Download chapter i politics and religion 1815-1914

Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-0-1. The Congress of Berlin, 1878
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Berliner_kongress.jpg/220px-Berliner_kongress.jpg
CHAPTER I
POLITICS AND RELIGION 1815-1914
1. The Concert of Europe: Reaction and Revolution, 1815-50 9
1-1. The Conservative Order, 1815-1830 12
Major Powers, Latin America, Greek War, Ideologies
1-2. Revolution and Reform, 1830-1850 39
The Transformation, Revolutions 1848, Law Enforcement
2. The Age of Nationalism and Unification, 1850-71 61
France, Unification of Italy, Unification of Germany, Austria,
Russia, Britain, United States, Canada, Japan’s Modernization
3. The Growth of State Power and Imperialism, 1871-1914 107
France, Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia
3-1. Europe’s World Supremacy – Imperialism 131
The Americas, Ottoman, Partition of Africa, Imperialism in Asia
4. Armed Forces and War in Europe 175
Prussian Army, French Army, Royal Navy, Russian Army, US Army & Navy
5. Religion and Politics in Europe 197
Protestant Europe, American Trends, Roman Catholicism,
Russian Orthodox Church, Islamic Modernism, Antisemitism
(Please CLICK each line to see the first page of contents)
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
5
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-0-2. Diplomats at the Congress of Paris, 1856, settled the Crimean War
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Edouard_Dubufe_Congr%C3%A8s_de_Paris.jpg
Map I-0-1. Government Revenues in the Early 20th Century:
The size of the flag indicates the relative size of the government's income.
Source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/1907-flg.gif
6
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
CHAPTER I. POLITICS AND RELIGION FROM 1815 TO 1914
The nineteenth century can be analyzed by three periods: the concert of Europe with reaction and
revolution during 1815-50, the pursuit of nationalism and unification during 1850-1871, and the
growth of state power and imperialism during 1871-1914. After the fall of Napoleon, Britain,
Austria, Prussia, and Russia formed the Quadruple Alliance, and restored the conservative order
at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and developed the Concert of Europe with periodic meetings
as a machine of European security. As the Spanish authority in its colonies of Latin America was
weakened under the Napoleonic rule, Argentina achieved independence from Spain in 1810,
followed by other Spanish colonies in the later years. When a series of revolutions broke out in
Spain and Italy in 1820, the continental powers favored intervention to restore the order in both
countries, which was opposed by the British because it “might lead eventually to intervention
against the revolting Spanish colonies where England was developing a very lucrative trade.”
Ignoring the British response, the Triple Alliance of Austria, Prussia, and Russia authorized
Austria to invade Italy, and France to enter Spain to crush revolts. Both interventions were
successful, but the Concert of Europe was broken down in 1823 when the British proposed a joint
action with the United States against European interference in Latin America. President James
Monroe sent messages (Monroe Doctrine): “It is impossible that the allied powers should extend
their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and
happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it
of their own accord.” The Greeks revolted in 1821 against the Muslim control of four hundred
years: the victory of Russia, France, and Great Britain in the Russian-Turkish War liberated
Greece from Ottoman rule in 1830; which was the first successful revolt against the status quo.
As the industrialization and urbanization divided society into bourgeoisie and proletariat,
liberals and nationalists demanded a new order with revolution and reform during 1830-50. In
Great Britain, the Parliament passed the Reform Act of 1932; the Factory Act of 1833, the Poor
Law of 1834, and repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. Those reforms helped the British to avoid
violent revolution, not like other European nations. In France, the upper middle class was
successful in another revolution and established a constitutional monarchy by replacing LouisPhilippe for Charles X in 1830. Since the government ignored political reform demanded by the
working class, the growing differences derived workers into the streets when the economy was
getting worse in the 1840s, which caused a struggle of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. The
government crushed the revolt, but the new constitution established the second republic and
elected Louis Napoleon as a president in 1848. In Germany, since the Industrial Revolution was
not much prevalent until the 1830s and 1840s, no substantial middle class took on the liberal cause.
As German rulers maintained the conservative status quo, liberals and nationalists supported by
university professors and students organized student societies. By the news of the revolution in
Paris in 1848, workers destroyed factories, and peasants looted and burned the manor houses.
Many German rulers agreed to abolish censorship, establish a new constitution, and work for a
united Germany. The Austrian Empire consisted of eleven ethnics, among which Germans were
a quarter of the population playing a leading role in politics, but Hungarians and Czechs wanted
autonomy apart from the Austrian Empire. The news from Paris encouraged both Hungarians and
Czechs to revolt in Vienna, Budapest, and Plague, but rebels were suppressed by the army. In
Italy, the people of Sicily, Lombardy, and Venice rebelled against the rule of Austria in 1848, but
was crushed in the next year. Popular revolts throughout Europe in 1848 were successful in the
beginning, but failed because of the loss of revolutionary unity, the lack of compromise, and
intervention of the foreign conservative forces to expand influences in the region.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
7
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
After the revolutionary waves passed, in France, Louis Napoleon extended his presidency for
ten years by a loyal coup d’etat, restored the Empire through referendum by the male suffrage,
and took the title of Napoleon III in 1852. He liberalized politics in the 1860s by the domestic
pressure, but the Franco-Prussian War terminated his regime in 1870. In Italy, Camillo di Cavour
became a prime minister of Piedmont in 1852 and led the unification of Italian states. Being
supported by Mazzini and Garibaldi, Cavour used France to expel Austria from Italy, but Austrian
troops remained in Venetia while French troops stayed in Rome. The Austro-Prussian War forced
Austrian troops to leave Venetia in 1866, and the Franco-Prussian War forced French troops to
leave Rome in 1870. In Germany, King William I appointed Otto von Bismarck to Prime Minister
in 1862. Bismarck built up the army and helped William I unify Germany and establish the Second
German Empire in 1871 through the winning of a series of wars - the Danish War in 1864, AustroPrussian War in 1866, and Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Austria was defeated in Italy in 1859,
and Francis Joseph approved the dual monarchy of Austro-Hungary in 1867 having a common
army, foreign policy, and financial system, but with a separate constitution and government in
Vienna or Budapest for domestic affairs. In Russia, Alexander II came to power in the midst of
the Crimean War that destroyed the old European power relations. He issued the emancipation
edict of 1861 liberating peasants, created a zemstvos system (local assemblies) providing a selfgovernment, and attempted other reforms in 1864. In Britain, Queen Victoria established the
liberal parliamentary system that passed the Reform Act of 1867 and the Education Act of 1870
by the leaderships of Disraeli and Gladstone. In the United States, industrialization caused the
Civil War between agricultural South and industrial North. In Canada, the upper region (Ontario)
was speaking English but the lower region (Quebec) was speaking French. The Treaty of Paris in
1763 forced Quebec under control of Britain, but the British finally approved Canadians to
establish their own nation, the Dominion of Canada, in 1867.
The growth of nationalism is “the process of integration of the masses of the people into a
common political form.” Nationalism and industrialization encouraged imperialism, making
European states expand colonial territories in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, in which Europeans
invested capital and developed huge financial stake. To secure these investments and for other
reasons, they aspired to political and territorial domination with military arms. The United States
gained California and the adjacent through the Mexican-American War; and Puerto Rico, Guam,
and the Philippine islands through the Spanish-American War. Russia gained several provinces
in the Caucasus, and the Balkans were freed from the Ottoman rule through the Russo-Turkish
War of 1877-78. Africa was partitioned by seven European powers. The Netherlands colonized
the Dutch East Indies, Great Britain did British India, and France did French Indochina. China
ceded Hong Kong to Great Britain in 1842 after the First Opium War, and recognized effective
Japanese rule over Korea in 1895. The Boxer rebellion of 1899-1901 brought 20,000 armed troops
of the Eight-Nation Alliance, which forced provisions for foreign troops stationed in Beijing with
heavy indemnity. Japan gained the Liaodong Peninsula and the island of Taiwan through the SinoJapanese War of 1894-95, and control power over Manchuria through the Russo-Japanese War of
1904-05. Finally, the Bosnian Crisis initiated a chain of events that eventually went out of control.
By the beginning of 1914, two armed camps – the Triple Entente versus the Triple Alliance –
became suspicious for their interests in the Balkans, which ignited World War I. This chapter
includes five subsections: (i) the Concert of Europe – reaction and revolution (1815-50); (ii) the
age of nationalism and unification (1850-71); (iii) the growth of state power and imperialism
(1871-1914); (iv) the armed forces and war in Europe; and (v) religion and politics in Europe.
Some parts of discussions may be overwrapped mainly because foreign policies and related wars
are interactions between two or more states to be explained.
8
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
1. The Concert of Europe: Reaction and Revolution, 1815-1850
In March 1814, a month before the first abdication of Napoleon, the four powers – Great Britain,
Prussia, Austria, and Russia – had agreed to remain united with the Treaty of Chaumont, not only
to defeat France but also to ensure peace after the war. “After Napoleon’s defeat, this Quadruple
Alliance restored Bourbon monarchy to France in the person of Louis XVIII and concluded the
first Treaty of Paris (in May) with the conquered nation. It was a lenient treaty. The Bourbons
had not been responsible for France’s revolutionary upheaval, and the four allies saw little need
to burden the government of Louis XVIII unnecessarily. Not only were the French allowed to
keep the territories they had acquired by 1792, but they paid no indemnity as well. Since the Treaty
of Paris did not deal with the problems created by Napoleon’s rearrangement of the map of Europe,
the great powers agreed to meet at a congress in Vienna in September 1814 to arrange a final peace
settlement.”1 At the Congress of Vienna, Metternich represented Austria as the Foreign Minister;
Viscount Castlereagh represented Great Britain as the Foreign Minister; Alexander I controlled
the Russian delegation; Prussia was represented by Prince Karl Hardenberg while King Frederick
William III was in Vienna; and Talleyrand represented France. Moreover, Spain, Portugal,
Sweden, Denmark, the Papal States, and others represented their own interests. The four powers
decided the future of all the conquered territories, then they were to communicate their decisions
to France and Spain. The full congress was to be summoned only when all was ready. In fact,
Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859), one of the most important diplomats of his era, played
major role at the Congress of Vienna as the chief exponent of the principle of legitimacy. “To
maintain the new conservative order after 1815, Metternich espoused the principle of intervention,
by which he meant that the great powers had the right to intervene militarily in other countries in
order to crush revolutionary movements against legitimate rulers.” 2
“The territorial resettlement at the Congress of Vienna was complicated by the rivalry
between the two major powers, Great Britain and Russia, as well as by the ambitions of Austria
and Prussia. Castlereagh’s policy was based on his determination to retain the most strategic
colonial conquests made during the Napoleonic wars (an so British command of the seas) and to
block all Russian threats of hegemony on the continent of Europe; the former aim had already
been achieved by a series of bilateral treaties before the Congress of Vienna met. Alexander I had
likewise extended his empire by the acquisition of Bessarabia and Finland (treaties with Sweden,
Turkey and Persia, 1809, 1812, 1813) and at Vienna sought to increase his possessions in Poland.
At the same time, the treaty of the Holy Alliance (26 September 1815), a document imbued with
mystical language, appealing to sovereigns to consider themselves a real fraternity, all members
of a single Christian nation, was initially invented by Alexander both to ensure the respective
powers of monarchs and constitutions and to gather all rulers in a single international organization
which could be used as a check on England. This rivalry dominated the Congress of Vienna, as
the other major issue – the definition of the frontiers of France – had already been definitively
settled after Napoleon’s Hundred Days along the boundaries of 1792 (treaty of Chaumont between
England, Russia, Austria and Prussia, 9 March 1814, revised and confirmed 25 March 1815).
Austria and Prussia, as well as some of the smaller powers and later France, were obliged to act
within the restriction imposed by the Anglo-Russian antagonism; but they were also able to exploit
it…The immediate effect of Anglo-Russian rivalry was to strengthen Austria’s position on the
Continent through English support. The Congress had almost broken down over the division of
Poland and Saxony, with Prussia and Russia against England, France and Austria. In the end,
most of Poland was given to Russia and nearly half Saxony to Prussia, which was compensated
for its loss of Polish lands with territories on the Rhine and in Westphalia.”3
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
9
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-1-1. The End of the Congress of Vienna, 1814
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/CongressVienna.jpg
Map I-1-1. National Boundaries within Europe set by the Congress of Vienna, 1815
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Map_congress_of_vienna.jpg
10
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“A stronger Prussia thus stood as guardian against France, whose frontiers were blocked to
the north by the merging of the former Austrian Belgian provinces with the kingdom of Holland,
and to the south by the restitution of Savoy and Nice to the king of Sardinia, who also received
Genoa. In Germany Talleyrand ably exploited the differences between the powers to ensure the
survival of many of the small and middling German principates and protect them against the
dominance of either Austria or Prussia with creation of the Germanic Confederation (Frankfurt
agreement, 1819).” The Germanic Confederation was associated with 39 German states in Central
Europe, to replace the former Holy Roman Empire. Since the Congress of Vienna intended to
establish the balance of power that guaranteed the independence of great powers, no one country
could dominate Europe. In this regard, Prussia and Austria had been strengthened to defend
themselves against foreign invasions either by France or by Russia. 4 Thus, Prussia and Austria
were allowed to keep some Polish territory. A new, nominally independent Polish kingdom, about
three-quarters of the size of the duchy of Warsaw, was established with the Romanov dynasty of
Russia as its hereditary monarchs. Although Alexander I granted the new kingdom a constitution
guaranteeing its independence, Russia controlled Poland’s foreign policy. As noted above, Prussia
was compensated for its loss of Polish lands by receiving two-fifths of Saxony, the Napoleonic
German kingdom of Westphalia, and the left bank for the Rhine. Austria was also compensated
for its loss of the Austrian Netherlands by being given control of Lombardy and Venetia. 5
Italy emerged from the congress of Vienna under Austrian control. “Besides Lombardy,
Austria was given possession of the former Venetian republic, the Valtellina and the Trentino,
merged into a kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, territorially compact and contiguous to the
Habsburg lands on the other side of the Alps. The grand-duchy of Tuscany was restored to the
emperor Francis’ younger brother, Ferdinand III of Lorraine (1790-1801, 1815-24); the duchy of
Modena was given to Francis IV of Austria-Este (1815-46); the Duchy of Parma was assigned to
the former empress of the French, the Austrian emperor’s daughter Maria Luisa (1815-47). The
Bourbon Ferdinand IV of the Two Sicilies (1815-25) was restored to Naples after the overthrow
of Murat, but only after signing a permanent defensive alliance with Austria (12 June 1815).
Finally, Austria gained the right to garrison the citadels of Piacenza (in the duchy of Parma) and
Ferrara (in the Papas States). Only Victor Emanuel I of Sardinia (1802-21) retained his formal
independence, because of the importance assigned to this kingdom by the great powers in the
international equilibrium. But the maximum assertion of this independence was marked by the
Sardinian rejection (together with the Papal States) of Metternich’s proposal for an Italian
confederation under Austrian presidency, similar to the German Confederation.” 6 Switzerland was
guaranteed her independence and neutrality; Norway was taken from Denmark and joined to
Sweden, which in turn gave Finland to Russia; and England received islands in the West Indies.
“The Congress has often been criticized for causing the subsequent suppression of the
emerging national and liberal movements, and it has been seen as a reactionary movement for the
benefit of traditional monarchs. However, others praise it for having created long-term stable and
peaceful conditions in Europe. In a technical sense, the Congress of Vienna was not properly a
Congress: it never met in plenary session, and most of the discussions occurred in informal, faceto-face, sessions among the Great Powers of Austria, Britain, France, Russia, and sometimes
Prussia, with limited or no participation by other delegates. On the other hand, the Congress was
the first occasion in history where, on a continental scale, national representatives came together
to formulate treaties, instead of relying mostly on messages between the several capitals. The
Congress of Vienna settlement, despite later changes, formed the framework for European international politics until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914.” 7 The Final Act of the
Congress was signed nine days before his final defeat at Waterloo on 18 June 1815.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
11
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
1-1. The Conservative Order, 1815-1830
The Concert of Europe - the Settlement of 1815: The second Treaty of Paris was signed on 20
November 1815 following the defeat and second abdication of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon
had escaped from his exile on Elba in February, and entered Paris on 20 March, beginning the
Hundred Days of his restored rule. After France's defeat in the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon was
abdicated again, on 22 June. “King Louis XVIII, who had fled the country when Napoleon arrived
in Paris, took the throne for a second time on 8 July. The 1815 treaty had stronger punitive terms
than the treaty of the previous year. France was ordered to pay 700 million francs in indemnities,
and the country's borders were reduced to their 1790 level. France was to pay additional money to
cover the cost of providing additional defensive fortifications to be built by neighboring Coalition
countries. Under the terms of the treaty parts of France were to be occupied by up to 150,000
soldiers for five years, with France footing the bill - however the Coalition occupation, under the
command of the Duke of Wellington was only deemed necessary for three years and the foreign
troops pulled out in 1818. In addition to the definitive peace treaty between France and Great
Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia, there were four additional conventions and the act confirming
the neutrality of Switzerland signed on the same day.” 8 The great powers feared revolution and
war in Europe, and they developed the Concert of Europe in order to maintain the new status quo
that they had constructed. “From the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars in 1792 to the
exile of Napoleon to Saint Helena in 1815, Europe had been almost constantly at war. During this
time, the military conquests of France had resulted in the spread of liberalism throughout much of
the continent, resulting in many states adopting the Napoleonic code. Largely as a reaction to the
radicalism of the French Revolution, most victorious powers of the Napoleonic Wars resolved to
suppress liberalism and nationalism, and revert largely to the status quo of Europe prior to 1789.”9
“The forces of upheaval unleashed during the French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars were
temporarily quieted in 1815 as rulers sought to restore stability by reestablishing much of the old
order to a Europe ravaged by war. Kings, landed aristocrats, and bureaucratic elites regained their
control over domestic governments while internationally the forces of conservatism tried to
maintain the new status quo; some states even used military force to intervene in the internal affairs
of the other countries in their desire to crush revolutions. But the European world had been
changed, and it would not readily to back to the old system. New ideologies of change, especially
liberalism and nationalism, both products of the revolutionary upheaval initiated in France, had
become too powerful to be contained. Not content with the status quo, the forces of change give
rise first to the revolts and revolutions that periodically shook Europe in the 1820s and 1830s and
then to the widespread revolution of 1848. Some of the revolutions and revolutionaries were
successful; most were not. Although the old order usually appeared to have prevailed, by 1850, it
was apparent that its days were numbered. This perception was reinforced by the Industrial
Revolution. Together the forces unleashed by the dual revolution – the French Revolution and the
Industrial Revolution – made it impossible to return to prerevolutionary Europe.”10 Nevertheless,
the Concert of Europe was developed by Metternich, the Austrian chancellor, who dominated the
German Confederation with conservatism. The Holy Alliance was formed by Prussia, Austria,
and Russia in September 1815 by preserving Christian social values and traditional monarchism.
As Great Britain signed the alliance on the same day as the Second Peace Treaty of Paris in
November, the Holy Alliance became the Quadruple Alliance that was a standard treaty. Its
primary objective was to bind the signatories to support the terms of the Second Treaty of Paris
for 20 years. It included a provision to renew their meeting at fixed periods for the purpose of
consulting on their common interests, without written rules or permanent institutions.
12
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Under the Concert of Europe, with the agreement for periodic meetings, four congresses were
held between 1818 and 1822, based on the principle of intervention that justified the great powers
to send armies into countries where there were revolutions to restore the conservative monarchies.
The First Congress was held in 1818 at Aix-la-Chapelle: “The four great powers agreed to
withdraw their army of occupation from France and to add France to the Concert of Europe. The
Quadruple Alliance became a Quintuple Alliance.” The occupation was formally terminated by
November 30, 1818: France was admitted “as a full discussion partner in the European congress
system and France's position as a European power was restored.”11
The Second Congress was held at Troppau in autumn of 1820 in Austrian Silesia to deal with
the outbreak of revolution in Spain and Italy. “The revolt in Spain was directed against Ferdinand
VII (1813-33), the Bourbon king who had been restored to the throne in 1814. In southern Italy,
the restoration of another Bourbon, Ferdinand I (1816-25), as king of Naples and Sicily, was
accompanied by the return of the nobility and clergy to their privileged positions. Moreover, Army
officers and businessmen led a rebellion that soon spread to the northern Italian kingdom of
Piedmont.” According the Troppau Protocol, “States, which have undergone a change of government due to revolution, the result of which threaten other states, ipso facto cease to be members
of the European Alliance, and remain excluded from it until their situation gives guarantees for
legal order and stability. If, owing to such alterations, immediate danger threatens other states the
powers bind themselves, by peaceful means, or if need be, by arms, to bring back the guilty state
into the bosom of the Great Alliance.”12 But no effort was made by the powers to give immediate
effect to the principles enunciated in the protocol; and after it was officially announced the
conferences were adjourned. It was decided to resume them next January.
The Third Congress was held at Laibach from January to May 1821. The emperors of Russia
and Austria were present in person, and with them were Counts Nesselrode and Capodistria,
Metternich and Baron Vincent; Prussia and France were represented by plenipotentiaries. Britain,
on the ground that she had no immediate interest in the Italian question, was represented only by
the Lord Stewart, the ambassador at Vienna, who was not armed with full powers, his mission
being to watch the proceedings and to see that nothing was done beyond or in violation of the
treaties. Of the Italian princes, Ferdinand of Naples and the duke of Modena came in person; the
rest were represented by plenipotentiaries…Metternich was anxious to secure an apparent
unanimity of the powers to back the Austrian intervention in Naples.”13 Britain objected joint
allied intervention in Spain since the presence of the allies might lead to an attempt to wrest from
the South American colonies. Britain had no objection to Austrian armed intervention in Naples,
but similarly opposed the principle of joint allied intervention here. Ignoring the British response,
Austria, Prussia, and Russia authorized the sending of Austrian troops to Naples. They crushed
the revolt, restored Ferdinand I to the throne, and moved north to suppress the rebels in Sardinia.
The Fourth Congress was held at Verona, Italy in October 1822, the same three powers
authorized France to invade Spain to crush the revolt against Ferdinand VII. “In the spring of
1823, French forces restored the Bourbon monarch. By this time, the split between Britain and
the more conservative powers of central and Eastern Europe had become irreversible. The policy
of intervention had succeeded in defeating revolutionary movements in Spain and Italy and in
restoring legitimate monarchs to their throne. It had been done at a price, however. The Concert
of Europe had broken down when the British rejected Metternich’s principle of intervention. And
although the British had failed to thwart allied intervention in Spain and Italy, they were successful
in keeping the continental powers from interfering with the revolutions in Latin America.”14 The
Concert was eroded by the revolutionary upheaval in 1848, the Crimean War, the unification of
Germany and the Risorgimento in Italy, and the Eastern Question and other factors. 15
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
13
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Reaction in Great Britain (1815-30): The British Navy and British subsidies had played
a major role to defeat Napoleon, but the people suffered from inflation and unemployment after
the wars. “The misery of agricultural classes was increased by the bad harvests of 1815 and 1816.
Within a few years half the population in many parishes was on the poor-rates. In the factory
towns thousands were thrown out of work, and even for the employers, with markets fluctuating
and uncertain, the struggle for survival was desperate. Banks and commercial companies went to
the wall by the hundreds. At the same time taxes were very heavy because the state was burdened
by a larger debt than ever before incurred by any nation. As a result of this maladjustment,
thousands in the towns and on the land were on the verge of utter destitution and whole country
was filled with discontent.”16 The government and the ruling Tories considered any measure of
reform as “dangerous firebrands” while whole ideas of governing was merely to enforce the old
laws in the old ways. “Great Britain was governed by the aristocratic landowning classes that
dominated both houses of Parliament. Suffrage for elections to the House of Commons, controlled
by the landed gentry, was restricted and unequal, especially in light of the changing distribution
of the British population due to the Industrial Revolution. Large, new industrial cities such as
Birmingham and Manchester, for example, had no representatives while landowners used pocket
and rotten boroughs to control seats in the House of Commons. Although the monarchy was not
yet powerless, in practice the power of the crown was largely in the hands of the ruling party in
Parliament. Within Parliament there were two political factions, the Tories and Whigs. Although
both of them were still dominated by members of the landed classes, the Whigs were beginning
to receive support from the new moneyed interests generated by industrialization. Tory ministers
largely dominated the government until 1830 and had little desire to change the existing political
and electoral system. Tory leadership during the Napoleonic wars made them wary of radicalism
and reform movements, an attitude that governed their activities after 1815.”17
“As neither the Tories nor the Whigs showed any understanding of the social misery that was
growing in the land, the agitation for reform fell into the hands of groups of radicals outside
Parliament.” The Luddites were English textile workers who protested against newly developed
labor-economizing technologies during 1811 and 1816. They launched night raids on factories to
smash the textile machines which they see as a threat to their livelihood. “These radicals had no
common organization or program, though nearly all of them shared the idea that the road to
improvement lay through a reform of Parliament…During the years 1816 to 1819 most of the
public gatherings that so outraged the authorities were organized by members of these societies.”
William Cobbett, a free-lance reformer, believed that “reforming Parliament and abolishing the
rotten boroughs would help to end the poverty of farm laborers.”18 The Hampden Clubs were
closely associated with the popular movements for social and political reform, though they were
eventually disbanded.19 The Tory government responded to falling agricultural prices with the
Corn Law of 1815, imposing high tariffs on foreign grain. Though beneficial to the land-owners,
subsequent high prices for bread made conditions for the working classes more difficult. As a
result of alarming reports on conspiracy, “Parliament forbade all public meetings, suppressed all
societies not licensed by government officials, and suspended the Habeas Corpus Act 20 until
March 1818…The courts tried a number of rioters and supposed conspirators and instituted suits
against offending newspapers which, in some cases, resulted in heavy sentences and, in others, in
dramatic acquittals. Public meetings ceased for a time and discontent was driven underground…
The newspapers and the periodical press, however, continued to present a grave problem to the
ministry…The press remained the only effective outlet for criticism of the existing regime. Many
editors and newspaper owners were haled into court for jury trial, but the state case often failed
because the prosecution labeled all criticism as treason.”21
14
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The repressive legislation of 1817, combined with the improvement in trade conditions and
an abundant harvest, brought a lull in the agitation for reform. Nevertheless, the election of 1818
returned thirty more Whigs to Parliament. This indicated that the governing classes were by no
means as unanimous in their support of repression as the ministry imagined. A moderate
opposition was growing both within the Tory ranks and among the Whigs…Another economic
flurry in 1819 brought on a wave of unemployment and a revival of radical agitation. The ministry
still continued its old policy of carrying on from day to day, repressing all opposition outside
Parliament and piously hoping for things to get better of themselves. The economic depression of
1819 proved to be far less severe than that of 1815-1817, but the political crisis became more
acute. During a series of strikes among the cotton workers in northern England, which continued
for several months, a number of agitators began to organize groups of the dissatisfied, and to hold
public meetings. Their language was often violent but their program called only for repeal of the
Corn Laws and reform of parliamentary representation. On these points the manufacturers and
the workers were in agreement, though the mill-owners, fearing violence, still played into the
hands of the Tory ministry.” “This mood of violence, with continuing economic depression in the
country, makes the ruling classes neurotically fearful of suspected radicals and obsessively
inclined to measures of repression. Peaceful protest and nervous authority come face to face in
Manchester in 1819. A crowd of citizens, gathering on St Peter's Fields to demand the reform of
parliament, is so alarmingly large (some 60,000 people) that the magistrates order troops to clear
the area. Mounted soldiers charge in and lay about with their sabres. Eleven people are killed and
about 500 wounded in an event which becomes known as the Peterloo Massacre, in an ironic echo
of the British army's rather better performance four years earlier at Waterloo.”22
Following the Peterloo Massacre of August 1819, the British government introduced new
legislation as follows, the so-called Six Acts which labelled any meeting for radical reform as an
overt act of treasonable conspiracy. “(i) The Training Prevention Act, now known as the Unlawful
Drilling Act 1819, made any person attending a meeting for the purpose of receiving training or
drill in weapons liable to arrest and transportation. More simply stated, military training of any
sort was to be conducted only by municipal bodies and above. (ii) The Seizure of Arms Act gave
local magistrates the powers to search any private property for weapons and seize them and arrest
the owners. (iii) The Misdemeanors Act attempted to increase the speed of the administration of
justice by reducing the opportunities for bail and allowing for speedier court processing. (iv) The
Seditious Meetings Prevention Act required the permission of a sheriff or magistrate in order to
convene any public meeting of more than 50 people if the subject of that meeting was concerned
with church or state matters. Additional people could not attend such meetings unless they were
inhabitants of the parish. (v) The Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act toughened the existing
laws to provide for more punitive sentences for the authors of such writings. The maximum
sentence was increased to fourteen years transportation. (vi) The Newspaper and Stamp Duties
Act extended and increased taxes to cover those publications which had escaped duty by
publishing opinion and not news. Publishers also were required to post a bond for their behavior.”
Whig opposition and calmer conditions in Europe forced the Six Acts eventually dropped.23 On
the other hand, “Though king for only ten years (1820-30), George IV is in effect the monarch for
the previous decade as well. George III is prone to fits of insanity. His son, already notorious for
a dissolute life of drink and gambling, becomes prince regent in 1811 when George III's new bout
of insanity seems likely to be permanent. The prince regent, though a Whig in his youth, retains
his father's Tory ministry to the end of his reign. By then there has been an unbroken spell of
thirty-six Tory years since George III appointed the young Pitt as his prime minister. In some
respects the Tories prove themselves well able to move with the times.”24
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
15
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
In 1822 the death of Castlereagh brought George Canning into secretary for foreign affairs;
Robert Peel became secretary for home affairs; and William Huskisson joined the cabinet soon
after. “Canning, the leader of these descending Tories, was convinced of the danger of delaying
necessary changes; with the aid of some colleagues who shared his opinions, he began to project
reform. It was soon evident that the economic and political outlook of these new Tory leaders was
very different from that of the squires and country parsons who composed the majority of the
party.” Canning denounced the French government for intervening in Spain, and championed the
cause of national self-determination: he was supportive of the liberation movements in Greece and
in Latin America. With more enforceable laws and with a new police force established by Peel in
1829, the British administration of justice became the best in Europe. Under Huskisson’s leadership and with the full support of the laissez-faire economists, public finance was reorganized and
the old mercantilists system was broken down. In 1824 the Combination Acts making trade
unionism illegal were repealed, though that was followed by a number of strikes. 25 During 18201825, economic conditions greatly improved in Britain as well as in continent. Early in 1828, the
Duke of Wellington became the head of the ministry, and brought him back to the old Tories.
Catholic Emancipation (1823-29): “The situation in Ireland heralded the end of one pillar of
the old order—namely, legal restrictions on the civil liberties of Roman Catholics. Irish disorders
centred, as they had since the Act of Union in 1801, on the issue of Catholic emancipation, a
favorite cause of the Whigs, who had been out of power since 1807. During the 18th century,
Catholics in England had achieved a measure of unofficial toleration, but in Ireland restrictions
against Catholics holding office were still rigorously enforced. In 1823 Daniel O’Connell, a
Dublin Roman Catholic lawyer, founded the Catholic Association, the object of which was to give
Roman Catholics in Ireland the same political and civil freedoms as Protestants. Employing
pioneering techniques of organization, involving the mobilization of the large numbers of the poor
and the excluded in great open-air demonstrations, O’Connell introduced a new form of mass
politics that galvanized opinion in Ireland while at the same time mobilized radical allies in
England. The result was the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829.”26
The Reform Act 1832: “A significant step in the crescendo of demand for reform comes in
1830 when the Tory majority in the House of Commons rejects a bill to extend the franchise to
Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. By the end of 1830 Wellington's Tory government has
fallen. A new Whig ministry, headed by Earl Grey, is committed to parliamentary reform. By
March 1831 a bill is ready. Presented to the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, the bill
causes astonished delight in the country, and outrage on the Tory benches, by the bold sweep of
its proposals. Most of the pocket and rotten boroughs are abolished, with their seats in the house
transferred to the industrial cities; the property qualification for electors, previously different all
over the country, is rationalized. Debate rages for seven nights, and when the time comes for a
vote the result could hardly be more dramatic. The bill passes by a majority of one. Grey and his
cabinet persuade the king to dissolve parliament for an election to be held, effectively on this one
issue…The Whigs sweep in with a majority of more than 100, and immediately carry in the House
of Commons a second Reform Bill. It is rejected in the lords in October 1831 by a majority of
forty-one. A third and modified bill is carried in the commons in March 1832, and then in the lords
by a small majority of nine. But crisis strikes when this bill too is rejected by the peers at the
committee stage in May. The Whig cabinet resigns and Wellington attempts to form a government
committed to more moderate reform. In the mood of the country few members of parliament will
support him, and within a few days he recommends that the king recall Grey. The Whigs return,
with the king's reluctant agreement to create sufficient new peers to carry the bill if necessary…On
7 June 1832 the bill receives the royal assent and becomes the Reform Act.”27
16
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Restoration of France: The French Revolution and Napoleon brought a series of major
changes to France, which the Bourbon Restoration did not reverse. “First of all, France became
highly centralized, with all decisions made in Paris. The political geography was completely
reorganized and made uniform. France was divided into 80+ departments, which have endured
into the 21st century. Each department had an identical administrative structure, and was tightly
controlled by a prefect appointed by Paris. The complex multiple overlapping legal jurisdictions
of the old regime had all been abolished, and there was now one standardized legal code,
administered by judges appointed by Paris, and supported by police under national control. The
Catholic Church lost all its lands and buildings during the Revolution, and these were sold off or
came under the control of local governments. The bishop still ruled his diocese (which was aligned
with the new department boundaries), and communicated with the pope through the government
in Paris. Bishops, priests, nuns and other religious people were paid salaries by the state. All the
old religious rites and ceremonies were retained, and the government maintained the religious
buildings…Education was centralized, with the Grand Master of the University of France
controlling every element of the entire educational system from Paris. New technical universities
were opened in Paris which to this day have a critical role in training the elite.” 28
“The old aristocracy had returned, and recovered much of the land they owned directly.
However, they completely lost all their old seigneurial rights to the rest of the farmland, and the
peasants were no longer under their control. The old aristocracy had dallied with the ideas of the
Enlightenment and rationalism. Now the aristocracy was much more conservative, and much more
supportive of the Catholic Church. For the best jobs, meritocracy was the new policy, and
aristocrats had to compete directly with the growing business and professional class. Anti-clerical
sentiment became stronger than ever before, but was now based in certain elements of the middle
class and indeed the peasantry as well. The great masses of the French people were peasants in the
countryside, or impoverished workers in the cities. They gained new rights, and a new sense of
possibilities. Although relieved of many of the old burdens, controls, and taxes, the peasantry was
still highly traditional in its social and economic behavior…The working class in the cities was a
small element, and had been freed of many restrictions imposed by medieval guilds. However
France was slow to industrialize, and much of the work remained drudgery without machinery or
technology to help. France was still localized…but now there was an emerging French nationalism
that showed its national pride in the Army and foreign affairs.”29
In April 1814, the Armies of the Sixth Coalition restored Louis XVIII (1814-24) of France to
the throne, the brother of Louis XVI. The Bourbon restoration lasted from April 1814 until the
popular uprising of the July Revolution 1830. “Louis was clever enough to realize that the restored
monarchy had to accept the constructive work of the revolutionary and Napoleon eras or face
disaster. Consequently, the constitutional Charter of 1814 maintained Napoleon’s Concordat with
the pope and accepted Napoleon’s Civil Code with its recognition of the principle of equality
before the law. The property rights of those who had purchased confiscated lands during the
Revolution were preserved. The Charter of 1814 also established a bicameral (two-house)
legislature with a Chamber of Peers chosen by the king and a Chamber of Deputies chosen by an
electorate restricted to slightly less than 100,000 wealthy people. Louis’s grudging moderation,
however, was opposed by liberals anxious to extend the revolutionary reforms and by a group of
ultra-royalists who criticized the king’s willingness to compromise and retain so many features of
the Napoleonic era. The ultras hoped to return to a monarchical system dominated by a privileged
landed aristocracy and to restore the Catholic Church to its former position of influence. The
initiative passed to the ultra-royalists in 1824 when Louis XVIII died and was succeeded by his
brother, the count of Artois, who became Charles X.” 30
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
17
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The reign of Charles X (1824-30) dramatized the failure of the Bourbons, after restoration,
“to reconcile the tradition of the monarchy by divine right with the democratic spirit produced in
the wake of the Revolution…Until the Bourbon Restoration in 1814, Charles travelled to Austria,
Prussia, Russia, and England. During this period he made an unsuccessful attempt to land in the
Vendée to lead the royalist rising there. Returning to France in 1814, he became the leader of the
Ultras, the party of extreme reaction during Louis XVIII’s reign.” After ascending the throne, his
popularity waned as his reign passed through three reactionary ministries. “During the first, former
émigrés were compensated for their nationalized lands, largely at the expense of bourgeois holders
of government bonds; greater power was granted to the clergy (by encouraging the church to
establish control over the French educational system), and the death penalty was imposed for
certain sacrileges. The second government, though more moderate, lasted only from January 1828
to August 1829, when liberals joined with the extreme right to defeat it. Losing patience and
ignoring public opinion, Charles called upon an extreme clericalist reactionary, the highly
unpopular prince Jules de Polignac, to form a government. A formidable agitation sprang up
which, making the King only more obstinate, culminated in the July Revolution of 1830.”31
In the late 1820s a series of progressively worsening grain harvest pushed up the prices on
various staple foods and cash crops. In response, the rural peasantry lobbied for the relaxation of
protective tariffs on grain to lower prices and ease their economic situation. However, Charles X
kept the tariffs in place under the pressure from wealthier landowners, so that peasants faced a
period of economic hardship with rising prices. Moreover, “international pressures, combined with
weakened purchasing power from the provinces, led to decreased economic activity in urban
centers. This industrial downturn contributed to the rising poverty levels among Parisian artisans.
Thus, by 1830, multiple demographics had suffered from the economic policies of Charles X.”
In March 1830, when liberal members objected to the Polignac ministry, Charles dissolved
the Chamber. The May elections returned a majority unfavorable to the King. On July 26 he issued
four ordinances – (1) Dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies; (2) Restriction of the press laws;
(3) Restriction of the franchise to only the wealthiest within France; and (4) Immediate new
elections based upon the new electorate - which, through their repressive measures, provoked
revolution by the Paris radicals. “The major cause of the regime's downfall, however, was that,
while it managed to keep the support of the aristocracy, the Catholic Church and even much of the
peasantry, the ultras' cause was deeply unpopular outside of parliament and with those who did
not hold the franchise, especially the industrial workers and the bourgeoisie. Charles abdicated in
favor of his grandson, the Comte de Chambord, and left for England. However, the liberal,
bourgeois-controlled Chamber of Deputies refused to confirm the Comte de Chambord as Henri
V. In a vote largely boycotted by conservative deputies, the body declared the French throne
vacant, and elevated Louis-Philippe (1830-48), Duke of Orléans, to power.”32
Political parties saw substantial changes of alignment and membership under restoration. The
principal parties during the Restoration were as follows. Constitutionals were mostly rich and
educated middle-class men: lawyers, senior officials of the empire, and academics; who feared the
triumph of the aristocracy, and that of the democrats. Doctrinaires promoted a return to a moderate
monarchy and were opposed to the extremists in the early period of the Restoration. Independents
were mostly lower middle class: doctors and lawyers, bourgeoisie, men of law, and, in rural
constituencies, traders of national goods; who rejected the charter, considering it too conservative.
Liberal loyalists preached movement towards more liberty and openness; that appeared in the last
years of the Restoration. Republicans, facing the representatives of the middle class, addressed
the miserable world of the disenfranchised worker. Ultra-royalists wished for a return to the
Ancien Regime, such as before 1789, with a view toward absolutism. 33
18
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Intervention in the Italian States and Spain: “The resulting Congress of Vienna (1814)
restored a situation close to that of 1795, dividing Italy between Austria (in the north-east and
Lombardy), the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and Tuscany, the Papal
States and other minor states in the center. However, old republics such as Venice and Genoa were
not recreated, Venice went to Austria, and Genoa went to the Kingdom of Sardinia. On Napoleon's
escape and return to France (the Hundred Days), he regained Murat's support, but Murat proved
unable to convince the Italians to fight for Napoleon with his Proclamation of Rimini and was
beaten and killed. The Italian kingdoms thus fell, and Italy's Restoration period began, with many
pre-Napoleonic sovereigns returned to their thrones. Piedmont, Genoa and Nice came to be united,
as did Sardinia (which went on to create the State of Savoy), while Lombardy, Veneto, Istria and
Dalmatia were re-annexed to Austria. The dukedoms of Parma and Modena re-formed, and the
Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples returned to the Bourbons. The political and social events
in the restoration period of Italy (1815–1835) led to popular uprisings throughout the peninsula
and greatly shaped what would become the Italian Wars of Independence.”34
Naples: Parts of the Neapolitan middle class took action against King Ferdinand I who ended
the 1812 constitution aggravated liberals. A small band of troops and members of the Carbonari
secret society marched on Avellino near Naples, chose General Pepe as their leader, and marched
onto Naples with three regiments in July 1820. Ferdinand granted a constitution: representatives
were elected, and the new parliament met in October - the majority of deputies were moderates,
chosen almost exclusively from the lower nobility and the professional classes. Nonetheless,
Ferdinand asked Metternich to crush it. An Austrian force composed of Croat and Hungarian
soldiers was sent to Naples in February 1821, and restored him to power. Sicily had rebelled too,
but the order was quickly restored as troops returned on the orders of Ferdinand and the parliament.
Piedmont: Young army officers and members of the Carbonari disliked Victor Emmanuel I’s
regime that had abolished all of the French reforms. The church’s power and status were restored
while Jews were confined to ghettoes. After an initial rebellion in the fortress of Alessandria, a
second phase in Turin saw the king rapidly abdicate in favor of his younger brother, Charles Felix.
He, however, was not in the country and so Charles Albert stood in. While Charles Felix travelled
back, Charles Albert seemed to sympathize with the rebels and he granted a constitution which
extended voting rights to some but fell short of the radicals’ demands for a democracy. On his
return, Charles Felix took power and immediately ended this constitution. He asked Austria to
help him: the Austrian force defeated rebels and hundreds of them fled into exile.
In Lombardy and Venetia, there was also minor unrest that was crushed by Austria with little
difficulty. The rebellions failed because Austria was too strong, while the rebels’ efforts had also
been too weak. “There was no coordination between them as each uprising was isolated; the
rebellion in Sicily was separatist and the liberal parliament in Naples was as opposed to the Sicilian
revolt as the king himself. They did not work together because the risings were liberal rather than
nationalistic; they had sought constitutions and, on the mainland, had hoped to work with the
existing rulers. However, the rebels were drawn from the middle classes and they generally lacked
the support of the peasantry which made up the vast majority of the population.”35 In other words,
many of the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula cared little about that Italy had shifted from French
to Austrian control in 1815. “A small, educated middle class in the cities of northern Italy,
however, who had benefited from Napoleon’s changes, objected to the restoration of despotic
governments controlled by Austria.” In fact, they were not interested in ideas of nationalism
proposed by revolutionary sectarians or members of Carbonari, but only in their material wellbeing and the efficient administration of just laws, while they were suppressed by censorship,
secret police or international intervention by Metternich in Vienna.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
19
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Restoration in Spain: The rule of the Spanish Bourbons continued since the War of the
Spanish Succession. After opposing Revolutionary France early in the French Revolutionary
Wars, Spain was cajoled into an uneasy alliance with its northern neighbor, only to be blockaded
by the British. “Charles IV's vacillation, culminating in his failure to honor the alliance by
neglecting to enforce the Continental System led to Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, invading
Spain in 1808, thereby triggering the Peninsular War, with enormous human and property losses,
and loss of control over most of the overseas empire. During most of the 18th century Spain had
arrested its relative decline of the latter part of the 17th century. But despite the progress, it
continued to lag in the political and mercantile developments then transforming other parts of
Europe, most notably in Great Britain, the Low Countries, and France. The chaos unleashed by
the Peninsular War caused this gap to widen greatly and Spain would not have an Industrial
Revolution.” 36 Having lost most of its colonies in 1826, Spain lagged behind other European
nations. “Among the reasons were the unbroken power of the Catholic Church, a wealthy elite
owning most of the land, in the 19th century dysfunctional democracy and corruption.”
Although Spain was occupied by Napoleon from 1808 to 1814, “The Spanish Constitution of
1812 was established on 19 March 1812 by the Cádiz Cortes, Spain's first national sovereign
assembly. It abolish the Inquisition and Absolute monarchy in Spain and Americas, and
established the principles of universal male suffrage, national sovereignty, constitutional
monarchy and freedom of the press, and supported land reform and free enterprise.” However,
after returning to Spain in March 1814, Ferdinand VII refused to agree to the liberal Spanish
constitution of 1812 on his accession to the throne; “the king had signed on to agreements with
the clergy, the church, and with the nobility in his country to return to the earlier state of affairs
even before the fall of Napoleon. The decision to abrogate the Constitution was not welcomed by
all, however. Liberals in Spain felt betrayed by the king who they had decided to support, and
many of the local juntas that had pronounced against the rule of Joseph Bonaparte lost confidence
in the king's rule. The army, which had backed the pronouncements, had liberal leanings that made
the king's position tenuous. Even so, agreements made at the Congress of Vienna starting a year
later would cement international support for the old, absolutist regime in Spain.”37
“A conspiracy of liberal mid-ranking officers in the expedition being outfitted at Cadiz
mutinied before they were shipped to the Americas. Led by Rafael del Riego, the conspirators
seized their commander and led their army around Andalusia hoping to gather support; garrisons
across Spain declared their support for the would-be revolutionaries. Riego and his co-conspirators
demanded that the liberal Constitution of 1812 be restored. Before the coup became an outright
revolution, King Ferdinand agreed to the demands of the revolutionaries and swore by the
constitution. A Progresista (liberal) government was appointed, though the king expressed his
disaffection with the new administration and constitution. Three years of liberal rule (the Trienio
Liberal) followed…More radical liberals attempted to revolt against the entire idea of a monarchy,
constitutional or otherwise, in 1821; these republicans were suppressed, though the incident served
to illustrate the frail coalition that bound the Progresista government together. The election of a
radical liberal government in 1823 further destabilized Spain. The army – whose liberal leanings
had brought the government to power – began to waver when the Spanish economy failed to
improve, and in 1823, a mutiny in Madrid had to be suppressed. The Jesuits were banned again
by the radical government. For the duration of liberal rule, King Ferdinand lived under virtual
house arrest in Madrid.”38 The Congress of Verona authorized France to intervene; in April 1823
a massive French army of 100,000 crossed the Pyrenees, and restored absolute rule of Ferdinand
VII with old conservative values to the government: the Jesuit Order and the Spanish Inquisition
were reinstated once more, and some autonomy was again devolved to the some provinces.
20
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Repression in Central Europe: The German Confederation was an association of 39
German states in Central Europe, created by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. It has roughly the
same boundaries as the Holy Roman Empire of 1789. The members pledged themselves to mutual
defense, and joint maintenance of the some fortresses. Its only organ was the Federal Assembly,
consisting of the delegates from member states. As Metternich dominated the Confederation
during 1815-48, the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia, each feared domination by the
other. “In Prussia the Hohenzollern rulers forged a centralized state. By the time of the Napoleonic
Wars, Prussia was a socially and institutionally backward state, grounded in the virtues of its
established military aristocracy (the Junkers), stratified by rigid hierarchical lines. After 1815,
Prussia's defeats by Napoleonic France highlighted the need for administrative, economic, and
social reforms to improve the efficiency of the bureaucracy and encourage practical merit-based
education. Inspired by the Napoleonic organization of German and Italian principalities, the
reforms of Karl August von Hardenberg and Count Stein were conservative, enacted to preserve
aristocratic privilege while modernizing institutions. Outside Prussia, industrialization progressed
slowly, and was held back because of political disunity, conflicts of interest between the nobility
and merchants, and the continued existence of the guild system, which discouraged competition
and innovation. While this kept the middle class at bay, affording the old order a measure of
stability not seen in France, Prussia's vulnerability to Napoleon's military proved to many among
the old order that a fragile, divided, and traditionalist Germany would be easy prey for its cohesive
and industrializing neighbor. The reforms laid the foundation for Prussia's future military might
by professionalizing the military and decreeing universal military conscription. In order to
industrialize Prussia, working within the framework provided by the old aristocratic institutions,
land reforms were enacted to break the monopoly of the Junkers on land ownership, thereby also
abolishing, among other things, the feudal practice of serfdom.”39
Although the forces unleashed by the French Revolution were seemingly under control after
the Vienna Congress, the conflict between conservative forces and liberal nationalists was only
deferred at best. The era until the failed 1848 revolution, in which these tensions built up, is
commonly referred to as Vormärz (pre-March), in reference to the outbreak of riots in March 1848.
This conflict pitted the forces of the old order against those inspired by the French Revolution and
the Rights of Man. The sociological breakdown of the competition was, roughly, one side engaged
mostly in commerce, trade and industry, and the other side associated with landowning aristocracy
or military aristocracy (the Junker) in Prussia, the Habsburg monarchy in Austria, and the
conservative notables of the small princely states and city-states in Germany. Meanwhile,
demands for change from below had been fomenting since the influence of the French Revolution.
Throughout the German Confederation, Austrian influence was paramount, drawing the ire of the
nationalist movements. Metternich considered nationalism, especially the nationalist youth
movement, the most pressing danger: German nationalism might not only repudiate Austrian
dominance of the Confederation, but also stimulate nationalist sentiment within the Austrian
Empire itself. In a multi-national polyglot state in which Slavs and Magyars outnumbered the
Germans, the prospects of Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Serb, or Croatian sentiment along
with middle class liberalism was certainly horrifying…Friedrich Jahn's gymnastic associations
exposed middle class German youth to nationalist and democratic ideas, which took the form of
the nationalistic and liberal democratic college fraternities known as the Burschenschaften. The
Wartburg Festival in 1817 celebrated Martin Luther as a proto-German nationalist, linking
Lutheranism to German nationalism, and helping arouse religious sentiments for the cause of
German nationhood.” Moreover, in high culture, German artists and intellectuals, heavily
influenced by the French Revolution, turned to Romanticism.40
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
21
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Klemens von Metternich became Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire in 1809, and held
the post of the Chancellor of State from 1821 until 1848. “During this period, Metternich
controlled the Habsburg Monarchy's foreign policy. He also had a major influence in European
politics. He was known for his strong conservative views and approach in politics. Metternich's
policies were strongly against revolution and liberalism. In his opinion, liberalism was a form of
legalized revolution. Metternich believed that absolute monarchy was the only proper system of
government. This notion influenced his anti-revolutionary policy to ensure the continuation of the
Habsburg monarchy in Europe. Metternich was a practitioner of balance-of-power diplomacy. His
foreign policy aimed to maintain international political equilibrium to preserve the Habsburgs'
power and influence in international affairs. Following the Napoleonic Wars, Metternich was the
chief architect of the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The Austrian Empire was the main beneficiary
from the Congress of Vienna and it established an alliance with Britain, Prussia, and Russia
forming the Quadruple Alliance. The Austrian Empire also gained new territories from the
Congress of Vienna, and its influence expanded to the north through the German Confederation
and also into Italy. Due to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Austria was the leading member of the
German Confederation. Following the Congress, the major European powers agreed to meet and
discuss resolutions in the event of future disputes or revolutions. Because of Metternich's main
role in the architecture of the Congress, these meetings are also referred to as the Metternich
congress or Metternich system…Under Metternich, nationalist revolts in Austrian north Italy and
the German states were forcibly crushed. At home, he pursued a similar policy to suppress
revolutionary and liberal ideals. He employed the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819, which used strict
censorship of education, press and speech to repress revolutionary and liberal concepts. Metternich
also used a wide-ranging spy network to dampen down unrest.”41
“Metternich operated very freely with regard to foreign policy under Emperor Francis I's
reign. Francis died in 1835. This date marks the decline of Metternich's influence in the Austrian
Empire. Francis' heir was his son Ferdinand I, but he suffered from an intellectual disability.
Ferdinand's accession preserved the Habsburg dynastic succession, but he was not capable of
ruling. The leadership of the Austrian Empire was transferred to a state council composed of
Metternich, Francis I's brother Archduke Louis, and Count Franz Anton Kolowrat, who later
became the first Minister-President of the Austrian Empire. The liberal Revolutions of 1848 in the
Austrian Empire forced Metternich's resignation. Metternich is remembered for his success in
maintaining the status quo and the Habsburg influence in international affairs. No Habsburg
foreign minister following Metternich held a similar position.” “The internal condition of the
Austrian Empire, which lay at the center of the Hapsburg domains, had been little affected by the
Napoleonic wars; the population accepted the government’s censorship and its parental rule. The
provinces of Austria, as well as the outlying sections of the empire inhabited by Czechs, Slovaks,
Magyars, Rumanians, and Croats, had local diets which were constituted in the medieval fashion
of estates. They met rarely and for brief sessions; that of Hungary had no meeting from 1812 to
1825. They possessed no real power. Throughout the empire there was practically no middle
class, only nobles and peasants. The strongest parts of the government machine were the police
and the army. The administration carefully distributed the latter; Hungarian regiments garrisoned
Lombardy and Venetia, German soldiers were sent to Bohemia, and Croats defended Hungary.
The central administration at Vienna, in striking contrast to that at Berlin, was not coordinated.
There was no regularly organized ministry; each department went its own way or rusted in its
groove. Metternich tried to improve this administrative chaos, but failed to make way against old
privileges and vested interests…The thirty-nine German states, following the arrangements made
at Vienna, were not united into a federated Bund under the presidency of Austria.” 42
22
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Prussian Reforms after 1815: Prussia was defeated by Napoleon at the battles of Jena and
Auerstedt in 1806, lost about a half its territory and was forced to make massive tribute payment
to France. To make those payments, it needed to rationalize its administration. Heinrich von Stein
and Karl von Hardenberg were main instigators for reforms. “Prussia's defeat and subjection also
demonstrated the weaknesses of its absolutist model of statehood and excluded it from among the
great powers of Europe. To become a great power again, it initiated reforms from 1807 onwards,
based on Enlightenment ideas and in line with reforms in other European nations. They led to the
reorganization of Prussia's government and administration and changes in its agricultural trade
regulations, including the abolition of serfdom and allowing peasants to become landowners. In
industry, the reforms aimed to encourage competition by suppressing the monopoly of guilds. The
administration was decentralized and the nobility's power reduced.”
Main reform fields: “The reforms which were to be put in place were essentially a synthesis
between historic and progressive concepts. Their aim was to replace the absolutist state structures
which had become outdated. The state would have to offer its citizens the possibility of becoming
involved in public affairs on the basis of personal freedom and equality before the law. The
government's main policy aim was to make it possible to liberate Prussian territory from French
occupation and return the kingdom to great-power status through modernizing domestic policy.
The Prussian subject had to become an active citizen of the state thanks to the introduction of selfgovernment to the provinces, districts and towns. National sentiment had to be awakened as Stein
foresaw in his Nassau work, but a citizen's duties were in some ways more important than his or
her rights. Moreover, Stein's concept of self-government rested on a class-based society. A
compromise between corporative aspects and a modern representative system was put in place.
The old divisions into the three estates of nobility, clergy and bourgeoisie were replaced by
divisions into nobility, bourgeoisie and peasants. The right to vote also had to be expanded,
particularly to free peasants, which would be one of the bases for the freeing of the peasants in
1807. The new organization of power in the countryside and reform of industry were factors in
the liberalization of the Prussian economy. In this respect, the Prussian reforms went much further
than those in the states of the Confederation of the Rhine and were much more successful. The
1806 financial crisis, intensified by the indemnities, the occupation costs and other war costs, gave
the necessary impetus for these changes – in all, Prussia had to pay France 120 million francs. The
freeing of the peasants, the industrial reforms and the other measures removed economic barriers
and imposed free competition. The Prussian reforms relied on the economic liberalism of Adam
Smith more heavily than the south German reformers. The Prussian reformers did not actively
seek to encourage Prussian industry, which was then under-developed.”43
Liberal and national movements: “The very first one, called Urburschenschaft, was founded
on June 12, 1815 at Jena as an association drawn from all German university students inspired by
liberal and patriotic ideas. Its purpose was to break down society lines and to destroy rivalry in the
student body, to improve student life and increase patriotism. It was intended to draw its members
from a broader population base than the Corps. At first, a significant component of its membership
were students who had taken part in the German wars of liberation against the Napoleonic
occupation of Germany…The Burschenschaften were student associations that engaged in
numerous social activities. However, their most important goal was to foster loyalty to the concept
of a united German national state as well as strong engagement for freedom, rights, and
democracy. Quite often Burschenschaften decided to stress extreme nationalist or sometimes also
liberal ideas, leading in time to the exclusion of Jews, who were considered to be un-German.”44
Metternich banned it by issuing the reactionary Carlsbad Decrees in 1819. It provided censorship
of the press and placed the universities under close supervision and control.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
23
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Russia - Autocracy of the Tsars: In 1800 Russia was overwhelmingly rural, agricultural,
and autocratic. The Russian tsar was still regarded as a divine-right monarch with unlimited
power. Most of land were owned by nobles who monopolized the civil and military services, and
tilled by serfs. Alexander I (1801–1825) came to the throne as the result of his father's murder, in
which he was rumored to be implicated. “Groomed for the throne by Catherine II and raised in the
spirit of enlightenment, Alexander also had an inclination toward romanticism and religious
mysticism, particularly in the latter period of his reign. Alexander reorganized the central
government, replacing the colleges that Peter the Great had set up with ministries…Alexander
was, perhaps, the most brilliant diplomat of his time, and his primary focus was not on domestic
policy but on foreign affairs, and particularly on Napoleon. Fearing Napoleon's expansionist
ambitions and the growth of French power, Alexander joined Britain and Austria against
Napoleon. Napoleon defeated the Russians and Austrians at Austerlitz in 1805 and defeated the
Russians at Friedland in 1807. After the Russian armies officially liberated allied Georgia from
Persian occupation earlier in 1801, making Persia officially lose control over Georgia which it had
been ruling for centuries, Alexander fought the Russo-Persian War (1804–13), the first full-scale
war against neighboring Persia starting in 1804, over control and consolidation over Georgia, but
also eventually Azerbaijan, Dagestan and the entire Caucasus in general, which was for large
swaths of it an integral territory of Persia. With France Alexander was forced to sue for peace, and
by the Treaty of Tilsit, signed in 1807, he became Napoleon's ally. Russia lost little territory under
the treaty, and Alexander made use of his alliance with Napoleon for further expansion. By the
Finnish War he wrested the Grand Duchy of Finland from Sweden in 1809, and acquired
Bessarabia from Turkey as a result of the Russo-Turkish War, 1806-1812.”45
“Alexander was determined to acquire the disputed territories of major importance in the
Caucasus and beyond…By now, Russia had both full comfortable access to the Black Sea, and
Caspian Sea and it would use these newly gained grounds for further wars against Persia and
Turkey. The Russo-French alliance gradually became strained. Napoleon was concerned about
Russia's intentions in the strategically vital Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. At the same time,
Alexander viewed the Duchy of Warsaw, the French-controlled reconstituted Polish state, with
suspicion. The requirement of joining France's Continental Blockade against Britain was a serious
disruption of Russian commerce, and in 1810 Alexander repudiated the obligation. In June 1812,
Napoleon invaded Russia with 600,000 troops - a force twice as large as the Russian regular army.
Napoleon hoped to inflict a major defeat on the Russians and force Alexander to sue for peace. As
Napoleon pushed the Russian forces back, however, he became seriously overextended. Obstinate
Russian resistance, members of which declared the Patriotic War, brought Napoleon a disastrous
defeat: Less than 30,000 of his troops returned to their homeland. Victory came at a high cost
though, as the areas of the country that the French army had marched through lay in ruins. As the
French retreated, the Russians pursued them into Central and Western Europe and to the gates of
Paris. After the allies defeated Napoleon, Alexander became known as the savior of Europe, and
he played a prominent role in the redrawing of the map of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in
1815. In the same year, Alexander initiated the creation of the Holy Alliance, a loose agreement
pledging the rulers of the nations involved - including most of Europe - to act according to
Christian principles. More pragmatically, in 1814 Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia had formed
the Quadruple Alliance. The allies created an international system to maintain the territorial status
quo and prevent the resurgence of an expansionist France. The Quadruple Alliance, confirmed by
a number of international conferences, ensured Russia's influence in Europe.” At the same time,
Russia continued its expansion: Alexander became the constitutional monarch of Poland, and the
empire also was firmly ensconced in Alaska, though it was sold to the United States in 1867.
24
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“Despite the liberal, romantic inclinations of his youth, Alexander I after 1815 grew steadily
more conservative, isolated from the day-to-day affairs of the state, and inclined to religious
mysticism. The lofty hopes that the tsar had once held for his country were frustrated by the
immense size and backwardness of it. While vacationing on the Black Sea in 1825, Alexander fell
ill with typhus and died at only 47, although there were unfounded stories that he faked his own
death, became a monk, and wandered the Siberian wilderness for many years afterwards. Some
historians have argued that a revolutionary movement was born during the reign of Alexander I.
The Decembrist plot was an aristocratic movement, whose chief actors were army officers and
members of the nobility. The reasons for Decembrist Uprising were manifold: opposition on part
of the nobility to the regime that successfully limited their privileges through its peasant policy,
spread among a section of young officers of liberal and even radical ideas, fears among nationalist
section of society, inspired by Alexander perceived Polonofile policy (officers were particularly
incensed that Alexander had granted Poland a constitution while Russia remained without one).
Several clandestine organizations were preparing for an uprising after Alexander's death. There
was confusion about who would succeed him because the next in line, his brother Constantine
Pavlovich, had relinquished his right to the throne. A group of officers commanding about 3,000
men refused to swear allegiance to the new tsar, Alexander's brother Nicholas, proclaiming instead
their loyalty to the idea of a Russian constitution. Because these events occurred in December
1825, the rebels were called Decembrists. Nicholas easily overcame the revolt, and the
Decembrists who remained alive were arrested. Many were exiled to Siberia.” 46
Nicholas I (1825-55) inherited his brother's throne despite the failed Decembrist revolt against
him and went on to become the most reactionary of all Russian leaders. He sought to prevent
rebellion in Russia by strengthening the government bureaucracy, increasing censorship, and
suppressing individual freedom by the use of political police. “Nicholas gave no serious thought
to any sort of liberalism or political reforms, preferring to rule through the bureaucracy. Alexander
had taken steps to improve and modernize the structure of the Russian state, adding a variety of
new governmental departments to oversee agriculture, internal security, industrial and
infrastructure development, and public health. He had also given thought at various times to
creating a representative Parliament, which would not see fruition for a century. As noted above
however, Russia proved such an immense, impoverished, and backwards nation that these
departments had very little actual authority, in part due to lack of funds, also because of being
stonewalled by the landowning nobility. Nicholas continued these administrative innovations, but
made the ministers responsible solely to him. Overall, the effect was to steadily centralize more
and more power in the tsar's hands.” The Decembrist uprising had increased Nicholas's distrust
of the nobility and dislike of anything resembling political reform, even among the upper classes.
Education gradually continued to improve. “His aggressive foreign policy involved many
expensive wars, having a disastrous effect on the empire's finances. He was successful against
Russia's neighboring southern rivals as he seized the last territories in the Caucasus held by Persia
(comprising modern day Armenia and Azerbaijan) by successfully ending the Russo-Persian War
(1826–28). By now, Russia had gained what is now Dagestan, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia
from Persia, and had therefore at last gained the clear upper hand in the Caucasus, both geopolitically as well as territorially. He ended the Russo-Turkish War (1828–29) successfully as
well. Later on, however, he led Russia into the Crimean War (1853–56) with disastrous results.
Historians emphasize that his micromanagement of the armies hindered his generals, as did his
misguided strategy. Fuller notes that historians have frequently concluded that the reign of
Nicholas I was a catastrophic failure in both domestic and foreign policy. On the eve of his death,
the Russian Empire reached its geographical zenith…but in desperate need of reform.”47
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
25
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Figure I-1-1. The Revolt of Latin America
Source: http://images.slideplayer.com/12/3590310/slides/slide_12.jpg
Map I-1-2. Latin American Independence, 1810-38
Source: http://go.grolier.com/map?id=mh00089&pid=go
26
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Revolt of Latin America: “While much of North America had been freed of European
domination in the eighteenth century by the American Revolution, Latin America remained in the
hands of the Spanish and Portuguese. Napoleon’s continental wars at the beginning of the
nineteenth century, however, soon had repercussions in Latin America. When Bourbon monarchy
of Spain was toppled by Bonaparte, Spanish authority in its colonial empire was weakened. By
1810, the disintegration of royal power in Argentina had led to that nation’s independence. In
Venezuela a bitter struggle for independence was led by Simon Bolivar, hailed as the Liberator.
His forces freed Colombia in 1819 and Venezuela in 1821. A second liberator was Jose de San
Martin who liberated Chile in 1817 and then, in 1821, moved on to Lima, Peru, the center of
Spanish authority. He was soon joined by Bolivar who assumed the task of crushing the last
significant Spanish army in 1821. Mexico and the Central American provinces also achieved their
freedom, and by 1825, after Portugal had recognized the independence of Brazil, almost all of
Latin America had been freed of colonial domination.” However, flushed by the success in
crushing rebellions in Spain and Italy, “the victorious continental powers favored the use of troops
to restore Spanish control in Latin America. This time British opposition to intervention prevailed.
Eager to gain access to an entire continent for investment and trade, the British proposed joint
action with the United States against European interference in Latin America. Distrustful of
British motives, President James Monroe (1817-1825) acted alone in 1823, guaranteeing the
independence of the new Latin American nations and warning against any further European
intervention in the New World in the famous Monroe Doctrine.” 48
(a) Independence – Peru and Haiti: “The leader of this uprising, José Gabriel Condorcanqui
(d. 1781), a descendant of the Incas, first attempted to petition for the rights of his people through
legal channels. When legal attempts failed, he took the name of the last Inca ruler and led an
uprising that quickly spread throughout the southern Andes. The insurgents sacked Spanish
haciendas and obrajes (textile mills), driven by messianic dreams of a renewed Inca empire that
would free the indigenous peoples from hunger, injustice, oppression, and exploitation. The
Spanish captured Tupac Amaru and other leaders of the uprising six months later and executed
them in Cuzco, the former capital of the Inca Empire. This did not end the rebellion but shifted its
focus south to Bolivia, where under the leadership of Aymara people it entered a more radical,
violent, and explicitly anti-colonial phase. In this phase, the insurgents captured and held the city
of La Paz for several months and threatened the silver mines at Potosí - a direct challenge to
Spanish wealth and power. The Spanish finally captured and executed the leaders and the uprising
eventually collapsed. This revolt has sometimes been seen as a forward-looking antecedent to the
successful creole independence movements that came forty years later and sometimes as a
reactionary messianic movement that sought to return to the time of the Inca Empire.” On the
other hand, “Haiti was a French colony, and its production of sugar, cotton, and indigo made it
one of the most important colonies in the world. Soaring sugar profits for French planters in the
eighteenth century led to a dramatic increase in the number of African slaves they imported to
work the plantations. By the end of the century, about 80 percent of the Haitian people were
overworked and underfed slaves. Nevertheless, Haitian independence movements began in 1789
not as a slave revolt but from the small elite class of planters, who had been influenced by the
French Revolution's rhetoric of liberty, equality, fraternity. For the planters, liberty meant home
rule and freedom from French tariff structures. The whites armed the slaves to fight the French,
but instead, under the leadership of Toussaint L'Ouverture (1743–1803), slaves took advantage of
the opportunity to revolt and destroyed the old society” By the time Jean-Jacques Dessalines
declared Haitian independence in 1804, the sugar economy had disappeared and been displaced
by subsistence agriculture.” This had agitated for independence elsewhere in Latin America. 49
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
27
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Neocolonialism: “By the 1820s, most of Latin America had gained political independence
from its colonial masters. With Iberian mercantile restrictions gone, northern European (and
particularly British) capital flooded the region. As critics have noted, a legacy of colonization was
a blocking of moves toward industrialization, which would have represented little gain for colonial
powers. This trend continued with the British (and later the United States) extracting raw materials
from and importing finished goods into the region. The infrastructure, such as the railroad systems,
was designed to transport products from mines and plantations to seaports rather than to integrate
a country. The economic benefits of this trade accrued to foreign powers, with wages and living
standards remaining depressed as resources were drained away from the domestic economy.
Neocolonialism also led to cultural shifts. For example, predominantly Catholic Latin American
countries implemented freedom of religion in order to encourage foreign investment from
Protestant powers. Despite formal independence, external economic forces determined many of
the domestic policies in Latin America. This irony has come to be known as neocolonialism.
Nineteenth-century examples of neocolonialism include the export of Peruvian guano and Chilean
nitrates, which fueled an agricultural boom in Europe.”
(c) Anti-Imperialism: When the Haitian sugar economy collapsed with the slave revolt at the
end of the eighteenth century, much of this production shifted to the neighboring island of Cuba.
As a result, while other colonial economies stagnated, leading to elite discontent with European
rule, the Cuban economy took off, undercutting any impetus for a serious anticolonial movement.
As a result, the island remained a Spanish colony until the end of the nineteenth century. José
Martí (1853–1895) perhaps best represents Cuban anticolonial movements. Born to peninsular
parents (his father was a Spanish official), he was a teenage rebel who was exiled to Spain for his
political activities and later worked in the United States as a journalist. He was killed in battle on
19 May 1895, when he returned to the island to join the anticolonial struggle. Much of Martí's
ideology emerged out of the context of nineteenth-century liberalism, but his contact with radical
movements in the United States also imbued his anti-colonialism with aspects of social revolution.
Rather than seeking to merely change one elite for another, as had happened when colonialism
ended in most other American republics, he wanted true social changes. He was an anti-imperialist
and a revolutionary nationalist who worked against economic dependency as well as for political
independence. Martí, like Venezuelan independence leader Simón Bolívar (1783–1830) before
him and Argentine-born guerrilla leader Ernesto Che Guevara (1928–1967) after him, called for a
unified America to confront the common problems left by a legacy of European colonization.”
(d) Non-Spanish Caribbean: “Spain maintained - and then lost - control over the largest and
most populous islands of Cuba, Hispaniola, and Puerto Rico, known as the Greater Antilles. Other
European powers, including the British, French, and Dutch, intruded into the Spanish domain and
established a significant presence, particularly on the smaller islands, known as the Lesser
Antilles, where descendants of African slaves and Asian indentured workers imported to replace
the decimated indigenous population led many of the anticolonial movements. As they did in
Africa and Asia, modern nationalist anti-colonial movements in much of the Caribbean emerged
in the aftermath of World War II, with its emphasis on the values of democracy and self-determination…independence movements in the Caribbean must be understood in the context of these
broader decolonization efforts. During the second half of the twentieth century, some of the islands
gained their independence, although the British, French, and Dutch still retained colonial control
over several smaller islands. Many of the residents benefited economically from access to
European welfare systems, which dampened anticolonial agitation. Even after independence,
many of the colonies maintained close relationships with their mother countries, leaving imprints
on their political culture that marked them as significantly different from Latin America.” 50
28
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Greek War of Independence (1821-32): “The rebellion originated in the activities of
the Philikí Etaireía (Friendly Brotherhood), a patriotic conspiracy founded in Odessa (now in
Ukraine) in 1814. By that time the desire for some form of independence was common among
Greeks of all classes, whose Hellenism, or sense of Greek nationality, had long been fostered by
the Greek Orthodox Church, by the survival of the Greek language, and by the administrative
arrangements of the Ottoman Empire. Their economic progress and the impact of Western
revolutionary ideas further intensified their Hellenism. The revolt began in March 1821 when
Alexandros Ypsilantis, the leader of the Etairists, crossed the Prut River into Turkish-held
Moldavia with a small force of troops. Ypsilantis was soon defeated by the Turks, but, in the
meantime, on March 25, 1821, sporadic revolts against Turkish rule had broken out in the
Peloponnese (Modern Greek: Pelopónnisos), in Greece north of the Gulf of Corinth, and on several
islands. Within a year the rebels had gained control of the Peloponnese, and in January 1822 they
declared the independence of Greece. The Turks attempted three times (1822–24) to invade the
Peloponnese but were unable to retrieve the area. Internal rivalries, however, prevented the Greeks
from extending their control and from firmly consolidating their position in the Peloponnese. In
1823 civil war broke out between the guerrilla leader Theódoros Kolokotrónis and Geórgios
Kountouriótis, who was head of the government that had been formed in January 1822 but that
was forced to flee to the island of Hydra (Ýdra) in December 1822. After a second civil war (1824),
Kountouriótis was firmly established as leader, but his government and the entire revolution were
gravely threatened by the arrival of Egyptian forces, led by Ibrāhīm Pasha, which had been sent
to aid the Turks (1825). With the support of Egyptian sea power, the Ottoman forces successfully
invaded the Peloponnese; they furthermore captured Missolonghi in April 1826, the town of
Athens (Athína) in August 1826, and the Athenian acropolis in June 1827.”51
“The principle of intervention proved to be a double-edged sword. Designed to prevent
revolution, it could also be used to support revolution if the great powers found it in their interest
to do so. Despite their differences in the Congresses, Great Britain, France, and Russia found
cause for cooperation.” “The Greek cause, however, was saved by the intervention of the
European powers. Favoring the formation of an autonomous Greek state, they offered to mediate
between the Turks and the Greeks (1826 and 1827). When the Turks refused, Great Britain,
France, and Russia sent their naval fleets to Navarino, where, on Oct. 20, 1827, they destroyed the
Egyptian fleet. Although this severely crippled the Ottoman forces, the war continued,
complicated by the Russo-Turkish War (1828–29). A Greco-Turkish settlement was finally
determined by the European powers at a conference in London; they adopted a London protocol
(Feb. 3, 1830), declaring Greece an independent monarchical state under their protection. By mid1832 the northern frontier of the new state had been set along the line extending from south of
Volos to south of Árta; Prince Otto of Bavaria had accepted the crown, and the Turkish sultan had
recognized Greek independence (Treaty of Constantinople; July 1832).” 52 “The Greek revolt
made a deep impression on Europeans. It was the first successful revolt against the status quo and
represented a victory for both the liberal and the national forces that the great powers were trying
so hard to repress. But to keep this in perspective, we need to remember that the European powers
did not quite see it that way. They had given the Greeks a German king, and the revolution had
been successful only because the great powers themselves supported it. Until 1830 the Greek
revolt had been the only successful one in Europe; the conservative domination was still largely
intact.”53 “An independent Greek state had been established, but with Britain, Russia and France
claiming a major role in Greek politics, an imported Bavarian dynast as ruler, and a mercenary
army. The country had been ravaged by ten years of fighting, was full of displaced refugees and
empty Turkish estates, necessitating a series of land reforms over several decades.”54
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
29
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-1-3. Russo-Turkish War 1828-29
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1828–29)#/media/File
Photo I-1-2. The Naval Battle of Navarino painted by Garneray (1827)
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Naval_Battle_of_Navarino_by_Garneray.jpg
30
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Change of Ideologies: Although the conservative forces were in the ascendancy from
1815 to 1830, a series of political ideologies is developed and continue to affect the entire world.
(a) Liberalism: “Whereas classical liberalism emphasizes the role of liberty, social liberalism
stresses the importance of equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their
understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic
societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation. (i) Political
Liberalism: It first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when
it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected
the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy,
and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with
founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural
right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights
based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace
absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law. Prominent
revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution
used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule.
Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution…established in nations
across Europe, South America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological
opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological
challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism.” 55
(ii) Economic Liberalism: Liberalism became even more significant as the Industrial
Revolution made rapid strides, since the developing industrial middle class largely adopted the
doctrine as its own. “There were divergences of opinion among people classified as liberals, but
all began with a common denominator, the belief that people should be as free from restraint as
possible. As called classical economics, economic liberalism has its primary tenet the concept of
laissez-faire, whose principal exponent had been Adam Smith. According to Smith, government
should not interfere with the economic liberty of the individual and should restrict itself to only
three primary functions: defense of the country, police protection of individuals, and the
construction and maintenance of public works too expensive for individuals to undertake. In
Smith’s view, if individuals were allowed economic liberty, ultimately they would bring about the
maximum good for the maximum number and benefit the general welfare of society.” 56 The liberal
ideas in economics were further developed by Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo.
(iii) Social Liberalism seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice.
“Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil
and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government
includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education. Under
social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the
individual.” “John Stuart Mill contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements
of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. Mill's 1859 On
Liberty addressed the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society
over the individual. He gave an impassioned defense of free speech, arguing that free discourse is
a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. Mill defined social liberty as protection
from the tyranny of political rulers…However, although Mill's initial economic philosophy
supported free markets and argued that progressive taxation penalized those who worked harder,
he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent…in defending some socialist causes…the
whole wage system be abolished in favor of a co-operative wage system.” (See Chapter III).
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
31
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-1-4. Nationalism: Linguistic Maps of Europe in the Nineteenth Century
Source: http://clehmann.org/Maps/linguistic%20map.jpg
Notes: There are small errors on the map (Albanian is not a Slavic language, and
Hungarian is also spoken in several other countries, etc.)
32
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Nationalism is a movement or a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical
and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds
that group together. This can be expressed as a belief or political ideology that involves an
individual identifying with or becoming attached to one's nation. Nationalism involves national
identity, by contrast with the related concept of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning
and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions. From a political or sociological
perspective, there are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism. One is the
primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived
evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct groupings based on an affinity of birth.
The other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that
requires the structural conditions of modern society in order to exist. An alternative perspective
to both of these lineages comes out of engaged theory, and argues that while the form of
nationalism is modern, the content and subjective reach of nationalism depends upon primordial
sentiments. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to
several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be
limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state
should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.
The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result
of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency
between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting
in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.” National flags, national anthems and
other symbols of national identity are important symbols of the national community. 57
Nationalism varieties: (i) Risorgimento nationalism applies to a nation seeking to establish a
liberal state, and integral nationalism results after a nation has achieved independence and has
established a state. (ii) Civic nationalism defines the nation as an association of people who
identify themselves as belong to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and
allegiance to similar political procedures. (iii) Ethnic nationalism. (iv) Religious nationalism. (v)
National purity. (vi) Left-wing or socialist nationalism. (vii) Territorial nationalism. (viii) Pannationalism covers a large area span. (ix) Anti-colonial nationalism.
Romantic nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives its political
legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. “This includes, depending
on the particular manner of practice, the language, race, culture, religion, and customs of the nation
in its primal sense of those who were born within its culture. This form of nationalism arose in
reaction to dynastic or imperial hegemony, which assessed the legitimacy of the state from the top
down, emanating from a monarch or other authority, which justified its existence…Among the
key themes of Romanticism, and its most enduring legacy, the cultural assertions of romantic
nationalism have also been central in post-Enlightenment art and political philosophy. From its
earliest stirrings, with their focus on the development of national languages and folklore, and the
spiritual value of local customs and traditions, to the movements that would redraw the map of
Europe and lead to calls for self-determination of nationalities, nationalism was one of the key
issues in Romanticism, determining its roles, expressions and meanings. Historically in Europe,
the watershed year for romantic nationalism was 1848, when a revolutionary wave spread across
the continent; numerous nationalistic revolutions occurred in various fragmented regions (such as
Italy) or multinational states (such as the Austrian Empire).” 58 German nationalism is the idea that
asserts that Germans are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of Germans. The earliest origins
of German nationalism began with the birth of Romantic nationalism when Pan-Germanism
started to rise in response to the invasion of German territories by France under Napoleon.59
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
33
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Early Socialism: “In the first half of the nineteenth century, the pitiful conditions found
in the slums, mines, and factories of the Industrial Revolution gave rise to another ideology for
change known as socialism. The term eventually became associated with a Marxist analysis of
human society, but early socialism was largely the product of political theorists or intellectuals
who wanted to introduce equality into social conditions and believed that human cooperation was
superior to the competition that characterized early industrial capitalism. To later Marxists, such
ideas were impractical dreams, and they contemptuously labeled the theorists utopian socialists.
The term has endured to this day. The early socialists accepted the Enlightenment belief that
people are not evil by nature and will be virtuous if they live in a suitable environment. The
economic system of their day, which they believed had brought wealth to some and misery to
others, was incapable of providing this environment. The utopian socialists were against private
property and the competitive spirit of early industrial capitalism. By eliminating them and creating
new systems of social organization, they thought that a better environment for humanity could be
achieved. Early socialists proposed a variety of ways to accomplish that task.”60 These visions of
ideal societies competed with Marxist-inspired revolutionary social democratic movements.
(i) Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) created a political and economic ideology known as
industrialism: the organization of all society should be set into a cooperative community. “Tow
elites, the intellectual leaders and the industrial managers, would use industrial and scientific
technology to coordinate society for the benefit of all. In the process, government would vanish,
as it would no longer be needed in the new society.” He stressed the need for recognition of the
individual merit and the need for hierarchy of merit in society and in the economy, such as society
having hierarchical merit-based organizations of managers and scientists to be the decisionmakers in government. This ideology soon inspired and influenced utopian socialism. 61 (ii)
Charles Fourier (1772-1838) rejected Saint-Simon’s collectivist approach in favor of creating
voluntary associations that would demonstrate the advantages of cooperative living. He proposed
the creation of small model communities called phalansteries, self-contained cooperatives, each
consisting ideally of 1,620 people. Communally housed, the inhabitants of the phalanstery would
live and work together for their mutual benefit. Work assignments would be rotated frequently to
relieve workers of undesirable tasks. Without finance, his plan remained untested, although his
followers did set up a number of communities in the United States. 62 (iii) Robert Owen (17711858), a British cotton manufacturer, was successful in transforming a squalid factory town into a
flourishing, healthy community. But when he attempted to create a self-contained cooperative
community at New Harmony, Indiana, in the United States in 1820s, internal bickering within the
community eventually destroyed his dream. 63 (iv) Louis Blanc (1813-82) views that social
problem could be solved by government assistance. In The Organization of Work of 1839. Blanc
believed that the gradual spread of workshops financed by the state would provide a cooperative
rather than competitive foundation for the entire economic life of the nation. In their plans for the
reconstruction of society, utopian socialists included schemes to change the roles of women and
the relations between men and women, and his movement attracted a group of women who
published a newspaper dedicated to the emancipation of women.64 (v) Flora Tristan (1803-44)
traveled through France preaching the need for the liberation of women. “Her Worker’s Union,
published in 1843 advocated the application of Fourier’s ideas to reconstruct both family and
work…She envisioned this absolute equality as the only hope to free the working class and
transform civilization…was largely ignored by her contemporaries. Although criticized for their
impracticality, the utopian socialists at least laid the groundwork for later attacks on capitalism
that would have a far-reaching result…In the first half of the nineteenth century, socialism
remained merely a fringe movement compared to liberalism and nationalism.” 65
34
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Romanticism: “Romanticism was an artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement
that originated in Europe toward the end of the 18th century and in most areas was at its peak in
the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on
emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the
medieval rather than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, the
aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a
major impact on historiography, education, and the natural sciences. It had a significant and
complex effect on politics, and while for much of the Romantic period it was associated with
liberalism and radicalism, its long-term effect on the growth of nationalism was perhaps more
significant. The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic
experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as apprehension, horror and terror, and awe
- especially that experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublimity and
beauty of nature. It considered folk art and ancient custom to be noble statuses, but also valued
spontaneity, as in the musical impromptu. In contrast to the rational and Classicist ideal models,
Romanticism revived medievalism and elements of art and narrative perceived as authentically
medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, early urban sprawl, and industrialism.
Although the movement was rooted in the German Sturm und Drang movement, which preferred
intuition and emotion to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, the events and ideologies of the
French Revolution were also proximate factors. Romanticism assigned a high value to the
achievements of heroic individualists and artists, whose examples, it maintained, would raise the
quality of society. It also promoted the individual imagination as a critical authority allowed of
freedom from classical notions of form in art. There was a strong recourse to historical and natural
inevitability, a Zeitgeist, in the representation of its ideas. In the second half of the 19th century,
Realism was offered as a polar opposite to Romanticism.”66
(i) Literature: “Romanticism proper was preceded by several related developments from the
mid-18th century on that can be termed Pre-Romanticism. Among such trends was a new
appreciation of the medieval romance, from which the Romantic movement derives its name. The
romance was a tale or ballad of chivalric adventure whose emphasis on individual heroism and on
the exotic and the mysterious was in clear contrast to the elegant formality and artificiality of
prevailing Classical forms of literature, such as the French Neoclassical tragedy or the English
heroic couplet in poetry. This new interest in relatively unsophisticated but overtly emotional
literary expressions of the past was to be a dominant note in Romanticism.” (ii) Visual Arts: “In
the 1760s and ’70s a number of British artists at home and in Rome, including James Barry, Henry
Fuseli, John Hamilton Mortimer, and John Flaxman, began to paint subjects that were at odds with
the strict decorum and classical historical and mythological subject matter of conventional
figurative art. These artists favored themes that were bizarre, pathetic, or extravagantly heroic, and
they defined their images with tensely linear drawing and bold contrasts of light and shade.
William Blake, the other principal early Romantic painter in England, evolved his own powerful
and unique visionary images.” (iii) Music: “Musical Romanticism was marked by emphasis on
originality and individuality, personal emotional expression, and freedom and experimentation of
form. Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Schubert bridged the Classical and Romantic periods, for
while their formal musical techniques were basically Classical, their music’s intensely personal
feeling and their use of programmatic elements provided an important model for 19th-century
Romantic composers. The possibilities for dramatic expressiveness in music were augmented
both by the expansion and perfection of the instrumental repertoire and by the creation of new
musical forms, such as the lied, nocturne, intermezzo, capriccio, prelude, and mazurka.”67
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
35
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-1-3. What is an example of utopian socialism?
Source: http://file2.answcdn.com/answcld/image/upload/h_320,c_fill,g_face:center,q_60,f_jpg/v1401382027/tryzdvpqaha2qykyplvh.jpg
Photo I-1-4. Romanticism (Art History)
Source: http://img.wikinut.com/img/t27hld.evvm6_0gf/jpeg/724x5000/romanticism.jpeg
36
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
1-2. Revolution and Reform, 1830-1850
The settlement of 1815 was based on the recovery of the conservative order existed in Europe
before the French Revolution. However, the French Revolution spread the spirit of liberalism
throughout Europe; and the Napoleonic Wars awakened the people on conquered lands with
nationalism. Moreover, in the process of Industrial Revolution, intellectuals wanted to introduce
equality into human conditions, so-called utopian socialism, in order to fill the gap between
capitalists and laborers. In other words, the French Revolution widely spread liberalism throughout Europe; the Napoleonic Wars generated patriotic nationalism in the conquered states such as
Prussia and Austria; and the Industrial Revolution gave rise to utopian socialism by believing that
human cooperation was superior to the competition that characterized early industrial capitalism.
Hence, Europe could not return to the old order in reality. “The Revolutions of 1830 were a
revolutionary wave in Europe which took place in 1830. It included two romantic nationalist
revolutions, the Belgian Revolution in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and the July
Revolution in France along with revolutions in Congress Poland and Switzerland…The romantic
nationalist revolutions of 1830, both of which occurred in Western Europe, led to the establishment of similar constitutional monarchies, called popular monarchies. Louis-Philippe I became
King of the French on 31 July 1830, Leopold I became King of the Belgians, on 21 July 1831.”
Other revolutions and uprisings appeared in Poland, Switzerland, and Italy. For example, in the
French Revolution of 1830, the propertied liberals overthrew Charles X, the Bourbon monarch,
and replaced him with his cousin Louis Phillipe. This was the transition of power from the House
of Bourbon supported by Legitimists to the House of Orleans supported by Orleanists; which was
the replacement of the principle of hereditary right by popular sovereignty. 68
The Revolutions of 1848 were a series of political upheavals throughout Europe, which
remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history. “The revolutions were
essentially democratic in nature, with the aim of removing the old feudal structures and creating
independent national states. The revolutionary wave began in France in February, and immediately
spread to most of Europe and parts of Latin America. Over 50 countries were affected, but with
no coordination or cooperation between their respective revolutionaries… some of the major
contributing factors were widespread dissatisfaction with political leadership, demands for more
participation in government and democracy, demands for freedom of press, other demands made
by the working class, the upsurge of nationalism, and the regrouping of established governmental
forces. The uprisings were led by shaky ad hoc coalitions of reformers, the middle classes and
workers, which did not hold together for long. Tens of thousands of people were killed, and many
more forced into exile. Significant lasting reforms included the abolition of serfdom in Austria
and Hungary, the end of absolute monarchy in Denmark, and the introduction of parliamentary
democracy in the Netherlands. The revolutions were most important in France, the Netherlands,
the nations that would make up the German Empire in the late 19th Century and early 20th, Italy,
and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.”69 As legacy, “Democrats looked to 1848 as a democratic
revolution, which in the long run ensured liberty, equality, and fraternity. Marxists denounced
1848 as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the legitimate demands
of the proletariat. For nationalists, 1848 was the springtime of hope, when newly emerging
nationalities rejected the old multinational empires. They were all bitterly disappointed in the short
run. In the post-revolutionary decade after 1848, little had visibly changed, and most historians
considered the revolutions a failure, given the seeming lack of permanent structural changes.”
Nevertheless, Austria and Prussia eliminated feudalism by 1850; France gained universal male
suffrage; Russia freed the serfs by 1861; with political economic gains of the middle classes. 70
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
37
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-1-5. French Revolution of 1848:
Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Lar9_philippo_001z.jpg/240pxLar9_philippo_001z.jpg
Map I-1-5. Major Events of the Revolutions in Europe, 1848-1849
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Revolutions_of_1848_in_Europe_%28pasopt_eng%29.sv
g/550px-Revolutions_of_1848_in_Europe_%28pasopt_eng%29.svg.png
38
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Transformation of the European States (1830-48): (a) Reform in Great Britain:
“1830, new parliamentary elections brought the Whigs to power in Britain. At the same time, the
successful July Revolution in France served to catalyze change in Britain. The Industrial
Revolution had led to an expanding group of industrial leaders who objected to the corrupt British
electoral system, which excluded them from political power. The Whigs, though also members
of the landed classes, realized that concessions to reform were superior to revolution; the demands
of the wealthy industrial middle class could no longer be ignored. In 1830, the Whigs introduced
and election reform bill that was enacted in 1832 after an intense struggle. The Reform Bill gave
explicit recognition to the changes wrought in British life by the Industrial Revolution. It
disfranchised fifty-six rotten boroughs and enfranchised forty-two new towns and cities and
reapportioned others. This gave the new industrial urban communities some voice in government.
A property qualification (of £10 annual rent) for voting was retained, however, so the number of
voters only increased from 478,000 to 814, a figure that still meant that only one in every thirty
people was represented in Parliament. Thus, the Reform Bill of 1832 primarily benefited the upper
middle class; the lower middle class, artisans, and industrial workers still had no vote. Moreover,
the change did not significantly alter the composition of the House of Commons…Nevertheless,
a significant step had been taken. The monied, manufacturing, and educated elite had been hitched
to the landed interests in ruling Britain. At the same time, the Reform Bill established a precedent
for electoral reform bills in the second half of the nineteenth century that would extend the right
to vote to significantly larger numbers of Britons.” 71
Map I-1-6. The House of Commons: Membership Change of County by the Reform Act of 1832
Source: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/30/4830-004-747FB2A3.jpg
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
39
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The 1830s and 1840s witnessed considerable reform legislation. The aristocratic landowning class was usually (but not always) the driving force for legislation that halted some of the
worst abuses in the industrial system by instituting government regulation of working conditions
in the factories and mines. The industrialists and manufacturers now in Parliament opposed such
legislation and were usually (but not always) the driving force behind legislation that favored the
principles of economic liberalism. The Poor Law of 1834 was based on the theory that giving aid
to the poor and unemployed only encouraged laziness and increased the number of paupers. The
Poor Law of 1834 tried to remedy this by making paupers so wretched they would choose to work.
Those unable to support themselves were crowded together in workhouses where living and
working conditions were intentionally miserable so that people would be encouraged to find
profitable employment. Another piece of liberal legislation involved the repeal of the Corn Laws.
This was primarily the work of the manufacturers Richard Cobden and John Bright who formed
the Anti-Corn Law League in 1838 to help workers by lowering bread prices. But this also aided
the industrial middle classes who, as economic liberals, favored the principles of free trade.
Repeal came in 1846 when Robert Peel, leader of Tories, persuaded some of his associates to
support free trade principles and abandon the Corn Laws. The year 1848, which witnessed
revolutions in most of Europe, ended without a major crisis in Britain…the middle class had been
largely satisfied by the Reform Act of 1832 and the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.”72
“Chartism, British working-class movement for parliamentary reform named after the
People’s Charter, bill drafted by the London radical William Lovett in May 1838. It contained six
demands: universal manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, vote by ballot, annually elected
Parliaments, payment of members of Parliament, and abolition of the property qualifications for
membership. Chartism was the first movement both working class in character and national in
scope that grew out of the protest against the injustices of the new industrial and political order in
Britain…Chartism was also mobilized around populism as well as clan identity. The movement
was born amid the economic depression of 1837–38, when high unemployment and the effects of
the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 were felt in all parts of Britain… A Chartist convention
met in London in February 1839 to prepare a petition to present to Parliament. Ulterior measures
were threatened should Parliament ignore the demands, but the delegates differed in their degrees
of militancy and over what form ulterior measures should take. In May the convention moved to
Birmingham, where riots led to the arrest of its moderate leaders Lovett and John Collins. The
rump of the convention returned to London and presented its petition in July. Parliament rejected
it summarily. There followed in November an armed rising of the physical force Chartists at
Newport, which was quickly suppressed. Its principal leaders were banished to Australia, and
nearly every other Chartist leader was arrested and sentenced to a short prison term. The Chartists
then started to emphasize efficient organization and moderate tactics.”73
As an assessment, the reformed Parliament was more liberal and progressive in its policy than
the Parliament of old; more vigorous and active; more susceptible to the influence of public
opinion; and more secure in the confidence of the people, although grave defects still remained to
be improved. It is argued that “genuine democracy began to arise only with the Second Reform
Act of 1867, or perhaps even later…that it would be wrong to assume that the political scene in
the succeeding generation differed essentially from that of the preceding one…that when the dust
had settled, the political landscape looked much as it had done before.” Evans argues, it was the
1832 Act, not the later reforms of 1867, 1884, or 1918, that were decisive in bringing representative democracy to Britain. “Evans concludes the Reform Act marked the true beginning of the
development of a recognizably modern political system.”74
40
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) France - the July Revolution: Charles X dissolved the Chamber in March 1830, but the
May elections returned a majority unfavorable to him. In July 26, Charles issued July Ordinances,
the promulgation of which gave rise to an insurrection – the July Revolution of 1830. “Barricades
went up in Paris as a provisional government led by a group of moderate, propertied liberals was
hastily formed and appealed to Louis-Philippe, the duke of Orleans, a cousin of Charles X, to
become the constitutional king of France. Charles X fled to Britain; a new monarchy had been
born. Louis-Philippe (1830-48) was soon called the bourgeois monarch because political support
for his rule came from the upper middle class in business suits and hats. Constitutional changes
that favored the interests of the upper bourgeoisie were instituted. The Charter of 1814 was
reinstated. Financial qualifications for voting were reduced, yet remained sufficiently high that
the number of voters only increased from 100,000 to barely 200,000, guaranteeing that only the
wealthiest people would vote. To the upper middle class, the bourgeois monarchy represented the
stopping place for political progress. To the lesser bourgeoisie and Parisian working class, who
had helped to overthrow Charles X in 1830, it was a severe disappointment because they had been
completely excluded from political power. The rapid expansion of French industry in the 1830s
and 1840s gave rise to an industrial working class concentrated in certain urban areas. Terrible
working and living conditions and the periodic economic crises that created high levels of
unemployment led to workers unrest and sporadic outbursts of violence. In 1831 and 1834,
government troops were used to crush working-class disturbances in Lyons, center of the silk
industry. These insurrections witnessed an emerging alliance between workers and radical
advocates of a republic. The government’s response – repression and strict censorship of the press
– worked temporarily to curb further overt resistance.”75
“Nicknamed the Bourgeois Monarch, Louis Philippe sat at the head of a moderately liberal
state controlled mainly by educated elites. Supported by the Orleanists, he was opposed on his
right by the Legitimists (former ultra-royalists) and on his left by the Republicans and Socialists.
Louis Philippe was an expert businessman and, by means of his businesses, he had become one of
the richest men in France. Still Louis Philippe saw himself as the successful embodiment of a
small businessman. Consequently, he and his government did not look with favor on the big
business (bourgeoisie), especially, the industrial section of the French bourgeoisie. Louis Philippe
did, however, support the bankers, large and small…the industrial section of the bourgeoisie which
may have owned the land their factories sat on but nothing much more, were disfavored by Louis
Philippe and actually tended to side with the middle class and laboring class in opposition to Louis
Philippe in the Chamber of Deputies…Even though France had a free press and trial by jury, only
landholders were permitted to vote, which alienated the petty bourgeoisie and even the industrial
bourgeoisie from the government. Louis Philippe was viewed as generally indifferent to the needs
of society, especially to those members of the middle class who were excluded from the political
arena.” Early in 1848, some Orleanist liberals had turned against him, disappointed by Louis
Philippe's opposition to parliamentarism. A Reform Movement developed in France which urged
the government to expand the electoral franchise, just as Great Britain had done in 1832. The more
radical democrats of the Reform Movement coalesced around the newspaper, La Réforme.
“However, Louis Philippe turned a deaf ear to the Reform Movement and discontent among wide
sections of the French people continued to grow. Social and political discontent sparked
revolutions in France in 1830 and 1848 which in turn inspired revolts in other parts of Europe.
Workers lost their jobs, bread prices rose, people accused the government of corruption. The
French revolted and set up a republic. French successes led to other revolts including those who
wanted relief from the suffering caused by the Industrial Revolution and nationalism sprang up
hoping for independence from foreign rulers.” The lower classes were about to erupt in revolt.76
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
41
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Transformation of Central Europe: “In 1830 news of the July Revolution in France
touched of excitement in Germany and inspired minor revolutions in Brunswick, Saxony, and
Hesse-Cassel, where the rulers were forced to abdicate in favor of sons or brothers who then
granted constitutions to the people. Metternich was convinced that these revolts were part of an
international radical conspiracy. In 1832, at an all-German festival at Hambach, twenty-five
thousand people drank to Lafayette and denounced the principles of the Holly Alliance; and once
again Metternich seized the occasion of a demonstration as the pretext for issuing series of decrees
which strengthen the princes in dealing with their parliaments, brought the university under
renewed surveillance, and prohibited all public meetings. Within a year or two, all open opposition
had created. In Germany, the 1830s and 1840s politically were a period of relative stagnation.
However, those years were economically important for Germany’s subsequent progress. “German
Economic Development in the first half of the nineteenth century varied greatly from one region
to another. What industrialization there was tended to be concentrated in certain regions, such as
the Rhineland and Saxony, while other areas were almost entirely unaffected. Even in Prussia
there were vast differences between the Rhine provinces of the west, which enjoyed an industrial
development comparable to that of France, and the provinces of the east, where an almost feudal
agrarian society persisted well into the nineteenth century. Obstacles to industrialization were
many. Although events of the French revolutionary and Napoleonic eras had shattered traditional
economic patterns and models of organization, the period after 1815 brought a revival of the
authority of the guilds in many regions, and the handicraft system persisted in most industries.
Governments were still dominated by the landed interests, and manufacturers found it difficult to
secure the removal of restrictions on business enterprises and trade. Many conservative Germans
associated economic liberalism with political liberalism.”77
Significant advances in German industrial development occurred after 1830, particularly in
the coal-mining and metallurgical industries. “Deep mine shafts were sunk in the Ruhr Valley and
coal production increased substantially. By the early 1840, high grade steel was produced.
“Developments in the textile industry were slower since Germany produced mainly linen and
woolen cloth, both less adapted to manufacture by machinery than cotton and silk. But there were
advance here as well. Industrial growth was supported by new transportation systems; by 1850
the German states could boast of three thousand miles of railroad track, although the first line had
been laid only 1835. To the German manufacturer or merchant seeking customers beyond his
local market, the most serious obstacle was the vast network of tariff barriers that separated the
German states and hampered trade even within some of the larger states, such as Prussia.” Prussia
established a Zollverein (customs union), which included most of the states of Germany by 1844:
and also took the lead in 1818 by abolishing all tariff barriers among the provinces within its own
borders and establishing a uniform tariff rate on imports. The Zollverein turned out to be decisive
in preparing German unification under Prussia leadership. Meanwhile, the legislation abolishing
serfdom strengthened the great landholding Junker aristocrat. Freed from his feudal obligation to
protect the serf and to provide him with lodging and other necessities of life, the Junker took
possession of his land and exploited it for his own profit, employing his former serfs, now landless,
as agricultural laborers. The conditions of the free peasant of East Prussia was far worse after his
so called emancipation than before. In the towns and cities, the workers employed in factories
were still in a minority as late as 1848, while the majority were artisans working under the
traditional handcraft system. The impact of industrialism brought a rapid expansion of the middle
class during the Vormarz era. There were certain resemblances between Germany of 1848 and
France in 1789 in comparisons: there was widespread dissatisfaction among the lower classes,
which made them potential supporters of the middle class in the event of revolution.
42
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
In the Austrian Empire, Metternich’s main problem, though he may not have recognized it,
was the emergence of a growing nationalism among the various peoples under Habsburg rule. In
1815 Austria was not a national state like France and Britain, but a collection of peoples and
territories united only by their common allegiance to the Habsburg ruler. Until Francis adopted
the title emperor of Austria in 1804, the territories of Austria were simply referred to as the lands
of the House of Habsburg or the lands of the Holy Roman Emperor. The national groups in the
Austrian Empire include the Germans; Magyars, Slaves, and Italians in Lombardy and Venetia.
In general, Metternich tried to avoid the problems posed by the emerging nationalism, but by the
1830s national governments demanded greater autonomy. Particularly, the growth of German
nationalism during 1815-1848 caused division among the Germans in Austria.
“While Metternich and his colleagues focused most of their attention on political activity, the
monarchy was by no means standing still in economic and social matters. By the 1820s Austria
was experiencing its first sustained industrial development. While many have regarded Austria’s
exclusion from the Zollverein, the German customs union created by Prussia in the 1820s and
’30s, as permanently retarding Austria’s economic advancement, in fact, by the 1840s, Austrian
production of pig iron, coal, cotton textiles, woolens, and foodstuffs was growing at a faster rate
than that of the Zollverein. Advocates of political liberalism may have suffered at this time, but
those of economic liberalism were gaining ground. After Francis’s death in 1835, practically all
restrictions on new enterprises, especially those engaged in commerce, were lifted. Most people
still lived on the land, but even there changes were under way. As growing cities created markets
for more and more agricultural goods, producers began to focus on agriculture for profit instead
of for subsistence. Along with industrial crops such as sugar beets and flax, old crops such as
wheat, vegetables, wine, and livestock were grown more and more for the commercial market.
The social impact of these changes in agriculture became starkly apparent in 1848, when the final
abolition of serfdom was encouraged by some of the landholding nobility, who were relying more
and more on wage labour to work their estates and no longer wanted the obligations associated
with having serfs. Aiding these new economic efforts were the beginnings of an Austrian
infrastructure of railroads and water transport. The first railroad on the European Continent
appeared between Linz (Austria) and Budweis (now Ceské Budejovice, Czech Republic); it was
a horse-drawn railway between the Danube and the Moldau (Vltava) rivers, which in fact was a
connection between the Danube and the Elbe river systems. In 1836 work began on a steam
railway heading north from Vienna, and by 1848 the monarchy contained more than 1,000 miles
(1,600 km) of track. Canals were not a feature of Habsburg transportation because of poor terrain,
but steam navigation began on the Danube in 1830 and expanded quickly.”78
“Metternich operated very freely with regard to foreign policy under Emperor Francis I's
reign. Francis died in 1835. This date marks the decline of Metternich's influence in the Austrian
Empire. Francis' heir was his son Ferdinand I, but he suffered from an intellectual disability.
Ferdinand's accession preserved the Habsburg dynastic succession, but he was not capable of
ruling. The leadership of the Austrian Empire was transferred to a state council composed of
Metternich, Francis I's brother Archduke Louis, and Count Franz Anton Kolowrat, who later
became the first Minister-President of the Austrian Empire. The liberal Revolutions of 1848 in the
Austrian Empire forced Metternich's resignation…the Austrian Empire fought no wars nor did it
undergo any radical internal reforms. However, it was also thought of as period of economic
growth and prosperity in the Austrian Empire. The population of Austria rose to 37.5 million by
1843. Urban expansion also occurred and the population of Vienna reached 400,000. During the
Metternich era, the Austrian Empire also maintained a stable economy and reached an almost
balanced budget, despite having a major deficit following the Napoleonic Wars.”79
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
43
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) The Belgian Revolt, 1830-31: The Congress of Vienna created the United Provinces of
the Netherlands including Belgium as a strong buffer state north of France. The main causes of
the Belgian revolt were the domination of the Dutch over the economic, political, and social
institutions of the kingdom. “The traditional economy of trade and an incipient Industrial
Revolution were also centered in the present day Netherlands, particularly in the large port of
Amsterdam. Furthermore, although 62% of the population lived in the South, they were assigned
the same number of representatives in the States General. At the most basic level, the North was
for free trade, while less developed local industries in the South called for the protection of tariffs.
Free trade lowered the price of bread, made from wheat imported through the reviving port of
Antwerp; at the same time, these imports from the Baltic depressed agriculture in Southern graingrowing regions. The more numerous Northern provinces represented a majority in the United
Kingdom of the Netherlands' elected Lower Assembly, and therefore the more populous
Southerners felt significantly under-represented. King William I was from the North, lived in the
present day Netherlands, and largely ignored the demands for greater autonomy. His more
progressive and amiable representative living in Brussels, which was the twin capital, was the
Crown-Prince William, later King William II, who had some popularity among the upper class
but none among peasants and workers…Faith was another cause of the Belgian Revolution. In the
politics of the south Roman Catholicism was the important factor. Its partisans fought against the
freedom of religion proclaimed by William that was at that time still supported by the liberal
faction. Over time the (southern) liberal faction began to support the Catholics, partly to
accomplish its own goals: freedom of education and freedom of the press. The Belgian Revolution
of 1830 crystallized this antagonism. The language policy of King William was abolished. But
no oppression was used. The leading class did not need to be forced to use French.”80
“The people of the south were nearly all Catholics; half were French-speaking. Many
outspoken liberals regarded King William I's rule as despotic. There were high levels of
unemployment and industrial unrest among the working classes. On 25 August 1830 riots erupted
in Brussels and shops were looted. Theatergoers who had just watched a nationalistic opera joined
the mob. Uprisings followed elsewhere in the country. Factories were occupied and machinery
destroyed. Order was restored briefly after William committed troops to the Southern Provinces
but rioting continued and leadership was taken up by radicals, who started talking of secession.
Dutch units saw the mass desertion of recruits from the southern provinces, and pulled out. The
States-General in Brussels voted in favor of secession and declared independence. In the
aftermath, a National Congress was assembled. King William refrained from future military action
and appealed to the Great Powers. The resulting 1830 London Conference of major European
powers recognized Belgian independence. Following the installation of Leopold I as King of the
Belgians in 1831, King William made a belated military attempt to reconquer Belgium and restore
his position through a military campaign. This Ten Days' Campaign failed because of French
military intervention. Not until 1839 did the Dutch accept the decision of the London conference
and Belgian independence by signing the Treaty of London.” In fact, Palmerston, the Whig
foreign minister, concluded in November that it could no longer be reversed, and he did not want
to see troops of the eastern power move into an area where Britain traditionally had interests.
France were sympathetic to the cause of Belgian independence to increase her influence in the
region. Russia was busy to suppress a revolt of the Pole against their Russian overlords. Prussia
and Austria were concerned about the possible spread of the Polish revolt to subject Poles near
their own borders. Austria was also preoccupied with revolts in Italy…The handling of the
Belgian revolt suggested that the Great Powers could act together in reaching a solution to a thorny
diplomatic crisis despite the sharply opposing points of view of the several governments.”81
44
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(e) November Uprising in Poland (1830-31): Through the Congress of Vienna, “Initially, the
Russian-formed Congress Kingdom enjoyed a relatively large amount of internal autonomy and
was only indirectly subject to imperial control, having its own constitution of the Kingdom of
Poland. United with Russia through a personal union with the Tsar as King of Poland, the province
could elect its own parliament (the Sejm) and government. The kingdom had its own courts, army
and treasury…In 1819 Alexander I abandoned liberty of the press in Congress Kingdom and
introduced censorship. Russian secret police commanded by Nikolay Nikolayevich Novosiltsev
started infiltration and persecution of Polish clandestine organizations, and in 1821 the Tsar
ordered the abolition of freemasonry. As a result, after 1825 sessions of Polish Sejm were
conducted in secret. Nicholas I of Russia formally crowned himself as King of Poland on 24 May
1829 in Warsaw. Despite numerous protests by various Polish politicians who actively supported
the personal union, Grand Duke Constantine had no intention of respecting the Polish constitution,
one of the most progressive in Europe at that time. He abolished Polish social and patriotic
organizations, the liberal opposition of the Kaliszanie faction, and replaced Poles with Russians
in important administrative positions. Although married to a Pole (Joanna Grudzińska), he was
commonly considered as an enemy of the Polish nation. Also, his command over the Polish Army
led to serious conflicts within the officer corps. These frictions led to various conspiracies
throughout the country, most notably within the army.”82
“Polish rebellion that unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Russian rule in the Congress Kingdom
of Poland as well as in the Polish provinces of western Russia and parts of Lithuania, Belorussia,
(now Belarus), and Ukraine. When a revolution broke out in Paris (July 1830) and the Russian
emperor Nicholas I indicated his intention of using the Polish Army to suppress it, a Polish secret
society of infantry cadets staged an uprising in Warsaw (Nov. 29, 1830). Although the cadets and
their civilian supporters failed to assassinate the Emperor’s brother Grand Duke Constantine (who
was commander in chief of the armed forces in Poland) or to capture the barracks of the Russian
cavalry, they did manage to seize weapons from the arsenal, arm the city’s civilian population,
and gain control of the northern section of Warsaw.”83
“The insurgents’ partial success was aided by the Grand Duke’s reluctance to take action
against them and his eagerness to retreat to safety. But lacking definite plans, unity of purpose,
and decisive leadership, the rebels lost control of the situation to moderate political figures, who
restored order in the city and futilely hoped to negotiate with Nicholas for political concessions.
Although the rebellion gained widespread support and its new leaders formally deposed Nicholas
as king of Poland (Jan. 25, 1831), the conservative military commanders were unprepared when
Nicholas’ army of 115,000 troops moved in (Feb. 5–6, 1831). The Polish Army of 40,000 offered
strong resistance at several battles, but it was unable to stop the Russian advance toward Warsaw
until February 25, when it fought a major but indecisive battle at Grochów. The Russians then
settled into winter camps, and uprisings sympathetic to the Poles broke out in Russian-controlled
Lithuania, Belorussia, and Ukraine (spring 1831). Nevertheless, the Polish commanders hesitated
to strike and then quickly retreated. Furthermore, the divided political leaders not only refused to
pass reforms to win the support of the peasantry but also failed to gain the foreign aid that the
generals were depending on. As a consequence, the rebellion lost its impetus, particularly after a
major Russian victory at Ostrołęka on May 26, 1831. The uprisings in the western Russian
provinces were crushed, and people in the cities began losing confidence in the revolution’s
leaders. When the Russians finally attacked Warsaw on September 6, the Polish Army withdrew
to the north two days later. Leaving the territory of Congress Poland, which subsequently fell
under stricter and more repressive Russian control, the Poles crossed the border into Prussia
(October 5) and surrendered, thus ending the November Insurrection.”84
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
45
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(f) Italian Revolts (1830-48): “By 1830, revolutionary sentiment in favor of a unified Italy
began to experience a resurgence, and a series of insurrections laid the groundwork for the creation
of one nation along the Italian peninsula. The Duke of Modena, Francis IV, was an ambitious
noble, and he hoped to become king of Northern Italy by increasing his territory. In 1826, Francis
made it clear that he would not act against those who subverted opposition toward the unification
of Italy. Encouraged by the declaration, revolutionaries in the region began to organize. During
the July Revolution of 1830 in France, revolutionaries forced the king to abdicate and created the
July Monarchy with encouragement from the new French king, Louis-Philippe. Louis-Philippe
had promised revolutionaries such as Ciro Menotti that he would intervene if Austria tried to
interfere in Italy with troops. Fearing he would lose his throne, Louis-Philippe did not, however,
intervene in Menotti's planned uprising…Modena abandoned his Carbonari supporters, arrested
Menotti and other conspirators in 1831, and once again conquered his duchy with help from the
Austrian troops. Menotti was executed, and the idea of a revolution centered in Modena faded.”85
“At the same time, other insurrections arose in the Papal Legations of Bologna, Forlì,
Ravenna, Imola, Ferrara, Pesaro and Urbino. These successful revolutions, which adopted the
tricolore in favour of the Papal flag, quickly spread to cover all the Papal Legations, and their
newly installed local governments proclaimed the creation of a united Italian nation. The revolts
in Modena and the Papal Legations inspired similar activity in the Duchy of Parma, where the
tricolore flag was adopted. The Parmese duchess Marie Louise left the city during the political
upheaval. Insurrected provinces planned to unite as the Province Italiane unite (united Italian
Provinces), which prompted Pope Gregory XVI to ask for Austrian help against the rebels.
Austrian Chancellor Metternich warned Louis-Philippe that Austria had no intention of letting
Italian matters be, and that French intervention would not be tolerated. Louis-Philippe withheld
any military help and even arrested Italian patriots living in France. In early 1831, the Austrian
army began its march across the Italian peninsula, slowly crushing resistance in each province that
had revolted. This military action suppressed much of the fledgling revolutionary movement, and
resulted in the arrest of many radical leaders.”86 Austria crushed isolated rebellions.
Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-72) was born in Genoa in the kingdom of Sardinia. He participated
in the revolts of 1830-31, and was imprisoned for six months, being released on the condition that
he remain outside of Genoa. Instead, he chose exile from all of Italy, and spent most of the
remaining forty years of his life in Switzerland, France, and Great Britain. Mazzini, an Italian
nationalist, was a fervent advocate of republicanism and envisioned a united, free and independent
Italy, and refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the House of Savoy. In his Faith and Future
of 1835, he wrote: “We must rise again as a religious party. The religious element is universal and
immortal...The initiators of a new world, we are bound to lay the foundations of a moral unity, a
Humanitarian Catholicism." Mazzini formulated a concept known as thought and action, in which
thought and action must be joined together, and every thought must be followed by action,
therefore rejecting intellectualism and the notion of divorcing theory from practice. He likewise
rejected the concept of the rights of man which had developed during the Age of Enlightenment,
arguing instead that individual rights were a duty to be won through hard work, sacrifice and
virtue, rather than rights which were intrinsically owed to man. He outlined his thought in his
Doveri dell'uomo (Duties of Man), published in 1860.” He opposed to Marxism and Communism,
and condemned the socialist revolt in France in 1871 that led to the Paris Commune. Mazzini
founded the association Friends of Italy in London in 1850, to attract consensus towards the Italian
liberation cause. In 1856 he returned to Genoa to organize a series of uprising, but should manage
to escape the police. In 1862 he joined Garibaldi; and 1866 joined the Austro-Prussian War gaining
Venetia, though he refused a seat in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. 87
46
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(g) The Growth of the United States: “George Washington, elected the first president in
1789, set up a cabinet form of government, with departments of State, Treasury, and War, along
with an Attorney General (the Justice Department was created in 1870). Based in New York, the
new government acted quickly to rebuild the nation's financial structure. Enacting the program of
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, the government assumed the Revolutionary war debts of
the states and the national government, and refinanced them with new federal bonds. It paid for
the program through new tariffs and taxes; the tax on whiskey led to a revolt in the west;
Washington raised an army and suppressed it. The nation adopted a Bill of Rights as 10
amendments to the new constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the entire federal
judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court became important under the
leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall (1801–1835), Federalist and nationalist who built a
strong Supreme Court and strengthened the national government. The 1790s were highly
contentious, as the First Party System emerged in the contest between Hamilton and his Federalist
party, and Thomas Jefferson and his Republican party. Washington and Hamilton were building
a strong national government, with a broad financial base, and the support of merchants and
financiers throughout the country. Jeffersonians opposed the new national Bank, the Navy, and
federal taxes. The Federalists favored Britain, which was embattled in a series of wars with France.
Jefferson's victory in 1800 opened the era of Jeffersonian democracy, and doomed the upper-crust
Federalists to increasingly marginal roles. The Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, in 1803
opened vast Western expanses of fertile land that exactly met the needs of the rapidly expanding
population of yeomen farmers whom Jefferson championed.” 88
“The Americans declared war on Britain (the War of 1812) to uphold American honor at sea,
and to end the Indian raids in the west. Despite incompetent government management, and a series
of defeats early on, Americans found new generals like Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison,
and Winfield Scott, who repulsed British invasions and broke the alliance between the British and
the Indians that held up settlement of the Old Northwest. The Federalists, who had opposed the
war to the point of trading with the enemy and threatening secession, were devastated by the
triumphant ending of the war. The remaining Indians east of the Mississippi were kept on
reservations or moved via the Trail of Tears to reservations in what later became Oklahoma. The
spread of democracy opened the ballot box to nearly all white men, allowing the Jacksonian
democracy to dominate politics during the Second Party System. Whigs, representing wealthier
planters, merchants, financiers and professionals, wanted to modernize the society, using tariffs
and federally funded internal improvements; they were blocked by the Jacksonians, who closed
down the national Bank in the 1830s. The Jacksonians wanted expansion - that is Manifest Destiny
- into new lands that would be occupied by farmers and planters. Thanks to the annexation of
Texas, the defeat of Mexico in war, and a compromise with Britain, the western third of the nation
rounded out the continental United States by 1848…the transformation America underwent was
not so much political democratization but rather the explosive growth of technologies and
networks of infrastructure and communication - the telegraph, railroads, the post office, and an
expanding print industry. They made possible the religious revivals of the Second Great
Awakening, the expansion of education and social reform. They modernized party politics and
speeded up business by enabling the fast, efficient movement of goods, money and people across
an expanding nation. They transformed a loose-knit collection of parochial agricultural
communities into a powerful cosmopolitan nation. Economic modernization proceeded rapidly,
thanks to highly profitable cotton crops in the South, new textile and machine-making industries
in the Northeast, and a fast developing transportation infrastructure…the Americans developed
their own high culture, notably in literature and in higher education.”89
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
47
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Revolutions of 1848: Causes of the Revolutions: “The revolutions arose from such a
wide variety of causes that it is difficult to view them as resulting from a coherent movement or
set of social phenomena. Numerous changes had been taking place in European society throughout
the first half of the 19th century. Both liberal reformers and radical politicians were reshaping
national governments. Technological change was revolutionizing the life of the working classes.
A popular press extended political awareness, and new values and ideas such as popular liberalism,
nationalism and socialism began to emerge. Some historians emphasize the serious crop failures,
particularly those of 1846, that produced hardship among peasants and the working urban poor.
Large swaths of the nobility were discontented with royal absolutism or near-absolutism. In 1846,
there had been an uprising of Polish nobility in Austrian Galicia, which was only countered when
peasants, in turn, rose up against the nobles. Additionally, an uprising by democratic forces against
Prussia, planned but not actually carried out, occurred in Greater Poland. Next, the middle classes
began to agitate…They issued their Demands of the Communist Party in Germany from Paris in
March; the pamphlet only urged unification of Germany, universal suffrage, abolition of feudal
duties, and similar middle-class goals. The middle and working classes thus shared a desire for
reform, and agreed on many of the specific aims. Their participations in the revolutions, however,
differed. While much of the impetus came from the middle classes, much of the cannon fodder
came from the lower. The revolts first erupted in the cities.”90
Urban workers: “The population in French rural areas had risen rapidly, causing many
peasants to seek a living in the cities. Many in the bourgeoisie feared and distanced themselves
from the working poor. Many unskilled laborers toiled from 12 to 15 hours per day when they had
work, living in squalid, disease-ridden slums. Traditional artisans felt the pressure of industrialization, having lost their guilds…The situation in the German states was similar…Reforms
ameliorated the most unpopular features of rural feudalism, but industrial workers remained
dissatisfied with these and pressed for greater change. Urban workers had no choice but to spend
half of their income on food, which consisted mostly of bread and potatoes. As a result of harvest
failures, food prices soared and the demand for manufactured goods decreased, causing an increase
in unemployment. During the revolution, to address the problem of unemployment, workshops
were organized for men interested in construction work. Officials also set up workshops for
women when they felt they were excluded. Artisans and unemployed workers destroyed industrial
machines when they threatened to give employers more power over them. Rural areas: Rural
population growth had led to food shortages, land pressure, and migration…In the years 1845 and
1846, a potato blight caused a subsistence crisis in Northern Europe. The effects of the blight were
most severely manifested in the Great Irish Famine, but also caused famine-like conditions in the
Scottish Highlands and throughout continental Europe. Aristocratic wealth (and corresponding
power) was synonymous with the ownership of farm lands and effective control over the peasants.
Peasant grievances exploded during the revolutionary year of 1848.”91
Role of Ideas: “Despite forceful…violent efforts of established and reactionary powers to
keep them down, disruptive ideas gained popularity: democracy, liberalism, nationalism, and
socialism. In the language of the 1840s, democracy meant universal male suffrage. Liberalism
fundamentally meant consent of the governed and the restriction of church and state power,
republican government, freedom of the press and the individual. Nationalism believed in uniting
people bound by common languages, culture, religion, shared history, and of course immediate
geography; there were also irredentist movements. At this time, what are now Germany and Italy
were divided into small, independent states. Socialism in the 1840s was a term without a consensus
definition, meaning different things to different people, but was typically used within a context of
more power for workers in a system based on worker ownership of the means of production.”92
48
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(a) The French Revolution of 1848: The revolutionary storm was on the horizon in Paris
1848, Louis-Philippe forbade the Reform Movement. “The French middle class watched changes
in Britain with interest. When Britain's Reform Act of 1832 extended enfranchisement to any
person paying £10 or more per year (previously the vote was restricted to landholders), France's
free press took interest. Meanwhile, economically, the working class may perhaps have been
slightly better off than Britain's working class. Still, unemployment in France threw skilled
workers down to the level of the proletariat. The only nominally social law of the July Monarchy
was passed in 1841. This law prohibited the use of child labor of those children under eight years
of age, and the employment of children less than 13 years old for night time work. This law,
however, was routinely flouted. The year 1846 saw a financial crisis and bad harvests, and the
following year saw an economic depression. A poor railroad system hindered aid efforts, and the
Peasant rebellions that resulted were forcefully crushed. Perhaps a third of Paris was on the dole.
Dangerous writers proliferated such as Louis Blanc and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.”
“Because political gatherings and demonstrations were outlawed in France, activists of the
largely middle class opposition to the government began to hold a series of fund-raising banquets.
This campaign of banquets, was intended to circumvent the governmental restriction on political
meetings and provide a legal outlet for popular criticism of the regime. The campaign began in
July 1847. Friedrich Engels was in Paris dating from October 1847 and was able to observe and
attend some of these banquets. He wrote a series of articles on these banquets.” The banquet
campaign lasted until all political banquets were outlawed by the French government in February
1848. As a result, the people revolted, helping to unite the efforts of the popular Republicans and
the liberal Orleanists, who turned their back on Louis-Philippe. Barricades were set up, and
fighting broke out between the citizens and the municipal guards. On 23 February, Prime Minister
Guizot resigned. Upon hearing the news of Guizot's resignation, a large crowd gathered outside
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. An officer ordered the crowd not to pass; a soldier discharged his
musket, which resulted in the rest of the soldiers firing into the crowd. Fifty two people were
killed; so Paris was soon in pandemonium. Omnibuses were turned into barricades, fires were set,
and angry citizens began converging on the royal palace. The frightened King Louis Philippe
abdicated and fled to England, and the rebels had prevailed once again. 93
The Second Republic: “On 26 February 1848, the liberal opposition came together to organize
a provisional government, called the Second Republic. The poet Alphonse de Lamartine was
appointed president of the provisional government. Lamartine served as a virtual dictator of France
for the next three months. Elections for a Constituent Assembly were scheduled for 23 April 1848.
The Constituent Assembly was to establish a new republican government…two major goals of the
provisional government were universal suffrage and unemployment relief. Universal male
suffrage was enacted on 2 March 1848, giving France nine million new voters. As in all other
European nations, women did not have the right to vote. However, during this time a proliferation
of political clubs emerged, including women's organizations. Relief for the unemployed was
achieved, by the provisional government by enactment of the National Workshops, which
guaranteed French citizens' right to work. The right of a citizen to work and indeed the National
Workshops themselves had been the idea of Jean Joseph Louis Blanc. By May 1848 the National
Workshops were employing 100,000 workers and paying out daily wages of 70,000 livres. Full
employment proved far from workable, as unemployment may have peaked at around 800,000
people, with much under-employment on top of that. On May 31, 15,000 jobless French rioted as
rising xenophobia persecuted Belgian workers in the north. In 1848, 479 newspapers were founded
alongside a 54% decline in the number of businesses in Paris, as most wealth had evacuated the
city. There was a corresponding decline in the luxury trade and credit became expensive.”94
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
49
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Rise of Conservatism: “After roughly a month, conservatives began to openly oppose the
new government, using the rallying cry order, which the new republic lacked. Additionally, there
was a major split between the citizens of Paris and those citizens of the more rural areas of France.
The provisional government set out to establish deeper government control of the economy and
guarantee a more equal distribution of resources. As noted above, to deal with the unemployment
problem, the provisional government established National Workshops. The unemployed were
given jobs building roads and planting trees without regard for the demand for these tasks. The
population of Paris ballooned as job seekers from all over France came to Paris to work in the
newly formed National Workshops. To pay for these the new National Workshops and the other
social programs, the provisional government placed new taxes on land. These taxes alienated the
landed classes…Hardworking rural farmers were resistant to paying for the unemployed city
people and their new Right to Work National Workshops. The taxes were widely disobeyed in the
rural areas and, thus, the government remained strapped for cash. Popular uncertainty about the
liberal foundations of the provisional government became apparent in…elections.”
Despite the agitation from the left, voters elected a constituent assembly which was primarily
moderate and conservative. The results of the 23 April 1848 election were a disappointment to
the radicals in Paris. Many radicals felt the elections were a sign of the slowing down of the
revolutionary movement. These radicals in Paris pressured the government to head an international
crusade for democracy. The radicals began to protest against the National Constituent Assembly
government. On 15 May 1848, Parisian workmen feeling their democratic and social republic was
slipping away, invaded the Assembly and proclaimed a new Provisional Government. But this
attempted revolution on the part of the working classes was quickly suppressed by the National
Guard. “The conservative classes of society were becoming increasingly fearful of the power of
the working classes in Paris. They felt a strong need for organization and organized themselves
around the need for order - the so-called Party of Order…As the main force of reaction against
revolution, the Party of Order forced the closure of the hated Right to Work National Workshops
on 21 June 1848. On 23 June 1848, the working class of Paris rose in protest over the closure of
the National Workshops. On that day 170,000 citizens of Paris came out into the streets to erect
barricades. To meet this challenge, the government appointed General Louis Eugène Cavaignac
to lead the military forces suppressing the uprising of the working classes.” General Cavaignag
suppressed the working-class uprising. In February 1848, the workers and petite bourgeoisie had
fought together; but in June 1848, the working classes had been abandoned by the bourgeois
politicians who founded the provisional government. However, without support of the working
classes, the Second Republic could not continue, though survived until December 1852.
Class Struggle within the Revolution: In 1848, the petty bourgeoisie outnumbered the working
classes by about two to one. “However, the petty bourgeoisie was greatly indebted due to the
economic recession of 1846–1947. By 1848, overdue business debt was 21,000,000 francs in Paris
and 11,000,000 francs in the provinces.” As of June 1848, over 7,000 shopkeepers and merchants
in Paris had not paid their rent since February. Bankruptcies and foreclosures rose dramatically.
The petty bourgeoisie was pauperized and many small merchants became part of the working
class. Accordingly, the provisional government had little support among the working classes and
petty bourgeoisie. “Politics in France continued to tilt to the right, as the era of revolution in France
came to an end. However the Party of Order and the Cavaignac dictatorship were still fearful of
another popular uprising in the streets. Accordingly, on 2 September 1848, the government
continued the state of siege that had been in place since the June Days. Also on 2 September 1848,
the National Constituent Assembly vowed not to dissolve itself until they had written a new
constitution and enacted all the organic laws necessary to implement that new constitution.”95
50
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) The German Revolutions of 1848-49: “The revolutions of 1848–49 in the German states,
the opening phase of which was also called the March Revolution, were initially part of the
Revolutions of 1848 that broke out in many European countries. They were a series of loosely
coordinated protests and rebellions in the states of the German Confederation, including the
Austrian Empire. The revolutions, which stressed pan-Germanism, demonstrated popular
discontent with the traditional, largely autocratic political structure of the thirty-nine independent
states of the Confederation that inherited the German territory of the former Holy Roman Empire.
They demonstrated the popular desire for the Zollverein movement. The middle-class elements
were committed to liberal principles, while the working class sought radical improvements to their
working and living conditions. As the middle class and working class components of the
Revolution split, the conservative aristocracy defeated it. Liberals were forced into exile to escape
political persecution, where they became known as Forty-Eighters. Many immigrated to the
United States, settling from Wisconsin to Texas.” 96 They favored unification of the German
people, a more democratic government, and guarantees of human rights.” 97
Austria, the predominant German state, was considered the successor to the Holy Roman
Empire that was dissolved by Napoleon in 1806. “On March 13, 1848 university students mounted
a large street demonstration in Vienna, and it was covered by the press across the Germanspeaking states. Following the important, but relatively minor, demonstrations against Lola
Montez in Bavaria on February 9, 1848, the first major revolt of 1848 in German lands occurred
in Vienna on March 13, 1848. The demonstrating students in Vienna had been restive and were
encouraged by a sermon of Anton Füster, a liberal priest, on Sunday, March 12, 1848 in their
university chapel. The student demonstrators demanded a constitution and a constituent assembly
elected by universal male suffrage. Emperor Ferdinand and his chief advisor Metternich directed
troops to crush the demonstration. When demonstrators moved to the streets near the palace, the
troops fired on the students, killing several. The new working class of Vienna joined the student
demonstrations, developing an armed insurrection. The Diet of Lower Austria demanded
Metternich's resignation. With no forces rallying to Metternich's defense, Ferdinand reluctantly
complied and dismissed him. The former chancellor went into exile in London.”98
Ferdinand (1835-48), succeeding his father Francis I, appointed new, nominally liberal,
ministers. “The Austrian government drafted a constitution in late April 1848. The people rejected
this, as the majority was denied the right to vote. The citizens of Vienna returned to the streets
from May 26 through 27, 1848, erecting barricades to prepare for an army offense. Ferdinand and
his family fled to Innsbruck, where they spent the next few months surrounded by the loyal
peasantry of the Tyrol. Ferdinand issued two manifestos on May 16, 1848 and June 3, 1848, which
gave concessions to the people. He converted the Imperial Diet into a Constituent Assembly to be
elected by the people. Other concessions were less substantial, and generally addressed the
reorganizing and unification of Germany. Ferdinand returned to Vienna from Innsbruck on
August 12, 1848. Soon after his return, the working-class populace hit the streets again on August
21, 1848 to protest high unemployment and the government's decree to reduce wages. On August
23, 1848, Austrian troops opened fire on unarmed demonstrators and shot several. In late
September 1848, Emperor Ferdinand, who was also King Ferdinand V of Hungary, decided to
send Austrian and Croatian troops to Hungary to crush a democratic rebellion there. On September
29, 1848 the Austrian troops were defeated by the Hungarian revolutionary forces. On October 6
through 7, 1848, the citizens of Vienna had demonstrated against the emperor's actions against
forces in Hungary. As a result, Emperor Ferdinand I fled Vienna on October 7, 1848, taking up
residence in the fortress town of Olomouc in Moravia, in the eastern empire. On December 2,
1848, Ferdinand abdicated in favor of his nephew Franz Joseph.”99
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
51
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Prussia: “When news of France’s successful February Revolution crossed the Rhine, a wave
of popular discontent spread through the states of German...Most of German rulers, frightened by
the fate of the French king, capitulated even before the opposition had a chance to organize, and
replaced their conservative minister with men of known liberal views. Many promised
constitution and other reforms, and offered to give their subject a share in government. These
concessions did not eliminate the threat of violence...The first task faced by the new liberal
ministers was the suppression of popular disturbances and the restoration of order.” 100 “In March
1848, crowds of people gathered in Berlin to present their demands in an address to the king. King
Frederick William IV, taken by surprise, yielded verbally to all the demonstrators' demands,
including parliamentary elections, a constitution, and freedom of the press. He promised that
Prussia was to be merged forthwith into Germany. On March 13, the army charged people
returning from a meeting in the Tiergarten; they left one person dead and many injured. On March
18, a large demonstration occurred; when two shots were fired, the people feared that some of the
20,000 soldiers would be used against them. They erected barricades, fighting started, and a battle
took place until troops were ordered 13 hours later to retreat, leaving hundreds dead. Afterwards,
Frederick William attempted to reassure the public that he would proceed with reorganizing his
government. The king also approved arming the citizens…After Polish prisoners were liberated,
they paraded through the city, acclaimed by the people. They had been jailed as suspects in
planning a rebellion in formerly Polish territories now ruled by Prussia. The 254 persons killed
during the riots were laid out on catafalques on the Gendarmenmarkt. Some 40,000 people
accompanied them to the burial place at Friedrichshain.”101
“A Constituent National Assembly was elected and gathered in St. Paul's Church in Frankfurt
am Main on May 18, 1848. Officially called the all-German National Assembly, it was composed
of deputies democratically elected from various German states in late April and early May 1848.
The deputies consisted of 122 government officials, 95 judges, 81 lawyers, 103 teachers, 17
manufacturers and wholesale dealers, 15 physicians, and 40 landowners. A majority of the
Assembly were liberals. It became known as the professors' parliament, as many of its members
were academics in addition to their other responsibilities. The one working-class member was
Polish and, like colleagues from the Tyrol, not taken seriously. Starting on May 18, 1848, the
Frankfurt Assembly worked to find ways to unite the various German states and to write a
constitution. The Assembly was unable to pass resolutions and dissolved into endless debate.”
Thus, the Revolution of 1848 failed in its attempt to unify the German-speaking states because
Frankfurt Assembly reflected the many different interest of the German ruling classes.102
“On May 22, 1848, another elected assembly sat for the first time in Berlin. They were elected
under the law of April 8, 1848, which allowed for universal suffrage and a two-stage voting
system. Most of the deputies elected to the Berlin Assembly, called the Prussian National
Assembly, were members of the burghers or liberal bureaucracy. They set about the task of writing
a constitution by agreement with the Crown. King Frederick William IV of Prussia unilaterally
imposed a monarchist constitution to undercut the democratic forces. This constitution took effect
on December 5, 1848. On the same day, the Berlin Assembly was dissolved and replaced with the
bicameral legislature allowed under the monarchist Constitution. This legislature was composed
of a Herrenhaus (an upper house) and a Landtag (a lower house). Otto von Bismarck was elected
to the first Landtag elected under the new monarchical constitution.”103 Delegates were chosen
by universal suffrage but under a three-class system of voting: representation was proportional to
taxes paid, so that more than 80% of the electorate controlled only one-third of the seats. On April
2, 1849, a delegation of the National Assembly met with King Frederick William IV in Berlin and
offered him the crown of the Emperor under this new constitution.
52
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Revolutions of 1848 in Italy: “The 1848 revolutions in the Italian states were
organized revolts in the states of the Italian peninsula and Sicily, led by intellectuals and agitators
who desired a liberal government. As Italian nationalists they sought to eliminate reactionary
Austrian control. During this time period, Italy was not a unified country, and was divided into
many states, which, in Northern Italy, were ruled by the Austrian Empire. A desire to be free from
foreign rule, and the conservative leadership of the Austrians, led the Italian people to stage
revolution in order to drive out the Austrians. The revolution was led by the state of Piedmont,
one of the four states where the Austrian leaders were forced to grant liberal rights. Also, the
uprisings in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, particularly in Milan, forced the Austrian General
Radetzky to retreat to the Quadrilatero (Quadrilateral) fortresses. King Charles Albert, who ruled
Piedmont-Sardinia from 1831 to 1849, aspired to unite Italy under his leadership. He declared war
on Austria and launched a full-out attack on the Quadrilateral. Lacking allies, Charles Albert was
no match for the Austrian army. He was defeated at the Battle of Custoza (July 24, 1848), signed
a truce, and withdrew his forces from Lombardy. Austria remained dominant in a divided Italy
and the Revolution was lost.”104 Pope Pius IX was the hopes of political liberals and of the poor
throughout Italy, but his reforms failed to resolve grave problems in Italy.
“In Sicily the people began to demand a Provisional Government, separate from the government of the mainland. King Ferdinand II tried to resist these changes, however a full-fledged revolt
erupted in Sicily, a revolt also erupted in Salerno and Naples. These revolts drove Ferdinand and
his men out of Sicily, and forced him to allow a provisional government to be constituted.
Notwithstanding the events in Rome and Naples, the states still were under a conservative rule.
Italians in Lombardo-Veneto could not enjoy these freedoms. The Austrian Empire of this region
had tightened their grip on the people by further oppressing them with harsher taxes. Tax gatherers
were sent out along with the 100,000 man army standing in place, and letting their presence be
known. These revolts in Sicily helped to spark revolts in the northern Kingdom of LombardyVenetia. Revolutions in the Lombardy city of Milan forced about 20,000 of an Austrian General
Radetsky's troops to withdraw from the city…Through his skillful tactics he brought his men that
had been withdrawn into the key forts. Meanwhile, the Italian insurgents were encouraged when
news of Prince Metternich abdicating in Vienna spread out.”105
“In the Quadrilateral General Radetsky and his men were plotting a counterattack in order to
regain their lost ground. However, they were interrupted by Charles Albert of Sardinia, the King
of Sardinia, who had by then taken the forefront of the attack, and had launched an attack against
the Quadrilateral. Charles charged the fortress from all sides aided by 25,000 reinforcements, who
came in assistance of their fellow citizens. While journeying to the fortress preparing for the attack,
Charles garnered the support of princes of other states. His fellow princes responded by sending
reinforcements to his aid: Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany sent 8,000, Pope Pius contributed
10,000, and Ferdinand II sent 16,050 men on the advice of General Guglielmo Pepe. They attacked
the fortresses and on May 3, 1848 succeeded in winning the battle of Goito and capturing the
fortress of Peschiera. At that point, Pope Pius IX became nervous…withdrew his troops…King
Ferdinand of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies also called his soldiers back and retired his troops.
However, some of them did not comply with the order and continued on under the guidance of
Generals Pepe, Durando and Giovanni. A year later, Charles launched another attack, but, due to
the lack of troops, he was defeated in the Battle of Novara.”106 The people of Rome rebelled
against Pius’ government; Pope fled to the fortress of Gaeta, under the protection of Ferdinand II.
“In February 1849, he was joined by Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany who had to flee from
there because of another insurrection. Piedmont was also lost to the Austrians in 1849 and Charles
Albert had to abdicate leaving his son, Victor Emanuel II, to rule.”107
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
53
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-1-6. Chartist Agitation, the Police Force on Bonner’s Field, 1848 in London
Source: http://cache3.assetcache.net/xr/463954533.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=3&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA5482A8FE2BF524BE
5B4B2F20C5268E30D47CE4894A28D09C1A8A55A1E4F32AD3138
Photo I-1-7. The French Revolution of 1848: Barricades in Paris
Source: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-french-revolution-of-1848-barricades-in-paris-this-revolution-picture
54
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) The Impact of the 1848 Revolutions: The Causes of the 1848 revolutions are explained
by four categories as below: (i) Economic Crisis: “The economic crisis of the years 1845-47 which
was combined the features of a pre-industrial subsistence crisis with the sort of overpopulationunder consumption crisis. The impact of poor cereal harvests together with potato blight created
conditions of near starvation. There was a rise in food prices in most of Europe, leading to strikes,
demonstrations and ‘food riots’ in France and Germany. Employment in urban and rural industries
declined as factories collapsed. There was an acute credit crisis and the poorer people were forced
to borrow money and incur huge debts. Population pressure on the resources of agriculture, the
decline of rural industry and the competitive character of early industrialization had created
widespread misery for the poorer classes. It was in this environment that the revolutions of 1848
had occurred.” (ii) Social Tensions: “The first half of the 19th century saw a growing number of
civil servants, lawyers, doctors, journalists and businessmen who felt alienated from the existing
political order. Economically frustrated due to the lack of job opportunities, these members of the
educated bourgeoisie demanded a greater role in the decision-making process. They reacted
against the monopolization of power by the nobility and the restriction of the franchise to the
propertied and wealthy classes. They agitated for the end of arbitrary government, a wider share
of political power through parliamentary governments along with the guarantee of individual
freedom and the rule of law. One also saw the radicalization of workers as well as a lower middle
class or petty bourgeoisie with democratic and socialist ideas gaining popularity. The crises of
1845-48 saw a series of strikes, demonstrations and food riots indicating the politicization and
mobilization of the working class.” (iii) State Aggravation: The first half of the 19th century
witnessed an escalation in the demands of the state in terms of taxes, recruitment in the army etc.
The state attempted to pump more resources from a population whose living standards were
already declining, which only aggravated political discontent. So “A combination of escalating
demands, a lack of adequate means of coercion and a decline in popular legitimacy brought about
the Revolutions of 1848.” (iv) Demand for National Unification: “In the late 18th century,
nationalistic sentiments had grown as a more widespread movement against political domination.
In Germany, the threat of French domination helped to stimulate a national consciousness as
moderate liberals petitioned the rulers of the German principalities to create a larger pan-German
union. The demand for a political order that recognized and promoted their national identity fused
with the campaign for greater representation and deriving its momentum from the radicalized
lower classes, there was a general upsurge against the old order in 1848.”108
The Causes of the Failure: The failures of the revolutions of 1848 were mainly caused by that
the revolutionaries weren't revolutionary enough. “They lacked the enthusiasm displayed by their
Jacobin predecessors and Bolshevik successors. Sometimes it is also attributed to personal failures
of revolutionary leaders who made tall claims but weren't daring enough to carry out required
actions and/or bloodshed. In Marxist understanding, the failure of Revolutions 1848 is attributed
to specific social and economic developments. The revolution led to renewed economic crisis. In
each of the states affected by the revolution, there was a move towards avoidance of violence.
There was political factionalism where prominent families sought to take advantage of a fluid
political situation in order to secure administrative office to increase their influence. There was
widespread disorder and protest by peasants and workers alike. This was even more than the chaos
during the revolution…The high hopes of the revolutionaries of 1848 were shattered because of
the different aims and a split between liberals and radicals. The conservatives and Moderates
stressed the need to restore social order. But the Radicals insisted that the state should intervene
in the economy and that it should recognize the right to work.”109
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
55
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Impact of the 1848 Revolutions on Politics: “The old social elites in Europe had soon
recovered from the disasters of the Revolutions of 1848. The revolutions generated resistance
almost immediately from the political and social forces. The counter-revolutions carried out by
the rulers with the aid of the nobles left parliaments and assemblies with little or no effective
powers. The demands that were made included universal male suffrage, freedom of press,
constitutional governments and larger participation of the public in administrative affairs. Even
though some of them were fulfilled, most of these concessions were withdrawn sooner or later.
One has to bear in mind that the accomplishment of the revolutionaries in terms of setting up
constitutional governments didn’t last long. While the kingdoms of Prussia and Piedmont-Savoy
retained their constitutional form of government, the Two Sicilies, the Papal States and the
Austrian Empire had gone back to absolutist rule. More or less, the ultimate success of the counter
revolution throughout Europe was aided by the mixed aims of the revolutionaries.” 110
(i) France: “In France, the political crisis intensified as the provisional government faced
competing demands. On 15th May, an attempt by the political clubs to dissolve the Assembly and
declare a social republic of the people failed. After days of tension, the Assembly finally declared
on June 23rd that the National Workshops would be closed in three days. Workers aged 17-25
were given the option of enlisting in the army, and others were promised public works in the
provinces. The workers associations protested vigorously and rose up in rebellion. For three days
the June Days raged in the workers’ quarters of central and eastern Paris. General Louis Cavaignac
put down the uprising with brutality. Thus the process of counter revolution began with repression
of the June insurrection after which the Assembly immediately passed legislation to curb popular
political movements. The new republican constitution instituted elections in November 1848.
Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the great Napoleon Bonaparte became the President of the
second republic.” (ii) Germany: “In the German states, liberals and radicals gradually split as
conservative forces gathered momentum. The spread of democratic clubs and workers’
associations was evidence of widespread politicization and mobilization of support for the left.
Frederick Wilhelm’s refusal to recognize the Imperial Constitution prepared by the Frankfurt
assembly led to widespread protests organized by popular political societies. The only chance for
the constitution to survive was to convince the King of Prussia to become king of a unified
Germany. Before the Prussian parliament could approve the constitution, the king dissolved it
and declared a state of emergency. The Frankfurt parliament which embodied the hopes of German
liberals and nationalists ended in abject failure.” (iii) Austria: “The confusion of competing
national claims and rivalries within the monarchy eased the task of counter revolution within the
Austrian Empire. The aristocratic army commanders…played a crucial role in the restoration of
the imperial authority. When workers rose up in arms to protest against the shutting down of the
national workshops, Ferdinand sent the bourgeois National Guard to crush the uprising. The
establishment of the Bach system - a system of bureaucratic surveillance, spying and repressionhelped in rooting out the political opposition.”111
“As far as the impact of these revolutions on the politics of Europe is concerned…European
states had become even stronger after the Revolutions of 1848. Counter revolutions carried out by
the various states had succeeded in crushing the rebellions. However, even though the state
machinery of repression was kept well oiled, certain concessions were made as well.” Even
though the victories of the 1848 revolutions were short lived, they were significant accomplishments in their own right; which opened up a new chapter in the history of modern Europe. It
marked the beginning of mass politics and it was during this period that the nationalist politics
that shaped the events of Europe in the subsequent years took birth.” In other words, nation states
in Europe began to pursue imperial interests in the age of industrialization.
56
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Law Enforcement: (a) The Development of Police Force in Great Britain: “The first policemen, known as 'Peelers' or 'Bobbies', were set up in London in 1829 by Robert Peel, the then Home
Secretary, after 'The Metropolitan Police Act' of 1829. It was the start of a campaign to improve
public law. Reform, however, was slow as there was distrust of the police at all levels.” (i) The
First Policemen: “By September of 1829, the first Metropolitan Police were patrolling the streets
of London. There were 17 divisions, which had 4 inspectors and 144 constables each. The force
headquarters was Scotland Yard, and it answered to the Home Secretary. The 'Peelers' wore a
long blue coats and strengthened tall hats, which protected them from blows to the head and they
could use to stand on to look over walls. Their only weapon was a truncheon although they also
carried a rattle to raise an alarm. At first the quality of officers was poor. Of the first 2,800 new
policemen, only 600 eventually kept their jobs. The first policeman ever (who was given the
number 1), was sacked after only four hours, for drunkenness. Things eventually settled down.”
(ii) Policing the Counties and Boroughs: “Despite rising crime levels, most counties retained
their Parish Constable. Many people were concerned about the idea of a uniformed force and
feared that the police would be used to arrest opponents of the government, stop protests and
destroy free speech. The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, allowed Borough Councils to
organise a police force but few of them seemed eager to implement the law. By 1837, only 93 out
of 171 boroughs had organised a police force. The Rural Constabulary Act of 1839, allowed any
of the 54 English Counties to raise and equip a paid police force. The Act permitted JPs to appoint
Chief Constables, for the direction of the police in their areas and allowed for one policeman per
1,000 population. This was still optional but saw the development of the first constabularies. It
also encouraged some boroughs to hastily form their own police forces, to avoid the high expense
of being involved with county forces. The Act still did not meet the Report's demands for a national
police force, with the Metropolitan Police as the controlling power. In the 1840s, there was still a
great disparity between different areas of the country with no single style of policing. By 1840,
only 108 out of 171 boroughs had police forces. Then, in 1842, a new Parish Constables Act was
passed in response to the political unrest associated with the chartist movement. The appointed
parish constables were part time and poorly paid - sometimes unpaid, so posts attracted a low
calibre of persons, who were not prepared to risk life and limb to arrest anyone. By 1848 there
were still 22 boroughs that did not have a police force and, in 1850, only 36 counties that did. In
1855, there were still only 12,000 policemen in England and Wales. This was despite the fact that
the police force in London was proving effective in reducing crime and increasing detection.”
(iii) Why Was Implementation So Slow? “Besides being seen as a challenge to liberties, the
legislation was slow to be implemented for several reasons: The new police were seen by some
as a means of enforcing the new Poor Law, which was unpopular; It was thought to be too
expensive; Lack of interest at local level and poor co-operation between the boroughs and the
counties; No provision for government inspection, audit or regulation, meant many just did not
bother.” (iv) The Development of a National Police Force: “The 1856 Police Act saw a system for
government inspection, audit and regulation for the first time. This County Borough Police Act
now forced the whole of the country to set up police forces. The legislation: Obliged the counties
to organise police forces, subject to government control; Devised a system of inspection already
in use in factories, workhouses and education; Made grants dependent on efficiency; Shifted the
emphasis from the prevention of crime to its detection. This act saw the start of the Modern Police
Service. 239 forces were set up, still with great variations in pay and conditions; only half of them
were found to be efficient. In 1869, the National Criminal Record was set up, which made use of
the new, rapid telegraph communications between forces and in 1877 Criminal Investigations
Department (CID) was formed with 200 detectives; 600 more were added in 1883.” 112
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
57
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) The French Police in the Nineteenth Century: (i) Under Francis I (1515-47), the
Marshalcy of the ancient regime was merged with the Constabulary, which was formerly called
the Constabulary and Marshalcy of France. “In 1720, the Maréchaussée was officially attached
to the Household of the King, together with the gendarmerie of the time, which was not a police
force at all, but a royal bodyguard. During the eighteenth century, the marshalcy developed in two
distinct areas: increasing numbers of Marshalcy Companies, dispersed into small detachments,
were stationed around the French countryside providing law and order, while specialist units
provided security for royal and strategic sites such as palaces and the mint. While its existence
ensured the relative safety of French rural districts and roads, the Maréchaussée was regarded, in
contemporary England, as a symbol of foreign tyranny. English visitors to France saw their armed
and uniformed patrols as royal soldiers with an oppressive role. In 1789, on the eve of the French
Revolution, the Maréchaussée numbered 3,660 men divided into small brigades (a brigade in this
context being a squad of ten to twenty men).”113
(ii) The Revolution: “During the revolutionary period, the Maréchaussée commanders
generally placed themselves under the local constitutional authorities. Despite their connection
with the king, they were therefore perceived as a force favouring the reforms of the French
National Assembly. As a result, the Maréchaussée Royale was not disbanded but simply renamed
as the gendarmerie nationale (Law of 16 February 1791). Its personnel remained unchanged, and
the functions of the force remained much as before. However, from this point, the gendarmerie,
unlike the Maréchaussée became a fully military force. During the revolutionary period, the main
force responsible for policing was the National Guard. Although the Maréchaussée had been the
main police force of the ancien regime, the gendarmerie was initially a full-time auxiliary to the
National Guard militia. In 1791 the newly named gendarmerie nationale was grouped into 28
divisions, each commanded by a colonel responsible for three départements. In turn, two
companies of gendarmes under the command of captains were based in each department. This
territorial basis of organisation continued throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.” 114
(iii) The Nineteenth Century: “Under Napoléon, the numbers and responsibilities of the
gendarmerie, renamed gendarmerie impériale, were significantly expanded. In contrast to the
mounted Maréchaussée, the gendarmerie comprised both horse and foot personnel; in 1800 these
numbered approximately 10,500 of the former and 4,500, respectively. In 1804 the first Inspector
General of Gendarmerie was appointed and a general staff established - based in the rue du
Faubourg-Saint-Honore in Paris. Subsequently special gendarmerie units were created within the
Imperial Guard, and for combat duties in French occupied Spain. Following the Second
Restoration of 1815, the gendarmerie was reduced in numbers to about 18,000 and reorganised
into departmental legions. Under King Louis Phillippe a "gendarmerie of Africa" was created for
service in Algeria and during the Second Empire the Imperial Guard Gendarmerie Regiment was
re-established. The majority of gendarmes continued in what was now the established role of the
corps - serving in small sedentary detachments as armed rural police. Under the Third Republic
the ratio of foot to mounted gendarmes was increased and the numbers directly incorporated in
the French Army with a military police role reduced.”115
(iv) Missions: In France, the term police refers not only to the forces but also the general
concept of maintenance of law and order (policing). The Gendamerie’s missions belong to three
categories: administrative police, judicial police, and military and defense missions, including
military police for the armed forces. These missions include the policing of the countryside, rivers,
coastal areas, and small towns; criminal investigation under judiciary supervision; maintaining
law and order; police at sea; provision of military police services to the French military; and for
the Republican Guard, participation in the state’s protocol and ceremonies.116
58
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Berlin Police in Germany: “Police systems were reorganized throughout the Western
world during the nineteenth century. Reformers followed first the French and then the British
model, but local traditions were often important in shaping a nation’s system. After the revolutions
of 1848 in Germany, a state-financed police force called the Schutzmannschaft, modeled after the
London police, was established for the city of Berlin. The Schutzmannschaft began as a civilian
body, but already by 1851 the force had become organized more along military lines and was used
for political purposes. In addition to performing welfare services, which helped make them
acceptable to the city’s residents, the Berlin police exercised considerably more power than their
British counterparts. Their military nature was reinforced by their weaponry, which included
swords, pistols, and brass knuckles…a German policeman on patrol is armed as if for war.” 117 At
the time of the March Revolution in 1848, the number of Berlin Police was approximately 200
officers for 400,000 citizens with limited authority. “To fight the revolution, the chief of police,
police commissioner Dr. Julius Freiher von Minutoli asked the Prussian army for help. They send
two guard cavalry regiments, the 1 Garde-Dragoner Regiment, and three guard infantry regiments.
Approximately 230 citizens were shot or killed by saber because the guard troops had the order
Immer feste druff! (strike them hard). After a couple of days the troops withdrew and a militia with
a strength of 20,000 men was founded. In short, the militia was worthless.”118
(d) Crime and Punishment: (i) Why were the jails so crowded? “Dundee (in Scotland) in the
19th century was a rapidly growing manufacturing town and shipping port, attracting large
numbers of people from across Britain in search of work in the jute industry. With an increase in
population and wealth, crime rates began to soar, reaching epidemic proportions in 1820-40, with
housebreakings, thefts, assaults and robberies with violence occurring frequently. The well-to-do
citizens of Dundee carried pistols as they traversed the dimly-lit streets at night due to attacks by
disguised and masked ruffians demanding for their purses or their lives. During this epidemic of
lawlessness, the jail became inadequate for the numbers of prisoners detained within, and after a
public meeting, plans were made for the building of a new bridewell or jail in Dundee. Up until
1837 when the new jail was built, the upper portion of the Town House had been used as a jail,
and although it was strongly built, there were occurrences of prisoner escapes from there.”119
(ii) Who were the criminals and what to do with them? “As the town quickly grew and
changed, so too did the types of crimes committed. Rioting was common in the earlier part of the
century, often over the price and availability of food. According to records of the Circuit Court
from the 1830's, thieves could receive at least 7 years transportation to Australia, while a bigamist
could be sent to jail for 12 months. A large number of people in the jail were imprisoned for the
non-payment of debts and separate cells were kept for these prisoners. In the 1870's, the problem
with drunkenness had become problematic, and one policeman would bring in between 60 and 70
drunk men and women on a Saturday night. In the late 1870's, the crime of shebeening (selling
alcohol without a licence) was one crime committed by more women than men, and in 1877, fines
imposed on persons selling liquor without a licence raised almost £300 in revenue for the police.
Temperance (anti-alcohol) reform was a wide-spread and influential movement throughout the
19th century. Breaches of the peace and assault were also common crimes in these years.”
(iii) Punishment: “In addition to being sent to Dundee jail or being transported to Australia,
punishments included being sent to one of a number of other correctional institutions. Not only
criminals, but people (especially children) at risk of becoming involved in criminal activities,
could be sent to industrial schools. It was hoped that the kind of practical education provided in
these schools would prevent them from slipping into a life of crime. A number of these correctional
facilities which were established were the Rossie Reformatory, the Dundee Industrial School, the
'Mars' training ship for wayward boys and the Female Rescue Home for 'fallen' women.” 120
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
59
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(e) The Reform of Prisons: (i) United Kingdom: “During the eighteenth century, British
justice used a wide variety of measures to punish crime, including fines, the pillory and whipping.
Transportation to America was often offered, until 1776, as an alternative to the death penalty,
which could be imposed for many offenses including pilfering. When they ran out of prisons in
1776 they used old sailing vessels which came to be called hulks as places of temporary confinement. The most notable reformer was John Howard who, having visited several hundred prisons
across England and Europe, beginning when he was high-sheriff of Bedfordshire, published The
State of the Prisons in 1777. He was particularly appalled to discover prisoners who had been
acquitted but were still confined because they couldn't pay the jailer's fees. He proposed that each
prisoner should be in a separate cell with separate sections for women felons, men felons, young
offenders and debtors. The prison reform charity, the Howard League for Penal Reform, takes its
name from John Howard. The Penitentiary Act which passed in 1779 following his agitation
introduced solitary confinement, religious instruction and a labor regime and proposed two state
penitentiaries, one for men and one for women. These were never built due to disagreements in
the committee and pressures from wars with France and jails remained a local responsibility. But
other measures passed in the next few years provided magistrates with the powers to implement
many of these reforms and eventually in 1815 jail fees were abolished. Quakers such as Elizabeth
Fry continued to publicize the dire state of prisons as did Charles Dickens in his novels David
Copperfield and Little Dorrit about the Marshalsea. Samuel Romilly managed to repeal the death
penalty for theft in 1806, but repealing it for other similar offences brought in a political element
that had previously been absent. The Society for the Improvement of Prison Discipline, founded
in 1816, supported both the Panopticon for the design of prisons and the use of the treadwheel as
a means of hard labor. By 1824, 54 prisons had adopted this means of discipline. Robert Peel's
Gaols Act of 1823 attempted to impose uniformity in the country but local prisons remained under
the control of magistrates until the Prison Act of 1877.”121
(ii) European States: “The first public prison in Europe was Le Stinch in Florence, constructed
in 1297, copied in several other cities. The more modern use grew from the prison workhouse
from 1600 in Holland…In Hamburg a different pattern occurred with the spinhaus in 1669, to
which only infamous criminals were admitted. This was paid by the public treasury and the pattern
spread in eighteenth-century Germany. In France the use of galley servitude was most common
until galleys were abolished in 1748. After this the condemned were put to work in naval arsenals
doing heavy work. Confinement originated from the hôpitaux généraux which were mostly
asylums, though in Paris they included many convicts, and persisted up till the revolution. The use
of capital punishment and judicial torture declined during the eighteenth century and imprisonment came to dominate the system, although reform movements started almost immediately. Many
countries were committed to the goal as a financially self-sustaining institution and the organization was often subcontracted to entrepreneurs, though this created its own tensions and abuse.
By the mid nineteenth century several countries initiated experiments in allowing the prisoners to
choose the trades in which they were to be apprenticed. The growing amount of recidivism in the
latter half of the nineteenth century led a number of criminologists to argue that "imprisonment
did not, and could not fulfill its original ideal of treatment aimed at reintegrating the offender into
the community". Belgium led the way in introducing the suspended sentence for first-time
offenders in 1888, followed by France in 1891 and most other countries in the next few years.
Parole had been introduced on an experimental basis in France in the 1830s, with laws for juveniles
introduced in 1850, and Portugal began to use it for adult criminals from 1861. The parole system
introduced in France in 1885 made use of a strong private patronage network. Parole was approved
throughout Europe at the International Prison Congress of 1910.”122
60
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
2. The Age of Nationalism and Unification, 1850-1871
The Concert of Europe, largely led by Austria and Russia, had originally been formed to safeguard
the states of Europe from French domination. Europe had experienced two waves of revolution,
one in the early 1820s and another in 1830-31. Despite success in France, Belgium, and Greece,
the conservative order continued to dominate much of Europe, while revolutions in Spain, the
Italian states, the German states, Russia, and Poland had all failed. “Oftentimes liberal forces
depended almost exclusively on junior army officers, liberal nobles, writers, university students,
professors, and adventurers. But the forces of liberalism and nationalism, first generated by the
French Revolution, continued to grow as the second great revolution – the Industrial Revolution
– expanded and brought new groups of people who wanted change. In 1848, these forces of
change erupted once more. As usual, revolution in France provided the spark for other countries,
and soon most of central and southern Europe was ablaze with revolutionary fires.” Nevertheless,
across the continent of Europe, the revolutions had failed again, which must be a great warning of
developing threats to the authority of the old order and of requiring their unity and vigilance. “The
forces of liberalism and nationalism appeared to have been decisively defeated as authoritarian
government reestablished their control almost everywhere in Europe by 1850. And yet within
twenty-five years, many of the goals sought by the liberals and nationalists during the first half of
the nineteenth century seemed to have been achieved. National unity became a reality in Italy and
Germany, while many European states were governed by constitutional monarchies, even though
the constitutional-parliamentary features were frequently facades.”
“All the same, these goals were not achieved by liberal and nationalistic leaders but by a new
generation of conservative leaders who were proud of being practitioners of Realpolitik, the
political reality. One reaction to the failure of the revolution of 1848 had been a new toughness
of mind in which people prided themselves on being realistic in their handling of power. The new
conservative leaders used armies and power politics to achieve their foreign policy goals. And
they did not hesitate to manipulate liberal means to achieve conservative ends at home.
Nationalism had failed as a revolutionary movement in 1848-49, but between 1850 and 1871,
these new leaders found a variety of ways to pursue nation building.”123
The rise of a new Napoleon, through the 1848 revolutions in France, might have been
expected to encourage the other monarchs to close ranks. Napoleon III had opposed Russia over
the Eastern Question. France with England intervened in the Crimean War by taking the Ottoman
side and the Treaty of Paris signed in March 1856 pushing Russia out of the Black Sea. Having
abandoned its alliance with Russia, Austria was diplomatically isolated following the war, which
contributed to its disastrous defeat in Franco-Austrian War of 1859 that resulted in the loss of all
occupied lands in the Italian peninsula except Venetia. Encouraged by the French support against
Austria, Giuseppe Garibaldi led the Italian unification with his one thousand Red Shirts. Russia
did not do anything to assist its former ally, Austria, in the Austro-Prussian War in 1866. “One of
the most successful was the Prussian Otto von Bismarck who used both astute diplomacy and war
to achieve the unification of Germany. On January 18, 1871, Bismarck and six hundred German
princes, nobles, and generals filled the Hall of Mirrors in the palace of Versailles, twelve miles
outside Paris. The Prussian army had defeated the French, and the assembled notable were
gathered for the proclamation of the Prussian king as the new emperor of a united German state.”
The unification of Germany and Italy brought a severe question as a great power on the status of
Austria - the Astro-Hungarian Empire. Now Russia, now allied with France hostile to Germany,
competed with the Austria-Hungary for an increased role in the Balkans at the expense of the
Ottoman Empire; which created the diplomatic alliances that would lead to World War I.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
61
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-2-1. Europe in 1871
Source: http://www.sheltonstate.edu/Uploads/files/faculty/Chuck%20Boening/western%20civ/Europe%201871.jpg
62
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
France under Napoleon III: Charles-Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (1808-73) was the nephew
and heir of Napoleon I. After the fall of Napoleon I, all members of the Bonaparte dynasty were
forced into exile. In exile with his mother to Baden and Swiss, he received some of his education
in Germany at the gymnasium school at Augsburg, Bavaria. At the age fifteen, Louis Napoleon
with his mother Hortense moved to Italy. “He was reunited with his older brother, and they became
involved with the Carbonari, secret revolutionary societies fighting Austria's domination of
northern Italy. In the spring 1831, when he was twenty-three, the Austrian and papal governments
launched an offensive operations against the Carbonari; the two brothers, wanted by the police,
were forced to flee. His brother died of measles, and Louis Napoleon and his mother evaded the
police and Austrian army, and finally reached the French border. In April 1831 they were allowed
to stay in France, but were ordered to leave Paris; they went to Britain briefly, and then back into
exile in Switzerland. After the death of the Duke of Reichstadt (Napoleon I’s only son) in 1832,
Louis Napoleon considered himself his family’s claimant to the French throne. In exile with his
mother in Switzerland, he enrolled in the Swiss Army, trained to become an officer, and wrote a
manual of artillery. He began writing about his political philosophy; publishing Political Dreams
in 1833 at the age of 25; Political and Military Considerations about Switzerland in 1834; and
Napoleonic Ideas in 1839 as a compendium of his political ideas which was published in three
editions and eventually translated in six languages. “His doctrine was based upon two ideas:
universal suffrage and the primacy of the national interest. He called for a Monarchy which
procures the advantages of the Republic without the inconveniences, a regime strong without
despotism, free without anarchy, independent without conquest.”124
Louis planned his uprising to begin in Strasbourg in 1836, but failed and returned to Switzerland. He travelled to London, Brazil, and New York, and then returned to Switzerland in 1837,
when his mother died. He had received a large fortune from his mother. Louis returned to London
for exile in 1838. He was received by London society and met the political and scientific leaders
of the day, while he did considerable research into the economy and society of Britain. He
attempted another coup in August 1840 by crossing the channel with a small group, but his plot
failed and was ridiculed by the British and French press. He was captured and sentenced to life
in prison in the fortress of Ham, northern France. While in prison, he contributed articles to
regional newspapers and magazines in towns all over France. “His most famous book was
L'extinction du pauperism (1844), a study of the causes of poverty in the French industrial working
class, with proposals to eliminate it. His conclusion: ‘The working class has nothing, it is necessary
to give them ownership. They have no other wealth than their own labor, it is necessary to give
them work that will benefit all....they are without organization and without connections, without
rights and without a future; it is necessary to give them rights and a future and to raise them in
their own eyes by association, education, and discipline.’ He proposed various practical ideas for
creating a banking and savings system that would provide credit to the working class, and to
establish agricultural colonies similar to the kibutzes later founded in Israel. This book was widely
reprinted and circulated in France, and played an important part in his future electoral success. He
was busy in prison, but also unhappy and impatient. He was aware that the popularity of Napoleon
Bonaparte was steadily increasing in France; the Emperor was the subject of heroic poems, books
and plays. Huge crowds had gathered in Paris on 15 December 1840 when the ashes of Napoleon
Bonaparte were returned with great ceremony to Paris and handed over to Louis-Napoleon's old
enemy, King Louis-Philippe, while Louis Napoleon could only read about it in prison. On 25 May
1846, with the assistance of his doctor and other friends on the outside, he disguised himself as a
laborer carrying lumber, and walked out of the prison. A carriage was waiting to take him to the
coast and then by boat to England. A month after his escape, his father Louis died.”125
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
63
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-1. Napoleon III, Emperor of the Second French Empire, reigned 1852-70
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Alexandre_Cabanel_002.jpg/233pxAlexandre_Cabanel_002.jpg
Map I-2-2. The Crimean War, 1853-56
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Crimean-war-1853-56.png/1280px-Crimean-war1853-56.png
64
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(a) From the Second Republic to the Second Empire: Returning to London, he resumed his
place in British society. “1848, Louis Napoleon learned that the French Revolution of 1848 had
broken out, and that Louis-Philippe had abdicated. Believing that his time had finally come, he set
out for Paris on 27 February, departing England on the same day that Louis-Philippe left France
for his own exile in England. When he arrived in Paris, he found that the Second Republic had
been declared, led by a Provisional Government headed by a Commission led by Alphonse de
Lamartine, and that different factions of republicans, from conservatives to those on the far left,
were competing for power. He wrote to Lamartine announcing his arrival, saying that he was
without any other ambition than that of serving my country. Lamartine wrote back politely but
firmly, asking Louis-Napoleon to leave Paris until the city is more calm, and not before the
elections for the National Assembly. His close advisors urged him to stay and try to take power,
but he wanted to show his prudence and loyalty to the Republic; while his advisors remained in
Paris, he returned to London on 2 March 1848, and watched events from there. He did not run in
the first elections for the National Assembly, held in April 1848, but three members of the
Bonaparte family…were elected; the name Bonaparte still had political power. In the next
elections, on 4 June, where candidates could run in multiple departments, he was elected in four
different departments; in Paris, he was among the top five candidates, just after the conservative
leader Adolphe Thiers and Victor Hugo. His followers were mostly on the left; from the peasantry
and working class. His pamphlet on ‘The Extinction of Pauperism’ was widely circulated in Paris,
and his name was cheered with those of the socialist candidates, Barbès and Louis Blanc. The
conservative leaders of the provisional government…considered arresting him as a dangerous
revolutionary, but once again he outmaneuvered them. He wrote to the President of the Provisional
Government: I believe I should wait to return to the heart of my country, so that my presence in
France will not serve as a pretext to the enemies of the Republic.” 126
“In June 1848, the June Days Uprising broke out in Paris, led by the far left, against the
conservative majority in the National Assembly. Hundreds of barricades appeared in the workingclass neighborhoods. General Cavaignac, the leader of the army, first withdrew his soldiers from
Paris to allow the insurgents to deploy their barricades, and then returned with overwhelming force
to crush the uprising; from 24 to 26 June, there were battles in the streets of the working class
districts of Paris. An estimated five thousand insurgents were killed at the barricades; fifteen
thousand were arrested, and four thousand deported. His absence from Paris meant that Louis
Napoleon was not connected either with the uprising, or with the brutal repression that had
followed. He was still in London on 17–18 September, when the elections for the National
Assembly were held, but he was a candidate in thirteen departments. He was elected in five
departments; in Paris, he received 110,000 votes of the 247,000 cast, the highest number of votes
of any candidate. He returned to Paris on 24 September, and this time he took his place in the
National Assembly. In seven months, he had gone from a political exile in London to a highlyvisible place in the National Assembly, as the government finished the new Constitution and
prepared for the first election ever of a President of the French Republic…The new constitution
of the Second Republic, drafted by a commission including Alexis de Tocqueville, called for a
strong executive and a president elected by popular vote, through universal male suffrage, rather
than chosen by the National Assembly. The elections were scheduled for 10–11 December 1848.
Louis-Napoleon promptly announced his candidacy.” Louis Napoleon won 5,572,834 votes, or
74.2 percent of votes cast, with the support of all parts of the population: the peasants unhappy
with rising prices; unemployed workers; small businessmen who wanted prosperity and order; and
intellectuals such as Victor Hugo. He won the votes of 55.6 percent of all registered voters,
compared with 1,469,156 for Cavaignac, and won in all but four of France's departments. 127
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
65
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Louis Napoleon became the President of the Second Republic and moved his residence to the
Élysée Palace at the end of December 1848. A few months later, elections, held for the National
Assembly on 13-14 May 1849, were largely won by a conservative republicans led by Adolphe
Thiers (1797-1877), who became his bitter opponent during the Second Republic. On 11 June
1949 the socialists and radical republicans made an attempt to seize power, but was suppressed
swiftly. The leaders were arrested, the republican clubs and their newspapers were closed down.
The National Assembly, now without the red Republicans, proposed a new election law that placed
restriction on universal male suffrage, imposing a three-year residency requirement. This new
election law was passed in May 1850 by majority of 433 to 241, putting the National Assembly
on a direct collision course with the President. “According to the constitution of 1848, he had to
step down at the end of his term, so Louis Napoleon sought a constitutional amendment to allow
him to succeed himself, arguing that four years were not enough to fully implement his political
and economic program. He toured the country and gained support from many of the regional
governments, and the support of many within the Assembly. The vote in July 1851 was 446 to 278
in favor of changing the law and allowing him to run again, but this was just short of the twothirds majority needed to amend the constitution.”
Louis resorted to coup d’etat. On 1 December 1951, troops loyal to the president seized the
major administrative buildings and arrested opposition leaders. “Louis-Napoleon followed the
self-coup by a period of repression of his opponents, aimed mostly at the red republicans. About
26,000 people were arrested, including 4,000 in Paris alone. The 239 inmates who were judged
most severely were sent to the penal colony in Cayenne. 9,530 followers were sent to Algeria,
1,500 were expelled from France, and another 3,000 were given forced residence away from their
homes. Soon afterwards, a commission of revision freed 3,500 of those sentenced.” By a decree
of strict press censorship, “No newspaper dealing with political or social questions could be
published without the permission of the government, fines were increased, and the list of press
offenses was greatly expanded. After three warnings, a newspaper or journal could be suspended
or even permanently closed.” After restoring universal male suffrage, in January 1852 Louis
Napoleon asked the French people to restructure the government by electing him president for ten
years. They agreed by an overwhelming majority, 7.5 million ‘yes’ votes to 640,000 ‘not’ voted.
On November 21, 1852, Louis Napoleon returned to the people to ask for the restoration of the
Empire. This time 97 percent responded affirmatively, and on December 1852, Louis Napoleon
assumed the title of Napoleon III of the Second Empire.”128
“Napoleon III intended to be always ahead of public opinion so as to be able to understand
the requirements of his time and to create laws and institutions accordingly. Hence, he took the
greatest pains to study the public opinion and to influence it by means of propaganda. Although
promising ‘reasonable freedom,’ for the time being he considered it necessary to use the methods
of a police state.”129 “The structure of the French government during the Second Empire was little
changed from the First. But Emperor Napoleon III stressed his own imperial role as the foundation
of the government. If government was to guide the people toward domestic justice and external
peace, it was his role as emperor, holding his power by universal male suffrage and representing
all of the people, to function as supreme leader and safeguard the achievements of the revolution.
He had so often, while in prison or in exile, chastised previous oligarchical governments for
neglecting social questions that it was imperative France now prioritize their solutions. His answer
was to organize a system of government based on the principles of the Napoleonic Idea. This
meant that the emperor, the elect of the people as the representative of the democracy, ruled
supreme. He himself drew power and legitimacy from his role as representative of the great
Napoleon I of France, who had sprung armed from the French Revolution.”130
66
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) The Political Economy of Bonapartism: “One of the first priorities of Napoleon III was
the modernization of the French economy, which had fallen far behind that of the United Kingdom
and some of the German states. Political economics had long been a passion of the Emperor; while
in Britain he had visited factories and railway yards, and in prison he had studied and written about
the sugar industry and policies to reduce poverty. He wanted the government to play an active, not
a passive role in the economy; in 1839, he had written: ‘Government is not a necessary evil, as
some people claim; it is instead the benevolent motor for the whole social organism.’ He did not
advocate the government getting directly involved in industry. Instead, the government took a very
active role in building the infrastructure for economic growth: stimulating the stock market and
investment banks (to provide credit); building railways, ports, canals and roads; and providing
training and education. He also opened up French markets to foreign goods, such as railway track
from England, forcing French industry to become more efficient and competitive. The period was
favorable for industrial expansion. The gold rushes in California and Australia increased the
European money supply. In the early years of the Empire, the economy also benefited from the
coming of age of those born during the baby boom of the Restoration period. The steady rise of
prices caused by the increase of the money supply encouraged company promotion and investment
of capital. Beginning in 1852, he encouraged the creation of new banks, such as Crédit Mobilier,
which sold shares to the public and provided loans to both private industry and to the government.
Crédit Lyonnais was founded in 1863, and Société Générale in 1864. These banks provided the
funding for Napoléon III's major projects, from railway and canals to the rebuilding of Paris”.
“In 1851 France had only 3,500 kilometers of railway, compared with 10,000 kilometers in
England and 800 kilometers in Belgium, a country twenty times smaller than France. Within days
of the coup d'état Napoléon III's Minister of Public Works launched a project to build a railway
line around Paris, connecting the different independent lines coming into Paris from around the
country. The government provided guarantees for loans to build new lines, and urged railway
companies to consolidate. There were 18 railway companies in 1848, and six at the end of the
Empire. By 1870, France had 20,000 kilometers of railway, linked to the French ports and to the
railway systems of the neighboring countries, which carried over 100 million passengers a year
and transported the products of France's new steel mills, mines and factories.”
“New shipping lines were created and ports rebuilt in Marseille and Le Havre, which
connected France by sea to the USA, Latin America, North Africa and the Far East. During the
Empire the number of steamships tripled, and by 1870 France possessed, after England, the
second-largest maritime fleet in the world. Napoleon III backed the greatest maritime project of
the age, the construction of the Suez Canal between 1859 and 1869. The canal was funded by
shares on the Paris stock market, and led by a former French diplomat, Ferdinand de Lesseps. It
was opened by the Empress Eugénie, with performance of Verdi's opera Aida. The rebuilding of
central Paris also encouraged commercial expansion and innovation. The first department store,
Bon Marché, opened in Paris in 1852 in a modest building, and expanded rapidly, its income going
from 450,000 francs a year to 20 million…They were soon imitated around the world. Napoleon
III's program also included reclaiming farmland and reforestation. One such project in the Gironde
department drained and reforested 10,000 square kilometers of moorland, creating the Landes
forest, the largest maritime pine forest in Europe.” Moreover, “the medieval Paris of narrow streets
and old city walls was destroyed and replaced by a modern Paris of broad boulevards, spacious
buildings, circular plazas, public squares, and underground sewage system, a new public water
supply, and gaslights. The new Paris served a military as well as an aesthetic purpose. Broad
streets made it more difficult for would-be insurrectionists to throw up barricades and easier for
troops to move rapidly through the city in the event of revolt.” 131
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
67
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Bonapartist State and the Elites: The political system maintained a democraticpopulist façade, with universal male suffrage. Parliament was elected every six years. The regime
won general elections during 1852-69, but the opposition vote grew from 0.66 million to 3.3
million. “Liberal concessions were steadily made in the 1860s, as political exile returned, press
controls were eased, strikes permitted (1864) and public meetings tolerated (1868)…The electoral
system was rigged and gerrymandered. The number of parliamentary seats was cut by nearly twothirds. Urban seats were appended to large rural constituencies to swamp radical working-class
voters. There was adroit manipulation of sticks and carrots…Political clubs remained outlawed;
prior permission was needed for publication of all press articles. Parliamentary sessions were
reduced to three months per year. The lower house could discuss but not initiate legislation. The
press could not report parliamentary debate.” 132 The political success of 1850s relied excessively
on an economic boom, which could not be sustained. The regime lacked a political party: its elite
of policy-makers were recruited from somewhere, such as old conservative groups, by borrowing
leaders as bureaucrat, deputies, or ministers. The Conseil d’Etat remained dominated by men of
legal training from military, bureaucratic and diplomatic families, and of Orleanist sympathies.
Parliament was monopolized by elites – with 24 percent of deputies from business, 19 percent
landowners, 26 percent upper bureaucrats, 8 percent military officers, and 13 percent lawyers. In
1869, over half the deputies had personal incomes above 30,000 francs per year. The state
bureaucracy included 360,000 troops, 24,000 gendarmes, and a public service which doubled to
265,000. Teachers and postal officials were expected to act as political agents of the regime. Many
senior bureaucrats and magistrates retained their royalist sympathies, and saw their roles as control
of the reds. They controlled local police, nominated mayors and teachers, implemented laws, and
licensed cafes. Notables in Paris influenced the share of public fund to localities.
“The French clergy fervently rallied behind Louis Napoleon Bonaparte’s presidential election
in 1848 and approved of his coup on December 2, 1851. To a large extent, the cordial relationship
between the imperial government and the Catholic Church existed for pragmatic purposes. The
Legitimists amongst the clergy viewed the empire as a more church-friendly governmental system
than the republic, while those wealthy Catholics realized that by supporting Napoleon III, the
emperor would reward the clergy and facilitate a period of prosperity for Catholicism in France
that positively impacted Catholics of every social rank. This flourishing era for the Catholic
Church lasted until tensions arose between 1859 and 1863 over Napoleon III’s military actions in
Italy. From that point on, the floodgates of opposition opened and remained opened until the end
of the Second Empire. Despite Napoleon III’s benevolent actions towards the religious majority
in France, the emperor fell short of generating universal acclamation for his regime within his
empire.”133 Meanwhile, substantial educational concessions to Catholic interests was made by the
education minister in the 1850s, “placing Christian texts on school syllabuses, sacking atheistic
teachers, downgrading subversive subjects such as modern history, and replacing classroom
discussion by dogmatic assertion. After 1859, as the Catholic educational upsurge undermined
hopes of cementing unity of old and new elites via shared cultural values, municipalities were
encouraged to support secular schools against Catholic rivals. Duray, made education minister in
1863, regarded Catholicism as an obstacle to a modern education system. Hoping to train liberal
wives as fit companions for bourgeois husbands, he rashly proposed secular secondary schools for
girls, provoking a reaction of extraordinary virulence from clergy who regarded their nearmonopoly of female education as the key to control of future generations. 134 Access upward into
the professional bourgeoisie through education was limited to sons of commercial and
bureaucratic classes. The elites guarded the baccalaureate as a badge of bourgeois status, though
handful of bright scholarship boys ascending the ladder often ended as teachers.
68
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Foreign Policy: After the end of the Napoleonic Wars, “most of France's colonies were
restored to it by Britain, notably Guadeloupe and Martinique in the West Indies, French Guiana
on the coast of South America, various trading posts in Senegal, the Île Bourbon (Réunion) in the
Indian Ocean, and France's tiny Indian possessions; however, Britain finally annexed Saint Lucia,
Tobago, the Seychelles, and the Isle de France. In 1825 Charles X sent an expedition to Haïti,
resulting in the Haiti indemnity controversy. The beginnings of the second French colonial empire
were laid in 1830 with the French invasion of Algeria, which was conquered over the next 17
years.” Napoleon III proclaimed that the Empire means peace, “reassuring foreign governments
that he would not attack other European powers in order to extend the French Empire. He was,
however, determined to follow a strong foreign policy to extend France's influence, and warned
that he would not stand by and allow another European power to threaten its neighbor. He was
also, at the beginning of his reign, an advocate of a new principle of nationalities, supporting the
creation of new states based on nationality, such as Italy, in place of the old multinational empires,
such as the Habsburg Monarchy.”135 To carry out his new overseas projects, “Napoleon III created
a new Ministry of the Navy and the Colonies, and appointed an energetic minister, Prosper,
Marquis of Chasseloup-Laubat, to head it. A key part of the enterprise was the modernization of
the French Navy; he began the construction of fifteen powerful new battle cruisers powered by
steam and driven by propellers; and a fleet of steam powered troop transports.” 136
(i) Alliance with Britain and the Crimean War (1853-56): to be discussed separately later.
(ii) Italian Campaign: “The kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia was independent, but Central Italy
was still ruled by the Pope and Lombardy, Venice and much of the north was ruled by Austria.
Other states were de jure independent but de facto totally under Austrian influence. Napoleon III
had fought with the Italian patriots against the Austrians when he was young, and his sympathy
was with them, but the Empress, most of his government and the Catholic Church in France
supported the Pope and the existing governments. The British Government was also hostile to the
idea of promoting nationalism in Italy. Despite the opposition in his government and in his own
palace, Napoleon III did all that he could to support the cause of Piedmont-Sardinia.” Napoleon
III decided to lead the French army in Italy himself, and crossed over the Alps, while the other
part, with the Emperor, landed in Genes (Genoa) on 18 May 1859. The Austrian army had been
driven from Lombardy, but remained in the region of Venice that was reinforced and numbered
250,000 men, slightly more than French and Piedmontese. The battle of Solferino killed 40,000
men including 17,500 French soldiers, and Napoleon made peace with Austria on 11 November,
1959. Venetia was still controlled by the Austrians. To win over the French Catholics and his
wife, Napoleon agreed to guarantee that Rome would remain under the Pope and independent
from the rest of Italy; and the garrison of 8,000 French troops remained in Rome until 1870. As
Cavour had promised, Savoy and the county of Nice were returned to France. 137
(iii) New Caledonia (1853-54): “On 24 September 1853, Admiral Febvrier Despointes took
formal possession of New Caledonia and Port-de-France (Nouméa) was founded 25 June 1854. A
few dozen free settlers settled on the west coast in the following years, but New Caledonia became
a penal colony and, from the 1860s until the end of the transportations in 1897, about 22,000
criminals and political prisoners were sent to New Caledonia.” (iv) Colonization of Senegal
(1854-65): The French governor built a series of forts along the Senegal River, formed alliances
with leaders in the interior, and sent expeditions against those who resisted French rule. “He built
a new port at Dakar, established and protected telegraph lines and roads, followed these with a rail
line between Dakar and Saint-Louis and another into the interior. He built schools, bridges, and
systems to supply fresh water to the towns. He also introduced the large-scale cultivation of
Bambara groundnuts and peanuts as a commercial crop.”138
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
69
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-2. Arrival of French Marshall Randon in Algiers in 1857
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Arrival_of_Marshal_Randon_in_Algier
Photo I-2-3. Capture of Saigon by Charles Rigault de Genouilly on 18 February 1859
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Prise_de_Saigon_18_Fevrier_1859
70
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(v) Intervention in China (1858-60): “In 1857, after the murder of a French priest and the
arrest by the Chinese police of the crew of a British merchant ship, Napoleon III joined together
with Great Britain to form a military expedition to punish the Chinese government. The object of
his policy was not to take territory, but to assure that the vast and lucrative Chinese market was
open to French commerce, and not the exclusive trading partner of Britain. In January 1858 a
combined British and French fleet bombarded and occupied Canton, and landed troops at the
mouth of the Hai River in northern China. In June 1858 the Chinese government in Peking was
forced to sign the Treaty of Tientsin with Britain, France, Russia and the United States. This treaty
opened six additional Chinese ports to European merchant ships, allowed Christian missionary
activity, and legalized the import of opium into China. The Chinese government was reluctant to
observe the treaty, so Napoleon III and the British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston decided to take
more forceful action, in what became known in history as the second phase of the Second Opium
War. A joint French-British expeditionary force of 8,000 men was created under a French general,
Charles Cousin-Montauban, who had commanded French forces in Algeria. At the beginning of
1860 the French-British fleet sailed from Europe, and in the spring of 1860 landed the army in
China. The Anglo-French army force, led by Cousin-Montauban, captured Tientsin, and then
marched on the capital. On 21 September 1860 it defeated the army of the Chinese emperor at the
Battle of Palikao and seized the capital Beijing. At the orders of the British commander Lord
Elgin, the British and French forces burned and pillaged the Old Summer Palace of the Chinese
Emperor. On 25 October 1860, the Chinese Emperor was obliged to accept a second treaty of
Tientsin, opening an additional eleven new ports to European trade, making westerners immune
to prosecution by Chinese courts, and establishing western diplomatic missions in Beijing.”139
(vi) France in Korea and Japan (1866-68): “In 1866, French diplomats in China learned that
French priests had been arrested and executed in Korea, a country which had had no diplomatic
or commercial contact with Europe or America. Twelve Catholic priests at the time were living in
Korea, with an estimated 23,000 Korean converts, belonging to churches founded by French
missionaries in the 18th century. In January 1866, King Gojong and his father, the regent, ordered
the execution of most of the French priests, and ten thousand converts. A squadron of French
ships, carrying eight hundred naval infantry, attempted retaliation but made little headway.”
“In Japan the Meiji Emperor, and his enemies, the Tokugawa Shogunate, both sought French
military training and technology in their battle for power, known as the Boshin War. In 1867, a
military mission to Japan played a key role in modernizing the troops of the Shogun Tokugawa
Yoshinobu, and even participated on his side against Imperial troops during the Boshin war. The
European representative of the Shogunate, Shibata Takenaka, approached both Britain and France,
asking assistance to build a modern shipyard and to train the Shogunate army in modern western
warfare. The shipyard, which became the naval base of Yokosuka, was designed by the French
engineer Leonce Verny. The British, who supported the imperial faction, declined to provide
trainers, but Napoleon III agreed, and in 1867 dispatched a delegation of nineteen French military
experts in the fields of infantry, cavalry and artillery to Japan. They trained an elite corps, called
the Denshutai, to fight on the side of the Shogun.” 140
(vii) France in Indochina and the Pacific (1858-70): “In 1858 the Vietnamese emperor of the
Nguyen Dynasty felt threatened by the French influence and tried to expel the missionaries.
Napoleon III sent a naval force of fourteen gunships, carrying three thousand French and three
thousand Filipino troops provided by Spain, under Charles Rigault de Genouilly, to compel the
government to accept the missionaries and to stop the persecution of Catholics. In September 1858
the expeditionary force captured and occupied the port of Da Nang, and then in February 1859
moved south and captured Saigon. The Vietnamese ruler was compelled to cede three provinces
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
71
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
to France, and to offer protection to the Catholics…The Emperor was forced to open treaty ports
in Annam and Tonkin, and all of Cochinchina became a French territory in 1864. In 1863, the
ruler of Cambodia, King Norodom, who had been placed in power by the government of Thailand,
rebelled against his sponsors and sought the protection of France. The Thai Emperor granted
authority over Cambodia to France, in exchange for two provinces of Laos, which were ceded by
Cambodia to Thailand. In 1867, Cambodia formally became a protectorate of France.”
(viii) Establishing a Mexican Empire (1862-670: “In 1862, Napoleon III sent troops to Mexico
in an effort to establish an allied monarchy in the Americas, with Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian
of Austria enthroned as Emperor Maximilian I. However, the Second Mexican Empire faced
resistance from the republican government of President Benito Juárez. After victory in the
American Civil War in 1865, the United States made clear that France would have to leave. It sent
50,000 troops under General Philip H. Sheridan to the U.S.-Mexico border, and helped resupply
Juárez. Napoleon was stretched very thin; he had committed 40,000 troops to Mexico, 20,000 to
Rome to guard the Pope against the Italians, and another 80,000 in restive Algeria. Furthermore,
Prussia, having just defeated Austria, was an imminent threat. Napoleon realized his predicament
and withdrew his troops from Mexico in 1866. Maximilian was overthrown and executed.”141
(ix) Intervention in Syria and Lebanon (1860-61): The Ottoman authorities in Lebanon could
not stop violence, and it spread into neighboring Syria, with the massacre of many Christians.
Napoleon III sent a French contingent of seven thousand men for a period of six months. The
troops arrived in Beirut in August 1860, and restored a fragile peace.
(x) Algeria: “Algeria had been formally under French rule since 1830, but only in 1852 was
the country entirely conquered. There were about a hundred thousand European settlers in the
country, at that time, about half of them French. Under the Second Republic the country was ruled
by a civilian government, but Louis Napoleon re-established a military government, much to the
annoyance of the colonists. By 1857 the army had conquered Kabyle Province, and pacified the
country. By 1860 the European population had grown to two hundred thousand, and the land of
the Algerians was being rapidly bought and farmed by the new arrivals.” Napoleon’s attempted
reforms were interrupted in 1864 by an Arab insurrection, which required more than a year and an
army of 85,000 soldiers to suppress, but his reforms were hindered by the French colonists. 142
(xi) French-British Relations: “Despite the signing of the 1860 Cobden–Chevalier Treaty, a
historic free trade agreement between Britain and France, and the joint operations conducted by
France and Britain in the Crimea, China and Mexico, diplomatic relations between Britain and
France never became close. Lord Palmerston, the British foreign minister from 1846 to 1851 and
prime minister from 1855 to 1865, sought to maintain the balance of power in Europe; this rarely
involved an alignment with France. In 1859 there were even briefly fears that France might try to
invade Britain. Palmerston was suspicious of France's interventions in Lebanon, Southeast Asia
and Mexico. Palmerston was also concerned that France might intervene in the American Civil
War (1861–65) on the side of the South. The British also felt threatened by the construction of the
Suez Canal (1859–1869) by Ferdinand de Lesseps in Egypt. They tried to oppose its completion
by diplomatic pressures and by promoting revolts among workers. The Suez Canal was
successfully built by the French, but became a joint British-French project in 1875. Both nations
saw it as vital to maintaining their influence and empires in Asia. In 1882, ongoing civil
disturbances in Egypt prompted Britain to intervene, extending a hand to France. France's leading
expansionist Jules Ferry was out of office, and Paris allowed London to take effective control of
Egypt.” On the other hand, during American Civil War in 1863, the Confederacy realized there
was no longer any chance of intervention, and expelled the French and British consuls, who were
advising their citizens not to enlist in the Confederate Army. 143
72
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(e) The Crimean War (1853-56): The Crimean War was a military conflict in which Russia
lost to an alliance of France, Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. “The Ottoman
Empire had long been in control of much of southeastern Europe, but by the beginning of the
nineteenth century, it had begun to decline. As Turkish authority over the outlying territories in
southeastern Europe waned, European governments began to take an active interest in the empire’s
apparent demise. Russia’s proximity to the Ottoman Empire and the religious bonds between the
Russians and the Greeks Orthodox Christians in Turkish-dominated southeastern Europe naturally
gave it special opportunities to enlarge its sphere of influence. Other European powers not only
feared Russian ambitions but had ambitions of their own in the area. Austria craved more land in
the Balkans, a desire that inevitably meant conflict with Russia, while France and Britain were
interested in commercial opportunities and naval bases in the eastern Mediterranean. War erupted
between the Russians and Turks in 1853 when the Russians demanded the right to protect Christian
shrines in Palestine, a privilege that had already been extended to the French. When the Turks
refused, the Russians invaded Turkish Moldavia and Walachia. Failure to resolve the dispute by
negotiations led the Turks to declare war on Russia on October 4, 1853. In the following year, on
March 28, Great Britain and France declared war on Russia.”144 Austria remained neutral since it
was not in their best interest to intervene. It is reasonably argued that the war resulted not from
aggression but from the interacting fears of the major players: “in some sense the Crimean war
was predestined and had deep-seated causes. Neither Nicholas I nor Napoleon III nor the British
government could retreat in the conflict for prestige once it was launched. Nicholas needed a
subservient Turkey for the sake of Russian security; Napoleon needed success for the sake of his
domestic position; the British government needed an independent Turkey for the security of the
Eastern Mediterranean....Mutual fear, not mutual aggression, caused the Crimean war.”145
“The Crimean War was poorly planned and poorly fought. Britain and France decided to
attack Russia’s Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea. After a long siege and at a terrible cost in
manpower for both sides, the main Russian forces of Sevastopol fell in September 1855, six
months after the death of Tsar Nicholas I. His successor, Alexander II, soon sued for peace. By
the Treaty of Paris, signed in March 1856, Russia was forced to give up Bessarabia at the mouth
of the Danube and accept the neutrality of the Black Sea. In addition, the Danubian principalities
of Moldavia and Walachia were placed under the protection of all the great powers. The Crimean
War broke up long-standing European power relationships and effectively destroyed the Concert
of Europe. Austria and Russia, the two chief powers maintaining the status quo in the first half of
the nineteenth century, were now enemies because of Austria’s unwillingness to support Russia
in the war. Russia, defeated, humiliated, and weakened by the obvious failure of its surf-armies,
withdrew from European affairs for the next two decades to set its house in order and await a
better opportunity to undo the Treaty of Paris. Great Britain, disillusioned by its role in the war,
also pulled back from continental affairs. Austrian, paying the price for its neutrality, was now
without friends among the great powers. Not until the 1870s were new combinations formed to
replace those that had disappeared, and in the meantime the European international situation
remained fluid. Those willing to pursue the politics of reality found themselves in a situation rife
with opportunity. It was this new international situation that made possible the unification of Italy
and Germany. Only Louis Napoleon seemed to have gained in prestige from the Crimean War.
His experiences in the war had taught him that he was not the military genius his uncle had been,
but he became well aware of the explosive power of the forces of nationalism and determined to
pursue a foreign policy that would champion national movements. Some historians argued that
Napoleon believed ardently in the cause of national liberation…as the liberator of national
peoples, Napoleon III envisioned France as the natural leader of free European states.” 146
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
73
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The Siege of Sevastopol lasted from September 1854 until September 1855, during the
Crimean War. The allies landed at Eupatoria on 14 September 1854, intending to make a triumphal
march to Sevastopol, the capital of the Crimea, with 50,000 men. The 56-kilometre traverse took
a year of fighting against the Russians. Major battles along the way were Alma (September 1854),
Balaklava (October 1854), Inkerman (November 1854), Tchernaya (August 1855), Redan
(September 1855), and, finally, Sevastopol (September 1855). During the siege, the allied navy
undertook six bombardments of the capital…Sevastopol is one of the classic sieges of all time.
The city of Sevastopol was the home of the Tsar's Black Sea Fleet, which threatened the Mediterranean. The Russian field army withdrew before the allies could encircle it. The siege was the
culminating struggle for the strategic Russian port in 1854–1855 and was the final episode.”147
“The Battle of Balaclava, fought on 25 October 1854 during the Crimean War, was part of
Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) to capture the port and fortress of Sevastopol, Russia's principal
naval base on the Black Sea. The engagement followed the earlier Allied victory in September at
the Battle of the Alma, where the Russian General Menshikov had positioned his army in an
attempt to stop the Allies progressing south towards their strategic goal. Alma was the first major
encounter fought in the Crimea since the Allied landings at Kalamita Bay on 14 September, and
was a clear battlefield success; but a tardy pursuit by the Allies failed to gain a decisive victory,
allowing the Russians to regroup, recover and prepare their defense. The Allies decided against
an immediate assault on Sevastopol and instead prepared for a protracted siege. The British, under
the command of Lord Raglan, and the French, under Canrobert, positioned their troops to the south
of the port on the Chersonese Peninsula: the French Army occupied Kamiesh on the west coast
whilst the British moved to the southern port of Balaclava. However, this position committed the
British to the defense of the right flank of the Allied siege operations, for which Raglan had
insufficient troops. Taking advantage of this exposure, the Russian General Liprandi, with some
25,000 men, prepared to attack the defenses in and around Balaclava, hoping to disrupt the supply
chain between the British base and their siege
lines. The battle began with a Russian artillery
and infantry attack on the Ottoman redoubts that
formed Balaclava's first line of defense. The
Ottoman forces initially resisted the Russian
assaults, but lacking support they were eventually forced to retreat. When the redoubts fell, the
Russian cavalry moved to engage the second
defensive line held by the Ottoman and the
Scottish 93rd Highland Regiment in what came
to be known as the 'Thin Red Line'. This line
held and repulsed the attack; as did General
James Scarlett's British Heavy Brigade who
charged and defeated the greater proportion of
the cavalry advance, forcing the Russians onto
the defensive. However, a final Allied cavalry
charge, stemming from a misinterpreted order
from Raglan, led to one of the most famous and
ill-fated events in British military history – the
Charge of the Light Brigade.”148
Map I-2-3. The Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War, September 1854
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/March_to_Sevastopol_1854.png/
74
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
National Unification of Italy: Italian unification was the political and social movement that
consolidated different states of the Italian Peninsula into a single state of the Kingdom of Italy in
the nineteenth century. “After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Roman province of Italy
remained united under the Ostrogothic Kingdom and later disputed between the Kingdom of the
Lombards and the Byzantine Empire. Following conquest by the Frankish Empire, the title of King
of Italy merged with the office of Holy Roman Emperor but as an absentee foreigner who had
little concern for the governance of Italy as a state, Italy gradually developed into a system of citystates. This situation persisted through the Renaissance but began to deteriorate with the rise of
modern nation-states in the early modern period. Italy, including the Papal States, then became
the site of proxy wars between the major powers, notably the Holy Roman Empire and France…
The Italian campaigns of the French Revolutionary Wars destroyed the old structures of feudalism
in Italy. The new French Republic necessarily supported the spread of republican principles, and
the institutions of republican governments promoted citizenship over the rule of the royal families,
primarily the Bourbons and Habsburgs. This set the stage for the appearance of nationalist
sentiment in Italy, which greatly influenced the course of European history…Nationalism
increased in the early 19th century, when Italy, like much of Europe, fell under the sway of
Napoleon. In 1805, Napoleon endeavored to attach the Italian heritage to France again and was
crowned king of Italy with the Iron Crown of Lombardy at the Milan Cathedral.” After the fall of
Napoleon, the Austrian Empire vigorously repressed nationalist sentiment growing on the Italian
peninsula, as well as in the other parts of Habsburg domains under the rule of Metternich.
Meanwhile, artistic and literary sentiment also turned towards nationalism.”149
“One of the most influential revolutionary groups was the Carbonari, a secret organization
formed in Southern Italy early in the 19th century. Mainly drawn from the ranks of the middle
classes but including some intellectuals the Carbonari were inspired by the principles of the French
Revolution. The Carbonari movement spread into the Papal States, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the
Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchy of Modena, and the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia
following, and in consequence of, the division of the Italian peninsula amongst the European
powers following the Congress of Vienna. Fear of the Carbonari grew to the point that authorities
passed an ordinance that anyone found attending a Carbonari meeting would face the punishment
of death…Many leading revolutionaries wanted a republic, two of the most prominent being
Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi. Mazzini's activity in revolutionary movements caused
him to be imprisoned soon after he joined…Garibaldi, a native of Nice (then part of the Kingdom
of Sardinia) participated in an uprising in Piedmont in 1834 and was sentenced to death but he
escaped to South America, spending fourteen years in exile, taking part in several wars and
learning the art of guerrilla warfare before his return to Italy in 1848.” 150 In 1850, Austria was
still the dominant power in the Italian peninsula, controlling Lombardy and Venetia, while
Modena and Tuscany were ruled by members of Austria’s house of Habsburg. Moreover, the Papal
States, the other petty Italian states, and even the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies looked to
the Austrians to maintain the status quo. “Although a minority, Italian liberals and nationalists had
tried earnestly to achieve unification in the first half of the nineteenth century…A growing number
of advocates of Italian unification now focused on the northern Italian state of Piedmont as their
best hope to achieve their goal. The royal house of Savoy ruled the kingdom of Piedmont, which
also included the island of Sardinia. Although soundly defeated by the Austrian in 1848-1849,
Piedmont under King Charles Albert had made o valiant effort; it seemed reasonable that Piedmont
would now assume the leading role in the cause of national unity. The little state seemed unlikely
to supply the needed leadership, however, until the new king, Victor Emmanuel II (1849-78)
named Count Camillo di Cavour (1810-61) as his prime minister in 1852.”
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
75
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-4 Garibaldi Arrived in Sicily on May 11, 1860
Source: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/C_brQIglKB0/VTVqzL1jHpI/AAAAAAAAHcY/KtKiHa99BfQ/s1600/1.%2BRisorgimento,_Giuseppe_Garibaldi.jpg
Map I-2-4 The Unification of Italy, 1859-1870
Source: http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484749/chap_assets/maps/map21_15.jpg
76
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Second War of Italian Independence: Camillo di Cavour was “a liberal-minded nobleman
who had made a fortune in agriculture and went on to make more money in banking, railroads,
and shipping. He admired the British, especially their parliamentary system, industrial techniques,
and economic liberalism. Cavour was a moderate who favored constitutional government. While
he might have wanted Italian unification, he had no preconceived notions about how to obtain it.
He was a consummate politician with the ability to persuade others of the rightness of his own
convictions. After becoming prime minister in 1852, he pursued a policy of economic expansion,
encouraging the building of roads, canals, and railroads and fostering business enterprise by
expanding credit and stimulating investment in new industries. The growth in the Piedmontese
economy and the subsequent increase in government revenues enable Cavour to pour money into
equipping a large army.”151 In 1856, the Sardinians sent troops to fight in the Crimea on the side
of the British and French since they could not defeat the Austrian Empire without France.
In 1858, Cavour came to an agreement with Napoleon III to ally with Piedmont in driving the
Austrians out of Italy. “Once the Austrians were driven out, Italy would be reorganized. Piedmont
would be extended into the kingdom of Upper Italy by adding Lombardy, Venetia, Parma,
Modena, and part of the Papal States to its territory. In compensation for its efforts, France would
receive the Piedmont provinces of Savoy and Nice. A kingdom of Central Italy would be created
for Napoleon III’s cousin, Prince Napoleon, who would be married to the younger daughter of
King Victor Emmanuel. This agreement between Napoleon and Cavour seemed to assure the
French ruler of the opportunity to control Italy.” The emperor signed a Treaty of Defensive
Alliance against the Austrians, and Cavour provoked the Austrians to invade Piedmont. After the
Austrians went to war, Cavour called for volunteers to enlist in the Italian liberation, so that the
Austrians declared war against Piedmont-Sardinia on 26 April 1859. “The Austrians planned to
use their army to beat the Sardinians before the French could come to their aid. Austria had an
army of approximately 140,000 men, while the Sardinians had a mere 70,000…Instead of swiftly
entering the capital of Sardinia, the Austrian army crawled to the Sardinian capital, taking almost
ten days to travel the fifty miles. By this time, the French had reinforced the Sardinians, so the
Austrians retreated. Napoleon III's plans worked and at the battle of Solferino, France defeated
Austria and forced negotiations. The settlement, by which Lombardy was annexed to Sardinia, left
Austria in control of Venice. Sardinia eventually won the Second War of Italian Unification.”152
Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-82), under the influence of Giuseppe Mazzini, joined the Carbonari
revolutionary association. In February 1834, he participated in a failed insurrection in Piedmont.
A Genoese court sentenced him to death in absentia, and he fled across the border to Marseille,
and sailed to Brazil. From 1836 to 1848, Garibaldi lived in South America as an exile, and had
gained much experience to guerrilla warfare, which he put to good use in the Italian revolutionary
struggles of 1848-49. On 6 May 1860, Garibaldi with a thousand Red Shirts (Italian volunteers)
landed near Marsala on the west coast of Sicily: the invading force had swelled to 4,000 men
within three days. After the surrender of Palermo, Garibaldi attacked Messina. Having conquered
Sicily, he proceeded to the mainland, crossing the Strait of Messina with the Neapolitan fleet at
hand. As he marched northward, the populace everywhere hailed him, and military resistance
faded. With a few followers, in September Garibaldi entered by train into Naples, where the
people openly welcomed him; so the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies fell in early September. “Aware
that Garibaldi planned to march on Rome, Cavour feared that such a move would bring war with
France as the defender of papal interests. Moreover, Garibaldi and his men favored a democratic
republicanism; Cavour did not and acted quickly to preempt Garibaldi. The Piedmontese army
invaded the Papal State, and by passing Rome, moved into the kingdom Naples…Garibaldi chose
to yield to Cavour’s fait accompli rather than provoke a civil war so he retired to his farm.” 153
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
77
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Kingdom of Italy: “Plebiscites in the Papal States and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
resulted in overwhelming support for union with Piedmont. On March 17, 1861, a new kingdom
of Italy was proclaimed under a centralized government subordinated to the control of Piedmont
and King Victor Emmanuel II (1861-78) of the House of Savoy.” “Following the unification of
most of Italy, tensions between the monarchists and republicans erupted. In April 1861, Garibaldi
entered the Italian parliament and challenged Cavour's leadership of the government, accusing
him of dividing Italy and spoke of the threat of civil war between the Kingdom in the north and
Garibaldi's forces in the south. On June 6, 1861, the Kingdom's strongman Cavour died. During
the ensuing political instability, Garibaldi and the republicans became increasingly revolutionary
in tone. Garibaldi's arrest in 1862 set off worldwide controversy. In 1866 Otto von Bismarck,
Minister President of Prussia offered Victor Emmanuel II an alliance with the Kingdom of Prussia
in the Austro-Prussian War. In exchange Prussia would allow Italy to annex Austrian-controlled
Venice. King Emmanuel agreed to the alliance and the Third Italian War of Independence began.
Italy fared poorly in the war with a badly organized military against Austria, but Prussia's victory
allowed Italy to annex Venice. The one major obstacle to Italian unity remained Rome.” Anyhow,
the dream of Italian nationalists for a united Italian state finally became a reality by 1870.
“In 1870, Prussia went to war with France starting the Franco-Prussian War. To keep the large
Prussian Army at bay, France abandoned its positions in Rome – which protected the remnants of
the Papal States and Pius IX – in order to fight the Prussians. Italy benefited from Prussia's victory
against France by being able to take over the Papal States from French authority. Rome was
captured by the kingdom of Italy after several battles and guerilla-like warfare by Papal Zouaves
and official troops of the Holy See against the Italian invaders. Italian unification was completed,
and shortly afterward Italy's capital was moved to Rome. Economic conditions in the united Italy
were poor. There were no industry or transportation facilities, extreme poverty, high illiteracy, and
only a small percent of wealthy Italians had the right to vote. The unification movement had
largely been dependent on the support of foreign powers and remained so afterwards. Following
the capture of Rome in 1870 from French forces of Napoleon III, Papal troops, and Zouaves,
relations between Italy and the Vatican remained sour for the next sixty years with the Popes
declaring themselves to be prisoners in the Vatican. The Catholic Church frequently protested the
actions of the secular and anticlerical-influenced Italian governments, refused to meet with envoys
from the King and urged Catholics not to vote in Italian elections.” 154
For the next fifty-nine years after 1870, “the Church denied the legitimacy of the Italian king's
rule of Rome, which, it claimed, rightfully belonged to the Papal States. In 1929, the dispute was
settled by the Lateran Treaty, in which the king recognized Vatican City as an independent state
and paid a large sum of money to compensate the Church of the loss of the Papal States. Liberal
governments generally followed a policy of limiting the role of the Catholic Church and its clergy;
the state confiscated church lands. Similar policies were supported by such anticlerical and secular
movements as republicanism, socialism, anarchism, Freemasonry, Lazzarettism and Protestantism. Common cultural traits in Italy in this time were social conservative in nature, including a
strong belief in the family as an institution and patriarchal values. In other areas, Italian culture
was divided. Aristocrats and upper middle class families in Italy at this time were highly traditional
in nature; they emphasized honor above all, with challenges to honor ending in duels. After
unification, a number of descendants of former royal nobility became residents of Italy,
comprising 7400 noble families. Many wealthy landowners maintained a feudal-like tight control
over their peasants. Italian society in this period remained highly divided along regional and local
sub-societies which often had historical rivalries with each other.”155 The Italian government
attempted to teach the official Italian language by establishing state-funded schools.
78
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Unification of Germany: After the failure of the Frankfurt Assembly to achieve German
unification in 1848-1849, German nationalists focused on Austria and Prussia as the only two
states powerful enough to dominate German affairs. “Austria had long controlled the existing
Germanic Confederation, but Prussian power had grown, strongly reinforced by economic
expansion in the 1850s. Prussia had formed the Zollverein, a German customs union, in 1834. By
eliminating tolls on rivers and roads among member states, the Zollverein had stimulated trade
and added to the prosperity of its member states. By 1853, all the German states except Austria
had joined the Prussian-dominated customs union. A number of middle-class liberals now began
to see Prussia in a new light; some even looked openly to Prussia to bring about the unification of
Germany. In 1848, Prussia had framed a constitution that at least had the appearance of
constitutional monarchy in that it had established a bicameral legislature with the lower house
elected by universal male suffrage. However, the voting population was divided into three classes
determined by the amount of taxes they paid. A system that allowed the biggest taxpayers to gain
the most seats. Unintentionally, by 1859 this system had allowed control of the lower house to
fall largely into the hands of the rising middle classes, whose numbers were growing as a result of
continuing industrialization. Their desire was to have a real parliamentary system, but the king’s
executive power remained too strong; royal ministers answered for their actions only to the king,
not the parliament. Nevertheless, the parliament had been granted important legislative and
taxation powers upon which it could build.”156
Frederick William IV (1840-61) suffered a stroke and his brother William became Prince
Regent of Prussia in 1858. “Meanwhile, Helmuth von Moltke had become chief of the Prussian
General Staff in 1857, and Albrecht von Roon would become Prussian Minister of War in 1859.
This shuffling of authority within the Prussian military establishment would have important
consequences. Von Roon and William began reorganizing the Prussian army, while Moltke
redesigned the strategic defense of Prussia by streamlining operational command. Prussian army
reforms caused a constitutional crisis beginning in 1860 because both parliament and William via his minister of war - wanted control over the military budget.” William I (1861-88) appointed
Otto von Bismarck (1815-98) to the position of Minister- President of Prussia in 1862.
“Bismarck was born into the Junker class, the traditional, landowning aristocracy of Prussia,
and remained loyal to it throughout his life. As a university student, Bismarck indulged heartily
in wine, women, and song, yet managed to read widely in German history. After earning a law
degree, he embarked upon a career in the Prussian civil service but soon tired of bureaucratic,
administrative routine and retired to manage his country estates.” In 1847, he reenter public life.
Four years later, he began to build a base of diplomatic experience as the Prussian delegate to the
diet of the Germanic Confederation. “It was in Frankfurt that Bismarck began to reassess his view
of German nationalism and the goals of Prussian foreign policy. Not only did he find the constant
deference to the Austrians in Frankfurt demeaning, but he also realized that the status quo meant
acceptance of Prussia as a second-rate power in central Europe. In 1854 he opposed close
cooperation with Austria, arguing that it entailed binding our spruce and seaworthy frigate to the
wormy old warship of Austria. Gradually he began to consider the options that would make Prussia
the undisputed power in Germany. A vision of a Prussian-dominated northern Europe and a
redirection of Austrian power to the Slavic areas in the south took shape in his mind. If necessary,
a war with Austria to destroy its hegemony was not to be excluded.”157 “In 1859 Bismarck was
sent to Russia as Prussian ambassador, and not long thereafter (May 1862) he moved to Paris as
ambassador to the court of Napoleon III. Thus, he had 11 years of experience in foreign affairs
before he became prime minister and foreign minster of Prussia in September 1862. He had come
to know personally the architects of French, Russian, and Austrian foreign policy.”158
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
79
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-5. The Proclamation of the Foundation of the German Reich, 1871
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Wernerprokla.jpg/250px-Wernerprokla.jpg
Map I-2-5 The Unification of Germany 1866-1871
Source: http://wpscms.pearsoncmg.com/wps/media/objects/1748/1790587/chap_assets/maps/map21_14.jpg
80
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The Crimean War of 1854–55 and the Italian War of 1859 disrupted relations among Great
Britain, France, Austria, and Russia. In the aftermath of this disarray, the convergence of von
Moltke's operational redesign, von Roon and Wilhelm's army restructure, and Bismarck's
diplomacy influenced the realignment of the European balance of power. Their combined agendas
established Prussia as the leading German power through a combination of foreign diplomatic
triumphs - backed up by the possible use of Prussian military might - and an internal
conservativism tempered by pragmatism, which came to be known as Realpolitik. Bismarck
expressed the essence of Realpolitik in his subsequently famous Blood and Iron speech to the
Budget Committee of the Prussian Chamber of Deputies on 30 September 1862, shortly after he
became Minister President: ‘The great questions of the time will not be resolved by speeches and
majority decisions - that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 - but by iron and blood.’
Bismarck's words, iron and blood (or blood and iron), have often been misappropriated as evidence
of a German lust for blood and power. First, the phrase from his speech ‘the great questions of
time will not be resolved by speeches and majority decisions’ is often interpreted as a repudiation
of the political process - a repudiation Bismarck did not himself advocate. Second, his emphasis
on blood and iron did not imply simply the unrivaled military might of the Prussian army but
rather two important aspects: the ability of the assorted German states to produce iron and other
related war materials and the willingness to use those war materials if necessary.”159
“Three episodes proved fundamental to the administrative and political unification of
Germany. First, the death without male heirs of Frederick VII of Denmark led to the Second War
of Schleswig in 1864. Second, the unification of Italy provided Prussia an ally against Austria in
the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Finally, France - fearing Hohenzollern encirclement - declared
war on Prussia in 1870, resulting in the Franco-Prussian War. Through a combination of
Bismarck's diplomacy and political leadership, von Roon's military reorganization, and von
Moltke's military strategy, Prussia demonstrated that none of the European signatories of the 1815
peace treaty could guarantee Austria's sphere of influence in Central Europe, thus achieving
Prussian hegemony in Germany and ending the dualism debate.”
(a) The Danish War (1864) arose over the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. In 1863, the
Danish government moved to incorporate the two duchies into Denmark. “German nationalists
were outraged since both duchies had large German populations and were regarded as German
states. The diet of the Germanic Confederation urged its member states to send troops against
Denmark, but Bismarck did not care to subject Prussian policy to the Austrian-dominated German
diet. Instead he persuaded the Austrians to join Prussia in declaring war on Denmark on February
1, 1864. The Danes were quickly defeated and surrendered Schleswig and Holstein to the victors.
Austria and Prussia then agreed to divide the administration of the two duchies; Prussia took
Schleswig while Austria administered Holstein. The plan was Bismarck’s. By this time Bismarck
come to the realization that for Prussia to expand its power by dominating the northern, largely
Protestant part of the Germanic Confederations, Austrian would have to be excluded from German
affairs or, less likely, he willing to accept Prussian domination of Germany. The joint
administration of the two duchies offered plenty of opportunities to create friction with Austria
and provide a reason for war if it came to that. While he pursue negotiations with Austria, he also
laid the foundations for the isolation of Austria.” 160 In the war, “The Danes were no match for the
combined Prussian and Austrian forces, and they could not rely on help from their allies in the
other Scandinavian states…The Needle Gun, one of the first bolt action rifles to be used in conflict,
aided the Prussians in both this war and the Austro-Prussian War two years later. The rifle enabled
a Prussian soldier to fire five shots while lying prone, while its muzzle-loading counterpart could
only fire one shot and had to be reloaded while standing.”161
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
81
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) War between Austria and Prussia (1866): “Bismarck's unification efforts occurred in
1866. “In concert with the newly formed Italy, Bismarck created a diplomatic environment in
which Austria declared war on Prussia. The dramatic prelude to the war occurred largely in
Frankfurt, where the two powers claimed to speak for all the German states in the parliament. In
April 1866, the Prussian representative in Florence signed a secret agreement with the Italian
government, committing each state to assist the other in a war against Austria. The next day, the
Prussian delegate to the Frankfurt assembly presented a plan calling for a national constitution, a
directly elected national Diet, and universal suffrage…The debate over the proposed national
constitution became moot when news of Italian troop movements in Tyrol and near the Venetian
border reached Vienna in April 1866. The Austrian government ordered partial mobilization in
the southern regions; the Italians responded by ordering full mobilization. Despite calls for rational
thought and action, Italy, Prussia, and Austria continued to rush toward armed conflict. On 1 May,
Wilhelm gave von Moltke command over the Prussian armed forces, and the next day he began
full-scale mobilization.” Prussia’s only alliance was Italy, while Russia remained neutral because
Prussia had been the only great power to support Russia’s repression of a Polish revolt in 1863.
“Although several German states initially sided with Austria, they stayed on the defensive and
failed to take effective initiatives against Prussian troops. The Austrian army therefore faced the
technologically superior Prussian army with support only from Saxony. France promised aid, but
it came late and was insufficient. Complicating the situation for Austria, the Italian mobilization
on Austria's southern border required a diversion of forces away from battle with Prussia to fight
the Third Italian War of Independence on a second front in Venetia and on the Adriatic Sea. The
day-long Battle of Königgrätz…gave Prussia an uncontested and decisive victory.”
“A quick peace was essential to keep Russia from entering the conflict on Austria's side.
Prussia annexed Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau, and the city of Frankfurt. Hesse Darmstadt lost
some territory but not its sovereignty. The states south of the Main River (Baden, Württemberg,
and Bavaria) signed separate treaties requiring them to pay indemnities and to form alliances
bringing them into Prussia's sphere of influence. Austria, and most of its allies, were excluded
from the North German Confederation. The end of Austrian dominance of the German states
shifted Austria's attention to the Balkans. In 1867, the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph accepted a
settlement in which he gave his Hungarian holdings equal status with his Austrian domains,
creating the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary. The Peace of Prague (1866) offered lenient terms
to Austria, in which Austria's relationship with the new nation-state of Italy underwent major
restructuring; although the Austrians were far more successful in the military field against Italian
troops, the monarchy lost the important province of Venetia. The Habsburgs ceded Venetia to
France, which then formally transferred control to Italy. The French public resented the Prussian
victory and demanded Revanche pour Sadová (Revenge for Sadova), illustrating anti-Prussian
sentiment in France - a problem that would accelerate in the months leading up to the FrancoPrussian War. The Austro-Prussian War also damaged relations with the French government. At
a meeting in Biarritz in September 1865 with Napoleon III, Bismarck had let it be understood that
France might annex parts of Belgium and Luxembourg in exchange for its neutrality in the war.
These annexations did not happen, resulting in animosity from Napoleon towards Bismarck. The
reality of defeat for Austria caused a reevaluation of internal divisions, local autonomy, and
liberalism. The new North German Confederation had its own constitution, flag, and governmental
and administrative structures. Through military victory, Prussia under Bismarck's influence had
overcome Austria's active resistance to the idea of a unified Germany. Austria's influence over the
German states may have been broken, but the war also splintered the spirit of pan-German unity:
most of the German states resented Prussian power politics.”162
82
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Franco-Prussian War (1870-71): “With skillful manipulation of European politics,
Bismarck created a situation in which France would play the role of aggressor in German affairs,
while Prussia would play that of the protector of German rights and liberties.” Bismarck
recognized that France would never be content with a strong German state to its east because of
the potential threat to French security. “At the same time, after a series of setbacks, Napoleon III
needed a diplomatic triumph to offset his serious domestic problems. The French were not happy
with the turn of events in Germany and looked for opportunities to humiliate the Prussians.”
At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, “Metternich and his conservative allies had reestablished
the Spanish monarchy under King Ferdinand VII. Over the following forty years, the great powers
supported the Spanish monarchy, but events in 1868 would further test the old system. A
revolution in Spain overthrew Queen Isabella II, and the throne remained empty while Isabella
lived in sumptuous exile in Paris. The Spanish, looking for a suitable Catholic successor, had
offered the post to three European princes, each of whom was rejected by Napoleon III, who served
as regional power-broker. Finally, in 1870 the Regency offered the crown to Leopold of
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, a prince of the Catholic cadet Hohenzollern line.” Over the next few
weeks, Bismarck encouraged Leopold to accept the offer. “A successful installment of a
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen king in Spain would mean that two countries on either side of France
would both have German kings of Hohenzollern descent. This may have been a pleasing prospect
for Bismarck, but it was unacceptable to either Napoleon III or…his foreign minister. Gramont
wrote a sharply formulated ultimatum to Wilhelm, as head of the Hohenzollern family, stating that
if any Hohenzollern prince should accept the crown of Spain, the French government would
respond - although he left ambiguous the nature of such response. The prince withdrew as a
candidate, thus defusing the crisis, but the French ambassador to Berlin would not let the issue lie.
He approached the Prussian king directly while Wilhelm was vacationing in Ems Spa, demanding
that the King release a statement saying he would never support the installation of a Hohenzollern
on the throne of Spain. Wilhelm refused to give such an encompassing statement, and he sent
Bismarck a dispatch by telegram describing the French demands. Bismarck used the king's
telegram, called the Ems Dispatch, as a template for a short statement to the press. With its wording
shortened and sharpened by Bismarck - and further alterations made in the course of its translation
by the French agency Havas - the Ems Dispatch raised an angry furor in France. The French public,
still aggravated over the defeat at Sadová, demanded war.”163
“Napoleon III had tried to secure territorial concessions from both sides before and after the
Austro-Prussian War, but despite his role as mediator during the peace negotiations, he ended up
with nothing. He then hoped that Austria would join in a war of revenge and that its former allies
- particularly the southern German states of Baden, Württemberg, and Bavaria - would join in the
cause. This hope would prove futile since the 1866 treaty came into effect and united all German
states militarily - if not happily - to fight against France. Instead of a war of revenge against
Prussia, supported by various German allies, France engaged in a war against all of the German
states without any allies of its own. The reorganization of the military by von Roon and the
operational strategy of Moltke combined against France to great effect. The speed of Prussian
mobilization astonished the French, and the Prussian ability to concentrate power at specific points
- reminiscent of Napoleon I's strategies seventy years earlier - overwhelmed French mobilization.
Utilizing their efficiently laid rail grid, Prussian troops were delivered to battle areas rested and
prepared to fight, whereas French troops had to march for considerable distances to reach combat
zones. After a number of battles…the Prussians defeated the main French armies and advanced
on the primary city of Metz and the French capital of Paris. They captured Napoleon III and took
an entire army as prisoners at Sedan on 1 September 1870.”164
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
83
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-6. The Convergence of Prussian Leadership after the 1960s:
Otto von Bismarck (left), Albrecht von Roon (center), and Helmuth von Moltke (right)
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/BismarckRoonMoltke.jpg/220pxBismarckRoonMoltke.jpg
Photo I-2-7. Prussian troops marching past the Arc de Triomphe in Paris in January 1871
Source: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/89/127389-004-24539C50.jpg
84
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Proclamation of the German Empire: “The humiliating capture of the French emperor
and the loss of the French army itself, which marched into captivity at a makeshift camp in the
Saarland, threw the French government into turmoil; Napoleon's energetic opponents overthrew
his government and proclaimed the Third Republic. The German High Command expected an
overture of peace from the French, but the new republic refused to surrender. The Prussian army
invested Paris and held it under siege until mid-January with the city being bombarded. On 18
January 1871, the German princes and senior military commanders proclaimed Wilhelm ‘German
Emperor’ in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles. Under the subsequent Treaty of
Frankfurt, France relinquished most of its traditionally German regions (Alsace and the Germanspeaking part of Lorraine); paid an indemnity, calculated (on the basis of population) as the precise
equivalent of the indemnity that Napoleon Bonaparte imposed on Prussia in 1807; and accepted
German administration of Paris and most of northern France, with German troops to be withdrawn
stage by stage with each installment of the indemnity payment.”165
Importance in the German Unification Process: “Victory in the Franco-Prussian War proved
the capstone of the nationalist issue. In the first half of the 1860s, Austria and Prussia both
contended to speak for the German states; both maintained they could support German interests
abroad and protect German interests at home. In responding to the Schleswig-Holstein Question,
they both proved equally diligent in doing so. After the victory over Austria in 1866, Prussia began
internally asserting its authority to speak for the German states and defend German interests, while
Austria began directing more and more of its attention to possessions in the Balkans. The victory
over France in 1871 expanded Prussian hegemony in the German states to the international level.
With the proclamation of Wilhelm as Kaiser, Prussia assumed the leadership of the new empire.
The southern states became officially incorporated into a unified Germany at the Treaty of
Versailles of 1871 (signed 26 February 1871; later ratified in the Treaty of Frankfurt of 10 May
1871), which formally ended the war. Although Bismarck had led the transformation of Germany
from a loose confederation into a federal nation state, he had not done it alone. Unification was
achieved by building on a tradition of legal collaboration under the Holy Roman Empire and
economic collaboration through the Zollverein. The difficulties of the Vormärz, the impact of the
1848 liberals, the importance of von Roon's military reorganization, and von Moltke's strategic
brilliance all played a part in political unification.” 166 “The Prussian leadership of German
unification meant the triumph of authoritarian, militaristic values over liberal, constitutional
sentiments in the development of the new German state. With its industrial resources and military
might, the new state had become the strongest power on the Continent.”
Political Structure of the Empire: “The 1866 North German Constitution became the 1871
Constitution of the German Empire. With this constitution, the new Germany acquired some
democratic features: notably the Imperial Diet, which…gave citizens representation on the basis
of elections by direct and equal suffrage of all males who had reached the age of 25. Prussia thus
exercised influence in both bodies, with executive power vested in the Prussian King as Kaiser,
who appointed the federal chancellor. The chancellor was accountable solely to, and served
entirely at the discretion of, the Emperor. Officially, the chancellor functioned as a one-man
cabinet and was responsible for the conduct of all state affairs; in practice, the State Secretaries
acted as unofficial portfolio ministers…The Imperial Diet had the power to pass, amend, or reject
bills, but it could not initiate legislation. (The power of initiating legislation rested with the
chancellor.) The other states retained their own governments, but the military forces of the smaller
states came under Prussian control. The militaries of the larger states (such as the Kingdoms of
Bavaria and Saxony) retained some autonomy, but they underwent major reforms to coordinate
with Prussian military principles and came under federal government control in wartime.”167
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
85
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-8. Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria (1905)
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Emperor_Francis_Joseph.jpg/220pxEmperor_Francis_Joseph.jpg
Map I-2-6. The Ethnic Groups of Austria-Hungary in 1910
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg/2000pxAustria_Hungary_ethnic.svg.png
86
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Austrian Empire toward a Dual Monarchy: “After the Habsburgs had crushed the
revolutions of 1848-49, they restored centralized, autocratic government to the empire. What
seemed to be the only lasting result of the revolution of 1848 was the act of emancipation of
September 7, 1848, that freed the serfs and eliminated all compulsory labor services. Nevertheless,
the development of industrialization after 1850, especially in Vienna and the provinces of
Bohemia and Galicia, served to bring some economic and social change to the empire in the form
of an urban proletariat, labor unrest, and a new industrial middle class. In 1851, the revolutionary
constitutions were abolished, and a system of centralized autocracy was imposed on the empire.
Under the leadership of Alexander von Bach (1813-93), local privileges were subordinated to a
unified system of administration, law, and taxation implemented by German-speaking officials.
Hungary was subjected to the rule of military officers while the Catholic Church was declared the
state church and given control of education…Economic troubles and war soon brought change.
Failure in war usually had severe internal consequences for European states after 1789, and Austria
was no exception. After Austria’s defeat in the Italian war in 1859, the Emperor Francis Joseph
(1848-1916) attempted to establish an imperial parliament (Reichsrat) with a nominated upper
house and an elected lower house of representatives. Although the system was supposed to
provide representation for the nationalities of the empire, the complicated formula used for
elections ensured the election of a German-speaking majority, serving once again to alienate the
ethnic minorities, particularly the Hungarians.” 168
After the loss of the Austro-Prussian War, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise came into
existence on 30 March 1867, when it was ratified by the Hungarian parliament. “Austria-Hungary
consisted of two monarchies (Austria and Hungary), and one autonomous region: the Kingdom of
Croatia-Slavonia under the Hungarian crown, which negotiated the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement in 1868. It was ruled by the House of Habsburg, and constituted the last phase in the
constitutional evolution of the Habsburg Monarchy. Following the 1867 reforms, the Austrian and
the Hungarian states were co-equal. The Compromise required regular renewal, as did the customs
union between the two components of the union. Foreign affairs and the military came under joint
oversight, but all other governmental faculties were divided between respective states.”169
“There were three parts to the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: the common foreign,
military and joint financial policy under the monarch; the Austrian or Cisleithanian government;
the Hungarian government. Hungary and Austria maintained separate parliaments each with its
own prime minister. Linking/coordinating the two parliaments fell to a government under the
monarch. In this sense Austria-Hungary remained under an authoritarian government, as the
Emperor-King appointed both Austrian and Hungarian Prime ministers along with their respective
cabinets. In the Hungarian half, the King-appointed Government was responsible only to the
Parliament instead of the King, which gave Hungary a great amount of autonomy, especially in
internal matters. In the Austrian half, however, the Emperor had the power to both appoint and
dismiss its Prime minister and cabinet members. The monarch's common government, in which
its ministers were appointed by the Monarch and responsible to him, had the responsibility for the
army, for the navy, for foreign policy, and for the customs union. Due to the lack of common law
between Austria and Hungary, to conclude identical texts, each parliament elected 60 of its
members to form a delegation that…worked towards a compromise.” A common Ministerial
Council ruled the common government: it comprised the three ministers for the joint
responsibilities (joint finance, military, and foreign policy), the two prime ministers, some
Archdukes and the monarch. Two delegations of representatives, one each from the Austrian and
Hungarian parliaments, met separately and voted on the expenditures of the Common Ministerial
Council giving the two governments influence in the common administration.”170
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
87
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Russian Empire after 1850: While the thrones of other monarchs crumbled in Europe,
the Russian autocracy had stood firm and inflexible owing to the massive apparatus - army, secret
police, censorship, and repression – which had prevented the outbreak of revolution in Russia.
“The tsar had put his troops at the disposal of the emperor of Austria to crush the revolutions in
Hungary and Austrian Poland. He had given his political and diplomatic support to the suppression
of liberal movements in every part of Europe. Russia appeared to have taken the place of Austria
as the arsenal of autocracy. It was Russian power that had preserved the Austrian empire, that had
stood behind the authoritarian governments of Italy and Germany; that had kept the Poles, the
Magyars, the Czechs, the Finns, in thrall to foreign despotisms. The Crimean War exposed the
inadequacies behind the imposing façade of Russian autocracy. The mighty empire of Russia was
unable to repel a localized invasion on its own soil by two western powers that had invested but a
fraction of their potential strength in the conflict…Russia’s backwardness was the major problem
recognized by most Russians who realistically appraised the lessons of the Crimean War. But in
their efforts to overcome this backwardness, the advocates of change met enormous inertia in
every department of the government and at every level of Russian society.”171
(a) Domestic Reforms: Succeeding his father’s throne at the age of thirty seven, Alexander II
(1855-81) turned his energies to reforming Russia. Though called the Liberator because of his
reforms, Alexander II was no liberal but a thoughtful realist who knew reforms could not be
postponed. Following the autocratic procedures of his predecessors, he attempted to impose those
reforms upon the Russian people. Serfdom was the most burden-some problem in tsarist Russia.
The continuing subjugation of millions of peasants to the land and their landlords was an obviously
corrupt and failing system. Russian landowners were unable to compete with foreign agriculture.
The surfs, who formed the backbone of the Russian infantry, were so uneducated that Russia was
unable to deal with the more complex machines and weapons of war. The failure of the serfarmies in the Crimean War created the need for change in the first place. Peasant dissatisfaction
still led to peasant revolts that disrupted the countryside. Alexander II recognized the inevitable
as appeared in his speech to the nobility of Moscow on 20 March 1856: “It is better to abolish
serfdom from above than to wait until the serfs begin to liberate themselves from below.”
On 3 March 1861, Alexander II declared the Emancipation Manifesto, accompanied by a set
of legislative acts, by which about 20 million serfs were emancipated from the personal power of
the landowners and were to receive land. “Inventories were to be prepared, on all estates, of the
existing use of the land, and proposals made as to the obligations which the peasants were to
assume. These inventories were to be submitted to the judgment of specially appointed arbitrators
of the peace. When the terms had been agreed, within two years, the peasants were to be described
as temporarily bound, and were to pay obrok or labor services. At a later stage, to depend on
mutual agreement, they were to begin annual payments which were ultimately to give them
ownership of the land. Administration of the emancipated serfs was to be based on the rural unit
of the volost, below which were to be the village communities. The affairs of the village were to
be conducted by the commune, which was to assume collective responsibility for payment of
taxes, and in due course of the annual payments or redemption dues, by which the peasants were
to become owner of land.”172 “The government issued bonds to the landowners for this purpose
and collected redemption payments from the peasants at the rate of 5% of the total cost yearly.
The government had envisioned that the 50,000 former landlords who possessed estates of more
than 1.1 km² would thrive without serfs and would continue to provide loyal political and
administrative leadership in the countryside. The government also had expected that peasants
would produce sufficient crops for their own consumption and for export sales, thereby helping to
finance most of the government's expenses, imports, and foreign debt.”
88
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Alexander II also attempted other reforms. In 1864, he instituted a system of zemstvos, or
local assemblies that provided a moderate degree of self-government. Representatives to the
zemstvos were to be elected by three classes - the noble landowners, townspeople, and peasants,
but the property-based system of voting gave a distinct advantage to the nobles. “During the first
years of zemstvos institutions (1865-67), the proportion of seats in uezd assemblies held by nobles
42 percent, by peasants 38 percent, by merchants 10.5 percent, and by members of priest families
6.5 percent.” Zemstvos were given a limited power to provide public services, such as education,
famine relief, and road and bridge maintenance. To finance these functions, the Zemstvos were
given the right to levy taxes. The Zemstvos attracted men who had long been anxious to have a
voice in local administration. “The more enterprising Zemstvos established primary schools and
hospitals, improved local methods of agriculture, encouraged commerce. To carry out their
programs, they engaged teachers and doctors, agronomists, veterinarians, and engineers, many of
them liberal or radical in their political outlook. These professionals in turn exerted a strong
influence on the political orientation of the Zemstvos, which frequently became lively center of
agitation for further reforms by the national government.” The next logical step would have been
a national Zemstvos, but Alexander II never intended to introduce a national assembly. The
effectiveness of the Zemstvos as centers of political opinion aroused the suspicion of government
bureaucrats. Their powers of taxation were so reduced that they were in constant financial
difficulty and lacked the resources to carry out proper educational programs. 173
In 1864 Alexander II implemented the great judicial reform. “In major towns, it established
courts with juries. In general, the judicial system functioned effectively, but the government lacked
the finances and cultural influence to extend the court system to the villages, where traditional
peasant justice continued to operate with minimal interference from provincial officials. The
Russian judicial system was modelled after contemporary French and German law. Each case had
to be decided on its merits and not on precedents. This approach remained in place ever since.
Other major reforms took place in the educational and cultural spheres. Censorship, which had
stifled opinion under Nicholas, was greatly relaxed, and public opinion found a voice. This greatly
facilitated the government's effort to eradicate corruption, red tape and inefficiency. Universities
had gained autonomy. The Government encouraged education: it was during Alexander's reign
that the education of the peasant masses started on a vast scale. The central government attempted
to act through the zemstvos to establish uniform curricula for elementary schools. In the financial
sphere, Russia established the State Bank in 1866, which put the national currency on a firmer
footing…The Ministry of Finance supported railroad development, and also founded the Peasant
Land Bank in 1882 to enable enterprising farmers to acquire more land.” On the other hand, “the
Ministry of Internal Affairs countered this policy, however, by establishing the Nobles' Land Bank
in 1885 to forestall foreclosures of mortgages.”174
Alexander II appointed General Dmitry Milyutin to Minister of War in 1861-81 who was
responsible for military reforms that changed the face of the Russian army. “The changes included
universal military conscription, introduced for all social classes on 1 January 1874. Prior to this
new regulation, as of 1861, conscription was only compulsorily enforced for the peasantry.
Conscription had, previously to this reform, been 25 years for serfs that were drafted by their
landowners, which was widely considered to be a life sentence. Other military reforms included
extending the reserve forces and the military district system, which split the Russian states into 15
military districts, a system still in use over a hundred years later. The building of strategic railways
and an emphasis on the military education of the officer corps comprised further reforms. Corporal
punishment in the military and branding of soldiers as punishment were banned. The bulk of
important military reforms were enacted as a result of the poor showing in the Crimean War.”175
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
89
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-9. Alexander II of Russia by A. M. Wegner (1870s)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Alexander_II_of_Russia_by_A.M.Wegner_%281870s%2
C_Hermitage%29.png/647px-Alexander_II_of_Russia_by_A.M.Wegner_%281870s%2C_Hermitage%29.png
Map I-2-7. Expansion of Russia, 1642-1947
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/xGZjhUjmIfQ/UPHI5GgDaSI/AAAAAAAADDI/ZzoBJzOYJgg/s1600/expansion_of_russia.jpg
90
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Russian Foreign Relations: Russia in the reign of Nicholas I was regarded as the greatest
of the European land power; with a population of over 60 million people allowing a million men
of the army. They had outdated equipment and tactics; but the tsar was surrounded with officers
gloried in the victory over Napoleon in 1812. He put generals in charge of most of his civilian
agencies regardless of their qualifications. The areas with which Russian foreign policy was
mainly concerned were the same as in the eighteenth century – Poland and the Ottoman Empire.
Russia also involved some contact with established foreign government like Persia and China.
Russian foreign policy was based on the alliance with Austria and Prussia. All three governments
sought to uphold monarchical absolutism and to prevent the independence of any part of Poland.
“Nevertheless, Russian and Austrian interests conflicted in the Balkans. Metternich refused to be
associated with the Greek policy which was ultimately agreed by Russia, Britain, and France.”
Vienna was hostile to Russian domination of Rumania. In the Crimean War, Austria remained
neutral without taking any side, which enabled Rumania to achieve independence. Nicholas I
viewed France with hostility from 1830 onwards; and with Britain, his relations were more
complex.176 “The Foreign policy of Russia during Alexander II was directed first of all to the
solution of the eastern question. The defeat in the Crimean war undermined the international
authority of Russia, resulted into the loss of its prevailing influence in the Balkans. The
neutralization of the Black sea made defenseless the southern sea borders of the country, thus
hampering the development of the South and broke the expansion of foreign trade.”
The Black Sea Area: “The main task of the Russian diplomacy was the cancellation of articles
of the Parisian treaty. Trustworthy allies were necessary for this purpose. England remained the
most dangerous enemy of Russia because of the rivalry in Transcaucasia and in Central Asia.
Austria itself tried to fix in the Balkan. The Turkish policy was orientated to England. Prussia was
still weak. Mainly the rapprochement with France was equitable to the interest of Russia, as France
competed with England in the Mediterranean. To strengthen its positions in the East Russia still
staked on the struggle of the Christian people against Turkey. Since April 1856 the talented
diplomat and politician Gorchakov Alexander Mikhailovich (1798-1883) became the head of the
Russian department of foreign policy. Gorchakov took care of the consent of the powers, insisting
on the exclusive right of Russia to assert its national interests. Striving for the rapprochement with
France, he tried to help Russia out from the international isolation. In March 1859 the RussianFrench treaty about the neutrality of Russia in the war of France and Sardinia against Austria was
signed. But being sure of the French unwillingness to guarantee the support of the Russian interests
in the East, Russia tried a rapprochement with Prussia. In 1863 the military convention with
Prussia, which helped the tsarist government in its struggle against the Polish revolt, was signed.
Russia supported the aspiration of the Prussian chancellor O. Von Bismarck to the unification of
the German lands. This diplomatic support helped Prussia to win the wars against Denmark
(1864), Austria (1866) and France (1870-1871).”177 Moreover, “The upshot of the controversy
was that conferences of the treaty powers were held in London (January-March 1871), and that all
the restriction in the Treaty of Paris bearing on the military arrangements of Russia and Turkey in
the Black Sea, were abrogated. At the same time, however, all of the signatory powers recorded
their recognition of the proposition that it is an essential principle of the law of nations, that no
power can liberate itself from the engagement of a treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof,
unless with the consent of the contracting powers. Moreover, by renewing and confirming all the
stipulations of the treaty of Paris not annulled by their new agreement – the treaty of London – it
will be seen that the contracting powers attempted in 1871 to give a new lease of life to all that
was left of the treaty of 1856.” Thus, “Russia achieved the cancellation of the interdiction to have
a navy at the Black sea and to build military arsenals at the Black Sea coast.”178
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
91
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Central Asia: “The trading relations with Central Asia, being so much important for the
Russian economy, were complicated because of constant civil dissensions in this region. The
anxiety of the Russian government was caused by attempts of the English diplomacy to influence
the Kokand and Khiva Khanates through the Afghan emir. In 1864 began the resolute advance to
the central Asian khanates. Successful operations against the emir of Bukhara began in the spring
of 1866. In March 1868 the emir declared the sacred war against Russia, but was defeated and in
June he was compelled to sign a humiliating treaty. The last big khanate was Khiva. But before
its conquest the Russian government decided to take measures to weaken the tension with England.
After long negotiations in 1873 the Russian-English agreement on the recognition of Afghanistan
as a neutral zone and about the transfer of Khiva under the charge of Russia was signed. In
February 1873 the Russian troops started a campaign against the khanate of Khiva. In May 1873
the capital of the khanate of Khiva was surrounded and capitulated, and in August the khan signed
a peace treaty and recognized vassalage to Russia. After suppression of the revolt in Kokand
(1875-1876) on the 19th of February 1876 Russia declared the inclusion of Kokand into the
Turkistan governorship. The Bukhara and Khiva khanates, which strongly decreased in the
territory, preserved their nominal independence. In 1878-1879 England occupied Afghanistan and
established its protectorate. By the end of the 70s the advance of Russia to Turkmen tribes started.
The Russian administration carried out its policy in the joined Central Asian states taking into
account local traditions. The Russian legislation expanded in Central Asia. Intestine wars stopped.
Free lands caused immigrants from Russia and from other nearest countries to move here. On the
Caucasus with the advance of the Russian army more and more new areas were conquered. In
April 1873 the Russian-German military and defensive convention was signed. In the same year
Russia and Austria-Hungary signed a political convention, to which joined Germany. So The
Union of three emperors appeared. In the summer of 1875 a new Middle East crisis burst out.”179
The Balkan Region: “The Balkans were a major stage for competition between the European
Great Powers in the second half of the nineteenth century. Britain and Russia both had stake in the
fate of the Balkans. Russia was interested in the region both ideologically as a pan-Slavist unifier
and as a way to secure greater control of the Mediterranean, while Britain was interested in
preventing Russia from doing exactly that. Furthermore, the unification of Italy and Germany had
stymied the ability of a third European power, Austria-Hungary, to further expand its domain to
the southwest. Germany, as the most powerful continental nation after the Franco-Prussian War
of 1871 and one without large direct interests in the settlement, was the only power which could
mediate the Balkan question.”180 Turkey refused to give equal rights to the Muslims and Christians
in the region. “In Bosnia and Herzegovina revolts broke out. Having not achieved concessions
through diplomacy, on the 12th of April 1877 Alexander II published the manifest of war against
Turkey. Because of success of Russia, England sent a military squadron to the Sea of Marmara
and together with Austria threatened with rupture of diplomatic relations in case Russians captured
Constantinople. On the 19th of February in San-Stephano was signed the peace treaty between
Russia and Turkey. Turkey recognized the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania and
transferred to Russia Southern Bessarabia and the fortresses of Kare, Ardagan and Batum. In the
Balkans appeared the Bulgarian princedom, which meant the independence of Bulgaria. Under
pressure of England and Austria-Hungary Russia had to place the articles of the agreement to the
international discussion. Diplomatic defeat of Russia was promoted by the position of Bismarck,
who strived for the rapprochement with Austria-Hungary. On the Berlin congress (June - July
1878), the San-Stephano peace treaty was changed: Turkey took back a part of its territories,
including the fortress of Bayazet; the contribution was reduced in 4,5 times, Austria-Hungary
occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, and England received Cyprus.”181
92
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The Congress of Berlin (1878) was a meeting of the representatives of the Great Powers of
the time and four Balkan states, aiming at determining the territories of the states in the Balkan
Peninsula following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. The Congress came to an end with the
signing of the Treaty of Berlin, which replaced the preliminary Treaty of San Stefano signed three
months earlier…The German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who led the Congress, undertook to
stabilize the Balkans, recognize the reduced power of the Ottoman Empire, and balance the distinct
interests of Britain, Russia and Austria-Hungary; at the same time he tried to diminish Russian
gains in the region and to prevent the rise of a Greater Bulgaria. As a result, Ottoman holdings in
Europe declined sharply; Bulgaria was established as an independent principality inside the
Ottoman Empire; Eastern Rumelia was restored to the Turks under a special administration; and
the region of Macedonia was returned outright to the Turks, who promised reform. Romania
achieved full independence, forced to turn over part of Bessarabia to Russia in order to gain
Northern Dobruja. Serbia and Montenegro finally gained complete independence, but with smaller
territories, with Austria-Hungary occupying the Sandžak (Raška) region. Austria-Hungary also
took over Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas Britain took over Cyprus.”182
“The results were first hailed as a great achievement in peacemaking and stabilization.
However, most of the participants were not fully satisfied, and grievances regarding the results
festered until they exploded in the First and the Second Balkan wars of 1912-1913, and
subsequently in a World war in 1914. Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece made gains, but far less than
they thought they deserved. The Ottoman Empire, called at the time the "sick man of Europe,"
was humiliated and significantly weakened, rendering it more liable to domestic unrest and more
vulnerable to attack. Although Russia had been victorious in the war that occasioned the
conference, it was humiliated at Berlin, and resented its treatment. Austria gained a great deal of
territory, which angered the South Slavs, and led to decades of tensions in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Bismarck became the target of hatred by Russian nationalists and Pan-Slavists, and
found that he had tied Germany too closely to Austria in the Balkans. In the long run, tensions
between Russia and Austria-Hungary intensified, as did the nationality question in the Balkans.
The congress was aimed at revising the Treaty of San Stefano and at keeping Constantinople in
Ottoman hands. It effectively disavowed Russia's victory over the decaying Ottoman Empire in
the Russo-Turkish War. The Congress of Berlin returned territories to the Ottoman Empire that
the previous treaty had given to the Principality of Bulgaria, most notably Macedonia, thus setting
up a strong revanchist demand in Bulgaria that in 1912 led to the First Balkan War.” 183
Far East Asia: “Russia reached the Pacific coast in 1647 with the establishment of Okhotsk,
and consolidated its control over the Russian Far East in the 19th century. Primorskaya Oblast was
established as a separate administrative division of the Russian Empire in 1856, with its
administrative center at Khabarovsk.” “The Far East policy of Russia was connected with the
process of colonization of this territory and development of the Russian-Chinese trade. The Aigun
treaty of 1858 and the Pekin treaty of 1860 about differentiation of the lands were added by
agreements of the sea and overland trade. There was a problem in the relations with Japan
concerning the unshared joint possession of Sakhalin. According to the Simod treaty of 1855 Japan
actively occupied Sakhalin. On the 25th of April 1875 in St. Petersburg Russia and Japan signed
the treaty of transfer to Japan of the Kurile Islands in exchange for the Japanese part of Sakhalin.”
In the early 1900s, Russia persistently sought a warm water port on the Pacific Ocean for the navy
as well as to facilitate maritime trade. The recently established Pacific seaport of Vladivostok was
operational only during the summer season, but Port Arthur in Manchuria was operational all year.
After the First Sino-Japanese War and the failure of the 1903 negotiations between Japan and
Russia, Japan chose war to protect its domination of Korea and adjacent territories.184
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
93
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Polish Rebellion of 1863-64: “After the Russian Empire lost the Crimean war and
was weakened economically and politically, unrest started in the former Polish-Lithuanian
Common-wealth. In Vilna alone 116 demonstrations were held in 1861. In August 1861, protests
in Vilna ended in clashes with the Imperial Russian Army. In spite of Russian police and Cossack
interference, a symbolic meeting of hymn-singing Poles and Lithuanians took place on the bridge
across the Niemen River. Another mass gathering took place in Horodło, where the Union of
Horodło had been signed in 1413. The crowds sang Boże, coś Polskę (God protect Poland) in
Lithuanian and Belarusian. In the autumn of 1861 Russians had introduced a state of emergency
in Vilna Governorate, Kovno Governorate and Grodno Governorate. After a series of patriotic
riots, the Russian Namestnik (regent) of Tsar Alexander II, General Karl Lambert, introduced
martial law in Poland on 14 October 1861. Public gatherings were banned and some public leaders
were declared outlaws. The future leaders of the uprising gathered secretly in St. Petersburg,
Warsaw, Vilna, Paris and London. After this series of meetings two major factions emerged. The
Reds represented united peasants, workers, and some clergy, while The Whites represented liberal
minded landlords and intelligentsia of the time. In 1862 two initiative groups were formed for the
two components of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.”185
“Establishing an underground government in Warsaw, the rebels waged a guerrilla war with
small units of badly trained troops against the regular Russian army of 300,000 men. The
insurrection spread beyond Poland into Lithuania and a section of Belorussia and attracted
volunteers from the portions of Poland under Prussian and Austrian rule. The insurgents waged
more than 1,200 battles and skirmishes. Although they managed to convince sympathetic foreign
powers to send protests to Alexander, they still failed to obtain vitally needed military assistance
from them. As moderates assumed dominance in the insurgent government and delayed the
enactment of promised peasant reforms, they lost mass peasant support for the rebellion.”186
On 14 February 1963, the British Ambassador in Berlin was able to inform his government
that a Prussian military envoy has concluded a military convention with the Russian Government,
according to which the two governments will reciprocally afford facilities to each other for the
suppression of the insurrectionary movements which have lately taken place in Poland and
Lithuania. “The Prussian railways are also to be placed at the disposal of the Russian military
authorities for the transportation of troops through Prussian territory from one part of the former
Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth to another. This step of Bismarck led to protests on the part of
several governments and roused the nations of the Commonwealth. The result was the transformation of the insignificant uprising into another national war against Russia.” Romuald Traugutt, a
Polish general, called upon all Polish classes to rise against Russian oppression for the creation of
the new Polish state. “The Russian Government had already been working among the peasants
giving liberal parcels of land for the mere asking. The peasants that were bought off did not
interfere with the Polish revolutionaries to any great extent but they also did not provide support.
Fighting continued intermittently for several months… When Traugutt and the four other members
of the Polish Government were apprehended by Russian troops and executed at the Warsaw
citadel, the war in the course of which 650 battles and skirmishes were fought and twenty-five
thousand Polish killed, came to a speedy end in the latter half of 1864, having lasted for eighteen
months…After the collapse of the uprising, harsh reprisals followed. According to Russian official
information, 396 persons were executed and 18,672 were exiled to Siberia. Large numbers of men
and women were sent to the interior of Russia and to Caucasus, Urals and other sections.
Altogether about 70,000 persons were imprisoned and subsequently taken out of Poland and
stationed in remote regions of Russia.” Thousands of Polish insurgents were transported to the
Nerchinsk silver-mining district after the unsuccessful insurrection of 1863.187
94
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Great Britain in the Victorian Age: “The Victorian era of British history was the period of
Queen Victoria's reign from 20 June 1837 until her death, on 22 January 1901. It was a long period
of peace, prosperity, refined sensibilities and national self-confidence for Britain. Some scholars
date the beginning of the period in terms of sensibilities and political concerns to the passage of
the Reform Act 1832. Within the fields of social history and literature, Victorianism refers to the
study of late-Victorian attitudes and culture with a focus on the highly moralistic, straitlaced
language and behaviour of Victorian morality. The era followed the Georgian period and preceded
the Edwardian period. The later half of the Victorian age roughly coincided with the first portion
of the Belle Époque era of continental Europe. Culturally there was a transition away from the
rationalism of the Georgian period and toward romanticism and mysticism with regard to religion,
social values, and arts. In international relations the era was a long period of peace, known as the
Pax Britannica, and economic, colonial, and industrial consolidation, temporarily disrupted by the
Crimean War in 1854. The end of the period saw the Boer War. Domestically, the agenda was
increasingly liberal with a number of shifts in the direction of gradual political reform, industrial
reform and the widening of the voting franchise.” During the early part of the era, the House of
Commons was headed by the two parties, the Whigs and the Conservatives. From the late 1850s
onwards, the Whigs became the Liberals. These parties were led by many prominent statesmen.”
Two important figures in later period of British history are the prime ministers Benjamin Disraeli
and William Gladstone. Disraeli, favored by the queen, was a conservative Tory; but his rival
Gladstone, a Liberal distrusted by the Queen, served more terms 188
“Historians have characterized the mid-Victorian era, (1850–1870) as Britain's Golden Years.
There was prosperity, as the national income per person grew by half. Much of the prosperity was
due to the increasing industrialization, especially in textiles and machinery, as well as to the
worldwide network of trade and engineering that produced profits for British merchants, and
exports from across the globe. There was peace abroad, and social peace at home. Opposition to
the new order melted away…The Chartist movement, peaked as a democratic movement among
the working class in 1848; its leaders moved to other pursuits, such as trade unions and cooperative
societies. The working class ignored foreign agitators like Karl Marx in their midst, and joined in
celebrating the new prosperity. Employers typically were paternalistic, and generally recognized
the trade unions. Companies provided their employees with welfare services ranging from
housing, schools and churches, to libraries, baths, and gymnasia. Middle-class reformers did their
best to assist the working classes aspire to middle-class norms of respectability. There was a spirit
of libertarianism, says Porter, as people felt they were free. Taxes were very low, and government
restrictions were minimal. There were still problem areas, such as occasional riots, especially those
motivated by anti-Catholicism. Society was still ruled by the aristocracy and the gentry, which
controlled high government offices, both houses of Parliament, the church, and the military.
Becoming a rich businessman was not as prestigious as inheriting a title and owning a landed
estate. Literature was doing well, but the fine arts languished as the Great Exhibition of 1851
showcased Britain's industrial prowess rather than its sculpture, painting or music. The educational
system was mediocre; the capstone universities (outside Scotland) were likewise mediocre.”189
“In November 1830 Earl Grey formed his ministry and Palmerston was appointed as Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, holding the post until 1841; during this time he acted as chairman at
an international conference that debated the Belgian question following the Belgian revolt against
Dutch rule. The problems were solved when Leopold of Saxe-Coburg became the first King of the
Belgians; tried to intervene in the Italian revolts to stop Austria and France becoming involved in
the affairs of Naples and the Papal States (1831); set up the Quadruple Alliance between Britain
and France to support the liberal regimes in Spain and Portugal; tried to exclude French influence
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
95
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-10. Queen Victoria with Members and her Families
Source: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/04/article-2288045-16996958000005DC-841_634x345.jpg
Map I-2-8. The British Empire in the Victorian Age (Historical)
Source: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/fWw30yU_4Pw/UQ50PMRG2cI/AAAAAAAAEJs/z97ldhvi2O4/s640/Map+of+British+Empire+(Historical)+1922.jpg
96
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
from Iberia on the grounds that this could be against British interests; saw the successful
conclusion of the Opium Wars with China and insisted on very harsh terms including the legalization of the opium trade. The Treaty of Nanking was concluded after he left office. Hong Kong
was ceded to Britain by this treaty: Palmerston described it as 'a barren island with barely a house
upon it'; and brought about (for Britain) a successful conclusion to the most recent manifestation
of the 'Eastern Question' by concluding the Treaty of London in 1840.” 190
(a) Palmerston (1784-1865) was appoint as Prime Minister in March 1854. The war brought
to a conclusion on February 1856. “Having terminated one war, Palmerston then supported
Bowling, the Governor of Hong Kong, who had ordered the bombardment of Canton in retaliation
for the Chinese authorities' seizure of the Arrow, a British registered ship. Palmerston was
censured by parliament for his action; he called a general election and won a huge majority. In
1857 the Indian Mutiny broke out. The Governor General, Lord Canning was accused of being
too lenient but he had Palmerston's support: when the mutiny ended, public reaction favored the
leniency. Palmerston followed up these events with the Government of India Bill that transferred
power from the East India Company to the British government. He resigned in February 1858; a
year later he was one of the founding members of the Liberal Party that was formed at Willis'
Rooms. The 274 members came from a broad spectrum of political opinion and included men such
as Palmerston, Russell and John Bright. Shortly afterwards, Queen Victoria invited Palmerston to
form another ministry in the absence of alternative candidates for the post. In August 1860, an
Anglo-French expedition marched on Peking to force the Emperor to comply with the 1842 Treaty
of Nanking: the Summer Palace was burned down during the conflict but Palmerston's attitude
was that it would bring John Chinaman to his bearings. During the American Civil War (1861-5)
the PM maintained Britain's neutrality but still allowed shipyards to supply vessels to the
Confederate states and he was prepared to go to war with America over the Trent incident. He also
supported Denmark over ownership of Schleswig-Holstein but did not intervene when Prussia
invaded in February 1864.” He died of fever in October 1865.191
(b) Reform Act of 1867: After Palmerston, the Liberal Party split and was defeated. In June
1866, the Conservatives formed a ministry led by Lord Derby as Prime Minister and Disraeli as
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Conservatives passed the Reform Act on 15 August 1867 that
was a major step in democratization of Great Britain. “It provided for a wide extension of the
franchise for elections to Parliament and almost doubled the number of voters, which rose from
about one million to two million. In the boroughs it gave the vote to all men who paid taxes on
property or paid an annual rent of at least ten pounds, and in the countries to all who received an
income of five pounds or more from their land or paid an annual rent of at least twelve pounds.
The vote was withheld from the urban poor, from domestic servants, from the majority of
agricultural workers, and from women (whose political rights John Stuart Mill supported in a
spirited plea soon afterward)…Boroughs with populations of less than ten thousand would
henceforth send one member to Parliament instead of two; larger towns were given two or three
members; nine new boroughs were created; twenty-five additional members were allotted to the
counties. In 1868 franchise-reform bills for Scotland and Ireland were enacted.” In 1868 Disraeli
succeeded Derby and Gladstone replaced Russel as heads of the Conservative and Liberal Party
respectively. Under their leadership, the two parties emerged as the significant political parties in
Britain, and were able to enforce a great degree of party discipline on their members. In December
1868 Gladstone formed his first ministry. “Because parliamentary representatives always had to
consider those influential members of the electorate whose interests would be affected by any
significant change in existing institutions, reforms enacted through British parliamentary
processes were almost invariably a product of negotiation and compromise.” 192
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
97
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Gladstone’s First Ministry, 1868-1874: William Gladstone (1809-98) turned his attention
to Ireland, where the need for reform was more desperate than in any other part of the United
Kingdom and where hatred of English rule was being manifested in terrorism and open rebellion.
“Irish discontent was the product of national self-consciousness, of the religious division between
Protestant England and Roman Catholic Ireland, and of sheer economic misery. Englishmen
owned a large part of the land of Ireland. In most instances, the landlord lived in England and left
the administration of his Irish estate to the local agent, who was expected to obtain for his employer
a specified annual income from the property. This system led to many abuses. The refusal of the
large majority of landlords and their agents to give long leases or other guarantees of tenure to
their landless tenants stifled the initiative of the Irish peasants, who had no incentive to improve
property from which they might be evicted at any time without compensation.” Gladstone set out
to remove the major causes of Irish discontent. The Disestablishment Act of July 26, 1869 ended
the domination of the Anglican Church as the official church in Ireland. The Irish Land Act of
August 1, 1870 provided that an evicted tenant receive some compensation for improvement he
had made. He tried hard to achieve more for Ireland, despite many oppositions. 193
An Education Act was passed on 9 August 1870, which reflected the conflict of interests and
loyalties involved in the issue and the pragmatic attitude with which British legislator approached
a problem. The aim of the new act was to make elementary education available to all, and to do
so as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The great difficulty in connection with the school law
was religion. In 1880 elementary education was made compulsory, and a University Test Act
passed in 1871 that freed students from requiring religious tests. The Gladstone administration
turned its attention to the reform of three branches of the British government: the civil service, the
army, and the judiciary. By an Order in Council of June 4, 1870, the recruitment of civil servants
should be based on competitive examination to improve the quality of government officials. An
Army Enlistment Bill of 1870 abolished the long, twelve-year period of military service in favor
of a six-year enlistment period followed by six years in the reserves. A Judicature Act of 1873
simplified the British legal system and put an end to abuses such as those, which permitted lawyer
to consummate the bulk of a client’s estate before bringing his case to court. In 1872 the Gladstone
government took as big stem in the democratization with the passage of a Ballot Act, which made
voting secret for the first time, made bribery more difficult.
The consumption of alcohol among working-class men began to be viewed as a wasteful and
illicit form of entertainment which served no purpose, caused many problems, and was scorned
and fought against by the temperance movement. Its main focus was working-class drinking, as
the movement was dominated by middle-class men who felt that by fighting intemperance they
were helping the working class. The licensing bill of 1872 proposed not just a restriction of the
consumption of spirits but total prohibition. The bill was defeated, but its mere introduction did
much to injure Gladstone at the polls. Moreover, Anglicans and dissenters were alienated by the
Irish Disestablishment and the Education Act, causing to lose Liberal strength at the polls. On the
other hand, “The Alabama Claims were a series of demands for damages sought by the
government of the United States from the United Kingdom in 1869, for the attacks upon Union
merchant ships by Confederate Navy commerce raiders built in British shipyards during the
American Civil War. The claims focused chiefly on the most famous of these raiders, the CSS
Alabama, which took more than sixty prizes before she was sunk off the French coast in 1864.
After international arbitration endorsed the American position in 1872, Britain settled the matter
by paying the United States $15.5 million, ending the dispute and leading to a treaty that restored
friendly relations between Britain and the United States. That international arbitration established
a precedent, and the case aroused interest in codifying public international law.” 194
98
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Civil War and Reunion of the United States: During 1815-61, industrialization had
taken root in the Northern states. “Northerners had invested heavily in an expansive and varied
transportation system that included canals, roads, steamboats, and railroads; in financial industries
such as banking and insurance; and in a large communications network that featured inexpensive,
widely available newspapers, magazines, and books, along with the telegraph. By contrast, the
Southern economy was based principally on large farms (plantations) that produced commercial
crops such as cotton and that relied on slaves as the main labor force. Rather than invest in factories
or railroads as Northerners had done, Southerners invested their money in slaves - even more than
in land; by 1860, 84 percent of the capital invested in manufacturing was invested in the free states.
Yet, to Southerners, as late as 1860, this appeared to be a sound business decision. The price of
cotton, the South’s defining crop, had skyrocketed in the 1850s, and the value of slaves…rose
commensurately. By 1860 the per capita wealth of Southern whites was twice that of Northerners,
and three-fifths of the wealthiest individuals in the country were Southerners.”195 In fact, the
importance of cotton is evident from production figures. “In 1810, the South produced a raw
cotton crop of 178,000 bales worth $10 million. By 1960, it was generating $4.5 million bales of
cotton with a value of $249 million. Ninety-three percent of southern cotton in 1850 was produced
by the slave population that had grown dramatically in fifty years. Although new slave imports
had been barred in 1808, there were 4 million Afro-American slaves in the South by 1860
compared to 1 million in 1800. The cotton economy and a plantation-based slavery were intimately
related, and the attempt to maintain them in the course of the first half of the nineteenth century
led the South to become increasingly defensive, monolithic, and isolated. At the same time, the
rise of an abolitionist movement in the North challenged the southern order and created an
emotional chain reaction that led the civil war.” 196
“The extension of slavery into new territories and states had been an issue as far back as the
Northwest Ordinance of 1784. When the slave territory of Missouri sought statehood in 1818,
Congress debated for two years before arriving upon the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This was
the first of a series of political deals that resulted from arguments between pro-slavery and
antislavery forces over the expansion of the peculiar institution, as it was known, into the West.
The end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 and the roughly 500,000 square miles of new
territory that the United States gained as a result of it added a new sense of urgency to the dispute.
More and more Northerners, driven by a sense of morality or an interest in protecting free labor,
came to believe, in the 1850s, that bondage needed to be eradicated. White Southerners feared that
limiting the expansion of slavery would consign the institution to certain death. Over the course
of the decade, the two sides became increasingly polarized and politicians less able to contain the
dispute through compromise. When Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the explicitly antislavery
Republican Party, won the 1860 presidential election, seven Southern states (South Carolina,
Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) carried out their threat and
seceded, organizing as the Confederate States of America.” By 1850, the country was again
facing a crisis over the balance of slave states and free states. The compromise of 1850, admitting
California as a free state, was really an armistice, not a compromise. This time the problem was
caused by California application for admission as a free state; which was really an armistice, not
a compromise. While the Whig party became defunct, the Democrats were splitting along NorthSouth line. “The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise by
allowing slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territories to be determined by popular sovereignty,
created a firestorm in the North and led to the creation of a new sectional party. The Republicans
were united by antislavery principles and were especially driven by the fear that the slaver power
of the South would attempt to spread the slave system throughout the country.”197
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
99
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-11. Abraham Lincoln, 16th U.S. President (1861-65)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Abraham_Lincoln_seated%2C_Feb_9%2C_1864.jpg/800p
x-Abraham_Lincoln_seated%2C_Feb_9%2C_1864.jpg
Map I-2-9. American Civil War, 1861-65
Source: http://firstencounter.pbworks.com/f/civil%20war%20map.gif
100
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their
Constitutional rights. Southern whites believed that the emancipation of slaves would destroy the
South's economy because of the alleged laziness of blacks under free labor. Slavery was illegal
in the North, having been outlawed in the late 18th and early 19th century. It was fading in the
border-states and in Southern cities, but was expanding in the highly profitable cotton districts of
the South and Southwest.” Some other factors – sectionalism, protectionism, and state’s rights –
can explain geographic divide. (i) “Sectionalism refers to the different economies, social structure,
customs and political values of the North and South. It increased steadily between 1800 and 1860
as the North, which phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized, and built prosperous
farms, while the deep South concentrated on plantation agriculture based on slave labor, together
with subsistence farming for poor freedmen. In the 1840s and 50s, the issue of accepting slavery
split the nation's largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian
churches) into separate Northern and Southern denominations.” (ii) “Historically, southern slaveholding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization,
and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation.
Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not
compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from
the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing
interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.” (iii)
“The South argued that each state had the right to secede–leave the Union–at any time, that the
Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners rejected that notion as
opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a perpetual union.”198
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), who said in Illinois in 1858 that this government cannot endure
permanently half slave and half free, was elected president in November 1860. “On December
10, 1860, a South Carolina convention voted to repeal the state’s ratification of the Constitution
of the United Sates. In February 1861, six more southern states did the same, and a rival nation –
the Confederate State of America – was formed. In April, fighting erupted between North and
South. The American Civil War (1861-65) was an extraordinarily bloody struggle, a clear
foretaste of the total war to come in the twentieth century. More than 360,000 soldiers died, either
in battle or from deadly infectious diseases spawned by filthy camp conditions. Over a period of
four years, the Union states mobilized their superior assets and gradually wore down the South.
As the war dragged on, it had the effect of radicalizing public opinion in the North. What began
as a war to save the Union became a war against slavery. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln’s
Emancipation Proclamation made most of the nation’s slaves forever free. The increasingly
effective Union blockade of the South combined with a shortage of fighting men made the
Confederate cause desperate by the end of 1864. The final push of Union troops under General
Ulysses S. Grant forced General Robert E. Lee’s army to surrender on April 9, 1865. Although
the problems of reconstruction were ahead, the Union victory confirmed that the United States
would be one nation, indivisible.”199 In war diplomacy, “Though the Confederacy hoped that
Britain and France would join them against the Union, this was never likely, and so they instead
tried to bring Britain and France in as mediators. The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State
William H. Seward worked to block this, and threatened war if any country officially recognized
the existence of the Confederate States of America. In 1861, Southerners voluntarily embargoed
cotton shipments, hoping to start an economic depression in Europe that would force Britain to
enter the war to get cotton, but this did not work. Worse, Europe developed other cotton suppliers,
which they found superior, hindering the South's recovery after the war.” Lincoln’s foreign policy
was deficient in 1861 in terms of appealing to European public opinions. 200
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
101
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-2-10. Canadian Confederation, 1898
Source: https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/023001/f1/1898-v5-e.jpg
Photo I-2-12. The Canadian Nature in the Nineteenth Century
Source: http://www.dailydesignews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/The-National-Gallery-of-Canada-acquires-sevenmajor-19th-century-works1.jpg
102
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Emergence of a Canadian Nation: In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert founded St. John’s,
Newfoundland, as the first North American English colony. French explorer Samuel de Champlain
arrived in 1603 and established the first permanent European settlements at Port Royal in 1605
and Quebec City in 1608. “The English established additional colonies in Cupids and Ferryland,
Newfoundland, beginning in 1610. The Thirteen Colonies to the south were founded soon after.
A series of four wars erupted in colonial North America between 1689 and 1763; the later wars of
the period constituted the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War. Mainland Nova Scotia
came under British rule with the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht and the 1763 Treaty of Paris ceded Canada
and most of New France to Britain after the Seven Years' War. The Royal Proclamation of 1763
created the Province of Quebec out of New France, and annexed Cape Breton Island to Nova
Scotia. St. John's Island (now Prince Edward Island) became a separate colony in 1769. To avert
conflict in Quebec, the British parliament passed the Quebec Act of 1774, expanding Quebec's
territory to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley. It re-established the French language, Catholic faith,
and French civil law there. This angered many residents of the Thirteen Colonies, fuelling antiBritish sentiment in the years prior to the 1775 outbreak of the American Revolution. The 1783
Treaty of Paris recognized American independence and ceded the newly added territories south
(but not north) of the Great Lakes to the new United States. New Brunswick was split from Nova
Scotia as part of a reorganization of Loyalist settlements in the Maritimes. To accommodate
English-speaking Loyalists in Quebec, the Constitutional Act of 1791 divided the province into
French-speaking Lower Canada (later Quebec) and English-speaking Upper Canada (later
Ontario), granting each its own elected legislative assembly.” 201
“The Canadas were the main front in the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain.
Peace came in 1815; no boundaries were changed. Immigration now resumed at a higher level,
with over 960,000 arrivals from Britain 1815-50. New arrivals included Irish refugees escaping
the Great Irish Famine as well as Gaelic-speaking Scots displaced by the Highland Clearances.
Infectious diseases killed between 25 and 33 per cent of Europeans who immigrated to Canada
before 1891. The desire for responsible government resulted in the abortive Rebellions of 1837.
The Durham Report subsequently recommended responsible government and the assimilation of
French Canadians into English culture. The Act of Union 1840 merged the Canadas into a united
Province of Canada and responsible government was established for all provinces of British North
America by 1849. The signing of the Oregon Treaty by Britain and the United States in 1846
ended the Oregon boundary dispute, extending the border westward along the 49th parallel. This
paved the way for British colonies on Vancouver Island (1849) and in British Columbia (1858).
The 1867 Constitution Act proclaimed Canadian Confederation on July 1, 1867, initially with four
provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. “Canada assumed control of
Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory to form the Northwest Territories, where the Métis'
grievances ignited the Red River Rebellion and the creation of the province of Manitoba in July
1870. British Columbia and Vancouver Island (which had been united in 1866) joined the
confederation in 1871, while Prince Edward Island joined in 1873. The Canadian parliament
passed a bill introduced by the Conservative Cabinet that established a National Policy of tariffs
to protect the nascent Canadian manufacturing industries. To open the West, parliament also
approved sponsoring the construction of three transcontinental railways (including the Canadian
Pacific Railway), opening the prairies to settlement with the Dominion Lands Act, and establishing
the North-West Mounted Police to assert its authority over this territory. In 1898, during the
Klondike Gold Rush in the Northwest Territories, parliament created the Yukon Territory. The
Cabinet of Liberal Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier fostered continental European immigrants
settling the prairies and Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces in 1905.”202
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
103
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-2-13. Meiji Modernization
Source: http://meijirevolutioninjapan.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/1/6/14168985/9210552.jpg?777
Photo I-2-14. Meiji Constitution Promulgation (1868-1912)
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Kenpohapu-chikanobu.jpg/250px-Kenpohapuchikanobu.jpg
104
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Japan’s Responses to the West: The Japanese were highly civilized when they allowed the
Westerners to discover them. “No Japanese was allowed to leave the islands or even to build a
ship large enough to navigate the high seas. No foreigner, except for handfuls of Dutch and
Chinese, was allowed to enter. Japan remained a sealed book to the West. The contrary is not
quite so true, for the Japanese knew rather more about Europe than Europeans did about Japan.
The Japanese policy of seclusion was not merely based upon ignorance. Initially, at least, it was
based on experience. The first Europeans – three Portuguese in a Chines junk – are thought to
have arrived in Japan in 1542. For about a century thereafter there was considerable coming and
going. The Japanese showed a strong desire to trade with the foreigners, from whom they obtained
clocks and maps, learned about printing and shipbuilding, and took over the use of tobacco and
potatoes. Thousands also adopted the Christian religion as preached to them by Spanish and
Portuguese Jesuits. Japanese traveled to the Dutch Indies and even to Europe. The Japanese in
fact proved more receptive to European ideas than other Asian peoples. But shortly after 1600 the
government began to drive Christianity underground; in 1624 it expelled the Spaniards, in 1639 it
expelled the Portuguese, and in 1640 it expelled all Europeans except for a few Dutch merchants
who were allowed to remain at Nagasaki under strict control. From 1640 to 1854 these few Dutch
at Nagasaki were the only channel of communication with the West…In Japan, a period of feudal
warfare was followed by a period of government absolutism, during which civil peace was kept
by a bureaucracy, and an obsolescent warrior class was maintained as a privileged element in
society, and a commercial class of native merchant grew wealthier, stronger, and more insistent
upon it position. The reasons for self-seclusion, as for its abandonment later, arose from the course
of political events in Japan…a period of feudal warfare was followed by a period of government
absolutism during which civil peace was kept by a bureaucracy.” 203
Tokugawa shogunate: The islands were still torn by the wars and rivalries of the numerous
clans into which the Japanese were organized. Gradually, the Tokugawa clan gained control,
taking over the office of shogun. “The shogun was a kind of military head who governed in the
name of the emperor, and the hereditary Tokugawa shogunate, founded in 1603, lasted until 1867.
The first three Tokugawa shoguns, to establish their own dynasty, to pacify and stabilize the
country, and to keep Japan free from European penetration, undertook to eliminate Christianity
and adopted the rigid policy of non-intercourse with the rest of the world. Under the Tokugawa,
Japan enjoyed peace, a long peace, for the first time in centuries. The Tokugawa shoguns
completed the detachment of the emperor from politics, building him up as a divine and legendary
being.” The shoguns established their own court and government at Yedo, and administered the
country through a kind of military dictatorship, while the merchant class greatly was expanded by
catering to the government and the gentry. Many samurai were almost impoverished with nothing
except social status to distinguish them from commoners. The law was different between classes
- nobles, merchants, and peasants - who paid different taxes and were differently punished for the
same offenses. By 1723 Yedo was a city with a half million people, and by 1800 with over one
million. After 1800 some merchants were able to purchase the rank of samurai for money; and
the old class lines were beginning to blur. During the Tokugawa period, Buddhism lost its hold
on many people, so that Japan in its way underwent a secularization of ideas. The decline of
Buddhism brought the revival of the cult of Shinto, the ancient indigenous religion of Japan. As
Western ideas trickled in through the crack left open at Nagasaki, shogun Yoshimune permitted
the importation of western books except those relating to Christianity. A few Japanese learned
Dutch and began to study Dutch books on anatomy, surgery, astronomy, and other subjects. A
Dutch-Japanese dictionary was completed in 1745. Japanese demanded European manufactures
such as watches, glassware, velvets, woolens, telescopes, and barometers. 204
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
105
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“There were nobles, heavily in debt, unable to draw more income from agriculture, willing to
embark upon foreign trade and to exploit their property by introducing new enterprises. There
were penurious samurai, with no future in the old system, ready and willing to enter upon new
careers as army officers or civil officials. There were merchant hoping to add to their business by
dealing in Western goods. There were scholars eager to learn more of Western science and
medicine. There were patriots fearful that Japan was becoming defenseless against Western guns.
Spiritually the country was already adrift from its moorings, already set toward a course of national
self-assertion, restlessly susceptible to hazily understood new ideas.” “In 1853, U.S. Commodore
Matthew Perry took four ships into what is now Tokyo Harbor. These massive black wooden ships
powered by steam astounded the Japanese. The ships’ cannons also shocked them. The Tokugawa
shogun realized he had no choice but to receive Perry and the letter Perry had brought from U.S.
president Millard Fillmore. Fillmore’s letter politely asked the shogun to allow free trade between
the United States and Japan. Perry delivered it with a threat, however. He would come back with
a larger fleet in a year to receive Japan’s reply. That reply was the Treaty of Kanagawa of 1854.
Under its terms, Japan opened two ports at which U.S. ships could take on supplies.”205 Under
such pressure, and from downright fear of a bombardment of Yedo by the American, Japan would
at least ruin the declining prestige of the shogunnate. After the United States had pushed them to
open the door, other Western powers soon followed. By 1860, Japan, like China, had granted
foreigners permission to trade at several treaty ports. It had also extended extraterritorial rights to
many foreign nations. The Japanese recognized that the first treaties signed in the 1850s were not
equal because Japan should maintain a low tariff on imports, with extra-territoriality; which were
felt by them as a mark of inferiority as the Japanese soon discovered.
Maiji Restoration (1868-1912): “The Japanese were angry that the shogun had given in to
the foreigners’ demands. They turned to Japan’s young emperor, Mutsuhito, who seemed to
symbolize the country’s sense of pride and nationalism. In 1867, the Tokugawa shogun stepped
down, ending the military dictatorships that had lasted since the 12th century. Mutsuhito took
control of the government. He chose the name Meiji for his reign, which means enlightened rule.
Mutsuhito’s reign, which lasted 45 years, is known as the Meiji era. The Meiji emperor realized
that the best way to counter Western influence was to modernize. He sent diplomats to Europe and
North America to study Western ways. The Japanese then chose what they believed to be the best
that Western civilization had to offer and adapted it to their own country. They admired Germany’s
strong centralized government, for example. And they used its constitution as a model for their
own. The Japanese also admired the discipline of the German army and the skill of the British
navy. They attempted to imitate these European powers as they modernized their military. Japan
adopted the American system of universal public education and required that all Japanese children
attend school. Their teachers often included foreign experts. Students could go abroad to study as
well. The emperor also energetically supported following the Western path of industrialization.
By the early 20th century, the Japanese economy had become as modern as any in the world. The
country built its first railroad line in 1872. The track connected Tokyo, the nation’s capital, with
the port of Yokohama, 20 miles to the south. By 1914, Japan had more than 7,000 miles of railroad.
Coal production grew from half a million tons in 1875 to more than 21 million tons in 1913.
Meanwhile, large, state-supported companies built thousands of factories. Traditional Japanese
industries, such as tea processing and silk production, expanded to give the country unique
products to trade. Developing modern industries, such as shipbuilding, made Japan competitive
with the West.”206 Japan yielded to Western pressure to open to trade, while China refused to it,
because Japan’s lack of resources and demand for Western goods lessened Japan’s, and because
China’s knowledge of the West was much more limited than Japan’s at the time.207
106
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
3. The Growth of State Power and Imperialism, 1871-1914
The Franco-Prussian War ended French hegemony in continental Europe. France elected Adolphe
Thiers as head of the republic, while radicals established the Paris Commune that was suppressed
in few months. Germany annexed Alsace and half of Lorraine with Metz, and France had to pay
an indemnity of 5 billion francs and cover the costs of the German occupation of their northern
provinces until the indemnity was paid. As the French took the course of republicanism, their
labor remained a steady source of discontent, so that political energies of the republic had gone
into curbing the strength of the monarchists and the church. By the turn of the century, the republic
was compelled to meet the challenge of labor and to face domestic and international pressures. In
Germany, Otto von Bismarck as Chancellor consolidated the German Empire with his diplomacy
of realpolitik and powerful rule at home. He allied with the Liberals and the Catholic Church, but
broke with them, imposed protective tariffs, and formed a political alliance with the Centre Party
to fight the Socialists. He distrusted democracy and ruled through a well-trained bureaucracy with
power in the hands of a traditional Junker elite in his tenure until 1890. Under Wilhelm II, one of
the elections held in 1912 gave about one-third of total votes to the Socialist Democrats, allowing
to form the largest single party. The imperial Germany was moving toward a constitutional crisis
in which democracy would be the issue. In Great Britain, where the demands of the working-class
movement caused Liberals to move away from their ideals. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives
were moved to accommodate the working class with significant social reforms, until they were
allowed to organize trade unions and the Labor Party. In Russia, Alexander II emancipated the
serfdom in 1861 and pursued various reforms, but eventually the Bolsheviks, who supported the
idea of forming a small elite of professional revolutionists subject to strong party disciple, became
successful in the Russian Revolution under leadership of Vladimir Lenin in 1917.
Nationalism and industrialization encouraged imperialism, making European states expand
colonial territories in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. The older empires had been maritime and
mercantile, but under the new imperialism, Europeans invested capital in them, and developed a
huge financial stake there. To secure these investments, and for other reasons, they aspired to
political and territorial domination with military arms. (i) The United States gained California with
the adjacent through the Mexican-American War (1846-48); and Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Philippine islands through the Spanish-American War (1898). (ii) The Russo-Turkish War (187778) gave Russia several provinces in the Caucasus, namely Kars and Batumi, with the Budjak
region. Moreover, the principalities of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro formally proclaimed
independence from the Ottoman Empire. (iii) Africa was partitioned by seven European powers.
Bismarck called the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 to settle how European states would claim
colonial land in Africa and to avoid a war among European nations over African land. Great
Britain colonized South Africa-Sudan-Egypt axis; France approached from the coast of West
Africa eastward; and Germany colonized German East Africa, German South-West Africa, and
German West Africa. (iv) In Asia (non-China), the Netherlands colonized the Dutch East Indies;
Great Britain did British India; and France did French Indochina. (v) China ceded Hong Kong to
Britain in 1842 after the First Opium War, and recognized effective Japanese rule over Korea in
1895. The Boxer Rebellion during 1899-1901 was motivated by nationalist sentiments and
opposition to imperialist expansion, associated with Christian missionary activity. The EightNation Alliance brought 20,000 armed troops, captured Beijing, and forced provisions for foreign
troops stationed in Beijing with heavy indemnity (more than China’s annual tax revenue). (vi)
Japan gained the Liaodong Peninsula and the island of Taiwan by the Sino-Japanese War (189495); and more control power over Manchuria by the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05).
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
107
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-3-1. Europe 1914
Source: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/55/79/4c/55794c3b7795e34ee3bac20d4ce30db5.jpg
108
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
France, the Bourgeois Republic (1871-1914): The Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871
resulted in the defeat of France and the overthrow of Emperor Napoleon III and his Second French
Empire. “After Napoleon's capture by the Prussians at the Battle of Sedan (1 September 1870),
Parisian deputies led by Léon Gambetta established the Government of National Defense as a
provisional government on 4 September 1870. The deputies selected General Louis-Jules Trochu
to serve as its president. This first government of the Third Republic ruled during the Siege of
Paris. As Paris was cut off from the rest of unoccupied France, the Minister of War, Léon
Gambetta, who succeeded to leave Paris in a hot air balloon, established the headquarters of the
provisional republican government in the city of Tours on the Loire River. After the French
surrender in January 1871, the provisional Government of National Defense disbanded, and
national elections were called with the aim of creating a new French government. French territories
occupied by Prussia at this time did not participate. The resulting conservative National Assembly
elected Adolphe Thiers as head of a provisional government nominally…head of the executive
branch of the Republic pending a decision on the institutions of France. Due to the revolutionary
and left-wing political climate that prevailed in the Parisian population, the right-wing government
chose the royal palace of Versailles as its headquarters. The new government negotiated a peace
settlement with the newly proclaimed German Empire: the Treaty of Frankfurt signed on 10 May
1871. To prompt the Prussians to leave France, the government passed a variety of financial laws,
such as the controversial Law of Maturities, to pay reparations. In Paris, resentment against the
government built and from late March - May 1871, Paris workers and National Guards revolted
and established the Paris Commune,208which maintained a radical left-wing regime for two months
until its bloody suppression by the Thiers government in May 1871. The following repression of
the communards would have disastrous consequences for the labor movement.” 209
“The French legislative election of 1871, held in the aftermath of the collapse of the regime
of Napoleon III, resulted in a monarchist majority in the French National Assembly that was
favorable to making a peace agreement with Prussia…Legitimists and Orléanists came to a
compromise, eventually, whereby the childless Comte de Chambord would be recognized as king,
with the Comte de Paris recognized as his heir. Consequently, in 1871 the throne was offered to
the Comte de Chambord. In 1871, however, Chambord had no wish to be a constitutional monarch
…he refused to reign over a state that used the Tricolor flag that was associated with the French
Revolution of 1789…The general population, however, was unwilling to abandon the Tricolor
flag. Monarchists therefore resigned themselves to wait for the death of the ageing, childless
Chambord, when the throne could be offered to his more liberal heir, the Comte de Paris. A
temporary republican government was therefore established. Chambord lived on until 1883, but
by that time, enthusiasm for a monarchy had faded, and the Comte de Paris was never offered the
French throne.” In 1873, Patrice de MacMahon replaced Thiers as the President of the Republic,
adopting the new Republic of Constitution of 1875. A series of parliamentary acts established the
constitutional laws of the new republic. “A two-chamber parliament consisting of a directlyelected Chamber of Deputies and an indirectly-elected Senate was created, along with a ministry
under the President of the Council, who was nominally answerable to both the President of the
Republic and the legislature. Throughout the 1870s, the issue of whether a monarchy should
replace the republic dominated public debate.” With public opinion swinging heavily in favor of
a republic, MacMahon, a monarchist, dismissed the republican prime minister and appointed the
monarchist leader to office. He then dissolved parliament and called a general election. The
republicans won the elections held in October 1876 by 350 seats to150 for the Chamber of
Deputies. The prospect of a monarchical restoration died definitively, and the Republic gained
control over the government in January 1879, led by Jules Grevy being new President. 210
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
109
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(a) The Opportunist Republicans: “The Opportunists thought that the balance of the new
regime, threatened by the risk of another Bourbon Restoration, could only be insured by an implicit
alliance between the rural peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie, who represented the majority
of the population. Its primary figures…included Léon Gambetta, leader of the Republican Union;
Jules Ferry, leader of the Republican Left; Charles de Freycinet, who directed several governments
in this period; Jules Favre, Jules Grévy, and Jules Simon - because of their names, this period has
also been called the République des Jules (Republic of the Juleses). While Gambetta opposed
colonialism as he considered it a diversion from the possibility of a revenge against the newly
founded German Empire, Ferry was part of the colonial lobby who took part in the Scramble for
Africa. In the 1885, the Republican Union and the Republican Left merged in the Union of the
Lefts. The Union broke away with the Radicals who supported deep transformations of society,
leading to strong disagreements in the Chamber of Deputies, in particular with Georges
Clemenceau. Their successors, qualified as progressists, slowly transformed their elders' tactics
into social conservatism. At the end of the 19th century, the Opportunists were replaced by the
Radicals as the primary force in French politics. Despite this, they insisted in considering themselves as members of the French Left, a phenomenon known as sinistrisme.”211
Radicals and Radicalism in France: “After the collapse of the Second Empire following the
1870 Franco-Prussian War, the Third Republic was proclaimed in September 1870. The Orléanist
and Legitimist monarchists together won the first elections in February 1871, but couldn't come
to an agreement on the type of monarchy they wanted to restore. Eventually the Republicans won
the 1876 elections, leading to the firm establishment of the Republic. The Radicals defined the
uncompromising part of the Republican Left. In this, Radicals formed the far-left opposition to
the moderate Republican (Opportunist Republicans) governments. Georges Clemenceau was the
leader of the parliamentary group, who criticized colonial policy as a form of diversion from
revenge against Prussia…In the 1890s, Léon Bourgeois renewed the Radical doctrine, including
social reforms such as the progressive income tax and social insurance schemes. After the Dreyfus
Affair, Radicals joined forces with other Republicans and some Socialists in Pierre WaldeckRousseau's cabinet (1899–1902). The 1901 Act on the right of association was voted, and the
Radicals created their party in 1901 in order to defend governmental policy from the Roman
Catholic Church's influence and the conservative opposition.” 212 The Radical-Socialist Party (or
Republican, Radical and Radical-Socialist Party) in 1901 was the first French left-wing modern
political party. Four years later, the socialist French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO)
party was formed by the fusion of Jean Jaurès's and Jules Guesde's rival tendencies; and the French
Communist Party (PCF) was created in 1920. The Radical-Socialist Party continued to be the main
party of the Third Republic (1871–1940), but was discredited after the war.213
Boulanger crisis: “In 1889, the Republic was rocked by a sudden political crisis precipitated
by General Georges Boulanger. An enormously popular general, he won a series of elections in
which he would resign his seat in the Chamber of Deputies and run again in another district. At
the apogee of his popularity in January 1889, he posed the threat of a coup d'état and the
establishment of a dictatorship. With his base of support in the working districts of Paris and other
cities, plus rural traditionalist Catholics and royalists, he promoted an aggressive nationalism
aimed against Germany. The elections of September 1889 marked a decisive defeat for the
Boulangists. They were defeated by the changes in the electoral laws that prevented Boulanger
from running in multiple constituencies; by the government's aggressive opposition; and by the
absence of the general himself, who placed himself in self-imposed exile to be with his mistress.
The fall of Boulanger severely undermined the political strength of the conservative and royalist
elements within France; they would not recover their strength until 1940.” 214
110
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Dreyfus affair: The Dreyfus affair was a major political scandal that convulsed France from
1894 until its resolution in 1906, and then had reverberations for decades more. The conduct of
the affair has become a modern and universal symbol of injustice. It remains one of the most
striking examples of a complex miscarriage of justice in which a central role was played by the
press and public opinion. At issue was blatant anti-Semitism as practiced by the French Army and
defended by conservatives and catholic traditionalists against secular left and republican forces,
including most Jews. In the end, the latter triumphed.” In November 1894 with the conviction for
treason of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian Jewish descent,
was sentenced to life imprisonment for communicating French military secrets to the German
Embassy in Paris and sent to the penal colony at Devil's Island in French Guiana, where he spent
almost five years. Two years later, evidence identified a French Army major named Ferdinand
Walsin Esterhazy as the real spy. The high-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence,
and a military court unanimously acquitted Esterhazy. In response, the Army brought up additional
charges against Dreyfus based on false documents. Word of the military court's attempts to frame
Dreyfus began to spread and the case was published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898.
Activists put pressure on the government to re-open the case. In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to
France for another trial. The intense political and judicial scandal divided French society. The new
trial proved that all the accusations against him were demonstrated to be baseless, and in 1906,
Dreyfus was exonerated and re-instated as a major in the French Army. 215
The Panama Canal Scandal was a corruption affair that broker out in France in 1892, linked
to the building of the Panama Canal. “The dimensions of the bankruptcy were clear by 1892. Some
800,000 French people, including 15,000 single women, had lost their investments in the stocks,
bonds and founder shares of the Panama Canal Company, to the sum of approximately 1.8 billion
gold Francs. From the nine stock issues, the Panama Canal Company received 1.2 billion gold
Francs, 960 million of which were invested in Panama, a large amount having been pocketed by
financiers and politicians.” “Due to disease, inefficiency, widespread corruption, the Panama
Canal Company handling the massive project went bankrupt, with millions in losses. It is regarded
as the largest monetary corruption scandal of the 19th century. Close to a billion francs were lost
when the French government took bribes to keep quiet about the Panama Canal Company's
financial troubles.” In 1892-93, a large number of ministers were accused by French nationalists
of taking bribes from the developer in 1888 to permit of the stock issue. Meanwhile, 510 members
of parliament including 6 ministers were accused of receiving bribes from the canal company to
hide the company’s financial status from the public. Many were tried and punished. Politicians
were no longer trusted, and to monarchist it proved the republic was corrupt. In 1894, a new
company was created; work resumed in 1904, and the canal opened 3 August 1914. 216
Education was the other major plank of the republican platform. “Between 1879 and 1886
the Falloux Law was repealed, clergy were ousted from university councils and Catholic faculties
lost the right, conceded only in 1875, toward degrees. Free, compulsory, secular primary
schooling was introduced in 1881 and, after a delay to permit the training of laic schoolmistresses
in new Ecoles Normales, the teaching personnel of pubic primary schools was secularized. Civic
morality textbooks replaced religious indoctrination. The school building became the authentic
monument of the Third Republic.” 217 To discourage French monarchism as a serious political
force, the French Crown Jewels were broken up and sold in 1885. Thus, opportunist education
reform was designated “to weaken the clergy, to appease genuine worker and peasant demands,
yet also to preserve the substance of an elitist education structure which perpetuated bourgeois
class domination.” However, the mythology of social mobility through educational opportunity
proved seductive to broad strata of the petty bourgeoisie and peasantry. 218
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
111
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Social Progress: (i) Newspapers: “The democratic political structure was supported by
the proliferation of politicized newspapers. The circulation of the daily press in Paris went from 1
million in 1870 to 5 million in 1910; it later reached 6 million in 1939. Advertising grew rapidly,
providing a steady financial basis for publishing, but it did not cover all of the costs involved and
had to be supplemented by secret subsidies from commercial interests that wanted favorable
reporting. A new liberal press law of 1881 abandoned the restrictive practices that had been typical
for a century. (ii) Modernization of the peasants: “France was a rural nation, and the peasant
farmer was the typical French citizen. In his seminal book Peasants into Frenchmen (1976),
historian Eugen Weber traced the modernization of French villages and argued that rural France
went from backward and isolated to modern with a sense of national identity during the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. He emphasized the roles of railroads, republican schools, and universal
military conscription. He based his findings on school records, migration patterns, military service
documents and economic trends. Weber argued that until 1900 or so a sense of French nationhood
was weak in the provinces. Weber then looked at how the policies of the Third Republic created
a sense of French nationality in rural areas. Weber's scholarship was widely praised, but was
criticized by some who argued that a sense of Frenchness existed in the provinces before 1870.”
(iii) Consumerism: “Aristide Boucicaut founded Le Bon Marché in Paris in 1838, and by 1852 it
offered a wide variety of goods in departments inside one building. Goods were sold at fixed
prices, with guarantees that allowed exchanges and refunds. By the end of the 19th century,
Georges Dufayel, a French credit merchant, had served up to three million customers and was
affiliated with La Samaritaine, a large French department store established in 1870 by a former
Bon Marché executive. The French gloried in the national prestige brought by the great Parisian
stores…Émile Zola (1840–1902) set his novel Au Bonheur des Dames (1882–83) in the typical
department store…merchandising, management techniques, marketing, and consumerism.”219
Church and State: “Throughout the lifetime of the Third Republic (1870–1940), there were
battles over the status of the Catholic Church in France among the republicans, monarchists and
the authoritarians (such as the Napoleonists). The French clergy and bishops were closely
associated with the monarchists and many of its hierarchy were from noble families. Republicans
were based in the anti-clerical middle class, who saw the Church's alliance with the monarchists
as a political threat to republicanism, and a threat to the modern spirit of progress. The republicans
detested the Church for its political and class affiliations; for them, the Church represented the
Ancien Régime, a time in French history most republicans hoped was long behind them. The
republicans were strengthened by Protestant and Jewish support. Numerous laws were passed to
weaken the Catholic Church. In 1879, priests were excluded from the administrative committees
of hospitals and boards of charity; in 1880, new measures were directed against the religious
congregations; from 1880 to 1890 came the substitution of lay women for nuns in many hospitals;
in 1882, the Ferry school laws were passed…Emile Combes, when elected Prime Minister in 1902,
was determined to defeat Catholicism thoroughly…he closed down all parochial schools in
France. Then he had parliament reject authorisation of all religious orders. This meant that all
fifty-four orders in France were dissolved and about 20,000 members immediately left France,
many for Spain. In 1904, Émile Loubet, the president of France from 1899 to 1906, visited King
Victor Emmanuel III of Italy in Rome, and Pope Pius X protested at this recognition of the Italian
State. Combes reacted strongly and recalled his ambassador to the Holy See. Then, in 1905, a law
was introduced that abrogated Napoleon's 1801 Concordat. Church and State were finally
separated. All Church property was confiscated. Religious personnel were no longer paid by the
State. Public worship was given over to associations of Catholic laymen who controlled access to
churches. However, in practice, masses and rituals continued to be performed.”220
112
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Foreign Policy: The Third Republic developed a colonial empire. The largest and most
important were in French North Africa and French Indochina. French administrators, soldiers, and
missionaries were dedicated to bringing French civilization to these colonies. During 1871-1900,
“French foreign policy was based on a fear of Germany - whose larger size and fast-growing
economy could not be matched - combined with a revanchism that demanded the return of Alsace
and Lorraine. At the same time, imperialism was a factor. In the midst of the Scramble for Africa,
French and British interest in Africa came into conflict. The most dangerous episode was the
Fashoda Incident of 1898 when French troops tried to claim an area in the Southern Sudan, and a
British force purporting to be acting in the interests of the Khedive of Egypt arrived. Under heavy
pressure the French withdrew securing Anglo-Egyptian control over the area. The status quo was
recognized by an agreement between the two states acknowledging British control over Egypt,
while France became the dominant power in Morocco, but France suffered a humiliating defeat
overall. The Suez Canal, initially built by the French, became a joint British-French project in
1875, as both saw it as vital to maintaining their influence and empires in Asia. In 1882, ongoing
civil disturbances in Egypt prompted Britain to intervene, extending a hand to France. The
government allowed Britain to take effective control of Egypt. France had colonies in Asia and
looked for alliances and found in Japan a possible ally. At Japan's request Paris sent military
missions in 1872–1880, in 1884–1889 and in 1918–1919 to help modernize the Japanese army.
Conflicts with China over Indochina climaxed during the Sino-French War (1884–1885). Admiral
Courbet destroyed the Chinese fleet anchored at Foochow. The treaty ending the war, put France
in a protectorate over northern and central Vietnam, which it divided into Tonkin and Annam.
Under the leadership of expansionist Jules Ferry, the Third Republic greatly expanded the French
colonial empire. Catholic missionaries played a major role. France acquired Indochina,
Madagascar, vast territories in West Africa and Central Africa, and much of Polynesia.” 221
During 1900-1914, “In an effort to isolate Germany, France went to great pains to woo Russia
and Great Britain, first by means of the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894, then the 1904 Entente
Cordiale with Great Britain, and finally the Anglo-Russian Entente in 1907 which became the
Triple Entente. This alliance with Britain and Russia against Germany and Austria led Russia and
Britain to enter World War I as France's Allies. French foreign policy in the years leading up to
the First World War was based largely on hostility to and fear of German power. France secured
an alliance with the Russian Empire in 1894 after diplomatic talks between Germany and Russia
had failed to produce any working agreement. The Franco-Russian Alliance served as the
cornerstone of French foreign policy until 1917. A further link with Russia was provided by vast
French investments and loans before 1914. In 1904, French foreign minister Théophile Delcassé
negotiated the Entente Cordiale with Lord Lansdowne, the British Foreign Secretary, an
agreement that ended a long period of Anglo-French tensions and hostility. The Entente Cordiale,
which functioned as an informal Anglo-French alliance, was further strengthened by the First and
Second Moroccan crises of 1905 and 1911, and by secret military and naval staff talks. Delcassé's
rapprochement with Britain was controversial in France as Anglophobia was prominent around
the start of the 20th century, sentiments that had been much reinforced by the Fashoda Incident of
1898, in which Britain and France had almost gone to war, and by the Boer War, in which French
public opinion was very much on the side of Britain’s enemies. Ultimately, the fear of German
power was the link that bound Britain and France together. Preoccupied with internal problems,
France paid little attention to foreign policy in the period between late 1912 and mid-1914,
although it did extend military service to three years from two over strong Socialist objections in
1913. The rapidly escalating Balkan crisis of July 1914 surprised France, and not much attention
was given to conditions that led to the outbreak of World War I.” 222
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
113
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Republicanism and Labor: Republicanism, one of the militant of revolutionary movements down to 1870, had been shown in France “to be compatible with order, law, parliamentary
government, economic prosperity, and a mutual tolerance between classes, to the extent at least
that they no longer butchered each other in the streets. Industrial-workers were in many ways less
well of than in England or Germany, but there were fewer of them; and for most people France in
these years was a pleasant country…But the very comforts and values of bourgeois France were
not those that would equip it for leadership in the modern age of technology and industrial power.
Though substantial economic progress was made, the country lagged behind Germany in industrial
development; the French entrepreneur showed little inclination to take the business risks needed
for industrial growth. Politically, the fragmentation of political parties, itself a democratic
reflection of a divided public opinion, and the distrust for historic reasons of a strong executive
power led to the rise and fall of numerous short-lived ministries – no fewer than 50 in the years
between 1871 and 1914. Ministerial instability was to be chronic symptom of the Third Republic
both before and after 1914; continuity of government policy was, however, generally maintained
because of stability in certain key ministries and because of the permanent civil service.” 223
“French labor remained a steady source of discontent. Although French workers benefited
from some labor legislation in the two decades after 1890, they continued to feel frustrated at the
failure to establish a social republic. Socialist representation in the Chamber grew, thus strengthening the antiroyalist factions in the French government. However, the most important single
party of the republic, the Radicals, or Radical Socialists, were in actuality radical republicans –
patriotic, anticlerical, spokesmen for the small shopkeepers and the lesser propertied interests;
they drew the line at the advanced social legislation that labor expected from them, and on
occasion their leaders even took positive steps to prevent unionization and to suppress strikes.
Since some of these Radicals had started out as socialists, the distrust of French workers for all
politicians and even for political processes was intensified. But the difficulties of the republic
went deeper. The political energies of the republican statesmen had gone into liquidating the past,
into curbing the political strength of the monarchists, the church, and the army; by the turn of the
century, even before these older issues were fully resolved, the republic was compelled to meet
the challenge of labor and to face other domestic and international pressures.”224
Indeed each of the main revolutionary traditions of late-nineteenth century France exhibited
particular weaknesses. “One could argue that certain general characteristics of French society
before 1914 did encourage the persistence of deep-seated alienation of the working class from the
bourgeois state. For all its ability to manipulate the myth of 1789, the bourgeoisie ran the risk of
having its rhetoric of liberty, equality and fraternity turned against it. Political dialogue in France
was less couched in the obfuscatory mumbo-jumbo of constitutions and religion than was the case
in Britain. 1789 and 1830 were sufficiently close at hand to make obvious that the bourgeoisie
had come to power via the violent, revolutionary overthrow of the feudal elites – a fact decently
obscured by the mists of time in Britain. France possessed a peculiarly intransigent patronat
which, in order to control wage levels to maintain international competitiveness, delayed tradeunion legalization till 1884 and continued thereafter to refuse to recognize or negotiate with
unions, regarding strikes as mutinies. The willingness of governing elite, from Guizot via Thiers
to Clemenceau, to utilize troops against strikers, to mobilize state violence rather than to make
concessions, reminded workers in their daily experience that the state was the right arm of the
employing class. The annual processions to Pere Lachaise cemetery served to keep alive the
memory that the republic had been born amid the mass slaughter of the Parisian working class.
Despite minor social reforms…the workers remained a pariah class, poorly-housed, insecure,
trapped into a rigid class structure with little upward social mobility.” 225
114
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
British Political Changes (1871-1914): (a) Disraeli’s Second Ministry, 1874-1880: Taking
over party leadership, Benjamin Disraeli became Prime Minister, leading the party to a majority
in the 1874 election. “The great tragedy in the political career of Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81)
was that he came to power so late in life. In 1874 he was seventy and ailing; in two years poor
health would force him to give up his leadership of the House of Commons and move to the House
of Lords as the earl of Beaconsfield, although he nevertheless stayed on prime minister. He had
long been suspected of being a political opportunist and adventurer, and his dandified dress and
social affectations increased the distrust of his critics. Moreover, although he was a baptized
Christian, he took considerable pride in his Jewish background. In this age of strong religious
feeling and social prejudice, the remarkable thing is that Disraeli ever came to power at all. The
fact that he did so suggests something of the tolerance and scope for talent present in the British
political system…Disraeli thought the primary mission of his party should be to preserve the best
features of British society. He felt it should repair and construct; it should accept change – indeed,
it should take the leadership in change by building on existing institutions.” 226
In 1875 the Conservative government passed two labor laws, which were the most important
pieces of social legislation of her reign. “The first, the Employers and Workmen Bill, give labor
the same legal status as the employer with regard to breaches of contract. Previously, a workman
who broke a contract with his employer could be sent to prison, whereas an employer who broke
a contract with his workman was liable only to civil action for damages. The second, the Trade
Union Act, abolished many restrictions on union activity by giving unions the same rights as
individuals. Thus, peaceful picketing and similar labor tactics became legal. The Factory Act,
also of 1875, set a maximum fifty-six hour week for factory workers. Other legislation of 1875
included a Public Health Act, which punished the nation with a badly needed sanitary code, and
an Artisan’s Dwellings Act, which established a minimum housing standard and made a start at
proving adequate housing for the poor.” The passage of a Sale of Food and Drugs Act prevented
adulteration of food and medical quackery, and an Agricultural Holdings Act gave tenants
compensation for property improvements in case of eviction. Merchant Shipping Act of 1876
improved living and working conditions for seamen, and to hold the use of unseaworthy vessels,
which were often sent forth so well insured that the owners made a profit when they sank.227
In the field of foreign affairs, in November 1875, “Disraeli made to purchase the controlling
shares in the Suez Canal from the khedive of Egypt, borrowing the money from Rothschilds and
subsequently securing parliamentary approval. The great problem in foreign affairs in the late
1870’s was the crisis in the Near East, where Disraeli pursued the traditional British policy of
preserving the Ottoman Empire as a bulwark against Russian expansion. By astute negotiations
he persuaded Russia to give up substantial gains in the Balkans and a foothold on the
Mediterranean, and in 1878 he acquired from Turkey the island of Cyprus as a naval base to protect
the Suez Canal and British interest in the Near East. In exchange for Cyprus, Disraeli agreed to
guarantee Turkey’s Asiatic territories, thereby obtaining for the British an excuse to send troops
into the Ottoman Empire whenever they saw fit. In July, 1878, Disraeli returned in triumph from
the Congress of Berlin, bringing his country peace with honor.” However, Disraeli was troubled
with the Afghans, Zulus, Boers, and Irish, which discredited the government. “In 1879 Great
Britain experienced a severe agricultural depression, accompanied by the worst harvest of the
century. The agricultural crisis of 1879 capped several years of economic hardship, which had
begun with the general European economic depression of 1873 and had plagued the entire course
of his administration. In March 1880, Disraeli dissolved Parliament and called for new elections.”
The British voters were more anxious over economic depression at home than political oppression
abroad. The Conservatives lost elections to the Liberals. 228
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
115
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Gladstone’s Second Ministry, 1880-1885: Gladstone formed his second ministry after
winning the 1880 election, but was not nearly so successful as his first ministry. There was a lack
of cohesion and purpose among the members of his cabinet.
(i) The Reform Bill of 1884 gave the vote to all males who paid regular rents or taxes. “The
largest group to be franchised by the new act consisted of agricultural laborers – who generally
voted Conservative. Domestic servants, migrant workers, bachelors living under the parental roof,
and women were the only sizable groups that still did not have the right to vote. About two million
new voters were created, and the total electorate was almost doubled. A redistribution bill of 1885
gave more representation to the larger towns and set up county constituencies with one representative each, putting an end to the traditional two-member constituencies. Inhabitants of boroughs
with populations of less than fifteen thousand were deprived of their separate representation and
were merged into the electorate of the local county. The historic boroughs and counties thus
ceased to be the basis of representation in the House of Commons, and with that the basis of the
traditional power of the landed aristocracy was also swept away.” 229 An Employers’ Liability Act
of 1880 provided compensation to employees injured at works.
(ii) Ireland: Gladstone established the Irish Coercion Act of 1881, “which permitted the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland to detain people for as long as was thought necessary, as there was rural
disturbance in Ireland between landlords and tenants and Cavendish, the Irish Secretary, had been
assassinated by Irish rebels in Dublin.” The resulting indignation in England made a policy of
concession to Ireland impossible. “He also passed the Second Land Act (the First, in 1870, had
entitled Irish tenants, if evicted, to compensation for improvements which they had made on their
property, but had had little effect) which gave Irish tenants the 3Fs – fair rent, fixity of tenure and
free sale. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1881.”
(iii) Foreign policy: Historians have been critical of Gladstone’s foreign policy during his
second ministry. On 11 July 1882, Gladstone ordered the bombardment of Alexandria, starting
the Anglo-Egyptian War, which resulted in the occupation of Egypt. He gained little credit for
this action, because he promised that Britain would evacuate Egypt as soon as order had been
restored. In South Africa, British troops were defeated by the Boers, the Dutch settlers in the
Transvaal, who had revolted against British rule in 1880. By the Treaty of Pretoria of April 5,
1881, Gladstone conceded independence to the Boers, but they were to remain under British
suzerainty: they would have authority in their internal affairs, but their foreign relations would be
controlled by Britain. A dispute with Russia over the frontiers of Afghanistan almost led to war
in April, 1885, when Russian forces clashed with Afghan border troops at Penjdeh, Gladstone
avoided war by submitting the case to arbitration, and was accused by the opposition and by some
members of his own party of truckling to Russia. The worst blow of all came in the Sudan, where
Anglo-Egyptian efforts to subdue a revolt against Egyptian overlord-ship were proving so costly
and unsuccessful that the British government decided to evacuate the territory.” General Gordon
and his troops were sent to the Sudan but were massacred when the town fell to the Mahdi in
January 1885. A historian concluded that “Gladstone's second ministry remained barren of any
achievement in the domestic sphere. His downfall came in Africa, where the failed attempt to
rescue General Gordon's force in Sudan in January 1885 proved a major blow to Gladstone's
popularity. Queen Victoria sent him a telegram of rebuke which found its way into the press.
Critics said Gladstone had neglected military affairs and had not acted promptly enough to save
the besieged Gordon. Critics inverted his acronym, G.O.M. (for Grand Old Man), to M.O.G. (for
Murderer of Gordon). He resigned as Prime Minister in June 1885 and declined Queen Victoria's
offer of an earldom.” Lord Salisbury, leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords,
since the death of Disraeli in 1881, formed his first ministry. 230
116
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903): “After the Conservatives
lost the 1880 election and Disraeli's death the year after, Salisbury emerged as Conservative leader
in the House of Lords, with Sir Stafford Northcote leading the party in the Commons. He became
prime minister in June 1885 when the Liberal leader William Ewart Gladstone resigned, and held
the office until January 1886. When Gladstone came out in favor of Home Rule for Ireland,
Salisbury opposed him and formed an alliance with the breakaway Liberal Unionists, winning the
subsequent general election. He remained prime minister until Gladstone's Liberals formed a
government with the support of the Irish Nationalist Party, despite the Unionists gaining the largest
number of votes and seats in the 1892 general election. The Liberals, however, lost the 1895
general election, and Salisbury once again became prime minister, leading Britain to war against
the Boers, and the Unionists to another electoral victory in 1900 before relinquishing the
premiership to his nephew Arthur Balfour. He died a year later, in 1903.” Historians agree that
Salisbury was a patient, pragmatic practitioner, with a keen understanding of Britain’s historic
interests. “He oversaw the partition of Africa, the emergence of Germany and the United Stgates
as imperial powers, and the transfer of British attention from the Dardanelles (Hellespont) to Suez
without provoking a serious confrontation of the great powers.”231
“In 1889 Salisbury set up the London County Council and then in 1890 allowed it to build
houses. However, he came to regret this, saying in November 1894 that the LCC, is the place
where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary
spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms…The major problems of foreign policy were in
the Mediterranean, where British interest had been involved for a century. It was now especially
important to protect the Suez Canal and the sea lanes to India and Asia. He ended Britain's isolation
through the Mediterranean Agreements (March and December 1887) with Italy and Austria. He
saw the need for maintaining control of the seas and passed the Naval Defense Act 1889, which
facilitated the spending of an extra £20 million on the Royal Navy over the following four years.
This was the biggest ever expansion of the navy in peacetime: ten new battleships, thirty-eight
new cruisers, eighteen new torpedo boats and four new fast gunboats. Traditionally (since the
Battle of Trafalgar) Britain had possessed a navy one-third larger than their nearest naval rival but
now the Royal Navy was set to the Two-Power Standard; that it would be maintained to a standard
of strength equivalent to that of the combined forces of the next two biggest navies in the world.
This was aimed at France and Russia.” “A clash of colonial visions between Portugal and the
United Kingdom ended with Portugal having to abandon several territories corresponding to
today's Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi in favor of the United Kingdom.”232
“Salisbury's expertise was in foreign affairs. For most of his time as prime minister he served
not as First Lord of the Treasury, the traditional position held by the prime minister, but as foreign
secretary. In that capacity, he managed Britain's foreign affairs, but he was being sarcastic about
a policy of Splendid Isolation- such was not his goal. Among the important events of his
premierships was the Partition of Africa, culminating in the Fashoda Crisis which escalated
tensions with France, and the long, brutal and unpopular Second Boer War in South Africa. At
home he sought to kill Home Rule with kindness by launching a land reform programme which
helped hundreds of thousands of Irish peasants gain land ownership and largely ended complaints
against English landlords. The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1898 enabled
teachers to secure an annuity via the payment of voluntary contributions. The Elementary
Education Act of 1899 permitted school boards to provide for the education of mentally and
physically defective and epileptic children.”233 He was a great foreign minister, but reactionary
in home affairs. He was a principled statesman of traditional, aristocratic conservatism. His
leadership was succeeded by his nephew, Arthur Balfour, as Prime Minister during 1902-05.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
117
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) British Political Changes after 1900: British Foreign Policy during 1871-1914: (i) To
maintain the balance of power in Europe and to prevent one country or group of countries
becoming too powerful. (ii) To protect its naval superiority over any other European country. The
British army was small and her power rested on the strength of her navy that was the largest in the
world. (iii) To protect and expand her colonial Empire. France was traditionally her rival. (iv) To
defend the sea routes to India (Suez Canal and South Africa) and to prevent landward
encroachment towards the subcontinent by Russia. (v) To prevent Turkey from collapsing and
Russia expanding her influence in the Balkans at Turkey’s expense. “During the 1880s and 1890s
Britain had pursued a policy of avoiding alliances that involved any sort of military commitments
However, the Boer War (1899-1902) had exposed Britain’s lack of a reliable ally and proved she
had very few friends. This allied to the growing might of Germany, caused Britain to abandon her
policy of isolation. In 1902 she formed an alliance with Japan mainly directed against Russia. In
1904 she settled her colonial differences with France and the Entente Cordiale was formed…In
1912 the Entente between France and Britain was strengthened.”234
The Rise of British Labor: “At the turn of the century important changes were discernible on
the British political scene. Labor emerged as an independent political force, the Labor party itself
being organized shortly after 1900. The rise of labor had a deep impact upon the Liberal party
and indeed upon liberalism itself. With many persons insisting that protective measures be taken
to counteract the poor health, low income, and economic insecurity of British workers. The
Liberals abandoned their traditional position of laisses-faire and sponsored a policy of government
intervention and social legislation in behalf of working people.” War against Poverty: In control
of the government from 1906 to 1916, “the Liberals put through a spectacular program of social
welfare. Sickness, accident, old-age, and a degree of unemployment insurance were adopted, and
a moderate minimum wage law was enacted. Labor exchanges, or employment bureaus, were set
up over the country. Restrictions on strikes and other trade union activities were removed…
Lloyd George’s budget of 1909 called for progressive income and inheritance taxes.” Moreover,
State Intervention: “The Liberal party was embracing a program of positive intervention in social
and economic matters that the older liberalism, nurtured on the doctrines of laisses-faire…With
the Liberals actively seeking the support of labor and altering much in their traditional program,
the Conservatives in the twentieth century tended to become a party of industry as well as of
landed wealth and to replace the Liberals as the champions of economic liberalism and laissesfaire…Meanwhile, despite its gains, labor was not pacified.”235
Women’s Right: The campaign for women’s right to vote clashed with the police when women
marchers entered areas in which demonstration were forbidden had led to frequent court
proceedings. The Women’s Social and Political Union adopted a systematic policy of militant
demonstrations. Finally, the Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act of 1918,
which was the first to include all men in the political system, extending the franchise by 5 million
men and 8.4 million women in Great Britain.236The Irish Question: The Irish had many substantial
grievances, among which two were conspicuous. The Irish peasants were defenseless against their
landlords; and the Irish people were obliged to pay tithes to the established Church of Ireland
(Anglican) though predominantly Catholic. Gladstone disestablished the Church of Ireland, and
initiated measures to protect the Irish farm tenant. Home Irish rule was finally granted to Ireland
in 1914. But the Ulstermen objected to inclusion in an autonomous Ireland, in which they would
be outnumbered by the Catholics of the south. The Ulsters backed by British Conservatives started
arming and drilling to resist the act of Parliament that authorized home rule. During the World
War I, home rule was suspended, and after considerable violence on both sides Catholic Ireland
received dominion status in 1922, but eventually dissolve all ties with Britain. 237
118
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The German Empire (1871-1914): (a) Bismarck and Consolidation of the Empire (18711890): “In 1862, King Wilhelm I appointed Bismarck as Minister President of Prussia, a position
he would hold until 1890 (except for a short break in 1873). He provoked three short, decisive
wars against Denmark, Austria, and France, aligning the smaller German states behind Prussia in
its defeat of France. In 1871 he formed the German Empire with himself as Chancellor, while
retaining control of Prussia. His diplomacy of realpolitik and powerful rule at home gained him
the nickname the Iron Chancellor. German unification and its rapid economic growth was the
foundation to his foreign policy. He disliked colonialism but reluctantly built an overseas empire
when it was demanded by both elite and mass opinion. Juggling a very complex interlocking series
of conferences, negotiations and alliances, he used his diplomatic skills to maintain Germany's
position and used the balance of power to keep Europe at peace in the 1870s and 1880s. A master
of complex politics at home, Bismarck created the first welfare state in the modern world, with
the goal of gaining working class support that might otherwise go to his Socialist enemies.”238
Kulturkampf (Culture Struggle): Allying with the liberal Centre Party, Bismarck launched an
anti-Catholic Kulturkampf with low-tariffs in Prussia in 1871 to fight socialists. It was partly
motivated by Bismarck's fear that Pius IX and his successors would use papal infallibility to
achieve the papal desire for international political hegemony. “In May 1872 Bismarck thus
attempted to reach an understanding with other European governments to manipulate future papal
elections; governments should agree beforehand on unsuitable candidates, and then instruct their
national cardinals to vote appropriately. The goal was to end the pope's control over the bishops
in a given state, but the project went nowhere…In its course, all Prussian bishops and many priests
were imprisoned or exiled. Prussia's population had greatly expanded in the 1860s and was now
one-third Catholic. Bismarck believed that the pope and bishops held too much power over the
German Catholics and was further concerned about the emergence of the Catholic Centre Party,
organized in 1870. With support from the anticlerical National Liberal Party, which had become
Bismarck's chief ally in the Reichstag, he abolished the Catholic Department of the Prussian
Ministry of Culture. That left the Catholics without a voice in high circles. Moreover, in 1872, the
Jesuits were expelled from Germany. More anti-Catholic laws of 1873 allowed the Prussian
government to supervise the education of the Roman Catholic clergy and curtailed the disciplinary
powers of the Church. In 1875, civil ceremonies were required for civil weddings. Hitherto,
weddings in churches were civilly recognized.” The Catholics reacted by organizing themselves
and strengthening the Centre Party. Bismarck was alarmed that secularists and socialists were
using the Kulturkampf to attack all religion. In 1878, abolishing it to preserve his remaining
political capital, Bismarck broke with the Liberals, imposed protective tariffs, and formed a
political alliance with the Centre Party to fight the Socialists.
Repression of Socialism: The German Social Democratic Party had been founded in 1875 by
a fusion of Marxian socialists and the reformist followers of Ferdinand Lassalle on an essentially
moderate program, which Marx had denounced. As recently shown in the Paris Commune,
Bismarck feared socialism as anarchy: socialism was in any case republican, making it a
potentially revolutionary movement in an empire of monarchies. “Worried by the growth of the
socialist movement, the Social Democratic Party in particular, Bismarck instituted the AntiSocialist Laws in 1878. Socialist organizations and meetings were forbidden, as was the
circulation of socialist literature. Police officers could stop, search and arrest socialist party
members and their leaders, a number of whom were then tried by police courts. Despite these
efforts, the socialist movement steadily gained supporters and seats in the Reichstag. Socialists
won seats in the Reichstag by running as independent candidates, unaffiliated with any party,
which was allowed by the German constitution.” Bismarck failed to kill socialism. 239
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
119
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Germanization Policy: “Imperial and provincial government bureaucracies attempted to
Germanize the state's national minorities situated near the borders of the empire: the Danes in the
North, the Francophones in the West and Poles in the East. As minister president of Prussia and
as imperial chancellor, Bismarck sorted people into their linguistic and religious tribes, however,
he pursued a policy of hostility in particular toward the Poles, which was an expedient rooted in
Prussian history. He never had a Pole among his peasants working the Bismarckian estates; it was
the educated Polish bourgeoisie and revolutionaries he denounced from personal experience, and
because of them he disliked intellectuals in politics. Bismarck’s antagonism is revealed in a private
letter to his sister in 1861...Later that year, the public Bismarck modified his belligerence and
wrote to Prussia’s foreign minister: ‘Every success of the Polish national movement is a defeat for
Prussia, we cannot carry on the fight against this element according to the rules of civil justice,
but only in accordance with the rules of war. With Polish nationalism the ever present menace,
Bismarck preferred expulsion rather than Germanisation.”240
Foreign Policies: “Well aware that Europe was skeptical of his powerful new Reich,
Bismarck turned his attention to preserving peace in Europe based on a balance of power that
would allow Germany's economy to flourish. Bismarck feared that a hostile combination of
Austria, France, and Russia would crush Germany. If two of them were allied, then the third would
ally with Germany only if Germany conceded excessive demands. The solution was to ally with
two of the three. In 1873 he formed the League of the Three Emperors, an alliance of Wilhelm,
Tsar Alexander II of Russia, and Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary. Together they
would control Eastern Europe, making sure that restive ethnic groups such as the Poles were kept
under control. The Balkans posed a more serious issue, and Bismarck's solution was to give
Austria predominance in the western areas, and Russia in the eastern areas. This system collapsed
in 1887.” France: Germany repeatedly manipulated the internal affairs of France’s neighbors to
hurt France. “Bismarck put heavy pressure on Belgium, Spain, and Italy hoping to obtain the
election of liberal, anticlerical government. His plan was to promote republicanism in France by
isolating the clerical-monarchist regime of President MacMahon.” Italy: Bismarck maintained
good relations with Italy, although he had a personal dislike for Italians and their country. “He can
be seen as a marginal contributor to Italian unification. Politics surrounding the 1866 AustroPrussian War allowed Italy to annex Venetia, which had been a kronland (crown land) of the
Austrian Empire since the 1815 Congress of Vienna. In addition, French mobilization for the
Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871 made it necessary for Napoleon III to withdraw his troops
from Rome and The Papal States. Without these two events, Italian unification would have been
a more prolonged process.” Russia: “After Russia's victory over the Ottoman Empire in the RussoTurkish War of 1877–78, Bismarck helped negotiate a settlement at the Congress of Berlin. The
Treaty of Berlin revised the earlier Treaty of San Stefano, reducing the size of newly independent
Bulgaria (a pro-Russian state at that time). Bismarck and other European leaders opposed the
growth of Russian influence and tried to protect the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. As a result,
Russo-German relations further deteriorated, with the Russian chancellor Gorchakov denouncing
Bismarck for compromising his nation's victory. The relationship was additionally strained due to
Germany's protectionist trade policies. Some in the German military clamored for a preemptive
war with Russia; Bismarck refused.” Triple Alliance: “The League of the Three Emperors having
fallen apart, Bismarck negotiated the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary, in which each
guaranteed the other against Russian attack. He also negotiated the Triple Alliance in 1882 with
Austria-Hungary and Italy, and Italy and Austria-Hungary soon reached the "Mediterranean
Agreement" with Britain. Attempts to reconcile Germany and Russia did not have lasting effect:
the Three Emperors' League was re-established in 1881 but quickly fell apart.”241
120
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Germany under Wilhelm II: Wilhelm II (1888-1918) became the German Emperor at the
age 29. Full of starting ideas about his personal power and privileges. He was the eldest grandchild
of the Queen Victoria and related to many monarchs and princes of Europe. Bismarck, after
gaining an absolute majority in favor of his policies in the Reichstag, to make the anti-Socialist
laws permanent. Wilhelm II became more interested in social problems, especially the treatment
of mine workers who went on strike in 1889. “At the opening of the Reichstag on 6 May 1890,
the Kaiser stated that the most pressing issue was the further enlargement of the bill concerning
the protection of the laborer.” Bismarck resigned at Wilhelm II’s insistence 1890, at the age of
75, and was replaced by Leo von Caprivi. In 1891, the Reichstag passed the Workers Protection
Acts, which improved working conditions, protected women and children and regulated labor
relations. Caprivi was replaced by Prince Hohenlohe in 1894, and Wilhelm II finally appointed
his own Bismarck, Bernhard von Bulow, in 1900. Meanwhile, the Social Democrats, the
Progressive party, and other democratic forces were growing in strength. “In the election of 1912
the Social Democrats reached a new high by polling four and a quarter million votes, about onethird of the total, and by electing 110 members to the Reichstag, in which they now formed the
largest single party; yet they were excluded from the highest posts of government. Even had war
not come in 1914, it is clear that the imperial Germany created by Bismarck was moving toward
a constitutional crisis in which political democracy would be the issue.”
Foreign Affairs: “Bismarck had achieved a fragile balance of interests between Germany,
France and Russia - peace was at hand and Bismarck tried to keep it that way despite growing
popular sentiment against Britain (regarding colonies) and especially against Russia. With
Bismarck's dismissal the Russians now expected a reversal of policy in Berlin, so they quickly
came to terms with France, beginning the process that by 1914 largely isolated Germany.” Moreover, “German foreign policy under Wilhelm II was faced with a number of significant problems.
Perhaps the most apparent was that Wilhelm was an impatient man, subjective in his reactions and
affected strongly by sentiment and impulse. He was personally ill-equipped to steer German
foreign policy along a rational course. It is now widely recognized that the various spectacular
acts which Wilhelm undertook in the international sphere were often partially encouraged by the
German foreign policy elite. There were a number of notorious examples, such as the Kruger
telegram of 1896 in which Wilhelm congratulated President Paul Kruger of the Transvaal Republic
on the suppression of the British Jameson Raid, thus alienating British public opinion. British
public opinion had been quite favorable toward the Kaiser in his first twelve years on the throne,
but it turned sour in the late 1890s. During the First World War, he became the central target of
British anti-German propaganda and the personification of a hated enemy. Wilhelm invented and
spread fears of a yellow peril trying to interest other European rulers in the perils they faced by
invading China; few other leaders paid attention. Wilhelm used the Japanese victory in the RussoJapanese War to try and incite fear in the west of the yellow peril they faced by a resurgent Japan,
which Wilhelm claimed would ally with China to overrun the west. Under Wilhelm Germany
invested in strengthening its colonies in Africa and the Pacific, but few became profitable and all
were lost during the First World War. In South West Africa, a native revolt against German rule
led to the Herero and Namaqua Genocide, although Wilhelm eventually ordered it to be stopped.”
Moroccan Crisis was a significant case to be considered here. “One of Wilhelm's diplomatic
blunders sparked the Moroccan Crisis of 1905, when he made a spectacular visit to Tangier, in
Morocco. His presence was seen as an assertion of German interests in Morocco, in opposition to
those of France. In his speech, he even made remarks in favor of Moroccan independence, and
this led to friction with France, which had expanding colonial interests in Morocco, and to the
Algeciras Conference, which served largely to further isolate Germany in Europe.”242
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
121
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Spanish Political Changes (1871-1914): Loss of American Colonies: “Spain lost all of its
North and South American colonies, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, in a complex series of revolts
1808–26. Spain was at war with Britain 1798–1808, and the British Navy cut off its ties to its
colonies. Trade was handled by American and Dutch traders. The colonies thus had achieved
economic independence from Spain, and set up temporary governments or juntas which were
generally out of touch with the mother country. After 1814, as Napoleon was defeated and
Ferdinand VII was back on the throne, the king sent armies to regain control and re-impose
autocratic rule. In the next phase 1809–16, Spain defeated all the uprising. A second round 1816–
25 was successful and drove the Spanish out of all of its mainland holdings. Spain had no help
from European powers. Indeed, Britain (and the United States) worked against it. When they were
cut off from Spain, the colonies saw a struggle for power between Spaniards who were born in
Spain (called peninsulares) and those of Spanish descent born in New Spain (called creoles). The
creoles were the activists for independence. Multiple revolutions enabled the colonies to break
free of the mother country. In 1824 the armies of generals José de San Martín of Argentina and
Simón Bolívar of Venezuela defeated the last Spanish forces; the final defeat came at the Battle
of Ayacucho in southern Peru. After that Spain played a minor role in international affairs.
Business and trade in the ex-colonies were under British control.”243
Reaction and Changes (1814-73): With the liberal Constitution of 1812, Ferdinand VII was
supported by conservatives, but his government was nearly bankrupt, so unable to pay his soldiers.
The second bourgeois revolution in Spain during 1820-23 placed him under house arrest for the
duration of the liberal experiment. He was restored as absolute monarch in 1823, taking repressive
measures against the liberal forces in his country. Isabella II at the age of three succeeded his
father throne as Queen of Spain, with the regency of her mother, Maria Cristina of Bourbon-Two
Sicilies. Carlos (a pretender of the throne) invaded the Basque country in the north of Spain and
attracted support from absolutist reactionaries and conservatives; these forces were known as the
Carlist forces. The supporters of reform and of limitations on the absolutist rule of the Spanish
throne rallied behind Isabella and the regent, Maria Christina; these reformists were called
Cristinos.” In 1839, the Convention of Vergara ended the first Carlist War. “The progressive
General Espartero, exploiting his popularity as a war hero and his sobriquet Pacifier of Spain,
demanded liberal reforms from Maria Cristina. The Queen Regent, who resisted any such idea,
preferred to resign and let Espartero become regent instead in 1840. Espartero's liberal reforms
were then opposed by moderates, and the former general's heavy-handedness caused a series of
sporadic uprisings throughout the country from various quarters, all of which were bloodily
suppressed. He was overthrown as regent in 1843 by Ramón María Narváez, a moderate, who was
in turn perceived as too reactionary. Another Carlist uprising, the Matiners' War, was launched in
1846 in Catalonia, but it was poorly organized and suppressed by 1849.” Isabella II of Spain took
a more active role in government, but there was another coup in 1854. In 1860 Isabella launched
a successful war against Morocco, stabilizing her popularity in Spain. “In 1866, a revolt led by
Juan Prim was suppressed, but in 1868 there was a further revolt, known as the Glorious
Revolution. The progresista generals Francisco Serrano and Juan Prim revolted against Isabella
and defeated her moderado generals at the Battle of Alcolea (1868). Isabella was driven into exile
in Paris. Two years of revolution and anarchy followed, until in 1870 the Cortes declared that
Spain would again have a king. Amadeus of Savoy, the second son of King Victor Emmanuel II
of Italy, was selected and duly crowned King of Spain early the following year. Amadeus – a
liberal who swore by the liberal constitution the Cortes promulgated – was faced immediately with
the incredible task of bringing the disparate political ideologies of Spain to one table. The country
was plagued by internecine strife, not merely between Spaniards but within Spanish parties.”244
122
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-1. The Battle of the First Carlist War (1833-39) in Spain
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Bataille_de_la_premi%C3%A8re_guerre_carliste_1833-1840.jpg
The First Spanish Republic (1873-74) was declared to the people by a government of radicals
and republicans in February 1873. There were calls for social revolution from the International
Workingmen’s Association, revolts and unrest in the autonomous regions of Navarre and
Catalonia, and pressure from the Catholic Church against the fledging republic. The Restoration
(1874-31) was possible: Isabella II abdicated in favor of her son Alfonso XII of Spain, who was
crowned in December 1874 after returning from exile. The Republic was dissolved and its leader
became a trusted advisors to the king. Constitutional monarchy continued under King Alfonso
XIII (reigned 1886-1931). He saw the Spanish-American War of 1898, culminating the loss of
the Philippines plus Spain’s last colonies in the Americas, Cuba and Pueto Rico; the World War I
although Spain maintained neutrality throughout the conflict. His reign saw the rise to dictatorship
of General Miguel Primo de Revera in 1923, and general elections were held in 1931 to replace
the government, with Republican and anticlerical candidates.245
Disaster of 1898: “Cuba rebelled against Spain in the Ten Years' War beginning in 1868,
resulting in the abolition of slavery in Spain's colonies in the New World. American business
interests in the island, coupled with concerns for the people of Cuba, aggravated relations between
the two countries. The explosion of the USS Maine launched the Spanish-American War in 1898,
in which Spain fared disastrously. Cuba gained its independence and Spain lost its remaining New
World colony, Puerto Rico, which together with Guam and the Philippines were ceded to the
United States for 20 million dollars. In 1899, Spain sold its remaining Pacific islands - the
Northern Mariana Islands, Caroline Islands and Palau – to Germany and Spanish colonial
possessions were reduced to Spanish Morocco, Spanish Sahara and Spanish Guinea, all in Africa.
The disaster of 1898 created the Generation of '98, a group of statesmen and intellectuals who
demanded liberal change from the new government. However, both Anarchism on the left and
fascism on the right grew rapidly in Spain in the early 20th century. A revolt in 1909 in Catalonia
was bloodily suppressed. Jensen (1999) argues that the defeat of 1898 led many military officers
to abandon the liberalism that had been strong in the officer corps and turn to the right. They
interpreted the American victory in 1898 as well as the Japanese victory against Russia in 1905 as
proof of the superior value of willpower and moral values over technology. Over the next three
decades…these values shaped the outlook of Francisco Franco and other Falangists.” 246
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
123
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Political Scene in Italy (1870-1914): “Modern Italy became a nation-state during the
Risorgimento on March 17, 1861 when most of the states of the Italian Peninsula and the Kingdom
of the Two Sicilies were united under King Victor Emmanuel II of the House of Savoy, hitherto
king of Sardinia, a realm that included Piedmont. Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-82) was an Italian
patriot and soldier of the Risorgimento. He personally led many of the military campaigns that
brought about the formation of a unified Italy. He has been dubbed ‘the Hero of the Two Worlds’
in tribute to his military expeditions in South America and Europe. The architect of Italian
unification was Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, the Chief Minister of Victor Emmanuel. Rome
itself remained for a decade under the Papacy, and became part of the Kingdom of Italy only in
1870, the final date of Italian unification. Napoleon III's defeat brought an end to the French
military protection for Pope Pius IX and on September 20, Italian troops breached Rome's walls
at Porta Pia and entered the city. The Italian occupation forced Pius IX to his palace where he
declared himself a prisoner in the Vatican until the Lateran Pacts of 1929. The Holy See (State of
the Vatican City) since 1929 has been an independent enclave surrounded by Rome, Italy.”247
“From its beginning the Italian Nationalist Movement had dreamed about Italy joining the
modernized World Powers. In the North, extensive industrialization and the building of a modern
infrastructure was well underway by the 1890s. Alpine railway lines connected Italy to the French,
German and Austrian rail systems. Two south-going coastal lines were also completed. Most of
the larger industrial businesses were originally founded with considerable investment from
Germany, Britain, France and others. Subsequently, the Italian state decided to help initiate heavy
industry such as car factories, steel works and ship building, adopting a protectionist trade policy
from the 1880s onward. Northern Italian agriculture was modernized, as well, bringing larger
profits, underpinned by powerful co-operatives. The South, however, did not experience the same
kind of development in any of the above-mentioned areas.”248 In fact, in the south were large
landed estates owned by an old nobility which was allied with the Church. Little industry existed
in the south, and the percentage of the people going to school or receiving some technical training
was smaller than in the rest of Italy. The primarily agrarian south was an area of great poverty.
The situation of the peasants all over Italy, but particularly in the south, was very difficult. In
central Italy peasant farmers felt hemmed in by the sharecropping system, the mezzadria, which
gave them seldom more than 30 percent of the income from the harvest.
Liberal Period: Italian unification had primarily been the work of the middle class. “After
unification, Italy's politics favored radical socialism due to a regionally fragmented right, as
conservative Prime Minister Marco Minghetti (1973-76) only held on to power by enacting
revolutionary and socialist-leaning policies to appease the opposition such as the nationalization
of railways. In 1876, Minghetti was ousted and replaced by Agostino Depretis (1881-87), a
moderate liberal. Depretis began his term as Prime Minister by initiating an experimental political
idea called Trasformismo (transformism). The theory of Trasformismo was that a cabinet should
select a variety of moderates and capable politicians from a non-partisan perspective. In practice,
trasformismo was authoritarian and corrupt, Depretis pressured districts to vote for his candidates
if they wished to gain favorable concessions from Depretis when in power. The results of the 1876
election resulted in only four representatives from the right being elected, allowing the government
to be dominated by Depretis. Despotic and corrupt actions are believed to be the key means in
which Depretis managed to keep support in southern Italy. Depretis put through authoritarian
measures, such as the banning public meetings, placing dangerous individuals in internal exile on
remote penal islands across Italy and adopting militarist policies. Depretis enacted controversial
legislation for the time, such was abolishing arrest for debt, making elementary education free and
compulsory while ending compulsory religious teaching in elementary schools.”249
124
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Francesco Crispi (1818-1901) was among the main protagonists of the Italian Risorgimento
and close friend and supporter of Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi, and one of the
architects of the unification of Italy in 1860. He served Prime Minister two times during 1887-91
and 1893-96. His major concern before and during his reign was protecting Italy from their
dangerous neighbor Austria-Hungary. “To challenge the threat, Crispi worked to build Italy as a
great world power through increased military expenditures, expansionism, and trying to win
Germany's favor by joining the Triple Alliance which included both Germany and AustriaHungary in 1882. While helping Italy develop strategically, he continued trasformismo and was
authoritarian, once suggesting the use of martial law to ban opposition parties. Despite being
authoritarian, Crispi put through liberal policies such as the Public Health Act of 1888 and
establishing tribunals for redress against abuses by the government.”250
“The overwhelming attention paid to foreign policy alienated the agricultural elements, whose
power had been in decline since 1873. Both radical and conservative forces in the Italian
parliament demanded that the government investigate how to improve agriculture in Italy. The
investigation which started in 1877 and was released eight years later, showed that agriculture was
not improving, that landowners were swallowing up revenue from their lands and contributing
almost nothing to the development of the land. There was aggravation by lower class Italians to
the break-up of communal lands which benefited only landlords. Most of the workers on the
agricultural lands were not peasants but short-term laborers who at best were employed for one
year. Peasants without stable income were forced to live off meager food supplies, disease was
spreading rapidly, plagues were reported, including a major cholera epidemic which killed at least
55,000 people. The Italian government could not deal with the situation effectively due to the
mass overspending of the Depretis government that left Italy in huge debt. Italy also suffered from
overproduction of grapes for their vineyards in the 1870s and 1880s when France was suffering
from vine disease caused by insects. Italy during that time prospered as the largest exporter of
wine in Europe but following the recovery of France in 1888, southern Italy was overproducing
and had to cut back which caused greater unemployment and bankruptcies.”251
Early Colonialism: Italy had a small colonial possession along the Red Sea, and wanted to
extend its rule in the area to neighboring Ethiopia. “In 1889, Ethiopia's Emperor Yohannes IV
died in battle in Sudan, Menelik II replaced Yohannes as Emperor. Menelik believed he could
negotiate with Italy to avoid war and in error allowed Italy's claim to Massawa. Menelik made
another serious blunder when he signed an agreement which declared that Ethiopia would work
alongside the King of Italy in its dealings with foreign powers, which the Italians interpreted to
declare that Ethiopia had in effect made itself a protectorate of Italy. Menelik opposed the Italian
interpretation and the differences between the two states grew. In October 1889, Menelik met with
a Russian officer who was sent to discuss merging the Russian and Abyssinian orthodox churches,
but Menelik was more concerned over Italy's massing army in Eritrea. The meeting was used by
Menelik to show unity between Ethiopia and Russia against Italian interests in the area. Russia's
own interests in East Africa led Russia's government to send large amounts of modern weaponry
to the Ethiopians to hold back an Italian invasion. In response, Britain decided to back the Italians
to challenge Russian influence in Africa and declared that all of Ethiopia was within the sphere of
Italian interest. On the verge of war, Italian militarism and nationalism reached a peak, with
Italians flocking to the Italian army, hoping to take part in the upcoming war. In 1895, Ethiopia
abandoned its agreement to follow Italian foreign policy and Italy used the renunciation as a reason
to invade Ethiopia. The Italian army failed on the battlefield of Adowa, despite having superior
weaponry, the sheer large numbers of the Ethiopian warriors forced Italy to eventually retreat into
Eritrea. The failed Ethiopian campaign was an international embarrassment to Italy.”
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
125
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Giovanni Giolitti (1842-1928) served the Prime Minister for Italy five times between 1892
and 1914. “Giolitti was a master in the political art of Trasformismo, the method of making a
flexible, centrist coalition of government which isolated the extremes of the left and the right in
Italian politics after the unification. Under his influence, the Italian Liberals did not develop as a
structured party. They were, instead, a series of informal personal groupings with no formal links
to political constituencies. The period between the start of the 20th century and the start of World
War I, when he was Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior from 1901 to 1914 with only brief
interruptions, is often referred to as the Giolittian Era. A left-wing liberal, with strong ethical
concerns, Giolitti's periods in office were notable for the passage of a wide range of progressive
social reforms which improved the living standards of ordinary Italians, together with the
enactment of several policies of government intervention. Besides putting in place several tariffs,
subsidies and government projects, Giolitti also nationalized the private telephone and railroad
operators. Liberal proponents of free trade criticized the Giolittian System, although Giolitti
himself saw the development of the national economy as essential in the production of wealth.”252
The universal male suffrage election expanded electorate from 3 million to 8.5 million voters in
1912; that brought in many workers and peasants, with gains for the Socialist and Catholic forces.
New interest groups became better organized, with local organizations and influential newspapers,
such as the Catholics, the nationalists, and the farmers. Giolitti made some concession to Church
interests by facilitating religious education in those localities where parents demanded it; which
meant in practice that the schools in the south were controlled by priests. The nationalists rose and
became a popular movement with popular leadership figures. The nationalists grew in power and
demanded planning for an invasion of Ottoman Turkish-held Libia.
Colonial Empire: In 1911, Giolitti's government agreed to sending forces to occupy Libya.
Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire which held Libya as a colony. “The invasion of Libya
did mark a turn in direction for the opposition to the Italian government, revolutionaries became
divided, some adopting nationalist lines, while others retaining socialist lines. The annexation of
Libya caused nationalists to advocate Italy's domination of the Mediterranean Sea by occupying
Greece as well as the Adriatic coastal region of Dalmatia. While the success of the Libyan War
improved the status of the nationalists, it did not help Giolitti's administration as a whole. The war
radicalized the Italian Socialist Party with anti-war revolutionaries led by future-Fascist dictator
Benito Mussolini calling for violence to bring down the government. Giolitti could no longer rely
on the dwindling reformist socialist elements and was forced to concede even further to the right,
Giolitti dropped all anticlericalism and reached out to clericals which alienated his moderate
liberal base leaving him with an unsteady coalition which collapsed in 1914. By the end of his
tenure, Italians detested him and the liberal establishment for the fraudulent elections, the divided
society, and the failure and corruption of trasformiso organized governments. Giolitti would return
…briefly in 1920, but the era of liberalism was effectively over in Italy. Italian colonial ventures
began with the acquisition of the ports of Asseb in 1869 and Massawa in 1885 in what is now
Eritrea. These areas were claimed by Ethiopia at the time, and when Ethiopia went into turmoil at
the death of Emperor Yohannes IV, Italy moved into the northern Ethiopian highlands. However,
further expansion was checked by a revival of Ethiopian power under Emperor Menelik II which
led to the defeat of Italian forces at the battle of Adua. However, Italy was still able to secure the
northern highlands in the Treaty of Wuchale, ending its conflict with Ethiopia until 1935. Around
the same time Italy began to colonize Somalia. It avoided the other powers carving out domains
in that area but gradually gained the southern Somali coast beginning with the Sultanate of Hobyo
and the Sultanate of Majeerteen in 1888 and continuing with gradual acquisitions until 1925 when
Chisimayu Region belonging to the British protectorate of Zanzibar was given to Italy.”253
126
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Austro-Hungarian Empire (1971-1914): “The union was a result of the AustroHungarian Compromise of 1867 and came into existence on 30 March 1867, when the compromise
was ratified by the Hungarian parliament. Austria-Hungary consisted of two monarchies (Austria
and Hungary), and one autonomous region: the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia under the Hungarian
crown, which negotiated the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement in 1868. It was ruled by the House
of Habsburg, and constituted the last phase in the constitutional evolution of the Habsburg
Monarchy. Following the 1867 reforms, the Austrian and the Hungarian states were co-equal. The
Compromise required regular renewal, as did the customs union between the two components of
the union. Foreign affairs and the military came under joint oversight, but all other governmental
faculties were divided between respective states.” 254 The major factors that kept the Empire
together were: “loyalty to the Emperor: Francis Joseph was personally very popular throughout
the empire. He was multi-lingual and spoke nearly all the languages of the Empire; the Catholic
religion: - 90% of the population of the Austrian half of the Empire were Catholic and 60% of the
Hungarian half were; the civil service and the army, both of which were dominated by Germans
and mutual suspicion among the subject peoples.” The main ethnic groups in Austria-Hungary
includes Germans 24%; Magyars (Hungarians) 20%; *Czechs 13%; *Poles 10%; *Ruthenians
(Ukranians) 8%; Rumanians 6%; Croats 5%; *Serbs 4%; *Slovaks 4%; *Slovenes 3%; and Italians
3% (* indicates Slavic). The single most important issue facing the Empire was nationalism. This
took the form of demands for political and cultural equality for all the different national groups in
the Empire. The response of the Germans and Hungarians to these demands was very different.”255
Main aims in foreign policy were “(i) To gain land in the Balkans at the expense of Turkey
(this was called the Drang nach Osten or the drive to the East) e.g. annexation of Bosnia; (ii) To
prevent the growth of South Slav nationalism (Yugoslavism) undermining her Empire. She viewed
with considerable unease the growth of Serbian power in the Balkans. Serbia was seen as the major
threat to the unity of the Empire as there was a large Serbian minority in the Empire; and (iii) To
prevent Russian influence from spreading in the Balkans or in the Mediterranean e.g. Congress of
Berlin.” The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a power in decline since her defeat at the hands of
Prussia in 1866. “In most European crises before 1914, Russia and Austria were to be found on
opposite sides. German-Austrian relations were close particularly after 1905. However Austria's
relations with the other member of the Triple Alliance, Italy were poor. This was because of the
presence of an Italian minority in the Austrian Empire (Trento, Istria and Trieste).” 256
In this regard, “After 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina was under Austro-Hungarian military
and civilian rule until it was fully annexed in 1908, provoking the Bosnian crisis among the other
powers. Sandžak/Raška, de jure northern part of the Ottoman Sanjak of Novi Pazar, was also under
de facto joint occupation during that period but the Austro-Hungarian army withdrew as part of
their annexation of Bosnia. The annexation of Bosnia also led to Islam being recognized as an
official state religion due to Bosnia's Muslim population. Austria-Hungary was one of the Central
Powers in World War I. It was already effectively dissolved by the time the military authorities
signed the armistice of Villa Giusti on November 3, 1918. The Kingdom of Hungary and the First
Austrian Republic were treated as its successors de jure, whereas the independence of the West
Slavs and South Slavs of the Empire as the First Czechoslovak Republic, the Second Polish
Republic and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, respectively, and most of the territorial demands of the
Kingdom of Romania were also recognized by the victorious powers in 1920.” Particularly, “the
movement and the growth of Serbia was seen by both the Hungarians and Austrians as the major
threat to the unity of the Empire. “It was agreed that Serbian power had to be destroyed. When
Archduke Francis Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo in 1914 by a Serb, this was the pretext needed
to crush Serbia. This unleashed World War I and the eventual ending of the Empire.”
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
127
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Russia, Tsarist Autocracy until 1917: The Romanov dynasty consolidated absolute power
on Russia during the reign of Peter the Great (reigned 1682-1725), who reduced the power of the
nobility and strengthened the central power of the tsar, establishing a bureaucratic civil service
based on the Table of Ranks but theoretically open to all classes of society. Peter’s reform caused
a series of palace coups seeking to restore the power of the nobility. “To end them, Catherine the
Great (reigned 1762-96), whose reign is often regarded as the high point of absolutism in Russia,
in 1785 issued the Charter to the Nobility, legally affirming the rights and privileges they had
acquired in preceding years, and the Charter of the Towns, establishing municipal selfgovernment. This placated the powerful members of society; however, in fact, the real power
rested with the state's bureaucracy. This was built on by later Tsars. Alexander I (1801-25)
established the State council as advisory legislative body. Although Alexander II (1855-81)
established a system of elected local self-government (Zemstvo) and an independent judicial
system, Russia did not have a national-level representative assembly (Duma) or a constitution until
the 1905 Revolution. The system was abolished after the Russian Revolution of 1917.”257 Unlike
in western monarchies subject to the Pope, the Russian Empire combined monarchy with the
supreme authority on religious issues. In Russia the tsar owned a much higher proportion of the
state (including lands, enterprises, and etc.) than did Western monarchs. As discussed before,
Alexander II decided to abolish serfdom, with ample provision for the landowners, rather than
wait for it to be abolished from below in a revolutionary way that would hurt the landowners. He
freed the surfs, declaring the Emancipation Manifesto in 1861, instituted the system of zemstvos,
and extended reforms such as in the judicial system, education, finance, military, and etc.
In foreign policy, Alexander II obtained Outer Manchuria from the Qing China during 1858–
60 and sold the last territories of Russian America, Alaska, to the USA in 1867. “In the late 1870s
Russia and the Ottoman Empire again clashed in the Balkans. From 1875 to 1877, the Balkan
crisis intensified with rebellions against Ottoman rule by various Slavic nationalities, which the
Ottoman Turks dominated since the 16th century. This was seen as a political risk in Russia, which
similarly suppressed its Muslims in Central Asia and Caucasia. Russian nationalist opinion
became a major domestic factor in its support for liberating Balkan Christians from Ottoman rule
and making Bulgaria and Serbia independent. In early 1877, Russia intervened on behalf of
Serbian and Russian volunteer forces in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78). Within one year,
Russian troops were nearing Istanbul and the Ottomans surrendered. Russia's nationalist diplomats
and generals persuaded Alexander II to force the Ottomans to sign the Treaty of San Stefano in
March 1878, creating an enlarged, independent Bulgaria that stretched into the southwestern
Balkans. When Britain threatened to declare war over the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano, an
exhausted Russia backed down. At the Congress of Berlin in July 1878, Russia agreed to the
creation of a smaller Bulgaria, as an autonomous principality inside the Ottoman Empire. As a
result, Pan-Slavists were left with a legacy of bitterness against Austria-Hungary and Germany for
failing to back Russia. The disappointment at the results of the war stimulated revolutionary
tensions in the country. However, he helped Serbia, Romania and Montenegro to gain
independence from and strengthen themselves against the Ottomans. Another significant result of
the 1877–78 Russo-Turkish War in Russia's favor was the acquisition from the Ottomans of the
provinces of Batumi, Ardahan and Kars in Transcaucasia, which were transformed into the
militarily administered regions of Batumi Oblast and Kars Oblast. To replace Muslim refugees
who had fled across the new frontier into Ottoman territory, the Russian authorities settled large
numbers of Christians from an ethnically diverse range of communities in Kars Oblast, particularly
the Georgians, Caucasus Greeks and Armenians, each of whom hoped to achieve protection and
advance their own regional ambitions on the back of the Russian Empire.”258
128
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Alexander III (1881-94) succeeded his father’s throne after Alexander II’s assassination. He
was conservative and reversed some of the liberal reforms of his father. “Russia declared the
Franco-Russian Alliance to contain the growing power of Germany, completed the conquest of
Central Asia and demanded important territorial and commercial concessions from the Qing.” The
tsar's most influential adviser was Konstantin Pobedonostsev, under whom revolutionaries were
persecuted and a policy of Russification was carried out throughout the Empire. The movement
south toward Afghanistan and India alarmed the British, who ignored Russia's quest for a warmwater port and worked to block its advance. Both nations became allies in 1907.259 Nicholas II
(1894-1917) succeeded his father’s throne. “The Industrial Revolution began to show significant
influence in Russia, but the country remained rural and poor. The liberal elements among
industrial capitalists and nobility believed in peaceful social reform and a constitutional monarchy,
forming the Constitutional Democratic Party or Kadets. On the left the Socialist Revolutionary
Party (SRs) incorporated the Narodnik tradition and advocated the distribution of land among
those who actually worked it - the peasants. Another radical group was the Russian Social
Democratic Labor Party, exponents of Marxism in Russia. The Social Democrats differed from
the SRs in that they believed a revolution must rely on urban workers, not the peasantry. In 1903,
at the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in London, the party split into
two wings: the gradualist Mensheviks and the more radical Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks believed
that the Russian working class was insufficiently developed and that socialism could be achieved
only after a period of bourgeois democratic rule. They thus tended to ally themselves with the
forces of bourgeois liberalism. The Bolsheviks, under Vladimir Lenin, supported the idea of
forming a small elite of professional revolutionists, subject to strong party discipline, to act as the
vanguard of the proletariat in order to seize power by force.”260
“Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) was a major blow to the Tsarist regime and
further increased the potential for unrest. In January 1905, an incident known as Bloody Sunday
occurred when Father Georgy Gapon led an enormous crowd to the Winter Palace in Saint
Petersburg to present a petition to the Tsar. When the procession reached the palace, soldiers
opened fire on the crowd, killing hundreds. The Russian masses were so furious over the massacre
that a general strike was declared demanding a democratic republic. This marked the beginning of
the Revolution of 1905. Soviets (councils of workers) appeared in most cities to direct revolutionary activity. Russia was paralyzed, and the government was desperate. In October 1905, Nicholas
reluctantly issued the famous October Manifesto, which conceded the creation of a national Duma
(legislature) to be called without delay. The right to vote was extended and no law was to become
final without confirmation by the Duma. The moderate groups were satisfied. But the socialists
rejected the concessions as insufficient and tried to organize new strikes. By the end of 1905, there
was disunity among the reformers, and the tsar's position was strengthened for the time being.
Tsar Nicholas II and his subjects entered World War I with enthusiasm and patriotism, with the
defense of Russia's fellow Orthodox Slavs, the Serbs, as the main battle cry. In August 1914, the
Russian army invaded Germany's province of East Prussia and occupied a significant portion of
Austrian-controlled Galicia in support of the Serbs and their allies – the French and British.
Military reversals and shortages among the civilian population, however, soon soured much of the
population. German control of the Baltic Sea and German-Ottoman control of the Black Sea
severed Russia from most of its foreign supplies and potential markets. By the middle of 1915,
the impact of the war was demoralizing. Food and fuel were in short supply, casualties were
increasing, and inflation was mounting. Strikes rose among low-paid factory workers, and there
were reports that peasants, who wanted reforms of land ownership, were restless.”261 The Tsarist
system was overthrown by a liberal February Revolution in 1917.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
129
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-2. British Assault on Canton during the First Opium War, May 1841
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/British_ships_in_Canton.jpg/1280pxBritish_ships_in_Canton.jpg
Photo I-3-3. The Anglo-Boer Wars (1880-81 and 1899-1902)
Source: http://affordableartfair.com/hampstead/files/2013/03/the-starry-night-18891-460x287.jpg
130
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
3-1. Europe’s World Supremacy: Imperialism, 1871-1914
Figure I-3-1. Imperialism: Europe, Africa, India, and other Asia, 1871-1914
Source: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/imperialism-1226532528602306-9/95/imperialism-review-powerpoint-10728.jpg?cb=1228132077
The Nature and Causes of Imperialism: Imperialism means to extend a country's power
through military and diplomacy. “Its name originated from the Latin word imperium, which means
to rule over large territories. Imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence
through colonization, use of military force, or other means. It has also allowed for the rapid spread
of technologies and ideas. The term imperialism has been applied to Western (and Japanese)
political and economic dominance especially in Asia and Africa in the 19th and 20th centuries. Its
precise meaning continues to be debated by scholars. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the
term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination organized with an
imperial center and a periphery. Imperialism is defined as ‘A policy of extending a country’s
power and influence through diplomacy or military force.’ Imperialism is particularly focused on
the control that one group, often a state power, has on another group of people. This is often
through various forms of othering (a cumulative, constituting factor) based on racial, religious, or
cultural stereotypes. There are formal or informal imperialisms. Formal imperialism is defined as
physical control or full-fledged colonial rule. Informal imperialism is less direct; however, it is
still a powerful form of dominance…It is mostly accepted that modern-day colonialism is an
expression of imperialism and cannot exist without the latter. The extent to which informal
imperialism with no formal colonies is properly described remains a controversial topic among
historians. Both colonization and imperialism have been described…as early forms of globalization: Even if a particular empire does not have a global reach as we would define it today,
empires by their nature still tend to contribute to processes of globalization because of the way
that imperial power tends to generate counter-power at its edge-lands and send out reverberations
far beyond the territories of their immediate control. The word imperialism became common in
Great Britain during the 1870s and was used with a negative connotation. In Britain, the word had
until then mostly been used to refer to the politics of Napoleon III in obtaining favorable public
opinion in France through foreign military interventions.”262
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
131
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-4. The Berlin Conference (1884) chaired by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck
Regulated European Imperialism in Africa
Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Afrikakonferenz.jpg
Map I-3-2. Imperialism and the Balance of Power
Source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/1914wrld.gif
132
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Imperialism is justified with different reasons. The earth should be peopled, governed, and
developed, as far as possible, by the races which can do this work best; in order for a state to
survive, imperialism was needed. Great Britain needed to be one of the greatest imperialists and
therefore justified imperialism. Social Darwinism and anthropology taught the racist doctrine that
the white races were more gifted for imperialism than other races. In history, European civilization
had shown a tendency to expand. The modern era witnessed three periods creating vast empires,
primarily colonial. From the 15th century to the mid-18th, England, France, the Netherlands,
Portugal, and Spain built empires in the Americas, India, and the East Indies. Then the decades
from the mid-19th century to World War I were again characterized by intense imperialistic
policies. Japan attacked China in 1931, and under the totalitarian states - Japan, Fascist Italy, Nazi
Germany, and the Soviet Union, a new period of imperialism began in the 1930s and 1940s.263
Incentive and Motives of Imperialism: The motives of geographical discovery lay in four areas
- the desire of material gain; religious zeal of the rulers and explorers; social recognitions such as
titles or fame; and curiosity, adventure, and the desire to know about unknown new lands. In this
regard, arguments about the causes and values of imperialism can be classified into four main
groups. “The first group contains economic arguments and often turns around the question of
whether or not imperialism pays. Those who argue that it does point to the human and material
resources and the outlets for goods, investment capital, and surplus population provided by an
empire. Their opponents, among them Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and J.A. Hobson, often admit
that imperialism may benefit a small, favored group but never the nation as a whole. Marxist
theoreticians interpret imperialism as a late stage of capitalism when the national capitalist
economy has become monopolistic and is forced to conquer outlets for its overproduction and
surplus capital in competition with other capitalist states. This is the view held, for instance, by
Vladimir Lenin and N.I. Bukharin, to whom capitalism and imperialism are identical.”
“A second group of arguments relates imperialism to the nature of human beings and human
groups, such as the state. Such different personalities as Machiavelli, Sir Francis Bacon, Ludwig
Gumplowicz, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini, reasoning on different grounds, nevertheless
arrived at similar conclusions. Imperialism to them is part of the natural struggle for survival.
Those endowed with superior qualities are destined to rule all others.”
“The third group of arguments has to do with strategy and security. Nations are urged,
proponents of this viewpoint say, to obtain bases, strategic materials, buffer states, natural
frontiers, control of communication lines for reasons of security, or to prevent other states from
obtaining them. Those who deny the value of imperialism for these purposes point out that security
is not achieved. Expansion of a state’s control over territories and peoples beyond its borders is
likely to lead to friction, hence insecurity, because the safety zones and spheres of influence of
competing nations are bound to overlap sooner or later. Related to the security argument is the
argument that nations are imperialistic in the search for power and prestige for their own sake.”
“The fourth group of arguments is based on moral grounds, sometimes with strong missionary
implications. Imperialism is excused as the means of liberating peoples from tyrannical rule or of
bringing them the blessings of a superior way of life. Imperialism results from a complex of causes
in which in varying degrees economic pressures, human aggressiveness and greed, search for
security, drive for power and prestige, nationalist emotions, humanitarianism, and many other
factors are effective. This mixture of motivations makes it difficult to eliminate imperialism but
also easy for states considering themselves potential victims to suspect it in policies not intended
to be imperialistic. Some states of the Third World have accused the former colonial powers and
other nations of neocolonialism. Their fear is that the granting of aid or the supply of skilled
personnel for economic and technical development might be an imperialist guise.” 264
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
133
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Colonialism versus Imperialism: “The word empire comes from the Latin word imperium;
for which the closest modern English equivalent would perhaps be sovereignty, or simply rule.
The greatest distinction of an empire is through the amount of land that a nation has conquered
and expanded. Political power grew from conquering land, however cultural and economic aspects
flourished through sea and trade routes. A distinction about empires is that although political
empires were built mostly by expansion overland, economic and cultural influences spread at least
as much by sea. Some of the main aspects of trade that went overseas consisted of animals and
plant products. European empires in Asia and Africa have come to be seen as the classic forms of
imperialism: and indeed most books on the subject confine themselves to the European seaborne
empires. European expansion caused the world to be divided by how developed and developing
nation are portrayed through the world systems theory. The two main regions are the core and the
periphery. The core consists of high areas of income and profit; the periphery is on the opposing
side of the spectrum consisting of areas of low income and profit...The Russian leader Lenin
suggested that imperialism was the highest form of capitalism, claiming that imperialism
developed after colonialism, and was distinguished from colonialism by monopoly capitalism…
Geopolitics now focuses on states becoming major economic players in the market; some states
today are viewed as empires due to their political and economic authority over other nations.”265
“The term imperialism is often conflated with colonialism, however many scholars have
argued that each have their own distinct definition. Imperialism and colonialism have been used
in order to describe one's superiority, domination and influence upon a person or group of people.
Robert Young writes that while imperialism operates from the center, is a state policy and is
developed for ideological as well as financial reasons, colonialism is simply the development for
settlement or commercial intentions. Colonialism in modern usage also tends to imply a degree of
geographic separation between the colony and the imperial power. Particularly, Edward Said
distinguishes the difference between imperialism and colonialism by stating; imperialism involved
the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant
territory, while colonialism refers to the implanting of settlements on a distant territory.
Contiguous land empires such as the Russian or Ottoman have traditionally been excluded from
discussions of colonialism, though this is beginning to change, since it is accepted that they also
sent populations into the territories they ruled. Thus it can be said that imperialism includes some
form of colonialism, but colonialism itself does not automatically imply imperialism.”
“Imperialism and colonialism both dictate the political and economic advantage over a land
and the indigenous populations they control, yet scholars sometimes find it difficult to illustrate
the difference between the two. Although imperialism and colonialism focus on the suppression
of another, if colonialism refers to the process of a country taking physical control of another,
imperialism refers to the political and monetary dominance, either formally or informally.
Colonialism is seen to be the architect deciding how to start dominating areas and then imperialism
can be seen as creating the idea behind conquest cooperating with colonialism. Colonialism is
when the imperial nation begins a conquest over an area and then eventually is able to rule over
the areas the previous nation had controlled. Colonialism's core meaning is the exploitation of the
valuable assets and supplies of the nation that was conquered and the conquering nation then
gaining the benefits from the spoils of the war. The meaning of imperialism is to create an empire,
by conquering the other state's lands and therefore increasing its own dominance. Colonialism is
the builder and preserver of the colonial possessions in an area by a population coming from a
foreign region. Colonialism can completely change the existing social structure, physical structure
and economics of an area; it is not unusual that the characteristics of the conquering peoples are
inherited by the conquered indigenous populations.”266
134
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
New Imperialism vs. Old Colonialism: The older empires had been maritime and mercantile.
European traders in Asia had simply purchased the wares brought to them by local merchants as
produced by local methods. They operated on a kind of cash-and-carry basis, and European states
had had no territorial ambitions beyond the protection of way stations and trading centers. But
America had been an exception. It had neither native states which Europeans respected, nor native
industries in which Europeans were interested. “Europeans therefore developed territorial claims,
and invested capital and brought in their own methods of production and management, especially
in the then booming sugar islands of the West Indies. Under the new imperialism Europeans were
by no means content simply to purchase what local merchants provided. They wanted tools of a
kind or in a quantity that preindustrial handicraft methods could not supply. They moved into the
so-called Backward countries more thoroughly. They invested capital in them…Taking over the
productive life of the country, they transformed large elements of the local population into the
wage employees of foreign owners and so introduced the class problems of industrial Europe in a
form accentuated by racial difference.” They rent money to non-European rulers to enable them
to hold up their thrones or simply to live with more pleasure and magnificence than they could
pay for from their usual revenues. Europeans developed a huge financial stake there.267
“To secure these investments, and for other reasons, in contrast to what had happened under
the old colonialism, the Europeans now aspired to political and territorial domination. Some areas
became outright colonies, directly governed by the white men. Others became protectorates: here
the native chief, sultan, bey, rajah, or prince was maintained and guaranteed against internal
upheaval or external conquest. A European resident or commissioner usually told him what to do.
In other regions, as in China or Persia, where no single European state could make good its claims
against the others, they arranged to divide the country into spheres of influence, each European
power having advisory privileges and investment and trade opportunities within its own sphere.
The sphere of influence was the vaguest of all forms of imperial control; supposedly, it left the
country independent.” An enormous differential opened up, about 1875, between the power of
European and non-European states. Britain send a garrison of only 75,000 white troops long held
India. Advanced states bombarded ports in Africa, Asia, and the Americas for trade.268
Socialist Critics: In goods market, as competition was more intense after 1873, the industrial
countries raised tariffs to keep out each other’s products. Each of them must develop a colonial
empire dependent on itself, an area of sheltered markets, in which the home country would supply
manufactured goods in return for raw materials. The idea was to create a large self-sufficient
trading unit, embracing various climates and types of resources, protected if necessary from
competition by tariffs, guaranteeing a market for the home country; which phase of imperialism
is often called neo-mercantilism. In financial market, money invested in the backward countries
brought a high rate of return than if invested in the more industrial ones. The profit motive, or
desire to invest surplus capital, promoted imperialism. Nevertheless, there are socialist critics. If
more of national income went to wages, and less of it to capitalists as interest and dividends, or if
wealthy people were more heavily taxed and the money used for social welfare, there would be
no surplus of capital and no real imperialism. “Since the working class, if this were done, would
also have more purchasing power, it would be less necessary to look endlessly for new markets
outside the country. But the surplus capital explanation of imperialism was not entire convincing.
That investors and exporters were instrumental in the rise of imperialism was of course very true.
That imperialism arose essentially from the capitalists’ pressure to invest abroad was more
doubtful. Perhaps even more basic was Europe’s need for imports – only by enormous imports
could Europe sustain its dense population, complex industry, and high standard of living.” 269
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
135
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Imperialism in the Americas: (a) The Mexican-American War (1846-48): “After its
independence in 1821 and brief experiment with monarchy, Mexico became a republic in 1824,
characterized by considerable instability, so that when war broke out in 1846, Mexico was illprepared for this conflict. The war with the United States followed in the wake of decades of
Indian raids in the sparsely settled north of Mexico, which prompted the Mexican government to
sponsor American migration to the Mexican province of Texas to act as a buffer. Americans and
some Mexicans revolted against the Mexican government in the 1836 Texas Revolution, creating
a republic not recognized by Mexico, which still claimed it as its national territory. The 1845
expansion of US territory with its annexation of Texas escalated the dispute between the United
States and Mexico to open war. In 1844 James K. Polk, the newly-elected president, made a
proposition to the Mexican government to purchase the disputed lands between the Nueces River
and the Rio Grande. When that offer was rejected, troops from the United States commanded by
Major General Zachary Taylor were moved into the disputed territory of Coahuila. These troops
were then attacked by Mexican troops, killing 12 American troops and taking 52 prisoners. These
same Mexican troops later laid siege to a US fort along the Rio Grande. This would lead to the
conflict that resulted in the loss of much of Mexico's northern territory. US forces occupied Santa
Fe de Nuevo México and Alta California Territory, then invaded parts of Northeastern Mexico
and Northwest Mexico; meanwhile, the Pacific Squadron conducted a blockade, and took control
of several garrisons on the Pacific coast farther south in Baja California Territory. Another
American army, under the command of Major General Winfield Scott, captured the capital Mexico
City, marching from the port of Veracruz, virtually unopposed. The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo ended and specified the major consequence of the war: the Mexican Cession of the
territories of Alta California and Santa Fe de Nuevo México to the United States. The US agreed
to pay $15 million to pay the physical damage of war. In addition, the United States assumed $3.25
million of debt owed by the Mexican government to US citizens. Mexico recognized the loss of
Texas and thereafter cited the Rio Grande as its national border with the United States.” 270
“American territorial expansion to the Pacific coast had been the goal of US President James
K. Polk, the leader of the Democratic Party. The war was highly controversial in the United States,
with the Whig Party, anti-imperialists and anti-slavery elements strongly opposed. Critics in the
United States pointed to heavy casualties of the US forces and high monetary cost of the conflict.
The war intensified the slavery issue in the United States, leading to bitter debates that culminated
in the bloody American Civil War. In Mexico, the war came in the middle of political turmoil,
which increased into chaos during the conflict. The military defeat and loss of territory was a
disastrous blow, causing Mexico to enter a period of self-examination...as its leaders sought to
identify and address the reasons that had led to such a debacle. In the immediate aftermath of the
war, some prominent Mexicans wrote that the war that resulted in the state of degradation and ruin
in Mexico, and saw for the true origin of the war, it is sufficient to say that the insatiable ambition
of the United States, favored by our weakness, caused it. The shift in the Mexico-U.S. border left
many Mexican citizens separated from their national government. For the indigenous peoples who
had never accepted Mexican rule, the change in border meant conflicts with a new outside
power.” 271 The resultant territorial gains includes nearly all of present-day California, Utah,
Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. Nevertheless, “The war did not resolve the issue of slavery in
the U.S. but rather in many ways inflamed it, as potential westward expansion of the institution
took an increasingly central and heated theme in national debates preceding the American Civil
War. Furthermore, in doing much to extend the nation from coast to coast, the Mexican–American
War was one step in the massive migrations to the West of Americans, which culminated in
transcontinental railroads and the Indian wars later in the same century.”272
136
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) European Intervention in Mexico: “Emperor Napoleon III of France was the instigator,
justifying military intervention by claiming a broad foreign policy of commitment to free trade.
For him, a friendly government in Mexico would ensure European access to Latin American
markets. Napoleon also wanted the silver that could be mined in Mexico to finance his empire.
Napoleon built a coalition with Spain and Britain while the U.S. was deeply engaged in its civil
war. The three European powers signed the Treaty of London on 31 October 1861, to unite their
efforts to receive payments from Mexico. On 8 December the Spanish fleet and troops arrived at
Mexico's main port, Veracruz. When the British and Spanish discovered that France planned to
seize all of Mexico, they quickly withdrew from the coalition. The subsequent French invasion
resulted in the Second Mexican Empire”273 “France had various interests in this Mexican affair,
such as seeking reconciliation with Austria, which had been defeated during the Franco-Austrian
War of 1859, counterbalancing the growing American Protestant power by developing a powerful
Catholic neighboring empire, and exploiting the rich mines in the north-west of the country.” In
Mexico, the French-imposed monarchy was supported by the Roman Catholic clergy, Mexican
nobility, conservatives of the upper class, and some indigenous communities. They tried to revive
a monarchical form of government, when Napoleon III offered Maximilian Ferdinand, a younger
brother of Joseph I of Austria, to rule Mexico (1864-67). “Many foreign governments refused to
recognize Maximilian's claim or regime. Maximilian's Mexican Empire was widely considered a
puppet regime of France; and Maximilian never completely defeated the Mexican Republic, led
by President Benito Juárez (1858–71) who was active during Maximilian's rule. With the end of
the American Civil War in 1865, the United States began more explicit aid of President Juárez's
forces. Matters worsened for Maximilian after the French armies withdrew from Mexico in 1866.
His self-declared empire collapsed, and he was captured and executed by the Mexican government
in 1867.”274 The Republic was restored, and President Juarez was returned to power.
The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding domination of the Americas in
1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to take control of any independent state in
North or South America would be viewed as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition
toward the United States." At the same time, the doctrine noted that the United States would
neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European
countries. The Doctrine was issued in 1823 at a time when nearly all Latin American colonies of
Spain and Portugal had achieved or were at the point of gaining independence from the Portuguese
and Spanish Empires. President James Monroe first stated the doctrine during his seventh annual
State of the Union Address to Congress. The term Monroe Doctrine itself was coined in 1850. By
the end of the 19th century, Monroe's declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign
policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. It would be invoked by many
U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John
F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and many others. The intent and impact of the Monroe Doctrine
persisted with only minor variations for more than a century. Its stated objective was to free the
newly independent colonies of Latin America from European intervention and avoid situations
which could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers, so that the United
States could exert its own influence undisturbed. The doctrine asserted that the New World and
the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence, for they were composed of
entirely separate and independent nations.” 275 As the United States became a great power, the
Monroe Doctrine became an effective barrier to European territorial ambitions. Latin America
never became subject to imperialism as completely as did Asia and Africa. In practice, the Monroe
Doctrine has been used as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over
the Americas; leaving Americas for the Americas.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
137
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-5. Mexican-American War Siege of Veracruz in Mexico by Troops
Source: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mexico-mexicanamerican-war-siege-of-veracruz-in-mexico-by-troops-ofpicture-id545740849
Map I-3-3. The Mexican War, 1846-1848
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War_(without_Scott's_C
ampaign)-en.svg/2000px-Mexican%E2%80%93American_War_(without_Scott's_Campaign)-en.svg.png
138
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Panama Canal: “The idea for a Panama canal dates back to the 1513 discovery of the
isthmus by Vasco Núñez de Balboa. The narrow land bridge between North and South America
houses the Panama Canal, a water passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The earliest
Central American European colonists recognized this potential, and several proposals for such a
canal were made. By the late nineteenth century, technological advances and commercial pressure
allowed construction to begin in earnest. An initial attempt by France to build a sea-level canal
failed after a great deal of excavation. This enabled the United States to complete the present canal
in 1913 and open it to shipping the following year. The state of Panama was created with its 1903
emancipation from Colombia due to a US-backed revolt, so the US could control the canal-project
area. French canal engineer Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla influenced a change in its proposed
location, from Nicaragua to Panama because of his concern about Nicaraguan volcanism. During
the late 1890s Bunaua-Varilla convinced US lawmakers to buy the rights to build the French canal
in Panama, sending each senator Nicaragua postage stamps with a smoking volcano. In 1903,
Colombia (which controlled Panama) refused to allow the United States to build the canal. The
people of Panama, with help from Bunaua-Varilla, then overthrew their Colombian government
and became independent.”276 The United States leased and fortified a Canal Zone, and proceeded
to build the Panama Canal, being under U.S. protection. “The canal was a technological marvel
and an important strategic and economic asset to the US. It changed world shipping patterns,
removing the need for ships to navigate the Drake Passage and Cape Horn. The canal saves a total
of about 7,800 miles on a sea trip from New York to San Francisco.” Its military significance was
proven during World War II, when the canal helped restore the devastated U.S. Pacific Fleet.277
Photo I-3-6. Panama Canal
Source: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/73/75873-004-08BDCC14.jpg
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
139
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) The Spanish-American War (1898) was a conflict fought between Spain and the United
States in 1898. “Hostilities began in the aftermath of the internal explosion of the USS Maine in
Havana harbor leading to American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence. American
acquisition of Spain's Pacific possessions led to its involvement in the Philippine Revolution and
ultimately in the Philippine-American War. Revolts had been occurring for some years in Cuba
against Spanish rule which the U.S. later backed upon entering the Spanish-American War. There
had been war scares before, as in the Virginius Affair in 1873. In the late 1890s, US public opinion
was agitated by anti-Spanish propaganda led by journalists such as Joseph Pulitzer and William
Randolph Hearst which used yellow journalism to call for war. However, the Hearst and Pulitzer
papers were circulated among the working class in New York City and did not reach a national
audience. Historians of the 1930s blamed them for stirring up a war frenzy, but more recent
scholars have not accepted that theory. The US Navy battleship Maine was mysteriously sunk in
Havana harbor; political pressures from the Democratic Party pushed the administration of
Republican President William McKinley into a war that he had wished to avoid. Spain promised
time and again that it would reform, but never delivered. The United States sent an ultimatum to
Spain demanding that it surrender control of Cuba. First Madrid declared war, then Washington
followed suit. The main issue was Cuban independence; the ten-week war was fought in both the
Caribbean and the Pacific. US naval power proved decisive, allowing expeditionary forces to
disembark in Cuba against a Spanish garrison already facing nationwide Cuban insurgent attacks
and further wasted by yellow fever. Numerically superior Cuban, Philippine, and US forces
obtained the surrender of Santiago de Cuba and Manila despite the good performance of some
Spanish infantry units and fierce fighting for positions such as San Juan Hill. Madrid sued for
peace with two obsolete Spanish squadrons sunk in Santiago de Cuba and Manila Bay and a third,
more modern fleet recalled home to protect the Spanish coasts.”
“The result was the 1898 Treaty of Paris, negotiated on terms favorable to the US which
allowed it temporary control of Cuba and ceded ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Philippine islands. The cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million to Spain by the
US to cover infrastructure owned by Spain. The defeat and collapse of the Spanish Empire was a
profound shock to Spain's national psyche, and provoked a thorough philosophical and artistic
revaluation of Spanish society known as the Generation of '98. The United States gained several
island possessions spanning the globe and a rancorous new debate over the wisdom of expansionism. The war began exactly fifty-two years after the beginning of the Mexican-American War. It
was one of only five US wars (against a total of eleven sovereign states) to have been formally
declared by Congress.” “The war marked American entry into world affairs. Since then, the U.S.
has had a significant hand in various conflicts around the world, and entered many treaties and
agreements. The Panic of 1893 was over by this point, and the U.S. entered a long and prosperous
period of economic and population growth, and technological innovation that lasted through the
1920s. The war redefined national identity, served as a solution of sorts to the social divisions
plaguing the American mind, and provided a model for all future news reporting. The idea of
American imperialism changed in the public's mind after the short and successful Spanish–
American War. Due to the United States' powerful influence diplomatically and militarily, Cuba's
status after the war relied heavily upon American actions.” The war greatly enforced the United
States' vision of itself as a defender of democracy and as a major world power, and the war had
severe implications for Cuban-American relations in the future. The war made Americans think
of themselves a righteous people given to the service of righteous purpose. The war greatly
reduced the Spanish Empire, but economically benefited Spain, because a large sum of capital
held by Spaniards in Cuba and America were invested in Spain. 278
140
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(e) The Roosevelt Corollary: “The Roosevelt Corollary was an addition to the Monroe
Doctrine articulated by President Theodore Roosevelt in his State of the Union address in 1904
after the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–03. The corollary states that the United States will intervene in
conflicts between European countries and Latin American countries to enforce legitimate claims
of the European powers, rather than having the Europeans press their claims directly. Roosevelt
tied his policy to the Monroe Doctrine, and it was also consistent with his foreign policy included
in his Big Stick Diplomacy. Roosevelt stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine, the United
States was justified in exercising international police power to put an end to chronic unrest or
wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere. While the Monroe Doctrine had sought to prevent
European intervention, the Roosevelt Corollary was used to justify US intervention throughout
the hemisphere. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt renounced interventionism and
established his Good Neighbor policy for the Western Hemisphere.” 279 “Roosevelt first used the
Corollary to act in the Dominican Republic in 1904, which at the time was severely indebted and
becoming a failed state. The United States dispatched two warships and demanded the customs
house be turned over to U.S. negotiators, who then used a percentage of the proceeds to pay foreign
creditors. This model - in which United States advisors worked to stabilize Latin American nations
through temporary protectorates, staving off European action - became known as dollar
diplomacy. The Dominican experiment….proved temporary and untenable, and the United States
launched a larger military intervention in 1912.” The Roosevelt Corollary has been criticized on
the grounds that it brings to the study of imperialistic and hegemonic intervention, leading to
negative consequences in national security and domestic politics. 280
(f) The Hawaiian Islands: “Europeans under the British explorer James Cook arrived in the
Hawaiian Islands in 1778. Within five years of contact, European military technology would help
Kamehameha I conquer most of the people, and eventually unify the islands for the first time;
establishing the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii was prosperous and important for
its agriculture and strategic location in the Pacific. American immigration began almost
immediately after European contact, led by Protestant missionaries. American methods of
plantation farming for sugar required extensive labor. Several waves of permanent immigrants
came from Japan, China and the Philippines. Meanwhile, the native population began to decline
steadily from disease from 300,000 in the 1770s to 60,000 in the 1850s to 24,000 in 1920.
Americans within the kingdom government rewrote the constitution, severely curtailing the power
of King David Kalākaua, and the rights of Native Hawaiians and Asian citizens to vote. Queen
Liliuokalani attempted to re-store the old royal powers in 1893 and was overthrown by
businessmen with help from the US military.” “In March 1897, William McKinley, a Republican
expansionist, succeeded Democrat Cleveland in the White House. He prepared a treaty of
annexation but it needed a 2/3 majority in the Senate and enough Democrats were opposed to
block it. A joint resolution was written by Republican Congressman Francis G. Newlands to annex
Hawaii was passed; it needed only a majority support. The War with Spain had broken out and
many leaders pointed to the urgent need for Pearl Harbor if the United States was to be a Pacific
power and be able to protect the West Coast. In 1897 Japan sent warships to Hawaii to oppose
annexation. Talk of invasion and annexation of Hawaii by Japan made the decision even more
urgent. McKinley signed the Newlands Resolution which annexed Hawaii. On July 7, 1898
creating the Territory of Hawaii. On 22 February 1900 the Hawaiian Organic Act established a
territorial government…The territorial legislature convened for the first time on February 20,
1901. Hawaiians formed the Hawaiian Independent Party, under the leadership of Robert Wilcox,
Hawaii's first congressional delegate.” The Republic of Hawaii was formed for a short time and
In 1959 the islands became the state of Hawaii of the United States. 281
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
141
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire: The outcome of the Crimean War (1853-56) was
taken to prove the superiority of the political systems of England and France; in line with which
Turkish reformers wished to remodel. The Treaty of Paris (1856) secured Ottoman control over
the Balkan Peninsula and the East Black Sea basin. “The rise of nationalism swept through many
countries during the 19th century, and it affected territories within the Ottoman Empire. A
burgeoning national consciousness, together with a growing sense of ethnic nationalism, made
nationalistic thought one of the most significant Western ideas imported to the Ottoman Empire.
It was forced to deal with nationalism both within and beyond its borders. The number of
revolutionary political parties rose dramatically. Uprisings in Ottoman territory had many farreaching consequences during the 19th century and determined much of Ottoman policy during
the early 20th century. Many Ottoman Turks questioned whether the policies of the state were to
blame: some felt that the sources of ethnic conflict were external, and unrelated to issues of
governance. While this era was not without some successes, the ability of the Ottoman state to
have any effect on ethnic uprisings was seriously called into question. In 1804 the Serbian
Revolution against Ottoman rule erupted in the Balkans, running in parallel with the Napoleonic
invasion. By 1817, when the revolution ended, Serbia was raised to the status of self-governing
monarchy under nominal Ottoman suzerainty. In 1821 the First Hellenic Republic became the first
Balkan country to achieve its independence from the Ottoman Empire. It was officially recognized
by the Porte in 1829, after the end of the Greek War of Independence.”
(a) Balkans: The Turkish reforms did not halt the rise of nationalism in the Danubian Principalities and the Principality of Serbia. “In 1875 the tributary principalities of Serbia and Montenegro, and the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, declared their independence from
the empire. Following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the empire granted independence to
all three belligerent nations. “Bulgaria also achieved virtual independence; its volunteers had
participated in the Russo-Turkish War on the side of the rebelling nations. The Congress of Berlin
(1878) was a meeting of the leading statesmen of Europe's Great Powers and the Ottoman Empire.
In the wake of the Russo-Turkish War that ended with a decisive victory for Russia and her
Orthodox Christian allies in the Balkan Peninsula, the urgent need was to stabilize and reorganize
the Balkans, and set up new nations. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who led the
Congress, undertook to adjust boundaries to minimize the risks of major war, while recognizing
the reduced power of the Ottomans, and balance the distinct interests of the great powers. As a
result, Ottoman holdings in Europe declined sharply; Bulgaria was established as an independent
principality inside the Ottoman Empire, but was not allowed to keep all its previous territory.
Bulgaria lost Eastern Rumelia, which was restored to the Turks under a special administration;
and Macedonia, which was returned outright to the Turks, who promised reform. Romania
achieved full independence, but had to turn over part of Bessarabia to Russia. Serbia and
Montenegro finally gained complete independence, but with smaller territories. In 1878, AustriaHungary unilaterally occupied the Ottoman provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Novi Pazar, but
the Ottoman government contested this move and maintained its troops in both provinces. The
stalemate lasted for 30 years until 1908, when the Austrians took advantage of the political turmoil
in the Ottoman Empire that stemmed from the Young Turk Revolution and annexed BosniaHerzegovina, but pulled their troops out of Novi Pazar in order to reach a compromise and avoid
a war with the Turks. In return for British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli's advocacy for
restoring the Ottoman territories on the Balkan Peninsula during the Congress of Berlin, Britain
assumed the administration of Cyprus in 1878 and later sent troops to Egypt in 1882 with the
pretext of helping the Ottoman government to put down the Urabi Revolt; effectively gaining
control in both territories. France, on its part, occupied Tunisia in 1881.”282
142
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The great achievement was in peacemaking and stabilization, but most of the participants
were not fully satisfied, and grievances regarding the results festered until they exploded into
world war in 1914. “Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece made gains, but far less than they thought they
deserved. The Ottoman Empire, called at the time the sick man of Europe, was humiliated and
significantly weakened, rendering it more liable to domestic unrest and more vulnerable to attack.
Although Russia had been victorious in the war that occasioned the conference, it was humiliated
at Berlin, and resented its treatment. Austria gained a great deal of territory, which angered the
South Slavs, and led to decades of tensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bismarck became the
target of hatred of Russian nationalists and Pan-Slavists, and found that he had tied Germany too
closely to Austria in the Balkans. In the long-run, tensions between Russia and Austria-Hungary
intensified, as did the nationality question in the Balkans. The Congress succeeded in keeping
Istanbul in Ottoman hands. It effectively disavowed Russia's victory. The Congress of Berlin
returned to the Ottoman Empire territories that the previous treaty had given to the Principality of
Bulgaria, most notably Macedonia, thus setting up a strong revanchist demand in Bulgaria that in
1912 led to the First Balkan War in which the Turks were defeated and lost nearly all of Europe.
As the Ottoman Empire gradually shrank in size, military power and wealth, many Balkan
Muslims migrated to the empire's remaining territory in Balkans or to the heartland in Anatolia.
Muslims had been the majority in some parts of Ottoman Empire such as the Crimea, the Balkans
and the Caucasus as well as a plurality in southern Russia and also in some parts of Romania.
Most of these lands were lost with time by the Ottoman Empire between 19th and 20th centuries.
By 1923, only Anatolia and eastern Thrace remained as the Muslim land.”283
(b) Abdul Hamid II (reigned 1876-1909) exerted autocratic control over the Turkish Empire.
“He oversaw a period of decline in the power and extent of the Ottoman Empire, including widespread pogroms and government-sanctioned massacres of Armenians and Bulgarians, as well as
an assassination attempt, ruling from 31 August 1876 until he was deposed shortly after the 1908
Young Turk Revolution, on 27 April 1909. In accordance with an agreement made with the
republican Young Turks, he promulgated the first Ottoman constitution of 1876 on 23 December
1876, which was a sign of progressive thinking that marked his early rule. Soon…he claimed
Western influence on Ottoman affairs and citing disagreements with Parliament, Abdul Hamid
suspended both the short-lived constitution and Parliament in 1878 and seized absolute power,
ending the first constitutional era of the Ottoman Empire. Abdul Hamid's 1909 removal from the
throne was hailed by most Ottoman citizens, who welcomed the return to constitutional rule after
three decades. Despite his conservatism and despotic rule, some modernization of the Ottoman
Empire occurred during Abdul Hamid's long reign, including reform of the bureaucracy, the
extension of the Rumelia Railway and Anatolia Railway and the construction of the Baghdad
Railway and Hejaz Railway, the establishment of a system for population registration and control
over the press and the founding of the first modern law school in 1898. The most far-reaching of
these reforms were in education: professional schools were established. The University of
Istanbul, although shut down by Abdul Hamid himself in 1881, was reopened in 1900, and a
network of secondary, primary, and military schools was extended throughout the empire. Railway
and telegraph systems were developed by primarily German firms. Between 1871 and 1908, the
Sublime Porte thus reached a new degree of organizational elaboration and articulation. Abroad,
Abdul Hamid was nicknamed the Red Sultan or Abdul the Damned due to the massacres
committed against minorities during his rule and use of a secret police to silence dissent and
republicanism. These led to an assassination attempt in 1905, contributing to the sultan's
worsening paranoia until his eventual removal from the throne.” 284 His reforms consolidated
Ottoman Empire though it was far from the eyes of westerners.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
143
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-7. The Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Pereprava_cherez_Dunaj.jpg/800pxPereprava_cherez_Dunaj.jpg
Map I-3-4. The Russo-Turkish War, 1877-78
Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/images/map-1878-treaty-of-berlin-2.jpg
144
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Russo-Turkish War (1877-78): The early Russo-Turkish Wars were mostly sparked
by Russia’s attempts to establish a warm-water port on the Black Sea, which lay in Turkish hands.
“The war of 1853–56, known as the Crimean War, began after the Russian emperor Nicholas I
tried to obtain further concessions from Turkey. Great Britain and France entered the conflict on
Turkey’s side in 1854, however, and the Treaty of Paris (March 30, 1856) that ended the war was
a serious diplomatic setback for Russia, though involving few territorial concessions.” “The
Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 was a conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern
Orthodox coalition led by the Russian Empire and composed of Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and
Montenegro. Fought in the Balkans and in the Caucasus, it originated in emerging 19th-century
Balkan nationalism. Additional factors included Russian hopes of recovering territorial losses
suffered during the Crimean War, re-establishing itself in the Black Sea and supporting the
political movement attempting to free Balkan nations from the Ottoman Empire.” 285
Balkan Theatre: “At the start of the war, Russia and Romania destroyed all vessels along the
Danube and mined the river, thus ensuring that Russian forces could cross the Danube at any point
without resistance from the Ottoman navy. The Ottoman command did not appreciate the
significance of the Russians' actions. In June, a small Russian unit crossed the Danube close to the
delta, at Galați, and marched towards Ruschuk. This made the Ottomans even more confident that
the big Russian force would come right through the middle of the Ottoman stronghold…A Russian
army crossed the Stara Planina by a high snowy pass in winter, guided and helped by local
Bulgarians, not expected by the Ottoman army, and defeated the Turks at the Battle of Tashkessen
and took Sofia. The way was now open for a quick advance through Plovdiv and Edirne to
Constantinople.” The Romanian Army of 130,000, a Finish contingent, and Bulgarian volunteers
fought in the war on the Russian side. 286 Caucasian Theatre: “The Russian force stood opposed
by an Ottoman Army of 100,000 men led by General Ahmed Muhtar Pasha. While the Russian
army was better prepared for the fighting in the region, it lagged behind technologically in certain
areas such as heavy artillery and was outgunned, for example, by the superior long-range Krupp
artillery that Germany had supplied to the Ottomans…Bolstered by reinforcements, in November
1877 General Lazarev launched a new attack on Kars, suppressing the southern forts leading to
the city and capturing Kars itself on November 18. On February 19, 1878 the strategic fortress
town of Erzerum was taken by the Russians after a lengthy siege. Although they relinquished
control of Erzerum to the Ottomans at the end the war, the Russians acquired the regions of
Batumi, Ardahan, Kars, Olti, and Sarikamish and reconstituted them into the Kars Oblast.”287
“Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire
on January 31, 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople. The British sent a fleet of
battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano.
Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on March 3, by which
the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and the
autonomy of Bulgaria. Alarmed by the extension of Russian power into the Balkans, the Great
Powers later forced modifications of the treaty in the Congress of Berlin.” The main change here
was that Bulgaria would be split. “Russia succeeded in claiming several provinces in the Caucasus,
namely Kars and Batumi, and also annexed the Budjak region. The principalities of Romania,
Serbia, and Montenegro, each of whom had had de facto sovereignty for some time, formally
proclaimed independence from the Ottoman Empire. After almost five centuries of Ottoman
domination (1396–1878), the Bulgarian state was re-established as the Principality of Bulgaria,
covering the land between the Danube River and the Balkan Mountains, as well as the region of
Sofia, which became the new state's capital. The Congress of Berlin also allowed Austria-Hungary
to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina and Great Britain to take over Cyprus.” 288
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
145
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Egypt and North Africa: While the American South was unable to export raw cotton, the
annual export of Egyptian cotton rose from 60 million to 250 million pounds. Egypt more than
Turkey was drawn into the world market.” “The Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean and
the Red seas, is inaugurated in an elaborate ceremony attended by French Empress Eugénie, wife
of Napoleon III. In 1854, Ferdinand de Lesseps, the former French consul to Cairo, secured an
agreement with the Ottoman governor of Egypt to build a canal 100 miles across the Isthmus of
Suez. An international team of engineers drew up a construction plan, and in 1856 the Suez Canal
Company was formed and granted the right to operate the canal for 99 years after completion of
the work. Construction began in April 1859, and at first digging was done by hand with picks and
shovels wielded by forced laborers. Later, European workers with dredgers and steam shovels
arrived. Labor disputes and a cholera epidemic slowed construction, and the Suez Canal was not
completed until 1869–four years behind schedule. On November 17, 1869, the Suez Canal was
opened to navigation. Ferdinand de Lesseps would later attempt, unsuccessfully, to build a canal
across the Isthmus of Panama. When it opened, the Suez Canal was only 25 feet deep, 72 feet
wide at the bottom, and 200 to 300 feet wide at the surface. Consequently, fewer than 500 ships
navigated it in its first full year of operation. Major improvements began in 1876, however, and
the canal soon grew into the one of the world’s most heavily traveled shipping lanes. In 1875,
Great Britain became the largest shareholder in the Suez Canal Company when it bought up the
stock of the new Ottoman governor of Egypt. Seven years later, in 1882, Britain invaded Egypt,
beginning a long occupation of the country. The Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 made Egypt
virtually independent, but Britain reserved rights for the protection of the canal.”289
Meanwhile, the Egyptian government was soon in financial straits, only temporarily relieved
by the sale of canal shares to Disraeli. “By 1879 matters reached the point where Western banking
interests forced the abdication of Ismail and his replacement by Tewfik, who, fascinated by the
new Western technological marvels, soon let himself become thoroughly enmeshed by his
creditors. This led to nationalistic protests within Egypt, headed by Colonel Arabi. In a pattern
repeated in many parts of the colonial world, especially in nineteenth-century China, the
nationalists opposed both the foreigners and their own government, charging it with being a mere
front for foreign interests. Arabi’s movement, an early expression of Arab nationalism, led to riots
in Alexandria, where Europeans had to flee abroad British and French shipping in the border. A
British squadron then unceremoniously bombarded Alexandria. British troops disembarked in
1882 at Suez and Alexandria, defeated Arabi,
and took Tewfik under their protection. The
military intervention of 1882 was said by the
British to be temporary, but British troops
remained there for a long time, through two
world wars and well into the twentieth century,
not leaving until 1956.” 290 Ten years later,
Egypt shut down the canal again following the
Six Day War and Israel’s occupation of the
Sinai Peninsula. For the next eight years, the
Suez Canal existed as the front line between the
Egyptian and Israeli armies. Today, an average
of 50 ships navigate the canal daily, carrying
more than 300 million tons of goods a year.
Photo I-3-8. The Opening of the Suez Canal on November 17, 1869
http://www.chassan.org/ismailia/news/Canal_de_Suez/Facts%20About%20the%20Suez%20Canal_fichiers/image005.jpg
146
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Partition of Africa: Background: “The Portuguese were the first post-Middle Ages
Europeans to firmly establish settlements, trade posts, permanent fortifications and ports of call
along the coast of the African continent, from the beginning of the Age of Discovery, during the
15th century. There was little interest in, and less knowledge of, the interior for some two centuries
thereafter. European exploration of the African interior began in earnest at the end of the 18th
century. By 1835, Europeans had mapped most of northwestern Africa. In the middle decades of
the 19th century, the most famous of the European explorers were David Livingstone and H. M.
Stanley, both of whom mapped vast areas of Southern Africa and Central Africa. Arduous
expeditions in the 1850s and 1860s by Richard Burton, John Speke and James Grant located the
great central lakes and the source of the Nile. By the end of the 19th century, Europeans had
charted the Nile from its source, traced the courses of the Niger, Congo and Zambezi Rivers, and
realized the vast resources of Africa. Even as late as the 1870s, European states still controlled
only ten percent of the African continent, all their territories being near the coast. The most
important holdings were Angola and Mozambique, held by Portugal; the Cape Colony, held by
the United Kingdom; and Algeria, held by France. By 1914, only Ethiopia and Liberia were
independent of European control. Technological advancement facilitated overseas expansionism.
Industrialization brought about rapid advancements in transportation and communication,
especially in the forms of steam navigation, railways, and telegraphs. Medical advances also were
important, especially medicines for tropical diseases. The development of quinine, an effective
treatment for malaria, enabled vast expanses of the tropics to be accessed by Europeans.”291
Africa and Global Markets: “Sub-Saharan Africa, one of the last regions of the world largely
untouched by informal imperialism, was also attractive to Europe's ruling elites for economic,
political and social reasons. During a time when Britain's balance of trade showed a growing
deficit, with shrinking and increasingly protectionist continental markets due to the Long
Depression (1873–96), Africa offered Britain, Germany, France, and other countries an open
market that would garner them a trade surplus: a market that bought more from the colonial power
than it sold overall. In addition, surplus capital was often more profitably invested overseas, where
cheap materials, limited competition, and abundant raw materials made a greater premium
possible. Another inducement for imperialism arose from the demand for raw materials
unavailable in Europe, especially copper, cotton, rubber, palm oil, cocoa, diamonds, tea, and tin,
to which European consumers had grown accustomed and upon which European industry had
grown dependent. Additionally, Britain wanted the southern and eastern coasts of Africa for
stopover ports on the route to Asia and its empire in India. However, in Africa - excluding the
area which became the Union of South Africa in 1910 – the amount of capital investment by
Europeans was relatively small, compared to other continents. Consequently, the companies
involved in tropical African commerce were relatively small, apart from Cecil Rhodes's De Beers
Mining Company. Rhodes had carved out Rhodesia for himself; Léopold II of Belgium later, and
with considerable brutality, exploited the Congo Free State. These events might detract from the
pro-imperialist arguments of colonial lobbies such as the Alldeutscher Verband, Francesco Crispi
and Jules Ferry, who argued that sheltered overseas markets in Africa would solve the problems
of low prices and over-production caused by shrinking continental markets. John A. Hobson
argued in Imperialism that this shrinking of continental markets was a key factor of the global
New Imperialism period. William Easterly of New York University, however, disagrees with the
link made between capitalism and imperialism, arguing that colonialism is used mostly to promote
state-led development rather than corporate development. He has stated that imperialism is not so
clearly linked to capitalism and free markets... historically there has been a closer link between
colonialism/imperialism and state-led approaches to development.”292
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
147
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-3-5. The Partition of Africa, 1914 - Colonial Countries
Source: http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/Africa_1914.jpg
Notes: “The map shows the recognized colonial holdings of European nations in 1914. The insert
suggests the general directions of European expansion about 1896. These expansionary pressures
led to the Fashoda crisis in 1898 and the Bore War in 1899. In 1898 the British and German
governments held secret discussions on the possible partitioning of the Portuguese colonies, but
no such partitioning took place because the British greatly preferred to have the Portuguese
colonies remain in the hands of Portugal.” 293
148
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Strategic Rivalry: “The rivalry between Britain, France, Germany, and the other European
powers accounts for a large part of the colonization. While tropical Africa was not a large zone of
investment, other overseas regions were. The vast interior between the gold and diamond-rich
Southern Africa and Egypt had strategic value in securing the flow of overseas trade. Britain was
under political pressure to secure lucrative markets against encroaching rivals in China and its
eastern colonies, most notably India, Malaya, Australia and New Zealand. Thus, securing the key
waterway between East and West - the Suez Canal - was crucial. However, the prominent theory
proposed by William L. Langer in Imperial Diplomacy (1935), and Ronald Robinson and John
Andrew Gallagher in Africa and the Victorians (1961) which suggested that Britain annexed East
Africa in the 1880-90s out of geo-strategic concerns connected to the Nile Valley and Britain's
position in Egypt - and by extension the sea-route to India via the Suez Canal - was challenged by
John Darwin in 1997, a refutation that was further contextualized and consolidated by Jonas F.
Gjersø in 2015. The Scramble for African territory also reflected concern for the acquisition of
military and naval bases, for strategic purposes and the exercise of power. The growing navies,
and new ships driven by steam power, required coaling stations and ports for maintenance.
Defense bases were also needed for the protection of sea routes and communication lines,
particularly of expensive and vital international waterways such as the Suez Canal. Colonies were
also seen as assets in balance of power negotiations, useful as items of exchange at times of
international bargaining. Colonies with large native populations were also a source of military
power; Britain and France used large numbers of British Indian and North African soldiers,
respectively, in many of their colonial wars. In the age of nationalism…the idea of greatness
became linked with the sense of duty underlying many nations' strategies.” 294
“In the early 1880s, Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza was exploring the Kingdom Of Kongo for
France, at the same time Henry Morton Stanley explored it in on behalf of Léopold II of Belgium,
who would have it as his personal Congo Free State (see section below). France occupied Tunisia
in May 1881, which may have convinced Italy to join the German-Austrian Dual Alliance in 1882,
thus forming the Triple Alliance. The same year, Britain occupied Egypt (hitherto an autonomous
state owing nominal fealty to the Ottoman Empire), which ruled over Sudan and parts of Chad,
Eritrea, and Somalia. In 1884, Germany declared Togoland, the Cameroons and South West Africa
to be under its protection; and France occupied Guinea. French West Africa (AOF) was founded
in 1895, and French Equatorial Africa in 1910.”295
“Germany was hardly a colonial power before the New Imperialism period, but would eagerly
participate in this race. Fragmented in various states, Germany was only unified under Prussia's
rule after the 1866 Battle of Königgrätz and the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. A rising industrial
power close on the heels of Britain, Germany began its world expansion in the 1880s. After
isolating France by the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary and then the 1882 Triple Alliance
with Italy, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck proposed the 1884–85 Berlin Conference, which set the
rules of effective control of a foreign territory. Weltpolitik (world policy) was the foreign policy
adopted by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1890, with the aim of transforming Germany into a global power
through aggressive diplomacy, the acquisition of overseas colonies, and the development of a large
navy.” Germany became the third largest colonial power in Africa. 296 On the other hand, “Italy
took possession of parts of Eritrea in 1870 and 1882. Following its defeat in the First ItaloEthiopian War (1895–1896), it acquired Italian Somaliland in 1889–90 and the whole of Eritrea
(1899). In 1911, it engaged in a war with the Ottoman Empire, in which it acquired Tripolitania
and Cyrenaica (modern Libya). In 1919 Enrico Corradini - who…later merged his group in the
early fascist party (PNF) - developed the concept of Proletarian Nationalism, supposed to
legitimize its imperialism by a mixture of socialism with nationalism.”297
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
149
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(a) The Berlin Conference of 1884: “The Partition of Africa began in earnest with the Berlin
Conference of 1884-1885,298 and was the cause of most of Africa’s borders today. This conference
was called by German Chancellor Bismarck to settle how European countries would claim colonial
land in Africa and to avoid a war among European nations over African territory. All the major
European States were invited to the conference. Germany, France, Great Britain, Netherlands,
Belgium, Portugal, and Spain were all considered to have a future role in the imperial partition of
Africa. The United States was invited because of its interest in Liberia but did not attend because
it had no desire to build a colonial empire in Africa. Also invited were Austria-Hungary, SwedenNorway, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, and Russia who all were considered minor players in the quest
for colonizing Africa, though Italy would claim some colonial possessions in Northeast Africa.
Most notably there were no Africans present at this conference, nor were any Europeans present
to ensure that native Africans had any say in the proceedings. The task of this conference was to
ensure that each European country that claimed possession over a part of Africa must bring
civilization, in the form of Christianity, and trade to each region that it would occupy. Also a
country's claim of a territory was valid only if it informed the other European powers and
established some occupying force on the ground. This occupying force was often a few military
outposts on the coast and interior waterways with little to no actual settlement. Specific lands
were obtained by having African indigenous rulers sign an X to a general agreement for protection
by a European power. Often these rulers had no idea what they were signing since most could not
read, write, or understand European languages.” 299
“The conference only dealt with territories yet to be acquired in Africa. This meant that the
interior of Africa, about which little was known, was the land area available. Most coastal land
had already been claimed by various European countries, as had much of Southern Africa and
Africa north of the Sahara. Few Europeans had set foot into the interior of sub-Saharan Africa
prior to this conference. Following the Berlin Conference there was still little exploration into the
interior of Africa beyond gaining initial treaties. Most Europeans continued to stay on the coastal
regions while a few missionaries followed rivers inland to find Christian converts. By 1900,
though, more Europeans moved into the African interior to extract raw materials such as rubber,
palm oil, gold, copper, and diamonds. These natural resources made Africa a vital resource for
the European economy.”300
“Although most of these African colonies were controlled by nations, the Berlin Conference
allowed King Leopold II of Belgium to become the sole owner of the vast area that is today the
Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa. This area was given to Leopold by the other
European powers with the intent that this be an area of Free Trade for all Europeans in Africa.
Leopold agreed to this stipulation as well as bringing Christian missionaries to the interior of this
area, but in practice he kept out most other European traders as he granted concessions to various
corporations to exploit the region's resources. In 1908 it was revealed that under King Leopold’s
instructions native people of the Congo were forced to farm wild rubber as a form of tax payment
to the colonial government. Those who were unable to reach their rubber quota often had a hand
or foot chopped off, or were killed by Leopold's agents. Once news of these abuses of power were
brought to the public light, King Leopold was stripped of his colony and the vast Congo region
was ruled by the Belgium government until it became independent in 1960. By 1914, 90% of
Africa had been divided between seven European countries with only Liberia and Ethiopia
remaining independent nations. Many of the boundaries drawn up by Europeans at the Berlin
Conference still endure today with little regard to natural landmarks or historic ethnic or political
boundaries established by the Africans themselves. The disregard of these boundaries, most of
which were retained after independence, often continues to generate conflict in Africa today.” 301
150
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Colonization of the Congo: “David Livingstone's explorations, carried on by Henry
Morton Stanley, excited imaginations with Stanley's grandiose ideas for colonization; but these
found little support owing to the problems and scale of action required, except from Léopold II of
Belgium, who in 1876 had organized the International African Association (the Congo Society).
From 1869 to 1874, Stanley was secretly sent by Léopold II to the Congo region, where he made
treaties with several African chiefs along the Congo River and by 1882 had sufficient territory to
form the basis of the Congo Free State. Léopold II personally owned the colony from 1885 and
used it as a source of ivory and rubber. While Stanley was exploring Congo on behalf of Léopold
II of Belgium, the Franco-Italian marine officer Pierre de Brazza travelled into the western Congo
basin and raised the French flag over the newly founded Brazzaville in 1881, thus occupying
today's Republic of the Congo. Portugal, which also claimed the area due to old treaties with the
native Kongo Empire, made a treaty with Britain on 26 February 1884 to block off the Congo
Society's access to the Atlantic. By 1890 the Congo Free State had consolidated its control of its
territory between Leopoldville and Stanleyville, and was looking to push south down the Lualaba
River from Stanleyville. At the same time, the British South Africa Company of Cecil Rhodes was
expanding north from the Limpopo River, sending the Pioneer Column (guided by Frederick
Selous) through Matabeleland, and starting a colony in Mashonaland.”302
“To the West, in the land where their expansions would meet, was Katanga, site of the Yeke
Kingdom of Msiri. Msiri was the most militarily powerful ruler in the area, and traded large
quantities of copper, ivory and slaves - and rumors of gold reached European ears. The scramble
for Katanga was a prime example of the period. Rhodes and the BSAC sent two expeditions to
Msiri in 1890 led by Alfred Sharpe, who was rebuffed, and Joseph Thomson, who failed to reach
Katanga. Leopold sent four CFS expeditions…The Bia Expedition finished the job of establishing
an administration of sorts and a police presence in Katanga. Thus, the half million square
kilometers of Katanga came into Leopold's possession and brought his African realm up to
2,300,000 square kilometres (890,000 sq mi), about 75 times larger than Belgium. The Congo Free
State imposed such a terror regime on the colonized people, including mass killings and forced
labor, that Belgium, under pressure from the Congo Reform Association, ended Leopold II's rule
and annexed it in 1908 as a colony of Belgium, known as the Belgian Congo.”303
“King Leopold II of Belgium's brutality in his former colony of the Congo Free State, now
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was well documented; up to 8 million of the estimated 16
million native inhabitants died between 1885 and 1908…this depopulation had four main causes:
indiscriminate war, starvation, reduction of births and diseases. Sleeping sickness ravaged the
country and must also be taken into account for the dramatic decrease in population; it has been
estimated that sleeping sickness and smallpox killed nearly half the population in the areas
surrounding the lower Congo River. Estimates of the total death toll vary considerably. As the
first census did not take place until 1924, it is difficult to quantify the population loss of the period.
Casement's report set it at three million. William Rubinstein wrote: More basically, it appears
almost certain that the population figures given by Hochschild are inaccurate. There is, of course,
no way of ascertaining the population of the Congo before the twentieth century, and estimates
like 20 million are purely guesses…A similar situation occurred in the neighboring French Congo.
Most of the resource extraction was run by concession companies, whose brutal methods, along
with the introduction of disease, resulted in the loss of up to 50 percent of the indigenous
population. The French government appointed a commission, headed by de Brazza, in 1905 to
investigate the rumored abuses in the colony. However, de Brazza died on the return trip, and his
searingly critical report was neither acted upon nor released to the public. In the 1920s, about
20,000 forced laborers died building a railroad through the French territory.”304
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
151
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Great Britain in Africa: During 1885-1900, the Europeans in Africa came dangerously
near to open blows. “The Portuguese annexed huge domains in Angola and Mozambique. The
Italians took over two barren tracts, Italian Somaliland and Eritrea on the Red Sea. They then
moved inland in quest of more imposing possessions, to conquer Ethiopia and the headwaters of
the Nile.” Ethiopia defeated the Italians. Italy and Portugal were able to enjoy sizable holdings in
Africa because of mutual fears among the principal contenders - Great Britain, France, and
Germany. “Britain's administration of Egypt and the Cape Colony contributed to a preoccupation
over securing the source of the Nile River. Egypt was overrun by British forces in 1882 (although
not formally declared a protectorate until 1914, and never an actual colony); Sudan, Nigeria,
Kenya and Uganda were subjugated in the 1890s and early 20th century; and in the south, the
Cape Colony (first acquired in 1795) provided a base for the subjugation of neighboring African
states and the Dutch Afrikaner settlers who had left the Cape to avoid the British and then founded
their own republics. In 1877, Theophilus Shepstone annexed the South African Republic for the
British Empire. In 1879, after the Anglo-Zulu War, Britain consolidated its control of most of the
territories of South Africa. The Boers protested, and in December 1880 they revolted, leading to
the First Boer War (1880–81). British Prime Minister William Gladstone signed a peace treaty on
23 March 1881, giving self-government to the Boers in the Transvaal. The Jameson Raid of 1895
was a failed attempt by the British South Africa Company and the Johannesburg Reform
Committee to overthrow the Boer government in the Transvaal. The Second Boer War, fought
between 1899 and 1902, was about control of the gold and diamond industries; the independent
Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic (or Transvaal) were this
time defeated and absorbed into the British Empire.”305
“The French thrust into the African interior was mainly from the coasts of West Africa
(modern day Senegal) eastward, through the Sahel along the southern border of the Sahara, a huge
desert covering most of present-day Senegal, Mali, Niger, and Chad. Their ultimate aim was to
have an uninterrupted colonial empire from the Niger River to the Nile, thus controlling all trade
to and from the Sahel region, by virtue of their existing control over the Caravan routes through
the Sahara. The British, on the other hand, wanted to link their possessions in Southern Africa
(modern South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Zambia), with their
territories in East Africa (modern Kenya), and these two areas with the Nile basin. The Sudan
(which included most of present-day Uganda) was the key to the fulfillment of these ambitions,
especially since Egypt was already under British control. This "red line" through Africa is made
most famous by Cecil Rhodes. Along with Lord Milner, the British colonial minister in South
Africa, Rhodes advocated such a Cape to Cairo empire, linking the Suez Canal to the mineral-rich
Southern part of the continent by rail. Though hampered by German occupation of Tanganyika
until the end of the First World War, Rhodes successfully lobbied on behalf of such a sprawling
African empire. If one draws a line from Cape Town to Cairo (Rhodes's dream), and one from
Dakar to the Horn of Africa (now Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia), (the French ambition),
these two lines intersect somewhere in eastern Sudan near Fashoda, explaining its strategic
importance. In short, Britain had sought to extend its East African empire contiguously from Cairo
to the Cape of Good Hope, while France had sought to extend its own holdings from Dakar to the
Sudan, which would enable its empire to span the entire continent from the Atlantic Ocean to the
Red Sea. A French force under Jean-Baptiste Marchand arrived first at the strategically located
fort at Fashoda, soon followed by a British force under Lord Kitchener, commander in chief of the
British Army since 1892. The French withdrew after a standoff and continued to press claims to
other posts in the region. In March 1899, the French and British agreed that the source of the Nile
and Congo Rivers should mark the frontier between their spheres of influence.” 306
152
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) The Moroccan Crisis: In Africa, not in Morocco, but the Fashoda Crisis was the climax
of imperial territorial disputes between Britain and France in Eastern Africa, occurring in 1898. A
French expedition to Fashoda on the White Nile river sought to gain control of the Upper Nile
river basin and thereby exclude Britain from the Sudan. The two armies met on friendly terms, but
back in Europe, it became a war scare. The British held firm as both nations stood on the verge of
war with heated rhetoric on both sides. Under heavy pressure the French withdrew, securing
Anglo-Egyptian control over the area. The status quo was recognized by an agreement between
the two states acknowledging British control over Egypt, while France became the dominant
power in Morocco. France had failed in its main goals. P. M. H. Bell says: ‘Between the two
governments there was a brief battle of wills, with the British insisting on immediate and
unconditional French withdrawal from Fashoda. The French had to accept these terms, amounting
to a public humiliation....Fashoda was long remembered in France as an example of British
brutality and injustice.’ It was a diplomatic victory for the British as the French realized that in
the long run they needed the friendship of Britain in case of a war between France and Germany.
It was the last crisis between the two that involved a threat of war and opened the way for closer
relations in the Entente cordiale of 1904. It gave rise to the Fashoda syndrome in French foreign
policy, or seeking to assert French influence in areas…susceptible to British influence.” 307
The First Moroccan Crisis was an international crisis between March 1905 and May 1906
over the status of Morocco. The crisis worsened German relations with both France and Great
Britain, and helped ensure the success of the new Anglo-French Entente. “On March 31, 1905,
Kaiser William II of Germany landed at Tangier, Morocco and conferred with representatives of
Sultan Abdelaziz of Morocco…The Kaiser declared he had come to support the sovereignty of the
Sultan - a statement which amounted to a provocative challenge to French influence in Morocco.
The Sultan subsequently rejected a set of French-proposed governmental reforms and issued
invitations to major world powers to a conference which would advise him on necessary reforms.
Germany sought a multilateral conference where the French could be called to account before
other European powers. The French foreign minister, Théophile Delcassé, took a defiant line,
holding that there was no need for such a conference. Count Bernhard von Bülow, the German
Chancellor, threatened war over the issue. The crisis peaked in mid-June. The French cancelled
all military leave and Germany threatened to sign a defensive alliance with the Sultan. French
Premier Maurice Rouvier refused to risk war with Germany over the issue. Delcassé resigned, as
the French government would no longer support his policy. On July 1, France agreed to attend the
conference. The crisis continued to the eve of the conference at Algeciras, with Germany calling
up reserve units and France moving troops to the German border. The Algeciras Conference was
called to settle the dispute, lasting from January 16 to April 7, 1906. Of the 13 nations present, the
German representatives found that their only supporter was Austria-Hungary. A German attempt
at compromise was rejected by all but Austria-Hungary. France had firm support from Britain,
Russia, Italy, Spain, and the United States. The Germans decided to accept a face-saving
compromise agreement on March 31, 1906 that was signed on May 31, 1906. France agreed to
yield control of the Moroccan police, but otherwise retained effective control of Moroccan
political and financial affairs. Although the Algeciras Conference temporarily solved the First
Moroccan Crisis, it only worsened the tensions between the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente
that ultimately led to the First World War. The First Moroccan Crisis also showed that the Entente
Cordiale was strong, as Britain had defended France in the crisis. The crisis can be seen as a reason
for the Anglo-Russian Entente and the Anglo-Franco-Spanish Pact of Cartagena being signed the
following year. Kaiser Wilhelm II was angry at being humiliated and was determined not to back
down again, which led to the German involvement in the Second Moroccan Crisis.”308
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
153
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(iii) The Second Moroccan Crisis was sparked by a series of misunderstandings, countries
wanting to get revenge on each other, and jumping to conclusions. “In 1911 the ruling Sultan of
Morocco faced a rebellion and decided to call on France for help, France sent an army to Morocco
and the rebellion soon went away. However Germany’s reaction to this was to send a gunboat the
Panther to the port of Agadir this was to protect the German people’s interests in Morocco. The
Germans saw nothing wrong with this action as France had sent an army to look after their
interests, but to other countries, especially Britain it was viewed as war like stance as well as
Germanys decision to try to get a better navy then Britain and entering the naval race to build more
Dreadnoughts than Britain. The British thought that Germany was going to build a naval base in
the Atlantic to challenge Britain’s naval base in Gibraltar. The naval action of Germany sending
the gunship the Panther led to Britain once again supporting France.” At this moment, it is not
unusual that the British became worried by Panther's arrival in Morocco. Since the Royal Navy
had a naval base in Gibraltar, in the south of Spain, they believed the Germans meant to turn
Agadir into a naval base on the Atlantic. “Britain sent battleships to Morocco, in case war broke
out. As in the First Moroccan Crisis, British support of France showed the strength of the Entente
Cordiale. In the midst of this crisis, Germany was hit by financial turmoil. The stock market
plunged by 30 percent in a single day, the public started cashing in currency notes for gold and
there was a run on the banks. The Reichsbank lost a fifth of its gold reserves in one month. It was
rumored this crisis had been orchestrated by the French finance minister. Faced with the possibility
of being driven off the gold standard, the Kaiser backed down and let the French take over most
of Morocco.” The overreaction by the Germans brought Europe very close to war and all countries
involved made preparations for war in 1911. The situation was resolved when Germany accepted
two marshy strips of land in the Congo for recognizing the French control over Morocco.309
The Dynamics of Negotiations: “On 7 July, the German ambassador in Paris informed the
French government that Germany had no territorial aspirations in Morocco, and would negotiate
for a French protectorate on the basis of compensation for Germany in the French Congo region
and the safeguarding of her economic interests in Morocco. The German terms, as presented on
15 July, while containing an offer to cede the northern part of Kamerun and Togoland, demanded
from France the whole of the French Congo from the Sangha River to the sea, to which was later
added the transfer of France's right to the preemption of the Belgian Congo. On 21 July, David
Lloyd George delivered a speech at the Mansion House, London in which he declared that national
honor was more precious than peace: ‘If Britain is treated badly where her interests are vitally
affected…then I say emphatically that peace at that price would be a humiliation intolerable for a
great country like ours to endure.’ The speech was interpreted by Germany as a warning that she
could not impose an unreasonable settlement on France…Franco-German negotiations on the
Treaty of Fez had led to a convention under which Germany accepted France's position in Morocco
in return for territory in the French Equatorial African colony of Middle Congo…The area is partly
marshland, but gave Germany an outlet on the Congo River. Germany ceded to France a small
area of territory to the southeast of Fort Lamy. “The second crisis was far more serious than the
first and is key to the building up for war as it shows a clear division in Europe between the Triple
Alliance and the Triple Entente. It increased tensions rapidly and sped up a chain of events that
led to the First World War. The Triple Alliance was weakened when Italy opposed what happened
in Morocco; Germany now felt humiliated and decided that if another crisis arose then they would
not back down. The German people were annoyed with Britain and France and now more than
ever supported the idea and need for a war. Britain now became convinced that Germany was a
threat and that it wanted to dominate Europe. Britain entered another secret agreement with
France, this time it was a naval one, they promised to defend each other if attacked.”310
154
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(e) Dervish Resistance: “The Dervish state (Somali) was an early 20th-century Somali Sunni
Islamic state that was established by Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, a religious leader who
gathered Somali soldiers from across the Horn of Africa and united them into a loyal army known
as the Dervishes. This Dervish army enabled Hassan to carve out a powerful state through
conquest of lands claimed by the Somali Sultans, the Ethiopians and the European powers. The
Dervish State acquired renown in the Islamic and Western worlds due to its resistance against the
European empires of Britain and Italy. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British
Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region. As a result of its
fame in the Middle East and Europe, the Dervish State was recognized as an ally by the Ottoman
Empire and the German Empire. It also succeeded at outliving the Scramble for Africa, and
remained throughout World War I the only independent Muslim power on the continent. After a
quarter of a century of holding the British at bay, the Dervishes were finally defeated in 1920”311
as a consequence of Britain’s use of aircraft.
(f) Herero Wars (1904-08): “In 1903, some of the Khoi and Herero tribes rose in revolt and
about 60 German settlers were killed. Troops were sent from Germany to re-establish order, but
only succeeded in dispersing the rebels, led by Chief Samuel Maharero. In October 1904, General
Lothar von Trotha issued orders to kill every male Herero and drive the women and children into
the desert. As soon as the news of this order reached Germany it was repealed, but by this time
the rest of the native population was in full-scale revolt. When the order was lifted at the end of
1904, prisoners were herded into concentration camps and given as slave labor to German
businesses, where many died of overwork and malnutrition. It took until 1908 to re-establish
German authority over the territory. By that time tens of thousands of Africans had been either
killed or died of thirst while fleeing. At the height the campaign some 19,000 German troops were
involved. At about the same time diamonds were discovered in the territory, and this did much to
boost its prosperity. However it was short-lived. In 1915, during World War I, British and South
African forces occupied South-West Africa, which became a protectorate of South Africa. On 16
August 2004, 100 years after the war, the German government officially apologized for the
atrocities. ‘We Germans accept our historic and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by
Germans at that time,’ said Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany's development aid minister. In
addition, she admitted the massacres were equivalent to genocide.” 312
(g) The Maji-Maji Rebellion (1905-07): The Germans had held German East Africa (now
Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and part of Mozambique), German Southwest Africa (present-day
Namibia), Cameroon, and Togoland (today split between Ghana and Togo). “The Germans had a
relatively weak hold on German East Africa. However, they did maintain a system of forts
throughout the interior of the territory and were able to exert some control over it. Since their hold
on the colony was weak, they resorted to using violently repressive tactics to control the
population. Germany began levying head taxes in 1898, and relied heavily on forced labor to
build roads and accomplish various other tasks. In 1902, Carl Peters ordered villages to grow
cotton as a cash crop (for export). Each village was charged with producing a quota of cotton. The
Headmen of the village were left in charge of overseeing the production, which set them against
the rest of the population. These German policies were not only unpopular, they also had serious
effects on the lives of the natives… These effects created a lot of animosity against the government
at this period. In 1905, a drought threatened the region. This, combined with opposition to the
government's agricultural and labor policies, led to open rebellion against the Germans in July.
The insurgents turned to magic to drive out the German colonizers and used it as a unifying force
in the rebellion.” The suppression of the Maji Maji people changed the history of southern
Tanzania as a better-administered European colonies in Africa.313
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
155
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-9. The First Anglo-Sikh War, 1845-46
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Battle_of_ferozeshah%28H_Martens%29.jpg/1280pxBattle_of_ferozeshah%28H_Martens%29.jpg
Map I-3-6. Imperialism in Asia, 1840-1914
Source: http://chapter33whap.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/4/9/14499870/1432551_orig.jpg
156
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Imperialism in Asia - Holland, Britain, France, and Russia: (a) The Dutch East Indies:
“The Dutch East Indies was a Dutch colony. It was formed from the nationalized colonies of the
Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutch government in
1800. During the 19th century, Dutch possessions and hegemony were expanded, reaching their
greatest territorial extent in the early 20th century. This colony was one of the most valuable
European colonies under the Dutch Empire's rule, and contributed to Dutch global prominence in
spice and cash crop trade in the 19th to early 20th century.” In 1815 the Dutch occupied little
more than the island of Java itself. “In the following decades the British moved into Singapore,
the Malay Peninsula, and north Borneo, and made claim to Sumatra. The French in the 1860s
appeared in Indochina. The Germans in the 1880s annexed eastern New Guinea and the Marshall
and Solomon islands. Ultimately it was the mutual jealousy of these three that preserved the Dutch
position.” “The colonial social order was based on rigid racial and social structures with a Dutch
elite living separate from but linked to their native subjects. The term Indonesia came into use for
the geographical location after 1880. In the early 20th century, local intellectuals began developing
the concept of Indonesia as a nation state, and set the stage for an independence movement. Japan's
World War II occupation dismantled much of the Dutch colonial state and economy.” 314
“Disturbances continued to break out on both Java and Sumatra…However, the island of
Lombok came under Dutch control in 1894, and Batak resistance in northern Sumatra was quashed
in 1895. Towards the end of the 19th century, the balance of military power shifted towards the
industrializing Dutch and against pre-industrial independent indigenous Indonesian polities as the
technology gap widened. Military leaders and Dutch politicians believed they had a moral duty to
free the native Indonesian peoples from indigenous rulers who were considered oppressive,
backward, or disrespectful of international law. Although Indonesian rebellions broke out, direct
colonial rule was extended throughout the rest of the archipelago from 1901 to 1910 and control
taken from the remaining independent local rulers. Southwestern Sulawesi was occupied in 1905–
06, the island of Bali was subjugated with military conquests in 1906 and 1908, as were the
remaining independent kingdoms in Maluku, Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Nusa Tenggara. Other
rulers…requested Dutch protection from independent neighbors thereby avoiding Dutch military
conquest and were able to negotiate better conditions under colonial rule. The Bird's Head
Peninsula (Western New Guinea), was brought under Dutch administration in 1920. This final
territorial range would form the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.” 315
Map I-3-7. The Dutch East Indies: Territorial Expansion from 1800 to 1942
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Territorial_Evolution_of_the_Dutch_East_Indies.png/250
px-Territorial_Evolution_of_the_Dutch_East_Indies.png
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
157
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-3-8. French Expansion in Indochina (1859-1907)
Source: http://www.ccis.edu/courses/HIST323mtmcinneshin/week08/indochina%20conquest%20map.gif
Map I-3-9. The Growth of British Power in India, 1805-1914
Source: http://go.grolier.com/map?id=mh00077&pid=go
158
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) British India: “When European ships first landed on the shores of South Asia in the early
1600s in search of spices, they encountered merchants on the periphery of the Mughul Empire
(1526-1858), a kingdom larger and more powerful than any country in Europe at the time. “The
Mughal Empire reached its peak around 1700 and for several reasons began to decline just as the
British began to increase their presence. First, the majority Hindu population resented new
religiously intolerant policies - such as increased taxes on non-Muslims. Second, emperors spent
the wealth of the Empire fighting a prolonged military campaign in the South. The Hindu Marathas
humiliated the powerful Mughal Empire for decades with unrelenting guerrilla tactics. As a result,
the Empire went into debt and demanded more revenue from its nawabs (regional Muslim rulers)
elsewhere. Regional princes and religious groups, such as Hindus and Sikhs, resented Mughal
leadership, sensed weakness, and looked for opportunities to break away. Third, the Empire
weakened just when Europeans began to seek more profitable ways to extract revenue. Regional
nawabs turned to Europeans for military support for short-term gain against other Europeans, local
nawabs, or the Mughals. Coastal merchants grew wealthy from European gold and silver and
became dependent on European trade. Fourth, since the Mughals traditionally received their
revenue from agricultural taxes inland, they were uninterested in the burgeoning trade occurring
at the shore. As a result, they had no navy at all guarding the coast. When the Europeans sailed to
India, they found little evidence of an empire at all. On the periphery of the Mughal Empire,
coastal merchants traded cotton textiles to the Middle East and South East Asia. India was well
known throughout Eurasia for its high quality of manufactured goods.”316
A rebellion in India against the rule of the British East India Company ran from May 1857 to
July 1859. When British units had been withdrawn for the Crimean War and for action in China,
the rebellion began as a mutiny of sepoys (native Indian troops) of the East India Company's army
on 10 May 1857, in the cantonment of the town of Meerut, and soon escalated into other mutinies
and civilian rebellions largely in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, with the major
hostilities. The rebellion posed a considerable threat to East India Company power in that region.
“In some regions, such as Oudh, the rebellion took on the attributes of a patriotic revolt against
European presence. Some rebel leaders, such as Lakshmibai, the Rani of Jhansi, became folk
heroes in the nationalist movement in India half a century later. The rebellion led to the dissolution
of the East India Company in 1858. It also led the British to reorganize the army, the financial
system and the administration in India. The country was thereafter directly governed by the crown
as the new British Raj.” From the end of 1857, the British had begun to gain ground again.
Lucknow was retaken in March 1858. On 8 July 1858, a peace treaty was signed and the rebellion
ended. The last rebels were defeated in Gwalior on 20 June 1858. By 1859, rebel leaders Bakht
Khan and Nana Sahib had either been slain or had fled.” Bahadur Shah was tried for treason by a
military commission assembled at Delhi, and exiled to Rangoon where he died in 1862, bringing
the Mughal dynasty to an end. In 1877 Queen Victoria took the title of Empress of India. The
rebellion transformed both the native and European armies of British India. “The British increased
the ratio of British to Indian soldiers within India. From 1861 Indian artillery was replaced by
British units, except for a few mountain batteries. The post-rebellion changes formed the basis of
the military organization of British India until the early 20th century.”317 A class of westernized
Indians grew up, while they demanded more of a role in the affairs of their country. “In 1885, the
predominantly Hindu Indian National Congress was organized; in 1906, the All-India Muslim
League. Muslim separatism, while favored by the British and sometimes even blamed upon them,
was natural to India and exploited by some Indian leaders. Nationalism spread. It became
increasingly anti-British, and radical nationalism turned also against the Indian princes, capitalists,
and businessmen, as accomplices in imperialism, and so took on the color of socialism.” 318
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
159
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) French Indochina: France, which had lost its empire to the British with the loss of the
Napoleonic wars settled by the Congress of Vienna, had little geographical or commercial basis
for expansion in Southeast Asia. “After the 1850s, French imperialism was initially impelled by
a nationalistic need to rival the United Kingdom and was supported intellectually by the notion
that French culture was superior to that of the people of Annam, and its mission civilisatrice - or
its civilizing mission of the Annamese through their assimilation to French culture and the
Catholic religion. The pretext for French expansionism in Indochina was the protection of French
religious missions in the area, coupled with a desire to find a southern route to China through
Tonkin, the European name for a region of northern Vietnam. French religious and commercial
interests were established in Indochina as early as the 17th century, but no concerted effort at
stabilizing the French position was possible in the face of British strength in the Indian Ocean and
French defeat in Europe at the beginning of the 19th century. A mid-19th century religious revival
under the Second Empire provided the atmosphere within which interest in Indochina grew. AntiChristian persecutions in the Far East provided the pretext for the bombardment of Tourane (Da
Nang) in 1847, and invasion and occupation of Da Nang in 1857 and Saigon in 1858. Under
Napoleon III, France decided that French trade with China would be surpassed by the British, and
accordingly the French joined the British against China in the Second Opium War from 1857 to
1860, and occupied parts of Vietnam as its gateway to China.”319
“By the Treaty of Saigon in 1862, on June 5, the Vietnamese emperor ceded France three
provinces of southern Vietnam to form the French colony of Cochinchina; France also secured
trade and religious privileges in the rest of Vietnam and a protectorate over Vietnam's foreign
relations. Gradually French power spread through exploration, the establishment of protectorates,
and outright annexations. Their seizure of Hanoi in 1882 led directly to war with China (1883–
1885), and the French victory confirmed French supremacy in the region. France governed
Cochinchina as a direct colony, and central and northern Vietnam under the protectorates of
Annam and Tonkin, and Cambodia as protectorates in one degree or another. Laos too was soon
brought under French protection. By the beginning of the 20th century, France had created an
empire in Indochina nearly 50 percent larger than the mother country. A Governor-General in
Hanoi ruled Cochinchina directly and the other regions through a system of residents.
Theoretically, the French maintained the precolonial rulers and administrative structures in
Annam, Tonkin, Cochinchina, Cambodia, and Laos, but in fact the governor-generalship was a
centralised fiscal and administrative regime ruling the entire region. Although the surviving native
institutions were preserved in order to make French rule more acceptable, they were almost
completely deprived of any independence of action. The ethnocentric French colonial
administrators sought to assimilate the upper classes into France's superior culture. While the
French improved public services and provided commercial stability, the native standard of living
declined and precolonial social structures eroded. Indochina, which had a population of over
eighteen million in 1914, was important to France for its tin, pepper, coal, cotton, and rice. It is
still a matter of debate, however, whether the colony was commercially profitable.”320
Thailand and the West: “Despite European pressure, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian
nation to never have been colonized. This has been ascribed to the long succession of able rulers
in the past four centuries who exploited the rivalry and tension between French Indochina and the
British Empire. As a result, the country remained a buffer state between parts of Southeast Asia
that were colonized by the two colonial powers, Great Britain and France. Western influence
nevertheless led to many reforms in the 19th century and major concessions, most notably the loss
of a large territory on the east side of the Mekong to the French and the step-by-step absorption
by Britain of the Shan and Karen people areas and Malay Peninsula.”321
160
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Conflict of Russian and British Interests in Asia: Constitutional Britain and autocratic
Russia fought each other during the Anglo-Russian War (1807–12), after which Britain and Russia
became allies against Napoleon in the Napoleonic Wars. They both played major cooperative roles
at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. “From 1820 to 1907, a new element emerged: Russophobia. British elite sentiment turned increasingly hostile to Russia, with a high degree of anxiety
for the safety of India, with the fear that Russia would push south through Afghanistan. In addition,
there was a growing concern that Russia would destabilize Eastern Europe by its attacks on the
faltering Ottoman Empire. This fear was known as the Eastern Question. Russia was especially
interested in getting a warm water port that would enable its navy. Getting access out of the Black
Sea into the Mediterranean was a goal, which meant access through the Straits controlled by the
Ottomans. Both intervened in the Greek War of Independence (1821–29), eventually forcing the
London peace treaty on the belligerents…Britain considered its navy too weak to worry about, but
saw its large army as a major threat. The Russian pressures on the Ottoman Empire continued,
leaving Britain and France to ally with the Ottomans and push back against Russia in the Crimean
War (1853–1856). Russophobia was an element in generating popular British support for the faroff war.” Elite opinion in Britain supported Poles against harsh Russian rule, after 1830. Britain
watched nervously as Russia suppressed revolts in the 1860s but refused to intervene. 322
“At midcentury British observers and travelers presented a highly negative view of Russia as
a barbaric and backward nation. The English media depicted the Russians as superstitious, passive,
and deserving of their autocratic tsar. Thus barbarism stood in contrast to civilized Britain. In
1874, tension lessened as Queen Victoria's second son married the only daughter of tsar Alexander
II, followed by a cordial state visit by the tsar. The goodwill lasted no more than three years, when
structural forces again pushed the two nations to the verge of war. Rivalry between Britain and
Russia grew steadily over Central Asia…Russia desired warm-water ports on the Indian Ocean
while Britain wanted to prevent Russian troops from gaining a potential invasion route to India.
In 1885 Russia annexed part of Afghanistan in the Panjdeh incident, which caused a war scare.
However…set up an agreement in 1887 which established a buffer zone in Central Asia. Russian
diplomacy thereby won grudging British acceptance of its expansionism. Persia was also an arena
of tension, but without warfare. There was cooperation in Asia, however, as the two countries
joined many others to protect their interests in China during the Boxer Rebellion (1899–1901).
Britain was an ally of Japan after 1902, but remained strictly neutral and did not participate in the
Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. However there was a brief war scare in the Dogger Bank incident
in October 1905 when the main Russian battle fleet, headed to fight Japan, mistakenly engaged a
number of British fishing vessels in the North Sea fog. The Russians thought they were Japanese
torpedo boats, and sank one, killing three fishermen. The British public was angry.”323
Anglo-Russian Alliance (1907-17): “Diplomacy became delicate in the early 20th century.
Russia was troubled by the Entente Cordiale between Great Britain and France signed in 1904.
Russia and France already had a mutual defense agreement that said France was obliged to threaten
England with an attack if Britain declared war on Russia, while Russia was to concentrate more
than 300,000 troops on the Afghan border for an incursion into India in the event that England
attacked France. The solution was to bring Russia into the British-French alliance. The AngloRussian Entente and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 made both countries part of the Triple
Entente. Both countries were then part of the subsequent alliance against the Central Powers in
the First World War. In the summer of 1914, Austria threatened Serbia, Russia promised to help
Serbia, Germany promised to help Austria, and war broke out between Russia and Germany.
France supported Russia. Britain was neutral until Germany suddenly invaded neutral Belgium,
then prison joined France and Russia in World War I against Germany and Austria.”324
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
161
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Imperialism in Asia - China and Japan: (a) China and the West: Imperialism, Opium, and
Self-Strengthening (1800-1921): “The 16th century brought many Jesuit missionaries to China,
such as Matteo Ricci, who established missions where Western science was introduced, and where
Europeans gathered knowledge of Chinese society, history, culture, and science. During the 18th
century, merchants from Western Europe came to China in increasing numbers. However,
merchants were confined to Guangzhou and the Portuguese colony of Macau, as they had been
since the 16th century. European traders were increasingly irritated by what they saw as the
relatively high customs duties they had to pay and by the attempts to curb the growing import
trade in opium. By 1800, its importation was forbidden by the imperial government. However, the
opium trade continued to boom. Early in the 19th century, serious internal weaknesses developed
in the Qing dynasty that left China vulnerable to Western, Meiji period Japanese, and Russian
imperialism. In 1839, China found itself fighting the First Opium War with Britain. China was
defeated, and in 1842, signed the provisions of the Treaty of Nanjing which were first of the
unequal treaties signed during the Qing Dynasty. Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain, and
certain ports, including Shanghai and Guangzhou, were opened to British trade and residence. In
1856, the Second Opium War broke out. The Chinese were again defeated, and now forced to the
terms of the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin. The treaty opened new ports to trade and allowed foreigners
to travel in the interior. In addition, Christians gained the right to propagate their religion. The
United States Treaty of Wanghia and Russia later obtained the same prerogatives in separate
treaties. Toward the end of the 19th century, China appeared on the way to territorial dismemberment and economic vassalage - the fate of India's rulers that played out much earlier. Several
provisions of these treaties caused long-standing bitterness and humiliation among the Chinese:
extraterritoriality (meaning that in a dispute with a Chinese person, a Westerner had the right to
be tried in a court under the laws of his own country), customs regulation, and the right to station
foreign warships in Chinese waters, including its navigable rivers.”325
“Jane E. Elliott criticized the allegation that China refused to modernize or was unable to
defeat Western armies as simplistic, noting that China embarked on a massive military
modernization in the late 1800s after several defeats, buying weapons from Western countries and
manufacturing their own at arsenals, such as the Hanyang Arsenal during the Boxer Rebellion. In
addition, Elliott questioned the claim that Chinese society was traumatized by the Western
victories, as many Chinese peasants living outside the concessions continued about their daily
lives, uninterrupted and without any feeling of humiliation. Historians have judged the Qing
dynasty's vulnerability and weakness to foreign imperialism in the 19th century to be based mainly
on its maritime naval weakness while it achieved military success against westerners on land, the
historian Edward L. Dreyer said that China’s nineteenth-century humiliations were strongly
related to her weakness and failure at sea. At the start of the Opium War, China had no unified
navy and no sense of how vulnerable she was to attack from the sea; British forces sailed and
steamed wherever they wanted to go......In the Arrow War (1856-60), the Chinese had no way to
prevent the Anglo-French expedition of 1860 from sailing into the Gulf of Zhili and landing as
near as possible to Beijing. Meanwhile, new but not exactly modern Chinese armies suppressed
the midcentury rebellions, bluffed Russia into a peaceful settlement of disputed frontiers in Central
Asia, and defeated the French forces on land in the Sino-French War (1884-85). But the defeat of
the fleet, and the resulting threat to steamship traffic to Taiwan, forced China to conclude peace
on unfavorable terms…The Qing dynasty forced Russia to hand over disputed territory in Ili in
the Treaty of Saint Petersburg (1881), in what was widely seen by the west as a diplomatic victory
for the Qing. Russia acknowledged that Qing China potentially posed a serious military threat.”
It was suggested that a British-Chinese alliance to check Russian expansion in Central Asia.326
162
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“The rise of Japan since the Meiji Restoration as an imperial power led to further subjugation
of China. In a dispute over China's longstanding claim of suzerainty in Korea, war broke out
between China and Japan, resulting in humiliating defeat for the Chinese. By the Treaty of
Shimonoseki (1895), China was forced to recognize effective Japanese rule of Korea and Taiwan
was ceded to Japan until its recovery in 1945 at the end of the WWII by the Republic of China.
China's defeat at the hands of Japan was another trigger for future aggressive actions by Western
powers. In 1897, Germany demanded and was given a set of exclusive mining and railroad rights
in Shandong province. Russia obtained access to Dairen and Port Arthur and the right to build a
railroad across Manchuria, thereby achieving complete domination over a large portion of
northwestern China. The United Kingdom and France also received a number of concessions. At
this time, much of China was divided up into spheres of influence: Germany dominated Jiaozhou
Bay, Shandong, and the Yellow River valley; Russia dominated the Liaodong Peninsula and
Manchuria; the United Kingdom dominated Weihaiwei and the Yangtze Valley; and France
dominated the Guangzhou Bay and several other southern provinces. China continued to be
divided up into these spheres until the United States…grew alarmed at the possibility of its
businessmen being excluded from Chinese markets. In 1899, Secretary of State John Hay asked
the major powers to agree to a policy of equal trading privileges. In 1900, several powers agreed
to the U.S.-backed scheme, giving rise to the Open Door policy, denoting freedom of commercial
access and non-annexation of Chinese territory. In any event, it was in the European powers'
interest to have a weak but independent Chinese government. The privileges of the Europeans in
China were guaranteed in the form of treaties with the Qing government. In the event that the Qing
government totally collapsed, each power risked losing the privileges…negotiated.”327
The erosion of Chinese sovereignty and seizures of land from Chinese by foreigners
contributed to a spectacular anti-foreign outbreak in June 1900, when the Boxers (properly the
society of the righteous and harmonious fists) attacked foreigners around Beijing. The Imperial
Court was divided into anti-foreign and pro-foreign factions, with the pro-foreign faction led by
Ronglu and Prince Qing hampering any military effort by the anti-foreign faction lead by Prince
Duan and Dong Fuxiang. The Qing Empress Dowager ordered all diplomatic ties to be cut off and
all foreigners to leave the legations in Beijing to go to Tianjin. The foreigners refused to leave.
Fueled by entirely false reports that the foreigners in the legations were massacred, the EightNation Alliance decided to launch an expedition on Beijing to reach the legations but they
underestimated the Qing military. The Qing and Boxers defeated the foreigners at the Seymour
Expedition, forcing them to turn back at the Battle of Langfang. In response to the foreign attack
on Dagu Forts the Qing responded by declaring war against the foreigners, the Qing forces and
foreigners fought a fierce battle at the Battle of Tientsin before the foreigners could launch a
second expedition. On their second try Gaselee Expedition, with a much larger force, the
foreigners managed to reach Beijing and fight the Battle of Peking (1900). British and French
forces looted, plundered and burned the Old Summer Palace to the ground for the second time.
German forces were particularly severe in exacting revenge for the killing of their ambassador due
to the orders of Kaiser Wilhelm II, who held anti-Asian sentiments, while Russia tightened its hold
on Manchuria in the northeast until its crushing defeat by Japan in the war of 1904–1905. The
Qing court evacuated to Xi'an and threatened to continue the war against foreigners, until the
foreigners tempered their demands in the Boxer Protocol, promising that China would not have to
give up any land and gave up the demands for the execution of Dong Fuxiang and Prince Duan.”
The correspondent Douglas Story observed Chinese troops in 1907 and praised their abilities and
military skill.” Internal strains and foreign activity in China lead to rebellions and revolt of the
provinces against the Qing imperial authority in 1911 in the name of a Republican Revolution.328
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
163
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-3-10. Treaty Ports and the Boxer Rebellion in China
Source: http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484749/chap_assets/maps/map24_1.jpg
164
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) Japanese Imperialism: In 1889 a constitution was promulgated. It confirmed the civil
liberties then common in the West and provided for a parliament in two chambers, but it stressed
also the supreme and eternal authority by the emperor, to whom the ministers were legally
responsible. “By 1890, the country had several dozen warships and 500,000 well-trained, wellarmed soldiers. It had become the strongest military power in Asia. Japan had gained military,
political, and economic strength. It then sought to eliminate the extraterritorial rights of foreigners.
The Japanese foreign minister assured foreigners that they could rely on fair treatment in Japan.
This was because its constitution and legal codes were similar to those of European nations, he
explained. His reasoning was convincing, and in 1894, foreign powers accepted the abolition of
extraterritorial rights for their citizens living in Japan. Japan’s feeling of strength and equality with
the Western nations rose. As Japan’s sense of power grew, the nation also became more imperialistic. As in Europe, national pride played a large part in Japan’s imperial plans. The Japanese were
determined to show the world that they were a powerful nation.“329
Japan Attacks China: The Japanese first turned their sights to Korea. “In 1876, Japan forced
Korea to open three ports to Japanese trade. But China also considered Korea to be important both
as a trading partner and a military outpost. Recognizing their similar interests in Korea, Japan and
China signed a hands-off agreement. In 1885, both countries pledged that they would not send
their armies into Korea. In June 1894, however, China broke that agreement. Rebellions had
broken out against Korea’s king. He asked China for military help in putting them down. Chinese
troops marched into Korea. Japan protested and sent its troops to Korea to fight the Chinese. This
Sino-Japanese War lasted just a few months. In that time, Japan drove the Chinese out of Korea,
destroyed the Chinese navy, and gained a foothold in Manchuria. In 1895, China and Japan signed
a peace treaty. This treaty gave Japan its first colonies, Taiwan and the neighboring Pescadores
Islands. Russo-Japanese War: “Japan’s victory over China changed the world’s balance of power.
Russia and Japan emerged as the major powers - and enemies - in East Asia. The two countries
soon went to war over Manchuria. In 1903, Japan offered to recognize Russia’s rights in
Manchuria if the Russians would agree to stay out of Korea. But the Russians refused. In February
1904, Japan launched a surprise attack on Russian ships anchored off the coast of Manchuria. In
the resulting Russo-Japanese War, Japan drove Russian troops out of Korea and captured most of
Russia’s Pacific fleet. It also destroyed Russia’s Baltic fleet, which had sailed all the way around
Africa to participate in the war. In 1905, Japan and Russia began peace negotiations. U.S.
president Theodore Roosevelt helped draft the treaty, which the two nations signed on a ship off
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This agreement, the Treaty of Portsmouth, gave Japan the captured
territories. It also forced Russia to withdraw from Manchuria and to stay out of Korea.” 330
Japanese Occupation of Korea: “After defeating Russia, Japan attacked Korea with a
vengeance. In 1905, it made Korea a protectorate. Japan sent in “advisers,” who grabbed more and
more power from the Korean government. The Korean king was unable to rally international
support for his regime. In 1907, he gave up control of the country. Within two years the Korean
Imperial Army was disbanded. In 1910, Japan officially imposed annexation on Korea, or brought
that country under Japan’s control. The Japanese were harsh rulers. They shut down Korean
newspapers and took over Korean schools. There they replaced the study of Korean language and
history with Japanese subjects. They took land away from Korean farmers and gave it to Japanese
settlers. They encouraged Japanese businessmen to start industries in Korea, but forbade Koreans
from going into business. Resentment of Japan’s repressive rule grew, helping to create a strong
Korean nationalist movement. The rest of the world clearly saw the brutal results of Japan’s
imperialism. Nevertheless, the United States and other European countries largely ignored what
was happening in Korea. They were too busy with their own imperialistic aims.” 331
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
165
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-3-11. The First Sino-Japanese War, 1894-95
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg/300px-First_SinoJapanese_War.svg.png
Photo I-3-10. The First Sino-Japanese War: The Chinese Battleship
The Chinese battleship Zhenyuan captuered by the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese War, 1895.
Source: https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/36/127036-004-89710D3D.jpg
166
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) The Sino-Japanese War (1894-95): “Between the Meiji Restoration and its participation
in World War I, the Empire of Japan fought in two significant wars. The first war Japan fought
was the First Sino-Japanese War, fought in 1894 and 1895. The war revolved around the issue of
control and influence over Korea under the rule of the Joseon dynasty. From the 1880s onward,
there had been vigorous competition for influence in Korea between China and Japan. The Korean
court was prone to factionalism, and was badly divided by a reformist faction that was proJapanese and a more conservative faction that was pro-Chinese. In 1884, a pro-Japanese coup
attempt was put down by Chinese troops, and a residency under General Yuan Shikai was
established in Seoul. A peasant rebellion led by the Tonghak religious movement led to a request
by the Korean government for the Qing dynasty to send in troops to stabilize the country. The
Empire of Japan responded by sending their own force to Korea to crush the Tonghak and installed
a puppet government in Seoul. China objected and war ensued. Hostilities proved brief, with
Japanese ground troops routing Chinese forces on the Liaodong Peninsula and nearly destroying
the Chinese Navy in the Battle of the Yalu River. Japan and China signed the Treaty of
Shimonoseki, which ceded the Liaodong Peninsula and the island of Taiwan to Japan. After the
peace treaty, Russia, Germany, and France forced Japan to withdraw from the Liaodong Peninsula.
The leaders of Japan did not feel that they possessed the strength to resist the combined might of
Russia, Germany and France, and so gave in to the ultimatum presented by St. Petersburg, Berlin
and Paris. At the same time, the Japanese did not abandon their attempts to force Korea into the
Japanese sphere of influence. On 8 October 1895, Queen Min of Korea, the leader of the antiJapanese and pro-Chinese faction at the Korean court was murdered by Japanese agents within the
halls of the Gyeongbokgung palace, an act that backfired badly as it turned Korean public opinion
against Japan. In early 1896, King Gojong of Korea fled to the Russian legation in Seoul under
the grounds that his life was in danger from Japanese agents, and Russian influence in Korea
started to predominate. In the aftermath of the flight of the king, a popular uprising overthrew the
pro-Japanese government and several cabinet ministers were lynched on the streets.”332
In 1897, Russia occupied the Liaodong Peninsula, built the Port Arthur fortress, and based
the Russian Pacific Fleet in the port. Russia's acquisition of Port Arthur was primarily an antiBritish move to counter the British occupation of Wei-hai-Wei, but in Japan, this was perceived
as an anti-Japanese move. Germany occupied Jiaozhou Bay, built the Tsingtao fortress, and based
the German East Asia Squadron in this port. Between 1897 and 1903, the Russians built the
Chinese Eastern Railway (CER) in Manchuria. The Chinese Eastern Railroad was owned jointly
by the Russian and Chinese governments, but the company's management was entirely Russian,
the line was built to the Russian gauge and Russian troops were stationed in Manchuria to protect
rail traffic on the CER from bandit attacks. The headquarters of the CER company was located in
the new Russian-built city of Harbin, the Moscow of the Orient. From 1897 onwards, Manchuria
- while still nominally part of the Great Qing Empire - started to resemble more and more a Russian
province.” Russian Encroachment: “In December 1897 a Russian fleet appeared off Port Arthur.
After three months, in 1898, China and Russia negotiated a convention by which China leased (to
Russia) Port Arthur, Talienwan and the surrounding waters. The two parties further agreed that
the convention could be extended by mutual agreement. The Russians clearly expected such an
extension, for they lost no time in occupying the territory and in fortifying Port Arthur, their sole
warm-water port on the Pacific coast and of great strategic value. A year later, to consolidate their
position, the Russians began to build a new railway from Harbin through Mukden to Port Arthur,
the South Manchurian Railroad. The development of the railway became a contributory factor to
the Boxer Rebellion, when Boxer forces burned the railway stations…By 1898 they had acquired
mining and forestry concessions near the Yalu and Tumen rivers.” 333
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
167
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Map I-3-12. The Russo-Japanese War
http://ncvpsapwh.pbworks.com/f/russo-japanese_war.jpg
Map I-3-13. The Route of Baltic Fleet, To and Back
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Battle_of_Japan_Sea_%28Route_of_Baltic_Fleet%29_NT.PNG
168
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) The Russo-Japanese War and Its Consequences (1904-05): “The Russo-Japanese War
developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea and Manchuria. In
1898 Russia had pressured China into granting it a lease for the strategically important port of Port
Arthur, at the tip of the Liaotung Peninsula, in southern Manchuria. Russia thereby entered into
occupation of the peninsula, even though, in concert with other European powers, it had forced
Japan to relinquish just such a right after the latter’s decisive victory over China in the SinoJapanese War of 1894–95. Moreover, in 1896 Russia had concluded an alliance with China
against Japan and, in the process, had won rights to extend the Trans-Siberian Railroad across
Chinese-held Manchuria to the Russian seaport of Vladivostok, thus gaining control of an
important strip of Manchurian territory. However, though Russia had built the Trans-Siberian
Railroad (1891–1904), it still lacked the transportation facilities necessary to reinforce its limited
armed forces in Manchuria with sufficient men and supplies. Japan, by contrast, had steadily
expanded its army since its war with China in 1894 and by 1904 had gained a marked superiority
over Russia in the number of ground troops in the Far East. After Russia reneged in 1903 on an
agreement to withdraw its troops from Manchuria, Japan decided it was time to attack.”334
“The war began on Feb. 8, 1904, when the main Japanese fleet launched a surprise attack and
siege on the Russian naval squadron at Port Arthur. In March the Japanese landed an army in
Korea that quickly overran that country. In May another Japanese army landed on the Liaotung
Peninsula, and on May 26 it cut off the Port Arthur garrison from the main body of Russian forces
in Manchuria. The Japanese then pushed northward, and the Russian army fell back to Mukden
after losing battles at Fu-hsien (June 14) and Liao-yang (August 25), south of Mukden. In October
the Russians went back on the offensive with the help of reinforcements received via the TransSiberian Railroad, but their attacks proved indecisive owing to poor military leadership. The
Japanese had also settled down to a long siege of Port Arthur after several very costly general
assaults on it had failed. The garrison’s military leadership proved divided, however, and on Jan.
2, 1905, in a gross act of incompetence and corruption, Port Arthur’s Russian commander
surrendered the port to the Japanese without consulting his officers and with three months’
provisions and adequate supplies of ammunition still in the fortress.”335
“The final battle of the land war was fought at Mukden in late February and early March 1905,
between Russian forces totaling 330,000 men and Japanese totaling 270,000. After long and
stubborn fighting and heavy casualties on both sides, the Russian commander, General A.N.
Kuropatkin, broke off the fighting and withdrew his forces northward from Mukden, which fell
into the hands of the Japanese. Losses in this battle were exceptionally heavy, with approximately
89,000 Russian and 71,000 Japanese casualties. The naval Battle of Tsushima finally gave the
Japanese the upper hand in the conflict. The Japanese had been unable to secure the complete
command of the sea on which their land campaign depended, and the Russian squadrons at Port
Arthur and Vladivostok had remained moderately active. But on May 27–29, 1905, in a battle in
the Tsushima Strait, Admiral Tōgō Heihachirō’s main Japanese fleet destroyed the Russian Baltic
Fleet, which, commanded by Admiral Z.P. Rozhestvensky, had sailed in October 1904 all the way
from the Baltic port of Liepāja to relieve the forces at Port Arthur and at the time of the battle was
trying to reach Vladivostok. Japan was by this time financially exhausted, but its decisive naval
victory at Tsushima, together with increasing internal political unrest throughout Russia, where
the war had never been popular, brought the Russian government to the peace table. President
Theodore Roosevelt of the United States served as mediator at the peace conference…In the
resulting Treaty of Portsmouth, Japan gained control of the Liaotung Peninsula and the South
Manchurian railroad, as well as half of Sakhalin Island. Russia agreed to evacuate southern
Manchuria, which was restored to China, and Japan’s control of Korea was recognized.”336
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
169
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-3-11. The Balkan War, Retreat of the Turkish Army in Macedonia, 1912
Source: http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/ac9525c6c7334b8392dbfe249f54b9d3/balkan-war-retreat-of-the-turkish-army-inmacedonia-1912-cw62d3.jpg
Map I-3-14. Balkans after First Balkan War, 1912
Source: https://www2.bc.edu/~heineman/maps/Balkans1912.jpg
170
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
International Rivalry and New Crises: (a) The Bismarckian Alliance System (1871-94):
“After the unification of Germany and the establishment of the second Reich in 1871, in means of
domestic policy, Bismarck devoted the majority of his time as 1st imperial chancellor to seek out
and neutralize any enemies towards the Reich that might abate Germany’s new found supremacy.
Conflict between the great powers of Europe and Germany was to be avoided as Bismarck foresaw
it, although Germany’s strength amplified economically and politically, it was not Bismarck’s
goal to steer Germany into isolation as an ominous power of Europe as France had. Bismarck’s
solution was to devise a complex system of alliances to maintain peace throughout Europe, making
it mutually beneficial to all of the great powers and therefore protect his newly unified Germany
allowing it to strengthen. As Bismarck did best, like that of a superior chess player, he would
strategize his moves by predicting all possible outcomes and kept himself one step ahead of his
opponents. Bismarck knew exactly what could cause the destruction of the German Empire. His
first goal was to maintain Germany as a peaceful and friendly power as to gain trust and prestige
from the powers of Europe. From which he could then manipulate and formulate his desired
alliances. He pinpointed France as the biggest enemy toward the Reich, as they were still hostile
over the recent annexation of Alsace and Lorraine and so Bismarck focused on keeping France
isolated. It was from this he formulated most of his alliances, fearing an alliance such as the
Nightmare Collation (Franco-Russian) that could jeopardy the German Empire with war. The
intentions of Bismarck’s alliance system seemed to be straightforward, to isolate France, maintain
a peaceful co-existence with the other two major conservative powers (Austria and Russia), and
to preserve the peace throughout the growth of his alliance system. These became the main
objectives of Bismarck’s foreign policy from 1871-1894, and would turn out to be quite the
juggling act.” Bismarck wanted to wait for Germany to build up her strength. 337
“The upholding of friendly relations with all the great European powers was vital for
Bismarck’s system of alliances to run smoothly. Bismarck reassured all of Europe that Germany
was not a growing power to be threatened by when he declared Germany as a saturated power,
meaning that it was satisfied with its existing borders and had no further territorial ambitions in
Europe. The Honest Broker and peacemaker became attached to Bismarck’s name, as Europe saw
Bismarck help evade war at the congress of Berlin (1878) through negotiation of the countries
concerning the Balkans Crisis. Bismarck tried to appease all, and would thereafter attempt to
maintain the new status quo in order to keep the peace. Bismarck also understood not to violate
the fundamental principles of English diplomacy of which were to maintain the largest navy,
remain the major European colonial power, and to prevent Belgium from falling into the hands of
any other great power. Bismarck did not let the pursuit of minor goals, such as acquiring colonies
or the building of a navy, endanger his major goals, like the maintenance of the status quo.
Bismarck knew his greatest threat to his Empire was the French, and any formation of alliance
between France and any one great European power that thereof. Bismarck set forth to isolate
France. A punitive treaty was developed after the Franco-Prussian war to remind France that
Europe had a new hierarchical power on its hands. The French were itching for their Revanche,
and grieved over the loss of Alsace and Lorraine which only infuriated them more. Bismarck tried
to keep Europe flowing with bad feelings about France being a dangerous and revolutionary
power, hopefully isolating France from any alliances. Bismarck was happy to find that the French
were establishing an overtly democratic Republic for he assumed this would frighten off
monarchical allies. The problem of France was always at the back of Bismarck’s mind. France,
having such a harsh treaty imposed upon her, stood as a power that wished to revise the status quo
which Bismarck strongly tried to protect. It was Bismarck’s complex system of overlapping
alliances, which…kept France isolated and helped preserve the peace of Europe.” 338
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
171
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“Bismarck was in need of a counterbalance to French isolation. The support of AustroRussian friendship was the answer which would secure his southern and eastern borders as well.
The early 1870’s seemed to suggest that peace could be easily maintained through the cooperation
of Russia, Austria and Germany, led by conservative Emperors eager to maintain their privileges
and powers and determined to hold back the forces of liberalism, democracy and socialism. The
Three Emperors League was thus signed in 1873, which was dedicated to preserving the status
quo and preventing revolutionary activity. However, the idea of an Austria-Russia-German
alliance slipped in the cracks as a result of the growing suspicions of Austria and Russia ambitions
in the Balkans. For both Austria and Russia, the Balkan region of the decaying Ottoman Empire
was vulnerable for conquest, each reasoning their rights over the territory more valid. One couldn’t
forget that control over the area also meant access to the Mediterranean. The war over the Balkans
caused almost all European powers a feeling of concern. The Russian’s attempt to create a proRussian Bulgaria to help protect Russia’s access to the Mediterranean caused Britain a wave of
concern for the safety of the newly completed Suez Canal. Britain and Austria joined forces and
a European war seemed possible. This is where Bismarck stepped in and offered to renegotiate the
peace. Thus, in 1878, the Congress of Berlin was held where Bismarck was seen as the peacemaker
rather the warmonger, being the high point of his diplomatic career. Russia saw the treaty as pro
Austrian and was disillusioned with the Chancellor. Bismarck responded by signing the Dual
Alliance with Austria in 1879 acting as a military alliance promising each other’s aid in the case
of a Russian attack. Bismarck also benefited from this alliance for it totally secured the Empire’s
southern borders, and…use it to woo the isolated Russia back into his alliance system.”339
“To reinforce Bismarck’s ground even more, he utilized Franco-Italian friction over Tunis to
bring Italy into the Dual Alliance. In 1882, Italy joined the Dual Alliance which created the Triple
Alliance. The Russians felt threatened, and Bismarck wanted to avoid the Nightmare Collation
(Franco-Russian) at all cost. It was here that Bismarck’s system had reached its greatest
complexity. Germany and Russia signed a reinsurance treaty that made a secret promised of the
country’s neutrality if attacked by a third power, which reassure Russia it was not in danger of a
German-Austrian war or Germany of a Franco-Russian alliance. Also, Bismarck kept friendly
relations with Britain so that such a powerful nation would not be against Germany. Now France
was truly friendless, powerless and isolated. Bismarck seemed to mastermind his system of
alliances, but could he continue to juggle all five balls without one dropping? Bismarck understood
Germany should remain a land-based, peace-loving European power as she had always been.
Kaiser Wilhelm I died and Wilhelm the II became the new Kaiser in 1888.” 340
(b) New Directions under Wilhelm II: “At the end of the nineteenth century and beginning
of the twentieth, diplomatic activity was still largely the preserve of aristocrats who were guided
by the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century concepts of balance of power, reason of state, and the
concert of Europe. But the manipulation of national interests by the secret negotiations of
aristocratic diplomats was increasingly threatened by mass interest in national affairs. The growth
of nationalism and mass politics led to an increased emphasis on national competition. Politicians
found that an appeal to nationalism carried great weight with the masses of people and could easily
be reinforced by the new mass-circulation newspapers that fostered extreme patriotic feelings and
encouraged the desire for national prestige. Driven by popular excitement, diplomats found
themselves increasingly directed by events rather than by rational calculation, and they were
forced to seek short-term successes regardless of the long-term consequences. Bismarck’s
alliances had served to bring the European powers into an interlocking system in which no one
state could be certain of much support if it chose to initiate a war of aggression. After 1890, a
new European diplomacy unfolded in which Europe became divided into two opposing camps that
172
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
became more and inflexible and unwilling to compromise. After Bismarck’s dismissal, Emperor
Wilhelm II embarked upon an activist foreign policy dedicated to embarking German power by
finding, as he put it, Germany’s rightful place in the sun. One of his changes in Bismarck’s foreign
policy was to drop the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, which he viewed as being at odds with
Germany’s alliance with Austria. Although Wilhelm II tried to remain friendly with Russia, the
ending of the alliance achieved what Bismarck had feared: it brought France and Russia together.
Long isolated by Bismarck’s policies, republican France leapt at the chance to draw closer to
tsarist Russia, and in 1894 the two powers concluded a military alliance.” 341
“The attitude of the British now became crucial. Secure in their vast empire, the British had
long pursued a policy of splendid isolation toward the Continent. The British were startled,
however, when many Europeans condemned their activity in the Boer War (1899-1902) in South
Africa. Fearful of an anti-British continental alliance, they saw the weakness of splendid isolation
and sought an alliance with a continental power. Initially neither France nor Russia seemed a
logical choice. Britain’s traditional enmity with France had only intensified because of their
imperialistic rivalries in Africa and Asia. Likewise, British and Russian imperialistic interests and
frequently collided. Germany, therefore, seemed the most likely potential ally. Certainly, some
people in both Britain and Germany believed that their common German heritage (Anglo-Saxons
from Germany had settled in Britain in the Early Middle Ages) made them natural allies. But
Britain was not particularly popular in Germany, not did the British especially like the Germans.
Industrial and commercial rivalry had created much ill feeling while Wilhelm II’s imperial
posturing and grabbing for colonies made the British suspicious of Germany’s ultimate aims.
Especially worrisome to the British was the Germans’ construction of a large navy, including a
number of battleships advocated by the persistent Admiral von Tirpitz, secretary of the German
navy. The British now turned to their traditional enemy, France, and in 1904 concluded the
Entente Cordiale by which the two settled all of their outstanding colonial disputes.” 342
“German response to the Entente was swift, creating what has been called the First Moroccan
Crisis in 1905. The Germans chose to oppose French designs on Morocco in order to humiliate
them and drive a wedge between the two new allies – Britain and France. Refusing to compromise,
the Germans insisted upon an international conference to settle the problem. Germany’s foolish
saber rattling had the opposite effect of what had been intended and succeeded only in uniting
Russia, France, Great Britain, and even the United States against Germany. The conference at
Algeciras, Spain, in January 1906 awarded control of Morocco to France. Germany came out of
the conference with nothing. The First Moroccan Crisis of 1905-06 had important repercussions.
France and Britain drew closer together as both began to view Germany as a real threat to
European peace. German leaders, on the other hand, began to speak of sinister plots to encircle
Germany and hinder its emergence as a world power. Russia, too, grew more and more suspicious
of the Germans and signed an agreement in 1907 with Great Britain. By that year, Europe’s
division into two major blocs – the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy and
the Triple Entente, as the loose confederation of Russia, France, and Great Britain was called –
grew increasingly rigid at the same time that the problems in the Balkans were heating up. Three
forces were not working against any peaceful resolution of the region’s difficult problems. The
forces of nationalism continued to grow as Slavic peoples gained their freedom from Ottoman
overlord-ship and saw Austrian expansion as the new threat to their national aspirations. At the
same time, Austrian and Russian rivalry in the Balkans only intensified. Finally, where Bismarck
had labored to make Germany a mediator maintaining the Ottoman Empire. No longer a mediator
but a participant in Balkan affairs, Germany added a potentially dangerous element to the situation.
Between 1908 and 1913, a new series of crises over the Balkans set the stage for World War I.”343
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
173
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Crises in the Balkans, 1908-13: “The Bosnian Crisis of 1908-09 initiated a chain of events
that eventually went out of control. Since 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina had been under the
protection of Austria, but in 1908, Austria took the drastic step of annexing these two Slavicspeaking territories. Serbia became outraged at this action because it dashed the Serbians’ hopes
of creating a large Serbian kingdom that would include most of the south Slavs. This was why
the Austrians had annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina. To the Austrians, a large Servia would be a
threat to the unity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire with its large Slavic population. The Russians,
as protectors of their fellow Slavs and with their own desire to increase their authority in the
Balkans, supported the Serbs and opposed the Austrian action. Backed by the Russians, the Serbs
prepared for war against Austria. At this point, Wilhelm II intervened and demanded that the
Russians accept Austria’s annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or face war with Germany.
Weakened from their defeat in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, the Russians were afraid to
risk war and backed down. Humiliated, the Russians vowed revenge. European attention returned
to the Balkans in 1912 when Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Greece organized a Balkan League
and defeated the Ottomans in the First Balkan War.”344 When the victorious allies were unable to
agree on how to divide the conquered Ottoman provinces of Macedonia and Albania; Greece and
Serbia signed a secret defensive alliance, confirming the current demarcation line.
“The Second Balkan War was a conflict which broke out when Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its
share of the spoils of the First Balkan War, attacked its former allies, Serbia and Greece, on 16
June 1913. Serbian and Greek armies repulsed the Bulgarian offensive and counter-attacked,
entering Bulgaria. With Bulgaria also having previously engaged in territorial disputes with
Romania, this war provoked Romanian intervention against Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire also
took advantage of the situation to regain some lost territories from the previous war. When
Romanian troops approached the capital Sofia, Bulgaria asked for an armistice, resulting in the
Treaty of Bucharest, in which Bulgaria had to cede portions of its First Balkan War gains to Serbia,
Greece and Romania. In the Treaty of Constantinople, it lost Edirne to the Ottomans.”345 The
Second Balkan War left Serbia as the most military powerful state south of the Danube. Years of
military investment financed by French loans had borne fruit.
Nevertheless, the two Balkan wars left the inhabitants embittered and created more tensions.
“One of Serbia’s major ambitions had been to acquire Albanian territory that would give it a port
on the Adriatic. At the London Conference arranged by Austria at the end of the two Balkan wars,
the Austrians had blocked Serbia’s wishes by creating an independent Albania. The Germans, as
Austrian allies, had supported this move. In their frustration, Serbian nationalists increasingly
portrayed the Austrians as evil monsters who were keeping the Serbs from becoming a great
nation. As Serbia’s chief supporters, the Russians were also upset by the turn of events in the
Balkans. A feeling had grown among Russian leaders that they could not back down again in the
event of a confrontation with Austria or Germany in the Balkans. One Russian military journal
even stated early in 1914: ‘We are preparing for a war in the west. The whole nation must accustom
itself to the idea that we arm ourselves for a war of annihilation against the Germans.’ AustroHungary had achieved another of its aims, but it was still convinced that Serbia was a mortal threat
to its empire and must at some point be crushed. Meanwhile, the French and Russian governments
renewed their alliance and promised each other that they would not back down at the next crisis.
Britain drew closer to France. By the beginning of 1914, two armed camps viewed each other
with suspicion. An American…observed, ‘The whole of Germany is charged with electricity.
Everybody’s nerves are tense. It only needs a spark to set the whole thing off.’ The German
ambassador to France noted at the same time that ‘peace remains at the mercy of an accident.’
The European age of progress was about to come to an inglorious and bloody end.” 346
174
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
4. Armed Forces and War in Europe, 1815-1914
“The essential subjects of military history study are the causes of war, the social and cultural
foundations, military doctrine on each side, the logistics, leadership, technology, strategy, and
tactics used, and how these changed over time. On the other hand, Just War Theory explores the
moral dimensions of warfare, and to better limit the destructive reality caused by war, seeks to
establish a doctrine of military ethics. As an applied field, military history has been studied at
academies and service schools because the military command seeks to not repeat past mistakes,
and improve upon its current performance by instilling an ability in commanders to perceive
historical parallels during a battle, so as to capitalize on the lessons learned from the past. When
certifying military history instructors the Combat Studies Institute deemphasizes rote detail
memorization and focuses on themes and context in relation to current and future conflict, using
the motto Past is Prologue. The discipline of military history is dynamic, changing with development as much of the subject area as the societies and organizations that make use of it. The
dynamic nature of the discipline of military history is largely related to the rapidity of change the
military forces, and the art and science of managing them, as well as the frenetic pace of
technological development that had taken place during the period known as the Industrial
Revolution, and more recently in the nuclear and information ages. An important recent concept
is the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which attempts to explain how warfare has been
shaped by emerging technologies, such as gunpowder.”347
“Over the course of the 18th-19th centuries all military arms and services underwent
significant developments that included a more mobile field artillery, the transition from use of
battalion infantry drill in close order to open order formations and the transfer of emphasis from
the use of bayonets to the rifle that replaced the musket, and virtual replacement of all types of
cavalry with the universal dragoons, or mounted infantry.”348 “As weapons…became easier to use,
countries began to abandon a complete reliance on professional soldiers in favor of conscription.
Technological advances became increasingly important; while the armies of the previous period
had usually had similar weapons, the industrial age saw encounters such as the Battle of Sadowa,
in which possession of a more advanced technology played a decisive role in the outcome.
Conscription was employed in industrial warfare to increase the number of military personnel that
were available for combat. This was used by Napoleon Bonaparte in the Napoleonic Wars. Total
war was used in industrial warfare, the objective being to prevent the opposing nation to engage
in war. William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan's burning of the
Shenandoah Valley during the American Civil War and the strategic bombing of enemy cities and
industrial factories during World War II are examples of total warfare.” 349 “In modern times, war
has evolved from an activity steeped in tradition to a scientific enterprise where success is valued
above methods. The notion of total war is the extreme of this trend. Militaries have developed
technological advances rivaling the scientific accomplishments of any other field of study. Modern
militaries benefit in the development of these technologies under the funding of the public, the
leadership of national governments. What distinguishes modern military organizations from those
previous is not their willingness to prevail in conflict by any method, but rather the technological
variety of tools and methods…from submarines to satellites, from knives to nuclear warheads.”350
Europe experienced such major wars as the Crimean War (1853-56), the Austro-Prussian War
(1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), while America fought the civil war (1861-65).
As nationalism encouraged imperialism, European states expanded colonial territories in Africa,
Asia, and the Americas with wars. Military strategists - Karl von Clausewitz, Henri de Jomini,
Helmuth von Moltke, and Alfred Thyer Mahan – published their theories.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
175
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-4-1. German Army around 1900
Source: http://c7.alamy.com/comp/DYYNW9/german-army-around-1900-DYYNW9.jpg
Photo I-4-2. The Royal Navy during 1897-1900
Source: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~brycefamily/chflt1898.JPG
176
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Prussian Army (1815-1914): “The Royal Prussian Army served as the army of the
Kingdom of Prussia. It became vital to the development of Brandenburg-Prussia as a European
power. The Prussian Army had its roots in the core mercenary forces of Brandenburg during the
Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648. Elector Frederick William developed it into a viable standing
army, while King Frederick William I of Prussia dramatically increased its size and improved its
doctrines. King Frederick the Great, a formidable battle commander, led the disciplined Prussian
troops to victory during the 18th-century Silesian Wars and greatly increased the prestige of the
Kingdom of Prussia. The army had become outdated by the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars,
and France defeated Prussia in the War of the Fourth Coalition. However, under the leadership of
Gerhard von Scharnhorst, Prussian reformers began modernizing the Prussian Army, which
contributed greatly to the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte during the War of the Sixth Coalition.
Conservatives halted some of the reforms, however, and the Prussian Army subsequently became
a bulwark of the conservative Prussian government. In the 19th century the Prussian Army fought
successful wars against Denmark, Austria and France, allowing Prussia to unify Germany and to
establish the German Empire in 1871. The Prussian Army formed the core of the Imperial German
Army, which was replaced by the Reichswehr after World War I.”351
(a) Bulwark of Conservatism: “The German General Staff, which developed out of meetings
of the Great Elector with his senior officers and the informal meeting of the Napoleonic Era
reformers, was formally created in 1814. In the same year Boyen and Grolman drafted a law for
universal conscription, by which men would successively serve in the standing army, the
Landwehr and the local Landsturm until the age of 39. Troops of the 156,000-strong standing
army served for three years and were in the reserves for two, while militiamen of the 163,000strong Landwehr served a few weeks annually for seven years. Boyen and Blücher strongly
supported the 'civilian army' of the Landwehr, which was to unite military and civilian society, as
an equal to the standing army. During a constitutional crisis in 1819, Frederick William III
recognized Prussia's adherence to the anti-revolutionary Carlsbad Decrees. Conservative forces
within Prussia, such as Wittgenstein, remained opposed to conscription and the more democratic
Landwehr. Frederick William III reduced the militia's size and placed it under the control of the
regular army in 1819, leading to the resignations of Boyen and Grolman and the ending of the
reform movement. Boyen's ideal of an enlightened citizen soldier was replaced with the idea of a
professional military separate or alienated from civilian society.”352
“By the middle of the 19th century, Prussia was seen by many German Liberals as the country
best-suited to unify the many German states, but the conservative government used the army to
repress liberal and democratic tendencies during the 1830s and 1840s. Liberals resented the usage
of the army in essentially police actions. King Frederick William IV (1840–61) initially appeared
to be a liberal ruler, but he was opposed to issuing the written constitution called for by reformers.
When barricades were raised in Berlin during the 1848 revolution, the king reluctantly agreed to
the creation of a civilian defense force in his capital. A national assembly to write a constitution
was convened for the first time, but its slowness allowed the reactionary forces to regroup.
Wrangel led the re-conquest of Berlin, which was supported by a middle class weary of a people's
revolution. Prussian troops were subsequently used to suppress the revolution in many other
German cities. At the end of 1848, Frederick William finally issued the Constitution of the
Kingdom of Prussia. The liberal opposition secured the creation of a parliament, but the
constitution was largely a conservative document reaffirming the monarchy's predominance…The
Prussian Minister of War was the only soldier required to swear an oath defending the constitution,
leading ministers…In 1856 during peacetime Prussian Army consisted of 86,436 infantrymen,
152 cavalry squadrons and 9 artillery regiments.” 353
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
177
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“After Frederick William IV suffered a stroke, his brother William I became regent (1857)
and king (1861–88). He desired to reform the army, which conservatives such as Roon considered
to have degraded since 1820 because of liberalism. The king wanted to expand the army—while
the populace had risen from 10 million to 18 million since 1820, the annual army recruits had
remained 40,000. Although Bonin opposed Roon's desired weakening of the Landwehr, William
I was alarmed by the nationalistic Second Italian War of Independence. Bonin resigned as Minister
of War and was replaced with Roon. The government submitted Roon's army reform bill in
February 1860. Parliament opposed many of its provisions, especially the weakening of the
Landwehr, and proposed a revised bill that did away with many of the government's desired
reforms. The Finance Minister, Patow, abruptly withdrew the bill on 5 May and instead simply
requested a provisional budgetary increase of 9 million thalers, which was granted. William had
already begun creating 'combined regiments' to replace the Landwehr, a process which increased
after Patow acquired the additional funds. Although Parliament was opposed to these actions,
William maintained the new regiments with the guidance of Manteuffel. The liberal and middleclass Landwehr was thus subordinated in favor of the regular army, which was composed mostly
of peasantry loyal to the Hohenzollern monarchy and conservative Junkers.”354
(b) Moltke the Elder, Chief of the General Staff from 1857–88, modernized the Prussian
Army during his tenure. “He expanded the General Staff, creating peacetime subdivisions such as
the Mobilization, Geographical-Statistical and Military History Sections. In 1869, he issued a
handbook for warfare on the operational level, Instructions for Large Unit Commanders, writing,
‘The modern conduct of war is marked by the striving for a great and rapid decision.’ Moltke was
a strong proponent of war game training for officers and introduced the breech-loading needle gun
to troops, which allowed them to fire significantly faster than their adversaries. Moltke took
advantage of the railroad, guiding the construction of rail lines within Prussia to likely places of
deployment. Because modern armies had become too large and unwieldy for a single commander
to control, Moltke supported multiple and independent smaller armies in concentric operations.
Once one army encountered the enemy and pinned it down, a second army would arrive and attack
the enemy's flank or rear. He advocated a Kesselschlacht, or battle of encirclement.”355
“It was in Moltke's Instructions for Large Unit Commanders and his concept of separated
armies that we begin to see the emergence of modern German doctrine. The system of moving
units separately and concentrating as an army before a battle resulted in more efficient supply and
lower vulnerability to modern firepower. To enable a successful flanking attack, he asserted that
concentration could only take place after the commencement of a battle. This was a development
of the Scharnhorst concept of March Divided, Fight United. A major consequence of this
innovation was the commander's loss of overall control of his forces due to his available means of
communication which, at that time were visual (line-of-sight) or couriers, either mounted or on
foot. The traditional concept of the elimination of uncertainty by means of "total obedience" was
now obsolete and operational initiative, direction and control had to be assigned to a point further
down the chain of command. In this new concept, commanders of distant detachments were
required to exercise initiative in their decision making and von Moltke emphasised the benefits of
developing officers who could do this within the limits of the senior commander’s intention…
Moltke's main thesis was that military strategy had to be understood as a system of options since
only the beginning of a military operation was plannable. As a result, he considered the main task
of military leaders to consist in the extensive preparation of all possible outcomes. His thesis can
be summed up by two statements, one famous and one less so, translated into English as No plan
of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength (no
plan survives contact with the enemy) and Strategy is a system of expedients.”356
178
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Wars of Unification: “The Prussian Army crushed Danish forces in the Battle of Dybbøl
during the Second Schleswig War (1864), allowing Prussia and Austria to claim Schleswig and
Holstein, respectively. Disputes orchestrated by the Prussian Minister President, Otto von
Bismarck, led to the Austro-Prussian War (1866). The needle guns of the Prussian infantry were
highly successful against the Austrians, who were defeated at Königgrätz. Under the leadership of
Moltke, the Prussian Army then proved victorious over France in the Franco-Prussian War (1870).
Unlike the Austrians, the French had the powerful Chassepot rifle, which outclassed the Prussian
needle gun. However, the Prussian artillery was effective against the French, who were frequently
flanked or surrounded by the mobile Prussians. Patriotism in Prussia from the victories began to
undermine liberal resistance to absolutism. The battlefield successes of Prussia allowed the
unification of Germany in 1871 and the crowning of King William I of Prussia as William I,
German Emperor. The Prussian Army formed the main component of the Reichsheer.”357
(d) Imperial German Army: “The Imperial German Army inherited much of the traditions
and concepts of the Prussian Army, which was its largest component army. According to article
61 of the Imperial constitution, the Prussian military code was to be introduced throughout the
German Reich. The conservative leaders of the army took an ever increasing role in both domestic
and foreign policies. By the end of the 19th century, most Prussian officers could be divided into
two groups: those who argued for boldness and self-sacrifice, and those who advocated technology
and maneuver in order to minimize casualties. First encountered during the Franco-Prussian War,
new technological military innovations such as the machine gun increased the power of defensive
units. For the Prussians, who advocated offensive operations, infantry attacks would risk
becoming sacrificial assaults. With regard to a possible future two-front war, Schlieffen, the Chief
of the General Staff from 1891–1906, had suggested a deployment scheme which became known
as the Schlieffen Plan. Modified by Moltke the Younger, its intention of quickly defeating France
proved impossible to achieve. In the actual event of the First World War; on the Western Front,
the German advance stalled into trench warfare after the First Battle of the Marne. On the Eastern
Front, however, the Prussian operations succeeded in encircling and smashing the Russians at
Tannenberg. Unable to break through the French and British lines on the Western Front, the
Germans eventually lost the war of attrition. The Imperial German Army was replaced after World
War I with the volunteer Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic. Although the Treaty of Versailles
attempted to disarm Germany, the Reichswehr discreetly maintained many of the traditions of the
Prussian Army. The General Staff was camouflaged as a non-descript Truppenamt (troop office),
while the War Academy was replaced with decentralized divisional schools. Seeckt, the head of
the Reichswehr, designated the new military's battalions as successors of the traditions of Prussian
regiments. During the interwar era, German officers contemplated how to apply maneuver warfare
after the experiences of the Great War. Innovations in armor and air were adopted to the war of
movement, resulting in the doctrine of Blitzkrieg.”358
“The Prussian-style war of movement and quick strikes was well-designed for campaigns
using the developed infrastructure of Western and Central Europe, such as the wars of unification,
but failed when it was applied by the Wehrmacht Heer to the Soviet Union and Northern Africa.
The Prussian and later German systems were regarded as weak in intelligence, counterintelligence,
and logistics, but during the First World War the German Army was often able to lay its hands on
British and French battle plans. If the enemy successfully endured the initial operational attacks,
the Prussian system had great difficulty in Stellungskrieg, or war of position, though during the
First World War those were not as pronounced. The Prussian Army is often considered to have
used the flexible command of Auftragstaktik (mission tactics), by which subordinate officers led
using personal initiative” granting greater privileges to the Junkers.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
179
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Photo I-4-3. Karl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) (Left)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Carl_von_Clausewitz.PNG/220px-Carl_von_Clausewitz.PNG
Photo I-4-4. Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) (Right)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Antoine-Henri_Jomini.jpg/225px-Antoine-Henri_Jomini.jpg
Photo I-4-5. Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) (Left)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan.jpeg
Photo I-4-6. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (1800-91) (Right)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Helmuth_Karl_Bernhard_von_Moltke.jpg/220pxHelmuth_Karl_Bernhard_von_Moltke.jpg
180
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(e) Military Tactics and Strategies - Karl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) was a Prussian general
and military theorist who stressed the moral (or psychological) and political aspects of war as
written in his Vom Kriege (On War) published posthumously. “Clausewitz was a realist in many
different senses and, while in some respects a romantic, also drew heavily on the rationalist ideas
of the European Enlightenment. Clausewitz's thinking is often described as Hegelian because of
his dialectical method; but, although he was probably personally acquainted with Hegel, there
remains debate as to whether or not Clausewitz was in fact influenced by him. He stressed the
dialectical interaction of diverse factors…under the fog of war.”
“Clausewitz enlisted in the Prussian army in 1792…took part in the campaigns of the First
Coalition against Revolutionary France. In 1801 he gained admission into the Institute for Young
Officers in Berlin, an event that proved to be a turning point in his life. During his three years at
the institute, Clausewitz became the closest protégé of Gerhard Johann David von Scharnhorst,
the institute’s head. The broad curriculum, coupled with Clausewitz’s extensive reading, expanded
his horizons dramatically. His basic ideas regarding war and its theory were shaped at that time.
After finishing first in his class, Clausewitz was on the road leading to the centre of the political
and military events during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the reform of the
Prussian army that followed Prussia’s defeat, and the restoration of European monarchies
following the defeat of Napoleon. In 1804 Clausewitz was appointed adjutant to Prince August
Ferdinand of Prussia. In this capacity, he took part in the Battle of Jena-Auerstädt (1806). In the
wake of Prussia’s catastrophic defeat by Napoleon, he and the prince fell into French captivity.
With the Prussian army demolished and the prince captured, Prussia was forced to give up half of
its territory in the concluding peace treaty. After their release at the end of 1807, Clausewitz joined
the group of young and middle-rank officers around Scharnhorst, who struggled to reform the
Prussian army. The reformers believed that Prussia’s only hope of survival in the age of mass
enlistment, as introduced by Revolutionary France, was in adopting similar institutions. However,
such a modernization of society, state, and army was widely resisted among the aristocratic elite,
which feared an erosion of its status. During these years, Clausewitz married Countess Marie von
Bruhl, with whom he formed a very close but childless union. Clausewitz was ill at ease in society
and more in his element among a small circle of fellow military reformers.” 359
“In the war ministry that was formed, headed by Scharnhorst, Clausewitz served as his
mentor’s assistant and was then simultaneously appointed a major in the general staff, instructor
at the new Officers’ Academy, and military tutor to the Prussian crown prince. Like his friends in
the reform circle, he looked for any opportunity to wage a national war of liberation against France,
and he was repeatedly frustrated by the king’s hesitation to act against the much superior French
power. In 1812, when Prussia was forced to join Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, Clausewitz, like
some of his comrades, resigned his commission and joined the Russian service. He served in
various staff posts, and during the catastrophic French retreat he was instrumental in generating
the chain of events that ultimately drove Prussia to change sides. Clausewitz took part in the final
campaigns that brought down Napoleon in 1813–15. During the Waterloo campaign, he served as
chief of staff to one of the four Prussian army corps. With the coming of peace and the setting in
of the reaction to the terms of the treaty in Prussia, which clouded his career, Clausewitz
increasingly concentrated on his intellectual interests. He had been thinking and writing on war
and its theory since his days in the Institute for Young Officers. His tenure as head of the Military
Academy at Berlin (1818–30) left him plenty of time to work on his major study On War.
Appointed chief of staff to the Prussian army that prepared for intervention against the Polish
revolt of 1831, Clausewitz died of cholera that year. His unfinished work, together with his
historical studies, was posthumously published by his widow.”360
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
181
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“Clausewitz’s ideas were shaped by the coming together of two revolutions that dominated
his life and times. Intellectually, he expressed in the military field the sweeping Romantic reaction
against the ideas of the Enlightenment, a reaction that had been brewing in Germany since the late
18th century and that had turned into a tidal wave by the beginning of the 19th century in response
to French Revolutionary ideas and imperialism. In the spirit of their time, the military thinkers of
the Enlightenment had believed that war ought to come under the domination of reason. A
comprehensive theory based on rules and principles ought to be formulated and, wherever
possible, given a mathematical form. Against this Clausewitz argued, in line with Romantic critics,
that human affairs and war in particular were very different from natural phenomena and the
sciences. He ruled out any rigid system of rules and principles for the conduct of war, celebrating
instead the free operation of genius, changing historical conditions, moral forces, and the elements
of uncertainty and chance. These elements, especially the enemy’s counteractions, give war a
nonlinear logic. Every simple action encounters friction - in Clausewitz’s borrowed metaphor from
mechanics - which slows it down and may frustrate it. At the same time, Clausewitz believed that
a general theory of war was attainable and that it should express war’s immutable essence, nature,
or concept and guide all military action. Here is the second revolution that dominated his life. His
generation witnessed the collapse of the limited warfare of ancien régimes in the face of the allout effort and strategy of destruction, or total war, unleashed by the French Revolution and
Napoleon. While very conscious of the changing social and political conditions that had brought
about this transformation of warfare, Clausewitz, like his contemporaries, held that the new,
sweeping way of war making, culminating in the decisive battle and the overthrow of the enemy
country, reflected the true nature of war and the correct method of its conduct.”361
“However, in 1827 Clausewitz began to have serious doubts about whether total war was
really the sole legitimate type of war. He came to the conclusion that there were in fact two types
of war, total (or absolute) and limited, and that it was, above all, political aims and requirements
that imposed themselves on war and dictated its intensity - hence his famous dictum, ‘War is a
continuation of state policy with the admixture of other means.’ In the light of these new ideas,
Clausewitz added the last two books of On War and started to revise the first six…Thus, the
manuscript remained as an incomplete draft - Books Two to Six expressed his old ideas regarding
the supremacy of the decisive battle and total war, whereas the beginning and end of On War
proclaimed the subservience of war to politics and consequently the legitimacy of limited war. It
was in this form that Clausewitz’s widow published the manuscript after his death. This curious
development of Clausewitz’s work has had a profound effect on the reception of his ideas. Since
later readers have been largely unaware of the reasons for the glaring inconsistency in On War,
while being impressed by its sophistication, they have tended to concentrate on those ideas that
most accorded with the spirit of their own times. For decades after Clausewitz’s death, On War
remained a respected but little-known work. However, Prussia’s victories in the German Wars of
Unification - orchestrated by a self-declared disciple of Clausewitz, Chief of Staff Helmuth von
Moltke - made Clausewitz the most celebrated strategic authority by the late 19th century. It was
Clausewitz’s emphasis on morale, concentration of force, the decisive battle, and the complete
overthrow of the enemy that were highlighted in the intellectual climate of that time. However,
once disillusionment with total war had set in after the two world wars of the 20th century, and
with the advent of nuclear weapons, interpretations completely reversed themselves. Strategic
thinkers of the nuclear age now picked up the ideas found in the later stage of Clausewitz’s work
regarding limited war and the careful political direction of war. A Clausewitz renaissance in
academia and the armed forces throughout the West ensued. In the communist camp as well following Vladimir Lenin’s perusal of Clausewitz’s work during World War I…”362
182
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The French Army (1789-1914): During the Napoleonic Wars, France was at the zenith of
her power. “The Napoleonic Era saw French power and influence reach immense heights, even
though the period of domination was relatively brief. In the century and a half preceding the
Revolutionary Era, France had transformed demographic leverage to military and political weight;
the French population was 19 million in 1700, but this had grown to over 29 million in 1800, much
higher than that of most other European powers. These numbers permitted France to raise armies
at a rapid pace should the need arise. Furthermore, military innovations carried out during the
Revolution and the Consulate, evidenced by improvements in artillery and cavalry capabilities on
top of better army and staff organization, gave the French army a decisive advantage in the initial
stages of the Napoleonic Wars. Another ingredient of success was Napoleon Bonaparte himself intelligent, charismatic, and a military genius, Napoleon absorbed the latest military theories of
the day and applied them in the battlefield with deadly effect. Napoleon inherited an army that
was based on conscription and used huge masses of poorly trained troops, which could usually be
readily replaced. By 1805 the French Army was a truly lethal force, with many in its ranks veterans
of the French Revolutionary Wars. Two years of constant drilling for an invasion of England
helped to build a well-trained, well-led army. The Imperial Guard served as an example for the
rest of the army and consisted of Napoleon's best handpicked soldiers. Napoleon's huge losses
suffered during the disastrous Russian campaign would have destroyed any professional
commander of the day, but those losses were quickly replaced with new draftees. After Napoleon,
nations planned for huge armies with professional leadership and a constant supply of new
soldiers, which had huge human costs when improved weapons like the rifled musket replaced the
inaccurate muskets of Napoleon's day during the American Civil War.”363
“This large size came at a cost, as the logistics of feeding a huge army made them especially
dependent on supplies. Most armies of the day relied on the supply-convoy system established
during the Thirty Years' War by Gustavus Adolphus. This limited mobility, since the soldiers had
to wait for the convoys, but it did keep possibly mutinous troops from deserting, and thus helped
preserve an army's composure. However, Napoleon's armies were so large that feeding them using
the old method proved ineffective, and consequently, French troops were allowed to live off the
land. Infused with new concepts of nation and service. Napoleon often attempted to wage decisive,
quick campaigns so that he could allow his men to live off the land. The French army did use a
convoy system, but it was stocked with very few days-worth of food; Napoleon's troops were
expected to march quickly, effect a decision on the battlefield, then disperse to feed. For the
Russian campaign, the French did store 24 days' worth of food before beginning active operations,
but this campaign was the exception, not the rule. Napoleon's biggest influence in the military
sphere was in the conduct of warfare. Weapons and technology remained largely static through
the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras, but 18th-century operational strategy underwent massive
restructuring. Sieges became infrequent to the point of near-irrelevance, a new emphasis arose
towards the destruction of enemy armies as well as their outmaneuvering, and invasions of enemy
territory occurred over broader fronts, thus introducing a plethora of strategic opportunities that
made wars costlier and, just as importantly, more decisive. Defeat for a European power now
meant much more than losing isolated enclaves. Near-Carthaginian treaties intertwined whole
national efforts—social, political, economic, and militaristic - into gargantuan collisions that
severely upset international conventions as understood at the time. Napoleon's initial success
sowed the seeds for his downfall. Not used to such catastrophic defeats in the rigid power system
of 18th-century Europe, many nations found existence under the French yoke difficult, sparking
revolts, wars, and general instability that plagued the continent until 1815, when the forces of
reaction finally triumphed at the Battle of Waterloo.”364
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
183
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
French Colonial Empire: “The history of French colonial imperialism can be divided in two
major eras: the first from the early 17th century to the middle of the 18th century, and the second
from the early 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. In the first phase of expansion,
France concentrated its efforts mainly in North America, the Caribbean and India, setting up
commercial ventures that were backed by military force. Following defeat in the Seven Years'
War, France lost its possessions in North America and India, but it did manage to keep the wealthy
Caribbean islands of Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. The second stage began with
the conquest of Algeria in 1830, then with the establishment of French Indochina (covering
modern Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) and a string of military victories in the Scramble for
Africa, where it established control over regions covering much of West Africa, Central Africa
and Maghreb. In 1914 France had an empire stretching over 13,000,000 km² (6,000,000 mile²) of
land and about 110 million people. Following victory in World War I, Togo and most of Cameroon
were also added to the French possessions, and Syria and Lebanon became French mandates. For
most of the period from 1870 to 1945, France was territorially the third largest nation on Earth,
after Britain and Russia (later the Soviet Union), and had the most overseas possessions following
Britain. Following the Second World War, France struggled to preserve French territories but
wound up losing the First Indochina War (the precursor to the Vietnam War) and granting
independence to Algeria after a long war. Today, France still maintains a number of overseas
territories, but their collective size is barely a shadow of the old French colonial empire.”365
French Wars during 1815-1914: “After the exile of Napoleon, the freshly restored Bourbon
monarchy helped the absolute Bourbon king of Spain to recover his throne during the French
intervention in Spain. To restore the prestige of the French monarchy, disputed by the Revolution
and the First Empire, Charles X engaged in the military conquest of Algeria in 1830. This marked
the beginning of a new expansion of the French colonial empire throughout the 19th century. In
that century, France remained a major force in continental affairs. After the July Revolution, the
liberal king Louis Philippe I victoriously supported the Spanish and Belgian liberals. The French
later inflicted a defeat on the Habsburgs in the Franco-Austrian War of 1859, a victory which led
to the unification of Italy in 1861, after having triumphed over Russia with other allies in the
Crimean War. Detrimentally, however, the French army emerged from these victories in an
overconfident and complacent state. France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War led to the loss of
Alsace-Lorraine and the creation of a united German Empire, both results representing major
failures in long-term French foreign policy and sparking a vengeful, nationalist revanchism meant
to earn back former territories. The Dreyfus Affair, however, mitigated these nationalist tendencies
by prompting public skepticism about the competence of the military.”366
“The 18th century saw the beginning of the Royal Navy's domination, which managed to
inflict a number of significant defeats on the French. However, in a very impressive effort, a
French fleet under de Grasse managed to defeat a British fleet at the Battle of the Chesapeake in
1781, ensuring that the Franco-American ground forces would win the ongoing Siege of
Yorktown. Beyond that, and Suffren's impressive campaigns against the British in India, there was
not much more good news. The French Revolution all but crippled the French Navy, and efforts
to make it into a powerful force under Napoleon were dashed at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805,
where the British all but annihilated a combined Franco-Spanish fleet. The disaster guaranteed
British naval domination until the end of the Napoleonic wars. Later in the 19th century, the navy
recovered and became the second finest in the world after the Royal Navy. It conducted a
successful blockade of Mexico in the Pastry War of 1838 and obliterated the Chinese navy at the
Battle of Foochow in 1884. It also served as an effective link between the growing parts of the
French empire.”367 The French Navy performed well during World War I.
184
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) was a Swiss officer who served as a general in the
French Army and later in the Russian service, and one of the most celebrated writer on the
Napoleonic art of war. His ideas were taught at military academies like West Point at his time. In
1795 Jomini left school and went to work at the banking house of local, and moved to Paris, but
decided to become a military officer. In 1878 he joined Swiss army, becoming a secretary for the
Minister of War with the rank of captain. After the conclusion of the second Italian campaign of
1801, Jomini returned to Paris, where he worked for a military equipment manufacturer, but he
was interested in the conduct of war, writing his first book on military theory: Treatise on Major
Military Operations, a weighty study of Frederick the Great and his campaigns, that was published
in 1803, and quickly translated and circulated throughout Europe.
The following year he volunteered once more as a staff officer in the French Army. “Jomini
served in the 1805 campaign as Ney's staff. “Jomini fought with Ney at the Battle of Ulm and in
December of that year, he was offered a commission as a colonel in the French Army. In 1806,
Jomini published his views as to the conduct of the impending war with Prussia. That, along with
his knowledge of Frederick the Great's campaigns, which Jomini had described in the Traité, led
Napoleon to attach him to his own headquarters. Jomini was present with Napoleon at the Battle
of Jena and at the Battle of Eylau, where he won the cross of the Legion of Honor. After the Peace
of Tilsit, Jomini was made chief of the staff to Ney and created a baron. In the Spanish campaign
of 1808 his advice was often of the highest value to the marshal, but Jomini quarreled with his
chief, and he was left almost at the mercy of his numerous enemies.” 368 Jomini fell out with
Berthier, Napoleon’s chief of staff. Not losing his services, Napoleon assigned Jomini to Paris
with the task of writing a history of his Italian campaigns. “He brought him back in time for the
invasion of Russia, during which Jomini served as governor of Vilna and then Smolensk. He was
then reassigned to Ney’s corps, being appointed chief of staff for the 1813 campaign in Germany.
Once again Jomini clashed with Berthier. This time, Berthier blocked Ney’s recommendation that
his chief of staff be promoted to General of Division and tried to have Jomini arrested on the
grounds that he had been late in submitting some reports. Exasperated, Jomini changed sides,
taking a commission in the Russian Army in tie for the 1814 campaign. He remained in the
Russian service after the final demise of Napoleon.”369 In 1815, he was with Tsar Alexander in
Paris, and attempted in vain to save the life of his old commander Ney.
“After several years of retirement and literary work, Jomini resumed his post in the Russian
army, and in about 1823, he was made a full general. Until his retirement in 1829 he was
principally employed in the military education of the Tsarevich Nicholas (afterwards Emperor)
and in the organization of the Russian staff college, which was established in 1832 and bore its
original name of the Nicholas Academy up to the October Revolution of 1917. In 1828 he was
employed in the field in the Russo-Turkish War, and at the Siege of Varna he was awarded the
Grand Cordon of the Alexander Order. That was his last active service. In 1829, he settled in
Brussels, which served as his main place of residence for the next thirty years. In 1853, after trying
without success to bring about a political understanding between France and Russia, Jomini was
called to St Petersburg to act as a military adviser to the Tsar during the Crimean War. He returned
to Brussels upon the conclusion of peace in 1856. Later, he settled at Passy near Paris. He was
busily employed up to the end of his life in writing treatises, pamphlets and open letters on subjects
of military art and history. In 1859, he was asked by Napoleon III to furnish a plan of campaign
for the Italian War. One of his last essays dealt with the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the
influence of the breech-loading rifle.”370 Much of his time in Russia was spent in trying to improve
the intellect of the military mind. The Art of War of 1838 primarily encompasses the campaigns
of Frederick the Great, the Revolutionary wars of the 1790s, and Napoleon’s campaigns.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
185
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Art of War consists of six distinct parts: statesmanship in its relations to war, strategy or
the art of properly directing masses upon the theatre of war, grand tactics, logistics or the art of
moving armies, engineering – the attack and defense of fortifications, and minor tactics. (I)
Statesmanship in its relation to war: Different type of wars need to be fought in differing fashions.
“Jomini issues warnings about paying proper attention to the general diplomatic situation and to
international opinion; public opinion is not ignored…An accurate assessment of popular opinion
in enemy states is vital in evaluating the level of opposition that can be expected during war.” (II)
Military policy: Jomini emphasizes the importance of good intelligence or military statistics.
“Accurate knowledge of the geography, demographics, and military strength of an opponent are
obviously necessary in order to prosecute a war successfully, but such information has often been
ignored by general and policymakers” as shown of Napoleon III in the Franco-Prussian War. (III)
Strategy: Jomini proposes one great principle underlying all the operations of war. “It is embraced
in the following maxims: 1. To throw by strategic movement, the mass of an army, successively,
upon the decisive points of a theater of war, and also upon the communications of the enemy as
much as possible without compromising one’s own. 2. To maneuver to engage fractions of the
hostile army with the bulk of one’s forces. 3. On the battle-field, to throw the mass of the forces
upon the decisive point, or upon that portion of the hostile line which it is of the first importance
to overthrow. 4. To so arrange that these masses shall not only be thrown upon the decisive point,
but that they shall engage at the proper times and with energy. Jomini then states that the rest of
the chapter will reveal the proper combinations necessary to apply these principles.”371
(IV) Grand tactics and battles: The tactical combinations are made by the commander in chief
of an army. “Jomini is quite comprehensive in his description of the various formations an
experienced 19th century commander would have in his bag of tricks; a separate article deals with
the problems associated with tactical turning maneuvers. The primary emphasis in this chapter is
given over to the offensive side of the field, as obviously a defensive general is most likely reacting
to what his opponent is doing. Jomini, however, is careful to emphasize that a defense should
never remain entirely passive, but at some point should attempt to wrest the initiative away from
his attacker. The weakest part of this chapter is the short section on surprise. Jomini seemed to
think that, since surprise was an unreliable although desirable element in war, he could not wholeheartedly recommend trying to surprise an opponent. He was so determined to eliminate chaos
and confusion from the battlefield that he neglected to see how a general could put surprise to use
as an ally.” (V) Several mixed operations: This chapter deals with operations lying somewhere
between the strategic and the tactical – a scale the 20th century has termed operational. “Article on
retreats and pursuits would have been of particular use to a field commander as the military mind
tends to shy away from the idea of defeat, and so is least prepared and least practiced in the art of
retreat. A successful retreat can mitigate a disaster, while a poorly conducted retreat can turn a
minor setback into a calamity. This article at least forces generals to confront failure, giving them
responses to minimize the long-term damage of a lost battle.” (VI) Logistics or the practical art of
moving armies: Arranging marches, drawing up orders and itineraries, directing reconnaissance,
coordinating subordinate units, and supplying an army all fall under logistics. This chapter is
short, with only two articles, but provides an excellent overview of what was expected of an early
19th century staff officer. (VII) The formation of troops for battle: “The description of various
formations a general might employ in his divisions is of great use to anyone struggling to
understand the differences between the standard formations used in the Napoleonic age and the
benefits that a particular formation would have give its commander.” In sum, after the Prussian
victory in the Franco-Prussian War, the military world began looking to Germany as the epitome:
“Germany was in, and France was out; Clausewitz was in, and Jomini was out.”372
186
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Royal Navy of Great Britain (1789-1914): The Royal Navy, in 1707, became the naval
force of the United Kingdom of Great Britain after the Union between England and Scotland which
merged the English navy with the much smaller Royal Scots Navy. “Before the creation of the
Royal Navy, the English navy had no defined moment of formation; it started out as a motley
assortment of King's ships during the Middle Ages assembled only as needed and then dispersed,
began to take shape as a standing navy during the 16th century, and became a regular establishment
during the tumults of the 17th century. The Navy grew considerably during the global struggle
with France that started in 1690 and culminated in the Napoleonic Wars, a time when the practice
of fighting under sail was developed to its highest point. The ensuing century of general peace
saw considerable technological development, with sail yielding to steam and cannon supplanted
by large shell-firing guns, and ending with the race to construct bigger and better battleships. That
race, however, was ultimately a dead end, as aircraft carriers and submarines came to the fore and,
after the successes of World War II, the Royal Navy yielded its formerly preeminent place to the
United States Navy. The Royal Navy has remained one of the world's most capable navies,
however, and currently operates a fleet of modern ships.” 373
(a) French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1793-1815): “The French Revolutionary
Wars of 1793–1802 and the Napoleonic Wars of 1803–15 saw the Royal Navy reach a peak of
efficiency, dominating the navies of all Britain's adversaries. Initially Britain did not involve itself
in the French Revolution, but in 1793 France declared war, leading to the Glorious First of June
battle in the following year off Brest, followed by the capture of French colonies in the Caribbean.
The Dutch Republic declared war in 1795 and Spain in 1796, on the side of France. Further action
came in 1797 and 1798, with the battles of Cape St Vincent and the Nile, which brought Admiral
Horatio Nelson to the public's attention. It was one of the most decisive battles ever fought and
caused Napoleon to withdraw from Egypt. In 1800 Russia, Sweden and Denmark agreed to resist
British warships searching neutral shipping for French goods and in 1801 the Danes closed their
ports to British shipping. This caused Britain to attack ships and the fort at the Battle of
Copenhagen. The Peace of Amiens in 1802 proved to be but a brief interruption in the years of
warfare, and the Navy was soon blockading Napoleon's France.”374
In 1805 French invasion forces were massed on the French coast with 2,300 vessels. The
French fleet at Toulon went to the West Indies where it was intended to meet the Spanish one but
it was chased by the British fleet and returned without meeting up. After fighting an action off
Finisterre the French fleet withdrew to Cadiz where it met up with the Spanish one. The height of
the Navy's achievements came on 21 October 1805 at the Battle of Trafalgar where a numerically
smaller but more experienced British fleet under the command of Admiral Lord Nelson decisively
defeated the combined French and Spanish fleet. The victory at Trafalgar consolidated the United
Kingdom's advantage over other European maritime powers. By concentrating its military
resources in the navy, Britain could both defend itself and project its power across the oceans as
well as threaten rivals' ocean trading routes. Britain therefore needed to maintain only a relatively
small, highly mobile, professional army that sailed to where it was needed, and was supported by
the navy with bombardment, movement, supplies and reinforcement. The Navy could cut off
enemies' sea-borne supplies, as with Napoleon's army in Egypt. Other major European powers had
to divide their resources between large navies, large armies, and fortifications to defend their land
frontiers. The domination of the sea therefore allowed Britain to rapidly build its empire after the
Seven Years' War (1756–1763) and throughout the 19th century, giving it enormous military,
political and commercial advantages…British captains were responsible for recruiting their ship’s
crew from a combination of volunteers, impressment and the requisitioning of existing crew
members from ships in ordinary.” Many nationalities served on British ships.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
187
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(b) American War of 1812-16: “In the years following the battle of Trafalgar there was
increasing tension at sea between Britain and the United States. American traders took advantage
of their country's neutrality to trade with both the French-controlled parts of Europe, and Britain.
Both France and Britain tried to prevent each other's trade, but only the Royal Navy was in a
position to enforce a blockade. Another irritant was the suspected presence of British deserters
aboard US merchant and naval vessels. Royal Navy ships often attempted to recover these
deserters. In one notorious instance in 1807, otherwise known as the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair,
HMS Leopard fired on USS Chesapeake causing significant casualties before boarding and seizing
suspected British deserters. The American navy on the other hand was in no shape or condition to
forcefully claim the approximately 6,000 of its own citizens from aboard Royal Navy vessels. Of
the men taken aboard the HMS Leopard and hung, two were later found to be of American origin.”
“In 1812, while the Napoleonic wars continued, the United States declared war on the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and invaded Canada. Occupied by its death struggle with
France, British policy was to commit only sufficient forces to the American War of 1812 to prevent
American victory. On land, this meant a great reliance on militia and Native American allies. On
the water, the Royal Navy kept its large men-of-war in Europe, relying on smaller vessels to
counter the weak United States Navy. Some of the action consisted of small-scale engagements
on the Great Lakes. A key element of the war was the battle for control of the Great Lakes.
Without the support of ships to move soldiers, equipment and supplies, either side would be at a
great disadvantage, especially against an enemy who was able to make full use of the lakes. A
building contest resulted in British supremacy on Lake Ontario [source needed], and American
supremacy on Lake Erie. All of the Royal Naval vessels on Lake Erie were captured at the decisive
Battle of Lake Erie on 10 September 1813. The British Army, along with militia and Indian units,
was now cut off from supplies and retreated East-ward. They were caught and defeated at the
Battle of the Thames on 5 Oct. 1813, which gave Americans the control over western Ontario, and
destroyed the Indian alliance the British Army had depended upon. In 1814 the British Army,
bringing in veteran units from the Peninsular War, launched a major invasion of New York State
under General Sir George Prévost. However, the supporting Royal Navy vessels on Lake
Champlain were sunk by the American fleet at the Battle of Plattsburgh on 11 Sept. 1814, forcing
Prévost to retreat back to Canada despite his much larger army.”375
The Royal Navy, operating from its new base in Bermuda, gradually reinforced the blockade
of the American coast. “After British victory in the Peninsular War, part of Wellington's Light
Division was released for service in North America. This 2,500-man force, composed of
detachments from the 4, 21, 44, and 85 Regiments with some elements of artillery and sappers and
commanded by Major-General Ross, arrived in Bermuda in 1814 aboard a fleet composed of the
74-gun HMS Royal Oak, three frigates, three sloops and ten other vessels. The combined force
was to launch raids on the coastlines of Maryland and Virginia, with the aim of drawing US forces
away from the Canada–US border. In response to American actions at Lake Erie (the Burning of
York), however, Sir George Prevost requested a punitive expedition which would 'deter the enemy
from a repetition of such outrages'. The British force arrived at the Patuxent on 17 August and
landed the soldiers within 36 miles of Washington DC. Led by Rear Admiral Sir George
Cockburn, the British force drove the US government out of Washington, DC. Ross shied from
the idea of burning the City, but Cockburn and others set it alight. Buildings burned included the
US Capitol and the US President's Mansion. Between 1793 and 1815 the Royal Navy lost 344
vessels due to non-combat causes: 75 by foundering, 254 shipwrecked and 15 from accidental
burnings or explosions. In the same period it lost 103,660 seamen: 84,440 by disease and
accidents, 12,680 by shipwreck or foundering, and 6,540 by enemy action.” 376
188
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) Pax Britannica, 1815-1895: “The Napoleonic Wars left Great Britain the most powerful
naval country in the world, with no meaningful rivals. The country's economic and strategic
strength was buttressed by the fleet; localized military action was a staple of the not-entirelypeaceful Pax Britannica. In addition, the threat of naval force was a significant factor in
diplomacy. The navy was not idle however; the 19th century witnessed a series of transformations
that turned the old wooden sailing navy into one of steam and steel. After 1827 there were no
major battles until 1914. The navy was used against shore installations, such as those in the Baltic
and Black Sea in 1854 and 1855, to fight pirates; to hunt down slave ships; and to assist the army
when sailors and marines were landed as naval brigades, as on many occasions between the siege
of Sebastopol and the 1900 Boxer Rebellion. With a fleet larger than any two rivals combined, the
British nation could take security for granted, but at all times the national leaders and public
opinion supported a powerful navy, and service was of high prestige.”377
“The first action of the period was the bombardment of Algiers under Lord Exmouth,
conducted in 1816. This was to force the freeing of Christian slaves. During the Greek War of
Independence, at the Battle of Navarino (1827), the Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined
fleets of Britain, France and Russia. This was the last major action between fleets of sailing ships.
Ottoman involvement continued, with the bombardment of Acre in 1840, and additional
Mediterranean crises during the rest of the decade. Action was taken against pirates in the Levant,
Borneo and China Seas. To stop slaving, ships were boarded at sea and slaving ports raided. To
try to prevent Russia gaining access to a warm water port, the Crimean War was fought in the
1850s. Britain (in concert with the Turks and French) sent 150 transports and 13 warships and the
Russian Black Sea fleet was destroyed. The Crimean War became known as a testing ground for
the new technologies of steam and shell. It was shown that explosive shells ripped wooden hulls
to pieces, which led to the development of the iron clad ship. It also showed the need for a
permanent pool of trained seamen. There were two Anglo-French campaigns against Russia. In
the Black Sea, success at Sevastopol was paralleled by successful operations in the Baltic
including the bombardments of Bomarsund and Sveaborg.”378
The Chinese Government placed unilateral restraints on British trade with China. In 1839 a
Chinese official impounded opium from India, but the British insisted on the British Empire being
allowed to export to China and instituted a blockade of Canton, beginning the First Anglo-Chinese
War (1839–42). There was a Second Anglo-Chinese War from 1856 to 1860. In 1857 the British
captured Canton and threatened Beijing, thrown back by the Chinese in 1859 but succeeding the
following year. As a result of these actions Britain gained a base at Hong Kong in 1839 and a base
in Canton in the second war. In 1864 the bombardment of Kagoshima forced Japan to accept
foreign traders. During the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) the British sent a fleet of battleships
under Geoffrey Phipps Hornby to intimidate Russia from entering Constantinople. Over the next
thirty years, only a bombardment of Alexandria in 1882 brought the fleet into action, carried out
to ensure control of the Suez Canal… Steam power was of interest to the Royal Navy from the
beginning of the 19th century, since it neatly solved the difficult and dangerous sailing problems
encountered in estuaries and other inshore areas. It was first adopted in the Comet of 1821, and in
1824 Lightning accompanied the expedition to Algiers. Steam vessels appeared in greater numbers
through the 1830s and 1840s, all using side-mounted paddlewheels; screw propellers were
introduced in the 1830s and, after some reluctance, were adopted in the mid-1840s.”379 The Naval
Defense Act of 1889 increased the British naval strength and adopted the two-power standard, by
maintaining a number of battleships at least equal to their combined strength. This led to a new
ship building program, which authorized ten new battleships, 38 cruisers, and additional vessels.
Alfred Thayer Mahan’s books and his visit to Europe in the 1890s heightened interest more. 380
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
189
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Age of the battleship, 1895–1919: “The strategic situation changed rapidly in the mid1890s; between a Russian-French alliance, an ambitious program of German naval construction,
and both the United States and Japan expanding their spheres, Britain found herself isolated and
insecure. Both naval construction and naval strategizing became intense, prompted by the
development of torpedoes and submarines (from 1901), which challenged traditional ideas about
the power of battleships. At the same time the Dreadnought committed to the big gun only concept
and caused a shift in thinking around the world, giving Britain the undisputed lead. This ship had
ten 12 inch guns with a top speed of 21.5 knots. The British were aided in this development by
having Naval Observers aboard the Japanese fleet at the battle of Tsushima straits in 1904 where
the Japanese decisively defeated the Russian fleet. They had concluded that during an
engagement, 12 inch guns proved the most decisive, possessing the greatest range and firing
power. Homogeneous batteries had the added advantage of facilitating the more accurate salvo
firing method. Another innovative (though ultimately unsuccessful) concept was the battlecruiser,
fast and light but still hard-hitting. However, to achieve this the ship's armor was sacrificed. The
result was a potentially fatal weakness. This was exploited by the Germans at the battle of Jutland.
At the same time, there was much dispute within the Admiralty about how to operate the modern
navy, with Winston Churchill advocating various changes. The Royal Navy began developing
submarines beginning on 4 February 1901. These submarines were ordered in late 1900 and were
built by Vickers under a licensing agreement with the American Electric Boat Company. The first
British Holland No. 1 (Type 7) submarine (assembled by Vickers) was 63 feet 4 inches long. Four
other models of this type soon followed in rapid succession and entered the fleet.”381
“Major reforms of the British fleet were undertaken, particularly by Admiral Jackie Fisher as
First Sea Lord from 1904 to 1909. During this period, 154 obsolete ships, including 17 battleships,
were scrapped to make way for newer vessels. Reforms in training and gunnery were introduced
to make good perceived deficiencies, which in part Tirpitz had counted upon to provide his ships
with a margin of superiority. Changes in British foreign policy, such as The Great Rapprochement
with the United States, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and the Entente Cordiale with France allowed
the fleet to be concentrated in home waters. By 1906 the Royal Navy's only likely opponent was
the Imperial German Navy. Also, around this time, an important new development was under way.
It was the steam turbine, invented by Charles Parsons, demonstrated by the Turbinia in 1899.
Rosyth Royal Dockyard was opened in 1909. In 1910, the existing Naval Intelligence Division
(NID) was shorn of its responsibility for war planning and strategy. Outgoing First Sea Lord Fisher
created the so-called Navy War Council as a stop-gap remedy to criticisms emanating from the
Beresford Inquiry that the Navy needed a naval staff—a role the NID had been in fact fulfilling
since at least 1900, if not earlier. Some countries from within the British Empire started
developing their own navies. In 1911 the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy
came into being. In 1941 the New Zealand Division became the Royal New Zealand Navy. All
these reforms and innovations of course required a large increase in funding. Between 1900 and
1913 the Naval Estimates nearly doubled to total £44,000,000. This was over half the total defence
budget of £74,000,000 (£6.57 billion in 2016).”382
“During the two World Wars the Royal Navy played a vital role in keeping the United
Kingdom supplied with food, arms and raw materials and in defeating the German campaigns of
unrestricted submarine warfare against Allied commerce. The navy also took part in many other
operations right across the globe, opposing the Italian and Japanese fleets. The accumulated
tensions in international relations finally broke out into the hostilities of World War I. From the
naval point of view, it was time for the massed fleets to prove themselves, but caution and
maneuvering resulted in only a few minor engagements at sea.”383
190
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Imperial Russian Army (1800-1917): (a) French Invasion of Russia (1812): “In 1812,
Napoleon invaded Russia to compel Emperor Alexander I to remain in the Continental System
and to remove the imminent threat of Russian invasion of Poland. The Grande Armée, 650,000
men (270,000 Frenchmen and many soldiers of allies or subject powers), crossed the Niemen
River on 23 June 1812. Russia proclaimed a Patriotic War, while Napoleon proclaimed a Second
Polish war, but against the expectations of the Poles who supplied almost 100,000 troops for the
invasion force he avoided any concessions toward Poland, having in mind further negotiations
with Russia. Russia maintained a scorched earth policy of retreat, broken only by the battle of
Borodino on 7 September, when the Russians stood and fought. This was bloody and the Russians
eventually retreated, opening the road to Moscow. Field Marshal Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov
made the decision in order to preserve the army. By 14 September, the French captured Moscow.
The Russian governor Prince Rastopchin ordered the city burnt to the ground and large parts of it
were destroyed. Alexander I refused to capitulate, and with no sign of clear victory in sight,
Napoleon was forced to withdraw from Moscow's ruins. So the disastrous Great Retreat began,
with 370,000 casualties largely as a result of starvation and the freezing weather conditions, and
200,000 captured. Napoleon narrowly escaped total annihilation at the Battle of Berezina, but his
army was wrecked nevertheless. By December only 20,000 fit soldiers from the main army were
among those who recrossed the Nieman at Kaunas (Kovno). By this time Napoleon had abandoned
his army to return to Paris and prepare a defence against the advancing Russians.”384
(b) The 1813 Campaign in Germany: “As the French retreated, the Russians pursued them
into Poland and Prussia, causing the Prussian Corps under Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg that
had been formerly a part of the Grande Armée to ultimately change sides in the Convention of
Tauroggen. This soon forced Prussia to declare war on France, and with its mobilisation, for many
Prussian officers serving in the Russian Army to leave, creating a serious shortage of experienced
officers in the Russian Army. After the death of Kutuzov in early 1813, command of the Russian
army passed to Peter Wittgenstein. The campaign was noted for the number of sieges the Russian
Army conducted and the large number of Narodnoe Opolcheniye that continued to serve in its
ranks until newly trained recruits could reach the area of combat operations. Aleksey Petrovich
Yermolov emerged as one of the leading and talented senior commanders of the Army,
participating in many important battles, including the Battle of Leipzig. In 1813 Russia gained
territory in the Baku area of the Caucasus from Persia as much due to the news of Napoleon's
defeat in 1812 as the fear by the Shah of a new campaign against him by the resurgent Russian
Army where the 1810 campaign led by Platov failed. This was immediately used to raise new
regiments, and to begin creating a greater foothold in the Caucasus. By the early 19th century, the
empire also was firmly ensconced in Alaska reached via Cossack expeditions to Siberia, although
only a rudimentary military presence was possible due to the distance from Europe.” 385
(c) The 1814 Campaign in France: “The campaign in France was marked by persistent
advances made by the Russian-led forces towards Paris despite attempts by Alexander's allies to
allow Napoleon an avenue for surrender. In a brilliant deceptive maneuver, Alexander was able to
reach, and take Paris with the help of the treason of Marshal Marmont before Napoleon could
reinforce its garrison, effectively ending the campaign. More pragmatically, in 1814 Russia,
Britain, Austria, and Prussia had formed the Quadruple Alliance. The allies created an international system to maintain the territorial status quo and prevent the resurgence of an expansionist
France. This included each ally maintaining a corps of occupation in France. The Quadruple
Alliance, confirmed by a number of international conferences, ensured Russia's influence in
Europe, if only because of the proven capability of its Army to defeat that of Napoleon, and to
carry the war to Paris. After the allies defeated Napoleon, Alexander played a prominent role in
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
191
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
the redrawing of the map of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Many of the prominent
Russian commanders were feted in the European capitals, including London. In the same year,
under the influence of religious mysticism, Alexander initiated the creation of the Holy Alliance…
to act according to Christian principles. This emerged in part due to the influence religion had
played in the Army during the war of 1812, and its influence on the common soldiers and officers
alike. The Russian occupation forces in France…re-entered combat against the minor French
forces in the East and occupied several important fortresses.”386
(d) Cossacks: “In the Russian Empire, the Cossacks were organized into several voiskos
(hosts), named after the regions of their location, whether along the Russian border, or internal
borders between Russian and non-Russian peoples. Each host had its own leadership and traditions
as well as uniforms and ranks. However, by the late 19th century, the latter were standardized
following the example of the Imperial Russian Army. Each host was required to provide a number
of regiments for service in the Imperial Russian Army and for border patrol work. While most
Cossacks served as cavalry, there were infantry and artillery units in several of the larger hosts.
Three regiments of Cossacks formed part of the Imperial Guard, as well as the konvoi - the tsar's
mounted escort. The Imperial Guard regiments wore tailored government-issue uniforms of a
spectacular and colourful appearance. As an example, the Konvoi wore scarlet cherkesskas, white
beshmets and red crowns on their fleece hats.”387
(e) Reforms: “After the Russian defeat in the Crimean War during the reign of Alexander II,
the Minister of War, Count Dmitry Milyutin (posted in 1861-81) introduced military reforms. The
reforms carried on during Milyutin's long tenure abolished the system of conscription of children,
and resulted in the levy system being introduced in Russia and military districts being created
across the country. As part of Milyutin's reforms, on 1 January 1874, the Tsar approved a
conscription statute that made military service compulsory for all 20-year-old males with the term
reduced for land army to six years plus nine years in reserve. This conscription created a large
pool of experienced military reservists who would be ready to mobilize in case of war. It also
permitted the Russian Empire to maintain a smaller standing army in peace time. Ironically, this
reform was a disaster for the Tsarist regime. By reducing the length of service, peasant elders and
officials could no longer threaten radical youths with conscription. Soldiers now kept their peasant
identities and many learned new skills and became literate. They radicalised the villages on their
return. The system of military education was also reformed, and elementary education was made
available to all the draftees. Milyutin's reforms are regarded as a milestone in the history of Russia:
they dispensed with the military recruitment and professional army introduced by Peter the Great
and created the Russian army such as it continued into the 21st century. Up to Dmitry Milyutin's
reforms in 1874 the Russian Army had no permanent barracks and was billeted in dugouts and
shacks. The Army saw service against the Turks during the Russo-Turkish War. During the Boxer
Rebellion 100,000 Russian troops fought to pacify part of Manchuria and to secure its railroads.
Some Russian military forces were already stationed in China before the war, and one of them met
a grotesque end at the Battle of Pai-t'ou-tzu when the dead Russians were mutilated by Chinese
troops, who decapitated them and sliced crosses into their bodies. Other battles fought include
Boxers attacks on Chinese Eastern Railway, Defence of Yingkou, Battles on Amur River, and the
Russian Invasion of Northern and Central Manchuria. The army's share of the budget fell from
30% to 18% in 1881–1902. By 1904 Russia was spending 57% and 63% of what Germany and
Austria-Hungary were spending on each soldier, respectively. Army morale was broken by
crushing over 1500 protests from 1883 to 1903. The Army was defeated by Japan during the
Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, notable engagements being the Siege of Port Arthur and the
Battle of Mukden. There were over 400 mutinies from autumn 1905 to summer 1906.”388
192
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The United States Army and Navy (1800-1914): (a) War of 1812: “With Britain locked in
a major war with Napoleon's France, its policy was to block American shipments to France. The
United States sought to remain neutral while pursuing overseas trade. Britain cut the trade and
impressed seamen on American ships into the Royal Navy, despite intense protests. Britain
supported an Indian insurrection in the American Midwest, with the goal of creating an Indian
state there that would block American expansion. The United States finally declared war on the
United Kingdom in 1812…Not hopeful of defeating the Royal Navy, the U.S. attacked the British
Empire by invading British Canada, hoping to use captured territory as a bargaining chip. The
invasion of Canada was a debacle, though concurrent wars with Native Americans on the western
front were more successful. After defeating Napoleon in 1814, Britain sent large veteran armies
to invade New York, raid Washington and capture the key control of the Mississippi River at New
Orleans. The New York invasion was a fiasco after the much larger British army retreated to
Canada. The raiders succeeded in the burning of Washington on 25 August 1814, but were
repulsed in their Chesapeake Bay Campaign at the Battle of Baltimore and the British commander
killed. The major invasion in Louisiana was stopped by a one-sided military battle that killed the
top three British generals and thousands of soldiers. The winners were the commanding general
of the Battle of New Orleans, Major General Andrew Jackson, who became president and the
Americans who basked in a victory over a much more powerful nation. The peace treaty proved
successful, and the U.S. and Britain never again went to war. The losers were the Indians, who
never gained the independent territory in the Midwest promised by Britain.”389
(b) War with Mexico (1846-48): “With the rapid expansion of the farming population,
Democrats looked to the west for new lands, an idea which became known as "Manifest Destiny."
In the Texas Revolution (1835-36), the settlers declared independence and defeated the Mexican
army, but Mexico was determined to reconquer the lost province and threatened war with the U.S.
if it annexed Texas. The U.S., much larger and more powerful, did annex Texas in 1845 and war
broke out in 1846 over boundary issues. In the Mexican–American War 1846–48, the U.S. Army
under Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott and others, invaded and after a series of
victorious battles seized New Mexico and California, and also blockaded the coast, invaded
northern Mexico, and invaded central Mexico, capturing the national capital. The peace terms
involved American purchase of the area from California to New Mexico for $10 million.” 390
(c) American Civil War (1861-65): “Sectional tensions had long existed between the states
located north of the Mason–Dixon line and those south of it, primarily centered on the "peculiar
institution" of slavery and the ability of states to overrule the decisions of the national government.
During the 1840s and 1850s, conflicts between the two sides became progressively more violent.
After the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 (who southerners thought would work to end
slavery) states in the South seceded from the United States, beginning with South Carolina in late
1860. On April 12, 1861, forces of the South (known as the Confederate States of America or
simply the Confederacy) opened fire on Fort Sumter, whose garrison was loyal to the Union. The
American Civil War caught both sides unprepared. The Confederacy hoped to win by getting
Britain and France to intervene, or else by wearing down the North's willingness to fight. The U.S.
sought a quick victory focused on capturing the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia. The
Confederates under Robert E. Lee tenaciously defended their capital until the very end. The war
spilled across the continent, and even to the high seas. Most of the material and personnel of the
South were used up, while the North prospered. The American Civil War is sometimes called the
first modern war due to the mobilization of the civilian base. It also is characterized by many
technical innovations involving railroads, telegraphs, rifles, trench warfare, and ironclad warships
with turret guns.”391 The three imperial wars followed in the Post-Civil War era (1917-1917).
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
193
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(d) Post-Civil War Era: Indian Wars (1865-91): “After the Civil War, population expansion,
railroad construction, and the disappearance of the buffalo herds heightened military tensions on
the Great Plains. Several tribes, especially the Sioux and Comanche, fiercely resisted confinement
to reservations. The main role of the Army was to keep indigenous peoples on reservations and to
end their wars against settlers and each other, William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan
were in charge. A famous victory for the Plains Nations was the Battle of the Little Big Horn in
1876, when Col. George Armstrong Custer and two hundred plus members of the 7th Cavalry
were killed by a force consisting of Native Americans from the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and
Arapaho nations. The last significant conflict came in 1891.”
Spanish-America War (1898): “The Spanish–American War was a short decisive war marked
by quick, overwhelming American victories at sea and on land against Spain. The Navy was wellprepared and won laurels, even as politicians tried (and failed) to have it redeployed to defend
East Coast cities against potential threats from the feeble Spanish fleet.[24] The Army performed
well in combat in Cuba. However, it was too oriented to small posts in the West and not as wellprepared for an overseas conflict.[25] It relied on volunteers and state militia units, which faced
logistical, training and food problems in the staging areas in Florida.[26] The United States freed
Cuba (after an occupation by the U.S. Army). By the peace treaty Spain ceded to the United States
its colonies of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.[27] The Navy set up coaling stations there
and in Hawaii (which voluntarily joined the U.S. in 1898). The U.S. Navy now had a major
forward presence across the Pacific and (with the lease of Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba)
a major base in the Caribbean guarding the approaches to the Gulf Coast and the Panama Canal.
Philippine-American War (1899-1902) was an armed conflict between a group of Filipino
revolutionaries and the American forces following the ceding of the Philippines to the United
States after the defeat of Spanish forces in the Battle of Manila. The Army sent in 100,000 soldiers
(mostly from the National Guard) under General Elwell Otis. Defeated in the field and losing its
capital in March 1899, the poorly armed and poorly led rebels broke into armed bands. The
insurgency collapsed in March 1901 when the leader Emilio Aguinaldo was captured by General
Frederick Funston and his Macabebe allies. Casualties included 1,037 Americans killed in action
and 3,340 who died from disease; 20,000 rebels were killed.”
(e) Modernization: “The Navy was modernized in the 1880s, and by the 1890s had adopted
the naval power strategy of Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan—as indeed did every major navy. The
old sailing ships were replaced by modern steel battleships, bringing them in line with the navies
of Britain and Germany. In 1907, most of the Navy's battleships, with several support vessels,
dubbed the Great White Fleet, were featured in a 14-month circumnavigation of the world.
Ordered by President Theodore Roosevelt, it was a mission designed to demonstrate the Navy's
capability to extend to the global theater. Secretary of War Elihu Root (1899–1904) led the
modernization of the Army. His goal of a uniformed chief of staff as general manager and a
European-type general staff for planning was stymied by General Nelson A. Miles but did succeed
in enlarging West Point and establishing the U.S. Army War College as well as the General Staff.
Root changed the procedures for promotions and organized schools for the special branches of the
service. He also devised the principle of rotating officers from staff to line. Root was concerned
about the Army's role in governing the new territories acquired in 1898 and worked out the
procedures for turning Cuba over to the Cubans, and wrote the charter of government for the
Philippines. Rear Admiral Bradley A. Fiske was at the vanguard of new technology in naval guns
and gunnery, thanks to his innovations in fire control 1890–1910. He immediately grasped the
potential for air power, and called for the development of a torpedo plane. Fiske…proposed a
radical reorganization of the Navy to make it a war-fighting instrument.”392
194
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(f) Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) was a United States Navy admiral, geo-strategist, and
historian. His concept of sea power was based on the idea that countries with greater naval power
will have greater worldwide impact. Mahan studies at the Columbia for two years, but transferred
to the Naval Academy, where he graduated in 1859. Commissioned as a lieutenant in 1861, Mahan
served the Union in the American Civil War as an officer on warships, and was promoted Captain
in 1885. As commander of the USS Wachusett, he was stationed at Callao, Peru, protecting US
interest during the final stages of the War of the Pacific. In 1885, he was appointed as lecturer in
naval history and tactics at the Naval War College, and remained in researching and writing his
lectures, until he retired from the Navy in 1896. “Mahan plunged into the library and wrote
lectures that drew heavily on standard classics and the ideas of Jomini. The lectures became his
sea-power studies: The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (1890); The Influence of
Sea Power upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793–1812 (2 vols., 1892); and Sea Power
in Relation to the War of 1812 (2 vols., 1905). The Life of Nelson: The Embodiment of the Sea
Power of Great Britain (2 vols., 1897) supplemented the series.”393
Mahan's strategic views were shaped “by the 17th-century conflicts between the Dutch
Republic, England, France and Spain, and by the nineteenth-century naval wars between France
and Great Britain, and British naval superiority eventually defeated France, consistently
preventing invasion and blockade. To a modern reader, the emphasis on controlling seaborne
commerce is common-place, but in the 19th century, the notion was radical, especially in a nation
entirely obsessed with expansion on to the continent's western land. On the other hand, Mahan's
emphasis of sea power as the crucial fact behind Britain's ascension neglected the welldocumented roles of diplomacy and armies. Mahan's theories could not explain the success of
terrestrial empires, such as Bismarckian Germany. In the context of his time, Mahan backed a
revival of Manifest Destiny through overseas imperialism. He held that sea power would require
the United States to acquire defensive bases in the Caribbean and Pacific as well as take possession
of Hawaii. That came while the United States was launching a major shipbuilding program to
move it to the third place among worldwide naval powers by 1900.”394
See Power: “Mahan used history as a stock of lessons to be learned, more exactly, as a pool
of examples that exemplified his theories. Mahan believed that national greatness was inextricably
associated with the sea, with its commercial usage in peace and its control in war. His goal was to
discover the laws of history that determined who controlled the seas. His theoretical framework
came from Antoine-Henri Jomini, with an emphasis on strategic locations (such as chokepoints,
canals, and coaling stations), as well as quantifiable levels of fighting power in a fleet. The
primary mission of a navy was to secure the command of the sea. That not only permitted the
maintenance of sea communications for one's own ships while denying their use to the enemy but
also, if necessary, provided the means for close supervision of neutral trade. That control of the
sea could be achieved not by destruction of commerce but only by destroying or neutralizing the
enemy fleet. That called for concentration of naval forces composed of capital ships, not too large
but numerous, well-manned with crews thoroughly trained, operating under the principle that the
best defense is an aggressive offense. Mahan contended that with a command of the sea, even if
local and temporary, naval operations in support of land forces can be of decisive importance and
that naval supremacy can be exercised by a transnational consortium acting in defense of a
multinational system of free trade. His theories, written before the submarine became a factor in
warfare against shipping, delayed the introduction of convoys as a defense against German Uboats in World War I. By the 1930s, the US Navy was building long-range submarines to raid
Japanese shipping, but the Japanese, still tied to Mahan, designed their submarines as ancillaries
to the fleet and failed to attack American supply lines in the Pacific in World War II.”395
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
195
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
“Mahan argued that radical technological change does not eliminate uncertainty from the
conduct of war and so a rigorous study of history should be the basis of naval officer education.
Sumida (2000) argues Mahan believed, firstly, that good political and naval leadership was no less
important than geography when it came to the development of sea power. Secondly, his unit of
political analysis insofar as sea power was concerned was a transnational consortium, rather than
the single nation state. Thirdly, his economic ideal was free trade rather than autarchy. Fourthly,
his recognition of the influence of geography on strategy was tempered by a strong appreciation
of the power of contingency to affect outcomes. Mahan prepared a secret contingency plan of 1890
if war should break out between Britain and the US. Mahan concluded that the British would
attempt to blockade the eastern ports so the US Navy should be concentrated in one of these ports,
preferably New York, with its two widely separated exits, and torpedo boats should defend the
other harbors. This concentration of the US fleet would force the British to tie down such a large
proportion of their navy to watch the New York exits that the other American ports would be
relatively safe. Detached American cruisers should wage "constant offensive action" against the
enemy's exposed positions, and if the British were to weaken their blockade force off New York
to attack another American port, the concentrated US fleet should seize the opportunity to escort
an invasion fleet to capture the British coaling ports in Nova Scotia, thereby seriously weakening
the British ability to engage in naval operations off the American coast. The contingency plan is
a clear example of the application of Mahan's principles of naval war, with a clear reliance on
Jomini's principle of controlling strategic points.” 396
“Mahan was a frequent commentator on world naval, strategic, and diplomatic affairs. In the
1890s, he argued that the United States should concentrate its naval fleet and obtain Hawaii, as a
hedge against Japanese eastward expansion and that the US should help maintain a balance of
power in the region in order to advance the principle of the open door policy, both commercially
and culturally. Mahan represented the US at the first international conference on arms control that
was initiated by Russia in 1899. Russia sought a freeze on arms to keep it from falling behind in
Europe's arms race. Other countries attended in order to mollify various peace groups. No
significant arms limitations agreements were reached. A proposal on neutral trade rights was
debated but ruled out of order by the Russians. The only significant result of the conference was
the establishment of an ineffective Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.”397
Mahan’s Impact: “Timeliness contributed no small part to the widespread acceptance and
resultant influence of Mahan's views. Although his history was relatively thin (he relied on
secondary sources), the vigorous style and clear theory won widespread acceptance of navalists
across the world. Sea power supported the new colonialism which was asserting itself in Africa
and Asia. Given the very rapid technological changes underway in propulsion (from coal to oil
and from boilers to turbines), ordnance (with better fire directors, and new high explosives), and
armor and the emergence of new craft such as destroyers and submarines, Mahan's emphasis on
the capital ship and the command of the sea came at an opportune moment. Mahan's name became
a household word in the German navy, as Kaiser Wilhelm II ordered his officers to read Mahan,
and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz (1849–1930) used Mahan's reputation to finance a powerful
surface fleet. Tirpitz…had The Influence of Sea Power…translated into German in 1898 and had
8000 copies handed out for free…Between 1890 and 1915, Mahan and British admiral John Fisher
(1841–1920) faced the problem of how to dominate home waters and distant seas, with naval
forces not strong enough to do both. Mahan argued for a universal principle of concentration of
powerful ships in home waters and he minimized strength in distant seas. However, Fisher
reversed Mahan by using technological change to propose submarines for defense of home waters
and mobile battle cruisers for protection of distant imperial interests.”398
196
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
5. Religion and Politics in Europe, 1815-1914
“Characteristic of Christianity in the 19th century were Evangelical revivals in some largely
Protestant countries and later the effects of modern Biblical scholarship on the churches. Liberal
or modernist theology was one consequence of this. In Europe, the Roman Catholic Church
strongly opposed liberalism and Georgia culture wars launched in Germany, Italy, Belgium and
France. It strongly emphasized personal piety. In Europe there was a general move away from
religious observance and belief in Christian teachings and a move towards secularism. In
Protestantism, pietistic revivals were common.”399 The development of nationalism allowed Jews
to be patriotic about the country in which they lived. However, many of their non-Jewish fellow
citizens still considered Jews to be outsiders. Meanwhile, “Islamic modernism and revival are two
of the many intellectual responses, operating within an Islamic framework, to Western colonial
influence and to the eighteenth-century political decline of Muslim powers.”400
As the more radical implications of the scientific and cultural influences of the Enlightenment began to be felt in the Protestant churches…Liberal Christianity, exemplified especially by
numerous theologians in Germany in the 19th century, sought to bring the churches alongside of
the broad revolution that modernism represented. In doing so, new critical approaches to the Bible
were developed, new attitudes became evident about the role of religion in society, and a new
openness to questioning the nearly universally accepted definitions of Christian orthodoxy began
to become obvious. In reaction to these developments, Christian fundamentalism was a movement
to reject the radical influences of philosophical humanism, as this was affecting the Christian
religion. Especially targeting critical approaches to the interpretation of the Bible and trying to
blockade the inroads made into their churches by atheistic scientific assumptions, the
fundamentalists began to appear in various denominations as numerous independent movements
of resistance to the drift away from historic Christianity. Over time, the Fundamentalist
Evangelical movement has divided into two main wings, with the label Fundamentalist following
one branch, while Evangelical has become the preferred banner of the more moderate movement.
After the Reformation, Protestant groups continued to splinter, leading to a range of new
theologies. The Enthusiasts were so named because of their emotional zeal. These included the
Methodists, the Quakers, and the Baptists. Another group sought to reconcile Christian faith with
modernist ideas, sometimes causing them to reject beliefs they considered to be illogical, including
the Nicene creed and Chalcedonian Creed. These included Unitarians and Universalists. A major
issue for Protestants became the degree to which people contribute to their salvation. The debate
is often viewed as synergism versus monergism, though the labels Calvinist and Arminian are
more frequently used, referring to the conclusion of the Synod of Dort. The 19th century saw the
rise of Biblical criticism, new knowledge of religious diversity in other continents, and above all
the growth of science. This led many Christians to emphasize the brotherhood, to seeing miracles
as myths, and to emphasize a moral approach.”401
Liberal Christianity - sometimes called liberal theology - reshaped Protestantism. “Liberal
Christianity is an umbrella term covering diverse, philosophically informed movements and
moods within 19th and 20th century Christianity. Despite its name, liberal Christianity has always
been thoroughly protean. The word liberal in liberal Christianity does not refer to a leftist political
agenda but rather to insights developed during the Age of Enlightenment. Generally speaking,
Enlightenment-era liberalism held that people are political creatures and that liberty of thought
and expression should be their highest value. The development of liberal Christianity owes a lot
to the works of theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher. As a whole, liberal Christianity is a product
of a continuing philosophical dialogue.”402
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
197
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Protestant Europe: It is argued that “the outlook for Protestantism at the start of the 19th
century was discouraging. It was a regional religion based in northwestern Europe, with an outpost
in the sparsely settled United States. It was closely allied with government, as in Scandinavia, the
Netherlands, Prussia, and especially Great Britain. The alliance came at the expense of
independence, as the government made the basic policy decisions, down to such details as the
salaries of ministers and location of new churches. The dominant intellectual currents of the
Enlightenment promoted rationalism, and most Protestant leaders preached a sort of deism.
Intellectually, the new methods of historical and anthropological study undermine automatic
acceptance of biblical stories, as did the sciences of geology and biology. Industrialization was a
strongly negative factor, as workers who moved to the city seldom joined churches. The gap
between the church and the unchurched grew rapidly, and secular forces, based both in socialism
and liberalism undermine the prestige of religion. Despite the negative forces, Protestantism
demonstrated a striking vitality by 1900. Shrugging off Enlightenment rationalism, Protestants
embraced romanticism, with the stress on the personal and the invisible. Entirely fresh ideas as
expressed by Friedrich Schleiermacher, Soren Kierkegaard, Albrecht Ritschl and Adolf von
Harnack restored the intellectual power of theology. There was more attention to historic creeds
such as the Augsburg, the Heidelberg, and the Westminster confessions. The stirrings of pietism
on the Continent, and evangelicalism in Britain expanded enormously, leading the devout away
from an emphasis on formality and ritual and toward an inner sensibility toward personal
relationship to Christ. Social activities, in education and in opposition to social vices such as
slavery, alcoholism and poverty provided new opportunities for social service. Above all,
worldwide missionary activity became a highly prized goal, proving quite successful in close
cooperation with the imperialism of the British, German, and Dutch empires.”403
(a) Britain: “In England, Anglicans emphasized the historically Catholic components of their
heritage, as the High Church element reintroduced vestments and incense into their rituals, against
the opposition of Low Church evangelicals. As the Oxford Movement began to advocate restoring
traditional Catholic faith and practice to the Church of England, there was felt to be a need for a
restoration of the monastic life. Anglican priest John Henry Newman established a community of
men at Littlemore near Oxford in the 1840s. From then forward, there have been many
communities of monks, friars, sisters, and nuns established within the Anglican Communion. In
1848, Mother Priscilla Lydia Sellon founded the Anglican Sisters of Charity and became the first
woman to take religious vows within the Anglican Communion since the English Reformation. In
October 1850, the first building specifically built for the purpose of housing an Anglican
Sisterhood was consecrated at Abbeymere in Plymouth. It housed several schools for the destitute,
a laundry, printing press, and a soup kitchen. From the 1840s…the following hundred years,
religious orders for both men and women proliferated in Britain, America and elsewhere.”404
(b) Germany: “Two main developments reshaped religion in Germany. Across the land, there
was a movement to unite the larger Lutheran and the smaller Reformed Protestant churches. The
churches themselves brought this about in Baden, Nassau, and Bavaria. However, in Prussia King
Frederick William III was determined to handle unification entirely on his own terms, without
consultation. His goal was to unify the Protestant churches, and to impose a single standardized
liturgy, organization and even architecture. The long-term goal was to have fully centralized royal
control of all the Protestant churches. In a series of proclamations over several decades the Church
of the Prussian Union was formed, bringing together the more numerous Lutherans, and the less
numerous Reformed Protestants. The government of Prussia now had full control over church
affairs, with the king himself recognized as the leading bishop. Opposition to unification came
from the "Old Lutherans" in Silesia who clung tightly to the theological and liturgical forms they
198
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
had followed since the days of Luther. The government attempted to crack down on them, so they
went underground. Tens of thousands migrated, to South Australia, and especially to the United
States, where they formed the Missouri Synod, which is still in operation as a conservative
denomination. Finally in 1845 a new king Frederick William IV offered a general amnesty and
allowed the Old Lutherans to form a separate church association with only nominal government
control. From the religious point of view of the typical Catholic or Protestant, major changes were
underway in terms of a much more personalized religiosity that focused on the individual more
than the church or the ceremony. The rationalism of the late 19th century faded away, and there
was a new emphasis on the psychology and feeling of the individual, especially in terms of
contemplating sinfuness, redemption, and the mysteries and the revelations of Christianity.
Pietistic revivals were common among Protestants.”405
American Trends: “The main trends in Protestantism included the rapid growth of Methodist
and Baptists denominations, and the steady growth among Presbyterians, Congregationalists and
Anglicans. After 1830 German Lutherans arrived in large numbers; after 1860 Scandinavian
Lutherans arrived. The Pennsylvania Dutch Protestant sects (and Lutherans) grew through high
birth rates.” (a) Second Great Awakening: “The Second Great Awakening (1790-1840s) was the
second great religious revival in America. Unlike the First Great Awakening of the 18th century,
focused on the unchurched and sought to instill in them a deep sense of personal salvation as
experienced in revival meetings. It also sparked the beginnings of groups such as the Mormons
and the Holiness movement. Leaders included Asahel Nettleton, Edward Payson, James Brainerd
Taylor, Charles Grandison Finney, Lyman Beecher, Barton W. Stone, Peter Cartwright, and James
Finley. In New England, the renewed interest in religion inspired a wave of social activism. In
western New York, the spirit of revival encouraged the emergence of the Restoration Movement,
the Latter Day Saint movement, Adventism, and the Holiness movement. Especially in the west at Cane Ridge, Kentucky and in Tennessee - the revival strengthened the Methodists and the
Baptists and introduced into America a new form of religious expression - the Scottish camp
meeting. The Second Great Awakening made its way across the frontier territories, fed by intense
longing for a prominent place for God in the life of the new nation, a new liberal attitude toward
fresh interpretations of the Bible, and a contagious experience of zeal for authentic spirituality. As
these revivals spread, they gathered converts to Protestant sects of the time. The revivals
eventually moved freely across denominational lines with practically identical results and went
farther than ever toward breaking down the allegiances which kept adherents to these
denominations loyal to their own. Consequently, the revivals were accompanied by a growing
dissatisfaction with Evangelical churches and especially with the doctrine of Calvinism, which
was nominally accepted or at least tolerated in most Evangelical churches at the time. Various
unaffiliated movements arose that were often restorationist in outlook, considering contemporary
Christianity of the time to be a deviation from the true, original Christianity. These groups
attempted to transcend Protestant denominationalism and orthodox Christian creeds to restore
Christianity to its original form. Barton W. Stone, founded a movement at Cane Ridge, Kentucky;
they called themselves simply Christians. The second began in western Pennsylvania and was led
by Thomas Campbell and his son, Alexander Campbell; they used the name Disciples of Christ.
Both groups sought to restore the whole Christian church on the pattern set forth in the New
Testament, and both believed that creeds kept Christianity divided. In 1832 they merged.” 406
(b) Mormons: “The Mormon faith emerged from the Latter Day Saint movement in upstate
New York in the 1830s. After several schisms and multiple relocations to escape intense hostility,
the largest group, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, migrated to Utah Territory.
They established a theocracy under Brigham Young, and came into conflict with the United States
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
199
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
government. It tried to suppress the church because of its polygamy and theocracy. Compromises
were finally reached in the 1890s, allowing the church to abandon polygamy and flourish.”
(c) Adventism: “Adventism is a Christian eschatological belief that looks for the imminent
Second Coming of Jesus to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. This view involves the belief that
Jesus will return to receive those who have died in Christ and those who are awaiting his return,
and that they must be ready when he returns. The Millerites, the most well-known family of the
Adventist movements, were the followers of the teachings of William Miller, who, in 1833, first
shared publicly his belief in the coming Second Advent of Jesus Christ in c.1843. They
emphasized apocalyptic teachings anticipating the end of the world and did not look for the unity
of Christendom but busied themselves in preparation for Christ's return. From the Millerites
descended the Seventh-day Adventists and the Advent Christian Church. The Seventh-day
Adventist Church is the largest of several Adventist groups which arose from the Millerite
movement of the 1840s. Miller predicted on the basis of Daniel 8:14-16 and the day-year principle
that Jesus Christ would return to Earth on October 22, 1844. When this did not happen, most of
his followers disbanded and returned to their original churches.”407
(d) Holiness Movement: “The Methodists of the 19th century continued the interest in
Christian holiness that had been started by their founder, John Wesley. In 1836 two Methodist
women, Sarah Worrall Lankford and Phoebe Palmer, started the Tuesday Meeting for the
Promotion of Holiness in New York City. A year later, Methodist minister Timothy Merritt
founded a journal called the Guide to Christian Perfection to promote the Wesleyan message of
Christian holiness. In 1837, Palmer experienced what she called entire sanctification. She began
leading the Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness. At first only women attended these
meetings, but eventually Methodist bishops and other clergy members began to attend them also.
In 1859, she published The Promise of the Father, in which she argued in favor of women in
ministry, later to influence Catherine Booth, co-founder of the Salvation Army. The practice of
ministry by women became common but not universal within the branches of the holiness
movement. The first distinct holiness camp meeting convened in Vineland, New Jersey in 1867
and attracted as many as 10,000 people. Ministers formed the National Camp Meeting Association
for the Promotion of Holiness and agreed to conduct a similar gathering the next year. Later, this
association became the Christian Holiness Partnership. The third National Camp Meeting met at
Round Lake, New York. This time the national press attended, and write-ups appeared in
numerous papers. Robert and Hannah Smith were among those who took the holiness message to
England, and their ministries helped lay the foundation for the Keswick Convention.” 408
(e) Third Great Awakening: “The Third Great Awakening was a period of religious activism
in American history from the late 1850s to the 20th century. It affected pietistic Protestant denominations and had a strong sense of social activism. It gathered strength from the postmillennial
theology that the Second Coming of Christ would come after humankind had reformed the entire
earth. The Social Gospel Movement gained its force from the awakening, as did the worldwide
missionary movement. New groupings emerged, such as the Holiness and Nazarene movements,
and Christian Science. Significant names include Dwight L. Moody, Ira D. Sankey, William Booth
and Catherine Booth, Charles Spurgeon, and James Caughey. Hudson Taylor began the China
Inland Mission and Thomas John Barnardo founded his famous orphanages. Mary Baker Eddy
introduced Christian Science, which gained a national following. In 1880, the Salvation Army
denomination arrived in America. Although its theology was based on ideals expressed during the
Second Great Awakening, its focus on poverty was of the Third. The Society for Ethical Culture,
established in New York in 1876 by Felix Adler, attracted a Reform Jewish clientele. Charles Taze
Russell founded a Bible Student movement now known as the Jehovah's Witnesses.” 409
200
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Roman Catholicism: (a) France: “The Catholic Church lost all its lands and buildings during
the French Revolution, and these were sold off or came under the control of local governments.
The more radical elements of the Revolution tried to suppress the church, but Napoleon came to
a compromise with the pope in the Concordat of 1801 that restored much of its status. The bishop
still ruled his diocese (which was aligned with the new department boundaries), but could only
communicate with the pope through the government in Paris. Bishops priests, nuns and other
religious people were paid salaries by the state. All the old religious rites and ceremonies were
retained, and the government maintained the religious buildings. The Church was allowed to
operate its own seminaries and to some extent local schools as well, although this became a central
political issue into the 20th century. Bishops were much less powerful than before, and had no
political voice. However, the Catholic Church reinvented itself and put a new emphasis on
personal religiosity that gave it a hold on the psychology of the faithful. France remained basically
Catholic. The 1872 census counted 36 million people, of whom 35.4 million were listed as
Catholics, 600,000 as Protestants, 50,000 as Jews and 80,000 as freethinkers. The Revolution
failed to destroy the Catholic Church, and Napoleon's concordat of 1801 restored its status. The
return of the Bourbons in 1814 brought back many rich nobles and landowners who supported the
Church, seeing it as a bastion of conservatism and monarchism. However the monasteries with
their vast land holdings and political power were gone; much of the land had been sold to urban
entrepreneurs who lacked historic connections to the land and the peasants.”410
“Few new priests were trained in the 1790-1814 period, and many left the church. The result
was that the number of parish clergy plunged from 60,000 in 1790 to 25,000 in 1815, many of
them elderly. Entire regions, especially around Paris, were left with few priests. On the other hand,
some traditional regions held fast to the faith, led by local nobles and historic families. The
comeback was very slow in the larger cities and industrial areas. With systematic missionary work
and a new emphasis on liturgy and devotions to the Virgin Mary, plus support from Napoleon III,
there was a comeback. In 1870 there were 56,500 priests, representing a much younger and more
dynamic force in the villages and towns, with a thick network of schools, charities and lay
organizations. Conservative Catholics held control of the national government, 1820-1830, but
most often played secondary political roles or had to fight the assault from republicans, liberals,
socialists and seculars. Throughout the lifetime of the Third Republic (1870-1940) there were
battles over the status of the Catholic Church. The French clergy and bishops were closely
associated with the Monarchists and many of its hierarchy were from noble families. Republicans
were based in the anticlerical middle class who saw the Church's alliance with the monarchists as
a political threat to republicanism, and a threat to the modern spirit of progress. The Republicans
detested the church for its political and class affiliations; for them, the church represented
outmoded traditions, superstition and monarchism.”411
“The Republicans were strengthened by Protestant and Jewish support. Numerous laws were
passed to weaken the Catholic Church. In 1879, priests were excluded from the administrative
committees of hospitals and of boards of charity. In 1880, new measures were directed against the
religious congregations. From 1880 to 1890 came the substitution of lay women for nuns in many
hospitals. Napoleon's 1801 Concordat continued in operation but in 1881, the government cut off
salaries to priests it disliked. The 1882 school laws of Republican Jules Ferry set up a national
system of public schools that taught strict puritanical morality but no religion. For a while privately
funded Catholic schools were tolerated. Civil marriage became compulsory, divorce was
introduced and chaplains were removed from the army.”412
“When Leo XIII became pope in 1878 he tried to calm Church-State relations. In 1884 he told
French bishops not to act in a hostile manner to the State. In 1892 he issued an encyclical advising
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
201
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
French Catholics to rally to the Republic and defend the Church by participating in Republican
politics. This attempt at improving the relationship failed. Deep-rooted suspicions remained on
both sides and were inflamed by the Dreyfus Affair. Catholics were for the most part antidreyfusard. The Assumptionists published anti-Semitic and anti-republican articles in their journal
La Croix. This infuriated Republican politicians, who were eager to take revenge. Often they
worked in alliance with Masonic lodges. The Waldeck-Rousseau Ministry (1899–1902) and the
Combes Ministry (1902–05) fought with the Vatican over the appointment of bishops. Chaplains
were removed from naval and military hospitals (1903–04), and soldiers were ordered not to
frequent Catholic clubs (1904). Combes as Prime Minister in 1902, was determined to thoroughly
defeat Catholicism. He closed down all parochial schools in France. Then he had parliament reject
authorisation of all religious orders. This meant that all fifty four orders were dissolved and about
20,000 members immediately left France, many for Spain. In 1905 the 1801 Concordat was
abrogated; Church and State were separated. All Church property was confiscated. Public worship
was given over to associations of Catholic laymen who controlled access to churches…The
Church was badly hurt and lost half its priests. In the long run, however, it gained autonomy - for
the State no longer had a voice in choosing bishops and Gallicanism was dead.”413
(b) Germany: “Among Catholics there was a sharp increase in popular pilgrimages. In 1844
alone, half a million pilgrims made a pilgrimage to the city of Trier in the Rhineland to view the
Seamless robe of Jesus, said to be the robe that Jesus wore on the way to his crucifixion. Catholic
bishops in Germany had historically been largely independent Of Rome, but now the Vatican
exerted increasing control, a new ultramontanism of Catholics highly loyal to Rome. A sharp
controversy broke out in 1837-38 in the largely Catholic Rhineland over the religious education
of children of mixed marriages, where the mother was Catholic and the father Protestant. The
government passed laws to require that these children always be raised as Protestants, contrary to
Napoleonic law that had previously prevailed and allowed the parents to make the decision. It put
the Catholic Archbishop under house arrest. In 1840, the new King Frederick William IV sought
reconciliation and ended the controversy by agreeing to most of the Catholic demands. However
Catholic memories remained deep and led to a sense that Catholics always needed to stick together
in the face of an untrustworthy government.”414
Kulturkampf: “After 1870 Chancellor Otto von Bismarck Bismarck would not tolerate any
base of power outside Germany - in Rome - having a say in German affairs. He launched a
Kulturkampf (culture war) against the power of the pope and the Catholic Church in 1873, but
only in Prussia. This gained strong support from German liberals, who saw the Catholic Church
as the bastion of reaction and their greatest enemy. The Catholic element, in turn, saw in the
National-Liberals as its worst enemy and formed the Center Party. Catholics, although nearly a
third of the national population, were seldom allowed to hold major positions in the Imperial
government, or the Prussian government. Most of the Kulturkampf was fought out in Prussia, but
Imperial Germany passed the Pulpit Law which made it a crime for any cleric to discuss public
issues in a way that displeased the government. Nearly all Catholic bishops, clergy, and laymen
rejected the legality of the new laws, and were defiant facing the increasingly heavy penalties and
imprisonments imposed by Bismarck's government. As of 1878, only three of eight Prussian
dioceses still had bishops, some 1,125 of 4,600 parishes were vacant, and nearly 1,800 priests
ended up in jail or in exile....Finally, between 1872 and 1878, numerous Catholic newspapers were
confiscated, Catholic associations and assemblies were dissolved, and Catholic civil servants were
dismissed.” Bismarck underestimated the Catholic Church. In the following elections, the Center
Party won a quarter of the seats in the Imperial Diet. Bismarck negotiated with the Liberals: peace
was restored, the bishops returned and the jailed clerics were released.415
202
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
(c) First Vatican Council: “On February 7, 1862, Pope Pius IX issued the papal constitution
Ad Universalis Ecclesiae, dealing with the conditions for admission to Catholic religious orders
of men in which solemn vows were prescribed. The doctrine of papal primacy was further
developed in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, which declared that ‘in the disposition of God the
Roman church holds the preeminence of ordinary power over all the other churches.’ This council
also affirmed the dogma of papal infallibility, (declaring that the infallibility of the Christian
community extends to the pope himself, when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to
be held by the whole Church), and of papal supremacy.” 416
Social Teachings: “The Industrial Revolution brought many concerns about the deteriorating
working and living conditions of urban workers. Influenced by the German Bishop Wilhelm
Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, in 1891, Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Rerum
novarum, which set in context Catholic social teaching in terms that rejected socialism but
advocated the regulation of working conditions. Rerum novarum argued for the establishment of
a living wage and the right of workers to form trade unions.”417
Veneration of Mary: “Popes have always highlighted the inner link between the Virgin Mary
as Mother of God and the full acceptance of Jesus Christ as Son of God.[40][41] Since the 19th
century, they were highly important for the development of mariology to explain the veneration
of Mary through their decisions not only in the area of Marian beliefs (Mariology) but also Marian
practices and devotions. Before the 19th century, popes promulgated Marian veneration by
authorizing new Marian feast days, prayers, initiatives, and the acceptance and support of Marian
congregations.[42][43] Since the 19th century, popes began to use encyclicals more frequently.
Thus Leo XIII, the Rosary Pope, issued eleven Marian encyclicals. Recent popes promulgated the
veneration of the Blessed Virgin with two dogmas. Pius IX with the Immaculate Conception in
1854, and the Assumption of Mary in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.”418
Anti-clericalism, Secularism, and Socialism: “In many revolutionary movements, the church
was denounced for its links with the established regimes. Liberals in particular targeted the
Catholic Church is the great enemy. Thus, for example, after the French Revolution and the
Mexican Revolution there was a distinct anti-clerical tone in those countries that exists to this day.
Socialism in particular was in many cases openly hostile to religion; Karl Marx condemned all
religion as the opium of the people, as he considered it a false sense of hope in an afterlife
withholding the people from facing their worldly situation. In the History of Latin America, a
succession of anti-clerical liberal regimes came to power beginning in the 1830s. The confiscation
of Church properties and restrictions on priests and bishops accompanied secularist, reforms.” 419
Jesuits: “Only in the 19th century, after the breakdown of most Spanish and Portuguese
colonies, was the Vatican able to take charge of Catholic missionary activities through its
Propaganda Fide organization. During this period, the Church faced colonial abuses from the
Portuguese and Spanish governments. In South America, the Jesuits protected native peoples from
enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions. Pope Gregory XVI,
challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the
colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839 (papal bull In supremo apostolatus), and
approved the ordination of native clergy in spite of government racism.” 420
Africa: “By the close of the 19th century, new technologies and superior weaponry had
allowed European powers to gain control of most of the African interior. The new rulers
introduced a cash economy which required African people to become literate and so created a
great demand for schools. At the time, the only possibility open to Africans for a western education
was through Christian missionaries. Catholic missionaries followed colonial governments into
Africa and built schools, monasteries, and churches.”421
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
203
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Russian Orthodox Church: “The Russian Orthodox Church is one of the autocephalous
Eastern Orthodox churches, in full communion with other Eastern Orthodox patriarchates. The
Primate of the ROC is the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus'. The ROC, as well as the primate
thereof, officially ranks fifth in the Orthodox order of precedence, immediately below the four
ancient Patriarchates of the Greek Orthodox Church, those of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem. The official Christianization of Kievan Rus' widely seen as the birth of
the ROC is believed to have occurred in 988 through the baptism of the Kievan prince Vladimir
and his people by the clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate whose constituent part the ROC
remained for the next six centuries, while the Kievan see remained in the jurisdiction of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1686. The ROC currently claims its exclusive jurisdiction over the
Orthodox Christians, irrespective of their ethnic background, who reside in the former member
republics of the USSR, excluding Georgia and Armenia, although this claim is disputed in such
countries as Estonia, Moldova and Ukraine and consequently parallel canonical Orthodox
jurisdictions exist in those: Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church and Metropolis of Bessarabia,
respectively. It also exercises ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the autonomous Church of Japan and
the Orthodox Christians resident in the People's Republic of China. The ROC branches in Belarus,
Estonia, Latvia, Moldova and Ukraine since the 1990s enjoy various degrees of self-government,
albeit short of the status of formal ecclesiastical autonomy. In Ukraine, ROC (represented by the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church) has tensions with schismatic groups supported by the current
government, while it enjoys the position of numerically dominant religious organisation.”422
Peter the Great (1682–1725) had an agenda of radical modernization of Russian government,
army, dress and manners. “He made Russia a formidable political power. Peter was not religious
and had a low regard for the Church, so he put it under tight governmental control. He replaced
the Patriarch with a Holy Synod, which he controlled. The Tsar appointed all bishops. A clerical
career was not a route chosen by upper-class society. Most parish priests were sons of priests,
were very poorly educated, and very poorly paid. The monks in the monasteries had a slightly
higher status; they were not allowed to marry. Politically, the church was impotent. Catherine the
Great later in the 18th century seized most of the church lands, and put the priests on a small salary
supplemented by fees for services such as baptism and marriage. In the late 17th and early 18th
centuries, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced a vast geographic expansion. Numerous
financial and political incentives (as well as immunity from military service) were offered local
political leaders who would convert to Orthodoxy, and bring their people with them.”423
Fin-de-siècle religious renaissance: “During the final decades of the imperial order in Russia
many educated Russians sought to return to the church and tried to bring their faith back to life.
No less evident were non-conformist paths of spiritual searching known as God-Seeking. Writers,
artists and intellectuals in large numbers were drawn to private prayer, mysticism, spiritualism,
theosophy and Eastern religions. A fascination with primitive feeling, with the unconscious and
the mythic was apparent, along with visions of coming catastrophes and redemption. In 1909, a
volume of essays appeared under the title Vekhi, authored by a group of leading left-wing
intellectuals, including Sergei Bulgakov, Peter Struve and former Marxists. They bluntly
repudiated the materialism and atheism that had dominated the thought of the intelligentsia for
generations as leading inevitably to failure and moral disaster. The essays created a sensation. It
is possible to see a similarly renewed vigor and variety in religious life and spirituality among the
lower classes, especially after the upheavals of 1905. Among the peasantry there was widespread
interest in spiritual-ethical literature and non-conformist moral-spiritual movements, an upsurge
in pilgrimage and other devotions to sacred spaces and objects (especially icons), persistent beliefs
in the presence and power of the supernatural…” 424
204
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Islamic Modernism and Revival: “Islamic modernist ideas promoted a re-interpretation of
Islam which would fit in with the modern world. They were formulated during the last decades of
the nineteenth century and implied an acknowledgement that the Muslim world had lost its
position in the world. For many modernists the reason for this loss rested in the lack, in Muslim
countries, of a modern and dynamic understanding of science. Ironically, they claimed, Islamic
medieval knowledge with its transmission of classical science to the West was instrumental in the
development of modern European science and technology. Countries such as Egypt, Turkey,
Persia, Indonesia and India were influenced by Islamic modernist ideas. In Egypt, scholars such
as al-Tahtawi (d. 1873) and Muhammad ‘Abduh (d. 1905) re-discovered the role of Islamic
philosophical principles, and affirmed that revealed knowledge and individually-sought rational
knowledge could co-exist. Thus, they sanctioned the study of Western science as acceptable to
Islamic education. In Turkey during the 1860s, the Young Ottomans movement discussed
constitutional and political principles along western lines. Jamal al-din al-Afghani (d. 1897), while
condemning European colonial aggression and opposing its political domination of Muslim
countries, called for the need to acquire the tools of modern science to combat the West. In India,
where in 1857 the British had abolished the Muslim Mughal dynasty, the emphasis was again on
reforms in the educational field. Indonesia, under Dutch rule, was also active in implementing
modern curricula combining religion with modern sciences.”425
The Reforms of Atatürk & Reza Shah: “The legacy of the debates among modernist scholars,
combined with Western-inspired nationalistic ideas, re-emerged in the reforms brought about in
Turkey by Mustafa Kemal ‘Atatürk’ (the ‘father of the Turks’) (d.1938) and in Persia by Reza
Shah Pahlavi (d. 1944). Unlike the modernists before them, both Atatürk and Reza Shah created
secular modern nation-states. Although they were not necessarily anti-Islamic in their
programmes, and despite the very different political outcomes, both Atatürk and Reza Shah faced
stern opposition from the ‘ulama’ classes. In Turkey, political reforms led to the declaration of
the Turkish republic and the nationalization of railways, ports and utilities. Economic reforms
promoted industrialization. The Arabic script was replaced by Latin characters. In family law, a
Swiss-modelled legal code replaced the shari‘a: in 1924 polygamy was abolished, divorce was no
longer a male prerogative but became subject to court ruling.”426
Islamic Revival refers to the support for an increased influence of Islamic values on the
modern world as a response to Western and secular trends. “Accordingly, a return to Islam in its
purest form is seen as the solution for the ills of Islamic societies and modern society as a whole.
One expression of ihya' was the Salafiyah movement, especially in its Wahhabi form. Muhammad
Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1791) was concerned about the survival of religion and sought to rectify
the dangerous innovations that had been introduced into Islam. By emphasizing the concept of
tawhid (the unity and oneness of God), he rejected all forms of mediation between Allah and the
believer. In particular, he aimed to eliminate Sufi ideas and practices, such as the veneration of
holy persons and the ziyarah to their tombs, as well as condemning excessive veneration of the
prophet Muhammad. Wahhabi ideology shaped the religious character of the first Sa‘udi-Wahhabi
state, which was crushed by Egyptian forces in 1818 . The second Sa‘udi state, which was
proclaimed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, continues to be shaped and informed by
Wahhabi ideology. Other formulations stemming from the Salafiyah include jihad movements
such as the Mahdiyah of Sudan and activist Sufi orders like the Sanusiyah of North Africa, both
of them revival movements spurred by the struggle against Western control A twentieth-century
development of revivalist ideas is the so-called ‘Islamic fundamentalism’, or radical Islamism.
Fundamentalism in fact originated in the 1920s among conservative Protestant circles in America,
and is the militant statement of the infallibility of Scripture and of ethical absolutism.” 427
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
205
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
The Jews and Antisemitism: “Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from
expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized pogroms by mobs,
state police, or even military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Although the term did not
come into common usage until the 19th century, it is now also applied to historic anti-Jewish
incidents. Notable instances of persecution include the Rhineland massacres preceding the First
Crusade in 1096, the Edict of Expulsion from England in 1290, the massacres of Spanish Jews in
1391, the persecutions of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Cossack
massacres in Ukraine from 1648 to 1657, various anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire
between 1821 and 1906, the 1894–1906 Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in Germanoccupied Europe, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies, and Arab and Muslim involvement in the
Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.”428
Islamic Antisemitism in the 19th Century: In the 19th century, the position of Jews worsened
in Muslim countries. One symbol of Jewish degradation was the phenomenon of stone-throwing
at Jews by Muslim children. “Morris quotes a 19th-century traveler: ‘I have seen a little fellow of
six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones
at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally
spit upon his Jewish gaberdine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit; it would be more than his
life was worth to offer to strike a Mahommedan.”429
Secular or Racial Antisemitism: “In 1850 the German composer Richard Wagner – who has
been called the inventor of modern antisemitism - published Das Judenthum in der Musik (roughly
Jewishness in Music)...The essay began as an attack on Jewish composers, particularly Wagner's
contemporaries, and rivals, Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but expanded to accuse
Jews of being a harmful and alien element in German culture, who corrupted morals and were, in
fact, parasites incapable of creating truly German art. The crux was, of course, the manipulation
and control by the Jews of the money economy… The middle 19th century saw continued official
harassment of the Jews, especially in Eastern Europe under Czarist influence. For example, in
1846, 80 Jews approached the governor in Warsaw to retain the right to wear their traditional
dress, but were immediately rebuffed by having their hair and beards forcefully cut, at their own
expense…Some scholars view Karl Marx's essay On The Jewish Question as antisemitic, and
argue that he often used antisemitic epithets in his published and private writings. These scholars
argue that Marx equated Judaism with capitalism in his essay, helping to spread that idea...The
essay influenced National Socialist, as well as Soviet and Arab antisemites.”430
The 20th Century: “Between 1900 and 1924, approximately 1.75 million Jews migrated to
America, the bulk from Eastern Europe. Before 1900 American Jews had always amounted to less
than 1% of America's total population, but by 1930 Jews formed about 3.5%. This increase,
combined with the upward social mobility of some Jews, contributed to a resurgence of
antisemitism. In the first half of the 20th century, in the USA, Jews were discriminated against in
employment, access to residential and resort areas, membership in clubs and organizations, and in
tightened quotas on Jewish enrolment and teaching positions in colleges and universities…
Antisemitism in America reached its peak during the interwar period. The pioneer automobile
manufacturer…in the late 1930s attacked Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and promoted the
notion of a Jewish financial conspiracy.” “There are a number of antisemitic canards which are
used to fuel and justify antisemitic sentiment and activities. These include conspiracy theories and
myths such as: that Jews killed Christ, poisoned wells, killed Christian children to use their blood
for making matzos, or made up the Holocaust, plot to control the world (the Protocols of the Elders
of Zion), harvest organs, and other invented stories. A number of conspiracy theories also include
accusations that Jews control the media or global financial institutions.”431
206
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
Endnotes
1
Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, Comprehensive Volume (New York: West Publishing
Company, 1997), 737.
2 Ibid., 734.
3 Woolf Stuart, A History of Italy 1700-1860: The Social Constraints of Political Change (London, UK:
Routledge,1979 ), 229-30.
4 Accessed on June 24, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation.
5 Ibid., 738. For further, see Frederick B. Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1814-1832 (New York: Harpers
& Row, 0974), 114.
6 Woolf Stuart, A History of Italy 1700-1860, 231.
7 https://quizlet.com/135719039/the-french-revolution-napoleon-and-the-congress-of-vienna-flash-cards/
accessed on August 20, 2016.
8 Accessed on August 6, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1815). For further, see
Harold Nicolson, The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity, 1812-1822 (New York: The Viking
Press, 1962), 219-39.
9 Accessed on July 16, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Europe.
10 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 736-7.
11 Accessed on August 7, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Aix-la-Chapelle_(1818).
12 Accessed on June 25, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Troppau.
13 Accessed on August 6, 2016 to http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Congress_of_Laibach.
14 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 741.
15 From the First to the Fourth Congress, see Harold Nicolson, The Congress of Vienna, 257-74.
16 Frederick B. Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1814-1832, 118-9.
17 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 743-4.
18 Accessed on August 16, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cobbett.
19 Accessed on August 16, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampden_Clubs.
20 Accessed on August 16, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679. The Habeas
Corpus Act 1679 strengthens the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus, “a procedural device to force
the courts to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention in order to safeguard individual liberty and
thus to prevent unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.”
21 Frederick B. Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1814-1832, 123.
22 http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=mxn on July 24, 2016.
23 Accessed on August 16, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Acts.
24 http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=mxn on July 24, 2016.
25 Accessed on August 16, 2016 to https://www.britannica.com/event/Combination-Acts.
26 Accessed on August 16, 2016 to http://kids.britannica.com/shakespeare/article-274568.
27 The same as to http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=mxn.
28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration#Permanent_changes_in_French_society accessed on
July 25, 2016.
29 Ibid., the same.
30 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 744.
31 Accessed on July 27, 2016 to https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-X.
32 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration#Charles_X.2C_1824.E2.80.931830 on July 27, 2016.
33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration#Political_parties_under_Restoration on July 27, 2016.
34 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Italy_(1559%E2%80%931814)#Italy_in_the_Napoleonic_era
accessed on August 20, 2016.
35 Tim Chapman, The Risorgimento: Italy 1815-71 (Penrith, UK: Humanities-Ebooks.co.uk, 2008), 23.
36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#Spain_under_the_Bourbons_.2818th_century.29
accessed on August 19, 2016.
37https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain_(1810%E2%80%9373)#Reaction_.281814.E2.80.931820
.29 accessed on August 20, 2016.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
207
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
38https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain_(1810%E2%80%9373)#Trienio_Liberal_.281820.E2.80.
931823.29 accessed on August 20, 2016.
39https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Confederation#Impact_of_the_French_Revolution_and_the_Napol
eonic_invasions accessed on August 24, 2016.
40 Ibid., the same.
41 Accessed on August 21, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Empire#Metternich_era.
42 Frederick B. Artz, Reaction and Revolution, 1814-1832, 137.
43 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_reforms.
44 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burschenschaft.
45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1796%E2%80%931855) accessed on August 22, 2016.
46https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1796%E2%80%931855)#War_and_peace_in_Russia.2
C_1796.E2.80.931825 accessed on August 22, 2016.
47 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_I_of_Russia.
48 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 741-2.
49http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=d6ae4f1eaaca12fdb6
399fc273faa259&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CCX3424300039&userGroupName=dist214&
source=Bookmark&u=dist214&jsid=d16732a99f54bbdf6a42df2caf96927b accessed on July 24, 2016.
50 Ibid., the same.
51 Accessed on July 24, 2016 to https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-Greek-Independence.
52 Ibid., the same.
53 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 743.
54 Accessed on July 24, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence#Aftermath.
55 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
56 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 748.
57 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism.
58 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism.
59 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationalism.
60 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 752.
61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy,_comte_de_Saint-Simon on August 22, 2016.
62 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier.
63 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen.
64 Accessed on August 22, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanc.
65 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 753.
66 Accessed on August 24, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism.
67 Accessed on August 24, 2016 to https://www.britannica.com/art/Romanticism.
68 Accessed on September 10, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1830.
69 Accessed on August 26, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848#Origins.
70 Accessed on September 10, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848#Legacy.
71 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 755-6.
72 Ibid., 756-7.
73 Accessed on August 24, 2016 to https://www.britannica.com/event/Chartism-British-history.
74 Accessed on September 10, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832#Assessment.
75 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 753-4.
76 Accessed on August 26, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution_of_1848.
77 Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789-1850 (New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 1977), 233.
78 https://www.britannica.com/place/Austria/The-Age-of-Metternich-1815-48 on August 25, 2016.
79 Accessed on August 25, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Empire#Metternich_era.
80 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution#United_Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands accessed on
August 25, 2016.
81 Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789-1850, 148-9.
82 Accessed on August 25, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_Uprising.
208
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
83
Accessed on August 25, 2016 to https://www.britannica.com/event/November-Insurrection.
Ibid., the same.
85 Accessed on August 25, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification#1830_insurrections.
86 Ibid., the same.
87 Accessed on August 25, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Mazzini#Ideology.
88 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1789%E2%80%931849) accessed on
August 25, 2016.
89 http://www.liquisearch.com/history_of_the_united_states_1789%E2%80%931849 accessed on
September 18, 2016.
90 Accessed on August 26, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848#Origins.
91 Accessed on August 26, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848#Urban_workers.
92 Accessed on August 26, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848#Role_of_ideas.
93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution_of_1848#The_events_of_February on August 26, 2016.
94 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution_of_1848#The_Second_Republic accessed on August
26, 2016.
95 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution_of_1848#Class_struggles_within_the_revolution
accessed on August 26, 2016.
96 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848%E2%80%9349 on August 27, 2016.
97 Accessed on August 27, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-Eighters.
98 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848%E2%80%9349#Austria on August 27, 2016.
99 Ibid., the same.
100 Charles Breunig, The Age of Revolution and Reaction, 1789-1850, 260.
101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848%E2%80%9349#Prussia on August 27,
2016.
102https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848%E2%80%9349#Prussia accessed on August
27, 2016. In Heidelberg, in the state of Baden (southwest Germany), on March 6, 1848, a group of German
liberals began to make plans for an election to a German national assembly. “This prototype Parliament met
on March 31, in Frankfurt's St. Paul's Church. Its members called for free elections to an assembly for all of
Germany - and the German states agreed…The constitution was recognized by 29 smaller states but not by
Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Hannover and Saxony.”
103 Ibid., the same.
104 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_Italian_states accessed on August 27, 2016.
105 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_Italian_states#The_Revolution accessed on
August 27, 2016.
106 Ibid., the same.
107 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848_in_the_Italian_states#Aftermath accessed on
August 27, 2016.
108 Accessed on August 27, 2016 to http://idea-of-history.blogspot.com/2012/12/revolutions-of-1848.html.
109 Ibid., the same.
110 Ibid., the same.
111 Ibid., the same.
112 Accessed on August 27, 2016 to http://vcp.e2bn.org/justice/page11377-the-development-of-a-policeforce.html. From which the entire page is quoted.
113 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie#Early_history_of_the_institution accessed on
August 27, 2016.
114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie#The_R.C3.A9volution on August 27, 2016.
115 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie#Nineteenth_century accessed on August 27, 2016.
116 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie#Missions accessed on August 27, 2016.
117 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 765.
118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Police accessed on August 27, 2016.
119 http://sites.scran.ac.uk/lamb/crime.htm#top accessed on August 28, 2016.
120 Ibid., the same.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
209
84
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_reform#United_Kingdom accessed on August 28, 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_reform#Europe accessed on August 28, 2016.
123 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 776.
124 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Bonaparte_Succession_and_philosophy_of_Bonapartism
accessed on August 30, 2016.
125 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Activities accessed on August 30, 2016.
126 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#1848_Revolution_and_birth_of_the_Second_Republic
accessed on August 30, 2016.
127 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Presidential_election_of_1848 on August 30, 2016.
128 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 777.
129 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Napoleon-III-emperor-of-France accessed on September 2, 2016.
130 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_Empire#Rule_of_Napoleon_III on September 2, 2016.
131 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 797.
132 Roger Magraw, France 1815-1914: The Bourgeois Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986),
164-5.
133 http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_religion2.html accessed on September 4, 2016.
134 Roger Magraw, France 1815-1914: The Bourgeois Century, 172
135https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Second_French_colonial_empire_.28after_1830.2
9 accessed on September 5, 2016.
136 Ibid., the same.
137 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_III#Italian_Campaign accessed on September 5, 2016.
138https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Colonization_of_Senegal_.281854.E2.80.9365.29
accessed on September 6, 2016.
139 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Intervention_in_China_.281858.E2.80.9360.29
accessed on September 6, 2016.
140https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#France_in_Korea_and_Japan_.281866.E2.80.936
8.29 accessed on September 6, 2016.
141https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#French_Intervention_in_Mexico_.281862.E2.80.
9367.29 accessed on September 6, 2016.
142 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#Algeria accessed on September 6, 2016.
143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire#French.E2.80.93British_relations accessed on
September 6, 2016.
144 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 780.
145 A. J. P. Taylor, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: 1848–1918 (New York: Oxford University Press,
1980), 60–61
146 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 780-1.
147 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sevastopol_(1854%E2%80%9355) accessed on September 5,
2016. The strength of allied forces in July 1855 was 175,000 men including 75,000 French, 35,000 British,
60,000 Ottoman, and 15,000 Piedmontese; while that of Russian forces in May 1855 was 43,000 garrison
and 42,000 army in the Crimea, with 8,886 naval gunners.
148 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balaclava accessed on September 5, 2016.
149 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification#Background accessed on September 6, 2016.
150 Ibid., the same.
151 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 781.
152https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification#The_Second_Italian_Independence_War_of_1859_and
_its_aftermath accessed on September 12, 2016.
153 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 783.
154 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy#Unification_process_.281848.E2.80.931870.29
accessed on September 12, 2016.
155 Accessed on September 12, 2016 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy#Culture.
156 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 783-4.
157 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Otto-von-Bismarck accessed on September 12, 2016.
210
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
122
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
158
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Otto-von-Bismarck/Prime-minister on September 12, 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Prussia.27s_growing_strength:_Realpolitik
accessed on September 12, 2016.
160 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 785-6.
161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#The_Schleswig-Holstein_Question accessed on
September 13, 2016.
162https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Realpolitik_and_the_North_German_Confederat
ion accessed on September 13, 2016.
163 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Spheres_of_influence_fall_apart_in_Spain
accessed on September 13, 2016.
164 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Military_operations on September 13, 2016.
165 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Proclamation_of_the_German_Empire accessed
on September 13, 2016.
166 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Importance_in_the_unification_process
accessed on September 13, 2016.
167 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany#Political_structure_of_the_Empire accessed on
September 13, 2016.
168 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 789.
169 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary accessed on September 14, 2016.
170 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary#Government accessed on September 14, 2016.
171 Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850-1890, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 1977), 168.
172 Hugo Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire, 1801-1917 (New York: Oxford at the Clarendon Press,
1967), 346-7.
173 Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850-1890, 173-4.
174 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%9392)#Reforms_and_their_limits
accessed on September 15, 2016.
175 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia#Other_reforms accessed on September 14, 2016.
176 Hugo Seton-Watson, The Russian Empire, 1801-1917, 430-59.
177 http://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/7018.html accessed on September 16, 2016.
178 William Smith Murray, The Making of the Balkan States (New York: Columbia University, 1910), 108.
179 Ibid., the same.
180 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin#The_Great_Powers_in_the_Balkans accessed on
October 9, 2016.
181 http://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/7018.html accessed on October 9, 2016.
182 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin accessed on October 9, 2016.
183 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin#Overview accessed on October 9, 2016.
184 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Far_East#Russo-Japanese_War accessed on September 30, 2016.
185 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Uprising#Eve_of_the_uprising accessed on October 9, 2016.
186 https://www.britannica.com/event/January-Insurrection accessed on September 16, 2016.
187 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Uprising#Evolution_of_events accessed on September 16, 2016.
188 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era accessed on September 16, 2016.
189 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_era#Progress accessed on September 16, 2016.
190 http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/palmerst.html accessed on September 16, 2016.
191 Ibid., the same.
192
Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850-1890, 153-4.
193 Ibid., 155.
194 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims accessed on September 16, 2016.
195 https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Civil-War accessed on September 18, 2016.
196 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 795.
197 Ibid., 796.
198 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Root_causes accessed on September 18, 2016.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
211
159
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
199
Ibid., 797.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Diplomacy accessed on September 18, 2016.
201 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#European_colonization accessed on September 18, 2016.
202 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Confederation_and_expansion accessed on September 18, 2016.
203 Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer, A History of the Modern World (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2003), 543.
204 Ibid., 544-5.
205 https://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/588614/ch28_2.pdf accessed on September 20, 2016.
206 Ibid., the same.
207 http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/04/chinese-and-japanese-responses-to-the-west-during-the-19th-century/
accessed on September 23, 2016.
208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune accessed on September 24, 2016.
209 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#Background accessed on September 24, 2016.
210 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#The_Ordre_Moral_Government accessed on
September 24, 2016.
211 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate_Republicans_(France)#During_the_Third_Republic accessed on
September 25, 2016.
212https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Party_(France)#Radicals_before_the_party_.281830.E2.80.93190
1.29 accessed on September 25, 2016.
213 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_(historical)#France Accessed on September 25, 2016.
214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#Boulanger_crisis on September 24, 2016.
215 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#Dreyfus_affair accessed on September 24, 2016.
216 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_scandals#The_scandal accessed on September 24, 2016.
217 Roger Magraw, France 1815-1914: The Bourgeois Century, 216.
218 Ibid., 219.
219 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#Social_history accessed on September 26, 2016.
220 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#Church_and_state on September 25, 2016.
221 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#1871-1900 accessed on September 25, 2016.
222 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic#1900-1914 accessed on September 25, 2016.
223 Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer, A History of the Modern World, 579-80.
224 Ibid., 580.
225 Roger Magraw, France 1815-1914: The Bourgeois Century, 375.
226 Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850-1890, 159.
227 Ibid., 161.
228 Ibid., 162. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli accessed on September 16, 2016
229 Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform, 1850-1890, 163.
230 Ibid., 165.
231 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury accessed on
September 28, 2016.
232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_GascoyneCecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury#Prime_minister:_1886.E2.80.9392 accessed on September 28, 2016.
233 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_GascoyneCecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury#Prime_minister:_1895.E2.80.931902 on September 28, 2016.
234 http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/politics/reform.htm accessed on September 28, 2016.
235 Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer, A History of the Modern World, 581-3.
236
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918 accessed on September 28, 2016.
237 Ibid., 583-4.
238 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Chancellor_of_the_German_Empire accessed on
September 28, 2016/
239 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Socialism accessed on September 28, 2016.
240 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Germanisation accessed on September 28, 2016.
241 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Foreign_policies accessed on September 28, 2016.
212
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
200
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
242
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor#Foreign_affairs on September 28, 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#Loss_of_North_and_South_American_colonies
accessed on September 28, 2016.
244 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#Reaction_and_change_.281814.E2.80.9373.29 accessed
on September 28, 2016.
245 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#The_Restoration_.281874.E2.80.931931.29 accessed
on September 28, 2016.
246 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Spain#Disaster_of_1898 accessed on September 28, 2016.
247https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946)#Italian_unifi
cation_.281738-1870.29 accessed on September 29, 2016.
248https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946)#From_the_u
nification_to_the_First_World_War_.281870-1914.29 accessed on September 29, 2016.
249https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946)#Liberal_peri
od accessed on September 29, 2016.
250 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946)#Crispi
accessed on September 29, 2016.
251 Ibid., the same.
252 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Giolitti accessed on September 29, 2016.
253https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Kingdom_of_Italy_(1861%E2%80%931946)#Colonial_e
mpire accessed on September 30, 2016.
254 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary accessed on September 30, 2016.
255 http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/aus-hun.htm accessed on September 30, 2016.
256 Ibid., the same.
257 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsarist_autocracy accessed on September 30, 2016.
258 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire#Second_half_of_the_nineteenth_century accessed on
September 30, 2016.
259 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_III_of_Russia accessed on September 30, 2016.
260 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire#Alexander_III accessed on September 30, 2016.
261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire#Early_twentieth_century on September 30, 2016.
262 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism accessed on October 1, 2016.
263 Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer, A History of the Modern World, 614.
264 https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism accessed on October 2, 2016.
265 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Colonialism_vs_Imperialism on October 1, 2016.
266 Ibid., the same.
267 Ibid., 615.
268 Ibid., 616.
269 Ibid., 619.
270 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War accessed on October 3, 2016.
271 Ibid., the same.
272 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War#Effect_on_the_American_Civil_Wa
r accessed on October 3, 2016.
273 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico accessed on October 3, 2016.
274 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico accessed on October 3, 2016.
275 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine accessed on October 3, 2016.
276 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Panama_Canal accessed on October 4, 2016.
277
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Panama_Canal#Summary accessed on October 4, 2016.
278 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War#Aftermath on October 4, 2016.
279 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary accessed on October 4, 2016.
280 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary#Criticism accessed on October 4, 2016.
281 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hawaii accessed on October 4, 2016.
282 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#Congress_of_Berlin accessed on
October 4, 2016.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
213
243
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
283
Ibid., the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Hamid_II accessed on October 4, 2016.
285 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%9378) accessed on October 4, 2016.
286 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%9378)#Balkan_theatre accessed on
October 4, 2016.
287 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%9378)#Caucasian_theatre accessed
on October 4, 2016.
288 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877%E2%80%9378) accessed on October 4, 2016.
289 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/suez-canal-opens accessed on October 8, 2016.
290 Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer, A History of the Modern World, 631-33.
291 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Background accessed on October 5, 2016.
292 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Africa_and_global_markets on October 5, 2016.
293 Ibid., 640.
294 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Strategic_rivalry accessed on October 5, 2016.
295 Ibid., the same.
296 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Germany.27s_Weltpolitik on October 5, 2016.
297 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Italy.27s_expansion accessed on October 5, 2016.
298 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference accessed on October 4, 2016.
299 http://www.blackpast.org/gah/partition-africa accessed on October 4, 2016.
300 Ibid., the same.
301 Ibid., the same.
302 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Colonization_of_the_Congo on October 5, 2016.
303 Ibid., the same.
304 Ibid., the same.
305https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa#Britain.27s_administration_of_Egypt_and_South_Af
rica accessed on October 5, 2016.
306 Ibid., the same.
307 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashoda_Incident accessed on October 5, 2016.
308 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Moroccan_Crisis accessed on October 5, 2016.
309 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agadir_Crisis accessed on October 5, 2016.
310 http://quicksmartrevision.weebly.com/moroccan-crisis.html accessed on October 5, 2016.
311 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish_state accessed on October 5, 2016.
312 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Wars accessed on October 5, 2016.
313 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maji_Maji_Rebellion accessed on October 5, 2016.
314 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies#Dutch_conquests accessed on October 5, 2016.
315 Ibid., the same.
316 http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/modernworldhistorytextbook/imperialism/section_4/earlyindia.html
accessed on October 5, 2016.
317 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Military_reorganisation on October 5, 2016.
318 Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd Kramer, A History of the Modern World, 645.
319 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_imperialism_in_Asia#France_in_Indochina on October 5, 2016.
320 Ibid., the same.
321 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand#20th_century accessed on October 5, 2016.
322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations#Russophobia accessed on
October 5, 2016.
323
Ibid., the same.
324 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_relations#Allies.2C_1907-1917
accessed on October 5, 2016.
325 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_imperialism_in_Asia#European_intrusions_into_China accessed
on October 5, 2016.
326 Ibid., the same.
327 Ibid., the same.
214
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
284
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
328
Ibid., the same.
https://www.sps186.org/downloads/basic/588614/ch28_2.pdf accessed on September 24, 2016.
330 Ibid., the same.
331 Ibid., the same.
332 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Sino-Japanese_War_.281894.E2.80.9395.29
accessed on October 6, 2016.
333 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Russian_encroachment on October 6, 2016.
334 https://www.britannica.com/event/Russo-Japanese-War accessed on October 6, 2016.
335 Ibid., the same.
336 Ibid., the same.
337 http://ibatpv.org/projects/germany/2ndreich/bismarckian_alliance_system.htm on October 8, 2016.
338 Ibid., the same.
339 Ibid., the same.
340 Ibid., the same.
341 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 878-9.
342 Ibid., 879.
343 Ibid., 879-80.
344 Ibid., 881.
345 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War accessed on October 8, 2016.
346 Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, 881-2.
347 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history accessed on October 12, 2016.
348 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history#Gunpowder_warfare accessed on October 12, 2016.
349 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history#Industrial_warfare accessed on October 12, 2016.
350 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history#Modern_warfare accessed on October 12, 2016.
351 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army accessed on October 10, 2016.
352 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army#Bulwark_of_conservatism accessed on October 11, 2016.
353 Ibid., the same.
354 Ibid., the same.
355 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army#Moltke_the_Elder accessed on October 11, 2016.
356 Ibid., the same.
357 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army#Wars_of_unification accessed on October 11, 2016.
358 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army#Imperial_Germany accessed on October 11, 2016.
359 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-von-Clausewitz accessed on October 11, 2016.
360 Ibid., the same.
361 Ibid., the same.
362 Ibid., the same.
363 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#Napoleonic_France on October 11, 2016.
364 Ibid., the same.
365 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#French_colonial_empire on October 11, 2016.
366 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#From_1815 accessed on October 11, 2016.
367 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#French_Navy accessed on October 11, 2016.
368 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine-Henri_Jomini#French_Army accessed on October 12, 2016.
369 Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini, The Art of War (London, UK: Greenhill Books, 1992), vi.
370 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine-Henri_Jomini#Postwar_service_and_retirement accessed on
October 12, 2016.
371
http://www.arcmanor.com/FDL/AofW5674.pdf, 27, 48, and 129-30 accessed on October 12, 2016.
372 Ibid., 161, 187, 206, 246, and 288.
373 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy accessed on October 11, 2016.
374https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#French_Revolutionary_and_Napoleonic_Wa
rs_.281793.E2.80.931815.29 accessed on October 11, 2016.
375 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#American_War_of_1812.E2.80.931815
accessed on October 11, 2016.
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
215
329
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
376
Ibid., the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#Pax_Britannica.2C_1815.E2.80.931895
378 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#Operations accessed on October 11, 2016.
379 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#Technology accessed on October 11, 2016.
380 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#Two-power_standard on October 11, 2016.
381https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#Age_of_the_battleship.2C_1895.E2.80.9319
19 accessed on October 11, 2016.
382 Ibid., the same.
383 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Royal_Navy#First_World_War on October 11, 2016.
384 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army#French_invasion_of_Russia accessed on October
12, 2016.
385 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army#The_1813_Campaign_in_Germany accessed on
October 12, 2016.
386 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army#The_1814_Campaign_in_France accessed on
October 12, 2016.
387 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army#Cossacks accessed on October 12, 2016.
388 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Russian_Army#Reforms accessed on October 12, 2016.
389 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States#War_of_1812 accessed on
October 12, 2016.
390https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States#War_with_Mexico_.281846.E2.80
.9348.29 accessed on October 12, 2016.
391https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States#American_Civil_War_.281861.E2.
80.9365.29 accessed on October 12, 2016.
392 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States#Modernization accessed on
October 12, 2016.
393 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Naval_War_College_and_writings accessed on
October 12, 2016.
394 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Strategic_views accessed on October 12, 2016.
395 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Sea_power accessed on October 12, 2016.
396 Ibid., the same.
397 Ibid., the same.
398 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan#Impact accessed on October 12, 2016.
399 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century accessed on October 13, 2016.
400 http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t253/e9 accessed on October 13, 2016.
401 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Modernism_in_Christian_theology
accessed on October 13, 2016.
402 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Liberal_Christianity accessed on
October 13, 2016.
403 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Protestant_Europe accessed on October
13, 2016.
404 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Britain accessed on October 13, 2016.
405 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Germany accessed on October 13, 2016.
406 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Second_Great_Awakening accessed on
October 13, 2016.
407 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Adventism on October 13, 2016.
408
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Holiness_movement accessed on
October 13, 2016.
409 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Third_Great_Awakening accessed on
October 13, 2016.
410 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#France accessed on October 13, 2016.
411 Ibid., the same.
412 Ibid., the same.
216
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
377
Chapter I. Politics and Religion
413
Ibid., the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Germany_2 on October 13, 2016.
415 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Kulturkampf on October 13, 2016.
416 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#First_Vatican_Council accessed on
October 13, 2016.
417 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Social_teachings on October 13, 2016.
418 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Veneration_of_Mary accessed on
October 13, 2016.
414
419
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Anticlericalism.2C_secularism_and_socialism accessed on October 13, 2016.
420
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Jesuits accessed on October 13, 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_19th_century#Africa accessed on October 13, 2016.
422 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church accessed on October 13, 2016.
423 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Peter_the_Great accessed on October 13, 2016.
424 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Fin-de-si.C3.A8cle_religious_renaissance
accessed on October 13, 2016.
425 http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t253/e9 accessed on October 13, 2016.
426 Ibid., the same.
427 Ibid., the same.
428 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism accessed on October 13, 2016.
429 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Islamic_antisemitism_in_the_19th_century accessed on
October 13, 2016.
430 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Secular_or_racial_antisemitism on October 13, 2016.
431 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Causes accessed on October 13, 2016.
421
Map I-5-1. Religion in Europe in the 19th Century
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/09/ReligionInEuropeDetail.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg
Book V. The Consolidation of Nation States and Industrialization, 1815-1914
217