3.2 Consequences of the 1848–49 Revolutions (GU)
Initial Responses of German States to the 1848–49 Revolutions
Princely rulers responded to popular feelings by making short-term concessions.
They remained fearful of losing power if they resisted revolutionary sentiment.
Most rulers granted constitutions as a temporary measure.
Despite granting concessions, rulers retained control over armed forces and waited for the opportune moment to reassert their authority.
In Baden, revolutionaries briefly gained control over the country, aided by mutinous troops.
In June 1849, the Grand Duke of Baden requested assistance from Prussia to restore order.
Prussia provided military support to suppress revolts in other German states, including Saxony and Württemberg.
Weaknesses of the Revolutions
Recovery of royal power was facilitated by divisions within revolutionary movements.
Liberals sought moderate constitutional reform, contrasting with radicals who desired more sweeping political changes.
Working-class revolutionaries were focused on improving living conditions rather than the political ideals of the middle-class liberals.
For example, in the Rhineland, affluent activists abandoned the movement when confronted with radical working-class uprisings, fearing for their property rights.
Liberals withdrew support when they perceived a risk of a radical social revolution.
Recovery of the Austrian Monarchy
Initially surprised by the revolutions in March 1848, Austria eventually regained power with Prussian support, restoring monarchical authority in German territories.
Friedrich Wilhelm IV and Prussia
Friedrich Wilhelm IV exhibited inconsistent behavior during the revolutionary period.
After the March 1848 riots in Berlin, he publicly adopted the black, red, and gold colors of the nationalist movement, proclaiming that "henceforward Prussia will be merged in Germany."
Debate exists regarding his true motives—whether he was genuinely inspired or attempting to salvage his position by taking control of the movement.
In the aftermath, he allowed the election of an assembly to draft a constitution but later dissolved this assembly.
By December 1848, a restrictive political settlement was introduced:
New constitution effective February 1850 included a two-chamber parliament, but the king retained significant powers, including the ability to collect taxes without parliamentary consent.
Ministers were accountable directly to the king, not parliament, and he preserved the right to amend the constitution.
The voting system favored conservative interests, as roughly one-third of voters would choose 85% of the Landtag members, with the upper house (Herrenhaus) appointed by the king ensuring Junker dominance.
The Frankfurt Parliament
The most notable outcome of the revolutions was the establishment of a national parliament, which convened in Frankfurt from May 1848 to June 1849.
Each state selected its own voting system for representative election; however, the exclusion of many poor citizens limited its representativeness.
The parliament was largely male and consisted primarily of affluent professionals, earning it the nickname "the professors’ parliament."
Members included notable figures like Jacob Grimm among others. The first president was Heinrich von Gagern.
Table 3.2: Occupations of Members of the Frankfurt Parliament (1848–49)
Lawyers: 200
Nobles: 90
University professors: 49
Principals and teachers: 40
Writers and journalists: 35
Merchants and industrialists: 30
Clergy: 26
Doctors: 12
Handicraft workers: 4
Peasants: 1
The parliament aimed to establish a strong central government with authority that surpassed the old Confederation's Diet.
The parliamentary process was prolonged, delaying significant decisions.
In June 1848, a 'Provisional Central Power' was established under liberal Archduke Johann to govern until a permanent constitution was drafted.
By December, the parliament approved 50 fundamental rights, including equality before law and freedom of press.
Despite these developments, a definitive constitution to supplant the interim government had not been finalized.
The Collapse of the Frankfurt Parliament
The Frankfurt Parliament suffered from notable weaknesses:
Members disagreed on the territorial extent of a unified Germany, deliberating between Kleindeutschland (Prussia's dominance) and Grossdeutschland (Austria's leadership).
A proposed constitution was ultimately presented in March 1849, suggesting a parliamentary governance under an emperor. The crown was offered to Friedrich Wilhelm IV.
Some supporters believed he would take charge of a national revolutionary movement, crucially needing Prussian military strength to oppose Austria.
Friedrich Wilhelm IV declined the crown in April 1849, decrying it as a "crown of mud and wood from the gutter," emphasizing his refusal to accept legitimacy from the Frankfurt assembly.
Reasons for the Failure of the Frankfurt Parliament
Lack of Political Experience:
Members had no military authority, relying on the cooperation of traditional rulers.
The Prussian army remained under the king's control, illustrating the parliament’s helplessness.
During the Schleswig-Holstein crisis, where German territories rebelled against Danish integration, the Prussian forces halted operations after international pressure, further showcasing the parliament's reliance on the traditional ruling authorities.
The princes initially did not oppose the parliament but regained confidence as their authority was restored by autumn.
The procrastination in organizing a constitution severely diminished the parliament’s possibility for success, with most members dispersing following Friedrich Wilhelm’s decision to refuse the crown.
The remaining members relocated to Stuttgart, where they were eventually dispersed by troops in June 1849.
This event underscored the failure of middle-class liberalism to unite Germany.
Friedrich Wilhelm IV’s Message to the Frankfurt Parliament
His correspondence reveals the reasoning behind his refusal of the imperial crown:
He expressed gratitude to the assembly but insisted that accepting the crown without the princes' consent would violate sacred rights and break promises.
Reassertion of Austrian Power: The Humiliation of Olmütz
Following the 1848 revolutions, Austria restored its status as a dominant force in the Confederation.
Friedrich Wilhelm IV's aspirations for unifying Germany under Prussian leadership were deemed short-lived post-failure of the Frankfurt Parliament.
In response to the Erfurt Union, Austria reinstated the Diet of the Confederation, aiming to counter Prussia's growing ambitions.
Prince Felix Schwarzenberg led a successful effort to reaffirm Austrian authority, proposing a collective governance model involving the major powers including Prussia.
When tensions rose, Prussia, unable to effectively leverage its military strength, engaged in compromises resulting in the 'humiliation of Olmütz' in November 1850, effectively acknowledging Austria’s leadership once again.
Following this, the smaller German states reverted to the old German Confederation.
Experience of 1848–49: Failed Aspirations
The revolutions exposed the vulnerabilities of liberal nationalism.
The reinstatement of monarchical power illustrated the durability of established institutions.
Leaders lacked the organization and resources to fulfill their objectives, while divisions between radicals and liberals proved detrimental.
Disillusionment permeated the ranks of a once hopeful populace as dreams of unity and reform turned to disappointment.
Prussia's Prospects for Leadership and Unification
Despite appearing defeated, Prussia was set to dominate the German sphere due to favorable geographic positioning and economic superiority.
The Prussian economy thrived post-revolutions; significant rail network expansion and industrial growth positioned it favorably against Austria.
Events leading to the Crimean War distracted Austria from its German ambitions, as much of its military was engaged elsewhere.
Prussia's diplomatic neutrality during the Crimean War allowed it to maintain relations and grow economically, while Austria's oversight of nationalist sentiments within its empire hindered it.
The Growth of Industrialization and the Zollverein
Prussia's economic advantage over Austria became apparent post-1849, with railways and industrial output surging:
Railway network expanded by 46% between 1850-1860.
Coal output jumped from 1,961,000 tonnes in 1850 to 8,526,000 tonnes by 1865.
The state partnered with the private sector to finance railway construction, leading to an increase in government revenue without heavy taxation.
Economic prosperity among the middle classes bolstered support for Prussian leadership and unification.
The formation of the National Society (Nationalverein) in 1859 reflected middle-class aspirations for a strong national authority, though its actual influence remained limited due to low membership.
The Zollverein and Economic Relations
The ongoing expansion of the Zollverein strengthened Prussia’s economic position, marking it as a major European economy.
Austria's intentions to join the Zollverein were met with resistance, as existing members sought to avoid high tariffs that could harm their economic interests.
The Zollverein ultimately allowed Prussia to dominate trade and economic policy in central Europe, although it did not directly lead to political unification.
Conversely, the economic benefits enabled smaller states to resist full allegiance to a Prussian-led political entity.
Otto von Manteuffel’s Reforms
Otto von Manteuffel, as Minister-President of Prussia, aimed to balance economic growth and social stability without yielding to radical demands.
Initiated reforms aimed at fostering private enterprise while improving social conditions:
Introduced low-interest loans to assist peasants in acquiring land.
Offered financial help for population relocations to maintain balance in agricultural areas.
Enhanced working conditions and wages for factory workers, representing pragmatic governance.
By the late 1850s, the ‘German problem’ persisted, though Prussia’s advancements positioned it strongly against Austria’s declining influence.