During this past week of classes, the topic that I found to be most interesting was the 1848 revolution. However, it was not the failure or success of the revolution that most interested me, but the revolution’s overall lukewarm nature. Beyond the fact that whatever type of revolutionary organization that existed was held together, at best, by a vague desire for change, the revolutionaries seem to have entered in to this endeavor half-heartedly. The three types of thinkers (liberals, radicals, conservatives) all had their various and individual goals, and while fighting for the same thing, upon achievement of toppling the old ways, their weak alliance dissipated and the old order slowly crept back in to the seat of power. This seems to have been the course of events surrounding 1848. And this does explain one way that the revolution managed to fail. But my question is why go through all of the trouble of having a revolution if at the end you are not willing to take what you have earned. Other revolutions in other parts of the world have shown us that it generally takes a lot to cause a people to rise up against their government. They have to have been trampled and abused in ways that leave them no other choice. And it is because of this lack of choice that they rise up, and are starving for change. Once the revolt succeeds, they typically embrace their newfound clean slate and begin to mold their society in a manner different from that of their previous state. However, the Germanic people of 1848 seem to have never have been pushed to the limit that necessitates revolt. Yet, revolt they did. It is possible that their initial lack of revolutionary spark is what caused the revolt to end with little progress. By this I mean that the vast majority of German people simply joined the revolt to initiate changes that would by themselves not be worthy of revolution. For instance, a farmer who wanted five more cents for each bail of hay would probably not care about women’s voting rights, and once the price of hay went up, it is most likely that he would abandon his revolutionary post to return to his fields. This hardly seems like the action that would be taken by a true downtrodden revolutionary. But this type of thing seems to have been the case. Assuming that revolution is only as powerful as it’s components (people/ideas/etc) the German revolution of 1848 seems to have far more weak than many other revolutions throughout history. In fact, I would posit that the events of 1848 were not so much revolutionary and were instead merely the popular thing to do that year.
-Paul Howard
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting point that you raise. I definitely see where you are coming from. The main support for this would be the simple fact that they practically had no military backing for support.It seems like the revolution may have been simply a lot of hot air. Considering that several different groups, with different goals and theories on how soceity should work, loosely banded together for the revolution may circle around your popular bandwagon theory. Like you said once one group reached their goal or realized they couldn't reach their goal they dropped off the scene.
ReplyDeletei think it still was a revolution of sorts. you focus primarily on the forces for change, the angry people, their ideas, etc. and conclude that they must have been lukewarm. maybe, just maybe, their intentions and desires were not any more lukewarm than the citizens of any other revolution, but instead the impetus resisting revolution (the monarchs, established governments) reacted more intelligently and cunningly than any other governments forced with an overthrow. Essentially the governments of the German states apologized, made up a few nice little documents, appeased everyone, and quelled the fire. I think that would have taken the wind out of the sails of any of the other revolutions you allude to, but instead those other revolutions only fight fire with fire.
ReplyDeleteI actually think the notion of luke-warm revolutionaries is quite an interesting one. Historians still debate the 'failure' of 1848 and division still remain as to whether or not a successful revolution was actually possible. The uprisings might well have been based on real concerns but, as you point out, the revolutionaries failed to unite and seize their moment. Partially this stemmed from the very different views of the type of society that the various groups wanted to create but it came about as well because of diminishing support outside of the major cities and what most historians agree on as the essentially unbroken power of the old regimes.
ReplyDelete