Abstract
Early in 1849 numerous authors began to reflect on the revolution which they had just witnessed. Events of the magnitude which Germany had experienced demanded to be recounted and explained. Since Germany was well endowed with historians, many of whom had participated directly in political life, the challenge to make sense out of the recent past was quickly taken up. In scrutinizing contemporary history, the intellectuals hoped to prepare themselves and their countrymen for the struggles of the future. A consideration of their historical thoughts on the revolution is therefore essential to an understanding of their analyses of and programs for the political and social world which they inhabited in the 1850’s. Most authors focused on the history of liberalism, especially on events which had occurred in the Frankfurt Parliament; and when men discussed the failure of the revolution they almost always meant the defeat suffered by the moderates. They usually saw no way that the radical revolutionaries, disruptive and threatening (or brave and hopeful) though their efforts had been, could possibly have surmounted the obstacles which faced them. Still, the presence of these other malcontents — men such as the followers of Gustav von Struve and Friedrich Hecker in Baden or the streetfighters of Berlin, whose aims and methods had been far more radical than those of the largely moderate parliamentarians who sat at Frankfurt — had to be dealt with too. The ways in which the major groups of intellectuals portrayed the relations between liberals and radicals varied greatly, but they all revealed the imprint of ideology on history.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
“Das deutsche Vorparlament” (anon.), in Gegenwart,II(1849), 682, 685–686.
Häusser, Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte der badischen Revolution,103–108, and “Baden im Frühjahre 1848,” 467.
Arndt, 192–193; Biedermann, “Demokratie,” 345–346; Häusser, “Das Ministerium Bekk in Baden,” 309, 326; Gneist, Berliner Zustände, 57. On the growth of anti-French feeling in Germany after 1848, see Heinz-Otto Sieburg, Deutschland and Frankreich in der Geschichtsschreibung des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, 1848–1871 (Wiesbaden, 1958 ).
Hausser: “Baden vor den Ereignissen von 1848,” 331; Denkwürdigkeiten,9–10, 675; “Baden im Frühjahre 1848,” 443–444.
On the use of the term during this period, see Werner Conze. “Vom ‘Pöbel’ zum ‘Proletariat’: Sozialgeschichtliche Voraussetzungen für den Sozialismus in Deutschland,” Vierteljahrsschrift für Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,XLI (1954), 333364.
See Mack Walker, German Home Towns: Community, State, and General Estate, 1648–1871 (Ithaca and London, 1971), 283 ff.
Criticism of this thesis, as well as discussion of its origins and its political significance, can be found in W. E. Mosse, The Great Powers and the German Question, 1848–1871 (Cambridge, Eng., 1958), esp. 375–381.
Droysen, “Preussen und das System der Grossmächte,” 212–213; Duncker, 88. For emphasis on aggressive German nationalism as a contributing factor in the liberal failure, see A. J. P. Taylor, The Course of German History (rev. ed.. New York, 1962), 77–83.
Gervinus, Einleitung in die Geschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,6, 12, 18–20, 41–42, 45–47, 78–81, 84–88, 93–95, 98, 136–137, 141–142. The Geschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts itself only went up to 1830. For discussion of the larger work, see G. P. Gooch, History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (2nd ed., Boston, 1959), 104–105.
“Der Fünfzigerausschuss” (anon.), in Gegenwart,IV (1850),442; “Die deutsche Nationalversammlung, I: Vom Zusammentritt der Versammlung bis zur Erwählung des Reichsverwesers” (anon.), in Gegenwart,V (1850), 169.
Bamberger, Erlebnisse aus der pfälzischen Erhebung im Mai und Juni 1849,3–6; “Preussen seit Ende 1849 bis Ende 1850” (anon.), in Gegenwart,VII (1852), 488, 517; see also Oppenheim, “Zur Kritik der Demokratie,” 9–12.
Ranke, Über die Epochen der neueren Geschichte,229–234. The last quotation is taken from the introduction to an unpublished lecture which Ranke gave sometime after 1852. The whole introduction is reprinted in Rudolf Vierhaus, Ranke and die soziale Welt (Münster, 1957), 237.
Ranke, “Politische Denkschriften,” 587–588, 591, 601–602; “Das Wesen und das Wirken der Fortschrittspartei” (anon.), HPB,XL (1857), 641; “Frankfurt und Deutschland, die Grundrechte und der bayerische Adressensturm” (anon.), HPB, XXIII (1849),400–402.
“Das Wesen und das Wirken der Fortschrittspartei,” 738, 848–849; “Das deutsche Verfassungswerk” (anon.), HPB,XXVI (1850), 245.
Huber, Bruch mit der Revolution,14–15, 32–33; “Das Wesen and das Wirken der Fortschrittspartei,” 847–860; “Frankfurt and Deutschland,” 676–677; see also the review of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Ancien régime et la Révolution (Paris, 1856), “Die Centralisirung des öffentlichen Lebens and die Allmacht der Staatsgewalt als Grundursachen der Revolution” (anon.), HPB,XLIII (1859), 442–501, 573–599, 682–715; see also Buss, 5–6.
Stein, cxxxvi. Engels’ analysis of 1848–49, originally published in the New York Daily Tribune in 1851–52, appeared in book form as Germany: Revolution and Counter-revolution (New York, 1933 ).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1974 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lees, A. (1974). Debates about the Recent Past. In: Revolution and Reflection. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2065-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2065-7_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-247-1638-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-2065-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive