Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:31:57.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The War Scare of 1831 and Prussian—South German Plans for the End of Austrian Dominance in Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Robert D. Billinger Jr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The plan of the Deutschtümmler has been shattered…,” Metternich wrote exultantly to a subordinate in Berlin in November of 1831. Despite the advice of his foreign minister, Count Christian von Bernstorff, King Frederick William of Prussia had just agreed that any Prussian-South German military agreement had to be preceded by a preliminary political understanding between Austria and Prussia. Metternich was so relieved by this turn of events because he had been sure that current Prussian-South German military discussions were leading, not to plans for the defense of Germany in the face of the threatening French revolutionary government, but to the reorganization of the German Confederation along constitutional lines—under the aegis of Prussia. From Metternich's perspective such a change of politics and political leadership in Germany would only cause dissension among the German governments and benefit only their common enemy— “the all-devouring revolution.”

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 203 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

South Germany in this context means the Kingdoms of Bavaria and Württemberg and the Grand Duchy of Baden. The present study is based on research in the Austrian, Bavarian, Württemberg, and Baden archives, the initial Austrian research having been made possible by a Fulbright-Hays Act Grant for research in Vienna in 1969–70. That research culminated in the author's “Metternich's German Policy, 1830–1834” (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, 1973).Google Scholar

1. Metternich to General Clam-Martinitz, Nov. 21, 1831, Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter: HHSA), Preussen, Fasc. 142.

2. Ibid.

3. The main purpose of this article is to present new material showing the reality of the conspiracies that Metternich feared in the early 1830s. The existence of such conspiracies has been either denied or overlooked by most historians. Bibl, Viktor, in his Metternich in neuer Beleuchtung: Sein geheimer Briefwechsel mit den bayerischen Staatsminister Wrede: Nach unveröffentlichen Dokumenten aus den Archiven in Wien und München (Vienna, 1928),Google Scholar the only monograph that deals exclusively with Metternich's South German policies in the early 1830s, denies their existence. Heinrich von Srbik, in his famous biography, Metternich der Staatsmann und der Mensch, 3 vols. (Munich, 1925–1954),Google Scholar gave little space to Germany in the 1830s. In this regard the more general works by von Treitschke, Heinrich, Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–1894),Google Scholar and Stern, Alfred, Geschichte Europas seit den Vertragen von 1815 bis zum Frankfurter Frieden von 1871, 10 vols. (Berlin, 1913–1924),Google Scholar do a better job of presenting the political power struggles between the German powers within the Confederation, but they lack detail. Excellent on detail, at least in regard to relations between Bavaria and Austria, is Böck, Hanns Helmut, Karl Philipp Fürst von Wrede als politischer Berater König Ludwig I. von Bayern (1825–1838), Monacensia, Miscellanea Bavarica, no. 8 (Munich, 1968).Google Scholar Nevertheless, Böck lacks details on the secret South German negotiations for the reorganization of the Confederation. The same is true of the otherwise helpful study of Bavarian particularism by Werner, George S., “The Relationship Between Bavaria and the German Confederation, 1820–1834,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Delaware, 1972).Google Scholar There are three studies—two articles and one short monograph—that do deal with South German-Prussian relations in the 1830s and the war scare of 1831: von Droysen, Johann Gustav, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik in den Jahren 1830–1832,” in Abhandlungen zur neueren Geschichte (Leipzig, 1876), pp. 1–131;Google Scholarvon Treitschke, Heinrich, “Preussen und das Bundeskriegswesen 1831,” Appendix 20, in Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte, 4: 740–45;Google Scholar and Richter, Franz, Das europäische Problem der preussischen Staatspolitik und die revolutionäre Krise vom 1830 bis 1832, Forschungen zur neueren und neuesten Geschichte, no. 2 (Leipzig, 1933).Google Scholar Though scholarly, their chief deficiencies are that they were written by historians chiefly interested in the Prussian perspective, they make no use of the South German archives, and they tend to underrate the importance that participants attached to the struggle for dominance in Germany. These weaknesses the author seeks to remedy in the present article.

4. The war scare of 1831 is the subject of an interesting study that makes use of graphs to plot the course of the scare. See Huber, Gustav, Kriegsgefahr über Europa (1830–1832): Im Urteil der Zeit und hundert jahr später, Neue Deutsche Forschungen: Abteilung Neuere Geschichte, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1936).Google Scholar

5. Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” pp. 80–81.

6. The most detailed portrayal of Austro-French diplomatic relations in this period can be found in de Guichen, Eugene, La révolution de juillet 1830 et l'Europe (Paris, 1916).Google Scholar

7. Others could be named, but the names of these two men appear most frequently in the documents and in Metternich's contemporary correspondence.

8. Private letter of Metternich to Schönburg, Nov. 2, 1831, HHSA, Württemberg, Fasc. 42.

9. Though the author found no copy of the Armansperg circular, its intent and content could be gathered from the reply of the king of Württemberg and from later comments by several foreign diplomats in Munich. See Harttmann (for King William) to Holz, Aug. 13, 1830, Württembergisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Stuttgart (hereafter: WHSA), E 75, Bü. 172; Fahnenberg to Grand Duke Leopold, Aug. 18, 1830, Badisches Generallandesarchiv, Karlsruhe (hereafter: BGLA), 48/1874; Rumigny to Molé, Aug. 23, 1830, in Chroust, Anton, ed., Gesandtschaftsberiche aus München 1814–1848, Abteilung I: Die Berichte der französischen Gesandten, 6 vols. Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte, vols. 18, 19, 21–24 (Munich, 1935–1937) (hereafter: BFG), 2: 279–80.Google Scholar

10. This was the substance of King William of Württemberg's instructions to his minister in Munich according to the reports of the envoy from Baden. See Fahnenberg to Leopold, Grand Duke, Sept. 1, 1830, BGLA, 48/1874. The French envoy in Munich reported the caution of the South German governments too. See for example Rumigny to Polignac, Sept. 8, 1830, and Rumigny to Molé Sept. 29, Oct. 2 and 7, 1830, BFG, 2: 281, 289, 291, 295.Google Scholar

11. Dehio, LudwigWittgenstein und das letzte Jahrzehnt Friedrich Wilhelms III,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischen und preussischen Geschichte 35 (1923): 215–19;Google ScholarSpielmann, C., “Regierungspräsident Karl von Ibell über die preussische Politik in den Jahren 1830 und 1831,” Annalen des Vereins für Nassauische Altertumskunde und Geschichtsforschung 28 (1896): 66–76;Google ScholarTreitschke, , Deutsche Geschkhte, 4: 188.Google Scholar

12. Böck, Wrede, pp. 146–47.

13. The Russian questioning in Munich was reported by Rumigny to Sébastiani, Nov. 30, 1830, BFG, 2: 314–16. A similar occurrence in Stuttgart was reported by Fahnenberg to Leopold, Grand Duke, Nov. 29, 1830, BGLA, 48/1874.Google Scholar

14. Instructions to Schmitz, Nov. 30, 1830, WHSA, E 9, Bü. 25, No. 8. In this dispatch that accompanied King William's secret memorandum for the Bavarian king, Schmitz was informed that he and Armansperg would be told the contents of the communication later. It was not until Dec. 6 that Schmitz was sent a copy of the memorandum for his own information, and not until Dec. 19 that he was allowed to show this secret material to Armansperg. This later correspondence can also be found in WHSA, E 9, Bü. 25, No. 8. However, as early as Nov. 29, the envoy from Baden reported the subject of King William's memorandum and later, on Dec. 10, noted that Armansperg had been his source. See Fahnenberg to Leopold, Grand Duke, Nov. 29 and Dec. 10, 1830, BGLA, 48/1874.Google Scholar

15. “Betrachtungen über die politisch-militärische Stellung von Süddeutschland,” Nov. 1830, WHSA, E 9, Bü. 25, No. 8.

16. Fahnenberg to Leopold, Dec. 8, 1830, BGLA, 48/1874.

17. Fahnenberg to Leopold, Dec. 8, 1830, and Grand Duke Leopold to Fahnenberg, Dec. 15, 1830, ibid.

18. Instructions for Schmitz, Dec. 13, 1830, WHSA, E 9, Bü. 25, No. 8; Cotta to Schmitz, Jan. 29, 1831, WHSA, E 75, Bü. 173.

19. Guichen, La révolution de Juillet, passim; Hillebrand, Karl, Geschichte Frankreichs von der Thronbesteigung Louis Philipp's bis zum Falle Napoleon's III, 3 vols. (Gotha, 1877–1898), 1, passim.Google Scholar

20. Notation for Dec. 1830, in Freiherr, Carl Friedrichvon Kübau, Kübeck, Tagebücher des Carl Friedrich Freiherrn Kübeck von Kübau, ed. von Kübeck, Max Freiherr, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1909), 1/2: 302.Google Scholar

21. Wertheimer, Eduard, “Erzherzog Karl und das Juli-Königtum,” Beilage zur Allgemeinen Zeitung (Munich), no. 126, 06 4, 1902, pp. 418–19.Google Scholar

22. Trauttmansdorff to Metternich, Mar. 14, 1831, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 139a.

23. Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” p. 71.

24. Rühle and Küster to King Frederick William III, Mar. 7, 1831, in Chroust, Anton, ed., Gesandtschaftsberichte aus München 1814–1848, Abteilung III: Die Berichte der preussischen Gesandten, 5 vols., Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte, vols. 39–43 (Munich, 1949–1951) (hereafter: BPG), 2: 193–96.Google Scholar

25. All of this according to the envoys of Baden and France stationed in Munich. See Fahnenberg to Jolly, Mar. 23, 1831, BGLA, 48/1629; Rumigny to Sébastiani, Mar. 15 and 24, 1831, BFG, 2: 368, 377–78.

26. Armansperg to King Ludwig and Ludwig's reply, Mar. 27 and 28, 1831; and Armansperg to Luxburg, Mar. 28, 1831, Bayerisches Hauptstaatarchiv, Abteilung II: Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Munich (hereafter: BGSA), MA 24076.

27. Proposed response to Rühle's memorandum of Apr. 4, and King William's approval for this response, Apr. 7, 1831, WHSA, E 65–68, Verz. 57, Fasc. 162.

28. Baden's reply to Rühle, Apr. 16, 1831, and Instructions to Fahnenberg, Apr. 20, 1831, BGLA, 48/1629.

29. Rühle's final report of May 14, 1831, as reported in Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” pp. 80–81.

30. Bangold to Wrede, June 11, 1831, BGSA, MA 24076; Wrede's letter of thanks to King William, June 13, 1831, WHSA, E 9, Kabinettsakten III, Bü. 25, No. 9; Böck, Wrede, p. 148.

31. Metternich to Schönburg, with enclosed political and military memorandums, Apr. 21, 1831, HHSA, Württemberg Fasc. 42; King Ludwig to Wrede, Apr. 30, 1831, BGSA, MA 24076; Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” p. 80.

32. In this regard see particularly Guichen, La révolution dejuillet, pp. 341–409; Hoffmann, Kurt M., Preussen und die Julimonarchie 1830–1834, Historische Studien, no. 288 (Berlin, 1936), pp. 56–83.Google Scholar

33. Metternich made a veiled threat by mentioning just such a situation to the Prussian military during discussions with General Friedrich von Röder in Vienna back in February. See Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” p. 6.

34. Metternich to Werner, Aug. 29, 1831, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 142.

35. See Bernstorff to Maltzahn, Aug. 21, 1831, HHSA, Deutsche Akten, Fasc. 59; Bernstorff to Küster, the political and military circulars, Aug. 15, 1831, BGSA, MA 24076.

36. Metternich to “Werner, Aug. 29, 1831, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 142.

37. Metternich to Clam, Sept. 11, 1831, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 142; Metternich to Schönburg, Sept. 8, 1831, HHSA, Württemberg, Fasc. 42; Metternich to Wrede, Sept. 8, 1831, in Bibl, Metternich in neuer Beleuchtung, pp. 242–43.

38. Werner to Metternich, Sept. 25, 1831, and the enclosures: Duke Carl of Mecklenburg to Wittgenstein, n.d., and Frederick William to Wittgenstein, Sept. 2, 1831, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 142. For the story based on Prussian sources see Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” p. 108.

39. Metternich to Clam, Oct. 9, 1831 (Reserved dispatch), and enclosures, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 142; Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” p. 110.

40. Diary notation of Oct. 30, 1831, in Graf, Anton Franzvon Osten, Prokesch, Aus den Tagebücher des Grafen Prokesch von Osten, 1830–1834, ed. Graf, Antonvon Osten, Prokesch (Vienna, 1909), p. 107;Google Scholar private letter of Metternich to Schönburg, Oct. 24, 1831, and enclosed memorandum, HHSA, Württemberg, Fasc. 42; Metternich to Wrede, Oct. 24, 1831, in Bibl, Metternich in neuer Beleuchtung, pp. 253–56.

41. Diary notation of Oct. 29, 1831, in Prokesch, Tagebücher, p. 106; editorial note regarding Gentz's diary entry of Oct. 29, 1831, in von Gentz, Friedrich, Tagebücher von Friedrich von Gentz (1829–1831), ed. Fournier, August and Winkler, Arnold (Vienna, 1920), pp. 328, 404.Google Scholar

42. Private letter of Metternich to Schönburg, Nov. 2, 1831, HHSA, Württemberg, Fasc. 42.

43. Metternich to Schönburg, Oct. 24, 1831, and Schönburg to Metternich, Nov. 4–10, 24, 1831, ibid.; Wrede to Metternich, Nov. 18, 1831, and editor's citations from Metternich to Spiegel, Nov. 9, 30, 1831, in Bibl, Metternich in neuet Beleuchtung, pp. 270–73, 267, 277–78; Metternich to Spiegel, Nov. 15, 1831, in Chroust, Anton, ed., Gesandtschaftsberichte aus München 1814–1848, Abteilung II: Die Berichte der österreichischen Gesandten, 4 vols., Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte, vols. 33, 36–38 (Munich, 1939–1942) (hereafter: BOG), 2: 372–73; Clam to Metternich, Nov. 7, 1831, HHSA, Preussen, Fasc. 142.Google Scholar

44. Prince Wilhelm Ludwig Georg zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein, former minister of police, then minister of the royal household; Johann Peter Friedrich Ancillon, chief of the political section of the Prussian foreign ministry; Karl Friedrich August, duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, half brother of Queen Louise, commander of the guard corps, president of the Staatsrat; General Karl Friedrich von dem Knesebeck, chief of the Prussian Fourth Army Corps.

45. Diary notation of Nov. 20, 1831, in Prokesch, Tagebücher, p. 114.

46. Droysen, “Zur Geschichte der preussischen Politik,” pp. 110–16; Hoffmann, Preussen und die Julimonarchie, pp. 85–91; Richter, Franz, Die europäische Problem der preussischen Staatspolitik und die revolutionäre Krisis von 1830 bis 1832, Forschungen zur neueren und neuesten Geschichte, no. 2 (Leipzig, 1933), pp. 177–81.Google Scholar