Perspective – The Congress of Vienna

World History Name: ______

E. Napp Date: ______

The Editor’s Reflection:

“By what standards should we measure the success of a peace conference? Should we insist that the delegates make their decisions in accordance with some absolute standard of what is ‘right’? Should we ask them to solve the problems that caused the war? Should we expect them to set aright the numerous issues in international affairs that disturbed the peace in a particular period? Should we require them to punish the vanquished in order to teach them a lesson? Or should we merely ask them, in the process of settling one war, to avoid making mistakes that might bring on another one? Obviously, the standards we adopt will have a marked effect on our judgment of the success of a peace conference.

Whether they like to or not, historians must always establish criteria for judgment. They ought to make these criteria clear and explicit so that their readers can establish a basis for agreement or disagreement. How can a reader judge the accuracy of an interpretation if he does not know the assumptions upon which the interpretation rests? If a writer does not state his criteria expressly, a reader who wants to determine the accuracy of the interpretation should think the argument through and then state the author’s criteria for himself. Developing this habit will help to make the student able to think more clearly for himself.

One peace conference which has been the subject of debate ever since it met in 1814-1815 is the Congress of Vienna, which drafted a settlement after the Napoleonic wars. Europe’s most important statesmen were present at Vienna. Their deliberations lasted for months and settled a number of issues for years to come. But did they settle these issues well?

Prince Metternich, the chief Austrian delegate, played an important role in the Congress and later helped to enforce its principles. Between 1815 and 1848 he was the most influential statesman in Europe. The statement of his political ‘faith’ in one of the selections below was written in 1820 at the time of uprisings in southern Europe, but it accurately reflects his ideas at the time of the congress itself. In this passage Metternich makes clear the conservative philosophy that helped give the Congress of Vienna a bad reputation among liberal nationalists. Because the Congress did not produce parliamentary governments ruling over free nations, many liberals argued that the peace was a poor one. But is this a good way to measure the success of a peace treaty?

The second excerpt is from the pen of Hajo Holborn, professor of history at Yale University. Professor Holborn here judges the peace conference both from the standpoint of the issues involved and for its influence on the future. Notice the way in which he sets forth the criteria by which he will evaluate the success of the Congress.

As you read these two excerpts, consider the following questions:

  1. What are the principles that seemed to guide Metternich’s thinking? Did reliance on such principles doom the Congress of Vienna to failure? Would they doom it by the standards of a liberal nationalist?
  2. What do you think of the comments Metternich makes in the middle of this excerpt about the difference in the ambitions of the rich and the poor?
  3. According to Holborn, what is the major measure of the success of a peace conference?
  4. What was the major failure of the men who wrote the Vienna settlement, according to Holborn?
  5. How should a historian judge whether a peace conference was a success or failure?

~ Edwin Fenton

Metternich’s Confession of Faith

Source:From Memoirs of Prince Metternich, London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1880-1882. Language simplified by Edwin Fenton.

“Europe today,” a famous writer recently said, “makes an intelligent man feel sad and a decent man feel horror.” It would be difficult to describe the present situation in better words.”

Kings have to wonder whether they will remain on their thrones; passions are released which aim at overthrowing everythingthat is respected as the basis of society; religion, public morality, laws, customs, rights, and duties, are all being attacked. Most people are not taking part in these attacks and revolutions. Some are carried away by the flood of events but most wish simply to preserve things the way they were.

What is the cause of all these evils? How have they come about? Why are they so widespread? Can something be done about it? These are questions which every good man who loves peace and order should ask himself. Peace and order – these are really one and the same thing, which all men need and should be grateful for…

…we must point out in particular the evil which is threatening to rob u s of the real blessings and enjoyments of civilization. This evil may be described in one word – presumption, an overconfidence which comes from the rapid development of the human mind in so many directions. It is this which today leads so many men astray, because almost everybody suffers from it.

Religion, morality, legislation, economy, politics, administration,all have become the common property of every man. Knowledgeseems to come by inspiration; experience has no value for our overconfident man; faith and trust is nothing to him. He puts in its placewhat he calls personal convictions and, to arrive at these convictions,eliminates all special study. Such application seems too petty for ourmodern men, who believe they are able to understand everything ina flash. Laws have no value for this modern man, simply because hehas not personally had a part in making them and he is too self-importantto approve of what "less gifted" men in generations beforehim have done. He himself is the source of power; why should hesubmit to things established by those who know less than he does?He may admit that certain laws were necessary in bygone, weakerdays, but they are no longer suitable for an age of reason and vigor. He sees himself in a world of universal perfection, an idea whichsome Germans refer to in absurd terms as theEmancipation of thePeople! ...

What are the main points of the passage?

It is chiefly the middle classes which are infected with this “moral gangrene” and it is only among them that the real leadersof the movement are to be found. It can really have no attraction forthe great mass of the people. They must spend too much of their livesworking for a living to waste time on such dreams. The people knowwhat is the happiest thing for them: this is to be able to count on thenext day, for it is the next day which will repay them for the caresand sorrows of today. They wish simple laws which protect themand their families and their possessions and are afraid of anythingwhich harms their jobs and makes their lives more difficult…

The dissatisfied classes are chiefly wealthy men who are lookingout for their own advantage at the expense of changing the way thingsare. This includes officials and writers and lawyers and teachers…

I am convinced that our way of life can no longer be saved unlessour governments act quickly and vigorously while they still are free to do this…

There is a rule of behavior common to individuals and to stateswhich has been proven correct because it has been practiced over thecenturies and in everyday life. This rule declares that “man shouldnot dream of changing things while emotionally excited about thematter; wisdom directs that at such moments we should limit ourselves to maintaining the status quo.”

If all kings will only accept this rule and prove by word and actiontheirdetermination not to change things without careful thought,they will find people everywhere who support them. If the governmentsestablish the principle of stability, this will not exclude futureimprovement of conditions. Firmness does not mean that nothing canchange. But, it is these individuals who bear the heavy responsibilityof government who should help their fellow-men to prosper. It isthe duty of governments to govern as the needs of the times require. Wise changes cannot be carried out if dissatisfied groups of men, whohave neither the right to ask for such changes nor the ability to keepthe changes from going too far, force them from the legal governmentalauthorities.

Respect for all iswhat we should have. That means there shouldbe freedom for every government to watch over the well-being of itsown people. There should exist a union between all governments toprevent the dissatisfied self-seekers from stirring up trouble in thevarious countries. Good citizens should have proper contempt for themeaningless words which these men use to stir up discontent. And,finally, there should be respect for change and new developmentalong slow, peaceful paths. These ought to be the ideas of all greatkings, and the world will be saved if they do something about them.It will be lost if they do not.

What are the main points of the passage?

THE POLITICAL COLLAPSE OF EUROPE / by Hajo Holborn

Reprinted by permission of Alfred A Knopf, Inc. Copyright1951 by Hajo Holborn. Pp. 27-32.

The peace settlement of Vienna has more often been condemnedthan praised. The accusation most frequently levelled against theCongress of Vienna has been that it lacked foresight in appraisingthe forces of modern nationalism and liberalism. Foresight is, indeed,one of the main qualities that distinguishes the statesman from themere political professional. But even a statesman can only build withthe bricks at hand and cannot hope to construct the second floor beforehe has modelled the first by which to shelter his own generation. Hisforesight of future developments can often express itself only bycautious attempts at keeping the way open for an evolution of thenew forces.

It is questionable how successful the Congress of Vienna was inthis respect. None of the Congress representatives was a statesmanor political thinker of the first historic rank. All of them were strongpartisans of conservatism or outright reaction, and they found therectitude of their convictions confirmed by the victory of the oldpowers over the revolutionary usurper. Still, they did not make areactionary peace. They recognized that France could not live withouta constitutional charter, and they knew, too, that the Holy RomanEmpire was beyond resurrection. The new German Confederationrepresented a great improvement of the political conditions ofGermany if one remembers that in Germany as well as in Italy thenational movements were not strong enough to serve as pillars ofa new order. In eastern Europe, furthermore, the modern ideas ofnationality had hardly found more than a small academic and literaryaudience. A peace treaty cannot create new historical forces; it canonly place the existing ones in a relationship most conducive to themaintenance of mutual confidence and least likely to lead to futureconflict. The rest must be left to the ever continuing and never finisheddaily work of statesmen.

In this light the Vienna settlement was a constructive peacetreaty. Its chief authors, Castlereagh, Metternich, Alexander I, andHardenberg, had a very inadequate vision of the ideas and forcesthat were to dominate the nineteenth century, but they had clearnotions about the vital necessity of establishing anequilibrium amongthe powers that determined the political life of Europe. They hadcarefully directed the war efforts of their countries with this necessityin mind and were able to create such an equilibrium in the Peace ofVienna.

The statesmen of Vienna, however, believed that it was notenough merely to revive the eighteenth century balance of power. The experience of common danger, shared by all the European states in the years between 1792 and 1815, would, it was thought, persuadethe states to look at the balance of power less as a means for the advancementof their selfish interests than as the foundation of concertedaction for the general welfare of the European community. These expectations were only partly fulfilled, but they were no idleand quickly forgotten dreams. During the early part of the nineteenthcentury the sharp conflicts of power were mitigated by a sense ofEuropean responsibility. And even when wars and national revolutionshad put this to a hard test after the middle of the century, acommon European consciousness survived.

What are the main points of the passage?

But the victorious powers failed in 1814-15 and in the yearsthereafter to create international institutions that embodied theseprinciples. The Congress of Aachen of 1818 codified the diplomaticrules among states, which had been vague before. This code, however,was helpful only in a technical sense and did not solve problemsof political substance. The sovereignty of states remained unimpaired. An attempt was made totransform the balance-of-power system intosome sort of federation of the four or, after the readmission of France,five big powers. The Concert of Europe, through regular meetings ofthe monarchs or their leading ministers, was tosettle the controversialpolitical issues. Four such conferences were held between 1818 and 1822 at Aachen, Troppau, Laibach, and Verona, but the nascentconfederation of Europe broke down, since the social and politicalobjectives of the five powers could not be unified.

The breach occurred over the question of whether or not theguarantee of the Vienna settlement by the five powers should extendtothe preservation of the monarchical governments that had beenrestored in 1815. Metternich and Alexander I were afraid of revolution. The rise of Napoleon, in their opinion, had been the result ofthe French Revolution and the demonic forces that it had set loose.

The European equilibrium was dependent on the stability of thesocial and political order of Europe. They urged, therefore, that thepowers that formed the five-power system…should intervene whereverinternal revolution threatened the "legitimate" order. Britain,on the other hand, even before the reform of 1832, felt differently.

Social and political change did not frighten British statesmen, who knew already that the new forces could not be submerged, but couldonly be guided and channeled…

Metternich's conception of a European political system restingupon the balance of power among the five major states, who would actin concert to maintain both international "tranquillity" and internal “stability,” could not be realized. Metternich has gained in historicalstature, since modern historians have refused to view him through theglasses of his nineteenth century liberal foes. He showed greatstrength in the heroic years of his career, 1812-15, in his inflexibledetermination to achieve a revival of the balance of power. But hisconfidence that the new Concert of Europe could make the social andpolitical processes of western Europe and possibly the whole worldstand still or even retrogress showed the limits of his political realism. He had no understanding of the dynamic forces that the industrialrevolution in England had produced in his own lifetime…Even interms of Austrian self-interest his policy of international and internalconservatism was a temporary, not a constructive, solution.

What are the main points of the passage?