Plenipotentiary of the state governments

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenipotentiaries of the state governments were to represent the interests of the individual states at the German central authority in 1848/1849. Despite efforts to the contrary by many states, they did not form their own (formal) body because the central authority refused to do so. Out of competitive thinking, the central power weakened the role of the plenipotentiaries, who otherwise could have been an important pillar for German unification.

Central Power Act and decree of the Reich Administrator

Reichsverweser Archduke Johann von Österreich was the provisional head of state of Germany in 1848/1849

The term authorized representative of the state governments appears in Article 14 of the Reich Law on Central Power of June 28, 1848:

"In relation to the enforcement measures, the central authority must, as far as practicable, come to an agreement with the representatives of the state governments."

The Reichsverweser then wrote in a decree of July 16, 1848:

“The provisional central authority will, as far as practicable, come to an agreement with the representatives of the state governments in relation to the enforcement measures; she hopes that these agents will be appointed to the provisional central authority as soon as possible so that they can contact them. The provisional central authority wishes to be fully acquainted with the needs of the German governments and the German tribes insofar as they affect the sphere of activity determined by the law of June 28, 1848, and it counts on frank, frank communication, which it too will know how to obey in all their actions. "

On July 17, Prussia called on the individual states to form a council of seven or eleven state plenipotentiaries. By the end of August, almost all German states appointed an authorized representative, without mutual agreement, for a common task or coordination. In some cases, the power of attorney for the individual authorized representatives said that they should consult with their colleagues.

Organizational attempt by the authorized representative

On August 17, 1848, most of those who had already been appointed met at the Bremen representative, Johann Smidt . Most of the smaller and medium-sized states were in favor of a joint approach, because they feared that the larger states would go it alone; Together with the central authority, these could possibly bring about a mediatization of the small states, i.e. a complete subordination or incorporation. The Braunschweig representative Friedrich Liebe developed an expertise on behalf of his colleagues, which he presented the following day.

According to Liebe, the affairs of central government in a state were automatically communal affairs of the states. It follows from Art. 14 of the Central Power Act that the agents cannot act individually. Because of the community they would have to act collectively as an organ and involve the Reich Ministers for this purpose. The plenipotentiaries agreed to love and called on the central authorities to treat them as an organ and no longer address the individual states directly.

Negative attitude of the central authority

Ludolf Camphausen , the Prussian authorized representative

The Reich ministers feared that a secondary power could arise here instead of the Bundestag. According to a paper by Undersecretary of State Friedrich Bassermann , the wording of the Central Power Act does not require an agreement with the authorized representative. The central authority can therefore freely decide whether communication through the authorized representatives is appropriate in the respective case.

In the Council of Ministers on August 26, Finance Minister Hermann von Beckerath disagreed with the assessment that one should simply bypass the authorized representative. Article 14 even means that the authorized representatives have a fundamental right to participate, but only in the sense of an advisory function and not as a collective body. The authorized representatives could take on a useful mediator function and should be involved early on and given the opportunity to point out impending difficulties. At least as a rule, the traffic should run through the authorized representative.

The Ministers Leiningen , Schmerling , Mohl and Heckscher agreed with Bassermann, while Peucker , Duckwitz and Undersecretary Mevissen followed Beckerath's considerate attitude. The Council of Ministers finally denied that the plenipotentiaries could conduct their business collectively and that they were not allowed to "decisively" influence the decisions of the central authority. Its task is to facilitate the implementation of the central authority decisions. This was also communicated to the individual states.

The Council of Ministers approved the plenipotentiary, according to Ralf Heikaus, rather only the role of an "official mail carrier". But the Bremen Johann Smidt was cautiously confident that the matter would be okay with the agreement. The answer of the central authority was written out of consideration for the National Assembly, the practice would be different. In practice, however, formal contact between the Reich Ministers and the authorized representatives was very sparse. Mohl later said that the attitude of the Reichsminister was wrong, since the plenipotentiaries could have been an important pillar of the German cause. Jörg-Detlef Kühne also said that Liebes proposal for a kind of upper house could have given the development a better turn.

Later, however, Reich Minister President Heinrich von Gagern tried to involve the plenipotentiaries in the construction of the empire. Around May 9, the Reich Ministry met with the authorized representatives on how to proceed in the Reich constitution campaign , shortly before the Reich Ministers resigned the day after.

See also

swell

  • No. 88 (No. 84). Decree of the Reich administrator to the German governments regarding the takeover of provisional central authority on July 16, 1848 . In: Ernst Rudolf Huber: Documents on German constitutional history. Volume 1: German constitutional documents 1803-1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1978 (1961), p. 343.
  • No. 92 (No. 86). Circular letter from the Reich administrator on the position of the state plenipotentiaries in the Reich Central Authority dated August 30, 1848 . In: Ernst Rudolf Huber: Documents on German constitutional history. Volume 1: German constitutional documents 1803-1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1978 (1961), pp. 346/347.

Web links

supporting documents

  1. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, pp. 131/132.
  2. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, pp. 133/134.
  3. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, pp. 134/135.
  4. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, pp. 136/137.
  5. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, pp. 137/138.
  6. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, pp. 137/138.
  7. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Diss. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main a. a., 1997, p. 140.
  8. ^ Jörg-Detlef Kühne: The imperial constitution of the Paulskirche. Model and realization in later German legal life. Habil. Bonn 1983, 2nd edition, Luchterhand, Neuwied 1998 (1985), p. 39.
  9. ^ Frank Möller: Heinrich von Gagern. A biography . Habilitation thesis, University of Jena 2004, p. 342.