CHAPTER ONE:
CONTINUED UPHEAVAL IN EUROPE
AFTERSHOCKS
A few Units ago, we left off
our discussion of European societies in the mid-19th century with
societies still reeling from the effects of two powerful forces: the French
Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. We now return to pick up the story of
European developments in the 1800's, during which time the revolutionary
ideologies of liberalism and nationalism continued to challenge
the old order. The ideals of liberalism threatened the power and
privileges of monarchs, aristocrats, and state-protected churches. Nationalism
inspired groups to organize and struggle for autonomy and even independence;
the success of some of these nationalists redrew existing borders and
destabilized multi-national empires.
The Industrial Revolution
was also underway in many (but not all) European states, resulting in the
consequences discussed in Unit 6. As a result of dangerous, exploitative and
unequal conditions, socialism was also growing as a political and social
force by the end of the century. The rising visibility of socialist
movements included the emergence of the more militant form of Marxist
socialism. The effects of these ideologies resulted in reforms and even
violent revolutions across Europe
throughout the century of 1815 - 1914. We will look at a few examples
below.
LIBERAL GAINS
In Western European, the
states of Britain and France, having
already achieved some degree of rights and legal equality through struggles in
the 17th and 18th centuries, experienced ongoing pressure
from advocates of liberalism to push for MORE rights and GREATER equality -
often through forceful action. The British already enjoyed a constitutional
monarchy and protected rights; throughout the 1800's, increased protests and
popular agitation sought to increase the scope and number of
protected rights. There was also a growing movement to extend the vote to
men, and women, in the working class, echoing socialist ideas from the French
Revolution. Through slow reform, British citizens did gain explicit protection
of more protected rights by the end of the 19th century. Pressure to expand the
vote led to the institution of almost universal voting power for men. Women,
however, would have to wait until after World War I for the right to vote.
France also struggled to preserve and
build on the rights gained from the French Revolution. Although the
conservative leaders of the Congress of Vienna did try to place a
traditional Bourbon monarchy back on the throne, French monarchs after 1815 were
simply unable to eliminate or ignore the Napoleonic Code. As a
result, equality under the law and protected rights remained as part of
French political life. In fact, on several occasions, when rulers
attempted to suppress hard won rights, the French rose up in violent
protest. Two aftershock "revolutions", echoing the passion and
ideals of the French Revolution, erupted in the streets of France in 1830 and in 1848.
These revolts were prompted by the felt need to aggressively protect
hard-earned rights and retain limits on government. By the end of the 19th
century, French political vigilance and violence had completely abolished the
position of the monarchy. Heading into the 20th century, France was ruled by an elected government with
no king - the Third
Republic. This
constitutional republic ruled France
heading into World War One.
Not all regions experienced
such extensive liberal gains. Central and Eastern European monarchs were
able to hold on to much of their power through brutal repression and political
manipulation. The Austrian emperor and the Prussian King successfully
resisted most major liberal reforms; however, even these leaders could
not completely quash liberal forces. However, there was important erosion
of, a reduction in, autocratic power in these empires. While autocratic
monarchies remained in parts of Europe, their
seats on the throne were increasingly shaky; and none of these
dynasties and kings/emperors survived the cataclysm of World War I (1914-1918).
Liberalism eroded (but did not destroy) the strength and power of these
monarchies and paved the way for their collapse by the early 20th century.
TZARIST POWER
The most stagnant country
where liberalism had the least impact was Tzarist Russia. By any measure, Russia was the
most backward of European countries; the 19th and early 20th
centuries saw very little movement in the achievement of rights or limitations
on the government. Russia, even in the early 1900's,
was still absolutist, characterized by political repression, complete absence
of rights, and institutionalized social and economic inequalities. The Tzar was
an autocratic ruler whose power rested on control of laws, control of the
military, an ever growing spy system, and state brutality. The Russian aristocracy
was a subservient elite, working as bureaucrats and top officials under the
Tzar, in return for privileges such as taxes and legal immunities. The Russian
Orthodox Church was an obedient arm of the state. The Tzar did not
share real power with these groups. The majority of Russians were the
most destitute and impoverished subjects in Europe.
Up until the 1850's, the vast majority of Russia's millions of citizens were
peasants -- and the majority of these peasants were still serfs!
Russia was still
based on repressive and grueling serf-based agriculture, even when other
countries in Europe were undergoing
industrialization! Poverty, illiteracy, suffering, and cruelty were the
defining characteristics of Russian social and political life. With no protections
under law, there was no way to voice discontent or work for change.
"TZAR
LIBERATOR"
It was not until the middle
of the 19th century that substantive reform did occur; it took place
in typically absolutist fashion - from the top down and at the whim and
direction of the Tzar. The Romanov Tzar Alexander II (1855-1881) was,
relatively speaking, a more practical leader than the Tzars that preceded and
followed him. Russia had
suffered an embarrassing defeat in the Crimean War (against Britain/France/Ottoman
Turks); Alexander II was committed to industrializing Russia.
To enable this economic shift, Alexander recognized he had to free the serfs to
increase the productivity of agriculture and to create a mobile
labor force to ensure the necessary labor in urban factories. Thus, in
1861, Alexander II ended serfdom through royal decree. With one act,
he released millions of people from bondage to the land. It was an enormous
step forward, emancipating the majority of the country from appalling
servitude. Alexander also initiated economic reforms to help encourage
industrial growth.
The problem with change
from the top, however, is that it depends entirely on the ruling monarch's
whims. Alexander II did not follow up on his emancipation of the serfs
with real substantive social/economic changes - his personal interest in change
was limited and narrow. The Russian state undertook no real efforts to
address the grinding poverty, ignorance, illiteracy and exploitation of the
millions of poor Russian peasants and the emerging class of urban workers.
There were no protected rights and no inclusion of political voices in the
Russian system. Gross inequalities remained, supported by law and practice.
Thus, Russia
took an important step forward in freeing the serfs, but then no further change
occurred for decades.
Alexander was assassinated
in 1881 by a Russian radical who was angry with the slow pace of change. The
Tzars that followed, Alexander III and Nicholas II, did not continue
with the earlier reforms, and the slow move to an industrialized economy
stalled out (demonstrating another problem with change from the top - new
leader, new policies and direction). These later Tzars in fact cracked down brutally
and showed no interest in reform.
The pressure cooker situation of anger and frustration continued to build as Russia stagnated, and fell further behind the
rest of Europe.
REVOLUTION OF
1905
In 1905, under Tzar
Nicholas II, there was violent upheaval in Russia; it was a clear and even
predictable result of the failure of any kind of meaningful reform. Angered
over lack of liberal gains, appalling poverty in the cities, and humiliating
losses in the Russo-Japanese war, (1904-1905), unarmed protesters marched on
the Tzar's palace with a petition calling for reforms to liberalize Russia. Palace
guards fired on the peaceful crowd, killing several protesters in what became
known as "Bloody Sunday". Even though the Tzar was not at the
palace, he was held responsible for this action, and these killings triggered
widespread protests against the Tzarist system. Riots, protests and strikes
lasted throughout the year; this became known as the Revolution of 1905.
By fall, Tzar Nicholas II
was forced to take action to quell these protests. Reluctantly, he issued the
"October
Manifesto"; in this he promised the Russian people a legislative assembly
and a Constitution. A Parliament was created – known as the Duma. A
constitution was issued in early 1906; known as the "Fundamental
Law". The October Manifesto did end the protests, and appeared to
give Russians a liberal, constitutional monarchy (recognize, over 100 years
after constitutionalism took root in Western Europe.)
However, Nicholas was not
truthful. He did not follow through with true reforms. The
legislative Duma did not have real independence or power; for example the Tzar
retained unchecked veto power and he could disband the elected Duma if he did
not like the delegates. It was a system of shared power only on paper,
not in reality - the Tzar still had ultimate and basically unchecked power as
monarch. The burning issues of inequalities and severe economic tensions
remained unresolved.
FAILURE
Thus the revolution of 1905
was ultimately a failure. No substantive political or legal changes resulted.
In fact this led many seeking change in Russia to decide that liberal
based, gradual reforms were impossible under the Tzar. The conclusion many
critics reached was that the only way to achieve true reform was through
violent destruction of the Tzarist system. Frustration over the
incomplete and unrealized goals of the 1905 uprisings fueled the growth of more
radical groups, including socialists and Marxist socialist parties (all illegal
and underground.) The conviction that greater violence and more dramatic
revolution was necessary laid the groundwork for the upheaval and cataclysmic violence
of the Russian Revolution in 1917.
In fact, the failure of Russia to
follow a path of gradual reform based on a successful liberal revolution
resulted in continued suffering, anger and bitterness, conditions that led to a
much more radical actions against the system in the form of a very
violent revolution which erupted in 1917. The 1917 revolution produced,
not a moderate, liberal government but the seizing of power by a radical
Marxist party under the leadership of Lenin, followed by Stalin. To some
degree, then, the failure of liberalism during this critical
period of 1905 helped pave the way to the dramatically more radical Russian
Revolution, a revolution which dramatically influenced global events for the
rest of the 20th century.
Liberalism and to a lesser
degree socialism resulted in substantive changes throughout Europe by the end
of the 19th century, however, the most forceful ideology transforming borders
and politics was nationalism.
INTERESTING
WEB SITES
RUSSIAN/EAST EUROPEAN
RESOURCES
THE LONG 19TH CENTURY
GO TO CHAPTER TWO
BACK
TO UNIT NINE PAGE