After the Revolution: Nationalism and the Public Sphere in Germany, 1848-1888

该项目考察了新形成的政治环境和政党学说之间的关系，一方面，迅速变化的概念和政策对民族国家在德国，另一方面。从1848年到19世纪80年代，德国出现了政党，扩大了国家公共领域，并在1848- 1849年和1867- 1871年形成了一个单一的德意志国家。与大多数19世纪民族主义的研究不同，这些研究往往集中在民族主义组织，或者最近的民族主义思想或孤立的象征主义，并集中在自称的“民族主义者”身上，这本书着眼于所有政党对国家的态度，并将竞争的国家平台视为一种政治形式，无论是国内还是国外。研究表明，在1848年至1849年的革命期间，新形成的政治精英是如何被迫匆忙设计一个新的政体和德意志民族国家的。这种设计国家的需要--以及逃避本国限制性政策的需要--使德国的民族问题在1848年后成为高度政治化的问题。自由主义者最初主导了许多“三月内阁”、州议会、法兰克福议会和新兴的公共领域，他们在很大程度上为交织在一起的宪法和国家问题设定了条件。这两个问题的重叠之处在于，根据统治者和被统治者在某种程度上应该相似的新要求，对国家的合法性提出了根本性的质疑，根据国家标准和法律的条约划定边界，以及公民身份的定义--问谁是公民，谁不是--这是前所未有的政治参与水平和新形式的宪法编纂的必然结果。自由主义者对1848年一个意想不到的“民族问题”的回答，仍然与他们的政治和宪法审议密切相关，被其他政治团体广泛接受，甚至在19世纪50年代的“反动”时期，各州政府也只是半心半意地提出质疑。1848- 1849年，人们一致认为，国家政体必须是立宪制、代议制、君主制和联邦制的。这些政治条件的持续存在，在随后的几十年里，往往证实了在革命期间产生的印象，即奥地利在德国统一中只会发挥边缘作用，除了作为一个障碍，因为它支持一个松散的邦联，在1850年强行恢复旧外滩，它仍然怀疑宪政，议会和有限的君主制。普鲁士历届政府虽然受到“第三德国”部分公众舆论的批评，也遭到巴伐利亚、萨克森和符腾堡等州的反对，但对放弃1848年的政治遗产更为谨慎。此外，普鲁士也处于革命期间划定的国界之内，并遵守民族原则，包含了一个庞大而占主导地位的德语多数。奥地利不符合这两个标准，在19世纪50年代和60年代关于统一的公开辩论中被边缘化。这种公开辩论是由温和的自由主义者或“立宪主义者”领导的，他们在反动时期被允许有更多的自由来讨论国家事务而不是政治事务。国家公共领域的继续存在，使人们能够以类似于1848- 1849年的方式传播和讨论国家问题。各州政府试图培养地方爱国主义和对外滩进行改革，但这并没有取代或削弱自由主义主导的关于德意志民族国家的辩论。这些争论在19世纪60年代末、70年代和80年代仍然具有影响力，限制了政治家的选择。

The project examines the relationship between newly forming political milieux and party doctrines , on the one hand, and rapidly changing conceptions of and policies towards the nation-state in Germany, on the other. The years between 1848 and the 1880s witnessed the emergence of political parties, the expansion of a national public sphere, and the formation - in 1848-49 and again in 1867-71 - of a single German state. Unlike most investigations of nineteenth-century nationalism, which have tended to concentrate on nationalist organisations or, more recently, nationalist thought or symbolism in isolation and have concentrated on self-proclaimed 'nationalists', this volume looks at all parties' attitudes to the nation and treats competing national platforms as a form of politics, both domestic and foreign. The study shows how newly formed political elites were forced during the revolution of 1848-49 hastily to design both a new polity and a German nation-state. This need to design a state - and to escape the restrictive policies of one's own state - made the national question in Germany a highly political one after 1848. Liberals, who initially dominated many 'March Ministries', state assemblies, the Frankfurt Parliament and the emergent public sphere, largely set the terms of the intertwined constitutional and national questions. The overlap between the two questions consisted of a fundamental questioning of the state's legitimacy in light of the new requirement that rulers and ruled should be similar in some way, on the delineation of borders according to national criteria and legal treaties, and on a definition of citizenship - asking who was a citizen and who was not - as a corollary of unprecedented levels of political participation and novel forms of constitutional codification. Liberals' answers to an unexpected 'national question' in 1848, which remained closely tied to their political and constitutional deliberations, were widely accepted by other political groupings and only half-heartedly contested by the governments of the individual states, even during the period of 'reaction' during the 1850s. A national polity, it had been agreed in 1848-49, had to be constitutional, representative, monarchical and federal. The persistence of these political conditions tended to confirm in subsequent decades the impression which had been created during the revolution, against expectations, that Austria would play only a marginal role in German unification, except as an obstacle, since it supported a loose confederation, imposing the restoration of the old Bund in 1850, and it remained sceptical of constitutionalism, parliaments, and limited monarchy. Successive Prussian governments, although criticised by some sections of public opinion in the 'third Germany' and opposed by states such as Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, were warier of renouncing the political legacy of 1848. What was more, Prussia also lay within the national borders defined during the revolution and conformed to the principle of nationality, containing a large and dominant German-speaking majority. Austria met neither of these criteria, marginalising it in public debates about unification during the 1850s and 1860s. Such public debates were led by moderate liberals, or 'constitutionalists', who were allowed more freedom to discuss national than political affairs during the era of reaction. The continued existence of a national public sphere allowed the dissemination and discussion of the national question in terms similar to those set in 1848-49. The attempts of state governments to foster local patriotism and to reform the Bund did little to replace or undermine liberal-dominated debates about a German nation-state. These debates remained influential, limiting the options available to statesmen, in the late 1860s, 1870s and 1880s.