| In their combination of intensity and geographical extent, the 1848 revolutions were unique – at least in European history. Neither the great French Revolution of 1789, nor the July Revolution of 1830, nor the Paris Commune of 1870, nor the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 sparked a comparable transcontinental cascade. The year 1989 looks like a better comparator, but there is still controversy as to whether these uprisings can be characterized as “revolutions,” and, in any case, their direct impact was limited to the Warsaw Pact states. In 1848, by contrast, parallel political tumults broke out across the entire continent, from Spain and Portugal to Wallachia and Moldavia, from Norway, Denmark, and Sweden to Naples and Palermo. And across the continent, the movements challenging the old regime – radical, democratic, or liberal – developed strikingly similar repertories of claims and objectives. This was the only truly European revolution that there has ever been. The year of 1848, as described by Eric Hobsbawm, was painted with the colours of revolution all across continental Europe. Excepting England and Russia, all other states in Europe witnessed a revolution in this year. Thus, this year is popularly known as ‘the springtime of peoples.’ Show Map showing the different revolutionary movements of 1848/1849. Jacque Droz and many other historians argue that the Revolutions of 1848 were caused by a combination of two factors– political crisis and economic crisis. Let us look at the economic crisis first. The economic crisis is divided into two major crises–agrarian crisis and financial or credit crisis. There is a debate, though, regarding as to which crisis was the prime feature of the economic crisis. Some historians argue that it was the agrarian crisis, which led to a problem of credit; while others say that a credit crisis led to widespread harvest failure. It is, however, clear that in 1839, many regions of Europe saw harvest failure. These include Belgium, Germany, Flanders, Ireland, Scotland, France and so on. Historians agree that it was mainly barley, wheat and potato that failed; and all being staple crops, the crisis was very sharp. Eric Vanhaute points out that the effects of the crisis were not uniform throughout Europe. Jones goes on to note that the largest portion of the immigrants was male; thus a potential force of “violent rioters” was ready at hand. Thus, it is safe to conclude that the crisis in food production impacted the rural peasant folk and the urban working class the most. Mark Spencer says that the rising poverty due to lower wages and high prices shows how it was mainly the crisis of agriculture that shaped up the discontent amongst the populations, culminating in the revolutions of 1848. However, many other historians like Helge Berge argue that the main cause for the economic decline in Europe lay not in the crisis of food production. It is the crisis in another sector of the economy that they put the main source of the economic malaise in the 1840s–the credit crisis. A 19th century painting by Jakobey Károly depicting the 'Battle of Buda,' which took place in now-Budapest in during the period of the 1848 revolutions. In the 1840s, the major investment was primarily in the railways and industry. The landlords chiefly invested in both these emerging sectors; and thus decreased the gross investment in agriculture; leading to an overall decline in the output of land. A huge chunk of land was freed from cultivation (mainly by landlords) and put into the industrial sector. This further lowered the land under cultivation, lowering the total output from land. The states that oversaw the industrialization process gave out bonds and shares to raise money for railways and industries, depleting the state’s share of revenue and money from the treasury. Also, guarantee on credit was virtually absent as land comprised of the major asset against loans; which was in itself in scarcity, as discussed above. Personal loans and borrowings further increased the pressure on the credit system. Thus, the whole mechanism of credit crashed under this enormous weight. However, as Droz argues, the economic crisis was ebbing out by the beginning of 1848. Yet the Revolution happened just after that. Thus, economic factors were not the sole cause of the Revolutions in 1848. A lot of developments in the political realms and the development of newer political theories and ideologies also had an important presence in the years before the revolutions of 1848 broke out. Historian Vivier argues that the economic reasons are not enough to explain the outbreak of the revolutions in 1848. He says that a mix of various crises–political and ideological and social– effected them. The political motivations of the revolutionaries were evident from their demands and their actions in the early phase of the revolution. It must not be forgotten that the forces of Conservatism and Reaction consolidated the period after 1815. Monarchs ruled all countries in Europe and became the targets for the revolutionaries. The first instance of the Revolution was on 12 January 1848 in Naples, Italy. The revolution here was directed against the foreign rule of Ferdinand II of the Spanish-Bourbon dynasty. The main targets were the foreign monarchy and the territorial settlement at the Congress of Vienna (1815). Therefore, the Metternich System was at the head of malcontents. Similarly, in France, on 12 February 1848, barricades were set up in the streets of Paris against Louis Phillip of the Orleans dynasty and his Reactionary prime minister Guizot. The Revolution was up against inadequate political rights of the petite bourgeoisie and the working class and the maladministration of the monarch. There were two dominant trends in the political patterns of the revolution. One was seen in Austria, Italy and Germany, where the revolution was directed against foreign rule and the settlements of the Congress of Vienna. Meanwhile, France, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal saw revolutions against inadequate rights and inconsistent policies of the parliament. Thus the revolutions followed two major patterns and sets of grievances. As Peter Stearnes argues, some major political strands or ideologies emerged and influenced the Revolutions. The first was that of the Liberals. They believed in the ideas of Liberalism as forwarded by many intellectuals in the 18th century. They had a more or less moderate goal, i.e. they wanted a constitutional monarchy. However, they were weary of leading the revolution as they viewed the 1789 Revolution in France as a major catastrophe. Besides, they wanted a limited representation and a small base of suffrage, based on ownership of property and education. The other faction was that of the Radicals. They were an offshoot of the liberals but looked at a more radical goal, that of total Republicanism. Peter Stearns elaborates that Thus, it is clear that the Radical method of achieving the goal was only and only revolution. Thus, many a Radical leaders also played a key role during the Revolutions of 1848. A minor group within Italy emerged, called the Neo-Guelfs. They supported the Papal authority and sought to restore the Roman Catholic Church in all its glory by establishing a Papal Federation. The Neo-Guelfs held some stand in the middle quarters of the century; but lost out in the ultimate political framework almost a decade after the Italian Unification under Cavour and Garibaldi. Although there were many differences amongst these ideological groups, it is clear that they had some common features. They were all looking to gain self-determination, as opposed to the Metternich System and monarchical governments. All of them upheld liberal civil rights for a wider section of the population; and thus worked to establish a parliament and a constituent assembly after the easy surrender of the monarchical forces in early 1848. Thus it can safely be argued that they were all nationalistic in nature. It must here be noted that C.A. Bayly identifies this whole period as the period of nation formation in terms of modernity and global history; thus, the importance of the rise of nationalist ideas cannot be ignored here. Another nascent force of politics was to be seen in Socialism and Communism. By 1848, the socialists had cemented their place in the political sphere of Europe and were an undeniable presence. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels also published their Manifesto of the Communist Party in February of 1848. The influence of the socialist ideas was seen widely growing, especially amongst the students and teachers at the big universities in Europe. However, it is clear from the examples above that political aspirations and ideological strands were not a prime mover when it comes to the 1848 revolutions as there is little space for their being as widely affective as something like food crisis or rising poverty. Thus, scholars have turned to other social factors to look for the major causes of the outbreak of the 1848 revolutions. Although it is true that the socio-economic antagonisms in all the countries of Europe were not uniform, it is also true that the everyday existence of the social classes was not very different from the days of the ancient regime. As may be evident, certain classes like the bourgeoisie, the working class, the petty bourgeoisie, the mercantile and professional bourgeoisies, the peasantry, landlords, aristocrats and monarchs were present in all countries of Europe at this point in time. This has led many scholars to argue that it was in the social antagonisms that the major causes for the outbreak of the Revolutions lie. However, Peter Stearns points out that the working class consciousness didn’t exist in 1848. The industrial revolution, he says, was not important in 1848; it was in its nascent stages. The regions of industrialization were mostly in the peripheries of the towns; but it was the towns that proved to be a center for the revolutions, cutting off the workers from the barricades. Besides, the condition of workers was so miserable that they had little mobilization amongst them for a revolutionary cause, per se. The bourgeoisie itself led the revolutions of 1848 by virtue of being the ‘enlightened’ class. As Eric Hobsbawm puts is, the bourgeoisie organised the revolutions; which were enforced by the laboring masses of workers and artisans. The grande bourgeoisie or the capitalists wanted more representation and participation in the state. The middle of professional bourgeoisie wanted greater suffrage. The petty or petite bourgeoisie wanted lower taxes and better communications in railways, telegraphs etc. Lewis B. Namier calls the revolutions of 1848 the “revolutions of intellectuals” as he sees the revolutions engineered by the enlightened bourgeoisie; who also carried forward the revolutions after the repression of the barricades by the state machinery. Examples of enlightened intellectual leaders are found in almost all revolutions–Palicqui, Robert Bloom, Mazzini, Dahlmann et al. But, Karl Marx argues that all of them betrayed the revolution. Marx writes that most of them were liberals, thus, ready to enter into a compromise with the monarchs and governments on their own terms. This betrayed the demands of the proletariat and sidelined all aspirations of the muscle power of the revolution; thus betraying the revolution itself, by helping counter-revolution regain ground later in the year. Arnost Klima, however, argues that even though counter-revolution won, it did not slip back into old feudal structures. Civil liberties were established in perpetuity. At the same time Sperber, Stearns and David Thomson, as elaborated above, argued that the sole reason for the failure of the bourgeoisie was the lack of mobilization of the peasantry; the proletariat, they argue, was not involved in the movement in a big way at all. However, L.C.B. Seaman points out that if the peasantry were to take part in the revolution, it would have proved to be a burden as it was highly volatile and disorganized a group to be relied upon. Another major unorganized and disoriented social category was that of the clergy and the Church. Due to their repression by various groups ever since the days of the French Revolution of 1789, they had brewing discontent against the state structure. To address this, they actively supported the Revolutions to topple the governments. As discussed above, this also led to the rise of the Neo-Guelfs. Widespread attacks on the church, clergymen and followers led to the active role of these groups, especially in Bavaria (Protestant soldiers against the Catholic state) and Prussia (divisions amongst the armed forces on religious lines due to enforcement of Protestant sacraments). Anti-Semitism also played a key role in mobilising religious groups in the Revolutions. To sum up, Peter Jones says that socio-economic causes can only be seen as an indirect cause of the revolutions of 1848. They were slow to form the backgrounds of the revolutions. Due to newer changes, newer conflicts kept arising. The 1848 Revolutions were marked by popular upheaval. The causes for discontent were many, as were the responses to these by both groups–the governments and the revolutionaries. Although this year saw a one-of-a-kind “divine violence” (as conceptualized by Walter Benjamin) on this large a scale, the revolutions failed in all places except for France. Many historians have debated the possible causes for the failure of the Revolutions of 1848. But most of them agree that this was a unique revolutionary period, where a huge number of people of an entire continent, rose up in revolution, to get what they dreamed and achieve what they aspired. Perhaps, Jonathan Sperber offers the best reading of this phase of revolutions by looking at it in a most unique way, Hobsbawm, Eric Age of Capital: 1848-1875 (2012, Abacus, London). Jones, Peter The 1848 Revolutions (1981, Longman Group Ltd., Essex). Seaman, L.C.B. From Vienne to Versailles (1976, Methuen & Co. Ltd., Kent). Sperber, Jonathan The European Revolutions, 1848-1851 (1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Stearns, Peter N. 1848: The Revolutionary Tide in Europe (1974, W.W.Norton, New York). 1.) Hobsbawm, Eric Age of Capital: 1848-1875 (2012, Abacus, London), p. 22. 2.) Seaman, L.C.B. From Vienne to Versailles (1976, Methuen & Co. Ltd., Kent), pp. 49-55. This is because all revolutions in 1848 (except for France) failed to achieve their goals. 3.) The Church was a safe haven for the rural peasant-folk since medieval times. They could go there for shelter and food in times of crisis; the moral support was an added bonus. The city life for these fleeing rural populations was highly alienating and perplexing. The State, too, was a ray of hope as in times of crisis, it usually wavered or at least lowered the taxes for the peasantry. However, owing to a downward trend in the overall economy, this was not seen in many regions. 4.) In these places, there were very little opportunities for the declining peasantry to move out of land and look for jobs in towns and factories. Thus, the rate of unemployment remained very high. 5.) Jones, Peter The 1848 Revolutions (1981, Longman Group Ltd., Essex), pp. 28-29. Jones here notes that due to the brutality of the life of the proletariat, the arrival of fresh labour meant an increase in competition and conflict between the immigrants and the existing proletarian populace. Besides, about 70% income of working class families was spent on food; making them all the more susceptible to the food crisis. 6.) Hobsbawm, Eric Age of Capital: 1848-1875, Introduction (2012, Abacus, London), p. 13. 7.) Jones, Peter The 1848 Revolutions (1981, Longman Group Ltd., Essex), pp. 30-31. 8.) Stearns, Peter N. 1848: The Revolutionary Tide in Europe (1974, W.W.Norton, New York) p. 47. 9.) Ibid. This analysis of Stearns is clearly seen the theorizations of nationalism by Ernest Renan. 10.) So high is the importance of the worker in the revolutions that Marx calls the June Days in France the 1848 revolutions in general, the preludes to the Proletarian Revolution. In this list, he later added the Paris Commune of 1871. 11.) Jonathan Sperber points out that it was the proletariat that formed the social base of the National Guard along with landless labourers who had lost their livelihood in the agrarian crisis. Thus, a significant section of the proletariat was pitted against the artisans, going by what Peter Stearns argues. 12.) Amongst various other causes, this was also caused by the abolition of serfdom. As a result a large number of serfs were now free. However, most of them chose to stay in villages, owing to insecurities of urban life. 13.) Sperber, Jonathan The European Revolutions, 1848-1851 (1994, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) What were the causes of the revolutions in 1848?Some historians have argued that the Revolutions of 1848 were largely caused by two factors: economic crisis and political crisis. Others have argued that social and ideological crises cannot be discounted. In many of the affected countries, nationalism was another catalyst for the revolutions.
What were the causes and effects of revolution of 1848 in Europe?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, and people accused the government of corruption. The French revolted and set up a republic.
What were the Austrian revolutionaries fighting against in their 1848 uprising?Serb Revolution of 1848–1849
The Serb Revolution of 1848 was an uprising of Serbs living in Délvidék against Magyar domination.
What happened in the March revolution 1848?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, verbally yielded to all the demonstrators' demands, including parliamentary elections, a constitution, and freedom of the press.
|
