Download Chapter 22 – The Age of Nation States Russia and the Crimean War

Chapter 22 – The Age of Nation States
Russia and the Crimean War
As we saw in Chapter 20, the Tsar Nicholas I (r. 1825-1855) succeeded his brother Alexander I. Nicholas
lacked his brother's spiritual and intellectual depth and saw his role simply as an autocrat ruling by whatever
means necessary. Nicholas’ views were hardened by the Decembrist Revolt of 1825, in which army officers
tried to put his more liberal-thinking brother Constantine on the throne. Under Nicholas, the government
exercised censorship and other controls over education and public life in order to keep autocracy safe. But
tragically for Russia, Nicholas kept Russia a vast agricultural land and did not take major steps to
industrialize – especially at a time when Western European nations were experiencing dramatic industrial
and technological growth. Nicholas can be remembered by his three pillars of Absolutism: Orthodoxy,
Autocracy and Nationalism.
The Irony was that, as Russia fell behind the European powers, she kept expanding to the east. By the
early 1800s, Russia had absorbed the Caucasus’ states of Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But what
Russia wanted most of all was to dominate the Ottoman Empire and even dared to hope to make
Istanbul (Constantinople) a Russian city. It was because of this, that the Crimean War broke out over two
disputes. First, since the time of Catherine the Great, Russia had given protective oversight to Orthodox
Christians living in the Ottoman Empire; and France gave the same protective oversight to Catholics living
in the Empire. In 1851 under pressure from the French government, the Ottoman sultan transferred care of
certain holy places in Palestine from the Orthodox to the Catholic Church. Russia was outraged and felt her
prestige had been damaged.
Second, Russia wanted control of the Ottoman provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia – both in modern
Romania. In the summer of 1853, under a shallow pretext of protecting Orthodox Christians, the Russians
occupied the two provinces. And shortly thereafter, the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia. The
Western powers were not as concerned about religious holy places (whether or not the French would get to
administer the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem) as much as the weakness of the Ottoman Empire. France
and Great Britain were afraid that the balance of power would shift too much toward Russia’s
benefit, if Russia occupied the Ottoman Balkans and Istanbul.
So on March 28th 1854, Great Britain and France came to the aid of the Ottoman Empire and declared war
on Russia. Nicholas was disappointed that Austria and Prussia remained neutral especially as he had helped
the Austrians quell the 1848 Hungarian revolution. But Austria had its own designs on the Balkans and
Prussia followed the Austrian lead. The war was fought ineptly by both sides and Europe was horrified
when journalists sent reports and photographs of poorly led troops without sufficient supplies - and
particularly terrible medical conditions. In September 1855 after a long siege, the Russian fortress at
Sebastopol fell and both sides moved to end the war and a treaty was signed in March of 1856 in Paris.
The Treaty of Paris forced the Russians to surrender territory near the mouth of the Danube River and
guaranteed that Moldavia and Wallachia remain under nominal Ottoman rule, but would be granted
independent constitutions and national assemblies, which were to be monitored by the victorious powers.
Russia was also required to recognize the neutrality of the Black Sea and renounce its claims to protect
Orthodox citizens in the Ottoman Empire.
The results were threefold: First, the image of the invincible Russia that had destroyed Napoleon’s Grande
Armee was shattered; secondly, the war clearly revealed that Russia, who could bully the weaker nations
and cultures of Central Asia, was no match for the industrialized powers of Europe and finally that the
Concert of Europe (the creation of Alexander I) – as a means of dealing with international relations on the
European Continent – had vanished.
1
The Ottoman Empire
The Eastern Question
We have already talked about the Eastern Question and from the 1820s on, European powers, which no
longer saw the Ottoman Empire as a threat, had to deal with the question of what to do about the Sick Man
of Europe. The Crimean War had shown that Europeans did not trust each other but still wanted to maintain
a balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean; thus the Western powers needed to support a viable
Ottoman State. But the solution to the problem was not simple. In 1805, following the power vacuum left by
Napoleon’s Egyptian campaign, the Ottoman viceroy of Egypt Muhammad Ali seized power and built a
powerful state by drafting peasants into the army and hiring European officers to train them. He also (in
contrast to Istanbul and St. Petersburg) launched an ambitious program of industrialization, concentrating on
cotton textiles and armaments. Even though he helped the Ottomans in the Greek War of Independence, he
challenged Ottoman authority and would have toppled the Istanbul government, except for British
intervention. By his death in 1848, Muhammad Ali had made Egypt a de-facto independent state, although
technically still an Ottoman holding. He came to be known as the Father of Modern Egypt.
The Era of Tanzimat
For the Istanbul government, the situation continued to deteriorate: battlefield defeats, political instability
and unrest among Dhimmi peoples. So Abd al-Majid I – under pressure from his bureaucrats who had
studied in Europe – issued a decree, called Hati-i Sharif that attempted to reorganize the empire’s
administration and military along European lines. This came to be called the Tanzimat (or reorganization)
Era which lasted from 1839 to 1876. Using French law as a guide, the reformers passed a series of laws
guaranteeing public trials, rights of privacy and equality before the law for all citizens. In 1856, at the close
of the Crimean War, they promulgated the Hati-i- Hümayun which spelled out the rights of non-Muslims
giving them equal obligation for military service and equal opportunity for government employment and
entrance into state schools. Tanzimat reformers also gave women greater access to education.
Public schools for women were established and small numbers of women entered public life. Marriage and
divorce, however, still remained under Islamic Law, but state courts now began to take away much of the
power of the Ulama. And since the Ulama had also traditionally controlled education, the Tanzimat
reformers also drew plans for a complete restructuring of education along European lines – which, of course
weakened the Ulama even further. Many Ottomans questioned the wisdom of Tanzimat and warned that
replacing long-standing Islamic institutions with European ones would lead to disaster.
Abd al-Majid I died in 1861 and was succeeded by his brother, who continued Tanzimat reforms but he was
deposed in 1876 by a group of radical dissidents from the Ottoman bureaucracy. The rebels made Abd alHamid II the new Sultan. Then they pressured him to accept the Constitution of 1876 that limited his
authority but in less than a year, the sultan pulled off his own coup, suspended the constitution, dissolved
parliament and exiled or killed many reformers. Then for thirty years, he ruled autocratically in an effort to
prevent the empire from being divided up either by European Powers or emerging Dhimmi peoples.
In 1899, exiled Ottoman reformers in Paris established the Ottoman Society for Union and Progress,
known as the Young Turks. They were pro-western army officers who called for universal suffrage,
equality before the law, freedom of religion, free public education and secularization of the state and the
emancipation of women. In 1908-09, they forced Abd al-Hamid II off the throne and restored the parliament
and Constitution of 1876. They then installed the puppet sultan Mehmed V Rashid; the day of the Sultan
was over. The Young Turks were ultra-nationalistic and sought to make Turkish the national language. This
offended many members of the empire: from Arabs to Armenians to Slavs – and consequent tensions and
rebellions increased especially in the Balkans. The Young Turks were still in charge when World War I
broke out and their decision to join the Central Powers led to their defeat and the dissolution of the Ottoman
Empire.
2
The Unification of Italy
Nationalism was also alive in Italy and one of the early approaches was Romantic Republicanism which
defines a state as deriving its political legitimacy from those it governs including such factors as
language, race, culture and religion. After the Congress of Vienna, many secret Republican societies were
founded throughout Italy. The most famous of these were the Carbonari (meaning charcoal burners) who
were a group of romantic republicans whose goals were often patriotic and liberal in focus but lacking a
clear political agenda. Nevertheless in spite of their lack of success, they became a rallying point for those
unhappy with the political situation in Italy.
After the failure of the nationalist uprisings in 1831, Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) became the leader of the
Young Italy Society whose sole purpose was to drive Austria from Italy and establish an Italian
republic. During the 1830s and 1840s, he and Giuseppe Garibaldi led uprisings all across Italy and both
were involved in the failure of the Roman Republic of 1849. During the 1850s, between periods of exile,
they continued their guerrilla warfare. An unintended side effect was that the Romantic Republicans
frightened moderate Italians who wanted to oust the Austrians but did not want a republic; they hoped a
solution might be found though the papacy. But by 1860, Italy would be mostly united under a
constitutional monarchy under the leadership of a remarkable man, Count Camillo Cavour (1810-1861) who
was the prime minister of the Sardinia-Piedmont.
Piedmont had been restored by the Congress of Vienna as a buffer state between France and the Austrians in
Northern Italy. As we saw in 1848-1849, King Charles Albert issued two conservative constitutions and
twice unsuccessfully fought the Austrians after which he abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emmanuel II
(r. 1849-1878). And it was the new king who chose Cavour to be his prime minister. Cavour was a
Machiavellian politician; in his early years, he was a conservative but later turned moderately liberal. He
made a fortune by investing in railroads and agriculture; and was deeply steeped in the Enlightenment,
classical economics and utilitarianism. Most importantly, Cavour was a nationalist and a monarchist
who rejected republicanism. He believed that economic and material progress, not romantic ideals, would
only be achieved by a unified Italy.
So Cavour promoted free trade, railway construction and a strong economy. He fostered the Nationalist
Society which established groups all through Italy to press for unification – under the leadership of
Piedmont. Finally, he believed that only French intervention could defeat Austria and unite Italy; and the
accession of Napoleon III seemed to open the door for such help. To that end Cavour used the Crimean
War to bring Italy into European politics. Piedmont sent 10,000 troops to help France and Britain capture
Sebastopol. He participated in the Paris Conference and, although Piedmont gained no territory, Cavour
impressed Europe, especially Napoleon III. During the rest of the 1850s, he achieved further European
respect by opposing Mazzini and offering his vision of a moderate-liberal, monarchist alternative to both
Mazzini’s continuing attempts of leading nationalist uprising and also reactionary absolutism.
Cavour’s opportunity came in January of 1858, when an Italian Carbonari, Felice Orsini, tried to
assassinate Napoleon III. Napoleon began to see himself as a liberator of Italy and Cavour as a potential ally
against Austria. In July 1858, Napoleon and Cavour met at Plombières in Southern France where they
plotted to provoke a war in Italy to defeat Austria and signed the Treaty of Plombières in December. The
next April, Austria demanded that Piedmont demobilize its army and war broke out. On June 4, the
Austrians were defeated at the Battle of Magenta and on June 24 at the Battle of Solferino. Meanwhile,
revolutions had broken out in Tuscany, Modena, Parma and the Papal States. The result was that Cavour
gained Lombardy but Austria retained Venice. The next year however would bring the desired unification.
3
In the summer of 1860, Tuscany, Modena, Parma and Romagna (which were part of the Papal States) voted to
unite with Piedmont. Moreover, a few months before in May, Garibaldi had landed in Sicily with more than
a thousand troops (his famous Red Shirts). He captured Palermo, invaded Southern Italy and soon controlled
all of the Kingdom of Naples. Garibaldi hoped to found a republic but Cavour’s forces rushed to meet him
conquering the rest of the Papal States, except for the area around Rome which was protected by French
troops. Then Garibaldi surprised everyone and accepted Piedmontese rule - with his “liberated territories”
formally voting to join the new Italian Kingdom. France protected the Papal States and was given French
speaking Savoy and Nice as compensation – AND Austria still held Venice.
In March 1861, Victor Emanuel II was declared king of a united Italy and three months later Cavour died
from a stroke at a time when his skills were most needed. Republicans resented the treatment of Garibaldi;
many clergy were resentful about the conquest of the Papal States; and Southern Italy (poor in resources with
almost no industrialization) was a hotbed of armed insurrections. In essence, Italy had two parts: the
industrialized north with an emerging working class and a poverty stricken south characterized by large
landholders and overburdened peasants. Moreover, the political framework of the new kingdom would be
able to do very little to overcome these problems.
The constitution provided for a conservative constitutional monarchy. Parliament consisted of two houses: a
senate appointed by the king and a chamber of deputies elected by a narrow (small) electorate. Ministers
were responsible to the king but rarely could they stay in office without the support of Parliament. The
result was a government that avoided problems rather than solved them. That system came to be called
Transformismo and was characterized by bribery and corruption used to “transform” political opponents
into government supporters.
Moreover the unification was not complete. In 1866 (as we shall soon see) Prussia crushed the Austrians. Italy
had wisely allied herself with Prussia and as a result received Venice as compensation. Then in 1870,
Prussia crushed France in the Franco Prussian War and Italy was able to annex Rome and make it the capital
of the Kingdom of Italy. The papacy refused to recognize the loss of its political power and remained shut
up in the Vatican until the Lateran Accord of 1929. That left only the small province of Trent in Northern
Italy and the area around Trieste along the Adriatic Sea remaining in Austrian hands. The desire to add these
territories was called Italia Irredenta or Unredeemed Italy. Thirty five year later, Italy would join the
allies during World War I and regain these last two lands as her reward.
The Unification of Germany
More significant for Europe than the unification of Italy was the unification of Germany. During the 1850s,
German unification seemed as remote as during the middle ages. The German Federation, established by
the Congress of Vienna, was a loose confederation (grouping) of thirty-nine states of greatly differing size
and strength whose representatives met in a central diet at Frankfurt. The two strongest states were Prussia
and Austria; and during the 1850s, it was Austria that dominated the diet. Trade was facilitated through the
Zollverein (a trade union) and growing railways rapidly linked the member states. Frederick William IV of
Prussia had given up thoughts of unification under Prussian leadership and Austria continuously opposed
any union that might lessen its influence.
But in 1858, Frederick William IV suffered a stroke, was judged mentally incompetent and replaced by his
brother Wilhelm I (1797-1888) who became king in his own right in 1861. Wilhelm, a soldier who had fought
at Waterloo, was less idealistic than his brother and more of a Prussian patriot. He was frustrated when his
war minister proposed to enlarge the army and extend conscription from two years to three but was blocked
by the Prussian Parliament (created by the Constitution of 1850) which refused to levy (vote for) the necessary
taxes. The liberals in the Parliament, who dominated the body, wanted to avoid putting more power in the
hands of the king. For two years, the king and Parliament were deadlocked.
4
Then in September 1862, Wilhelm turned to the ablest and most powerful European leader over the next
thirty years, Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck (1815-1898) was descended from Junker nobility and was so
conservative that, when he was elected a member of the provincial diet in the 1840s, his political opinions
were so reactionary, that they upset even the king. From 1851 to 1859, he served as the Prussian
representative to the German Confederation after which he became ambassador to Russia and then France
until 1862, when Wilhelm appointed him minister president of Prussia (prime minister). But although he
began political life as a reactionary, he mellowed into a conservative. Bismarck opposed parliamentary
government but not constitutionalism; he believed in a strong monarchy supported by a strong industrial
base. In his first speech as prime minister, he declared, “Germany is not looking to Prussia’s liberalism but
to her power…The great questions of the day will not be decided by speeches and majority decisions –
that was the mistake of 1848-1849 – but by iron and blood.”
Bismarck immediately moved against the liberals in parliament. He argued that even without new taxes, the
Prussian Constitution permitted the government to carry out its ability to tax on the basis of previously
granted taxes. Therefore, taxes could be collected without consent of Parliament. The army and most of the
government supported this interpretation of the constitution but in 1863 new elections returned the liberals
to power. So in order to attract popular support away from the liberals and towards the army and the king,
Bismarck embraced German nationalism and made the unification of Germany the centerpiece of his efforts.
Bismarck’s vision of German unification was Kleindeutsch (small Germany) and he intended to exclude
Austria from any united Germany. It would be a complicated problem. The Schleswig-Holstein situation
gave Bismarck his first opportunity. The kings of Denmark had long ruled these two duchies (south of
Denmark and in Northern Germany) but neither was actually part of Denmark. Their populations were mixed:
in Schleswig, the Danes were more numerous and in Holstein, the Germans predominated; thus, Holstein
was a member of the German Confederation. In 1863, the Danish Parliament moved to include both duchies
into Denmark. The smaller German states wanted an all-German war to stop the Danes but Bismarck
wanted Prussia or Prussia and Austria to act alone. So in 1864, Austria and Prussia easily crushed Denmark
and by the Treaty of Vienna, Denmark ceded Schleswig and Holstein to Prussia and Austria.
In August 1865, the Convention of Gastein put Austria in charge of Holstein and Prussia in charge of
Schleswig. Then Bismarck laid plans to deliberately provoke a war with Austria so Prussia could dominate
the German states and isolate Austria. He laid his groundwork carefully by supporting Russia’s suppression
of a Polish revolt, negotiating Napoleon III’s promise of neutrality and reassuring his ally Italy that Venice
would be given to Italy, after the war with Austria. Bismarck then ordered the Prussians to be as obnoxious
as possible to the Austrians and Austria declared war on June 1, 1866. The Seven Week’s War (or AustroPrussian War) was won at the Battle of Königgrätz in Bohemia. By the Treaty of Prague which ended the
war, Bismarck was shrewdly lenient to Austria which only lost Venice and was excluded from the
mainstream of German affairs. Now Prussia was the most powerful German state.
In 1867, Prussia annexed Hanover, Hesse-Kassel, Nassau and the city of Frankfurt which had supported
Austria – and deposed their rulers. Under Prussian leadership, all Germany north of the Main River formed
the North German Confederation. Each state retained its own government but all military forces were
under Prussian control. The president of the confederation was the King of Prussia represented by his
minister president who became the Chancellor. A legislature consisted of two houses: a federal council or
Bundesrat, composed of members appointed by the governments of the states, and a lower house, or
Reichstag, chosen by universal male suffrage. Unlike the liberals, Bismarck supported the democratic
(universal male) franchise because he sensed (correctly) that the peasants would vote for the conservatives.
The Reichstag had little power and could not originate legislation as only the chancellor could propose all
laws. The Constitution of the North German Federation would, in 1871, become the constitution of the
German Empire.
5
Bismarck’s spectacular successes overwhelmed the liberals in the Prussian Parliament and the liberals split
between those who supported liberalism and those who supported unification. Even though most of
Germany had become a military monarchy, nationalism proved more attractive to most liberals. Bismarck
had made the army and the monarchy the most powerful institutions in the country. What Bismarck needed
now was to bring the states of Southern Germany (Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden and Hesse) into the newly
established confederation. Two down, one to go and it would events in Spain that gave Bismarck his
opportunity to complete his plans for German unification.
In 1868, a military coup in Spain had deposed the corrupt Bourbon Queen Isabella II. To replace her, the
Spanish chose Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern, a Catholic cousin of Wilhelm I of Prussia. On June 19,
Leopold accepted the Spanish crown with Prussian approval – and Bismarck knew that this would provoke
strong objections from Napoleon III. France immediately sent an ambassador to Prussia, Count Vincent
Benedetti (1817-1900) to consult with Wilhelm I who was vacationing at Bad Ems, a resort in the Rhineland.
They discussed several matters and then, on July 12th, Leopold’s father renounced his son’s candidacy for
the Spanish throne fearing that a war between Prussia and France might break out. Wilhelm was relieved
that he would not have to be involved and there the matter might have ended – except for the stupidity of the
French government and the wily (cunning) Iron Chancellor.
On July 13, the French government instructed Benedetti to ask Wilhelm for assurances that he would not
support any future candidacy for Leopold. The king refused but said he would take the matter under
consideration. Later that day, he sent Bismarck, who was in Berlin, a telegram reporting the substance of the
meeting with Benedetti. Bismarck was disappointed because he wanted war and so he released an edited
version of the Ems Telegram that made it appear that Wilhelm had insulted the French ambassador, hoping
to goad France towards war. The French government took the bait and declared war on July 19, 1870.
Napoleon III was ill and not anxious for war but the French government believed that a victory over Prussia
and the North German Confederation would renew popular support for their empire. The Southern German
states honored their treaty obligations and joined Prussia in the war. France was soundly defeated and
Napoleon III captured at the Battle of Sedan on September 1. By late September, Paris was besieged and
surrendered on January 28, 1871. Ten days earlier, in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, the
German Empire was proclaimed and Wilhelm became the Kaiser (Caesar-Emperor) of German Empire. The
German princes remained heads of their states but Germany had at last been united. Bismarck had achieved
his goal and Europe was profoundly affected:
1. The German Empire was now the strongest state on the continent. Militarily and economically, the
new German Empire was far stronger than Prussia could ever have been by itself. And because she
was a new empire, Germany became (almost desperately) anxious to catch up with the other
European powers, especially in acquiring overseas colonies. In 1897, the German foreign secretary
would declare, “we demand our own place in the sun.”
2. European liberalism had been dealt a severe blow because the new German Empire was a
conservative creation. The German Empire and German politics would now be supported by a
powerful Prussian-dominated state rather than by a weak Austria.
3. Hapsburg weakness was clearly revealed and Austria faced the brutal necessity of adapting to the
profound changes that had occurred - and the first change had to be to come to terms with her
Magyar (Hungarian) subjects.
4. France was humiliated, had to pay a large indemnity and surrender the provinces of Alsace and
Lorraine. Alsace was partly German speaking but Lorraine was French speaking. France did not
forget and waited for the day of revenge. French weakness was also revealed and France, like
Austria, knew she would have to change or face bitter consequences.
6
France: The Third Republic
Historians divide the reign of Napoleon III into two phases: the authoritarian and the liberal. The
authoritarian phase began after his coup of 1851. Napoleon controlled the legislature and the press - and
harassed political opponents. His support came from the army, property owners, the Catholic Church,
peasants and the Bourgeoisie. They gave their approval because Napoleon provided security for their
property and they agreed with his economic programs. Moreover, the French victory in the Crimean War
boosted Napoleon’s popularity.
The liberal phase began after 1860, when Napoleon concluded a free-trade treaty with Great Britain and
permitted freer debate in the legislature. By the late 1860s, he relaxed restrictions on the press and allowed
the formation of trade unions. And by 1870, he had agreed to a liberal-constitution that made government
ministers answerable to the legislature. Napoleon’s liberal concessions were intended to save face because
of his foreign policy failures.
By 1860, he had lost control in the diplomatic intrigues around Italian unification. Between 1861 and 1867,
he had supported a disastrous military expedition against Mexico led by Archduke Maximilian of Austria
that ended in defeat and Maximilian’s execution. In 1866, Napoleon watched passively as Bismarck and
Prussia reorganized German affairs. And even though Napoleon did not favor war with Prussia in 1870, he
took the brunt of the blame for France’s defeat rather than the more culpable French government. After
Sedan, Napoleon was allowed to go to England in exile. Shortly afterwards in Paris, a republic was
proclaimed but when Paris was besieged by the Prussians, the government moved to Bordeaux. The tragic
siege of Paris lasted until January of 1871 when the city surrendered to the German armies.
After the fighting stopped, France was deeply divided. Monarchists dominated the new National Assembly
elected in February 1871 and for a time they gave executive power to Adolphe Thiers, who had been active
in French politics since 1830. Thiers negotiated the Treaty of Frankfurt with Prussia on May 23, which
obligated France to pay an indemnity and turn over Alsace and Lorraine to Germany. But many Parisians,
who had suffered terribly during the Prussian siege, regarded the actions of Thiers and the Monarchists as a
betrayal. The Parisians then elected a new municipal government, called the Paris Commune which was
proclaimed on March 28. The Commune intended to administer Paris separately from the rest of France and
drew radicals and socialists of all types into its ranks. The National Assembly had the army surround and
bombard the city on May 8. By May 21, the army broke into the city and put down the rebellion killing
about twenty thousand people while the Communards killed hundreds of hostages.
The Paris Commune became a legend throughout Europe. Marxists saw it as a genuine proletarian
government that rose up against the oppression of the Bourgeoisie. But this was incorrect as the roots of the
Commune were found in Blanqui’s and Prudhon’s anarchism rather than in Marxist class conflict. The
Commune did not want a worker’s state but a nation of relatively independent, radically democratic
enclaves. Thus, the Paris Commune’s downfall represented the triumph of the nation-state and the
protection of private property. The destruction of the Paris Commune by the National Assembly can be
compared in a wider sense to Prussia’s unification of smaller German states and Piedmont’s unification of
smaller Italian states.
Even though the National Assembly was dominated by a monarchist majority, it nevertheless – against its
will – supported a republican form of government. The monarchists were divided in loyalty between the
House of Bourbon and the House of Orléans. A compromise was possible because the Bourbon claimant,
Henry Count of Chambord (a grandson of Charles X), was childless and agreed to make the Orléanist
claimant, Louis Philippe, Count of Paris (grandson of Louis Philippe) his heir. But the Count of Chambord
refused to become king if the France retained the tricolor flag of the Revolution. Even conservative
monarchists would not accept the white flag of the Bourbons which symbolized the Old Order and
reactionary politics.
7
By September 1873, the indemnity had been paid and Prussian troops had withdrawn. The monarchists
ousted Thiers from office because he was too republican. So the monarchists elected a conservative army
officer, Marshal Patrice MacMahon (1808-1893) who was expected to lay the groundwork for the return of a
king. By 1875 and still unable to find a king, the monarchists decided to regularize the political system.
They adopted a law, the French Constitutional Law, that provided for a Chamber of Deputies elected by
universal male suffrage, a Senate chosen indirectly (i.e., a process in which voters do not choose between
candidates for an office but rather elect persons who will make the choice) and a president elected by the two
legislative houses. It is important to understand that this Third Republic was the result of the inability of
the monarchists to find a king.
MacMahon resigned in 1879 and his departure meant that republicans controlled the national government
despite continuing opposition from the church, wealthy families and part of the army. The political structure
of the Third Republic was much stronger than many supposed at the time. The Republic survived challenges
from those who would impose stronger executive authority such as General Georges Boulanger (1837-1891)
as well as wide spread corruption especially in the sale of awards and government contracts. Nevertheless,
the Third Republic would continue until France was overrun by the Germans in 1940.
The Dreyfus Affair
Before the First World War, the greatest trauma (emotional disaster) for the young Third Republic was the
Dreyfus Affair. Someone in the French officer corps had been passing military secrets to the Germans. In
order to cover up their involvement, the guilty party or parties framed a French officer, Captain Alfred
Dreyfus, who was Jewish. The evidence against Dreyfus was flimsy (almost non-existent) and it was later
discovered that the evidence against Dreyfus had been forged but in 1894 a French military court found
Dreyfus guilty of passing military secrets to Germany. After Dreyfus was sent to the notorious penal colony
of Devil’s Island in French Guiana, the flow of military secrets to the Germans continued. In 1898, the new
head of French counterintelligence reexamined the case and found the forgeries. A different officer was
implicated, found innocent and Dreyfus left to rot on Devil’s Island.
This obvious injustice and cover-up created a national uproar and public debate in France. The army, the
Catholic Church, political conservatives and anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) newspapers contended that Dreyfus
was – even without proof – guilty. In 1898, the novelist, Emile Zola (1840-1902 – whom we will meet in
Chapter 24 as the master of the realistic novel) published a newspaper article entitled J’accuse (I accuse) in
which he accused the army of suppressing evidence and denying Dreyfus due process. Zola – in turn – was
convicted of libel (vilification or making false statements about another) and fled to England to avoid a one
year jail sentence. Along with Zola, many liberals and socialists demanded a new trial for Dreyfus. It was an
uphill battle.
In August, more evidence of forged material was uncovered and the officer responsible committed suicide
in jail. A second military trial again convicted Dreyfus but the French president immediately pardoned him.
It was now obvious to the whole world that the French military was deeply anti-Semitic. In 1906, a civilian
court set aside the tainted (corrupt, tarnished) judgments of the two military trials. The Dreyfus case had
profoundly divided France and the conservatives were put on the defensive. They had allowed themselves to
persecute an obviously innocent man and support those who blatantly created false evidence against him;
and they had embraced anti-Semitism which was especially rooted in the army and the Church. On the
political left, the Dreyfus Affair created an alliance between radicals, republicans and socialists that would
last until the fall of the Third Republic in 1940.
8
The Hapsburg Empire
The events of 1848 and 1849, when the Hungarian/Magyar revolt was put down (only with Russian aid),
Czech nationalism was smothered and General Radetzky barely suppressed the Italian rebellions, left
Austria shaken. Tragically, Austria responded by reasserting absolutism. Some progress was made as all
internal tariffs were abolished and the government was made more centralized and efficient. But the new
emperor Francis Joseph (r. 1849-1916), although honest and hardworking, was unimaginative; passive and
not able to think outside the box. So during the 1850s, the Austrian government tried to deal with its various
nationalities and construct a viable form of government.
In 1860, Francis Joseph issued the October Diploma, which created a federation among the states and
Provinces of the empire. The Diploma would have established local diets dominated by the landed classes
and a single imperial parliament. But the Magyar nobility rejected the plan. So the next year, Francis Joseph
issued the February Patent, which set up an entirely different form of government. It established a
bicameral (two house) imperial parliament or Reichsrat, with an upper chamber appointed by the emperor
and an indirectly elected lower chamber.
Again, the Magyars refused to give their assent to a system of government that gave domination to the
German part of the empire. Thus, the Magyars sent no delegates to the new Reichsrat and for six years the
February Patent governed the empire – and in Austria proper it prevailed until the collapse of the empire in
1918. Under the February Patent, ministers were responsible to the emperor not the Reichsrat; civil liberties
were not guaranteed; armies could be raised and taxes levied without Reichsrat approval; and when the
Reichsrat was not in session, the emperor could simply rule by decree.
The Dual Monarchy
Meanwhile, secret negotiations were carried on between the emperor and the Magyars which produced no
results until Austria’s defeat at Prussian hands in 1866 and the exclusion of Austria from German affairs.
Austria’s humiliation and isolation meant that Francis Joseph had to come to terms with his Magyar
subjects. The result was the Ausgleich or Compromise of 1867 which transformed the Hapsburg Empire
into a dual monarchy known as Austria-Hungary. By the terms of the Ausgleich, Austria and Hungary
were wholly separate states except for shared ministers of foreign affairs, finance and defense.
Francis Joseph remained Emperor of Austria and was crowned king of Hungary in Budapest in 1867. Both
Austria and Hungary had separate parliaments but each year, sixty delegates met to discuss matters of
mutual interest and every ten years their trade relationship was renegotiated. It was a cumbersome
compromise unique to European history: the Hapsburgs kept their empire (sort of) and Hungary got its
freedom (sort of).
It is important to understand that Hungary’s new loyalty to the Hapsburg monarch was based on
Nationalism; that is, Hungary was a Magyar nation under a Hapsburg king. In the rest of the empire, loyalty
was defined as dynastic loyalty to a royal house. And when Hungary achieved her new status based on
national identity, many other nationalities wanted to achieve the same status and gain self-government over
themselves.
Many of these groups, like the Czechs, Ruthenians, Romanians (there was an independent Romania but many
Romanians lived in Hungarian controlled territory) and Croatians, opposed the Ausgleich because it permitted
the German-speaking Austrians and the Hungarian Magyars to dominate all other ethnic groups in the
empire. The most vocal critics were the Czechs of Bohemia who wanted Trialism or Triple-Monarchy
which would give them the same advantages as Hungary. In 1871, Francis Joseph favored the idea but the
Hungarians vetoed it lest they be forced to make similar concessions to Romanians and other ethnic
minorities living under Hungarian control.
9
For twenty years, the emperor was able to placate the Czechs (and the German minority living in Bohemia) but
in the 1890s, Czech nationalism became more intense and in 1897, Francis Joseph made the Czech and
German languages equal which caused the Germans and the Czechs to disrupt the Reichsrat (Disruptors even
played musical instruments in the Reichsrat). With the Reichsrat paralyzed, the emperor ruled by decree
through his bureaucracy. In 1907, the emperor introduced universal male suffrage in Austria but not in
Hungary. Thus, by 1914, constitutionalism was dead in Austria but alive in Hungary and the bottom line
was that language and race became the ways to define nationality in the Dual Monarchy.
The unrest of various nationalities made the Dual Monarchy more and more unstable. Many Germans
wanted to be united to Bismarck’s Germany; other national groups such as Ukrainians, Romanians, Italians
and Bosnians wanted to be joined to Russia, Romania, Italy and Serbia; and others like Czechs, Croats and
Poles wanted their own independent states. Moreover the weakness of the Ottoman Empire allowed Russia
and Austria (and Serbia) to compete in the Balkans for influence and territory. After World War I the Dual
Monarchy would be divided among these states but the problems of ethnicity, race and religious tensions
would linger into our own day.
Russia: Reform versus Autocracy
Nicholas I died during the final phases of the Crimean War and was succeeded by his son, Alexander II (r.
1855-1881) who, unlike his father, was prepared to make the changes that were necessary to bring Russia into
the nineteenth century. The first change was the abolition of serfdom. In 1861 Alexander – despite
opposition from the nobility and landlords - abolished serfdom. But there was a catch. Although the
peasants were freed and did get their land, the government compensated the landlords and forced peasants to
pay a heavy redemption tax. Most peasants were disappointed because they felt they should not have to pay
for what they thought was really theirs. All this meant that emancipation resulted in peasant unrest with
consequent agricultural stagnation.
But there were some pluses. Serfs no longer needed the landlord’s permission to marry and many freed serfs
(called Kulaks) were able to become quite wealthy; however, most peasants remained terribly poor – so much
so that they believed that real emancipation was still to come. Moreover, if harvests were poor (and they
often were), farmers fell farther and farther behind on their redemption tax payments – and the burdens were
often worse than when they were serfs. This situation would not be remedied until 1906 when the
government, having lost a major war with Japan and fared poorly in the Revolution of 1905, grudgingly
cancelled the remaining debts of the former serfs.
Alexander also tried an experiment in political reform in order to extend political rights to the peasants. This
resulted in 1864 in the creation of elected assemblies or Zemstvos to deal with local issues of health,
education and welfare. But the Zemstvos failed because, although all classes elected representatives, the
Zemstvos remained subordinate to the government and to the aristocracy, which just happened to have the
highest number of seats - way out of proportion to their numbers. Alexander was more successful in his
program of legal reform. In 1864, he revised the judiciary system and created a system of law courts based
on Western European models, complete with independent judges and appellate courts. The system was far
from perfect, the judges were not fully independent and the tsar could increase or reduce sentences but the
courts were both more efficient and less corrupt.
Alexander’s reforms became more measured after the Polish Rebellion of 1863. Alexander then set out to
“Russify” Poland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) in a policy called Russification which
sought to eliminate non-Russian languages and force non-Russian cultures to become Russian. Alexander II,
who is so often hailed by historians as a great reformer in Russia, was particularly harsh towards Poland,
Lithuania and the Baltic states. Thousands were executed and tens of thousands were exiled and deported to
Siberia. Jews especially were singled out and the government openly allowed frequent pogroms or antiJewish riots.
10
Thus Alexander was a reformer only within the limits of his own autocracy. His changes failed to create
new loyalty to or gratitude for the government and himself among his subjects. The serfs were unhappy
because they believed their emancipation was incomplete; the wealthier segments of society were unhappy
because the tsar gave them no meaningful role in the government; Alexander did not understand that his
stubborn autocracy made him unpopular. And he became more inflexible after an attempt on his life in 1866
and Russia was slowly transformed into a police state and caused the growth of revolutionary groups.
The rigid autocracy of the tsars had long had critics and one of the most prominent (well-known) was
Alexander Herzen (1812-1870) who lived in London in exile and published a newspaper, The Bell, which
called for reforms in Russia. When the reforms of Alexander II proved to be insufficient, students and
intellectuals formed a revolutionary movement known as Populism and sought a social revolution based on
the communal life of the Russian peasants. The most important group to grow out of Populism was called
Land and Liberty (or Land and Freedom).
The members of Land and Liberty saw the peasants as the principal revolutionary force, as opposed to the
working class factory workers, and so, in the early 1870s, hundreds of young Russian students and
intellectuals took the Populist message into the countryside. Their goal was to live among the peasants, gain
their trust and teach them about their role in the coming revolution. Most peasants, conservative in outlook,
were bewildered and confused by the students’ message and turned them in to the police. In the winter of
1877-1878, almost two-hundred students were tried and found guilty of revolutionary activity. Most were
acquitted or given light sentences and the court suggested that the tsar might pardon or reduce the sentences
of the students who had been given harsher sentences. Alexander II refused and let it be known that he
favored EVEN HEAVIER penalties for anyone involved in revolutionary activities.
Thus, many revolutionaries decided that violence was the only solution. In 1878, Vera Zasulich (1849-1919)
tried to assassinate Fyodor Trepov, the governor of St. Petersburg because he had ordered the flogging of a
worker who had refused to take off his cap in the governor’s presence. In a much publicized and emotional
trial, Zasulich was acquitted because the governor’s brutality. Some people believed that her motives were
personal but the fact remained that her acquittal only encouraged the revolutionaries towards more violence.
In 1879, Land and Liberty split into two groups. One group, the Black Partition, advocated educating the
peasants. [Black referred to the richness of the soil; and partition to the emancipation which had not yet been
realized.] Under persecution by the secret police, the Black Partition soon dissolved. The other group, The
People’s Will, dedicated itself to the overthrow of autocracy and planned to assassinate the tsar himself.
After several unsuccessful attempts, an assassin’s bomb exploded under Alexander’s carriage on March 1,
1881 on his way to a military review. The blast did little damage, but Alexander (against the advice of his
bodyguards) got out and, as he was inspecting the damage and comforting the wounded, a second assassin
threw a second bomb which killed him. Four men and two women were executed but the revolutionaries had
tasted blood and were determined to bring revolution to Russia.
Alexander II’s son, Alexander III (r. 1881-1894), was much more like his grandfather Nicholas I than his
father Alexander and took this growing revolutionary violence and the assassination of his father as a sign
that dissidents could never be trusted; and that only severe repression could restore order. Although he made
some improvements in the conditions of Russian factory laborers, his reign nevertheless brought about an
end to his father’s Era of Reform and his government followed an uncompromising policy of repression,
including the expansion of the secret police and greater censorship of the press. From then on, Alexander III
favored centralized bureaucracy over the Zemstvos. Thus, Alexander III’s actions confirmed all the evils
that the revolutionaries despised in autocratic government.
Alexander’s son, Nicholas II (r. 1894-1917), was easily dominated by the nobility and pursued a policy of
oppression. Sadly, he would discover that autocracy could not survive the pressures of the twentieth century.
11
Great Britain advances toward stronger Democracy
th
In the 19 century, Spain, Sweden and Portugal were unable to regain the power and prestige of previous
centuries. The Netherlands and Belgium industrialized but they were small. Italy achieved unification but
the south was poor and the north continued its growing industrialization; Germany unified, took dramatic
steps in industrial growth but only as a militaristic monarchy. Russia and Austria-Hungary continued fall
behind in technology (although Russia made great strides industrially) and remained mired (stuck) in autocracy
which would be their death knells. France industrialized but struggled under the weak democracy of the
Third Republic. Great Britain had her difficulties but was an economic giant, able to solve her social
problems and move closer to genuine democracy as the twentieth century approached.
After the Great Reform Act of 1832, (which gave the vote to well-to-do men of the middle class and doubled the
number of voters) the British government – for the most part - had resisted attempts to push through further
reform, especially in rejecting the claims of the Chartist Movement. After 1848, however, these attitudes
began to change rapidly and by the early 1860s, many in the British government realized that the voting
franchise would again have to be expanded.
The cause for this shift in thinking was that the prosperity and social respectability of the growing working
class convinced many British politicians that these workers deserved the vote. Organizations such as the
Reform League, led by John Bright (1811-1889), agitated for Parliament to take action. In 1866, the Liberal
Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, introduced a reform bill which proposed to give the vote to most
working men, except unskilled workers but it was defeated by a coalition of conservatives and antidemocratic Liberals. Russell then resigned and was replaced by the Conservative Lord Derby (1799-1869).
Remember the Conservatives were the successors to the old Tory Party and so it looked as if any chance for
a reform bill was dead but then came a big surprise.
The Great Reform Bill of 1867
Lord Derby chose Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), his Chancellor the Exchequer (finance minister), to lead the
House of Commons. Disraeli introduced his own reform bill in 1867 and – as debate proceeded – Disraeli
accepted one amendment after another and produced a bill that expanded the electorate far beyond what the
Liberals under Lord Russell had proposed in 1866. This (Second) Great Reform Bill of 1867 increased the
number of voters from 1,430,000 to 2,470,000 which meant that Great Britain had taken an enormous step
forward towards true democracy. Disraeli hoped that the Conservatives would receive the gratitude of the
new voters. Because reform was inevitable, it was best for the Conservative Party to take the credit.
Moreover, Disraeli thought that much of the working class would support the Conservatives who supported
working class issues. He also felt that the growing suburban middle class would become more conservative.
In the short run, his hopes would be dashed but in the long run the Conservative Party would come to
dominate British politics for most of the twentieth century. The event that crushed Disraeli’s hopes was the
election of 1868 which resulted in a resounding victory for the Liberals.
William Ewert Gladstone
The Election of 1868 returned the Liberals to power and produced a new Prime Minister, William Ewert
Gladstone (1809-1898). Gladstone had begun his political life in 1833 as a staunch Tory but over the next
three decades, he became increasingly more liberal. He had supported Robert Peel, the repeal of the Corn
Laws, and more efficient government administration. He would serve as Prime Minister four separate times
- more than any other person in British history - and was also Britain's oldest Prime Minister, 84 years old,
when he resigned for the last time in 1894. As Chancellor of the Exchequer during the 1850s and early
1860s, he had lowered taxes and reduced government spending. He had championed Italian unification but
opposed a new reform bill until the early 1860s, when he spoke in favor of Lord Russell’s ill-fated bill.
12
Gladstone’s first ministry from 1868 to 1874 was the culmination of British liberalism which grew out of
the old Whig tradition of constitutional monarchism. Institutions such as the army and civil service positions
which were once closed to the lower classes and non-Anglicans, were now opened. In 1870, competitive
examinations for civil service (government jobs) replaced patronage, a system in which people were
appointed to government jobs in return for political or electoral support. The purchasing of officer’s
commissions was abolished. Faculty members of Oxford and Cambridge no longer had to be members of
the Church of England.
The Ballot Act of 1872 guaranteed voting by secret ballot. But a more important accomplishment was the
Education Act of 1870 by which (for the first time in British history) the government took responsibility for
establishing and running of elementary schools. Previously, elementary education was the handled by
religious denominations which received small government subsidies but by the Education Act of 1870, the
government established elementary schools where religious denominations had not already done.
Gladstone’s reforms tried to remove the abuses inherent in British society without destroying its institutions
and allowing all citizens to compete on the grounds of ability and merit as opposed to patronage. Gladstone
also tried to create a literate citizenry which he hoped would ensure a safer (more secure) democracy.
Mostly, however, his reforms should be seen as a mode of state building because they reinforced
loyalty to the nation by eliminating sources of discontent.
Benjamin Disraeli
But William Gladstone had a rival and conservative counterpart in Benjamin Disraeli who had brokered
the Great Reform Bill of 1867 and became Prime Minister when the 1874 elections defeated the Gladstone
government. Disraeli and Gladstone differed on almost every issue. Disraeli was a fervent imperialist and
sought to expand the British Empire, even persuading Parliament to bestow upon Queen Victoria the title
of Empress of India. And, as we shall see, Disraeli was a great supporter of the Congress of Berlin in
1878. In social issues, Gladstone looked to individualism, free trade and competition to solve social
problems, while Disraeli believed in paternalistic (a government that limits personal autonomy for a person’s
own good) government to protect the weak and ease class tensions.
Disraeli’s talk was usually better than the legislation he managed to produce. He had few specific programs
or ideas. The most significant social legislation of his ministry came from the efforts of his home secretary,
Richard Cross. The Public Health Act of 1875 consolidated previous legislation on sanitation and
reaffirmed the state’s duty to protect the public’s health and well-being. Through the Artisan Dwelling Act
of 1875, the government took an active role in providing housing for the working class. The same year, in
an important symbolic gesture, The Factory Act, the Conservative majority in Parliament gave new
protection to British trade unions and allowed the use of picket lines. The Liberal Gladstone government,
although it recognized the legality of trade unions, had refused such protections
The Irish Question
In 1880, the Liberals swept the Conservatives from power and Gladstone became Prime Minister for a
second time. In 1881, Disraeli died and in 1884, with Conservative cooperation, Parliament passed the
Third Reform Act (or the Representation of the People Act) which gave franchise (the vote) to most male
farm workers. The major issue of the decade, however, was Ireland. From the late 1860s onward, Irish
nationalists had sought Home Rule, that is, Irish control of local government. During his first ministry,
Gladstone tried to ease tensions in Ireland by two pieces of legislation. In 1869, he disestablished the
Church of Ireland, the Irish branch of the Anglican Church, so that Irish Roman Catholics would no longer
have to pay taxes to support the hated Church of Ireland. Second in 1870, an Irish Land Act was passed that
provided compensation for Irish famers evicted from their farms and loans made available for farmers who
wished to purchase their land.
13
Despite these weak steps, the Irish question continued to fester and land remained at the center of the
agitation which was increased with the founding of the Irish Land League in the late 1870s. This led to
intense agitation and intimidation of landlords who were mostly Protestants of English descent. The leader
of the Irish movement for a just land settlement and home rule was Charles Stewart Parnell (1846-1891). In
1881, the Gladstone government passed another Irish Land Act which strengthened tenant’s rights. It was
accompanied by a Coercion Act to restore order but caused much resentment among Irish Catholics. By
1885, Parnell had organized eighty-five Irish members of the House of Commons to vote as a bloc. They
bargained with both parties and often disrupted Parliament.
In December 1885, Gladstone announced his support for home rule in Ireland. Parnell gave his votes to the
Liberals but the issue split the Liberals and a group a Liberals known as the Liberal Unionists joined with
the Conservatives to defeat Gladstone’s proposed a Home Rule Bill for Ireland. Then Gladstone called for a
new elections and the Liberals were defeated. The Liberals remained divided and Ireland remained unhappy
but firmly under English control. The new Conservative ministry of Lord Salisbury (1830-1903) tried to
solve Irish discontent with public works projects and administrative reform – which was only marginally
(slightly) successful.
In 1892, Gladstone was returned to power and he managed to get a Second Home Rule Bill passed by the
House of Commons but it was defeated in the House of Lords. And there the question stood until after the
turn of the century. The Conservatives passed a land act in 1903 that made the final transfer of land from
landlord to tenant ownership and Ireland became a land of small farms. In 1912, a Liberal ministry under the
H. H. Asquith (Prime Minister from 1908-1916) passed a Third Home Rule Bill which finally passed the
Lords in 1914 but the coming of the First World War put the Irish Question on the back burner for the
duration of the war.
The divisive (dividing) nature of the Irish Question can be compared to the problems faced by the Hapsburg
emperor, Francis Joseph. Political divisions in Ireland made it almost impossible for Parliament to solve
domestic issues. The fracturing of the Liberal Party (i.e. the Liberal Unionists) hindered social and political
reform for more than two decades. The conundrum (confusing or difficult problem) was that politicians (and
even public opinion) who were willing to compromise and agree about necessary reforms, could NOT agree
about Ireland until the Liberals regrouped during the first decade of the twentieth century under Asquith’s
predecessor Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (Prime Minister from 1905-1908).
14