AP European History
AP European History
Arrangements to guarantee the enforcement of the status quo as defined by the Vienna settlement now included two provisions. The “Holy Alliance” of Czar Alexander of Russia, an idealistic and unpractical plan, existed only on paper: no one except Alexander took it seriously. The “Quadruple Alliance” of Austria. England, Prussia, and Russia provided for concerted action to stop any threat to the peace or balance of power.
England defined concerted action as the “Great Powers” meeting in “congress” to solve each problem as it arose, so that no state would act unilaterally and independently of the other great powers. France was always believed to be the possible “repeat offender” and next violator of the Vienna settlement.
Austria believed concerted action meant the great powers defending the status quo as established at Vienna against any change or threat to the system. Thus, liberal or nationalist agitation was unhealthy for the body politic.
From 1815 to 1822, European international relations were controlled by meetings held by the great powers to defend the status quo: the Congresses of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), Troppau (1820), Laibach (1821), and Verona (1822).
The principle of collective security required unanimity among members of the Quadruple Alliance. The history of the Congress System points to the ultimate failure of this key provision in light of the serious challenges to the status quo after 1815.
The Congress of Vienna has been criticized for ignoring the liberal and nationalist aspirations of many peoples. Hindsight suggests that statesmen at Vienna may have been more successful in stabilizing the international system than those charged with the same task in the twentieth century. Not until the unification of Germany (1870-1871) was the balance of power upset: not until World War I in 1914 did Europe have another general war. But hindsight also instructs us that the statesmen at Vienna underestimated the new nationalism generated by the French Revolution and did not understand the change that citizen armies and national wars had affected among people concerning political problems. In addition, the men at Vienna in 1815 underestimated the growing liberalism of the age and failed to see that an industrial revolution was beginning to create a new alignment of social classes, with new needs and issues.
Conservatism arose in reaction to the violence, terror, and disorder unleashed by the French Revolution. Early conservatism was allied to the restored monarchical governments of Austria, France, and Russia. Support for conservatism came from the traditional ruling classes. Intellectual ammunition came from the pens of the Englishman Edmund Burke, the Frenchmen Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald, the Austrian Friedrich von Gentz, and several early romantics. In essence, conservatives believed in order, society and the state, faith, and tradition.
Conservatives saw history as a continuum that no one generation could break. They believed society was organic, not contractual. Society was not a machine with replaceable parts. Stability and longevity, not progress and change, marked a good society. The only legitimate sources of political authority were God and history. Conservatives rejected social-contract theory (see Chapter 5) because contracts did not make authority legitimate.
Concentrating on individuals ignored social ties and undermined the concept of community, which was essential to life. Conservatives said self-interest lead to social conflict, not social harmony. They preferred noblesse oblige: help from on high.
Conservatives argued that measuring happiness and progress in material terms ignored the spiritual side of humans. Charity, mixed with moral injunctions, not revolution, was helpful.
Conservatives rejected the philosophy of natural rights and believed that rights did not pertain universally, but were determined and allocated by each state.
Conservatives denounced the philosophes and reformers for ignoring emotional realities and for underestimating the complexity of human nature. To conservatives, society was hierarchical, that is, some humans were better able to rule and lead than those who were denied intelligence, education, wealth, and birth. The motto of conservatives before the 1860s was “Throne and Altar.”
Conservatism was basically “anti-” in its propositions. It never had a feasible program of its own. The object of their hatred was a liberal society, which they claimed was antisocial and morally degrading. While their criticisms contained much justification, conservatives ignored the positive features of liberal society. Conservative criticism did poke holes in liberal ideology, and pointed toward a new social tyranny, the aggressive and heartlessly selfish middle classes.