Neo-Ottomans and the Young Turk Revolution

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yasko said:
... He took over during the 1877 wars, which you cant blame him for...
He came to power on August 1876.

Just look how well your diplomatic genius handled diplomacy:

On March 31, 1877 Russia persuaded the powers to sign the London Convention, which merely asked Turkey to introduce those reforms which she herself had already proposed. The powers were to watch the operation of the reforms, and if conditions remained unsatisfactory they reserved the right "to declare that such a state of things would be incompatible with their interests and those of Europe in general". But the Turks felt themselves in a strong position and rejected the proposal on the grounds that it violated the Treaty of Paris.
Finally, on April 24, 1877, after nearly two years of futile negotiations, Russia declared war upon Turkey.




Yasko said:
... He did raise a new generation of officers that seems to be more interested in politics rather their own proffession. Its not like he didnt try to reform the army. As for creating a Turkish identity, its that ideologi who marked the end of the Empire. People turned to turkish nationalism when Ottomanism and Islamism failed and that turned the arabs against the empire at the end.
I would love to hear more about Abdulhamid's contribution to Ottoman military education because the establishment of the first modern universities and academies in Ottoman Empire is dated 1848. And I am not even mentioning the Naval Engineering Academy established in 1773.

When Abdulhamid came to power, there was an educated Ottoman class which pressed for further reforms. It was Abdulhamid's tyranny that caused the deaths of these reformers and his opression lead to the alienation of Arabs and Armenians.

It was Abdulhamid who created the Kurdish "Hamidiye" regiments after his own name, who further pushed loyal Armenians to adopt revolutionary policies and eventually terrorism.

It was because of his opression that Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian terrorist bands found sympathy in Europe.

Yasko said:
... And yes he was authoritarian and a tyrant. I still prefer him to Mithat Pasha and his later fan boys who really managed to f*** up the empire in 1877 and later 1908-1918 :rolleyes:
Declaring a constitution and opening the parliament ruined the empire? Abdulhamid shut the parliament down at the first opportunity and kept it shut for three decades.
 
Tunch Khan said:
Just look how well your diplomatic genius handled diplomacy:

That "genius" is Mithat Pasha who seems to be as competent as the Young Turks when it came to foreign policy and thats the main reason why Abdulhamit got rid of him pretty soon. Like i said before you cant blame Abdulhamit for that war.

I would love to hear more about Abdulhamid's contribution to Ottoman military education because the establishment of the first modern universities and academies in Ottoman Empire is dated 1848. And I am not even mentioning the Naval Engineering Academy established in 1773.

I gave you a small list. Just an example, at 1876 there were 6 schools(Ilkokul) in Istanbul. 1886 there was 50 schools,.the 1892-1893 statistics showes 3057 schools in the empire. 1905-1906 stats showes 9347 schools in the Empire. At 1877 there were around 200 schools in the empire.

Here is a list of the higher schools that was founded or expanded in Turkish - Deniz Muhendislik Okulu, Askeri Tip Okulu, Mekteb-i Harbiyeler, Askeri Baytar Okulu, Kurmay Okulu, Mekteb-i Mulkiye, Mekteb-i Tibbiye-i Mulkiye...

Mekteb-i Hukuk(1880), Halkali Ziraat ve Baytar Mektebi(1887), Darulmualliminler, Hendese-i Mulkiye Mektebi, Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi(1882), Hamidiye Ticaret Mektebi(1884), Asiret Mektebi(1884), Harir Darutta ve Harir Darutahsili Mektebi(1892)

These schools above are the predecessors of modern schools and Universities like GATA, Harp Okullari, Siyasal Bilgiler Fakultesi, Istanbul Universitesi, Yuksek Muhendis mektebleri etc.

Really you should look closer on his investments on infrastructure. He really did raise a competent generation during his reign, this generation was wasted in Balkan Wars, WWI and later at the Independance War that CUP managed to drag OE and later Turkey into unfortunatly.

When Abdulhamid came to power, there was an educated Ottoman class which pressed for further reforms. It was Abdulhamid's tyranny that caused the deaths of these reformers and his opression lead to the alienation of Arabs and Armenians.

Armenians was encouraged by Balkan nationalists and tried with the same tactics and failed. As for the Arabs they were loyal to the Empire maybe apathetic at worst and that thanx to the turcifiation policies of CUP and "stars" like Cemal Pasha in Syria... :p

It was Abdulhamid who created the Kurdish "Hamidiye" regiments after his own name, who further pushed loyal Armenians to adopt revolutionary policies and eventually terrorism.

There was a reason he created Hamidiye regiments. He tried and managed to stop plans from greater powers in easteren anatolia to give the Armenians same "improvements" Bulgars got in the Balkans. We know how it ended in Balkans.

It was because of his opression that Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian terrorist bands found sympathy in Europe.

Abdulhamit wasnt the first one with opression against insurgents. Its pretty standart response from the Ottoman State. Was Abdulhamit alive when Greeks got independence? :rolleyes:

Declaring a constitution and opening the parliament ruined the empire? Abdulhamid shut the parliament down at the first opportunity and kept it shut for three decades.

No, Idiotic policies of Mithat Pasha and his later fanboys Young Turks ruined the empire.
 
Last edited:
Tunch Khan said:
It was because of his opression that Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian terrorist bands found sympathy in Europe.

:p Nonsense - Europeans were always willing to express sympathy for Balkan nationalists, as long as they were Christian and made the right noises about friendliness to the respective power, "economic openess" and acceptance of a spare German monarch!
 
We are not going to agree with Yasko on many topics about Abdulhamid, but only issue I will stick to is education. It's true that Abdulhamid expanded the schools in the empire, but the generation of Young Turks we are talking about already existed as they had graduated from the schools and academies established long before his reign.

This is a very interesting topic and deserves more research and debate.

He may have prolonged the survival of the empire by his policies, but the question is; was it worth all that blood? And for what? Turks lost everything regardless. The only territorial "save" worth mentioning was based on ethnic cleansing which you clean Abdulhamid's name by blaming CUP solely.

With his opression regime (istibdad); Abdulhamid was the poster-child of all tyrants of the 19th century.
 
"With his opression regime (istibdad); Abdulhamid was the poster-child of all tyrants of the 19th century. "

Degree of Abdulhamid II 's oppression is very hot debate among Turkish historians in fact..He certainly sent many european educated Turkish nationalists to exile but used capital punishment very rarely..He believed in Islamism and was an ardent enemy of nationalist movements..so, to prevent revolutionary movements in the empire, he did what other monarchies would have done in front of revolutionary movements whose aim is to destroy or at least minimize the role of monarchy...Rule of previous Ottoman sultans(Mahmud II for example) or russian Czars or German style governors were not much more "free"..Abdulhamid II lived in much more politicized atmosphere and he were deliberately made as symbol of terrorism by İttihad Party members after his deposition..Western historians generally adopted this İttihad members' perception of Abdulhamid II(for example in BOZKURT by Armstrong, Abdulhamit II is showed as if he is hitler)..Hafiye organization, of course is the main argument for supporters of "Red Sultan"..Hafiye organization worked as intelligence system to find "harmful" young turks, but it never became execution system, Hafiye arrested young turks(and other opposition) and sent them to Syria or Egypt(or somewhere else far away from the capital) to exile, but in most situations, exiled people didn't stay in Jails..they were free there but not free to move another city or to attend political meetings or organizations, some of them even worked as state officials..So, I don't claim that reign of Abdulhamid II was era of freedom, but I say that to claim that during his reign, people were executed, tortured,feared doesn't reflect the truth..his regime was just an authoritarian regime and more or less similar regimes existed in that era..like the "red sultan" title many negative claims were created by religious minorities(and so to the west) because Abdulhamid II was not very tolerant to non-islamic groups and excluded them from the state..

so,why am I making conspiracy theories? do many western historians lie? not, definitely, Abdulhamid II was authoritarian, but there are reasons about why he was made symbol of oppression..even after 1923, young Republic began to feature Abdulhamid II as symbol of CRUELTY and along with this he was symbol of values of SULTANATE AND RELIGION which are ardent enemies of The new Republic which is trying to give itself legitimation after collapse of 600 years old empire..As a result, with the process starting with 1908 and continuing with 1923, Turkish Nationalist Regimes strenghtened their legitimation by means of discrediting monarchy, rule is simple(the old is bad the new is good) and with such huge propaganda and with of course some truth, portray of boogeyman Abdulhamid have arisen although he was not so different from Mahmud II..for example, while Abdulhamid is always showed as dictator, dictatorship of Triumvirate of İttihad-Terakki(enver-talat-cemal pashas) is disregarded in Turkey because, more or less İttihad-Terakki and Atatürk came from the same origin and had the same ideal; nationalist republican state against scholastic monarchy..

note; sorry for my bad english
 
A revolutionary wave is a series of revolutions occurring in various locations. In many cases, an initial revolution inspires other "affiliate revolutions" with similar aims.[1]

The concept is important to Marxists, who see a revolutionary waves as evidence that a world revolution is possible. For Rosa Luxemburg, "The most precious thing...in the sharp ebb and flow of the revolutionary waves is the proletariat's spiritual growth. The advance by leaps and – bounds of the intellectual stature of the proletariat affords an inviolable guarantee of its further progress in the inevitable economic and political struggles ahead."[2]

1. ^ Mark N. Katz, Revolution and Revolutionary Waves
2. ^ Rosa Luxemburg, Gesammelte Werke, quoted in Tony Cliff, Patterns of mass strike (Part 1)


It is clear that the Young Turk Revolution did not contain any communist ideology, however, the people's rebellion against an opressive monarchy is the common ground in all Turkish, Russian and Chinese Revolutions. Also, to isolate Ataturk's Republican Revolution from the picture is not healthy as he was the subsequent phase of a revoultionary cycle and his closest military and political ally was Lenin. Bolsheviks and Turkish revolutionaries formed a mutually beneficiary military alliance that resulted in their respective victories over imperialistic powers.

The Young Turk revolution was in part a result of the fact that Ottoman intellectuals were felt that it was a humliation that the Iranians had had a revolution and the Ottomans had not.:cool:
"Gottan boku Acemistan'da ilan-i hürriyet vardır. Ama biz hala perişan bir vazıyette kalıyoruz"
I think that was one of the lines of an opposition newspaper on the subject :)
 
The Young Turk revolution was in part a result of the fact that Ottoman intellectuals were felt that it was a humliation that the Iranians had had a revolution and the Ottomans had not.:cool:
"Gottan boku Acemistan'da ilan-i hürriyet vardır. Ama biz hala perişan bir vazıyette kalıyoruz"
I think that was one of the lines of an opposition newspaper on the subject :)
Love the line, wish you had the full quote. That's enough to boil the blood of any Turk. :D It sure would piss me off if Iran became more free than Turkey.
 
Well, an important part of the prelude to the Young Turks revolution were the tax revolts in Eastern Anatolia in 1906-1907. It is interesting to note that these were the areas closest to the Iranian border. I wonder if the revolt in Iran helped provoke the revolts in Eastern Anatolia.
 
The Young Turk revolution was in part a result of the fact that Ottoman intellectuals were felt that it was a humliation that the Iranians had had a revolution and the Ottomans had not.
"Gottan boku Acemistan'da ilan-i hürriyet vardır. Ama biz hala perişan bir vazıyette kalıyoruz"
I think that was one of the lines of an opposition newspaper on the subject


complete bullshit from a possible kurdish nationalist who has hatred of turkish nationalist movement of all kind..

Young Turks saw an Empire which was collapsing slowly, losing every war she entered and becoming more and more economically dependent on European Powers..They saw Balkan nations taking arms against Ottomans and winning their independence..Under those conditions, Young Turks evolved..They wanted to modernise the Empire and to establish the institutions similar to that of Europeans..They were nationalists and positivists who embraces the ideas of Europe..

Young Turk movement dates back to much earlier than the time of Iranian constitutional monarchy of 1906..For decades, they continued the resistance against Abdulhamid Khan in Paris..it is no doubt that this revolution contributed to the will of young turks to rise against Abdulhamid Khan militarily but it's just an effect, not the cause of 1908 revolution..

As I said above, this is just a lie from a kurdish nationalist..
 
First of all -
Thanks to Veldmaarschalk for kindly re-opening the thread - So keep it clean!

I am posting a a translation from Tarık Zafer Tunaya's "Hürriyet İlanı" - TZT is basically the father of studies on the 1908 Young Turks revolution - His work has not been translated into English - I have translated the introduction - It may sound a bit odd -but translating from Turkish into English is hard -

Chapter I

The boundaries of the Second Constitutional period​


When does the Second Constitutional period begin?

Historians, legal experts and social scientists agree that the Second Constitutional period began on 10th July 1324 (23 July 1908). The people who lived during the period dubbed this final phase of Ottoman history as the “Proclamation of Freedom” (“ilan-i hurriyet”). The successful results of the struggle for freedom both within the county and abroad bore fruit on this date. The Constitution of 1876 (“Kanun i Esasi”) was reintroduced on this date. During this period, the constitutional character of the Sultanate was strengthened. The end of the Hamidian regime was also declared on this date. Thusly, as with any movement for renewal, this date was both an end and a beginning. The importance of the 10th July is due to the fact that it is a dividing point and marks the passage from the Absolutist mentality of the Yildiz Palace’s elite to Namik Kemal’s ideals.

To some extent, the Second Constitutional period was a product of the Young Turks, who were freedom fighters both at home and abroad. Some of the events in the run up 10th July are closely connected to developments in political thought and are important to explain the regime that it was hoped would be established.

The Manifesto of the 23rd June 1908

One of these events, just a short time before the 10th of July, was the manifesto hung on the streets of Manastir and forwarded to various foreign consulates. According to the document from the “Ottoman Progress and Union Public Committee” (“Osmanlı Terakki ve İttihat Heyeti İçtimaiyesi”) which was presented in the form of an ultimatum to the “illegitimate government’s” governor in Manastir; Today’s government (the absolutist system) is illegitimate. The only desire of the Society of Progress and Union is to take back the obvious and legitimate rights of the nation and to put an end to the greed of the spendthrifts at the head of the machinery of administration. Those who established this corrupt system should know the Ottoman Empire is formed from a nation and the sultan, who is the embodiment of that nation… Between these two, there is no special place for the vile, prisoners of lust, scum and those drunk with favours. With the help of the regime that it is desired will be established the nation and Sultan will be in a state of direct communion. The incontrovertible verdict of the court of humanity and civilization is this: With the implementation of this verdict, under the reigning law of humanity, crimes and cruelties will be eradicated.

The Rumelia demonstrations and the telegraphs to the Yildiz Palace

The demonstrations that occurred a few days before the 10th July in the towns of Rumelia and following each other by only hours and minutes are of the utmost importance. “The Firzovik demonstration” can be counted as the first of these: On the 7th of July 1324 (1908) approximately thirty thousand Albanian subjects in the province of Kosovo gathered in a place called Firzovik and took an oath. After this oral decision made in the mosque, “the Kosovo Province People-Subjects” (''Kosova Vilayeti Ahalisi kulları'') sent the oath via telegraph to Yildiz Palace: The Empire is faced with threats which are on the verge of destroying it. The people of Firzovik were searching for “solutions in order to maintain their honour.” The only solution is the reestablishment of an elected assembly (“meşru meşveret”) in accordance with the provisions of the 1293 (1876) Constitution. A national assembly should be immediately constituted. Otherwise, it will be necessary to take direct action.

In the days prior to the 10th July, a string of these mass gatherings occurred across Rumelia. Telegraphs from Kosovo, Salonika, Seres, İştip and Priştina with essentially the same demands swamped Yıldız. Rumelia could not be saved from the social inflection that was the idea of freedom. The general demand that motivated these protests and telegraphs, and which was connected to the people’s instinctual inclination towards freedom agitated by the doctrine of consultation (“meşveret”), was the reintroduction of the Constitution and was made in conjunction with this warning: If this demand is not realised, were are prepared to march directly on the capital “alongside the Third Imperial Army” in order to achieve this objective. Yıldız believed that it was facing a large scale popular movement and was left in dismay. This situation brought for the first time a new element into the Ottoman reform movement: the people. However many the people were, the “Proclamation of Freedom” possessed the characteristics of a movement from below. This observation can be arrived at when the “Proclamation of Freedom” is compared with earlier reform movements in the Ottoman Empire.

The address which proclaimed freedom: “Either the Constitution or Death”

While the announcement of the reintroduction of the Constitution surprised the people of Istanbul, in the province of Manastır in a square which had been immediately given the name “Hürriyet” (Freedom), the Superintendent (Ders Nazırı) of the War Collage Major Vahip Bey (Later Pasha) for the first time announced and explained this long awaited for freedom from on top of a 60 number gun carriage to “blessed and esteemed citizens.” The main ideas in this speech contained an unsullied honesty of purpose which cannot be detected in later political events of this period. What did Constitutionalism (“Meşrutiyet”) mean? Who would be driven from power, and which institutions would be dismantled? And last of all, what would the people gain from this “Proclamation of Freedom”?

Ottoman Citizens for the first time heard the answers they had for generations been waiting for in the Superintendent’s speech: The “Proclamation of Freedom” puts an end to thirty one years of tyranny. It was the reaping of a long struggle. It liberated the most honourable, most hardworking and most patriotic freedomlovers from incarceration. At the same time, the political principles of Islam would attain their real value. Justice (“Adalet”), Consultation (“Meşveret”), Equality (“Müsavat”), Freedom (“Hürriyet), Fraternity (“Uhuvvet”) from now on would be on the path to realisation. This point in particular stands out in the speech: “The cage which has divide the nation and the Sultan since the time of Süleyman the Magnificent is broken.” Freedom’s heroes, in dungeons of San’a, in the citadels of Diyarbekir, Erzurum and Akka as well as those exiled in Fizan, are liberated. And Constitutionalism’s (“Meşrutiyet”) most emotional side: “The parliamentary system (“meşru meşveret usulü”) which will soothe tears of orphans, prevent anyone from trampling on anyone else’s rights and allow us to live as humans and the Constitution (“Kanun-i Esasi”) which provides for the implementation of all our desires as a whole...” The idea of the Social Contract (“içtimai mukavele fikrini”) which is found in every revolutionary document was not for forgotten by the Ottoman constitutionalist movement: from this day on, the various elements (of the Ottoman population) know that they will defend and protect each other’s lives and honour as if it were their own and with the same determination and strength. After the speech the people who had gathered in the square took an oath to protect the Constitution (“Kanun-i Esasi”).

As it is seen, before everything the Meşrutiyet wanted to be explained to the masses as a spiritual and moral event. At first sight, the system of government which was called for not a complete change, rather it was a call to reform the Sultanic system of government. A liberation from imprisonment. But now what would the people who fled from the dungeons do?

10th July took it place in our history as the beginning of a new period and marked the start of new life for the Ottoman individual and state. Ottomans and especially Turks who were confronted with the task of finding their way under new conditions would struggle with difficulties of opening a new era, forming a liberal regime (“Hürriyet rejimi”) and would pass into a labyrinth intoxicated by liberty.
 
This is the Turkish orginal of the section above. If any of our Turkish friends have an issue with my translation - please feel free to note it.

BİRİNCİ BÖLÜM​

İKİNCİ MEŞRUTİYET'İN SINIRLARI

1- İkinci Meşrutiyet ne zaman başlar?

10 Temmuz 1324 (23 Temmuz 1908): Tarihçiler, hukukçular ve sosyal konularla uğraşanlar, İkinci Meşrutiyet'in bu tarihte başladığını kabul etmişlerdir. Bu devrenin insanları, içinde yaşadıkları Osmanlı tarihinin bu son safhasına ''İlanı Hürriyet'' (yani Hürriyetin İlanı) adını vermişlerdir. ülke içinde ve dışındaki hürriyet savaşlarının başarılı sonuçları bu tarihte alınmıştır. 1293 (1876) Kanunu Esasi'nin (Anayasa) yeniden yürürlüğe girmesi bu tarihte olmuştur. Saltanatın meşrutiyetçi (padişah iktidarını frenleyici) karakteri bu devrede kuvvetlendirilmiştir. Abdülhamit, rejiminin bitimini de gene bu tarih ilan etmiştir. Böylece, her yenilik hareketi gibi, 10 Temmuz hem bir başlangıç hem de bir sondur. 10 Temmuz'un önemi Yıldız Sarayı kadrosunun istibdatçı düşüncesinden Namık Kemal ideallerine geçişin ayırım noktası olmasındadır.
İkinci Meşrutiyet, bir bakıma, Jön Türklerin -memleket içi ve dışındaki hürriyet savaşçılarının- eseridir. 10 Temmuz'dan önceki olayların bazıları, siyasi düşüncenin gelişmelerine yakından bağlıdırlar ve kurulması istenen rejimi açıklamak bakımından önemlidirler. Bunlar üzerinde durmak gerekir.

a- 23 Haziran 1908 Beyannamesi:

Olaylardan birisi, 10 Temmuz'dan kısa bir müddet önce, Manastır şehrinde sokaklara asılmış ve çeşitli devletlerin konsolosluklarına gönderilmiş olan beyannamedir (1). ''Osmanlı Terakki ve İttihat Heyeti İçtimaiyesi'' tarafından ''gayrı meşru hükümetin'' Manastır Valisi'ne bir muhtıra mahiyetinde olan bu vesikada açıklanmış olan ana fikirlere göre: Bugünün hükümeti (mutlakıyet sistemi) gayrı meşrudur. Terakki ve İttihat Cemiyeti'nin tek arzusu milletin açık ve meşru haklarını geri almak ve idare mekanizması başındaki ''süfeha''nın (sefihler) ihtiraslarına son vermekten başka birşey değildir. Fesat sistemi kurmuş olan bu kimseler bilmelidirler ki, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ''bir millet ile o milletin timsali olan Padişahtan ibarettir. Bu ikisininin arasında alçaklara, şehvet esirlerine, rezillere, ikbal sarhoşlarına hususi bir yer yoktur. Kurulması istenen rejim sayesinde, milletle Padişah doğrudan doğruya temas halinde olacaklardır. İnsanlık ve medeniyet mahkemesinin temyiz edilmemek üzere verdileri karar budur. Bu kararın uygulanmasıyladır ki, cinayetler ve zulümler insanlık kanununun hükümranlığı altında yok edilmiş olacaklardır (2).

b- Rumeli mitingleri ve Yıldız'a telgraflar:

10 Temmuz'dan birkaç gün evvel, Rumeli şehirlerinde, birbirini saat ve dakika farkıyla takip eden toplantılar dikkati çekici mahiyettedirler. ''Firzovik Toplantısı'' bunların ilki sayılabilir: Otuz bin kadar Arnavut tabaanın Kosova vilayetinde, Firzovik denilen yerde toplanarak Besa (yemin) etmeleri 7 Temmuz 1324 tarihini taşır. Camide verilen bu sözlü karardan, sonra ''Kosova Vilayeti Ahalisi kulları'' tarafından Besa bir telgrafla Yıldız'a bildirilmiştir: İmparatorluk kendisini mahvetmek üzere olan tehlikelerle karşı karşıyadır. Firzovikliler ''namını ipka için çareler'' aramışlardır. Tek çare 1293 (1876) Kanunu Esasi'sinin hükümlerine uyarak meşru meşveret (seçimli meclis) usulünün yeniden tesisidir. İstanbul'da acele olarak bir millet meclisi toplanmalıdır. Aksi takdirde, fiili harekete geçilecektir.

Kitle olayları, 10 Temmuz'dan evvelki birkaç gün içinde Rumeli'de zincirlenmiştir. Kosova, Selanik, Serez, İştip. Priştine'den çekilen telgraflar Yıldız'ı aynı mahiyetteki isteklerle sıkıştırmaktadırlar. Rumeli, hürriyet fikrinin sosyal sirayetinden kurtulamamıştır (3). Halkın hürriyetçi duygularının galeyanını meşveret doktrinine bağlayan bu vesikalar ve olayları etrafında döndüren genel istek, 1876 Kanunu Esasi'sinin tekrar yürürlüğe konmasıdır ve bir müeyyideye bağlanmıştır: Eğer bu istek yerine getirilmezse, ''Üçüncü orduyu Hümayunla beraber" maksadı elde etmek için Payitaht'a doğru harekete hazırlanılmıştır (4). Yıldız, büyük çapta bir halk hareketi karşısında bulunduğuna inanmış, dehşet içinde kalmıştır. Bu durum, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nun ıslahat hareketlerine ilk defa olarak yeni bir unsur getirmiştir: Halk. Sayısı ne olursa olsun, Hürriyetin İlanı aşağından yukarı bir hareket hattına sahip olmuştur. Bu müşahede kendisinden önceki ıslahat olaylarıyla kıyaslayınca elde edilebilir.


c- Hürriyeti ilan eden nutuk, ''Ya Kanunu Esasi, Ya Ölüm!''

Meşrutiyetin yeniden ilanı İstanbul halkını şaşırtırken (5), Manastır vilayetinin derhal ''Hürriyet'' adı verilmiş olan meydanında, Mektebi Harbiye Ders Nâzırı Binbaşı Vehip Bey (daha sonra Paşa), çoktanberi beklenen hürriyeti 60 numaralı top arabası üstünde ''mukaddes ve muazzez vatandaşlar''ına ilk defa resmen ilan ve izah etmiştir (6). Nutuktaki ana fikirlerin tespiti, Meşrutiyetin sonraki siyasi olaylarına bulanmamış bir gayenin samimiyetini taşır. Meşrutiyet ne demekti? Kimler iktidardan uzaklaştırılacak, hangi müesseseler yıkılacaktı? Ve nihayet hürriyetin ilanı ile halk neler kazanabilecekti?

Osmanlı vatandaşları nesillerin bekledikleri cevapları ilk olarak Ders Nâzırının nutkundan dinlemişlerdir: Hürriyetin ilanı otuz bir senelik zulme son vermiştir. Uzun çabaların mahsulü olmuştur. Vatanın en namuskâr, en gayretli en hamiyetli hürriyetseverlerini zındanlardan kurtarmıştır. Aynı zamanda İslamın siyaset prensipleri gerçek değerlerini kazanacaklardır. Adalet, meşveret, müsavat (eşitlik) hürriyet ve uhuvvet (kardeşlik) bundan böyle gerçekleşme yoluna girmişlerdir. Nutuktaki şu fikir bilhassa dikkati çekmektedir: ''Kanuni Sultan Süleyman devrinden beri Padişah'la millet arasına çekilen kafes kırılmıştır.'' San'a zindanlarında, Diyarbekir, Erzurum, Akkâ kalelerinde, Fizan'da sürgün hürriyet kahramanları kurtulmuştur. Ve Meşrutiyetin en hissi tarafı: ''Yetimlerimizin gözyaşlarını dindirecek, kimsenin hakkını kimseye kaptırmayacak bizi insan gibi yaşatacak meşru meşveret usulüdür ve bu isteklerimizi bütün halinde sağlayan Kanunu Esasidir...'' Her ihtilal vesikasında tekrarlanan içtimai mukavele fikrini Osmanlı Meşrutiyeti de unutmamıştır: çeşitli unsurlar, birbirinin canını ve ırzını aynı şiddet ve asabiyetle müdafaa ve muhafaza etmeyi bugünden itibaren ''hırzı can'' bilirler. Nutuktan sonra meydanda toplanan halk, Kanunu Esasiyi korumak için ant içmiştir.
Görüldüğü gibi, Meşrutiyet her şeyden evvel büyük kitleye manevi ve ahlaki bir olay olarak açıklanmak istenmiştir. İlk görünüşte, istenilen devlet sistemini topyekün değiştirmek değil, devletin sultani (monarşik) yapısında ıslahattır. Bir esaretten kurtuluştur. Fakat zındandan dışarı fırlamış olan insan şimdi ne yapacaktı?

10 Temmuz yeni bir devrenin, Osmanlı ferdi ve devleti için yeni bir hayatın başlangıcı olarak tarihimizdeki yerini almıştır (7). Bu tarihten itibaren, kendi yollarını yeni şartlar içinde aramak ödeviyle karşılaşmış olan Osmanlılar, bilhassa Türkler, bir hürriyet sarhoşluğu dehlizinden geçecekler, bir devir açmanın, bir hürriyet rejimi vücude getirmenin güçlükleriyle savaşacaklardır.