Iron Kingdom : The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 (137 page)

60.
Cited in Felix Gilbert,
Johann Gustav Droysen und die preussisch-deutsche Frage
(Munich and Berlin, 1931), p. 122.

61.
Johann Gustav Droysen, ‘Zur Charakteristik der europäischen Krisis’, Minerva (1854), reprinted in id.,
Politische Schriften
, ed. Felix Gilbert (Munich and Berlin, 1933), pp. 302–42, here p. 341. The word ‘Forward’ is a reference to Blücher, who was affectionately known as ‘Marshal Forward’.

62.
On the operations of the three-class system in Prussia, with a full analysis of voting patterns over its lifetime, see Thomas Kühne,
Handbuch der Wahlen zum preussischen Abgeordnetenhaus 1867–1918. Wahlergebnisse, Wahlbündnisse und Wahlkandidaten
(Düsseldorf, 1994).

63.
Eberhard Naujoks,
Die parlamentarische Entstehung des Reichspressegesetzes in der Bismarckzeit (1848/74)
(Düsseldorf, 1975); Wolfram Siemann,
Gesellschaft im Aufbruch 1849–1871
(Frankfurt/Main, 1990), pp. 42, 65–7.

64.
Cf. G. R. Elton,
The Tudor Revolution in Government. Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII
(Cambridge, 1969), which deals of course with a very different subject matter, but speaks of a period ‘when the needs of good government prevailed over the demands of free government’ and ‘order and peace seemed more important than principles and rights’ (p. 1) and perceives in administrative innovation a process of ‘controlled upheaval’ (p. 427).

65.
A useful comparative survey of constitutional innovation across Europe is Martin Kisch and Pierangelo Schiera (eds.),
Verfassungswandel um 1848 im europäischen Vergleich
(Berlin, 2001); see esp. the introductory essay by Kisch, ‘Verfassungswandel um 1848 – Aspekte der Rezeption und des Vergleichs zwischen den europäischen Staaten’, pp. 31–62.

66.
Barclay,
Friedrich Wilhelm IV
, p. 183.

67.
H. Wegge,
Die Stellung der Öffentlichkeit zur oktroyierten Verfassung und die preussische Parteibildung 1848/49
(Berlin, 1932), pp. 45–8; quotation p. 48.

68.
Barclay,
Friedrich Wilhem IV
, p. 221.

69.
Günther Grünthal,
Parlamentarismus in Preussen 1848/49–1857/58: Preussischer Konstitutionalismus – Parlament und Regierung in der Reaktionsära
(Düsseldorf, 1982), p. 185.

70.
Ibid., p. 392.

71.
William J. Orr, ‘The Prussian Ultra Right and the Advent of Constitutionalism in Prussia’,
Canadian Journal of History
, 11 (1976), pp. 295–310, here p. 307; Heinrich Heffter, ‘Der Nachmärzliberalismus: Die Reaktion der fünfziger Jahre’, in Hans-Ulrich Wehler (ed.),
Moderne deutsche Sozialgeschichte
(Cologne, 1966), pp. 177–96, here pp. 181–3; Hans Rosenberg, ‘Die Pseudodemokratisierung der Rittergutsbesitzerklasse’, in id.,
Machteliten und Wirtschaftskonjunkturen. Studien zur neueren deutschen Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte
(Göttingen, 1978), p. 94.

72.
For an excellent comparative discussion of conservative-liberal modernization in Prussia and Austria, see Arthur Schlegelmilch, ‘Das Projekt der konservativ-liberalen Modernisierung und die Einführung konstitutioneller Systeme in Preussen und österreich, 1848/49’, in Kisch and Schiera (eds.),
Verfassungswandel
, pp. 155–77.

73.
James Brophy,
Capitalism, Politics and Railroads in Prussia, 1830–1870
(Columbus, OH, 1998), pp. 165–75.

74.
Grünthal,
Parlamentarismus
, pp. 281–6.

75.
Prince Wilhelm to Otto von Manteuffel, director in the interior ministry under Camphausen, 7 April 1848, cited in Karl-Heinz Börner,
Wilhelm I Deutscher Kaiser und König von Preussen. Eine Biographie
(Berlin, 1984), p. 81.

76.
Grünthal,
Parlamentarismus
, p. 476.

77.
Charles Tilly, ‘The Political Economy of Public Finance and the Industrialization of Prussia 1815–1866’,
Journal of Economic History
, 26 (1966), pp. 484–97, here p. 490.

78.
Ibid., p. 494.

79.
Ibid., p. 492.

80.
Brophy,
Capitalism, Politics and Railroads
, p. 58.

81.
Grünthal,
Parlamentarismus
, p. 476.

82.
H. Winkel,
Die deutsche Nationalökonomie im 19. Jahrhundert
(Darmstadt, 1977), pp. 86–7, 95. On this view as an instance of the German engagement with ‘Smithianism’, see E. Rothschild, ‘ “Smithianismus” and Enlightenment in Nineteenth-century Europe’, King’s College Cambridge: Centre for History and Economics, October 1998.

83.
David Hansemann, cited in Brophy,
Capitalism, Politics and Railroads
, p. 50.

84.
Brophy,
Capitalism, Politics and Railroads
, pp. 50, 56, 58. Von der Heydt’s policy of nationalization was reversed in the 1860s.

85.
James Brophy, ‘The Political Calculus of Capital: Banking and the Business Class in Prussia, 1848–1856’,
Central European History
, 25 (1992), pp. 149–76; id., ‘The Juste Milieu: Businessmen and the Prussian State during the New Era and the Constitutional Conflict’, in Holtz and Spenkuch (eds.),
Preussens Weg
, pp. 193–224.

86.
On the Techen scandal, see Barclay,
Friedrich Wilhelm IV
, pp. 252–5.

87.
D. Fischer,
Handbuch der politischen Presse in Deutschland, 1480–1980. Synopse rechtlicher, struktureller und wirtschaftlicher Grundlagen der Tendenzpublizistik im Kommunikationsfeld
(Düsseldorf, 1981), pp. 60–61, 65; Kurt Koszyk,
Deutsche Presse im 19. Jahrhundert
(Berlin, 1966), p. 123; F. Schneider,
Pressefreiheit und politische öffentlichkeit
(Neuwied, 1966), p. 310.

88.
Kurt Wappler,
Regierung und Presse in Preussen. Geschichte der amtlichen Pressestellen, 1848–62
(Leipzig, 1935), p. 94.

89.
R. Kohnen,
Pressepolitik des deutschen Bundes. Methoden staatlicher Pressepolitik nach der Revolution von 1848
(Tübingen, 1995), p. 174.

90.
Wappler,
Regierung und Presse
, pp. 3–4.

91.
Ibid., pp. 16–17.

92.
Barclay,
Friedrich Wilhelm
IV, p. 262.

93.
Wappler,
Regierung und Presse
, p. 5.

94.
Manteuffel to Rochow, 3 July 1851, cited in Wappler,
Regierung und Presse
, p. 91. On the transition from censorship to news management in the lesser German states, see Abigail Green,
Fatherlands. Statebuilding and Nationhood in Nineteenth-century Germany
(Cambridge, 2001), pp. 148–88.

1.
The Times
, 23 October 1860, cited in Raymond James Sontag,
Germany and England. Background of Conflict 1848–1898
(New York, 1938, reprint, 1969), p. 33.

2.
Ernst Portner,
Die Einigung Italiens im Urteil liberaler deutscher Zeitgenossen
(Bonn, 1959), pp. 65, 119–22, 172–8; Angelow,
Von Wien nach Königgrätz
, pp. 190–200.

3.
Mosse,
The European Great Powers
, pp. 49–77.

4.
See, with literature, Dierk Walter,
Preussische Heeresreformen 1807–1870. Militärische Innovation und der Mythos der “Roonschen Reform”
(Paderborn, 2003).

5.
English reprint in Helmut Böhme (ed.),
The Foundation of the German Empire. Select
Documents
, trans. Agatha Ramm (Oxford, 1971), pp. 93–5.

6.
Börner,
Wilhelm I
, pp. 17, 21.

7.
Crown Prince William to General O. von Natzmer, Berlin, 20 May 1849, in Ernst Berner (ed.),
Kaiser Wilhelm des Grossen Briefe, Reden und Schriften
(2 vols., Berlin, 1906), vol. 1, pp. 202–3. Citation from May 1850 in Börner,
Wilhelm I
, p. 115. On William’s nationalism generally, see pp. 96–101.

8.
Craig,
Politics of the Prussian Army
, pp. 136–79. For a powerful revisionist account of the military reforms, which explodes many longstanding myths (among others, the view that the mobilization of 1859 was an utter fiasco) see Walter,
Heeresreformen
.

9.
On Manteuffel, see Otto Pflanze,
Bismarck and the Development of Germany
(2nd edn, 3 vols., Princeton, NJ, 1990), vol. 1,
The Period of Unification, 1815–1871
, pp. 171–3, 182–3, 208; Ritter,
Staatskunst
, vol. 1, pp. 174–6, 231–4; Craig,
Politics of the Prussian Army
, pp. 149–50, 232–5.

10.
Craig,
Politics of the Prussian Army
, pp. 151–7.

11.
Sheehan,
German History
, p. 879.

12.
For a discussion of this letter, see Lothar Gall,
The White Revolutionary
, trans. J. A. Underwood (2 vols., London, 1986), vol. 1, p. 16.

13.
Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 3–34; cf. Ernst Engelberg,
Bismarck. Urpreusse und Reichsgründer
(2 vols., Berlin, 1998), vol. 1, pp. 39–40, which makes the point that the Mencken connection in no way undermined the status pretensions of the Bismarcks and finds little trace of a ‘self-consciously bourgeois’ mentality among the Bismarck ancestors.

14.
Cited in Gall,
White Revolutionary
, vol. 1, p. 57.

15.
Letter to his cousin, 13 February 1847, cited in ibid., pp. 18–19.

16.
Cited in Pflanze,
The Period of Unification
, p. 82.

17.
Allen Mitchell, ‘Bonapartism as a Model for Bismarckian Politics’,
Journal of Modern History
, 49 (1977), pp. 181–99.

18.
Bismarck to Crown Prince Frederick, 13 October 1862, in Kaiser Friedrich III,
Tagebücher von 1848–1866
, ed. H. O. Meisner (Leipzig, 1929), p. 505.

19.
Craig,
Politics of the Prussian Army
, p. 167.

20.
After the German-Danish war of 1848 had ended in the stalemate of Malmö, the issue was settled (or so everyone thought) by a series of international treaties signed in 1851 and 1852. These acknowledged the right of Frederick VII’s prospective successor, Crown Prince Christian of Glücksburg, to reign as sovereign over the Kingdom of Denmark and the duchies; in return, the Danes had to promise not to annex Schleswig or tamper with the constitutional status of the duchies without first consulting the (largely German) Estates of the two disputed principalities.

21.
For a full analysis of Bismarck’s reasoning, see Pflanze,
Bismarck
, vol. 1, pp. 237–67. For a useful overview of the run-up to the war, see Dennis Showalter,
The Wars of German Unification
(London, 2004), pp. 117–22; Craig,
Politics of the Prussian Army
, pp. 180–84.

22.
Showalter,
Wars of German Unification
, p. 126.

23.
Wolfgang Förster (ed.),
Prinz Friedrich Karl von Preussen, Denkwürdigkeiten aus seinem Leben
(2 vols., Stuttgart, 1910), vol. 1, pp. 307–9.

24.
Albrecht von Roon,
Denkwürdigkeiten
, (5th edn, 3 vols., Berlin, 1905), vol. 2, pp. 244–6.

25.
Pflanze,
Bismarck
, vol. 1, pp. 271–9.

26.
Siemann,
Gesellschaft im Aufbruch
, pp. 99–123; Wehler,
Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte
, vol. 3,
Von der ‘Deutschen Doppelrevolution’ bis zum Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges 1849–1914
, pp. 66–97.

27.
Pflanze,
Bismarck
, vol. 1, p. 290.

28.
Bismarck to Baron Karl von Werther, Berlin, 6 August 1864, in Böhme (ed.),
Foundation of the German Empire
, pp. 128–9.