[Fairly thoroughly revised
10/09 and 10/2013 and 10/28/19]
The Age of Progress!!!?
For each century we've talked about in this course, I've chosen
a
particular theme to emphasize. I presented the 17th
century to
you as an age of particularly rapid and troubling changes.
The
18th century I described (as do most textbooks) as the “Age of
Reason”
or the “Age of Enlightenment.” For the next century
we deal
with, the 19th century, it's pretty easy to come up with a
general
theme. The 19th century is almost always labeled “The Age
of
Progress.”
In some ways, this is an excellent name for the 19th
century.
Certainly in science and technology it was in fact an age of
progress. This was the age of....
Bessemer (steel)
Roentgen (x-rays)
Baeklund (plastics)
Eastman (the camera)
Edison (all sorts of electrical things)
Dunlop (pneumatic tires)
Diesel (the diesel engine)
Bell (the telephone)
Marconi (wireless communication)
Pasteur (progress against germ-born illness)
Lister (antiseptic surgery)
Clearly, the 19th century was an age of progress in science and
technology. It seemed also like European society was
making
progress of a different sort as well. The 19th century was
an age
of relative peace and prosperity for most of the countries of
Europe.
Now how did this happen? How did European society make so
much
progress in the 19th century? It seems to me that this
progress
came about, in part at least, as a result of a combination of
liberal
and conservative ideas.
During the first part of the 19th century (well, at least after
the
Napoleonic wars were over in 1815), conservative ideas had the
upper
hand in Europe. Particularly important were the
conservative
principles enunciated at the Congress of Vienna in 1815.
The Congress of Vienna was a series of meetings held to decide
what
would be done to tidy up after the Napoleonic wars. It
involved
representatives of the Quadruple Alliance nations (Britain,
Prussia,
Russia, and Austria), the countries that had combined to defeat
Napoleon.
The task facing these representatives was enormous.
Napoleon had
totally redrawn the map of Europe, and he had introduced radical
changes wherever his troops had had control. How would the
Congress of Vienna restore order?
Well, before getting down to the details of the solution, they
agreed
to certain general principles, conservative principles designed
to
create lasting peace in Europe.
These principles included:
1. The return to legitimate authority
2. The balance of power
3. The concert of Europe
Who would rule the various areas of Europe? As much as
possible,
the Congress of Vienna returned control to the traditional
ruling
houses of Europe (the Bourbons, the Habsburgs, etc.).
Also, in order to prevent any single country from attempting to
dominate all of Europe (as France had done under Napoleon), the
Congress of Vienna insisted on a balance of power. The
settlement
was designed to insure that there would be a number of strong
countries, with no one country so strong that it could
dominate.
On the continent, Russia, Austria, and Prussia would all have
considerable strength. But to ensure balance, even
defeated
France was left with a considerable amount of power: necessary,
so the
Congress thought, to the balance of power.
Finally, the representatives of the Congress of Vienna agreed
that they
would not act unilaterally in addressing European
problems.
Instead, they would consult with one another, agree on a
solution, and
act “in concert” to resolve the situation.
[In class I read some selections
from
Klemens von Metternich, an Austrian representative to the
Congress of Vienna, and a great example of the conservative
point of
view.]
Now, although these were good principles, by themselves they
could not
have ensured peace in Europe. What made these principles
work is
that they had the support of the strongest power in continental
Europe,
Russia.
The Russian Czar, Alexander I, gave his full support to the
Congress of
Vienna settlement. Further, Alexander proposed that the nations
of
Europe adopt a set of higher principles in their relationships
to one
another. Alexander proposed what he called The Holy
Alliance, an
agreement of the major leaders of Europe to abide by Christian
principles in their dealings with one another.
Many European rulers refused to have anything to do with the
alliance. However, Austria, Prussia, and (of course)
Alexander's own Russia signed on.
Did this Holy Alliance make any difference? It's hard to
say: but
it is certain that Alexander's commitment to use his military
forces
for the general good of Europe rather than for Russian conquest
was a
key factor in European stability.
Alexander's successor and brother, Nicholas I (1825-1855) was
even more
willing to use Russian troops to maintain the status quo in
Europe. Whenever the “legitimate authorities” of Europe
were
challenged, Nicholas could be counted on to send in Russian
troops to
make sure no revolution was successful.
But why would anyone want a revolution? Hadn't Europe
learned
anything from the French Revolution? Well, maybe.
But there
were still many people in Europe who wanted to see major
political
changes. In particular, what is called liberalism was an
important force for change.
Now liberals in the 19th century were very different from the
people we
call liberals in American politics today. They were
nothing like
Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, or Barack Obama.
Probably the easiest way to understand 19th century liberals is
to
associate them with liberty. Basically, what 19th century
liberals
wanted was, not more government (which is what today's so-called
liberals generally want), but more freedom.
19th century liberals wanted, first of all, political
freedom.
They wanted to see established representative governments,
governments
like that of Great Britain. In addition, 19th
century
Liberals believed that political freedom would increase with the
victory of what they called nationalism.
Nationalism is an important movement, not just in the 19th
century, but
in the 20th century as well. Essentially, nationalists believe
that
people with a common culture (especially, people who share a
common
language) belong together in the same country. On the one
hand,
Nationalists wanted to see some of the smaller European
political units
united. They wanted a unified Italy and a unified
Germany.
On the other hand, Nationalists wanted to see the great
multi-ethnic
empires broken up into separate nations. This obviously
meant
challenging the Congress of Vienna settlement. But no
matter:
representative government wasn't thought possible without the
relative
homogeneity of the nation-state.
In addition to political freedom, the liberals of the 19th
century
wanted personal freedom. They wanted guarantees of freedom
of
speech, freedom of the press, etc.
Finally, 19th century liberals wanted economic freedom.
They were
great champions of what they called laissez-faire
economics. They wanted government to quit
interfering with
business. In particular, they called for the elimination
of
tariffs and other restrictions on trade.
In many respects, 19th century liberals are far closer to
today's
conservatives than they are to the people we call liberals in
American
politics today. This makes things confusing for students,
so be
careful as you study this material!
In any case, the liberals were not going to get their way on any
of
these issues in the first part of the 19th century. In
1830 and
again in 1848, liberals in many places rose up in attempts
to
create nations and to establish representative
governments. But
these revolutions (the Revolutions of 1830 and the Revolutions
of 1848)
failed everywhere except in France. The key factor:
Russian
troops, sent in to quell the revolutions and to keep the
“legitimate
authorities” in place. And as long as Russia was willing
to play
policeman of Europe, it didn't seem likely liberals or
nationalists
would get very far.
But Russia stopped playing policeman as a result of the Crimean
War.
The Crimean War (1854-1856) came about as a result of Russian
attempts
to police the southeastern corner of Europe, an area dominated
by the
Ottoman Turkish Empire. The Turks had held this region for
four
centuries, and, at one time, their empire had been one of the
strongest
around. By the 19th century, however, the Turkish empire
was
showing signs of real instability. It was called (often
enough)
“the sick man of Europe.” The empire was sick: and
eventually it
was going to die. And what would happen then? Well,
the
Russian were afraid that this would be a disaster for the
thousands of
Orthodox Christians living within the empire. Consider past
Moslem
conduct toward the Christians, genocide was a very real
possibility. And so in 1854, the Russians began to move
into the
Black Sea region, preparing (if necessary) to take over
themselves if
that was the only way to protect their Orthodox Christian
brothers and
sisters.
Russia's move into the area alarmed the British and the French,
however. They were afraid Russian expansion into Turkish
territory would upset the balance of power. So they moved
into
the Black Sea themselves, trying to prevent any Russian
annexation of
territory. The result was the first major European war in
forty
years: The Crimean War.
There are lots of fascinating stories connected to this
war.
Tennyson’s famous “Charge of
the
Light Brigade” is based on a Crimean War incident.
Also, this
is the war that inspired Florence Nightingale to put together
her team
of nurses [Another fascinating story I
don't
have time to tell in class. See this short biography
of
Florence Nightingale. Yet another mathematician!]
. But for this course, the main thing to remember is that
Russia
lost, and that, as a result, the Russian attitude changed.
Russia was, of course, angry with France and Britain. But
they
were also angry with their “friends,” people Russia had helped
again
and again, but who refused to lift a finger to help the
Russians.
One Austrian ambassador commented on his nation's refusal to aid
Russia, “The world will be astonished at our ingratitude.”
And,
truly, the ingratitude of Russian friends was
astonishing.
In any case, Russian attitude now changed, and instead of
playing
policeman of Europe, the Russians determined to let their
so-called
friends fend for themselves.
This gave the Liberals and the Nationalists their chance: the
dominance
of conservative ideas was, temporarily at least, over. The
Conservatives had brought some measure of progress to Europe:
forty
years with no major wars is quite an achievement in
Europe!
Peace, stability, and prosperity were not quite enough, however,
and
now it was time for progress of a different sort.
Now, actually, Liberals and Nationalists had won a few victories
even
in the first half of the 19th century. Greece, for
instance, had
broken away from Turkey and become an independent nation in the
1820's.
In France, also, liberals had made some progress. In 1830,
for
instance, the French replaced their Bourbon monarch (Charles X)
with
the far more liberal Louis Philippe. Louis Philippe is
often
called the “citizen king” or “the bourgeois monarch,” both very
appropriate names. LP worked with an elected
legislature.
He supported basic rights (freedom of speech, etc.). Best
of all
from the liberal point of view, he moved to laissez-faire
economics.
For a while, LP’s policies seemed successful. But an
economic
downturn (and LP’s backing away from his commitment to free
speech)
created problems, and, in 1848, the French held another
revolution,
deposing LP. In place of the monarchy, the French
established
another republic: “The Second Republic,” as the French call
it.
The president of this new republic: Louis Napoleon, a relative
of the
great Napoleon Bonaparte.
The new republic got off to a good start. Louis Napoleon
made
reforms in the education system and in the French
bureaucracy. He became a very popular figure in
France. And
then he had a brilliant idea. “Yes, I have done much for
you,” he
told the French people, “but I can do still more. Give me
more
power, and I’ll make France truly great once again.” In
1852,
Louis Napoleon proposed making France an empire once
again. And
the French people overwhelmingly supported him! The Second
Republic came to an end, and France now embarked on its Second
Empire.
But notice. During the great French Revolution
(1789-1815), the
French had moved from rule by a Bourbon monarch to more limited
monarchy to a republic and then to an empire. The result
had been
a disaster: the reign of terror, civil war, thousands of
deaths.
Between 1830 and 1852, the French make similar
transitions. They
again move from rule by a Bourbon monarch to more limited
monarchy to a
republic and then to an empire. But this time, there is
relatively
little bloodshed. Certainly, the fact that even the French could
make
relatively peaceful political transitions is evidence of a
certain kind
of progress in the 19th century!
Other countries in Europe also saw what might be considered
progress. One example is Italy.
For much of European history, Italy had been the political,
cultural,
economic, and spiritual leader of Europe. However, by
1600,
Italian greatness was a thing of the past, and Italy was playing
a
rather insignificant role in European affairs. Many
Italians
believed that the key to restoring Italian greatness was simply
unity:
the creation of an Italian nation.
It bothered nationalists that Italy was not a nation like
Britain or
France, that, instead, Bourbons ruled southern Italy, Hapsburgs
much of
northern Italy, and the Pope controlled a good chunk of central
Italy. In 1848, they tried to create an
Italian
nation: but the attempt failed. At last, however, the work
of two
great Italian patriots, Cavour and Garibaldi, led to an Italian
nation.
Cavour was the prime minister for Victor Emmanuel, the King of
Piedmont-Sardinia, an independent monarchy in NW
Italy.
Cavour’s plan was to create a nation in north Italy by driving
the
Hapsburgs out and expanding Victor Emmanuel dominions. To
do
this, he figured he would need French and British help.
Consequently, he persuaded Victor Emmanuel to send Piedmont
troops to
aid the French and the British in the Crimean War!
The strategy paid off. In the 1850's, Cavour was able to
secure
French help in driving the Hapsburgs out of Lombardy and
Venetia.
And then an amazing thing happened. All over northern
Italy, the
Italians rose up in support of Victor Emmanuel, and soon Cavour
had
managed to engineer the creation of a north Italian nation with
Victor
Emmanuel as its king.
Meanwhile, in southern Italy, Garibaldi had created a resistance
movement that was creating real problems for the Bourbon
rulers.
His red-shirted patriots eventually succeeded in driving the
Bourbons
out. Garibaldi then showed himself a true patriot.
Although
he could easily have become king of southern Italy, Garibaldi
believed
his people would be better off if there were one united Italian
nation. Consequently, he negotiated with Cavour to add
southern
Italy to Victor Emmanuel expanding kingdom.
The Pope maintained his control of central Italy for a short
time, but
caught between Cavour’s forces in the north and Garibaldi’s in
the
south, he eventually had to cede secular power to Victor
Emmanuel, and
by 1870, all of Italy was united. Further, Victor Emmanuel
agreed
to work with an elected legislature and to guarantee his people
specific rights like freedom of speech and freedom of the
press.
It looked in 1870 that Italy, too, was well along the path to
real
progress: certainly the liberals would have thought so.
At roughly the same time as the Italian nation was born, Germany
too
became a nation–and through a somewhat similar process.
They key
figure here was Otto Von Bismarck, chancellor of Prussia.
Bismarck’s role was much like that of Cavour in Italy. But
unlike
Cavour, Bismarck was no liberal. He had little use for
elected
legislatures or guarantees of rights. Instead, Bismarck
believed
progress would come through “blood and iron.”
Bismarck engineered wars with Denmark and Austria, wars which
made
Prussia the dominant power in the German-speaking areas of
Europe. But Bismarck’s most important war was a war
against
France. Realizing that France was a major obstacle to
German
unity, Bismarck decided to provoke a war. He didn't have
to work
very hard: the French were eager for war.
When the war (the Franco-Prussian War) broke out in 1870,
enthusiastic
Frenchmen rushed into the streets of Paris shouting “Viva la
guerre!”–“Long live the war!”
They weren’t shouting for long. Prussian artillery was
much
superior both in accuracy and range to that of the French, and,
in next
to no time, Prussian troops had pushed all the way to Paris.
Now Bismarck didn't make much in the way of territorial
demands.
It was enough to take the Alsace-Lorraine region. But what
happened is that, all of a sudden, the Prussians were
exceedingly
popular in the German-speaking areas of Europe. Everyone
loves a
winner, and the Prussians had now taken out the heavy-weight
champions
of the world. So when Bismarck proposed the creation of a
German
nation under Prussian leadership: well, everyone was ready to
jump on
the bandwagon. And so Prussia’s king (William/Wilhelm) got
a new
title: Kaiser of Germany.
And once Germany was united, it was time for the rest of the
world to
look out. In short order, Germany became the world’s
leader in
science and technology. They became leaders in...
Electrification
Chemistry
Vaccines
Anesthetics
The manufacture of arms
At the same time, they were rapidly catching Britain as a
leading
industrial power. And for the average German, life
was
good. Wages went up. Diet improved. Everything
looked
good: real progress, so it seemed.
But there was one problem. While Bismarck gave Germany one
liberal dream, the dream of a German nation, Bismarck was no
liberal. Neither was he a conservative. Bismarck was
a man
of no fixed principles, a master of what's called
realpolitik--doing
whatever it takes to ensure success.
Here's realpolitik at work. Bismarck wanted support
from
the
liberals, but he didn't really want to give them what they most
wanted:
guarantees of personal and political freedom. Instead, he
tried
to get them on his side by attacking the people they didn't
like.
And who didn't 19th century liberals like? Why,
Catholics.
Bismarck started what he called the "Kulturkampf," the struggle
for
culture, the Kulturkampf was an attempt to undermine the
influence of
the Catholic church. Bismarck later decided he wanted
Catholic
support and called off the Kulturkampf--but, not before a lot of
damage
was done.
Bismarck simply didn't believe in the kind of personal
freedoms
(e.g., freedom of religion), that we take for granted.
Neither
did he have much faith in representive government. "The
great
questions of the day will not be decided by speeeches and
parliamentary
decisions, but by blood and iron." The Germany
Bismarck
created had an elected legislature (the Landtag): but it had no
real
power. Real power was in the hands of the Kaiser and his
advisors.
Likewise, Bismarck had no use for liberal laissez faire
economic ideas. While not in ideology a socialist, he adopted
many
socialist ideas to gain himself (and his Kaiser) support among
the
working class. Bismarck's programs were the first major
steps
toward the welfare-state and the welfare state mentality.
In view of Germany’s economic prosperity, this hardly seemed
important. But it turned out to be a very unfortunate
thing that,
in the areas of personal, political, and economic freedom, the
Germans
did not make as much progress as they might have in the 19th
century.
Now the story of European progress would not be complete without
talking at least a little bit about what was going on in Britain
during
the 19th century.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the British already had
much of
what liberals in other countries could only dream of. They
already had an elected legislative body. They already had
guarantees of fundamental rights. In addition, Britain had
the
strongest economy in the world. They were the first nation to go
through the “industrial revolution,” and, as a result, they had
a huge
economic advantage over every other nation in the world.
In
addition, Britain controlled the largest empire the world had
ever
seen, an empire “on which the sun never set.”
What more could one want?
Plenty.
The industrial revolution had brought with it all sorts of
problems:
–long hours, unsafe working conditions
–family break-up with women and children working long hours
along with
the men
–crime and disease as a result of urbanization
–very high rates of prostitution and illegitimacy
–low wages (those who produced enormous wealth saw little of it
themselves)
British liberals had an answer to all these problems. The
solution? Laissez-faire economics!
Eliminate restrictions on trade. Cut back taxes
(particularly
tariffs on imports and exports). And what will
happen? The
economy will grow. The pie will be bigger, and everyone
can get a
bigger piece.
Amazingly enough, this solution worked: or it seemed to.
Britain
moved to a laissez-faire economy during the course of the 19th
century,
and the pie did get bigger. Iron production tripled in one
thirty-year period. Exports increased 500 per cent as
Britain
moved to laissez-faire policies. And, what’s more, even
working
class people shared in the larger pie. Real wages for
working
class people doubled!
And at the same time, factories became safer. The use of child
labor
decreased. Slavery was eliminated in the empire.
Crime
rates plummeted. Prostitution became rarer.
Illegitimacy rates plummeted.
All as a result of laissez-faire economics!
Well, not quite. Other factors played an important role.
The 19th century was a time of religious revival in
Britain. The
missionary movement got its start in the 19th century, as did
the
Sunday school movement. John Henry Newman (the
guy
Newman Centers are named for) helped bring revival
among the
well-educated protestants with what was called the Oxford
movement. Then--after his conversion to Catholicism-- John
Henry
Newman helped revive Roman Catholicism (see his Apologia
pro Vita Sua). At the same time, the
Salvation
Army
brought revival to the slums [see William Booth's In
Darkest
England and the Way Out]. All this was very likely key to
the kinds
of progress made in England.
But there was another important factor–the leadership provided
by Queen
Victoria. Victoria ruled from 1837 to 1901 (!), and these
years
in English history are often referred to as the Victorian
Era.
Unfortunately, students only hear the word “Victorian” as a
derogatory
adjective, and rarely do they have any idea of how positive an
influence Victoria was on her country.
Now it is true that the Victorians did on occasion go a bit
far.
Their laudable concern for modesty, for instance, was taken to a
ridiculous extreme. Not showing one’s legs in public
might
be understandable, but to go beyond this and put skirts on
pianos
so one wouldn’t see the piano’s legs–well, that’s going a bit
far.
But there was another side to Victorian morality.
“Victorian
morality” was concerned with a lot more than sex. It
involved
treating others well, being concerned, especially, with those
who could
not protect themselves. The Victorians aimed at
creating a
society that would produce what the utilitarian philosophers
called
“the greatest good for the greatest number,” and, in many ways,
they
succeeded.
It is a bit hard to figure out whether or not the morality
of
the Victorian period is conservative or liberal. It
derives in
large part from traditional Christian morality, and the emphasis
on the
Bible and on Church tradition is (in general terms)
conservative.
In his reaffirmation of Christian tradition, a figure like John
Henry
Neumann is conservative. But the "greatest good for the
greatest
number" recipe is a formula from liberal thinkers (e.g., Bentham
and
Mill) who aren't so grounded in tradition.
Likewise in the political sphere, Victoria's policies ended
up
shifting between two different prime ministers: the Tory
(conservative) leader Benjamin Disraeli and
the Liberal leader, William Gladstone. For the most part, this
shift back and forth was healthy.
However, neither conservative nor liberal policies helped
much with one of the really great blots on the English record of
this period--the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1852). During
this period, a million Irish died from starvation or disease
brought on by malnutrition. Two million more fled the
island altogether.
Historians still debate the reasons for the famine.
Part of the problem certainly was the fact that Irish farm-land
was owned by absentee English landlords wanting to make the most
profit from their land. For a while, this was the growing
of grain crops, and Irish tenants had jobs growing the grain
while they themselves subsisted largely on potatoes. But a
couple of major potato crop failures meant hunger--hunger that
*could* have been ameliorated if grain were cheap and/or the
Irish had money to pay for it. During part of the famine,
tariffs on grain kept grain prices too high--a problem.
But then the liberal idea of free traded kicked in, and grain
prices fell. Nice. Except that now those who owned
the land couldn't profit from growing grain, so the used it for
grazing, a not-very-labor-intensive way of making money off
land. So now the Irish were without jobs, and, cheap grain
or no, they couldn't afford it.
Unfortunately, the ideas of Thomas Malthus were very much in
vogue, and these ideas suggested that the Irish themselves were
to blame for the problem: the produced too many kids, and
Ireland was overpopulated. Intervene, thought Malthus, and
the population would just grow until you had the same
overpopulation problem again. Population growth would
always outstrip producation. Malthus favored keeping the "corn
laws" and the tarrifs on imported grain so that grain prices
were high, and his ideas were one reason the British reacted
slowly and ineffectively to solve the crisis.