian reckoning). He enjoyed the longest reign among all the founders of the Three Kingdoms and was succeeded by his son, Sun Liang.

The Records of the Three Kingdoms describes Sun Quan as a tall man with bright eyes and oblong face. He was known as a wise and outgoing man who was fond of making jokes and playing tricks. Because of his skill in valuing the strength of his subordinates and avoiding their shortcomings, as well as treating them like his family, Sun Quan was able to delegate authority to capable figures. This primary strength served him well in gaining the support of the common people and surrounding himself with capable generals.

Early life and career
The Records of the Three Kingdoms mentioned that Sun Jian was a descendant of Sun Wu (better known as Sun Tzu), a militarist in the Spring and Autumn period and the author of The Art of War. Sun Quan was born in 182, while his father Sun Jian was still a low-ranking official of the Han dynasty. He was the second son of Sun Jian and his wife Lady Wu; he had two younger full brothers, Sun Yi and Sun Kuang, and a younger full sister, whose identity is unrecorded.

In 184, two years after Sun Quan was born, the Yellow Turban Rebellion led by Zhang Jue broke out across the country. Sun Jian joined the general Zhu Jun to quell the rebellion and allocated his family to stay in Shouchun. When Sun Quan's elder brother Sun Ce met Zhou Yu in 189, Sun Ce decided to take his mother Lady Wu and younger brothers to Shu County, Zhou Yu's hometown. There, the Sun family became acquainted with Zhou Yu.

After Sun Jian's death in 191, the Sun family moved again to Jiangdu in order to mourn him. Two years later, Sun Ce decided to join Yuan Shu's army so he ordered Lü Fan to take his family members to his maternal uncle Wu Jing's home in Danyang. However, Liu Yao, the Governor (牧) of Yang Province became angry when Sun Ce and Yuan Shu defeated Lu Kang, the administrator of Lujiang in 194. He felt worried that they would attack him further so he drove Wu Jing away from Danyang. Since Sun Quan and his mother were still in Liu Yao's territory, Zhu Zhi sent people to rescue them. Sun Quan and his mother moved to Fuling later.

When Sun Ce defeated Liu Yao in 195, he ordered Chen Bao to bring his family back to Danyang. As Sun Quan grew up, he served his brother during the conquests of the region south of the Yangtze River. He was made Yangxian County magistrate in 196, at the age of 14, and continued to rise through the ranks as his brother gave him more and more important tasks. Since he was passionate about gathering the retainers like Pan Zhang and Zhou Tai, his fame soon approached his father and elder brother. Zhu Ran and Hu Zong, the men he met during his schooldays, later became ministers of Eastern Wu. He was loved by his brother Sun Ce, who said that he would put his men under Sun Quan's management in the future. In 199, Sun Quan was promoted to the rank of Colonel (校尉) and followed his brother to conquer Lujiang and Yuzhang. While Cao Cao attempted to further reinforce the alliance with Sun Ce, both Sun Quan and his younger brother Sun Yi were invited to be officials in Xuchang, but they refused.

Succeeding Sun Ce
Sun Ce was assassinated in 200 during a hunt. On his deathbed, he knew that his son was still too young to be considered a realistic heir, so he entrusted the 18-year-old Sun Quan to his faithful subordinates. Initially, Sun Quan mourned his brother's death so much that he couldn't stop crying, but at Zhang Zhao's behest, he dressed himself in military uniform and set out to visit the commanderies under his brother's control. Many of Sun Ce's subordinates thought that Sun Quan was too young to sustain Sun Ce's domain and wanted to leave. Particularly, Li Shu, the Administrator of Lujiang, defected to Cao Cao. Sun Quan wrote a letter to Cao Cao to state Li Shu's crime then headed his troops to defeat Li Shu and regain Lujiang.

Zhang Zhao and Zhou Yu saw special qualities in the young man and chose to stay to serve Sun Quan. Zhang Hong, whom Sun Ce had earlier sent as a liaison to the warlord Cao Cao, also returned from Cao's domain to assist Sun Quan. At Zhang Hong's request, Cao Cao, in the name of Emperor Xian who was controlled by Cao Cao at the time, commissioned Sun Quan as General Who Attacks Barbarians (討虜將軍), a title under which he would be known for a long time. He listened carefully to his mother Lady Wu's encouraging words, and greatly trusted Zhang Zhao and Zhang Hong with regard to civilian affairs and Zhou Yu, Cheng Pu, and Lü Fan with regard to military matters. Sun Quan also sought out talented young men to serve as his personal advisors, and it was around this time that he befriended Lu Su and Zhuge Jin, who would later play prominent roles in his administration. In addition, Lu Xun, Bu Zhi, Gu Yong, Shi Yi, Yan Jun, Xu Sheng and Zhu Huan also became his men. Throughout this period and decades to come, Sun Quan's leadership would be characterised by his ability to find men of character and entrust important matters to him, and his ability to react swiftly to events.

For the next several years, Sun Quan was largely interested in expanding against the Shanyue, hill tribes which controlled the most southern part of China and outside the reach of the Han government, in order to ensure his realm. Sun Quan launched numerous campaigns against the Shanyue. In 206, he conquered the fortress of Shanyue in Matun and Baodun and captured more than 10,000 men. Furthermore, he gradually sought to harass and weaken Liu Biao's key subordinate, Huang Zu (who controlled the northeastern region of Liu Biao's domain) – particularly because Huang Zu had killed his father in battle. He made war on Huang Zu twice in 203 and 207. In 208, he was finally able to defeat and kill Huang Zu in battle, and as a result, he obtained most of the territory of Jiangxia. Soon after, Liu Biao died while Cao Cao was preparing a major campaign to subjugate both Liu Biao and Sun Quan under his control, precipitating a major confrontation.

Battle of Red Cliffs

At the end of 208. After Liu Biao's death, a succession struggle for his domain came into being, between his sons Liu Qi and younger son Liu Cong, whom Liu Biao's second wife Lady Cai favoured (because he had married her niece). After Huang Zu's death, Liu Qi was therefore given Huang's post as the governor of Jiangxia Commandery. Liu Cong therefore succeeded Liu Biao after his death, and Liu Qi was displeased and considered, but did not carry out, an attack against his brother. Nevertheless, Liu Cong, in fear of having to fight Cao Cao and his brother on two fronts, surrendered to Cao Cao against the advice of Liu Biao's key ally Liu Bei. Liu Bei, unwilling to submit to Cao Cao, fled south. Cao caught up to him and crushed his forces, but Liu Bei escaped with his life; he fled to Dangyang. Cao Cao took over most of Jing Province, and appeared set on finally unifying the empire.

Sun Quan was well aware of Cao Cao's intentions, and he quickly entered into an alliance with Liu Bei and Liu Qi to prepare for an attack by Cao. Cao Cao wrote Sun Quan with a letter intending to intimidate, and in face of Cao's overwhelming force (estimated to be about 220,000 men, although Cao claimed 800,000, against Sun's 30,000 and the Lius' combined force of 10,000), many of Sun's subordinates, including Zhang Zhao, advocated surrender. Sun Quan refused, under advice from Zhou Yu and Lu Su that Cao Cao would surely not tolerate him even if he surrendered.

Sun Quan put Zhou Yu in charge of his 30,000 men, largely stationed on naval ships, and Zhou set up a defensive position in conjunction with Liu Bei, whose army was stationed on land. About this time, there was a plague developing in Cao Cao's forces which significantly weakened it. Zhou Yu set up a trap where he pretended to be punishing his subordinate Huang Gai, and Huang pretended to surrender to Cao Cao in fear. Zhou Yu then sent ships under Huang Gai's command to pretend to surrender and, as Huang's ships approached Cao Cao's fleet, they were set aflame to assault Cao's fleet, and Cao's fleet was largely destroyed by fire. Cao Cao led his forces to escape on land, but much of the force was destroyed by Sun Quan and Liu Bei's land forces.

Uneasy alliance with Liu Bei

Immediately after Cao Cao withdrew, Sun Quan took over the northern half of Jing Province. Liu Bei marched south and took over the southern half. The Sun-Liu alliance was further cemented by a marriage of Sun Quan's younger sister, Lady Sun, to Liu Bei. Zhou Yu was suspicious of Liu Bei's intentions, however, and suggested to Sun Quan that Liu be seized and put under house arrest (albeit be very well-treated) and his forces be merged into Sun's; Sun Quan, believing that Liu Bei's forces would rebel if he did that, declined. Sun Quan did agree to Zhou Yu's plans to consider attacking Liu Zhang and Zhang Lu (who controlled the modern southern Shaanxi) to try to take over their territories, but after Zhou Yu died in 210, the plans were abandoned. However, Sun Quan was able to persuade the warlords in Jiao Province to submit to him, and they became part of his domain. He then yielded parts of northern Jing Province to Liu Bei as well, agreeing with Liu that the south was insufficient to supply his troops. At the same time, Sun Quan appointed his subordinate Bu Zhi as the Inspector (刺史) of Jiao Province to replace Lai Gong. Shi Xie led his followers to submit to Bu Zhi's governorship. Sun Quan took over the entire Jiao Province.

In 211, Sun Quan moves his headquarters from Dantu to the city of Moling, and in the next year he rebuilt the walls and renamed the city Jianye. This new location gave him better control of the Yangtze River and better communications with his various other commanders. He also constructed fortresses at Ruxu, since Lü Meng anticipated an invasion there from Cao Cao.

The invasion Lü Meng expected came at the start of 213. Sun Quan personally led the army there to resist Cao Cao and relied heavily on the fortresses Lü Meng built to give his soldiers strong positions from which to defend. At one point, Cao Cao tried to send his navy across the river to break Sun Quan's lines, but Sun Quan's own ships surrounded them and destroyed them. Due to the stalemate in the war, Sun Quan drove a big ship to enter the military camp of Cao Cao on the other side of Yangtze River to observe his enemy situation. Cao Cao was very impressed with the military discipline of his opponent so he said that he should have a child like Sun Quan and didn't launch an attack on this occasion. Sun Quan ordered people to play music on the ship and returned to his camp safely. Ultimately, Lü Meng's defences held and Sun Quan wrote a letter to Cao Cao to warn that the spring rains would come a month later, Cao Cao had to take his advice and pull back.

After Cao Cao's defeat at Ruxu, many people along the Yangtze River fled south to join Sun Quan. With the exception of Wan County and the immediate area, the region became abandoned. In 214, Cao Cao sent a man named Zhu Guang to Wan County with orders to revitalise the region and bring it under Cao Cao's control. Zhu Guang began extensive agricultural projects, and he also stirred up bandits and malcontents into rebellion in Sun Quan's territory. Lü Meng feared that if Zhu Guang's programmes were successful, it would make Cao Cao's hold in the area unbreakable and urged for a campaign against Huan. Sun Quan followed Lü Meng's strategy and used the seasonal flooding to travel to the city by boat, which allowed them to attack unexpectedly. Rather than a lengthy siege, Lü Meng, Gan Ning and Ling Tong led a quick strike and broke Zhu Guang's defences, capturing the city.

After Liu Bei's conquest of Yi Province, he was able to supply his troops on his own, so Sun Quan sent Lu Su as an emissary to demand for the return of Jing Province, but Liu Bei refused. Sun Quan then sent Lü Meng and Ling Tong to lead 20,000 men to attack southern Jing Province and they succeeded in capturing Changsha, Guiyang, and Lingling commanderies. Meantime, Lu Su and Gan Ning advanced to Yiyang (益陽) with 10,000 men (to block Guan Yu) and took over command of the army at Lukou (陸口). Liu Bei personally went to Gong'an County and Guan Yu led 30,000 men to Yiyang. When an all-out war was about to break out, the news that Cao Cao planned to attack Hanzhong was received by Liu Bei, and he requested for a border treaty with Sun Quan as he became worried about Cao Cao seizing Hanzhong. Liu Bei asked Sun Quan to give him back Lingling Commandery and create a diversion for Cao Cao by attacking Hefei; in return, Liu Bei ceded Changsha and Guiyang commanderies to Sun Quan, setting the new border along the Xiang River. Sun Quan's attack on Hefei was disastrous - he was nearly captured on one occasion, if not saved by Ling Tong.

In 217, Cao Cao brought a massive army to attack Ruxu again. Sun Quan personally led 70,000 men to defend the city, though he left actual command of the battle to Lü Meng. It was a furious campaign, and after several weeks of gruelling battle, Lü Meng's defences held and the spring floods forced Cao Cao to retreat once again.

Still, this was not a complete victory. Most of Cao Cao's army was still intact and he had a huge force under Xiahou Dun north of Sun Quan's position. This resulted in a stalemate in which as long as Sun Quan kept his army in Ruxu, Xiahou Dun could not hope to invade him; but as soon as Sun Quan pulled out of Ruxu, Xiahou Dun could break through. Also, Xiahou Dun's force was simply too large and too well-entrenched to be driven away. Sun Quan had no military options, so he settled on a diplomatic solution. In 217, Sun Quan allied with Cao Cao, recognising him as the legitimate representative of the Han central government. While officially this was a surrender, Cao Cao knew that Sun Quan would not be content with being treated like a subject, so he confirmed all of the titles Sun Quan had claimed for himself and formalised his control over the lands he held. Sun Quan was permitted to continue to rule independently but was now officially one of Cao Cao's subordinates.

Breaking of alliance with Liu Bei
In 219, Guan Yu advanced north, attacking Fancheng, scoring a major victory over Cao Ren. While Fancheng did not fall at this time, Guan Yu put it under siege, and the situation was severe enough that Cao Cao considered moving the capital away from Xu. However, Sun Quan, resentful of Guan Yu's prior constant instigation of hostilities (including seizing Sun's food supplies to use for his campaign north), took the opportunity to attack Guan from the rear, and Guan's forces collapsed. Guan Yu was captured by forces under Lü Meng and Jiang Qin; Guan Yu was executed, Jing Province came under Sun's control, and the Sun-Liu alliance ended.

After Cao Cao's death in 220, Cao Pi forced Emperor Xian to yield the throne to him, ending the Han dynasty and establishing the state of Cao Wei. Sun Quan did not immediately submit to Wei or declare independence after Cao Pi's enthronement, but took a wait-and-see attitude; by contrast, in early 221, Liu Bei declared himself emperor, establishing the state of Shu Han. Immediately, Liu Bei planned a campaign against Sun Quan to avenge Guan Yu. After attempting to negotiate peace and receiving no positive response from Liu Bei, fearing attack on both sides, Sun Quan became a vassal of Wei. Cao Pi's strategist Liu Ye suggested that Cao Pi decline—and in fact attack Sun Quan on a second front, effectively partitioning Sun's domain with Shu, and then eventually seek to destroy Shu as well. Cao Pi declined, in a fateful choice that most historians believe doomed his empire to ruling only the northern and central China—and this chance would not come again. Indeed, against Liu Ye's advice, on 23 September 221 he appointed Sun Quan the King of Wu and granted him the nine bestowments.

In 222, at the Battle of Xiaoting, Sun Quan's general Lu Xun dealt Liu Bei a major defeat, stopping the Shu offensive. Shu would not again pose a threat to Sun Quan from that point on. Later that year, when Cao Pi demanded that Sun Quan send his crown prince Sun Deng to the Wei capital Luoyang as a hostage (to guarantee his loyalty), Sun Quan refused and declared independence (by changing era name), thus establishing Eastern Wu as an independent state. Cao Pi launched a major attack on Wu, but after Wei defeats in early 223, it became clear that Wu was secure. After Liu Bei's death later that year, Zhuge Jin's brother Zhuge Liang, the regent for Liu Bei's son and successor Liu Shan, reestablished the alliance with Sun Quan, and the two states would remain allies until Shu's eventual destruction in 263.

Early reign
Early in Sun Quan's reign, the Wu administration was known for its efficiency, as Sun showed a knack for listening to correct advice and for delegating authorities to the proper individuals. For example, he correctly trusted the faithful Lu Xun and Zhuge Jin, so much so that he made a duplicate imperial seal and left it with Lu Xun; whenever he would correspond with Shu's emperor Liu Shan or regent Zhuge Liang, he would deliver the letter to Lu Xun first (as Lu's post was near the Shu border), and then if, in Lu's opinion, changes were needed, he would revise the letter and then restamp it with Sun's imperial seal. Further, Lu Xun and Zhuge Jin were authorised to coordinate their actions with Shu without prior imperial approval. Sun Quan treated his high-level officials as friends and addressed them accordingly (with courtesy names), and in accordance they dedicated all effort to Wu's preservation. He also knew what were the proper roles for officials that he trusted; for example, in 225, when selecting a chancellor, while the key officials all respected Zhang Zhao greatly and wanted him to be chancellor, Sun Quan declined, reasoning that while he respected Zhang greatly, a chancellor needed to handle all affairs of state, and Zhang, while capable, had such strong opinions that he would surely be in conflict with Sun Quan and other officials at all times. He also repeatedly promoted his official Lü Fan even though, while he was young, Lü Fan had informed to Sun Ce about his improper spending habits, understanding that Lü did so only out of loyalty to Sun Ce.

In 224 and 225, Cao Pi again made attacks on Wu, but each time the Wu forces were able to repel Wei's with fair ease—so easily that Cao Pi made the comment, "Heaven created the Yangtze to divide the north and south." However, Sun Quan was himself equally unsuccessful in efforts to make major attacks on Wei. After Cao Pi's death in 226, for example, Sun Quan launched an attack on Wei's Jiangxia Commandery, but was forced to withdraw as soon as Wei reinforcements arrived. However, later that year, he was able to increase his effective control over Jiao Province when his general Lü Dai was able to defeat the warlord Shi Hui (士徽) and end the effective independence that the Shi clan had. In addition, the several independent kingdoms in modern Cambodia, Laos, and southern Vietnam all became Wu vassals as well. The Book of Liang records the arrival in 226 of a merchant from the Roman Empire (Daqin) at Jiaozhi (Chinese-controlled northern Vietnam). The Prefect of Jiaozhou sent him to the court of Sun Quan in Nanjing. Sun Quan requested that he provide him with a report on his native country and its people. An expedition was mounted to return the merchant along with 10 female and 10 male "blackish coloured dwarfs" he had requested as a curiosity and a Chinese officer who, unfortunately, died en route.

The one major victory that Wu would have over Wei during this period came in 228, when, with Sun Quan's approval, his general Zhou Fang pretended to be surrendering to Wei after pretending to have been punished repeatedly by Sun Quan. This tricked the Wei general Cao Xiu, who led a large army south to support Zhou Fang. He walked into the trap set by Zhou Fang and Lu Xun and suffered major losses, but was saved from total annihilation by Jia Kui.

In 229, Sun Quan declared himself emperor, which almost damaged the alliance with Shu, as many Shu officials saw this as a sign of betrayal of the Han dynasty—to which Shu claimed to be the legitimate successor. However, Zhuge Liang opposed ending the alliance and in fact confirmed it with a formal treaty later that year, in which the two states pledged to support each other and divide Wei equally if they could conquer it. Later that year, Sun Quan moved his capital from Wuchang to Jianye, leaving his crown prince Sun Deng, assisted by Lu Xun, in charge of the western parts of Eastern Wu.

Middle reign
In 230, however, the first sign of the deterioration of Sun Quan's reign occurred. That year, he sent his generals Wei Wen (衛溫) and Zhuge Zhi (諸葛直) with a navy of 10,000 into the East China Sea to seek the legendary islands of Yizhou (夷洲) and Danzhou (亶洲), likely Taiwan or Ryukyu, to seek to conquer them, despite strenuous opposition of Lu Xun and Quan Cong. The navy was not able to locate Danzhou but located Yizhou, and returned in 231 after capturing several thousand men—but only after 80–90% of the navy had died from illness. Instead of seeing his own fault in this venture, Sun Quan simply executed Wei Wen and Zhuge Zhi. Perhaps concerned about this deterioration in Sun Quan's judgment, Sun Deng left the western empire in Lu Xun's hands in 232 and returned to Jianye, and would remain at Jianye until his own death in 241.

In 232, Sun Quan had another misadventure involving his navy—as he sent his generals Zhou He (周賀) and Pei Qian (裴濳) to the nominal Wei vassal Gongsun Yuan, in control of Liaodong Commandery, to purchase horses, against the advice of Yu Fan—and indeed, he exiled Yu Fan to the desolate Cangwu Commandery (roughly modern Wuzhou, Guangxi) as punishment. Just as Yu Fan predicted, however, the venture would end in failure—as Zhou He and Pei Qian, on their way back, were intercepted by Wei forces and killed. Regretting his actions, Sun Quan tried to recall Yu Fan back to Jianye, only to learn that Yu had died in exile.

The next year, however, Sun Quan would have yet another misadventure in his dealings with Gongsun Yuan, as Gongsun sent messengers to him, offering to be his subject. Sun Quan was ecstatic, and appointed Gongsun Yuan the Prince of Yan and granted him the nine bestowments, and further sent a detachment of 10,000 men by sea north to assist Gongsun Yuan in his campaign against Wei, against the advice of nearly every single one of his high-level officials, particularly Zhang Zhao. Once the army arrived, however, Gongsun Yuan betrayed them, killing Sun Quan's officials Zhang Mi (張彌) and Xu Yan (許晏), whom Sun had sent to grant the bestowments and seized their troops. Once that happened, the enraged Sun Quan wanted to personally head north with a fleet to attack Gongsun Yuan, and initially, not even Lu Xun's opposition was able to stop him, although he eventually calmed down and did not follow through. To his credit, he also personally went to Zhang Zhao's house and apologised to him. Further, despite the deterioration in his previous clear thinking, he was still capable of making proper decisions at times. For example, in 235, when, as a sign of contempt, Wei's emperor Cao Rui offered horses to him in exchange for pearls, jade, and tortoise shells, Sun Quan ignored the implicit insult and made the exchange, reasoning that his empire needed horses much more than pearls, jade or tortoise shells.

In 234, in coordination with Zhuge Liang's final northern expedition against Wei, Sun Quan personally led a major attack against Wei's border city Hefei, while having Lu Xun and Zhuge Jin attack Xiangyang, with the strategy of trying to attract Wei relief forces and then attacking them. However, Wei generals correctly saw the situation and simply let Sun Quan siege Hefei. Only after Sun Quan's food supplies ran low did Cao Rui personally arrive with reinforcements, and Sun withdrew, as did Lu Xun and Zhuge Jin.

In 238, when Gongsun Yuan was under attack by Wei's general Sima Yi, Sun Quan, despite his prior rage against Gongsun, correctly judged the situation as one where he might be able to take advantage if Sima Yi were initially unsuccessful, so he did not immediately refuse Gongsun's request for help. However, as Sima Yi was able to conquer Gongsun Yuan quickly, Sun Quan never launched the major attack that he considered if Sima got stuck in a stalemate with Gongsun. That year, he also recognised how Lü Yi, the supervisor of the audit bureau, had been abusing his powers, and had Lü Yi executed; he then further confirmed his trust in the high-level officials by personally writing an emotional letter to Zhuge Jin, Bu Zhi, Zhu Ran, and Lü Dai, blaming himself for the recent problems with his administration while urging them to speak out honestly whenever they saw faults in him.

In 241, Sun Quan would launch the last major assault against Wei of his reign, in light of Cao Rui's death in 239, but he rejected a strategy offered by Yin Zha (殷札) to attack Wei in coordinated effort with Shu on four different fronts, and the campaign ended in failure as well.

Late reign
Later in 241, the crown prince Sun Deng died—an event that left open the issue of succession and appeared to mark the start of a precipitous decline in Sun Quan's mental health. In 242, he appointed his son Sun He, born to Consort Wang, crown prince. However, he also favoured another son by Consort Wang, Sun Ba, and permitted Sun Ba to have the same staffing level as the crown prince—a move that was objected to by a number of officials as encouraging Sun Ba to compete with Sun He, but Sun Quan did not listen to them. After 245, when Sun He and Sun Ba began to have separate residences, their relationship deteriorated further, and Sun Ba began to scheme at how to seize heir status from Sun He. Fanned by gossip from his daughter Sun Luban, Sun Quan blamed Sun He's mother Consort Wang for this—and she died in fear. He also cut off Sun He and Sun Ba's access to the officials who supported them in hopes of receiving future favours, but this could not stop Sun Ba's machinations. Indeed, when Lu Xun tried to intervene to protect Sun He, Sun Ba falsely accused him of many crimes, and Sun Quan became provoked so much that he repeatedly rebuked Lu Xun, causing him to die in frustration.

In 250, fed up with Sun Ba's constant attacks against Sun He, Sun Quan carried out an inexplicable combination of actions. He forced Sun Ba to commit suicide, while deposing Sun He (who had not been shown to have committed any crimes), and instead creating his youngest son, Sun Liang, crown prince to replace Sun He. This move was opposed by his son-in-law Zhu Ju (the husband of Sun Quan's daughter Sun Luyu), but Zhu Ju's pleas not only did not help Sun He, but also resulted in his own death, as Sun Quan forced him to commit suicide. Many other officials who also opposed the move, as well as officials who had supported Sun Ba, were executed.

Around this time, Sun Quan also had his generals destroy a number of levees near the border with Wei, creating large areas of flooding, in order to obstruct potential attacks from Wei.

In 251, Sun Quan created the first empress of his reign—Sun Liang's mother Consort Pan (previously, he had a succession of wives, but never made any of them empress, except for his favourite, Lady Bu, who was created empress posthumously after her death in 238). Later that year, however, he realised that Sun He was blameless and wanted to recall him from his exile, but was persuaded not to do so by his daughter Sun Luban and Sun Jun, who had supported Sun Liang's ascension. He realised that he was getting very old (69 by this point) and, at Sun Jun's recommendation, commissioned Zhuge Jin's son Zhuge Ke as the future regent for Sun Liang, even though he correctly had misgivings about how Zhuge Ke was arrogant and had overly high opinions of his own abilities. At that time virtually the entire empire, awed by Zhuge's prior military victories, was convinced that Zhuge would be the correct choice for regent.

In 252, as Sun Quan neared death, Empress Pan was murdered, but how she was murdered remains a controversy. Wu officials claimed that her servants, unable to stand her temper, strangled her while she was asleep, while a number of historians, including Hu Sanxing, the commentator to Sima Guang's Zizhi Tongjian, believed that top Wu officials were complicit, as they feared that she would seize power as empress dowager after Sun Quan's death. On 252, Sun Quan died at the age of 70 (by East Asian age reckoning), and Sun Liang succeeded him. Sun Quan was buried in August or September 252 in a mausoleum at the Purple Mountain in Jianye.

Family

 * Empress Pan, of the Pan clan (潘氏, d. 252), personal name Shu (淑)
 * Sun Liang, Prince of Kuaiji (會稽王 孫亮, 245–260), seventh son
 * Empress Bu, of the Bu clan (步氏), personal name Lianshi (練師)
 * Princess Quan (全公主/全主, 229–258), personal name Luban (魯班), first daughter
 * Married Zhou Xun (周循), a son of Zhou Yu
 * Married Quan Cong, Marquis of Qiantang (錢塘侯), in 229, a son of Quan Rou and had issue (two sons)
 * Princess Zhu (朱公主/朱主), personal name Luyu (魯育), third daughter
 * Married Zhu Ju, Marquis of Yunyang (朱據 雲陽侯) in 229
 * Married Liu Zuan (劉纂) in 250 and had issues (a daughter)
 * Empress Dayi, of the Wang clan (大懿皇后 王氏)
 * Sun He, Prince of Nanyang (南陽王 孫和, 224–253), third son
 * Empress Jianghui, of the Wang clan (敬懷皇后王氏)
 * Sun Xiu, Emperor Jing (吳景帝 孫休, 235–264), sixth son
 * Consort Zhong, of the Zhong clan (仲姬仲氏)
 * Sun Fen, Prince of Qi (齊王 孫奮, d. 270), fifth son
 * Consort Xie, of the Xie clan (谢姬 谢氏)
 * Sun Ba, Prince of Lu (魯王; d. 250), fourth son
 * Furen Xie, of the Xie clan (謝夫人 谢氏)
 * Furen Xu, of the Xu clan (徐夫人徐氏)
 * Furen, of the Yuan clan (袁夫人 袁氏)
 * Furen, of the Zhao clan (趙夫人 趙氏)
 * Unknown
 * Sun Deng, Crown Prince Xuan (宣太子 孫登, 209–241), first son
 * Second Princess
 * Sun Lü, Marquis of Jianchang (建昌侯 孫慮, 213–232), second son

Era names

 * Huangwu 222–229
 * Huanglong 229–231
 * Jiahe 232–238
 * Chiwu 238–251
 * Taiyuan 251–252
 * Shenfeng 252

Music
There is a song named after Sun Quan in Luo Tianyi's 權御天下 (Sun Quan The Emperor)

Video games
Sun Quan appears as a playable character in Koei's Dynasty Warriors and Warriors Orochi video game series.

Sun Quan also appears in the mobile video game Puzzle & Dragons as part of the Three Kingdoms Gods series.

Sun Quan is also a playable character in Total War: Three Kingdoms as part of the Sun family faction.

Card games
In the collectible card game Magic: The Gathering there is a card named "Sun Quan, Lord of Wu", in the Portal Three Kingdoms set.

In the selection of hero cards in the Chinese card game San Guo Sha, there is also a Sun Quan hero that players can select at the beginning of the game.

In the collectible card game Yu-Gi-Oh! there is a card based on Sun Quan named “Ancient Warriors- Masterful Sun Mou.”

Film and television
Zhang Bo, in the 2010 Chinese television series Three Kingdoms.

Zheng Wei as a child, in the 2010 Chinese television series Three Kingdoms.

Taiwanese actor Chang Chen portrayed Sun Quan in John Woo's 2008 two-part epic war film Red Cliff.

Deng Haifeng, in the 2017 Chinese television series The Advisors Alliance.

title: Sun Quan


text:
Tenure of Office Act (1867)

The Tenure of Office Act was a United States federal law, in force from 1867 to 1887, that was intended to restrict the power of the president to remove certain office-holders without the approval of the U.S. Senate. The law was enacted March 2, 1867, over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. It purported to deny the president the power to remove any executive officer who had been appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, unless the Senate approved the removal during the next full session of Congress.

Johnson's attempt to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton from office without the Senate's approval led to the impeachment of Johnson in early 1868 for violating the act.

The act was significantly amended by Congress on April 5, 1869, under President Ulysses S. Grant. Congress repealed the act in its entirety in 1887, 20 years after the law was enacted. While evaluating the constitutionality of a similar law in Myers v. United States (1926), the Supreme Court stated that the Tenure of Office Act was likely invalid.

Background
The notion of the United States Senate advising and consenting the removal of Cabinet members to the same of the appointments were considered during the 1st United States Congress. The vote was tied with 9 in favor and 9 against on July 18, 1789. Vice President John Adams, with his first tie-breaking vote, voted against the bill, defeating it.

The Constitution adopted by the Confederate States of America was more explicit on the point, providing in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 thereof, that "The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the Executive Departments may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity, inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty; and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefor."

In the post-Civil War political environment, President Johnson, a Democrat who had served as Abraham Lincoln's second vice president, endorsed the quick re-admission of the Southern secessionist states. The two-thirds Republican majorities of both houses of Congress, however, passed laws over Johnson's vetoes, establishing a series of five military districts overseeing newly created state governments. This "Congressional Reconstruction" was designed to create local civil rights laws to protect newly freed slaves; to protect and patrol the area; to ensure the secessionist states would show some good faith before being readmitted; to ensure Republican control of the states; and, arguably, to inflict some punishment on the secessionists. States would be readmitted gradually.

Overpowered politically, Johnson could apply the sole check to the Congressional Reconstruction plan of his control (as commander-in-chief) of the military, which would be the primary institution enforcing the plan's provisions. Even Johnson's control of the military was, however, inhibited by the fact that his Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, was a staunch Radical Republican who supported Congressional Reconstruction in full. This further set Johnson against the Republican-controlled Congress, with Johnson wanting to remove Stanton from office and Congress wanting to keep him in place.

Stanton and impeachment of Johnson
The Tenure of Office Act restricted the power of the president to suspend an officer while the Senate was not in session. At that time, Congress sat during a relatively small portion of the year. If, when the Senate reconvened, it declined to ratify the removal, the president would be required to reinstate the official.

In August 1867, with the Senate out of session, Johnson made his move against Stanton, suspending him pending the next session of the Senate. When the Senate convened on January 13, 1868, it refused, however, to ratify the removal by a vote of 35–6. Notwithstanding the vote, on February 22, 1868, President Johnson attempted to replace Stanton with Lorenzo Thomas because he wanted, by such action, to create a case through which to challenge the legitimacy of the Act before the Supreme Court. Proceedings began within days to move toward the impeachment of Johnson, the first impeachment of a United States President. After a three-month trial, Johnson narrowly avoided removal from office by the Senate by a single vote. Stanton resigned in May 1868.

It was unclear whether Johnson had violated the Tenure of Office Act which led up to the impeachment. The act's phrasing was murky, and it was not clear whether his removal of Stanton (a holdover from the Lincoln administration whom Johnson had not appointed) violated the Act. While the Act, by its terms, applied to current office holders, it also limited the protection offered to Cabinet members to one month after a new president took office.

Later use
The act was amended on April 5, 1869, one month and one day after Republican president Ulysses S. Grant assumed the presidency. The revisions grew out of an attempt to completely repeal the 1867 Act. The measure to repeal passed the House of Representatives with only 16 negative votes but failed in the Senate. The new provisions were significantly less onerous, allowing the president to suspend office holders "in his discretion" and designate replacements while the Senate was in recess, subject only to confirmation of the replacements at the next session. The president no longer had to report his reasons for suspension to the Senate, and the Senate could no longer force reinstatement of suspended office holders.

Although Grant, in his first message to Congress, in December 1869, urged the repeal of even the revised act, it did not cause further problems until the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1884. Under the spoils system it had long been accepted practice for the administration of a new party to replace current office holders with party faithful. Cleveland, a supporter of a civil service system, had promised, however, to avoid wholesale replacements, vowing to replace incumbents only for cause. When he suspended several hundred office holders for cause, Senate committees requested information from cabinet members regarding the reasons for the suspensions, which Cleveland refused to provide. If he had simply said that the incumbents were being replaced for political reasons, the Senate would have complied, but Cleveland would not do so. When, in early 1886, the Senate as a whole demanded information regarding the conduct of the suspended U.S. Attorney for southern Alabama, Cleveland sent a message to Congress explaining his position opposing impingement of independence of the executive. Cleveland's replacement nominee was eventually confirmed when it was discovered that the suspended incumbent's term had expired in the meantime anyway. The Tenure of Office Act was formally repealed in 1887.

Constitutionality
In 1926, a similar law (though not dealing with Cabinet secretaries) was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Myers v. United States, which affirmed the ability of the president to remove a Postmaster without Congressional approval. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stated in its majority opinion (though in dicta), "that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the president from removing executive officers who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid".

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Tenure of Office Act (1867)


text:
Amnesty Act

The Amnesty Act of 1872 is a United States federal law passed on May 22, 1872, which removed most of the penalties imposed on former Confederates by the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted on July 9, 1868. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion, or treason. However, the section provides that a two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress could override this limitation. The 1872 act was passed by the 42nd United States Congress and the original restrictive Act was passed by the United States Congress in May 1866.

Specifically, the 1872 Act removed office-holding disqualifications against most of the secessionists who rebelled in the American Civil War, except for "Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States."

In the spirit of the act, then United States President Ulysses S. Grant, by proclamation dated June 1, 1872, directed all district attorneys having charge of proceedings and prosecutions against those who had been disqualified by the Fourteenth Amendment to dismiss and discontinue them, except as to persons who fall within the exceptions named in the act. President Grant also pardoned all but 500 former top Confederate leaders.

The 1872 law cleared over 150,000 former Confederate troops who had taken part in the American Civil War.

Text
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each house concurring therein), that all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments of the Constitution of the United States are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and naval service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.

Attempted post-Civil War application
The Amnesty Act of 1872 states that all political disabilities imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment "are hereby removed," but does not explicitly mention whether future disabilities under the same amendment are also to be considered removed. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked only twice since the American Civil War: in 1919 and 1920, it blocked Victor L. Berger, a member of the Socialist Party who had won both elections, from taking office as the Representative from Wisconsin because he had been convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Although Section 3 was applicable to Berger, it does not appear that the Amnesty Act of 1872 was considered. Thus, it is not entirely clear whether this Act also automatically removes political disability for subsequent actions that violate Section 3.

In March 2022, in the aftermath of the January 6 US Capitol attack, the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that the Act applies even to current members of Congress, automatically removing the political consequences of any alleged violation of Section 3. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously reversed that ruling. A different federal district court ruled that the Act does not apply to current members of Congress, and that Section 3 is still applicable. The plaintiff's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was dismissed as moot after it was determined that she had not violated Section 3.

title: Amnesty Act


text:
Specie Payment Resumption Act

The Specie Payment Resumption Act of January 14, 1875 was a law in the United States that restored the nation to the gold standard through the redemption of previously unbacked United States Notes and reversed inflationary government policies promoted directly after the American Civil War. The decision further contracted the nation's money supply and was seen by critics as an exacerbating factor of the so-called Long Depression, which struck in 1873.

History
Late in 1861, seeking to raise revenue for the American Civil War effort without exhausting its reserves of gold and silver, the United States federal government suspended specie payments, or the payments made in gold and silver in redemption of currency notes. Early in 1862, the United States issued legal-tender notes, called greenbacks. By war's end, a total of US$431million in greenbacks had been issued, and authorization had been given for another US$50million in small denominations, known as fractional currency or "shin plasters." The issuance of greenbacks caused inflation during the period.

Immediately after the Civil War during Reconstruction, there were large capital inflows into the United States and a general improvement in the export-to-import ratio since the export-dominant South was reintegrated with the North. The United States Treasury, however, had increased its cash balance through the summer of 1873 by selling gold for US$14million. National banks also increased issuance of national bank notes by US$44million. The failure of several railroad companies including Jay Cooke & Company on their bond obligations encouraged capital outflows from the United States to Europe and weakened demand for dollars leading to the Panic of 1873. Increased Treasury cash balances, continued issuance of national bank notes, and capital outflows together depreciated the currency. These factors further caused a reduction in reserves held by monetary institutions because higher prices increased domestic demand for currency. Reserves held by banks were insufficient to be able to meet seasonal demands in autumn of 1873 as greenback reserves declined from US$34million in September 1873 to US$5million in October 1873. Tensions surrounding the Panic of 1873 between creditors and debtors revived the specie payment resumption debate.

Two views dominated this debate. Conservatives and the creditor class favored "hard money", they favored resumption as a method for making up losses incurred due to dollar depreciation during the past decade. The resumption of specie payments was perceived as a method to curb the rise in the price level and eventually equate currency with gold. For creditors, that had issued debts in inflated greenbacks, resumption would increase the real interest rate that they received. Supporters of the Resumption Act argued that the Panic of 1873 might not have occurred had there been sufficient reserves of gold in the United States Treasury as would have been the case if specie payments were resumed.

Opposed to resumption, a new coalition of agrarian and labor interests found common cause during Reconstruction in advocating for "soft money" or the promotion of inflationary monetary policies. These groups viewed the Panic of 1873 as the result of insufficient currency that should have been used to fuel the growth in production that occurred in the South and the West. These regions relied on cheap money – that is low interest rates – to be able to continue to grow. Other soft money advocates included gold speculators and the railroad industry. Collis P. Huntington and other railroad leaders called for further greenback issuance in light of harsh business conditions that made honoring debt obligations difficult. Opponents of the Resumption Act also argued that many debt obligations were made in an environment in which there existed a premium on gold, that is that inflation in the currency in the previous decade made gold relatively more valuable than currency. Resumption therefore entailed up to a 50% increase in debt obligation if gold and currency equalized. For manufacturers, the rising price of gold made domestic prices cheaper relative to import prices since many European currencies including sterling were fixed to the price of gold. Hence continued inflationary measures such as further issuance of greenbacks artificially supported domestic industries. Hard and soft money interests often did cross party lines, although a larger portion of Democrats were hard money advocates.

Following a Democratic congressional victory in the elections of 1874, a lame-duck Republican congress passed The Resumption Act of January 14, 1875. It required the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem greenbacks in specie on demand on or after 1 January 1879. The Act, however, did not provide for a specific mechanism for redemption. The Act, though, did allow the Secretary of Treasury to acquire gold reserves either via any federal surpluses or the issuance of government bonds. An established gold reserve allowed for daily variations in specie flows and facilitated resumption. The act abolished the seigniorage fee on coining gold and substituted silver for any still existing fractional currency. The Resumption Act set no limit on the quantity of national bank notes that could be issued; this idea became known as "free banking." This provision led many conservatives to believe that the Act was inflationary in nature. However, the Resumption Act also required that greenbacks be retired in a proportion of 80% of new national bank note issue, which in theory aimed to contract the money supply and hence encourage dollar appreciation such that gold and currency might equate. However, in practice the effect was mild: the total quantity of greenbacks in circulation fell from US$382million at the end of 1874 to US$300million following the passage of the Resumption Act.

The Resumption Act was hotly debated during the 1880 presidential election, with most western politicians opposed to it. Specie payments finally resumed during the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. Aided by the return of prosperity in 1877, Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman accumulated a gold reserve to be redeemed for existing greenbacks mostly from transactions with Europe. Sherman earmarked a redemption fund by January 1, 1879, that amounted to US$133million acquired from the sale of bonds to Europe and Treasury surplus. However, when people found greenbacks to be on par with gold, they lost their desire for redemption.

Reaction and evaluation
Reactions as to the effects of the Resumption Act are mixed. Contemporaries did not consider it an outright victory for hard money. The legislation stood as a compromise engineered by Senators John Sherman and George Edmunds between hard and soft money advocates. Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz argue that the Resumption Act had mixed effects on actual resumption of specie payments, saying that primary economic product of the Act was that it instilled confidence in the business community on the maintenance of specie payments. According to Jennifer 8 Lee, backing American currency with gold helped curb inflation and stabilize the dollar. The Act served as a signal to businesses of an approaching exchange rate between gold and currency. Preparations among businesses for this exchange rate actually encourage parity between gold and currency.

The Act did not directly address the price level although successful resumption at par value required that the premium on gold to fall to zero, which in turn required a fall in the price level as the world price of gold was exogenous. In fact, the final date for Resumption was decided only after the premium on gold had fallen to a tenth of its peak level. The decline in the premium cannot entirely be attributed to the Resumption Act, as downward pressure on the overall price level also resulted from increased production in the South especially during 1877. The first four months of that year sold as much beef to England as had been sold all of the preceding year. The act has also been criticized for both failing to remove all greenbacks from circulation and failing to dictate what might be done with the greenbacks remaining in circulation.

title: Specie Payment Resumption Act


text:
Bland–Allison Act

The Bland–Allison Act, also referred to as the Grand Bland Plan of 1878, was an act of the United States Congress requiring the U.S. Treasury to buy a certain amount of silver and put it into circulation as silver dollars. Though the bill was vetoed by President Rutherford B. Hayes, the Congress overrode Hayes's veto on February 28, 1878, to enact the law. The text of the act can be found in the Congressional Record under the further reading section of this article.

Background
The 5 1/2-year depression following the Panic of 1873 caused cheap-money advocates (led by Representative Richard P. Bland, a Democrat of Missouri), to join with silver-producing interests in urging a return to bimetallism, the use of both silver and gold as a standard. Coupled with Senator William B. Allison of Iowa, they agreed to a proposal that allowed silver to be purchased at market rates, metals to be minted into silver dollars, and required the US Treasury to purchase between $2 million to $4 million silver each month from western mines. President Rutherford B. Hayes, who held interests in industrials and banking, vetoed the measure, which was overturned by Congress. As a result, the Hayes administration purchased the limited amount of silver each month. This act helped restore bimetallism with gold and silver both supporting the currency. However, gold remained heavily favored over silver, paving way for the gold standard.

Free-silver movement
The free-silver movement of the late 19th century advocated the unlimited coinage of silver, which would have resulted in inflationary monetary policy. In 1873, Congress had removed the use of silver dollar from the list of authorized coins under the Coinage Act of 1873 (referred to by opponents as 'the Crime of '73'"). Although the Bland–Allison Act of 1878 directed the Treasury to purchase silver from the "best-western" miners, President Grover Cleveland repealed the act in 1893. Advocates of free silver included owners of silver mines in the West, farmers who believed an inclusion of silver would increase crop prices, and debtors who believed it would alleviate their debts. Although the free silver movement ended, the debate of inflation and monetary policy continues to this day.

Coinage Act of 1873
The Fourth Coinage Act acknowledged the gold standard over silver. Those who advocated for silver labeled this act as the Crime of '73. As a result of demonetized silver, gold became the only metallic standard in the United States and became the default standard. The price of gold was more stable than that of silver, largely due to silver discoveries in Nevada and other places in the West, and the ratio of the gold price to the silver price increased from 16-to-1 in 1873 to nearly 30-to-1 by 1893. The term limping bimetallism describes this problem. The U.S. government finally ceded to pressure from the western mining states and the Bland–Allison Act went into effect in 1878. The law was replaced in 1890 by the similar Sherman Silver Purchase Act, which in turn was repealed by Congress in 1893. These were two instances where the United States attempted to establish bimetallic standards in the long run.

Reactions and economic impact
Western miners and debtors regarded the Bland–Allison Act as an insufficient measure to enforce unlimited coinage of silver, but opponents repealed the act and advocated for the gold standard. The effect of the Bland–Allison act was also blunted by the minimal purchase of silver required by the Hayes administration. Although the act was a near turning point for bimetallism, gold continued to be favored over the bimetallism standard.

Throughout 1860 to 1871, several attempts were made by the Treasury to establish the bimetallic standard by having gold and silver dollar coins. However, the discovery of silver led to an influx of supply, lowering the price of silver. The eventual removal of the bimetallic standard, including the Bland–Allison Act and the acceptance of the gold standard formed the monetary stability in the late 19th century.

The limitation placed on the supply of new notes and the Treasury control over the issue of new notes allowed for economic stability. Prior to the acceptance, the devaluation of silver forced local governments into a financial turmoil. In addition, there was a need for money supply to increase as the credit system expanded and large banks established themselves across states.

In addition, the priority that was placed on the coinage of silver dollars left very little available silver for the coinage of silver coins of lesser denominations, particularly half dollars and quarters. As a result, these coins had extremely low mintages (fewer than 5,000 half dollars were struck in 1879, 1882, and 1884, and 5,000 quarters were struck in 1886) until the Barber coinage began in 1892.

title: Bland–Allison Act


text:
List of Danish monarchs

This is a list of Danish monarchs, that is, the kings and queen regnants of Denmark. This includes:

 * The Kingdom of Denmark (up to 1397)
 * Personal union of Denmark and Norway (1380–1397)
 * The Kalmar Union (1397–1536)
 * Union of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (1397–1523)
 * Union of Denmark and Norway (1523–1536/1537)
 * The United Kingdoms of Denmark–Norway (1536/1537–1814)
 * The Kingdom of Denmark (1814–present)
 * Iceland (since the union between Denmark and Norway in 1380; independent kingdom in a personal union with Denmark 1918–1944; a sovereign republic since 1944)
 * Greenland (since the union between Denmark and Norway in 1380; effective Danish–Norwegian control began in 1721; integrated into the Danish realm in 1953; internal home rule introduced 1979; self-rule assumed in 2009; Greenland has two out of 179 seats in the Danish parliament Folketinget)
 * Faroe Islands (since the union between Denmark and Norway in 1380; County of Denmark 1816–1948; internal home rule introduced 1948; The Faroe Islands have two out of 179 seats in the Danish parliament Folketinget)

The House of Oldenburg held the Danish Crown between 1448 and 1863, when it passed to the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, a cadet branch of the same house, patrilineally descended from King Christian III of Denmark. The kingdom had been elective (although the eldest son or brother of the previous king was usually elected) until 1660, when it became hereditary and absolutist. Until 1864 Denmark was also united in a personal union with the duchies of Holstein and Saxe-Lauenburg (1815–1864), and in a political and personal union with the Duchy of Schleswig.

Pre-Knýtlinga Danish monarchs

The exact date of origin of the Kingdom of Denmark is not established, but names of Danish kings begins to emerge in foreign sources from the 8th century and onwards. Danish and Nordic legendary stories, chronicles and sagas often have accounts of Danish kings and dynasties stretching further back in time than the 7th century, but the historicity of the content and interpretations of these stories are often put to doubt.

 * Chochilaicus—see Hugleik and Hygelac—c. 515 AD, mentioned by Gregory of Tours (538–594).  Hugleik, according to the written sources, suffered a defeat in 515 during a naval expedition to the Frankish Empire. Hugleik is the first Danish king mentioned in European sources.
 * Ongendus (Angantyr): c. 710 Saint Willibrord wrote about when he visited the Danes, at the time ruled by Ongendus.
 * Harald, named as former king in relating 9th-century events, perhaps model for legendary Harald Wartooth. Related to the Frisian king Redbad II who in 754 had to flee to "the land of the Danes" where King Harald reigned ("Daniae Regi Heraldi").
 * Sigfred: 770s–790s
 * Gudfred: 804–810, mentioned as Danish king in the Treaty of Heiligen 811. Alternate spellings: Godfred, Göttrick (German), Godric(Anglicized English), Gøtrik (Danish), Gudrød (Danish)
 * Hemming: 810–811/812 The Treaty of Heiligen was signed in 811 between the Danish King Hemming and Charlemagne.
 * Sigfred, nephew of Gudfred, and Anulo (Anlaufr), grandson or nephew of Harald, fought for the throne and both were killed, perhaps model for the legendary Sigurd Hring: c. 812
 * Harald Klak and his brothers Ragnfrid and Hemming Halfdansson: 812–813 and again from 819/827. From 826 he and his household lived in exile with the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious, he was baptized by the bishop of Mainz in Ingelheim am Rhein. The last reference of Harald in the written sources are in the Annals of Fulda which records his execution for treason in 852.
 * Sons of Gudfred (Godrik): 814–820s
 * Horik I: (814) 827–854, King of the Danes (at first ruling jointly with his unnamed brothers). The Frankish annals mention Horik on numerous occasions during the next couple of decades.
 * Horik II: 854–860s. He is believed to have been the immediate successor of Horik I, but the annals are silent about the name of the Danish king for a few years after the disaster of 854. In 857, Horik II allowed Rorik to occupy the part of the kingdom between the sea and the Eider. Horik II was still alive in 864, when a letter was addressed to him by Pope Nicholas I.
 * Late 9th century kings
 * Bagsecg: c. 860s–871
 * Halfdan: 871–877
 * Sigfred: c. 873–891. It is generally assumed that he was the immediate successor of Horik II, although that is not certain. His year of succession is unknown, but it was between 864 (when Horik II was still king) and his first appearance as king in the Frankish annals in 873. Sigifrid was baptized in 882.
 * Gudfred: 880s
 * Heiligo (Halga): 890s (?), described by Adam of Bremen as the immediate predecessor of the House of Olof.
 * The "House of Olaf": late 9th century and early 10th century. This dynasty is described by Adam of Bremen, and members of this claimed dynasty are commemorated by the two Sigtrygg Runestones, which represent contemporary evidence that some of these kings controlled at least part of Denmark.
 * Olof, said by Adam to have come from Sweden and defeated Heiligo, taking the crown.
 * Gyrd and Gnupa, sons and joint successors of Olof, according to Adam. Gnupa is named by Widukind of Corvey as leader of the Danes in 934, and appears on the Sigtrygg Runestones.
 * Sigtrygg, son of Gnupa, memorialized on the Sigtrygg Runestones, presumably dating from shortly after 934.
 * Eric the Victorious of Sweden mentioned by Adam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus as ruling Denmark after an invasion by Sweden together with Slavic warriors. Adam of Bremen got the information from Danish king Sweyn II. The Stone of Eric also describes an attack on Hedeby from the same period. Since Eric also, according to another source of Adam of Bremen, invaded the Holy Roman Empire. It virtually requires Eric to have been the king of Denmark. Therefore two independent sources describe Eric as the king of Denmark.

Semi-legendary kings

 * Ragnar Lodbrok, a legendary king probably in the 9th century, only appears in sagas and late histories, and these accounts are wildly inconsistent. He may be a composite character, a chimera of several historical kings and Vikings.
 * Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye (da: Sigurd Orm-i-øje or Snogeøje). Mentioned by late Chronicon Roskildense and Ragnarssona þáttr. Said to be king of Zealand and Scania, and son of Ragnar Lodbrok. He may be inspired by late 9th century King Sigfred (above).
 * Harthacnut (Hardeknud). According to the sagas he is son of Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, but some historians identify him with Adam's Hardegon, Svein's son, who invaded Denmark from Northmannia and supplanted the House of Olof. He may have ruled only part of Denmark, as Adam places the commencement of his long reign between 909 and 915, while the House of Olof was still ruling at least part of Denmark as late as 934. He was father of Gorm the Old.

House of Griffin (1396–1439)
(Erik af Pommern) 24 January 1412 – 1439 (deposed)
 * Eric VII
 * Eric VII
 * Erik-af-Pommern 1424 (cropped).jpg

Rügenwalde Castle (Poland) only son of Polish Duke of Pomerania Wartislaw VII and Mary of Mecklenburg-Schwerin 26 October 1406 Lund Cathedral no issue Rügenwalde Castle (Poland) aged 76–78
 * Eric of Poméranie.svg
 * c. 1381/82
 * Philippa of England
 * 24 September 1459
 * }
 * }

House of Wittelsbach, Palatinate-Neumarkt branch (1440–1448)
(Christoffer af Bayern) 9 April 1440 – 5/6 January 1448 Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz fifth son of John, Count Palatine of Neumarkt and Catherine of Pomerania 12 September 1445 Copenhagen no issue Kärnan Castile aged 31
 * Christopher III
 * Christopher III
 * Christopher of Bavaria crop.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway, Denmark & Sweden (1442-1448).svg
 * 26 February 1416
 * Dorothea of Brandenburg
 * 5/6 January 1448
 * }
 * }

House of Oldenburg (1448–1863)
1 September 1448 – 21 May 1481 (32 years) Oldenburgeldest son of Dietrich, Count of Oldenburg and Hedvig of Holstein 28 October 1449 Church of Our Lady five children Copenhagen Castle aged 55 (Hans) 21 May 1481 – 20 February 1513 (31 years, 282 days) Aalborghus Castlethird son of Christian I and Dorothea of Brandenburg 6 September 1478 Copenhagen five children Aalborghus Castle aged 58 22 July 1513 – 20 January 1523 (9 years, 184 days) (deposed) Nyborg Castlesecond son of John and Christina of Saxony 12 August 1515 Copenhagen six children Kalundborg Castle aged 77 13 April 1523 – 10 April 1533 (10 years) Haderslevhus Castlefourth son of Christian I and Dorothea of Brandenburg 10 April 1502 Stendal two children (2) Sophie of Pomerania 9 October 1518 Kiel Castle six children Gottorp Castle aged 61 4 July 1534 – 1 January 1559 (24 years, 187 days) Gottorp Castleonly son of Frederick I and Anna of Brandenburg 29 October 1525 Lauenburg Castle five children Koldinghus Castle aged 55 1 January 1559 – 4 April 1588 (29 years, 101 days) Haderslevhus Castleeldest son of Christian III and Dorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg 20 July 1572 Copenhagen eight children Antvorskov Castle aged 53 4 April 1588 – 28 February 1648 (59 years, 344 days) Frederiksborg Palaceeldest son of Frederick II and Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow 27 November 1597 Haderslevhus Castle seven children (2) Kirsten Munk 31 December 1615 Copenhagen twelve children Rosenborg Castle aged 70 6 July 1648 – 9 February 1670 (21 years, 223 days) Haderslevhus Castle third son of Christian IV and Anne Catherine of Brandenburg 1 October 1643 Glücksburg Castle eight children Copenhagen Castle aged 60 9 February 1670 – 25 August 1699 (29 years, 204 days) Duborg Castleeldest son of Frederick III and Sophie Amalie of Brunswick-Lüneburg 25 June 1667 Nykøbing Castle eight children Copenhagen Castle aged 53 25 August 1699 – 12 October 1730 (31 years, 54 days) Copenhagen Castleeldest son of Christian V and Charlotte Amalie of Hesse-Kassel 5 December 1695 Copenhagen five children (2) Elisabeth Helene von Vieregg 6 September 1703 one son (3) Anne Sophie Reventlow 4 April 1721 Copenhagen three children Odense Palace aged 59 12 October 1730 – 6 August 1746 (15 years, 302 days) Copenhagen Castle second son of Frederick IV and Louise of Mecklenburg-Güstrow 7 August 1721 Pretzsch Castle three children Hirschholm Palace aged 46 6 August 1746 – 14 January 1766 (19 years, 166 days) Copenhagen Castleonly son of Christian VI and Sophia Magdalene of Brandenburg-Kulmbach 11 December 1743 Altona five children (2) Juliana Maria of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel 8 July 1752 Frederiksborg Palace one son Christiansborg Palace aged 42 14 January 1766 – 13 March 1808 (42 years, 68 days) Christiansborg Palacesecond son of Frederick V and Louise of Great Britain 8 November 1766 Christiansborg Palace two children Rendsburg aged 59 13 March 1808 – 3 December 1839 (31 years, 272 days) Christiansborg Palaceonly son of Christian VII and Caroline Matilda of Great Britain 31 July 1790 Gottorp Castle eight children Amalienborg Palace aged 71 3 December 1839 – 20 January 1848 (8 years, 50 days) Christiansborg Palacegrandson of Frederick V and Juliana Maria of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel 21 June 1806 Ludwigslust Castle two sons (2) Caroline Amalie of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg 22 May 1815 Augustenborg Palace no issue Amalienborg Palace aged 61 20 January 1848 – 15 November 1863 (15 years, 302 days) Amalienborg Palacesecond son of Christian VIII and Charlotte Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin 1 November 1828 Christiansborg Palace no issue (2) Caroline of Mecklenburg 10 June 1841 Neustrelitz no issue (3) Louise Rasmussen 7 August 1850 Frederiksborg Palace no issue Glücksburg Castle aged 55
 * Christian I
 * Christian I
 * Christian-I-DenmarkNorwaySweden.JPG
 * Royal Arms of Norway, Denmark & Sweden (1460-1523).svg
 * February 1426
 * Dorothea of Brandenburg
 * 21 May 1481
 * John
 * John
 * King john of denmark and norway.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway, Denmark & Sweden (1460-1523).svg
 * 2 February 1455
 * Christina of Saxony
 * 20 February 1513
 * Christian II
 * Christian II
 * [[File:Lucas Cranach (I) - Bildnis Christians II., König von Dänemark (MbK, Leipzig).jpg|100px]]
 * Royal Arms of Norway, Denmark & Sweden (1460-1523).svg
 * 1 July 1481
 * Isabella of Austria
 * 25 January 1559
 * Frederick I
 * Frederick I
 * Frederik1dk.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1523-1535).svg
 * 7 October 1471
 * (1) Anna of Brandenburg
 * 10 April 1533
 * align="center" colspan="6"| Interregnum (1533–1534)
 * Christian III
 * Christian III
 * Christian III
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1535-1559).svg
 * 12 August 1503
 * 12 August 1503
 * Dorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg
 * 1 January 1559
 * Frederick II
 * Frederick II
 * 1581 Frederik 2..jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1559-1699).svg
 * 1 July 1534
 * Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow
 * 4 April 1588
 * Christian IV
 * Christian IV
 * Christian IV Pieter Isaacsz 1612.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1559-1699).svg
 * 12 April 1577
 * (1) Anne Catherine of Brandenburg
 * 28 February 1648
 * Frederick III
 * Frederick III
 * Frederik III i rustning.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1559-1699).svg
 * 18 March 1609
 * Sophie Amalie of Brunswick-Lüneburg
 * 9 February 1670
 * Christian V
 * Christian V
 * Christian V of Denmark.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1559-1699).svg
 * 15 April 1646
 * Charlotte Amalie of Hesse-Kassel
 * 25 August 1699
 * Frederick IV
 * Frederick IV
 * Frederik den 4.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1699-1819).svg
 * 11 October 1671
 * (1) Louise of Mecklenburg-Güstrow
 * 12 October 1730
 * Christian VI
 * Christian VI
 * Christian VI, King of Denmark.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1699-1819).svg
 * 30 November 1699
 * Sophia Magdalene of Brandenburg-Kulmbach
 * 6 August 1746
 * Frederick V
 * Frederick V
 * Pilo - Frederik V of Denmark.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1699-1819).svg
 * 31 March 1723
 * (1) Louise of Great Britain
 * 14 January 1766
 * Christian VII
 * Christian VII
 * Christianviidenmark.jpg
 * Royal Arms of Norway & Denmark (1699-1819).svg
 * 29 January 1749
 * Caroline Matilda of Great Britain
 * 13 March 1808
 * Frederick VI
 * Frederick VI
 * Christoph Wilhelm Wohlien - Portræt af Frederik VI.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1819–1903).svg
 * 28 January 1768
 * Marie Sophie of Hesse-Kassel
 * 3 December 1839
 * Christian VIII Christian Frederick
 * Christian VIII Christian Frederick
 * Kong Christian d. 8..jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1819–1903).svg
 * 18 September 1786
 * (1) Charlotte Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * 20 January 1848
 * Frederick VII Frederik Carl Christian
 * Frederick VII Frederik Carl Christian
 * Frederik VII af August Schiøtt.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1819–1903).svg
 * 6 October 1808
 * (1) Vilhelmine Marie of Denmark
 * 15 November 1863
 * }

Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg branch (1863-present)
15 November 1863 – 29 January 1906 (42 years, 85 days) Gottorf Castle fourth son of Friedrich Wilhelm, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and Princess Louise Caroline of Hesse-Kassel 26 May 1842 Amalienborg Palace six children Amalienborg Palace aged 87 29 January 1906 – 14 May 1912 (6 years, 107 days) Yellow Palace eldest son of Christian IX and Louise of Hesse-Kassel 28 July 1869 Stockholm eight children Jungfernstieg, Hamburg aged 68 14 May 1912 – 20 April 1947 (34 years, 350 days) Charlottenlund Palace eldest son of Frederik VIII and Louise of Sweden 26 April 1898 Cannes two sons Amalienborg Palace aged 76 20 April 1947 – 14 January 1972 (24 years, 274 days) Sorgenfri Palace eldest son of Christian X and Alexandrine of Mecklenburg-Schwerin 24 May 1935 Storkyrkan Cathedral, Stockholm three daughters Amalienborg Palace aged 72 14 January 1972 – 14 January 2024 (abdicated) (52 years, 13 days) Amalienborg Palace eldest daughter of Frederik IX and Ingrid of Sweden 10 June 1967 Holmen Church, Copenhagen two sons 14 January 2024 – present  Amalienborg Palace eldest son of Margrethe II and Henri de Laborde de Monpezat 14 May 2004 Copenhagen Cathedral, Copenhagen four children Age
 * Christian IX
 * Christian IX
 * Christian_IX_af_Henrik_Olrik.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1819–1903).svg
 * 8 April 1818
 * Louise of Hesse-Kassel
 * 29 January 1906
 * Great-grandson of Frederick V and male-line descendant of Christian III
 * Frederik VIII Christian Frederik Vilhelm Carl
 * Frederik VIII Christian Frederik Vilhelm Carl
 * Frederik VIII Christian Frederik Vilhelm Carl
 * Otto Bache - Portræt af Frederik VIII - 1909.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1903–1948).svg
 * 3 June 1843
 * Louise of Sweden
 * 14 May 1912
 * Son of Christian IX
 * Christian X Christian Carl Frederik Albert Alexander Vilhelm
 * Christian X Christian Carl Frederik Albert Alexander Vilhelm
 * Christian X Christian Carl Frederik Albert Alexander Vilhelm
 * King Christian X of Denmark - Knud Larsen.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1903–1948).svg
 * 26 September 1870
 * Alexandrine of Mecklenburg-Schwerin
 * 20 April 1947
 * Son of Frederik VIII
 * Frederik IX Christian Frederik Franz Michael Carl Valdemar Georg
 * Frederik IX Christian Frederik Franz Michael Carl Valdemar Georg
 * Frederik IX Christian Frederik Franz Michael Carl Valdemar Georg
 * Frederik IX (cropped) - Det Kongelige Bibliotek (KE062449).jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark (1948–1972).svg
 * 11 March 1899
 * Ingrid of Sweden
 * 14 January 1972
 * Son of Christian X
 * Margrethe II Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid
 * Margrethe II Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid
 * Margrethe II Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid
 * Drottning Margrethe av Danmark.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark.svg
 * 16 April 1940
 * Henri de Laborde de Monpezat
 * Age
 * Daughter of Frederik IX
 * Frederik X Frederik André Henrik Christian
 * Frederik X Frederik André Henrik Christian
 * Frederik X Frederik André Henrik Christian
 * Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark in 2021.jpg
 * Royal arms of Denmark.svg
 * 26 May 1968
 * Mary Donaldson
 * Incumbent
 * Son of Margrethe II
 * }
 * }

title: List of Danish monarchs


text:
Hans Janmaat

Johannes Gerardus Hendrikus "Hans" Janmaat (3 November 1934 – 9 June 2002) was a Dutch businessman and politician of the Centre Party (CP) who later founded the Centre Democrats (CD).

Although he was widely known, he was never a major force in the Dutch political landscape, partly because of a cordon sanitaire imposed by Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers's third cabinet.

Early life
Johannes Gerardus Hendrikus Janmaat was born on 3 November 1934 in Nes aan de Amstel in North Holland, as the oldest of nine children in a traditional Roman Catholic family. His father was a salesman and insurance broker. When Janmaat was 4 years old, the family moved to Gouda, where it would endure the war years in relative peace. After graduating in 1954, Janmaat started a study in aeronautical engineering, but had to drop out two years later after his father could no longer afford the tuition fees. Having to give up his studies to work was the first of many setbacks he would often refer to later in life.

In 1966 he married Belgian Evi Hock, having met her while working in Germany. In 1979, they divorced. In 1996, Janmaat married Wil Schuurman. No children were born in either marriage.

In the early 1960s, Janmaat ran a furniture factory with two of his brothers, but it burned down in 1966. He used the insurance payout to study politicology at the University of Amsterdam. Fellow-students found him ambitious, provocative and witty. In 1969, he participated in the occupation of the Maagdenhuis, the university's administrative center, as part of a student protest. He completed his studies in 1972.

Politics
After graduating, Janmaat held part-time positions as a teacher of civics. He also ran a one-man consultancy for small businesses.

In 1972, he joined the Catholic People's Party (KVP). He also worked in several commissions for the Democratic Socialists '70 (DS'70) party. Despite his efforts, he was not considered suitable for a front line position because of his capriciousness and tendency to go against the grain.

In the 1970s, he became more interested in the emerging issue of immigration as large numbers of foreign workers came to the Netherlands. His increasingly radical stance lead to a break with the KVP as well as DS'70.

In 1980, he read an article in Vrij Nederland which drew his attention to the recently founded extreme-right Centre Party (CP). After several interviews, he joined the party as its seventh member. Starting as a publicity worker, he would rapidly rise to be the party's top and was its lijsttrekker (top candidate) for the 1982 elections. The party won a single seat in the House of Representatives, which went to Janmaat. Other political parties largely ignored and ostracized him.

Centre Democrats
After disagreements and a power struggle with other members of the Centrum Party, he was expelled from the CP in October 1984. However, he retained his seat in parliament, in accordance with Dutch law. Janmaat officially launched his own party, the Centre Democrats (CD) in November 1984. Politically, the party did not differ greatly from the CP, except that it was strongly centered around Janmaat, to prevent another power struggle.

Several attempts were made to reconcile the differences between CP and CD. One such meeting in a hotel in Kedichem was disrupted by left-wing activists, who set fire to the building. Janmaat narrowly escaped with his life, CD secretary (and later wife of Janmaat) Wil Schuurman lost a leg because of injuries sustained jumping out of a window to escape the fire.

In the 1986 election, Janmaat lost his seat in parliament, however he regained his single seat in 1989.

His biggest political success would be in the 1994 elections, when he gained three seats. Major political parties changed their response to Janmaat and his views: rather than actively ignoring him they also started openly addressing the issue of immigration. In the 1998 election the CD lost all three of its seats. Janmaat had become increasingly paranoid and said that computers used for voting had been tampered with.

In 1999, Janmaat was in the process of starting another party, the Conservative Democrats, however it did not get off the ground and did not participate in the 2002 election.

His failing health forced him to withdraw from politics, however the changing political climate did prompt him to challenge his conviction for discrimination at the European Court of Justice. Janmaat's death in 2002 halted the case.

Political views
Janmaat wanted to represent the indigenous Dutch workers and middle class. His views were based mostly on economic and materialistic arguments rather than an underlying ideology. Disappointing economic growth, unemployment and government cutbacks could not be addressed while large numbers of immigrants were flowing into the country. Janmaat was against a multicultural society: he argued that immigrants should either assimilate into Dutch culture, or return to their country of birth. His best known slogans were "Holland is not a country of immigration," "full=full" and "we will abolish the multicultural society, as soon as we get the chance and power"; he was convicted for the last two statements. According to Jan van de Beek, Hans Janmaat often used economic arguments in his tirades against immigrants.

He was often accused of committing acts of hate speech, and received fines and a conditional felony prison sentence for incitement to hatred and discrimination against foreigners.

He often made controversial remarks about immigrants and other politicians. He argued that Ernst Hirsch Ballin should not be allowed to hold a high office because of his Jewish heritage and said he was not saddened by the sudden death of political opponent Ien Dales.

Legacy
Other parties erected a cordon sanitaire around Janmaat, ignoring him while he spoke in parliament. A taboo on discussing negative aspects of immigration existed in the Dutch political climate in the 1980s.

Meindert Fennema, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory of Ethnic Relations at the University of Amsterdam, argued in 2006 that Janmaat was convicted for statements that are now commonplace due to changes in the political climate (caused in part by the September 11 attacks, and the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh).

As the first public spokesperson who tried to put the topic of immigration on the Dutch political agenda, Janmaat has been mentioned as a forerunner of Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders and Thierry Baudet and their parties Leefbaar Nederland, Partij voor de Vrijheid and Forum voor Democratie, which booked greater electoral successes in the following decades.

title: Hans Janmaat


text:
Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act is a United States federal law passed by the 47th United States Congress and signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur on January 16, 1883. The act mandates that most positions within the federal government should be awarded on the basis of merit instead of political patronage.

By the late 1820s, American politics operated on the spoils system, a political patronage practice in which officeholders awarded their allies with government jobs in return for financial and political support. Proponents of the spoils system were successful at blocking meaningful civil service reform until the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881. The 47th Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act during its lame duck session and President Chester A. Arthur, himself a former spoilsman, signed the bill into law. The Pendleton Civil Service Act provided for the selection of some government employees by competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote these government officials for political reasons and created the United States Civil Service Commission to enforce the merit system. The act initially only applied to about ten percent of federal employees, but it now covers most federal employees. As a result of the court case Luévano v. Campbell, most federal government employees are no longer hired by means of competitive examinations.

The namesake of the Pendleton Act is George H. Pendleton, an Ohio Democratic U.S. senator who defended slavery in the 1850s and led the anti-war "Copperheads" in the American Civil War opposing President Abraham Lincoln. The passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act with the aid of "Half-Breed" Republicans furthered the aims of white supremacist Democrats to curtail patronage, which had been used by "Stalwart" Republicans to socially and economically benefit blacks.

Background

Since the presidency of Andrew Jackson, presidents had increasingly made political appointments on the basis of political support rather than on the basis of merit, in a practice known as the spoils system. In return for appointments, these appointees were charged with raising campaign funds and bolstering the popularity of the president and the party in their communities. The success of the spoils system helped ensure the dominance of both the Democratic Party in the period before the American Civil War and the Republican Party in the period after the Civil War. Patronage became a key issue in elections, as many partisans in both major parties were more concerned about control over political appointments than they were about policy issues.

During the Civil War, Senator Charles Sumner introduced the first major civil service reform bill, calling for the use of competitive exams to determine political appointments. Sumner's bill failed to pass Congress, and in subsequent years several other civil service reform bills were defeated even as the public became increasingly concerned about public corruption. After taking office in 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes established a special cabinet committee charged with drawing up new rules for federal appointments. Hayes's efforts for reform brought him into conflict with the Stalwart, or pro-spoils, branch of the Republican party, led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. With Congress unwilling to take action on civil service reform, Hayes issued an executive order that forbade federal office holders from being required to make campaign contributions or otherwise taking part in party politics.

According to historian Eric Foner, the advocacy of civil service reform was recognized by blacks as an effort that would stifle their economic mobility and prevent "the whole colored population" from holding public office.

Chester Arthur, Collector of the Port of New York, and his partisan subordinates Alonzo B. Cornell and George H. Sharpe, all Conkling supporters, obstinately refused to obey the president's order. In September 1877, Hayes demanded the three men's resignations, which they refused to give. Hayes was obliged to wait until July 1878 when, during a Congressional recess, he sacked Arthur and Cornell and replaced them with recess appointments. Despite opposition from Conkling, both of Hayes's nominees were confirmed by the Senate, giving Hayes his most significant civil service reform victory. For the remainder of his term, Hayes pressed Congress to enact permanent reform legislation and restore the dormant United States Civil Service Commission, even using his last annual message to Congress in 1880 to appeal for reform.

Provisions
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act provided for selection of some government employees by competitive exams rather than ties to politicians, and made it illegal to fire or demote some government officials for political reasons. The act initially applied only to ten percent of federal jobs, but it allowed the president to expand the number of federal employees covered by the act.

The law also created the United States Civil Service Commission to oversee civil service examinations and outlawed the use of "assessments," fees that political appointees were expected to pay to their respective political parties as the price for their appointments. These assessments had made up a majority of political contributions in the era following Reconstruction.

Legislative history

In 1880, Democratic Senator George H. Pendleton of Ohio introduced legislation to require the selection of civil servants based on merit as determined by an examination, but the measure failed to pass. Pendleton's bill was largely based on reforms proposed by the Jay Commission, which Hayes had assigned to investigate the Port of New York. It also expanded similar civil service reforms attempted by President Franklin Pierce 30 years earlier.

Hayes did not seek a second term as president, and was succeeded by fellow Republican James A. Garfield, who won the 1880 presidential election on a ticket with former Port Collector Chester A. Arthur. In 1881, President Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau, who believed that he had not received an appointment by Garfield because of his own affiliation with the Stalwarts. Garfield died on September 19, 1881, and was succeeded by Vice President Arthur. Many worried about how Arthur would act as president; the New York Times, which had supported Arthur earlier in his career, wrote "Arthur is about the last man who would be considered eligible for the position."

Garfield's assassination by a deranged office seeker amplified the public demand for reform. Civil service reformers established the National Civil Service Reform League and undertook a major public campaign for reform, arguing that the spoils system had played a major role in the assassination of Garfield. In President Arthur's first annual address to Congress, Arthur requested civil service reform legislation, and Pendleton again introduced his bill, which again did not pass. Democrats, campaigning on the reform issue, won control of the House of Representatives in the 1882 congressional elections.

The party's disastrous performance in the 1882 elections helped convince many Republicans to support the civil service reform during the 1882 lame-duck session of Congress. The election results were seen as a public mandate for civil service reform, but many Republicans also wanted to pass a bill so that they could craft the legislation before losing control of Congress, allowing the party to take credit for the bill and to protect Republican officeholders from dismissal. The Senate approved Pendleton's bill, 38–5, and the House soon concurred by a vote of 155–47. Nearly all congressional opposition to the Pendleton bill came from Democrats, though a majority of Democrats in each chamber of Congress voted for the bill. A mere seven U.S. representatives constituted the Republican opposition towards the Pendleton Act: Benjamin F. Marsh, James S. Robinson, Robert Smalls, William Robert Moore, John R. Thomas, George W. Steele, and Orlando Hubbs. Arthur signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act into law on January 16, 1883.

Aftermath
To the surprise of his critics, Arthur acted quickly to appoint the members of the newly created Civil Service Commission, naming reformers Dorman Bridgman Eaton, John Milton Gregory, and Leroy D. Thoman as commissioners. The commission issued its first rules in May 1883; by 1884, half of all postal officials and three-quarters of the Customs Service jobs were to be awarded by merit. During his first term, President Grover Cleveland expanded the number of federal positions subject to the merit system from 16,000 to 27,000. Partly due to Cleveland's efforts, between 1885 and 1897, the percentage of federal employees protected by the Pendleton Act would rise from twelve percent to approximately forty percent. The act now covers about 90% of federal employees.

Although state patronage systems and numerous federal positions were unaffected by the law, Karabell argues that the Pendleton Act was instrumental in the creation of a professional civil service and the rise of the modern bureaucratic state. The law also caused major changes in campaign finance, as the parties were forced to look for new sources of campaign funds, such as wealthy donors.

In January 1981, the Carter administration settled the court case Luévano v. Campbell, which alleged the Professional and Administrative Careers Examination (PACE) was racially discriminatory as a result of the lower average scores and pass rates achieved by Black and Hispanic test takers. As a result of this settlement agreement, PACE, the main entry-level test for candidates seeking positions in the federal government’s executive branch, was scrapped. It has not been replaced by a similar general exam, although attempts at replacement exams have been made. The system which replaced the general PACE exam has been criticized as instituting a system of racial quotas, although changes to the settlement agreement under the Reagan administration removed explicit quotas, and these changes have "raised serious questions about the ability of the government to recruit a quality workforce while reducing adverse impact", according to Professor Carolyn Ban.

In October 2020 President Donald Trump by Executive Order 13957 created a Schedule F classification in the excepted service of the United States federal civil service for policy-making positions, which was criticized by Professor Donald Kettl as violating the spirit of the Pendleton Act. Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President Joe Biden rescinded Executive Order 13957.

title: Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act