1830 ve 1848 İhtilalleri (Revolutions of 1830 and 1848)
Kategori: Tarih >> Avrupa Tarihi
Bu ihtilaller, 1830 yılında Fransa'da çıktı ve bütün Avrupa'yı etkiledi. İhtilalin çıkmasında, Avrupa'da bulunan Liberal kesimin Viyana Kongresi kararlarına tepki göstermesi ve Fransa'da iş başına geçen X. Şarl'ın mutlak rejimi getirmek için parlamentoyu dağıtması etkili oldu. Viyana Kongresi'nden sonra Fransa Kralı, ülkede asıl gücü elinde bulunduruyordu. Bu arada iktidardaki krallık taraftarı muhafazakârlar, basın ve düşünce özgürlüğüne sınırlama getirdiler. Anayasanın tanıdığı hakları vermediler. Bu nedenle muhafazakârlarla liberaller arasında tartışmalar başladı. XVIII. Lui'nin yerine geçen kardeşi X. Şarl'ın, Fransa'da mutlakıyet kurmak istemesi üzerine, gazeteciler, işçiler, halk, üniversite öğrencileri isyan etmişler, X. Şarl krallıktan çekilmek zorunda kalmıştır. Ayaklanma sonunda, X. Şarl krallıktan vazgeçti, yerine liberal fikirleri savunan Louis Fhillippe kral oldu.
Fransa'da başlayan ihtilal, diğer Avrupa ülkelerini etkiledi. Belçika ve Hollanda birbirinden ayrıldı. İsveç ve Norveç birleşik krallığı dağıldı. Lehistan’da halk, bağımsızlık yolunda ayaklandı. İngiltere ve İsviçre’de Liberaller yönetimi ele geçirdi. Viyana Kongresiyle kurulan Avrupa statüsü büyük ölçüde değişerek, Avrupa’da yeni bir güçler dengesi kurulmaya başladı.
1830 İhtilallerinin Sonuçları
Lui Filip, Fransa'da kral olarak, Fransızlar Kralı adını aldı
Fransa, meşruti krallık rejimine kavuştu.
Yeni Kral, anayasaya sadık kalacağına dair yemin etmiştir.
Avrupa Ülkelerinde liberal demokrasiler güçlenmiş ve parlamenter sisteme geçiş hızlanmıştır.
Meclislerin kanun teklif etme hakları ve basın özgürlüğü kabul edildi.
Seçim kanunu yapılarak, seçim koşulları hafifletildi.
Belçika, Hollanda' dan ayrıldı.
Birleşik İsveç ve Norveç Krallığı, ayrı krallıklara dönüştü.
İngiltere'de Liberal parti, hükümet kurdu
İsviçre'de Liberal ve Demokratlar , yönetime geldiler
İspanya ve Lehistan'da Liberaller etkisini artırdı.
Hak ve özgürlükler, genişletildi.
ihtilal Avrupa'ya yayıldı. Bunun sonucunda;
a) Belçika; Hollanda'dan ayrılarak bağımsızlığını ilan etti.
b) İsveç ve Norveç ayrı krallık haline geldi.
c) İngiltere ve İsviçre’de Liberaller ve demokratlar işbaşına geçti.
Bu ihtilallerin sebepleri, şunlardır;
1830 ihtilali sonucu Fransa'da kurulan meşruti yönetimin yurttaşların tamamına oy hakkı vermeyişi.
Milliyetçilik hareketlerinin ve liberalizmin gittikçe kuvvetlenmesi ve bunların bağımsızlığa dönüştürülmek istenmesi.
Sanayi inkılâbı ile işçi sınıfının ortaya çıkarak bir takım haklar istemesi ve örgütlenerek Sosyalist Partiyi kurmaları.[2/5]
XIX. yüzyılın ilk yarısında sanayi alanında gelişmeler oldu. Şehirlerde yeni bir işçi Sınıfı ortaya çıktı. İşçi hakları ile ilgili olarak yeni fikirler ve hukuk kuralları ortaya Çıktı. Sosyalist partiler kuruldu.
1848 ihtilali Fransa'da başladı, ihtilalin patlak vermesinde liberallerin ve sosyalistlerin büyük etkisi oldu. Kral Lui Filip'in izlediği politika ihtilalin başlamasında etkili olmuştur. Zira Kral, işçi sınıfının sorunlarını çözmede ihmalkâr davranıyordu. Üstelik kişi hürriyetini kısıtlamış, şahsi iktidarını kuvvetlendirme yoluna gitmişti. Fransa kralı, işçi sınıfına karşı sert önlemler aldı. Bunun üzerine Paris'te bir ayaklanma başladı. Kral, istifa etti ve ülkeyi terk etti. Fransa'da cumhuriyet ilân edilerek bütün Fransızlara seçim hakkı tanındı. Ölüm cezası kaldırıldı, esir ticareti yasak edildi. Bunlar gittikçe kuvvetlenen sosyalistleri tatmin etmedi. Yeniden karışıklıklar çıktı. Yeni kurulan meclis cumhuriyeti ilan etti. Lui Napolyon cumhurbaşkanı seçildi. Bir süre sonra meclisi kapatarak Fransa'da ikinci imparatorluğunu ilân etti.[2/5]
Fransa'da başlayan ihtilal hareketleri, diğer Avrupa ülkelerini de etkiledi. Krallar, yeni anayasalar hazırlamak zorunda kaldılar. Halka yeni haklar tanındı. Bu hareketlerden en çok Avusturya etkilendi. Avusturya, Rusya'nın yardımı ile Leh ve Macar milliyetçilerini bozguna uğrattı. Milliyetçilerin bir kısmı Osmanlı Devleti'ne sığındı.
Diğer Ülkelerde 1848 İhtilalleri
a. Avusturya - Macaristan İmparatorluğunda: Meternich ve sistemine karşı halk ayaklandı. Yeni bir meclis kuruldu. Vergiler kaldırıldı, eşitlik ilân edildi. Meternich istifa etti. Macarlar ayrı hükümet kurdular. Fakat Rusya ile birleşen Avusturya kanlı bir şekilde Macar ihtilalini bastırdı ve yeniden Macaristan Avusturya'ya bağlandı.
b. İtalya'da: İtalya'da ulusal birlik için çalışmalara başladı. Piyemonte Krallığı önderliğinde bütün İtalya'da Avusturya'ya karşı bir hareket başladı. Fakat Avusturya İtalya ordusunu iki kez yenilgiye uğratarak İtalya'daki eski statüyü yeniden kurdu.
c. Almanya'da: Alman birliğini kurmak için başlayan hareket Berlin'de halk isyanına neden oldu. Kurulan Meclis yeni bir Anayasa için çalışmalara başladı. Yeni Anayasa kabul edilmiş böylece Almanya'nın birliği sağlanmış oldu. Fakat Avusturya'nın baskısı ile birliğin gerçekleşmesi bir süre daha gecikti.
Yeni anayasalar yapıldı. Demokratik yönetimler kuruldu.
d. İngiltere'de: İşçiler daha geniş haklar elde etmek için harekete geçtiler, fakat başarılı olamadılar.
e. Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda: Eflak - Boğdan'da ulusal birlik için hareketler başladı. Başarıya ulaşamayan bu hareket aynı zamanda Osmanlı - Rus ilişkilerinin bozulmasına yol açtı. Bu da Kırım Savaşını hazırlayan nedenlerden birisi oldu.
1848 İhtilallerinin Sonuçları
Bütün Fransızlara seçme ve seçilme hakkı verildi.
Ölüm cezası ve köle ticareti kaldırıldı.
Fransa'da önce Cumhuriyet ve bir süre sonra da İmparatorluk kurulmuştur.
İtalya, Prusya, Hollanda ve Belçika'da krallar uyruklarına bir takım haklar ve imtiyazlar vermek zorunda kalmışlardır.
İngiltere’de seçim hakları genişletildi ve işçilere yeni haklar tanındı.
Almanya ve İtalya’da birlik hareketleri için ilk esaslı adımlar atılmıştır.
Alman ve İtalyan birliklerinin temelleri atıldı.
Rusya bu ihtilallerden zarar görmemiştir.
Liberal yönetimler ağırlık kazanmışlardır.
Mutlakıyetler ya sona ermiş veya iyice yumuşamıştır.
Macarlar, Çekler, Hırvatlar ve İtalyanlar Avusturya'ya karşı özgürlük için isyan ettiler.
Sosyalist ve komünist akımlar güçlenmiştir.[2/5]
Revolutions of 1830 (English)
July Revolution, revolt in France in July, 1830, against the government of King Charles X Charles X. The attempt of the ultraroyalists under Charles to return to the ancien régime provoked the opposition of the middle classes, who wanted more voice in the government. The banker Jacques Laffitte Laffitte, was typical of the bourgeois who supported liberal journalists, such as Adolphe Thiers, in opposing the government. Liberal opposition reached its peak when Charles called on the reactionary and unpopular Jules Armand de Polignac to form a new ministry (Aug., 1829). When the chamber of deputies registered its disapproval, Charles dissolved the chamber. New elections (July, 1830) returned an even stronger opposition majority. Charles and Polignac responded with the July Ordinances, which established rigid press control, dissolved the new chamber, and reduced the electorate. Insurrection developed, and street barricades and fighting cleared Paris of royal troops. Charles X was forced to flee and abdicated in favor of his grandson, Henri, conte de Chambord. Henri was set aside, and, although there was a movement for a republic, the duc d'Orléans was proclaimed (July 31) king of the French as Louis Philippe. His reign was known as the July Monarchy.
Revolutions of 1848
The Revolution of 1848 was an international event and, apart from the world wars, the only such event in the West. But it did not affect all of Europe. At least two states - England and Russia, at opposite ends of the continent - remained unscathed. What made these two countries different from the others? The Revolution of 1848 shook those countries in which a bourgeois elite led the opposition against more or less reactionary governments. But Russia had no bourgeoisie and, after the electoral reform of 1832, the English bourgeoisie was no longer in opposition.
I. Social and Political Trends
In the first place, then, the Revolution of 1848 was the act of bourgeois liberals. All over the continent, from 1815 to 1848, they sought to defend the privileges they had acquired under the French Revolution and the Empire against a reactionary nobility bent on recovering its former position. These advantages did, of course, vary in importance from country to country. In France equality before the law was no longer an issue; the struggle now centered on property qualifications. Although large-scale industry did not yet exist, progress in production and exchange had been great enough to create a national market. Books and ideas traveled along with the merchandise and united the bourgeois and the artisans from one end of the country to the other.
In Prussia the reforms of Stein and Hardenberg were still to be completed. The abolition of serfdom and the agrarian reform were illusory in view of the continued existence of seigniorial jurisdiction. The administrative system, in practice, stopped the representatives of the central authority at the gates of the feudal domains. In Germany the bourgeoisie had long been dominant in the cultural sphere. The economy was traditionally under the direction of the government. But, once individual initiative was set free, the bourgeoisie asserted itself. Even the Prussian government, which kept the bourgeois from power and would hear nothing of a parliament, had to rely on them in order to carry out plans for the customs union. The barriers which divided Germany fell one after another. Social evolution-more rapid in one place, slower in another-followed a similar pattern in all the states.
The surge in population which had begun at the end of the eighteenth century continued everywhere. France's population increased from 27,000,000 in 1801 to 35,000,000 in 1846; Germany's, from 24,800,000 in 1816 to 34,400,000 in 1848. Cities proliferated; the 634,000 Parisians of 1816 became l,360,000 by 1846. In Saxony and Silesia, where industry was concentrated, almost all of the cities at least doubled in population. Chemnitz grew from 10,000 to 50,000 people between 1816 and 1845.
These populations, which were gradually reached by education, formed willing armies in the bourgeois cause. Such support from artisans and workers was only to be expected, since the reign of the bourgeoisie undoubtedly constituted, for everyone, an advance over the absolutism of divine-right monarchy. The bourgeoisie's goal was to establish constitutional governments, which would be more or less concerned with the fate of the masses of peasants and workers, who did not yet realize their own strength.
National feeling, which the wars of the French Revolution and the Empire had aroused, was also everywhere on the increase. The bourgeoisie was, by nature, less cosmopolitan than the nobility. It knew nothing of the blood ties which united the great aristocratic families; it substituted frontiers for the indefinite border zones which had existed between states in the days of feudal dependencies. Even its culture became more national in proportion as modern languages gained over Latin. The hold of religion over public and family life diminished.
In Italy and Germany national fervor found expression in the ideal of national unification. But the champions of unification were nonetheless liberals; they wanted a constitutional regime, if not a parliamentary one, one on the model of the south German States, France, and England. For all bourgeois, habeas corpus and the rights of man were a political gospel to which they felt more attached than to any religious gospel. Moreover, liberal Catholicism proved to them that the two were not incompatible.
Between 1815 and 1848, then, population growth, commercial or industrial progress, urbanization, and national feeling developed along parallel lines in every European country. And everywhere this development reinforced liberal ideas. There is nothing puzzling in all this, since it seems clear that the formation of popular masses leads to democratization. What does seem strange is that the same demographic movement and the same accelerated economic progress did not continue to produce the same effects in the second half of the century. While the advance of democracy did continue in France and england, Germany became autocratic: 1848 was undoubtedly the closest the German people came to political liberalism in the nineteenth century. Thereafter they moved away from liberalism and took an opposite course to that of the western democracies.
II. Immediate Consequences of 1848
We must, therefore, look for the international problem not in the revolutionary quake of 1848, but in its immediate consequences.
A. In France
In France the Revolution of 1848 did not constitute a crisis in the special sense which we attach to this term: it did not upset a tradition, bury an ideal, or replace one way of thinking and feeling with another. The June Days crushed the Paris workers. The coup d'etat of December 2 sent the republican bourgeois into exile. The police-state and military regime which Napoleon III established in 1852 was more authoritarian than were the regimes preceding the revolution.
All this is indisputably true. But from 1857 on there were five bourgeois republicans in the legislature. The pre-1848 republican leaders, Thiers and Berryer, returned shortly thereafter. And in 1864 Ollivier was able, with the Emperor's consent, to form a third party, composed of bourgeois liberals who oriented the Empire towards parliamentary government. The workers, who were favored by a government which sought an ally in their leader, Tolain, aligned themselves with the opposition. The leaders of the republican party that they supported were lawyers, doctors, and bourgeois. Until the end of the century the bourgeois continued to guide social and political development.
Always inspired by his illustrious model, Napoleon III did his utmost to establish a new aristocracy. But the bourgeois of the Second Empire were much less eager for titles than was H. Poirier. (A wealthy Parisian shopkeeper who marries his daughter to a poor nobleman in hopes of gaining social and political prestige; in Le Genere deM. Poirier, by Emile Augier and Jules Sandeau). We can measure the progress of liberalism by comparing the role played by the nobility during the First Empire with the unobtrusiveness of the primarily military nobility of the Second: it was no longer good form to be connected with the social classes of the past.
The greatest achievement of the Revolution of 1848 was to have emancipated the slaves and to have replaced mercantilist colonialism with a policy of assimilation. This policy, mistaken though it may have been, was certainly generous. The Emperor did not allow representatives of the colonies to sit in the legislature and he did return to the statutory system, whereby the chamber was excluded from colonial legislation. But he had no thought of reinstituting the colonial pact. In Algeria he showed a real interest in the native population. While more immediate concerns kept him from developing a consistent colonial policy, at least he did not interfere with people who had one.
One cannot think about the Revolution of 1848, and especially about its international character, without recalling the political activities of Faidherbe in Guadeloupe and Senegal. The care he took to educate the natives and to make them accept the French community made his work durable. Faidherbe's Senegal was an achievement of the Revolution of 1848, and the ideal of the revolution was perpetuated there under the Empire, as it was in the Antilles and in Reunion. The Revolution of 1848, far from destroying a tradition, reinvigorated the ideals of 1789 in France.
B. In Germany
In Germany it was a different story. The unindemnified abolition of hunting rights and seigniorial jurisdiction did endure in Prussia. But these were the only lasting achievements of the revolution. The outstanding fact was rather the break with that liberal tradition which had asserted itself under Frederick II and Joseph II and had subsequently spread throughout the empire. The armies of reaction overcame the liberated in Germany more quickly than in France. Above all, they overcame them more completely. The bourgeois liberals, hunted down or simply too attached to their ideals to endure a regime of censorship and political police, emigrated en masse.
On the eve of the revolution bad harvests led to a resurgence of emigration, which had long been driving peasants and artisans to seek their fortune in America. In 1846 95,000 left; in 1847, 110,000. The revolution which aroused so many hopes, reduced the number of emigrants: it fluctuated between 80,000 and 90,000 from 1848 to 1850. Then, in 1851 there were 113,000 emigrants; in 1852, 162,000; in 1853, 163,000; and in 1854, 300,000.
* 1846 : 95,000
* 1847 : 110,000
* 1848 : 85,000
* 1849 : 85,000
* 1850 : 85,000
* 1851 : 113,000
* 1852 : 162,000
* 1853 : 163,000
* 1854 : 300,000
There was no economic reason for this rapid increase in emigration, which also involved the bourgeoisie. A large number of liberal leaders left the states in which the old regimes had been restored-Pastor Dulon of Bremen, Hadermann of Frankfurt, Karl Schurz. Teachers, lawyers, doctors, poets musicians, and even officers left. The German historian Veit Valentin estimates the number of those who emigrated between 1849 and 1854 at 1,100,000, perhaps 2.5 per cent of the population. They took their fortunes with them, worth at least 300,000,000 Thaler (900,000,000 gold marks). These were not poor men, but an elite whose absence was bound to make itself felt.
Not all of the liberals left, however; and their ideals of course continued to exist. Men continued to dream of unification, of a constitution, of socialism. But the meaning of these words changed, though the liberals themselves were not always aware of it.
To all appearances, in fact, the development of Germany after 1848 continued along the old lines. But unification by Bismarck, who created an autocratic empire, had nothing in common with the plans of 1848. It was an old-regime operation, a Prussian military conquest, not a communal venture like the federation of France in 1789.
The advance of democracy similarly appeared to be continuing, since social progress was being achieved perhaps more effectively than in the west. But French and English socialism, long expounded by bourgeois liberals, continued to be pervaded by the ideas of 1789 and 1848. They remained humanistic until at least the time of Jaures. In Germany the workers, for lack of a bourgeois elite, were organized more sharply along class lines and set their material demands above their humanitarian ideals. Marxism has always preferred economic equality to liberty. It is not profoundly democratic in the classical, bourgeois sense of the term.
In every case the same reality underlies the appearances. Just as Bismarck achieved a unity different from the one dreamed of by his adversaries, so he ended the Zollverein and subscribed to free trade, only to jettison it in 1878, as soon as he felt strong enough to satisfy the interests of his agrarian supporters. In the same way he promulgated, between 1883 and 1889, the accident, sickness, and old-age insurance laws which ameliorated the workers' material condition. This made it possible to keep renewing, for twelve years (1878-1890), the laws excluding the Social Democratic party from political activity.
The bourgeoisie who had not emigrated contented themselves with appearances. They did not understand the rare leaders who endeavored to enlighten them, the Jew Lasker or the Catholic Mallinckrodt. Moreover, they gradually became convinced of their own ineffectualness: was it not evident that their enemy Bismarck had succeeded where they had failed? Had not Bismarck, whom they had so long reviled, achieved unity, satisfied national fervor, and made socialism a reality?
The liberal elite was seized by a sort of timidity. Bismarck must be right; politics was a profession, a technique. It was the business of the government, of the king and his ministers and generals, not of the professor, the doctor, or the weaver. Everyone should stay within the bounds of his own profession. Parties became coalitions of interests among which the government arbitrated. Their leaders did not prepare themselves for exercising power; and those who wanted to participate in public affairs climbed the ladder of the bureaucratic hierarchy or made their way into the class of nobles and officers which was closer to the seat of power.
III. Long-range Effect
A sharp split thus came into being between the opposition of 1848 and the new post-1870 bourgeoisie. This development was complete by about 1880: the German bourgeoisie was no longer liberal; its ways of thinking and feeling were the very antithesis of those that prevailed before the revolution.
And another split came about which was more enduring, more profound, and more fraught with consequences: a split between central Europe and the western nations. In the latter democratic development, after a momentary interruption, resumed under the leadership of the liberal bourgeois elites. In the former it came to a halt: a new, authoritarian tradition was created, dominated by the army, the nobility, and the bureaucracy, which culminated in the capitalist, Prussianized Germany of 1880. The two blocs which troubled liberals--whose formation they wished to prevent, whose boundaries they saw passing from the Vistula to the Oder or from the Oder to the Elbe - these two blocs were formed in 1850, when the moral unity of the continent was shattered by the international revolution of 1848; and their boundary lies along the Rhine.