The year 1848 saw an explosion of revolution across the whole European continent, from Paris to Prussia and from Switzerland to the Habsburg Monarchy. With aims of achieving laissez-fare liberalism in some states and democratic parliamentary hierarchies in others, it is clear to see that the aims of the various revolutions were diversified across the entire continent. The contemporary orthodox historiography of the 1848 revolutions is often considered to be provided by Karl Marx, often thought of as the father of socialism, who claims that the revolutions were unsuccessful in their entirety as they were unable to establish permanent socialist hierarchies in their respective states. He goes on to claim that this was caused by the middle class who had started to gain ground in the economy and were therefore detached from the idea of socialist revolution. While this may have been the case in revolutionary Prussia and the other German speaking states, it was Marx’s beloved proletariat that opposed the growth of revolution in France which is represented in the argument of Roger Price, who claims that the role of the workers was en large seemingly unimportant. There are however several approaches to the question ‘were the revolutions a success?’, yet the general lack of success across all of the revolutions in this period is a commonly accepted idea; while some change occurred in the respective revolutionary states a lack of monarchical leniency, peasant support and structured revolt were responsible for the great deal of political continuity which emerged from this period. Show One key aim of the revolutionary forces of 1848 was to establish laissez-fare style economics within a nation’s trading markets. This was certainly at the forefront of the fight by the Parisian revolutionaries of 1848 who wished to implement policies that would level out the economic playing field of 19th century France in order to encourage social and economic development beyond the deep-set agrarian focus of the society . Marx continues to claim that the revolution was an abhorrent failure and that the inability of the revolutionary forces to maintain the Republic was representative of socio-economic infancy. In reality however the French nation, for a period of three years, had managed to establish the 2nd Republic which to an extent utilised the Laissez-fare economics they had strove for. Both Amann and Fasel fervently disagree with Marx on this front and instead proceed to argue that the peasantry were unwilling to follow the revolution, instead choosing to defend the establishment, because of a lack of agrarian reform. This lack of reform saw high levels of taxation which were one of the main qualms of the French revolutionary forces, in fact Fasel notes that ‘Taxes both direct and indirect, were doubtless the most hated burden’. This attempt to achieve economic equality can also be seen as one particular focus of the Prussian revolutionaries. The economy of Prussia had suffered greatly as a result of its lack of integration with the other ‘German’ lands, and the internal tariffs imposed by King Frederick had done little to support trading relations. The desire to create an equal economic relationship with the other states would however require greater unification and this was entirely opposed by the king. This is therefore one of the only revolutions of 1848 where to a great extent there was very little success at all. Siemann instead argues that the leaders of the German states were not willing at all to compromise on a democratic basis in 1848. In fact the royals’ powers with ‘their entire internal diplomacy’ were intact after the revolution. In support of this argument Price provided the analysis that very little was achieved due to the imbalanced ratio of bourgeois to proletariat in Prussian society. Frederick was originally willing to consider democratic reform but faltered after demands of greater German unification were made, in order to protect the assets of his nobles and subsequently his own authority. The Prussian revolution to a great extent had a detrimental impact on its society as a whole, as the media wanted more rights for the people but did not want those rights filtered to the poor and uneducated which resulted in a middle class ‘frightened by what they saw as the growing insolence of the working classes’. One could argue that Frankfurt saw the greatest degree of success during the European revolutions of 1848. A clear focus of this particular revolt was the demand for greater unification across all the states of Germany to allow greater opportunity for trade and social development. The revolutionaries believed that this would also allow for greater development of class equality, and through parliamentary reforms the revolutionaries sought to allow lower classes to have as much of an impact on the running of their country as the bourgeois and the nobility. This idea is known as the devolution of power, whereby the autocratic hierarchy of tradition would make way for a more democratic system of representation. To an extent this system of devolution was successful. Although unification of Germany did not occur, and the tariff system remained in Prussia, the creation of the Frankfurt Assembly and the instigation of universal suffrage created an, admittedly short term, level of equality that was previously unseen in Europe. This outcome compares directly to the experience of the greater Habsburg Empire in 1848. The revolutions saw the peasantry freed en large from the rule of the landed gentry known as the robol, and alongside this the empire became a single customs union, with the exception of Prussia under Frederick, which allowed for greater economic and social development. While Price comments that these changes were a large step for the Habsburg societies, Jones provides a more convincing argument and argues that the changes seen during the revolution were negligible because ‘the overall power of the monarchy was stronger than ever after 1848’ due to its control over the improving trade networks which was far from the utopian laissez-fare system. To further the idea that the revolutions in the Habsburg Empire were to a large extent unsuccessful, one must consider the absolute refusal of the leaders for German unification. This came about as a result of the Habsburgs being backed by the Russians and the British Empire who supported the maintenance of the status-quo and supported the crushing of the revolution in the Schleswig-Holstein crisis; reaffirming the failure of the revolutionaries to achieve their aim of parliamentary democracy. One possibility that must be considered is the idea that the revolutions were en large unsuccessful, which is shown in the poor leadership and lack of structured political goals that the revolutionaries possessed. In France for example, Fasel makes it clear that he believes poor leadership was the main cause for the fall of the republican forces during the counter revolution. He goes on to comment that the government resigned themselves to accepting the conservative backlash of the revolution in order to minimise and protect themselves from Parisian radicalisation similar to that of 1789. This argument is not only supported by the aforementioned historian Amann, but also by K.Boardman, who concluded that the French revolution was not as successful as it could have been over a longer period of time because of the instability of the French government, and its inability to provide reforms which would tackle the demands of a society which was heavily focus on agrarian culture. The speed with which revolution swept across Europe meant that strong leadership had no time to flourish and instead ‘those who now claimed a share in political authority were unprepared’. Furthermore these undeveloped governments proceeded to utilise all of the bureaucratic tools of the old regime. In France for example, in June 1848, Cavaignac used the French military in a situation similar to that of 1789, to crush a chaotic uprising and this resulted in the deaths of 10,000 people. This continuation of the old regime arguably contributed a great deal to the lack of success of the revolutions, not only in France, but across the whole continent. This poor governmental structure and lack of clear political goals can also be witnessed in Germany. Although the Vorparlament was created as an attempt to achieve greater democracy, it achieved very little, as the state continued to rely heavily on the pre-existing organisations and military of the old regime. The revolutionaries in the German lands lacked unity, so that the peasants were disillusioned by the ‘abstracts of middle class liberalism’, and the bourgeoisie were petrified of the revolution and how it may escalate after having witnessed the workers uprising of March which resulted in widespread damage to a great deal of property. This frailty in unity was compounded by the newfound freedom of press, which did nothing but enlighten people to even the smallest of class divisions furthering the weakness of the revolutionaries and exposing them to ‘acute divisions which the German population only became aware of for the first time in the year of the revolution’. While Marx may have argued that the revolutions were a complete failure as they failed to establish permanent change, one must consider the arguments of contemporary historians who have the tool of hindsight. One can then see that while permanent change was not immediately established, the ability to stage an uprising, and the creation of the Frankfurt assembly for example, paved the way for future revolution and future social developments such as the unification of Germany in 1871. In considering how successful the revolutions of 1848 were one must observe the short term, medium term and long term consequences. In doing so it becomes apparent that short term change in the form of constitutions and trade agreements was achieved, and although poor leadership and the counter reformation annulled the work of the original revolutions in the medium term, one cannot deny that in the long run the revolutions of 1848 had the desired impact as they provided the opportunity for greater change to occur; this can be seen clearly in the German unification of 1871, the longevity of the 3rd French republic beginning in 1870 and the spread of increasingly liberalist democracy across much of Central and Western Europe. K. Marx, The revolutions of 1848 (Harmondsworth, 1973). R. J. Price, The revolutions of 1848 (Basingstoke, 1988). K. Marx, P. Amann, ‘The Changing Outlines of 1848’, The American Historical Review, 68/4 (1963), pp. 938-953. G. Fasel, ‘The Wrong Revolution: French Republicanism in 1848’, French Historical Studies, 8/4 (1974), pp. 654-677. G. Fasel,pp 664 W. Siemann, The German Revolution of 1848-49 (Basingstoke, 1998).pp221 R. J. Price, pp48 Europe in 1848 : revolution and reform (New York, 2001), P. Jones, The 1848 revolutions (Harlow, 1991).pp76 W. Siemann, pp220 G. Fasel, K. Boardman and C. Kinealy (eds.), 1848 : the year the world turned? (2007), R. J. Price, pp43 P. Jones, pp97 W. Siemann, pp219 W. Siemann, pp219 Bibliography
Share this:Like this:Like Loading... RelatedFiled under Articles, History Tagged with 1848, A levels, change, democratic, education, europe, libertarianism, political, revolutions, socialist, studies, university Why did the Revolutions of 1848 Fail explain?The main reason for its failure was the fact that it excluded too many people from the brave new world. As the liberals seized the unprecedented opportunity to realise their visions of national freedom, they did so in the interests only of their own nationality.
How impactful were the 1848 revolutions?The Revolutions of 1848 led to little political change but brought substantial social and cultural changes. Although immediate successes were achieved by the coalition of the middle and working classes, most of them ended in failure. In the Habsburg lands, feudalism was eliminated in Austria and Prussia.
What can you discern about the success or failure of the 1848 revolutions?Most historians consider the Revolutions of 1848 an immediate failure. They failed to establish permanent democratic governments. The lack of organization and coordination among the various radical factions led to the revolutions basically burning out.
What were the results of the 1848 revolution in France?Charles was forced to abdicate the throne and to flee Paris for the United Kingdom. As a result, Louis Philippe, of the Orléanist branch, rose to power, replacing the old Charter by the Charter of 1830, and his rule became known as the July Monarchy.
|
