Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experiencing Parliamentarism: The German National Assembly of 1848

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Ideal of Parliament in Europe since 1800

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Political History ((PSPH))

  • 188 Accesses

Abstract

Schulz provides arguments why the experiment of parliamentarism of 1848 was neither forgotten nor lost, although the revolutionary parliament was liquidated by the German Powers in 1849. Basic convictions and practices of democracy were institutionalised and transformed into political culture, which shaped post-revolutionary Germany. The National Assembly had proven its determination to create a constitutional order based on parliamentary government. For the elected representatives, practising democracy in parliament meant giving up the ideal of an independent vote and getting accustomed to party discipline. The chapter further contends that such fundamental experiences of parliamentarism were communicated and transferred into transnational standards of representative democracy in Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ‘Engländer, Niederländer, Spanier, Portugiesen, Italiener, Polen, Griechen, Amerikaner, ja Neger haben für die Freiheit der Franzosen, die ja die Freiheit aller Völker ist, gekämpft, nur die Deutschen nicht’: Ludwig Börne, Briefe aus Paris, Fünfter Brief, 17. September 1830, in Inge and Peter Rippmann (eds.), Sämtliche Schriften (Dreieich: Joseph Melzer Verlag, 1977) vol. 3, p. 23; cf. Klaus Ries (ed.), Europa im Vormärz. Eine transnationale Spurensuche (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2016).

  2. 2.

    ‘[…] public attention to politics was completely absorbed by the National Assembly’: Reinhard Carl Eigenbrodt, Meine Erinnerungen aus den Jahren 1848, 1849 und 1850, edited by Ludwig Bergsträsser (Darmstadt: Grossherzoglich Hessischer Staatsverlag, 1914) p. 96.

  3. 3.

    Jörg-Detlef Kühne, Die Reichsverfassung der Paulskirche. Vorbild und Verwirklichung im späteren deutschen Rechtsleben (Frankfurt am Main: Metzner, 1985); Dieter Hein, Die Revolution von 1848/49 (München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1998); cf. Heinrich Best, ‘Strukturen parlamentarischer Repräsentation in den Revolutionen von 1848’ in D. Dowe, H.-G. Haupt and D. Langewiesche (eds.), Europa 1848. Revolution und Reform (Bonn: J.H.W. Dietz Nachf., 1998) p. 636 ff.

  4. 4.

    Wilhelm Bleek, ‘Die Politik-Professoren in der Paulskirche’ in J. Kocka et al. (eds.), Von der Arbeiterbewegung zum modernen Sozialstaat (München: K.G. Saur Verlag, 1994); Peter Wende, ‘Der “politische Professor”’ in Ulrich Muhlack (ed.), Historisierung und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2003); Hans-Christof Kraus, ‘Zur parlamentarischen Rhetorik politischer Professoren’ in J. Feuchter and J. Helmrath (eds.), Parlamentarische Kulturen vom Mittelalter bis in die Moderne (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 2013).

  5. 5.

    Anna Gianna Manca, ‘Die Beamten in der französischen und deutschen verfassunggebenden Versammlung von 1848’ in M. Kirsch and P. Schiera (eds.), Verfassungswandel um 1848 im europäischen Vergleich (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001) p. 126–127; F. Julien-Laferrière, Les députés fonctionnaires sous la Monarchie de Juillet (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1970).

  6. 6.

    […] ‘widerliche und widersinnige Unterscheidung zwischen Volk und Bourgeoisie’: Manfed Botzenhart, Deutscher Parlamentarismus in der Revolutionszeit 1848–1850 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1977) p. 81, quoting: Friedrich Daniel Bassermann, Denkwürdigkeiten von 1811–1855 (Frankfurt am Main, 1926) p. 25, and a speech in the Paulskirche on 16 February 1849.

  7. 7.

    For more on the importance of the liberal self-perception for its political concepts, see Lothar Gall, ‘Liberalismus und “bürgerliche Gesellschaft”’ (1975), and Lothar Gall, ‘“ich wünschte ein Bürger zu sein.” Zum Selbstverständnis des deutschen Bürgertums im 19. Jahrhundert’ (1987), reprinted in L. Gall, Bürgertum, liberale Bewegung und Nation (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1996) pp. 99–126 and 3–22.

  8. 8.

    For comparison with the British debate about enfranchising all ‘respectable’ Englishmen, see Eric J. Evans, Parliamentary Reform, c. 1770–1918 (London/New York: Longman, 2000) p. 41.

  9. 9.

    Botzenhart, Deutscher Parlamentarismus, p. 157.

  10. 10.

    Andreas Biefang and Andreas Schulz, ‘From Monarchical Constitutionalism to a Parliamentary Republic: Concepts of Parliamentarism in Germany since 1818’ in P. Ihalainen, C. Ilie and K. Palonen (eds.), Parliament and Parliamentarism. A Comparative History of a European Concept (New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2016) p. 62–81; Dirk Jörke and Marcus Llanque, ‘Parliamentarism and Democracy in German Political Theory since 1848’ in Ibid., p. 262–277.

  11. 11.

    Stenographischer Bericht über die Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden National-Versammlung zu Frankfurt am Main, edited by Franz Wigard, vol. 1 (Frankfurt am Main, 1848) [further on quoted: ‘Minutes of the National Assembly’] 18th session, 19 June 1848, p. 384.

  12. 12.

    The delegate of the Grand Duchy of Hesse at the National Assembly noticed that a transfer of power was taking place: ‘Embodying the nation the German National Assembly claims the exclusive right to found the federal constitution of the German State without previous consent of the German Princes or the Provisional Government’; Eigenbrodt, Erinnerungen, p. 100.

  13. 13.

    ‘Dieses System nimmt keine Rücksicht auf die Rechte der deutschen Regierungen. Wird es angenommen, so hat die Nationalversammlung die Regierung über Deutschland angetreten’; Minutes of the National Assembly, 18th Session, 19 June 1848, p. 356.

  14. 14.

    Minutes of the National Assembly, 18th Session, 19 June 1848, p. 368; for more about the parliamentarian Left, see Christian Jansen, Einheit, Macht und Freiheit. Die Paulskirchenlinke und die deutsche Politik in der nachrevolutionären Epoche 1849–1867 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 2000).

  15. 15.

    ‘[…] oben ein Präsident, unten 30 Fürstenthümer’: Max Duncker, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Reichsversammlung in Frankfurt (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1849) p. 51. For more on liberal and democratic concepts of a unitarian republic or a parliamentary monarchy, see Jansen, Einheit, p. 234.

  16. 16.

    Hans-Werner Hahn and Helmut Berding, Reformen, Restauration und Revolution 1806–1848/49 (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta Verlag, 2010), p. 570.

  17. 17.

    Eigenbrodt, Erinnerungen, p. 100 ff., quoting the delegate of the Free City of Bremen.

  18. 18.

    Hein, Revolution, p. 49.

  19. 19.

    Markus Lotzenburger, Die Grundrechte in den deutschen Verfassungen des 19. Jahrhunderts (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 2015), p. 125.

  20. 20.

    Ernst Rudolf Huber, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988), p. 774–776.

  21. 21.

    The significance of a fundamental change of political language has been emphasized by Willibald Steinmetz, ‘“Sprechen ist eine Tat bei euch.” Die Wörter und das Handeln in der Revolution von 1848’ in Dowe et al. (eds.), Europa 1848, p. 1089–1139. See also Armin Burkhardt, ‘German Parliamentary Discourse since 1848 from a Linguistic Point of View’ in Ihalainen et al. (eds.), Parliament and Parliamentarism, p. 176–192.

  22. 22.

    The delegate of Hessen-Darmstadt, although a close friend of Heinrich von Gagern, felt like a ‘mere spectator’ and complained about a ‘complete isolation’ which separated the German governments from the National Assembly in Frankfurt; Eigenbrodt, Erinnerungen, pp. 304 and 271.

  23. 23.

    King Frederick Wilhelm’s refusal to accept the crown of the German Reich which the delegation offered him in the name of the National Assembly on 3 April 1849 might not have been so predictable as historians later assumed because the signals which the Prussian monarch communicated regarding his German mission during the winter months were anything but clear; David E. Barclay, Anarchie und guter Wille. Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die preußische Monarchie (Berlin: Siedler Verlag, 1995) p. 282–283; Botzenhart, Parlamentarismus, p. 695–696.

  24. 24.

    Paul Wentzcke and Wolfgang Klötzer (eds.), Deutscher Liberalismus im Vormärz. Heinrich von Gagern: Briefe und Reden 1815–1848 (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1959); cf. Philipp Erbentraut, Theorie und Soziologie der politischen Parteien im deutschen Vormärz 1815–1848 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), p. 165.

  25. 25.

    ‘We had to create a constitution by gaining moral support for our work since we lacked the bayonets to impose it by force’: Duncker, Reichsversammlung, p. 83 ff.

  26. 26.

    Ludwig Bamberger, Erinnerungen, edited by Paul Nathan (Berlin 1899), p. 58–59.

  27. 27.

    Eigenbrodt, Erinnerungen, p. 251.

  28. 28.

    Veit Valentin was one of the first historians who pointed out the importance of the National Assembly of 1848 for ‘experiencing’ parliamentarism: V. Valentin, Geschichte der deutschen Revolution von 1848–1849, 2 vols. (first published Berlin 1930/31; reprint Cologne 1977) vol. 2, p. 13. ‘Experience’ and the ‘ideas of 1848’ were terms that the former ‘1848ers’ repeatedly made reference to in their political correspondence, giving them a generational political identity: Jansen, Einheit, p. 25.

  29. 29.

    The historian Friedrich von Raumer, delegate of Berlin, described himself speaking in parliament as a ‘dog barking at the moon’, since political clubs decided how to vote in parliament, which made deliberations useless: Botzenhart, Parlamentarismus, p. 436.

  30. 30.

    Kraus, Rhetorik, p. 209.

  31. 31.

    Minutes of the National Assembly, vol. 1, p. 385.

  32. 32.

    The transformation of the ‘wild’ beginnings of parliamentarism into orchestrated proceedings and functional working structures is documented in the minutes which the National Assembly produced and published in 1848/49; the standing orders of the House were drafted by Robert von Mohl, who was an expert on British parliamentarism. Cf. Robert von Mohl, Vorschläge zu einer Geschäftsordnung des verfassunggebenden Reichstags (Heidelberg: Academische Verlagshandlung C.F. Winter, 1848) and ‘Über die verschiedene Auffassung des repräsentativen Systems in England, Frankreich und Deutschland’ in Zeitschrift für die gesammte Staatswissenschaft 3 (1846), p. 451–495.

  33. 33.

    Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte (München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 1984; 2nd ed.), p. 659.

  34. 34.

    Dieter Hein, ‘Die deutsche Nation in Europa 1848/49’ in K. Ries (ed.), Europa im Vormärz (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2016), p. 169; Günter Wollstein, Das ‘Großdeutschland’ der Paulskirche. Nationale Ziele in der bürgerlichen Revolution 1848/49 (Dusseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1977).

  35. 35.

    In the 1850s, the term ‘Realpolitik’ served as a code word which signalled that the former revolutionaries were ready to accept the failure of their political concepts and to turn to cooperation with the Prussian monarchy to realize German nation-building in an authoritarian way; Steinmetz, ‘Sprechen ist eine Tat bei euch’, p. 1113–1115; Jansen, Einheit, pp. 30–31 and 255–265.

  36. 36.

    Dieter Langewiesche, Reich–Nation–Föderation. Deutschland und Europa (München: C.H. Beck Verlag, 2008), p. 259–277.

  37. 37.

    Minutes of the National Assembly, vol. 1, p. 377.

  38. 38.

    Conservatives as well as the Left in the Berlin National Assembly confessed loyalty to the history and tradition of the Prussian state; ‘Pomeranians, Prussians, inhabitants of the Kurmark and the Altmark, Magdeburgher, a majority of the Silesians and Westphalians and also Rhinelanders want to stay citizens of Prussia’, the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper observed in 1848: Manfred Botzenhart, ‘Das preußische Parlament und die deutsche Nationalversammlung im Jahre 1848’ in Gerhard A. Ritter (ed.), Regierung, Bürokratie und Parlament in Preußen und Deutschland von 1848 bis zur Gegenwart (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1983) p. 22.

  39. 39.

    Hans-Christof Kraus, ‘Die deutsche Rezeption und Darstellung der englischen Verfassung im neunzehnten Jahrhundert’ in R. Muhs, J. Paulmann and W. Steinmetz (eds.), Aneignung und Abwehr. Interkultureller Transfer zwischen Deutschland und Großbritannien im 19. Jahrhundert (Bodenheim: Philo Verlagsgesellschaft, 1998), p. 89–126.

  40. 40.

    Cf. Friedrich Daniel Bassermann and Joseph Maria von Radowitz: Minutes of the National Assembly, 18th Session, 19 June 1848, pp. 381 and 376.

  41. 41.

    Heinrich von Gagern related the way of confrontational speaking directly to British parliamentarism: ‘I did it in the same way in which it is daily practised by political opponents in English Parliament’: Eigenbrodt, Erinnerungen, p. 251, note in the margin by Heinrich von Gagern.

  42. 42.

    Andreas Schulz and Andreas Wirsching (eds.), Das Parlament als Kommunikationsraum (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 2012); Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Dieter Langewiesche, ‘Die Revolution in Europa 1848’ in Dowe et al. (eds.), Europa 1848, p. 13.

  43. 43.

    Jonathan Sperber, The European Revolutions, 1848–1851 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005; 2nd ed.), p. 265.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. J. W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Andreas Schulz

  2. KGParl (Kommission für Geschichte des Parlamentarismus und der Politischen Parteien), Berlin, Germany

    Andreas Schulz

Authors
  1. Andreas Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Schulz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Remieg Aerts

  2. Center for Parliamentary History, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Carla van Baalen

  3. Institute for History, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Henk te Velde

  4. Netherlands Research School Political History, Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Margit van der Steen

  5. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Hessen, Germany

    Marie-Luise Recker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schulz, A. (2019). Experiencing Parliamentarism: The German National Assembly of 1848. In: Aerts, R., van Baalen, C., te Velde, H., van der Steen, M., Recker, ML. (eds) The Ideal of Parliament in Europe since 1800. Palgrave Studies in Political History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27705-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27705-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27704-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27705-5

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation