Christian Friedrich Scharnweber

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johann Christian Friedrich Scharnweber (born February 10, 1770 in Weende ; † July 3, 1822 in Eberbach Monastery ) was a Prussian civil servant and was one of the designers of the Prussian reforms as a confidante of Karl August von Hardenberg . Although he was overshadowed by the leading figures of the reform era, he often had a strong influence on their decisions.

Life

Memorial plaque on the house, Hauptstrasse 44, in Berlin-Alt-Hohenschönhausen

His father was the tenant of a monastery property, but was guilty of embezzlement, which led to the impoverishment of the family. For this reason, his son could not attend higher education institutions and became a copyist and private secretary. He may then have devoted himself to agriculture or entered military service. He later became private secretary of a secret council, where he met Karl August von Hardenberg. Scharnweber took this to Ansbach . Hardenberg exercised considerable intellectual influence on Scharnweber and shaped his political views. Under Hardenberg he became a secret expeditionary secretary. After the Franconian department of the General Directory was formed in 1798 , he came to Berlin with Hardenberg and others of his confidants. There he was mainly occupied with financial issues and feudal matters. In the following years he rose to the council of war. After Hardenberg became State Chancellor in 1810, he supported him in the dispute with Wilhelm zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein . As a result, he became a close confidante of Hardenberg, whose property he had been managing since 1802.

Even if he did not belong to the Immediat-Commission for the economic reorganization of the Prussian state under the direction of Hardenberg and with significant participation of Friedrich von Raumer , he did advise the Chancellor. He belonged to the "Office of the State Chancellor", in which Hardenberg had assembled a small group of loyal, highly competent employees. Like Scharnweber himself, they had none of the usual administrative careers behind them and, as a “brain trust”, as the historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler put it, were able to develop ideas unencumbered by the administrative routine. It was precisely this group that had promoted Prussia's modernization policy.

After Raumer became a professor in Breslau in 1811 , Scharnweber assumed his central role in planning reforms in the agricultural sector. The concept of the regulation edict is essentially based on him. In contrast to the part of the reformers who wanted to strengthen the agricultural sector economically through the introduction of capitalist principles and who, in case of doubt, did not care about the situation of the peasants, Scharnweber was one of the few authoritative people who were peasant-friendly. For example, he advocated granting property to the peasants first and only then to carry out compensation for the nobility. His efforts to protect farmers were strictly rejected by the ultra-conservatives and contributed to provoking their opposition to the reform policy. The core of the Landeskulturedikt also goes back to Scharnweber. The same applies to the Gendarmerie Edict of 1812. Among other things, this was intended to expand the influence of the state in the countryside. This reinforced the rejection of Scharnweber by the nobility with Friedrich August Ludwig von der Marwitz as their mouthpiece. Incidentally, this edict never came into practical application.

The criticism of Scharnweber was facilitated by his personality. He had an unbridled temperament that made it difficult to deal with and that had contributed to both of the duel demands in his life. Besides, he was constantly in need of money. Scharnweber was the most hated official around the state chancellor on the part of the conservatives and von der Marwitz spoke of him as the “crazy Scharnweber”. Not only the proven conservatives, but also Freiherr vom Stein were critical of Scharnweber. Von Stein referred to him as a "dreamer."

Scharnweber recognized that the wars of liberation would weaken the position of the reformers against the reactionaries and he even suspected in 1813 that the reform opponents were in favor of the war for the same reason. During the wars of liberation, Scharnweber not only took care of further agricultural reforms, but also prepared a change in the Landsturmediktes. The different positions led to a conflict with August Neidhardt von Gneisenau , which ultimately ended in a duel. However, the king forbade it. This was not Scharnweber's only duel. Already in 1812 there had been a duel with the future mayor of Berlin, Friedrich von Bärensprung . In the area of ​​agricultural reforms, Scharnweber was unable to prevent restrictions in 1816. The regulation was limited to the viable farmers. However, it was possible to prevent the regulation edict from being abolished entirely. Scharnweber had argued that through the agrarian reforms the "culture, strength, freedom and welfare-inhibiting relationship" of the peasants' dependence on the nobility should be resolved so that the "bulk of the nation at least 400,000 families - and you are most intimately tied to the land the probable increase in their number and their prosperity will not only be a means of their own happiness, but also a fund to increase the value and use of the aristocratic possessions, and through all this to raise the strength of the state as far as its natural constitution and location only any permission. "

Scharnweber received the Golzow office in the Lebus district as a thank you for his services . He sold it again shortly afterwards. Since 1817 he owned the estate and property Hohenschönhausen . In 1817 he was appointed to the State Council. In the State Council itself, he was particularly involved in the deliberations on the common divisions. He supported Hardenberg in his resistance to reactionary politics. After attacks by the Crown Prince, who later became King Friedrich Wilhelm IV , in 1820, Scharnweber submitted a memorandum to defend Hardenberg's policy. In this context he clearly summarized the objectives of the Prussian reform policy. After that, Hardenberg's policy was of a new quality in a deep state crisis. The aim was to fulfill a double purpose: “to save the state and to set its internal circumstances in such a way” that, on the one hand, they grant “what the time required and permitted”, and secondly “prevent and render harmless everything attempted or could be attempted to spread revolutionary tendencies among us and to make them effective. "

Scharnweber spent the last years of his life in a state of mental derangement. He died in the madhouse in Eberbach in 1822. His son was the Prussian politician Georg Scharnweber .

Web links

Commons : Christian Friedrich Scharnweber  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Hans-Ulrich Wehler: German history of society. Vol. 1: From the feudalism of the Old Kingdom to the defensive modernization of the reform era. Munich, 1989 p. 402
  2. ^ Hans-Ulrich Wehler: German history of society. Vol. 1: From the feudalism of the Old Kingdom to the defensive modernization of the reform era. Munich, 1989 p. 413
  3. Thomas Nipperdey: German History 1800-1866. Citizen world and strong state. Munich, 1998 p. 46
  4. ^ Georg Moll: Hardenbergs Agrarian Reforms. In: Thomas Stamm-Kuhlmann: "Free use of forces." An inventory of Hardenberg research. Munich, 2001 p. 97
  5. Ernst Klein: From Reform to Restoration. Berlin, 1964 p. 262
  6. ^ Georg Moll: Hardenbergs Agrarian Reforms. In: Thomas Stamm-Kuhlmann: "Free use of forces." An inventory of Hardenberg research. Munich, 2001 p. 115
  7. ^ Wilhelm Treue: Economic and technical history of Prussia. Berlin / New York, 1984 p. 272
  8. ^ Hans-Ulrich Wehler: German history of society. Vol. 2: From the reform era to the industrial and political "" German double revolution. "" Munich, 1989 p. 314
  9. ^ Wilhelm Treue: Economic and technical history of Prussia. Berlin / New York, 1984 p. 306
  10. ^ Hans-Ulrich Wehler: German history of society. Vol. 1: From the feudalism of the Old Kingdom to the defensive modernization of the reform era. Munich, 1989 p. 352

literature