Section 2

19th Century – 1848

German Unification

Japan

The United States

HST 390 History Of International Relations

1848 - 1/2 Then came the year 1848!

All of Europe exploded in Revolution - the whole Western World went left.

Digress to America - 1848 - Transcendentalism, Abolitionism went full swing, first strong opposition to empire against the Mexican War, revivalism stirs reform impulse and the fissures that will end in the American Civil War become irreparable.

In Europe there are revolutions or attempted revolutions in Poland - Hungary - Italy - Austria - France - Germany - Russia and elsewhere. If you lived in Europe at that time it would have seemed as if the whole world had exploded.

This sets the stage for some greater issues that will remain un resolved until 1914 (if you can call the Great War a resolution)

Poland, Hungary, Italy

This period gives greater power to the Russians than the other great powers wish.

In 1848 Russia invades Poland (which has been re-created at Vienna) to suppress the rebellion. The other Great Powers - particularly Germany, Austrian and France are not happy with this. Both sides Russia and the Europeans - want to keep their borders secure.

So what do they do? Not much they can do - because they are facing their own revolts.

There is a revolt in Vienna the capitol of Austria. But occupying the attention of the Austrian government is the fact that the other parts of their empire are also in revolt. Hungary, Northern Italy.

In Austria the revolt turns personal against Metternich himself. He flees to Britain.

The Russians move in and suppress the revolt in Hungary (part of the Austrian empire) the Austrians are forced to make a deal to get the Russians to pull out.

The only Great Power not facing revolution is Britain and its concerns are what the outcome of the chaos in Europe will be.

Metternich is replaced by Prince Felix Schwarzenberg a protégé of Metternich.

Schwarzenberg was appointed minister-president foreign minister of Austria in November 1848.

his first step was to secure the replacement of Emperor Ferdinand by Francis Joseph. Together with the new Emperor, Schwarzenberg called in a Russian army to help suppress the Hungarian revolt and thus free Austria to attempt to thwart Prussia's drive to dominate Germany. He re-established order in Austria with the Constitution of 1849 that transformed the Habsburg empire into a unitary, centralized state.

Now comes the Frankfurt Assembly - what can we find on this? Do a short search in class.

1848 – 2/2

Napoleon III - here we will analyze Rich’s thesis.

To put it simplistically Rich argues the following:

“The dominant determinant of events in great power relations between the revolutions or 1848 and 1870 can all be tied to the initiative of Napoleon III.”

Rich’s book lays the evidence out in such a way that as you read it all evidence seems to fit this thesis.

He shows the French expansion in N. Africa and Southeast Asia.

France did transfer its rulers from the Bourbon monarchs to the Napoleonic French. The overthrow of Luis Philippe was a popular revolution in 1848.

[get some background on Louis Philippe - have them dig it out]

Napoleon is living in Britain at the time. He is thus not leading this revolution.

Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (April 20, 1808 - January 9, 1873) was the son of King Louis Bonaparte and Queen Hortense de Beauharnais; both monarchs of the Kingdom of Holland. He was the nephew of the Emperor Napoleon I of France.

He was elected President (1848-1852) of the Second Republic of France and subsequently Emperor (1852-1870), reigning as Napoleon III

Napoleon III and German Unification – 1/6

Imprisoned in France in the 1830's, he escaped to the United Kingdom in May 1846, returning after the revolution of February 1848 to win the presidential election on a platform of strong government, social consolidation and national greatness.

On December 2, 1851 he overthrew the Second Republic and seized dictatorial powers. He became Emperor exactly one year later and established the Second French Empire.

An important change during his reign was the rebuilding of Paris. This was done to reduce the ability of future revolutionaries to challenge the government. Large sections of the city were razed and the old convoluted streets were replaced with many broad avenues, with the intent of allowing cannon to be used easily within the city.

Napoleon's challenge to Russia's claims to influence in the Ottoman Empire led to France's successful participation in the Crimean War (March 1854-March 1856).

He approved the launching of a naval expedition in 1858 to punish the Vietnamese and force the court to accept a French presence in the country.

In May-July 1859 French intervention secured the defeat of Austria in Italy.

But intervention in Mexico (January 1862-March 1867) ended in defeat and the execution of the French-backed Emperor Maximilian, and France saw her influence further eroded by Prussia's crushing victory over Austria in June-August 1866.

Napoleon III and German Unification – 2/6

In 1870 when, forced by the diplomacy of the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Napoleon began the Franco-Prussian War.

This was disastrous, and was instrumental in giving birth to the German Empire.

In battle against Prussia in July 1870 the Emperor was captured at the Battle of Sedan (September 2) and was deposed by the forces of the Third Republic in Paris two days later.

He died in exile in England on January 9, 1873.

Crimea - Rich argues that Napoleon is not specifically interested in protecting the Holy Places - but in dividing the great powers.

What do you see in Crimea? Rich argues that it is a proactive Napoleon III with a reactive Europe.

Who was on who’s side in Crimea?

What evidence can you see that Rich may be wrong?

Can it plausibly be argued that Napoleon III is reacting rather than acting?

Napoleon III and German Unification – 3/6

Can the evidence be read that Britain wants to tweak the Russian’s for some irrational reason?

Who is Tsar in Russia? (Nicholas I)

So, does the Crimean War support Rich’s thesis?

Italian unification? Rich argues that it is planned by N III to weaken and counter Austria and Prussia? Is it? Do the Italians think this way?

What are Garibaldi’s reasons?

Where Rich sees Napoleon III as initiating events - and uses the outcomes as proof. I see Napoleon as a Vulture on the side taking opportunities - the outcomes being set by a multitude of factors.

US Civil War and Mexico

While the United States was occupied with the general unpleasantness that we call the Civil War - Napoleon III did make a foray into Mexico. This created a problem for the United States. In addition to the problem with the Monroe doctrine - it also created an issue for general foreign policy by threatening to contain the United States between two great powers - France in the South and Britain in the North - instead of two local, weaker powers (Mexico and Canada).

Napoleon III and German Unification – 4/6

As soon as the Confederacy surrendered, Johnson sent Phil Sheridan and 50,000 tough Union veterans to the Rio Grande, officially to occupy Texas.

Seward then called in the French ambassador and suggested the French set a date--preferably soon--for their army to get out of Mexico.

When the ambassador started babbling about how he would need instructions from home, and how Napoleon had promised to support his dear fellow emperor Maximilian,

Seward quietly pointed out that the United States could send Sherman to the Rio Grande with another 250,000 troops...

A reunited United States, backed by still-mobilized Northern industry, could put a million men into the field, backed by the most modern ironclad navy in the world, battle-tested in the recent war.

Now, exactly when was the last French soldier going to leave?

This put Napoleon, as they say, behind the 8 ball.

He could also put a million soldiers in the field.. .in Europe. If he sent them all to Mexico, he might not be able to get them there through the Union navy, and he certainly would not have enough troop left at home to control the crowds in Paris who would come out to watch his dear friend Otto von Bismarck and the Prussian army parade through without opposition.

Even Napoleon, who had inherited some of his uncles political savvy but none of his military genius, realized that was not such a good idea.

Napoleon III and German Unification – 5/6

So he quietly wrote a letter to his commander in Mexico ordering French troops pulled out, and quietly had the ambassador in Washington pass the word to Seward that the last one would be gone by 1867, and in 1870 the Prussians came anyway, forcing Napoleon to abdicate.

The only guy who didn’t get the message was Maximilian, who had somehow managed to convince himself that he was loved by the Mexican people and that he could use that popularity to negotiate terms with Benito Juarez.

Juarez negotiated him right up against a wall in front of a firing squad, putting a fitting end to the French effort to use the Civil War to take over Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine.

Napoleon III is a savvy political leader - he is not a military genius like his Uncle. He is a hesitant Operator not willing to put his force behind his initiatives - wanting to explore but waiting to see what the political outcomes might be before acting decisively.

French involvement in Mexico seems to sum up N-III’s approach.

Napoleon III and German Unification – 6/6

The German Empire of 1871–1918. By excluding the German-speaking part of the multinational Austrian Empire, this geographic construction represented a little Germany solution.

Boundaries of the German Confederation. Prussia is blue, Austria yellow, and the rest grey.

Member states of the German Empire (peach), with Kingdom of Prussia shown in blue.

18 January 1871: The proclamation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles. Bismarck appears in white. The Grand Duke of Baden stands beside Wilhelm, leading the cheers. Crown Prince Friedrich, later Friedrich III, stands on his father's right. Painting by Anton von Werner.

The Monroe Doctrine, is in many ways the most important watershed in the history of US foreign relations. It is also in many ways the least understood.

In particular, American presidents from Grover Cleveland to George Bush have asserted that it means things that would have left James Monroe shaking his head in amazement.

So a large part of what we have to do to understand the Monroe Doctrine is to separate what Monroe said, and his motives for saying it, from all the rhetoric, mythology, and add-ons that have accumulated around it over almost 2 centuries.

The first thing you have to understand is that the Monroe Doctrine was not an American initiative. James Monroe did not set out on a bold new course in foreign relations in December 1823.

What he did was respond to a proposal for Anglo-American cooperation by British Foreign Secretary George Canning,

who in turn was responding to a suggestion for military intervention on behalf of Spain against its former colonies in the Western Hemisphere by the Holy Alliance--theoretically a political alliance of all Christian European Powers except Britain and the Pope, although in practice it was dominated by Russia and France.

So the Monroe Doctrine isn’t intended to change anything, it is intended to prevent Tsar Alexander of Russia and the French premier, the Duc de Chateaubriand, from changing something.

Monroe Doctrine – 1/9

What they wanted to do was to make the world safe for Christianity by making sure that it was under control of the divinely-appointed absolute monarchs God had sent to rule His people in accordance with His laws...

Trust me, I’m not making this up.

Alexander of Russia came from a centuries-long tradition in which the tsar was both secular ruler and head of the Orthodox church, so he was merely applying to international relations the principles of government he had inherited in Russia.

He really believed that if God had wanted someone else to be “autocrat of all the Russias”--one of his official titles--He would have arranged for someone else to be tsar.

Alexander saw himself as having defended this divine principle by leading the defeat and overthrow of that godless radical revolutionary, Napoleon Bonaparte, not only in France but throughout Europe.

In 1815 he set out to make the defeat of not only Napoleon but all revolutionary political principles permanent by creating an alliance of good Christian monarchs who would unite in what he called “the Holy Alliance.”

Its purpose was to provide mutual assistance against revolutionary movements that sought to overturn these divinely-chosen absolute monarchs.

Monroe Doctrine – 2/9

What did that mean? Well, in practice it meant what happened in Spain in 1823: when the Spanish parliament tried to impose a written constitution on the insane king of Spain, Ferdinand VII, thousands of French troops invaded Spain in the name of the Holy Alliance to restore Ferdinand to absolute power and to save the poor people from the tyranny of constitutional rights.

The British govt. which had refused to join the alliance, thought this was nuts... but Britain had perhaps 100,000 soldiers, while France, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and the lesser members of the coalition supporting Ferdinand could put 5 million trained troops in the field.

So that’s the Holy Alliance: a bunch of guys who think they are on a mission from God to make the world safe for divine-right absolute monarchs.

They see King George IV and Lord Castlereagh as dangerous radicals, the constitutional supremacy of the House of Commons as evidence of how decadent Britain had become, and James Monroe--who owned 50 slaves--and the US Constitution as the epitome of the sort of left-wing revolutionary ideology they are determined to stamp out.

So what do these clowns have to do with the United States?

Well, neither the US not Britain much liked what the Holy Alliance was doing in Europe.. .but there wasn’t a whole lot either or both of them could do about it .

Monroe Doctrine – 3/9

When the Holy Allies started talking about sending fleets and armies to re-conquer Argentina, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Central America, Mexico, and other former colonies for Spain, however, the stakes for the US and Britain increased dramatically.

Both had established substantial trade with the rebels over the past 2 decades, markets they did not want to lose if Spain regained control and excluded them

Neither was real happy about the security implications of French, German, or Russian armies marching around Latin America.

The British were so unhappy, in fact, that Foreign Secretary George Canning, who had replaced Castlereagh when the latter committed suicide late in 1822, called in American Ambassador Richard Rush and suggested a public alliance between Britain and the United States to block any Holy Alliance military intervention in Latin America.

Canning asked Rush to sign the treaty immediately, pointing out that it would have an immediate deterrent effect even if the president and Congress ultimately refused to ratify it.

Rush agreed that was true, but said he really needed to check with Monroe before he signed such a momentous document even as an interim agreement.

So in the late summer 1823 James Monroe--who had almost died after taking a British musket ball in his chest at Trenton 47 years before--found himself reading a proposal for an alliance of equals from that same British govt.

Monroe Doctrine – 4/9

He presented it to his cabinet, but also sent it on to his 2 old friends and neighbors in Charlottesville:

Thomas Jefferson & James Madison.

Both responded immediately and positively.

Jefferson advised accepting Cannings proposal because it finally meant Britain had recognized the US as an equal; Madison reiterated that argument, but suggested Monroe should take it further than Canning: the Holy Alliance was interfering to prevent the emergence of a republican, or at least constitutional, govt in Greece as it gained independence after centuries of Turkish domination.

The Tsar would eventually force the Greeks to accept a German prince as their first king, as the price of his support for their independence.

Why, Madison asked, limit the Anglo-American alliance to the new world?

A fleet of British battleships accompanied by a squadron of the big new American battleships built since the War of 1812 operating together in Greek waters would quite effectively make the point to everyone concerned that the Greek people should be allowed to choose their own govt.

As far as I know no one actually suggested that the Duke of Wellingtons highlanders and Andrew Jacksons Tennessee riflemen should stand shoulder-to-shoulder to hold the pass at Thermopylae if Russian, French, and German hordes invaded Greece in the name of the Holy Alliance, but there was a definite euphoria in Washington.

Monroe Doctrine – 5/9

When Monroe asked his cabinet for formal advice in November everyone supported Jefferson & Madison in urging the US to accept Cannings offer... except Secretary of State Adams.

He asked what the US stood to gain from a formal alliance with Britain.

There was going to be a de facto alliance to block Holy Alliance intervention in Latin America. British & American interests both demanded such strategic cooperation, whether or not there was a formal agreement.

Yes, it was very gratifying that the British government, only 3 years after the death of King George III, had offered the US an equal alliance.

But was the gratification worth the complications and entanglements of a European alliance?

In geopolitical terms, Adams pointed out, gratification was as meaningless a concept as gratitude or any of the other words people borrowed from interpersonal relations and tried to apply to the much different, far more rational and interest-driven world of international relations.

The US and Britain were going to cooperate against the Holy Alliance, treaty or not, because their interests demanded it.

But Cannings proposed terms would prevent not just French or Russian expansion in the name of Spain, but also further US expansion at the expense of the former Spanish colonies --

Like Texas.. .or California.. .or Central America.. .or Cuba, all territories Americans had their eyes on for future expansion.

Monroe Doctrine – 6/9

Why renounce possible US expansion in the future, when all the US got in return was a formal British commitment to do something British interests would force London to do anyway?

Again, Monroe found Adams argument compelling.

Not all presidents would have listened, and not all secretaries of state would have spoken up when they knew their boss was inclined the other way - but Adams did speak up, and Monroe did listen.

So, instead of signing the proposed alliance, Monroe instead chose his annual message to Congress in December 1823 to answer Canning, warn the Holy Alliance, and announce what has gone down in history as “the Monroe Doctrine.”

It stated the doctrine of non-colonization, that as far as the US was concerned the era of

European annexation of territory in the western hemisphere that began in 1492 with Columbus was now over.

European states could keep their existing colonies in North or South America, but they could not expand them or acquire new colonies.

If they attempted to do so, the US would consider it a hostile act threatening to its own national security.

Monroe also announced the doctrine of “the two spheres,” under which the eastern & western hemispheres were declared distinct and separate.

Monroe Doctrine – 7/9

The American people and government wished the cause of liberty and republicanism well in the old world, but they were not going to intervene politically or militarily in support of that cause.

Neither, however, would they tolerate political or military intervention by eastern hemisphere nations against republican governments in the Americas.

The US would not tolerate Holy Alliance restoration of Spanish rule in the young American republics. Nor would it tolerate the imposition of “independent” monarchs on them, as had been done when the Tsar chose a German prince as King of Greece.

Finally, Monroe announced the doctrine of de facto recognition.

The US would recognize as the legitimate government of a country whoever was actually in charge, whether the US approved ideologically of the regime or not...a policy that the US followed consistently until Woodrow Wilson decided he was only going to recognize govts he approved of.

Monroe’s statement, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine, was welcomed enthusiastically by the Latin American republics.

The Tsar sniffed that mere presidents ought not to lecture crowned heads, but did nothing. and Canning applauded Monroe’s statement, at least in public, not mentioning that it was an alternative to his offered alliance with Britain.

Monroe Doctrine – 8/9

He had already called in the French ambassador, Prince Polignac, and politely suggested that any French or Holy Alliance fleet convoying an invasion force to Latin America was likely to run into a British battle fleet which--however regretfully--would feel obligated to sink the invaders.

Polignac and his government had agreed that such an unfortunate event would not be good for the cause of European peace.. .and promised not to try to re-conquer the Spanish colonies.

Most scholars concluded from this fact that the US was hiding behind the Royal Navy when Monroe issued his statement, and there certainly is some truth in that - but no French or Russian naval officer wanted to go up against the big new American battleships coming out of American naval yards in the early 1820s. Even the British navy issued private orders to battleship captains not to go up against the new American ships one-on-one.

So had the US navy needed to back up Monroe’s words even without British help, it probably could have done it.

One further question about the Monroe Doctrine needs to be addressed: why did Monroe issue it?

Read Monroe’s words, not what almost 200 years of politicians and scholars have claimed to find in Monroe’s words. Try to clear your mind of modern prejudice, look at his words in their own historical context, and trust your own critical judgment .

Monroe Doctrine – 9/9

The Birth of the Monroe Doctrine, 1823, after the painting by Clyde O. DeLand, showing John Quincy Adams (far left) and U.S. Pres. James Monroe (standing). The Granger Collection, New York

5th President of the United States James Monroe

Secretary of State (later 6th President of the United States) John Quincy Adams

Plaques of James Monroe Museum

European Potentates Observe Naval Might. This cartoon, in which figures representing the countries of Europe observe the naval power of the United States, appeared in the New York Herald.

Monroe Doctrine Worksheets

Years of Independence of Latin American Countries

Details of Independence Movement in Latin America