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

该项目一方面考察了新形成的政治环境和政党学说与德国迅速变化的民族国家概念和政策之间的关系。从1848年到1880年代，见证了政党的出现，国家公共领域的扩大，并在1848-49年和1867-71年形成了一个单一的德国国家。与对19世纪民族主义的大多数研究不同，这本书着眼于所有政党对国家的态度，并将相互竞争的国家纲领视为一种政治形式，无论是国内还是国外，都倾向于孤立地关注民族主义组织或最近的民族主义思想或象征主义，并集中于自称的民族主义。这项研究展示了1848-49年革命期间，新形成的政治精英是如何被迫仓促地设计一个新的政体和一个德国民族国家的。这种需要设计一个国家--并逃离自己国家的限制性政策--使1848年后德国的民族问题成为一个高度政治化的问题。自由派最初主导了许多3月的部委、州议会、法兰克福议会和新兴的公共领域，他们在很大程度上设定了相互交织的宪法和国家问题的条款。这两个问题之间的重叠之处包括：根据尺子和被统治者应该在某种程度上相似的新要求，对国家合法性的根本质疑；根据国家标准和法律条约划定边界的问题；以及公民身份的定义--询问谁是公民，谁不是公民--这是前所未有的政治参与程度和新颖的宪法编纂形式的必然结果。自由主义者在1848年对一个意想不到的“国家问题”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，但只被个别州的政府半心半意地质疑，即使在19世纪50年代的“反应”时期也是如此。1848年至1849年达成一致的国家政体必须符合宪法、代议制、君主制和联邦制。这些政治条件的持续存在往往会在接下来的几十年里印证革命期间产生的印象，即奥地利在德国统一过程中只会扮演一个边缘角色，除非作为一个障碍，因为它支持一个松散的邦联，在1850年强制恢复旧外滩，它仍然对宪政、议会和有限的君主制持怀疑态度。历届普鲁士政府，虽然受到“第三德国”部分舆论的批评，并遭到巴伐利亚、萨克森和符腾堡州等州的反对，但在放弃1848年的政治遗产方面更加谨慎。更重要的是，普鲁士也位于革命期间确定的国家边界内，符合国籍原则，包含了说德语的大多数和占主导地位的多数。奥地利没有达到这两个标准，在19世纪50年代和60年代关于统一的公开辩论中，奥地利被边缘化了。这种公开辩论是由温和派自由派或“立宪派”领导的，在反动时代，他们被允许更自由地讨论国家事务，而不是政治事务。国家公共领域的继续存在使国家问题得以传播和讨论，其内容类似于1848-49年确定的内容。州政府培养地方爱国主义和改革外滩的努力，几乎没有取代或破坏自由派主导的关于德国民族国家的辩论。在19世纪60年代末、19世纪70年代和80年代，这些辩论仍然具有影响力，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.