German liberalism and the militarisation of civil society, 1813–1848/49

Abstract

From the beginning of nineteenth century German liberals endeavoured to reform the armies of different German states, subject them to constitutional authorities, open their ranks to members of civil society and turn military service into a civic obligation. After the Wars of Liberation and during the Vormärz years, the liberals struggle for democratically oriented armed forces was combined with their opposition to restorative regime and their hopes for the national unification of Germany and the formation of civil society. The liberals campaign, however, turned military service and military values into authentic manifestations of the ideal civil society. Military service was admired for the qualities it bestowed on those who bore arms and the values guiding its members as citizens. Paradoxically, military service became the founding institution of civil society. This process found further expression upon the renewed establishment of the civil militias (Bürgerwehren) during the Vormärz and the central role they played in the 1848 revolution. They were intended to introduce alternative forces into the army, but they ended up performing popular military and policing activities. Through this process, the Bildung ideal in the formation of civil society declined considerably, and the liberals actually contributed to the militarisation of society.

Keywords:

• militarism
• liberalism
• civilian
• Germany

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the Yad Hanadiv Trust and the Minerva Stiftung for their generous support that made the research for this article possible.

Notes

 1. On the correlation between political and social elites and the army see: , Der preußisch-deutsche Militarismus, 60 and Trox, Militärischer Konservatismus, 35–7.

 2. The literature on German liberalism is most extensive. Here are some of the main critical discussions about the political vacillation of German liberalism: Anderson, The Social and Political Conflict in Prussia, 1858–1864, 440; Krieger, The German Idea of Freedom, 275–7; Bußmann, “Zur Geschichte des deutschen Liberalismus im 19. Jahrhundert.” On the particular case of liberalism in Baden and its decline after German unification see: Gall, Der Liberalismus als regierende Partei, 475–96. The criticism against German liberalism culminated in the Sonderweg theory, most explicitly presented by Wehler, Das deutsche Kaiserreich 1871–1918. On the decline of German liberalism since the late 1870s see: Sheehan, German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century, 181–271 and Langewiesche, Liberalismus in Deutschland, 9–11. Recent research has kept this critical tendency: Backes, Liberalismus und Demokratie – Antinomie und Synthese, 498–9, 503–6; Levinger, Enlightened Nationalism, 191–2, 227–9, 239–40; Leonhard, Liberalismus, 549–99.

 3. Examinations of such social tendencies among German liberals appear in many studies. The following are among the most important: Hamerow, Restoration, Revolution, Reaction, 58–64; Rohr, The Origins of Social Liberalism in Germany, 158–66. One of the most interesting and challenging interpretations of the social vision of German liberals is that of Lothar Gall. Gall analyses the liberal vision of society in the first half of the nineteenth century regarding the creation of “klassenlose Bürgergesellschaft”. Yet this vision was too optimistic and could not survive beyond 1850, when liberals appeared more as “Klassenpartei”. See Gall, “Liberalismus und ‘bürgerliche Gesellschaft”, 99–125 (especially pp. 120–2). As to the close correlation between political liberalism and class interests see: James J. Sheehan, “Liberalismus und Gesellschaft in Deutschland 1815–1848.” Recent research into German liberalism and the welfare state argues that towards the end of the nineteenth century liberals eventually clung to individual economic responsibility with a limited state interference in social matters. See: von Kieseritzky, Liberalismus und Sozialstaat, 481–2.

 4. For a comparative analysis of German, British and French liberalism see: Muhs, “Deutscher und britischer Liberalismus. Versuch einer Bilanz,” 223–59. Heinz-Gerhard Haupt und Friedrich Lenger, “Liberalismus und Handwerk in Frankreich und Deutschland,” 305–31.

 5. Regarding the militarisation process of the Empire years see: Clark, Iron Kingdom, 600–3. About the birth of “bürgerliche[r] Militarismus” during the Empire period see: Förster, Der doppelte Militarismus, 65.

 6. See the discussion on this matter by Sheehan, German Liberalism, 5.

 7. Leonhard, Liberalismus, 193–4.

 8. Backes, Liberalismus und Demokratie, 251–2, 296–7.

 9. Leonhard, Liberalismus, 197–8.

10. Backes, Liberalismus, 251–2, 296–7; Leonhard, Liberalismus, 194–5.

11. Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800–1866, 664.

12. Stargardt, The German Idea of Militarism, 19.

13. Kant, Sämtliche Werke in sechs Bänden, 661. See also Kater, “Bürger-Krieger: Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith und Adam Ferguson über Militär und Gesellschaft,” 27–46 (especially pp. 28–34).

14. Vagts, A History of Militarism, Civilian and Militarism, 13–4, 17. See also: Vogel, Nationen im Gleichschritt, 275–6. Wette, “Für eine Belebung der Militarismusforschung,” 13.

15. For the various definitions of militarism see: Berghahn, Militarism, 11. For a detailed discussion, see pp. 7–30.

16. Hintze, “Staatsverfassung und Heerverfassung,” 133–4.

17. Ritter, Staatkunst und Kriegshandwerk, 13.

18. Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 12–3.

19. In his recent illuminating book about the centrality of wars and general conscription in the formation of twentieth-century Europe, James Sheehan demonstrates how military service was conceived in many European countries as part of this democratic transformation. While referring to the observations of Hippolyte Taine and Friedrich Engels about the indispensable correlation between universal suffrage and universal conscription Sheehan reveals their insight: since the revolutionary wars of the 1790s, when the whole nation carried arms, universal military service turned into an aspect of the general political participation and civil rights. See Sheehan, Where Have all the Soldiers Gone? 16–7. And see also Kernic, Krieg, Gesellschaft und Militär, 215.

20. For differentiations of this kind see: Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 10–11. And see also Huntington's discussion about the division between the military and civic spheres: Huntington, The Soldier and the State, 89–90.

21. Marwitz, “Die Grundlagen deutscher militärischer Tradition im Zeitalter des Absolutismus,” 60–3. And see also: Wolfgang Kruse, “Bürger und Soldaten,” 47–67.

22. On the correlation between revolution and wars as complementing processes of the nation's emancipation, see: Fehrenbach “Die Ideologisierung des Krieges und die Radikalisierung der Französischen Revolution,” 57–66; Kruse, Die Erfindung des Militarismus, 268–74, 300, 370–2; Ritter, Staatkunst, 60–2; Vagts, History of Militarism, 116–9. It should be mentioned that the characteristics which Kruse attaches to militarism are similar to those described by Vagts, though he thinks militarism, as it appeared in the French Revolution, was also an outcome of modernism.

23. For a detailed discussion about the different structure and nature of service in the Landwehr militia and the standing army see: Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 81–95; Craig, The Politics of the Prussian Army 1640–1945, 59–61, 74–5.

24. Nolte, Bürgerideal, Gemeinde und Republik, 609–56 (see especially pp. 618–20). Pröve, Stadtgemeindlicher Republikanismus und die “Macht des Volkes,”23–4. Regarding the concept of the republican ideal in Hamburg during the Napoleonic rule see: Aaslestad, “Paying for War,” 641–75 (see especially 642, 662, 670). And see also the discussion by Hagemann, “Mannlicher Muth und Teutsche Ehre,” 289–304.

25. Kater, “Bürger-Krieger,” 34–43; Fania Oz–Salzberger, Translating the Enlightenment, 117–20, 147–8.

26. On the participation of women in the Wars of Liberation see: Hagemann, “Mannlicher Muth,” 81–3, 416–27. Idem, “‘Heroic Virgins’ and ‘Bellicose Amazons’”, 507–27 (see especially pp. 509, 511).

27. The literature about the reforms in the Prussian army is extensive. Some of the important works are: Meinecke, The Age of Prussian Liberation 1795–1815, 44–101; Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 1700–1815, 463–72; Craig, Prussian Army, 37–53; Simon, The Failure of the Prussian Reform Movement, 1808–1819, 145–93; Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, 53–6; Sheehan, German History 1770–1866, 307–10. Regarding the reforms in the codes of behaviour and penalty see: Voigt, Die Gesetzgebungsgeschichte der militärischen Ehrenstrafen und der Offizierehrengerichtsbarkeit im preußischen und deutschen Heer von 1806 bis 1918, 30–41. Pröve, Militär, Staat und Gesellschaft im 19. Jahrhundert, 9–12.

28. Some of the latest works that deal with the national significance of the Wars of Liberation are: Echternkamp, Der Aufstieg des deutschen Nationalismus (1770-1840), 216–32; Levinger, Enlightened Nationalism, 89–93; Carl, “Der Mythos des Bfreiungskrieges,” 63–82. A more theoretical discussion of the formation of war-mythology see Gladigow, “Gewalt in Gründungsmythen,” 23–38.

29. Earlier ideas about the noble features of war and warlike training, combined with liberal political theories, were even expressed by Wilhelm von Humboldt in 1792. See von Humboldt, Ideen zu einem Versuch die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staats zu Bestimmen, 76, 86–7.

30. Jahn, Deutsches Volkstum, 53–4.

31. Levinger, Enlightened Nationalism, 106–7.

32. Jahn, Deutsches Volkstum, 62.

33. Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 42–5.

34. Arndt, Die deutsche Wehrmannschaft, 65.

35. Craig, Prussian Army, 74–5; Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, p. 90; Höhn, Die Armee als Erziehungsschule der Nation, 191–3.

36. For the British case see: Gee, The British Volunteer Movement 1794–1814, 1–3, 99, 153; Cookson, The British Armed Nation, 1793–1815, 73–6, 93–4.

37. Trox, Militärischer Konservatismus, 85, 93–9.

38. Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 84–6.

39. Vogel, Nationen im Gleichschritt, 11–17.

40. von Rotteck, “Ueber stehende Heere und Nationalmiliz,” 234.

41. See the discussion in Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 154, 221–3, 235–6.

42. Schulz, Irrthümer und Wahrheiten aus den ersten Jahren nach dem letzten Kriege, 76–7.

43. von Rotteck and Welcker, Staats-Lexikon, 593. This entry is based on an essay written by Welcker as early as 1829. See Welcker, Das innere und äußere System der praktischen natürlichen und römisch- christlich- germanischen Rechts-, Staats- und Gsetzgebungs- Lehre, 597–8.

44. Assmann, Die Bedeutung deutscher Bürgerbewaffnung geschichtlich enwickelt, 24–5.

45. Pfizer, “Liberal, Liberalismus” in Staats-Lexikon, eds. Rotteck and Welcker, vol. 7, 718–9.

46. Rosenblum, Another Liberalism, 9–33.

47. Höhn, Armee als Erziehungsschule, 43.

48. Pröve, “Politische Partizipation und soziale Ordnung,” 113. In this regard see also the importance attached to the wearing of uniform and the correlation between army and civil sphere which it symbolised: Brändli, “Von ‘schneidigen Offizieren’ und ‘Militärcrinolinen,’” 205. On Ruge see also Wende, “Arnold Ruge: Kavalleriegeneral der Hegelei,” 23–32.

49. Becker, Bilder von Krieg und Nation, 95–6.

50. See the discussion on the army's oppression of unrest during the Restoration and the Vormärz, in Lüdtke, Police and State in Prussia, 1815–1850, 160–6, 183–93.

51. Bundesarchiv Berlin (BArchB), Nachlaß Robert Blum, Nr. 65, Die Stellung der Soldaten in Deutschland. Von Rob. Blum (Gesprochen im Redeübungsverein am 6. März 1848). And see also: Blum Volksthümliches Handbuch der Staatswissenschaften und Politik. Ein Staatslexikon für das Volk, 75–7. On Robert Blum see also Maentel, “Robert Blum,” 134–45 (especially pp. 141–3).

52. Gheimes Staatsarchiv- Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin (GStaPK), Rep. 92, VI.HA. Nachlass Benedikt Franz Leo Waldeck, Nr. 28: Die Bürgerwehr besonders in Berlin. In der Sitzung des Vereins für Geschichte der Mark Brandenburg am 12. April [1848]. Vorgetragen von dem Geheimen ArchiRathe und Professor der Staats- Wissenschaft Dr. Riedel, Bürger und Bürgerwehrmanne des 13. Stadt-Bezirkes, Berlin 1848. p. 16.

53. Stenographischer Bericht über den Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden Nationalversammlung zu Frankfurt am Main , vol. 9, 6866.

54. Ibid. vol. 2, 1328.

55. For Hecker's argument, as well as that of Wigrad (mentioned above), see: Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 158–9. And see also Freitag, “Friedrich Hecker: Der republikanische Souverän”, 45–62 (especially pp. 54–6).

56. For petitions in Offenburg see: BArchB, Nachlaß Karl Mathy, Nr. 97, “Die Volksversammlung zu Offenburg, am 19. Maerz 1848”. For Freiburg see: BArchB, Nachlaß Friedrich Hammacher, Nr. 71, “Die Volkversammlung in Freiburg, am 26 Maerz 1848”. For Heidelberg see: idem. Die Volkversammlung in Heidelberg, am 26 Maerz 1848”. For Münster see: idem. “An die Buergergarde der Stadt Muenster [12.11.1848].”

57. Regarding the Prussian case and militias in Berlin see Wolff, Darstellung der Berliner Bewegungen im Jahre 1848 nach politischen, socialen und literarischen Beziehungen, 336. And see also: Becker, “Forderungen nach Volksbewaffnung 1848”, 1353–4; Pröve, “Bürgerwehren in den europäischen Revolutionen 1848,” 911–2.

58. For these cases see: Sperber, Rhineland Radicals, 366–70; Nolte, Gemeindebürgertum und Liberalismus in Baden 1800-1850, 327–8; Harris, “Arms and the People,” 144–5, 160.

59. Pröve, “Bürgerwehren,” 909–10. Müller, “Soldaten, Bürger, Barrikaden. Konflikte und Allianzen während der Revolution von 1848/49,” 48.

60. For this idea see: Nolte, “Bürgerideal,” 624–5. Pröve, Stadtgemeindlicher Republikanismus, 183.

61. The number of members in Bürgewehren differed considerably from one place to another. In Prussia they reached about 30,000 people. In Hannover, a city which at that time had about 30,000 inhabitants, about 3000 served in the militia; 12,000 people carried arms in Leipzig, and in a small city like Heilbronn they numbered 1200. See: Pröve, “Politische Partizipation,” 128. Frevert, Die Kasernierte Nation, 170–1.

62. Vick, Defining Germany, 195. And see also Jeismann, Das Vaterland der Feinde. Studien zum nationalen Feindbegriff und Selbstverständnis in Deutschland und Frankreich 1792–1918, 162–3.

63. Vick, Defining Germany, 181–3.

64. Nachlaß Friedrich Hammacher, op. cit.

65. On the role of the standing army during the 1848 revolution see Müller, Soldaten in der deutschen Revolution von 1848/49, 42–54. On the continental level see Langewiesche, “Die Rolle des Militärs in den europäischen Revolutionen von 1848,” 915–32.

66. This argument is presented by Christian Jansen. See Einheit, Macht und Freiheit. Die Paulskirchenlinke und die deutsche Politik in der nachrevolutionären Epoche 1849–1867, 28.

67. Höhn, Armee als Erziehungsschule, 33.

68. Nikolaus Buschmann, Einkreisung und Waffenbruderschaft, 217–8, 222–3, 227. Jansen, Einheit, Macht und Freiheit, 270–81.