The Apogee of European Nation States (1814-1914)

The Congress of Vienna (1814-1815)

 The Collapse of Napoleon’s Empire did not stop the consolidation of the Nation-State Model. The Absolute European Monarchs tried to restore the “Ancien Regime” through the Holy Alliance and the return of Divine legitimacy as base of sovereignty (pages 81-83). But it ended up failing after 1848 Revolution, that affected most of Europe. 

 We know already that the Nation-State model is incompatible with the idea of a Supranational political structure. This why European States after 1648 got rid definitively of the Universal model imposed so far by the Papacy and the Emperors. National sovereignty excluded the idea of a Supranational power. 

 It is interesting that during the 1815-1848 period Absolute monarchs pretending to rule because of their divine right imposed the Metternich System as a fore runner of European integration. That is a system in which all the European monarchs got together in “Congresses” when one of the kingdoms was in danger of falling into a Liberal regime based on the National sovereignty principle, under a constitution and a representative regime. Spain suffered in 1823 the intervention a foreign military coalition that did away with the Liberal Trienium proclaimed by the coup of Colonel Riego 3 years earlier (pages 91-92). 

 The “Liberal model” imposed during the American and the French Revolutions not only did not disappear but was consolidated despite the fierce resistance opposed by Absolute monarchs. (See the basis of this model in pages 84-88). A series of “liberal revolutions” in 1820-1830 and finally 1848 brought down definitively the Royal Absolute Model (pages 89-96). The most decisive one was the last one (97-103) that overspread all over Europe and showed clearly that the future was “liberal”, and liberalism meant the triumph of “Nation-States”. 

The 1848 Revolution

 It is extremely significant that it is after the 1848 Revolution that start the Italian and German unification that will lead to the creation of two of the most preeminent actual European States. 2 of the 6 founding members of the European Integration process. It is interesting that the way of the two integrations was opposite. Italian integration (pages 103-106) was “democratic” or “bottom up”, as military conquest was followed by a referendum where inhabitants were asked if they wished to integrate in the Unified Kingdom of Italy. On the contrary German unification (pages 106-109) was a “top down” integration imposed by the Monarch and his powerful chancellor Otto von Bismarck. A different approach that explains why Italian unification was more efficient, as we have to wait until the Weimar constitution (1919) to have a really unified Germany (the “Deutschland Lied” is the official German national Anthem only since 1920).  

    

Garibaldi in Palermo (1861-1861)

 After 1871 in any case the last bastion of autocracy was Imperial Russia, an abnormal situation that led to the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions. 

What is really interesting of the Triumph of the Liberal regimen and the Nation State Model during the XIX the century is the consequence, that is: the rise of international confrontation between European Nation-States all over the world in the Era of Colonialism (pp. 111-114). The confrontation led to the Armed Peace  and finally to World War I the European Nation-State´s suicide (pages 114-117).    

The Armed Peace that led to the European suicide of 1914-1918

EXERCISING:

Besides Reading pages 79 to 117, and understanding the concepts and answering the questions I would like you to remember the following dates: Congress of Vienna, Battle of Waterloo, Spanish Liberal Triennium, Decembrist Revolt, 1830 (France and Belgium), British Electoral Reform Lord Grey, 1848, Proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy, 1861-1890 (Bismarck), 1866, 1868, 1870, 1871 (IInd Reich and Paris Commune), First Russian Revolution.

Concerning readings on education: Text nr. 3 “The importance of the historical approach to knowledge” (pages 329 to 331).

We will discuss all this in class

The Triumph of the "Nation-State": or how the National narrative consolidated the State model

                                             The Bastille's Storming (July 14, 1789)

It is impossible to understand the EU if you forget that European integration started as a way of avoiding inconveniences of “nationalisms” and its tendency to provoke War. 

Since 1648 European history is a history of “States” having overcome the Principle of “Universalism”. The result was a lot of wars as National monarchies looked for Supremacy. Spain from the Peace of Cateau Cambressis (1559) to the Pyrenees Treaty (1659). France from then until the Treaty of Utrecht (1714). The United Kingdom until the appearance of Bismarck’s Prussia and the Second Reich (1871-1914). 

 The States strength was heavily reinforced by the “national” idea. Every state was a nation. French fought Spaniards, and British French. And Germans fought everyone else. The “National narrative” made much more effective the idea of the State, as from being exclusively a way of organizing Public power, it became through nationalism a project of territorial expansion. 

How did the nationalist idea got integrated in the State? How the combination of the two principles became such a powerful force in European history? Through the development of a new concept: the Nation-State model.  In this Lesson we are going to try to understand why and how it was born. A very important point as the European integration process is conceived as a way of overcoming this political and legal model. 

 The Nation state is the result of revolutions. A revolution is a violent way of changing the political, legal, social and economical state of things. As the world changes society, economy, political and legal structures have to adapt to the new circumstances. In some cases the rigidity of a regime made this adaptation difficult. Please read about the Prussian example on pages 53-54, where social rigidity of “Junkers” brought one of the most horrid dictatorships in World history: Hitler and its Nazi regime. Frederick the Great was a great Prussian king and an example of Enlightened Monarch, but he id a very poor job on adapting Prussian social structure in his Realm to new times. 

                                                  Frederick The Great (1740-1786), King o Prussia

 In other cases the upper classes were more flexible in admitting new members as it was the case of the British “gentry”, as since the 16th century it invluded not only Landowning nobility but also merchants and bankers. And then it ended up including the Middle Class and the Working class between 1832 and 1928. And this is why the transformation of the British political constitution was gradual (See pages 54-55).

In most cases, nevertheless, the social, political and legal change was the result of a “Revolution”. Violent rupture was the instrument of change. We will examine today two examples: the American Revolution (1776-1783) and the French Revolution (1789-1799), considering both crucial events from the perspective of the idea of the “Nation”, that was the pretext and the driving force of the rupture with the previous regime. The nationalist narrative united most of the people and moved them to fight and get rid of the Old monarchical regime. 

We will start with the American Revolution (pages 55-64) because American were pioneers in this matter. Revolution in the New Continent was easier because of the specificities of the British Colonial system (pages 56-58). Opposed to the highly centralized Spanish model of colonization were expeditions were organized by the Crown, English colons went to the New World to make business, according to John Locke’s ideas that State of nature should be replaced by a Common organization in order to get wealthier. This is how appeared the concept of “Commonwealth” referred to a social organization (See pages 59-60 and footnotes 88 and 89). 

                                                          John Locke (1632-1704)

 The result was that Spanish kings controlled their colonies while British kings did not. When they tried to do so, as a result of the War with France (1754-1763) it was too late. George III sent a lot of troops to defend his colons, but then he wanted to recover all the money that cost the heavy military intervention. He tried to tax British colons and they rebelled. The result was war (1776-1783) and independence. Something relatively easy as every one of the 13 colonies had its own charter and elective assembly. It was therefore more than doable to transform charters in constitutions and develop a system of representative government.  The most difficult part was to win the War but they could do it because they felt altogether as a “nation”. Read on page 56 the extract of the Declaration of independence of July 4, 1776, specially where it says that Independence is declared by the Representatives of the United States of America in “General Congress assembled” ... “by Authority of the good people”.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence

 The great invention of the rebel British colons in Western constitutional history was the idea of a “Constituent process” convened by the Representatives of the States in a “Congress”, where all together decided how they wanted to be ruled. The Americans invented a new constitutional model based on congresses, written constitutions and declaration of rights (see on page 61 how Virginia Declaration of rights was established 2 months before the Declaration of independence). And all this was possible because it was a very flexible and participative system, enabling them to evolve from the Article of Confederation system to the Federal System as we will see in Teaching guide nr. 9.  And above all because despite the fact that they were 13 independent States, all Americans felt they belonged to ONE NATION. 

 The US Revolution was an important precedent. When George Washington took office as the first President of the United States on April 30, 1789, on the other side of the Atlantic the French Absolute Monarchy was about to collapse. 6 days later were convened the General estates that will bring the French Revolution. 

                                                              George Washington (1789-1797)

Revolution in France was more difficult because the Ancien regime was old and strong. France had one of the strongest monarchies in the World. This is why French Revolution is such a mess. Among other reasons because Aristocratic and Popular revolutions were contradictory (see page 67).  The key of success was again the idea of “Nation”. American national holyday is on July 4th because that was the day the Declaration of Independence was proclaimed. French national holyday is on July 14th, not because of the Storming of the Bastille on 1789, but because of the Festival of Federation celebrated on July 14th 1790, one year later. When delegations coming from all over France met in Paris in order to celebrate all together that they were ONE NATION.  (Read page 69 about national sovereignty and the origins of “national patriotism”). And this strong narrative was enough to overcome chaos. 

                                         La Fête de la Fédération. Paris 14 July 1790

 The problem was that “nationalism” brought war. The Americans became a new country with 13 States an 1 nation through a terrible war with a lot of cruelty and casualties. The French revolution was saved because the Convention declared  war to absolute monarchies of Austria and Prussia in the summer of 1792. Patriotism saved the revolution, but Revolutionary France became imperialistic and brought Napoleonic Wars. 

 The Nation State idea reinforced the State, but brought violence and tension. And these ideas spread all over Europe during the 19th century. As we will see in Teaching Guide number 5, the history of Europe in this period is the one of  the rising of nations and nationalisms. New nations were the result of War. As Belgium in 1830 or Italy from 1848 to 1869. 

Nation states are the product of war. And this is why Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman developed on May 19, 1950 the idea of an integrated Europe in order to prevent the possibility that European nation-states fought each other. Nationalism had destroyed European states and it was necessary to stand together to face a World controlled by Americans and Russians. And this what the actual EU is forgetting as you will read in Robert Menasses novel “The Capital”. Heavy nationalists –as it is the case of Brexiters- try to destroy the EU. The problem is that the Legal and Political structures of the EU are still ruled by a lot of people that do not feel “Europeans”, but still essentially members of their old nation-states. From this perspective getting rid of the UK could be a good thing for deepening the integration between the 27 remaining Member states. Provided they leave aside “nationalism”.

EXERCISING:

Besides reading pages 53 to 72, understanding concepts and answering the questions, please consider remembering all the dates of the American Revolution, including the 5 dates prior to 1773. Concerning the French Revolution the crucial dates are: 5 May 1789, Constituent Assembly (June-September 1789), Legislative Assembly (October 1791-August 1792), The Convention (September 1792-October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795-November 1799). Also July 14 1790, April 20 1792, August 10 1792, September 20 1792, and September 22 the same year. January 21 1793, July 1793.

Concerning the readings on education. Please read the text “The loving resistance fighter” excerpted from Neil Postman’s “Technopolis”.  We will discuss all this in class. 

The Second step towards the consolidation of the State: getting rid of the Universal approach

                                      Inocencio Xpainted by Velázquez and Bacon

 The Germanic invasion put an end to the unified Western Roman Empire. The geographical area was occupied by different Germanic Nations that became independent kingdoms. The idea of a sole universal emperor was replaced by different kings. Nevertheless people missed the idea of belonging to the same political body. The Germanic nations admired and missed the glorious time of Imperial Rome. Their kings tried to imitate Roman emperors. But most important, the majority of population was of Roman origin. Roman authorities had disappeared after 476 A.D. but there was an institution that survived: the Roman Catholic Church. It was Roman because its head was the Bishop of Rome, that became the “father” of all Christians (Pope). It was Catholic because it was “Universal” (meaning Through everything “kathos-holos” in Greek), as since 380 AD it became the official religion of the Universal Roman Empire. And it was the Church as it was an organization integrated by the “Assembly” (“Ecclesia” in Greek Language) of all Christians. 

Almost the whole Roman population in 476 AD was catholic. This is why their religious authorities, the Bishops, became very powerful. To the point they induced the Germanic Kings to convert themselves and their nations to the new religion. The Church became a very powerful organization. 

The consequence of all this was that despite the diversity of kingdoms there was a religious and spiritual unity under the authority of the Pope, head of the universal assembly (Church) of Christians. It did not matter if you were Roman, Visigoth, Frank, Saxon, Burgundian. Your nation did not matter in the religious field as everyone had the same spiritual narrative. Despite the existence of different “nations”, unity was preserved through religion.

Papacy is an overwhelming institution as it has been there since Saint Peter. More than 2000 years. Which is a hell of continuity. The pope is not the religious leader of the World anymore. Not even for the Westerners, nor the Christians. As besides the Catholics there are Orthodox, Protestants, Episcopalians, and a whole sort of different Christian sects. Nevertheless the Roman Catholic Church is still the most powerful religious organization of the West. And the Pope is one of the World most respected leaders.

In this chapter we will see how the fragmentation of the political scene in Europe after the end of the 5th century was counteracted by the rise of a simultaneous universal power. First in the religious field, with the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks to a thorough centralization imposed by the Roman popes. The Eastern Schism in 1054 that brought an independent Orthodox church in Constantinople  was a logic consequence of the fact that the West did not accept the authority of the Byzantine emperors.  But this was counteracted by the rise of the papal power that brought a Western theocracy that was extremely powerful during the 12th and 13th century, as popes decided of everything. And not only as spiritual and religious leaders, as since 754 they had their own territorial domain: The Papal States. 

The popes were so powerful that they decided to break politically with the Eastern Byzantine emperors pushing to the appearance of an independent Western emperor. First with Charlemagne since 800, and with the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, from 962 until 1806 !

                                                      Charlemagne idealized by Durer

 The Western emperors were not alone, as their crowning had to be performed by the popes. It was therefore a dual empire. This was a difficult situation because popes and emperors fought each other for a long time in a harsh struggle. Finally popes and emperors ended up losing most of their power as the “National Monarchies” became the leading powers. But the “imperial idea” that there was a universal power lasted longer. The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation lasted until 1806, but was replaced by the Napoleonic empires of 1804-1814 and 1852-1870. In 1871 Bismarck pushed for the creation of the Second Reich that lasted from 1871 to 1918. And finally Adolf Hitler founded the Third Reich from 1933 to 1945.

                                                   Emperor Mathias towards 1625

 Why do we study the popes and the emperors in the perspective of the formation of the European Union? Because it is important for you to know that the triumph of the State in the European political history has been in a great deal a fight for getting rid of the universal Western approach, opposed to the ideas of “nationalism” and “statalism”.

The "emperors" of the 1st, 2nd and 3d  Reich 

It is extremely interesting that one of the causes of the Brexit was the fact that more than half of the British people, especially the older ones, do miss the British Empire. And unconsciously they believe that becoming fully independent from the European Union will bring back the glorious past of their nation as head of this strange thing called the Commonwealth. Remember that the Queen Elisabeth the II is still surprisingly the head of State of Canada and Australia, among other countries. With not a real power at all, but with a heavy symbolic load and a lot of old British still dream of it. 

This bring us to an important point. The European Union is still essentially only a huge market. It has no soul. No past. We still feel closer to our nation-states, because we have shared a common history and we have a common background. The big problem that the EU face, and you will understand it when you will read Robert Menasse’s The Capital is that Brussels is a strange mixture of people that fight for economic interests but do not share a common political and cultural project. They do not feel proud of belonging to the EU. 

After Brexit the big question is if the 27 remaining Member states will stay united in dealing with the UK or statal private interests will prevail. May be we should remember then that for a long time, despite the fact that Europe was divided in different states, we shared the universal idea that brought our ancestors together in a different level. They felt simultaneously  National and European. But for achieving this today the European Union should develop a more appealing narrative, beyond money and markets. To minimize the temptation of “Chacun pour soi”. 

                                                    The first Roman emperor: Augustus

                                        Napoleon imitating Augustus 18 centuries later

EXERCISING:

This week you have to read pages 30 to 44. Bear in mind the structure of the text. First you will understand how and why the popes became the uniting power of all westerners, despite their “national” origin. Here you have to realize the importance of Gregory I, the Promissio carisiaca, the Cluniac Reform and the Dictatus papae, leading to the Papal Theocracy (pages 30-31). Then you should realize that the decline of the papacy brought the fragmentation of Europe with the Anagni Outrage, The Avignon papacy and the Western Schism that brought the Protestant Reform. The appearance of Gallicanism and Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy creating the Church of England (pages 31 to 33).

 Then you will see how the Papacy brought back to the West the Imperial idea, that remained an essential part of our culture (pages 33-34). 

 The last part of the text deals with how the Territorial monarchies triumphed over Christian Universalism, and this victory required a new narrative for sustaining the legitimacy of the Absolute Monarchs that founded Modern State. With some extremely interesting texts from Machiaveli, Bodin and Hobbes. Read them carefully. (Pages 35-43).

Finally you should realize why the disappearance of a common religious narrative after the Westphalia Treaties in 1648 was the cause of the rise of a Europe integrated by independent states that fought each other in search for Supremacy. A fight that would get tougher with the appearance of the National State model in the 18th century western revolutions. A matter that we will study in Teaching guide number 4.

Read also the foot notes in order to understand the concepts and answering the questions of pages 49 to 51 in your Class Notebook. 

Concerning the dates this week is a little harder as you should learn a few more than in precedent weeks: 590-604, 754, 800-843, 962-1806, 1054, 1075, 1303, 1521, 1527, 1534, 1540, 1572, 1618-1648, 1804-1814, 1852-1870. 1871-1918, 1929, 1933-1945 

Concerning your reading about education: no new assignment, but review your notes on the readings of previous weeks. And be ready to discuss all this in class. 

HOW TO DO A BOOK REPORT/ANALYSIS

A book analysis is a very useful tool to store what you have read throughout your studies. Book analysis requires reading with pencil and taking notes, especially for compulsory books. In order to have a better understanding of how to do a book analysis, the example used is Middle England by Jonathan Coe, compulsory book for the course.

I. Technical information:

Technical information comes directly from the book, it doesn’t require a personal effort. For the students reading in Kindle, please consult your fellow students or me. I will gladly give you the information needed.

- TITLE: 

Middle England.

ATTENTION!!! The title always in italics when written in your computer. Underlined if handwritten.

If the title of the book contains a sub-title, please write it too.

- AUTHOR: 

Jonathan Coe.

- DATE OF FIRST PUBLICATION: 

2018.

You will find this information in the very first pages of the book, usually on the left page before dedications or quotes.

ATTENTION!!! If you are reading a translation, date of publication will be the one in the country of origin.

Example: Middle England, translated from English, first published in UK in 2018. Spanish translation published in 2019.

- PUBLISHER:

If you read the book in English, you should write Viking 2018, if you read it in Spanish, Anagrama 2019. 

If the book belongs to a specific collection, please write it too.

Example:  Anagrama has published El corazón de Inglaterra in the collection “Panorama de Narrativas”. 

In your book analysis, you will write:

Publisher: Editorial Anagrama, colección: Panorama de Narrativas.

II. Complementary information:

- ON THE AUTHOR (MOST RELEVANT HINTS):

This information requires a little research on your part.  Please avoid copy and paste from Wikipedia or Google!!! An original presentation will be appreciated not to mention plagiarism which is a very serious offence.

Here are some tips you could use:

- Man or female.

- Nationality.

- Year of birth.

- Is he/she a professional writer? Does he/she have another job? 

- Is it his/her first work of fiction? 

- Has he/she received any award for this book? For other books? Please write only the most relevant, not a list of awards and especially the ones connected with our book.

- LITERARY GENRE:

Comedy, Drama,  Horror fiction, Romance, Satire, Historical, Realist, Science-fiction, Political,… 

If you consider that the book belongs to several genre, please write it duly explained.

Example: you may consider that Middle England is a satire with a realist perspective.

ATTENTION: You have to choose the main genre. 

- THE SETTING:

Where is the book located? In what historical context?

Example: Middle England spans on a period of time that starts in 2010 and finishes in 2018. XXIst century.

- MAIN CHARACTERS:

In this section, you have to write on the main characters of the book, their names, professions, their social context (i.e.:Benjamin Trotter is aspiring to publish his book), and also relationships between them. 

III. Summary and Personal Opinion:

- SUMMARY:

The summary will contain the novel’s basic facts. 

- PERSONAL APPRECIATION:

Basically, it is writing whether you have liked the book or not, whether you would recommend it or not. Your opinion must be duly justified, a yes or no is not admissible. 

You can also write a sentence that has stricken you and discuss it.

You may grade the book, too.