Remission of homage

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Imperial Administrator Archduke Johann of Austria , 1848, the provisional German head of state

A circular letter from the German Reich Minister of War Eduard von Peucker to the war ministries of the individual German states on July 16, 1848 is referred to as a tribute decree . The respective armies of the individual states were to pay homage to the imperial administrator in a parade on August 6 and wear the German colors .

Only the smaller states complied, while the larger ones, such as Prussia or Austria, refused to accept the request or only partially carried out the decree. Where there was no state homage, citizens often organized festivals with the involvement of their vigilante groups. The question of homage showed how fragile the cooperation between the central authority and, above all, the larger individual states was.

Emerge

Window scene during the entry of the Reich Administrator into Frankfurt (July 1848), painting by Moritz Daniel Oppenheim

It was in the interest of the central authority that it could dispose of the federal or imperial troops in order to be able to act against unrest and also attacks against the National Assembly. Fractions on the left and in the middle of the National Assembly had demanded that the federal troops be sworn into central authority; the central power, however, opted for the more moderate form of homage.

In July 1848, the central power consisted of only three Reich ministers. Foreign Minister Johann Gustav Heckscher traveled to Vienna with the Reichsverweser. Interior Minister Anton von Schmerling and War Minister Eduard von Peucker decided on July 15 or 16, as Reichsministerrat alone, to notify the respective ministries of the individual states of their respective appointments. To this end, both Reich Ministers wrote a circular for their respective area; the imperial administrator only found out about it afterwards.

Reichsverweser Johann: Appeal to the German people , July 15, 1848

According to the Central Authority Act of June 28, the Reichsverweser (a substitute monarch in the provisional constitutional order) took over the "overall direction of the entire armed power" (Art. 2, letter b). Peucker wanted to report this overhead line to the war ministries of the individual states. He himself was a Prussian general and when he took over the Reich Ministry of War had insisted that the individual states retain their military independence. But the circular was misunderstood; It was assumed that Peucker wanted to immediately take over or exercise command of all troops in Germany. The content of the circular clearly speaks of a request to the war ministries that, in urgent cases, orders from the Reich Administrator be passed on to the troops.

Interior Minister Schmerling was primarily behind the circular. He not only wanted to demonstrate the strength of the central authority, but also to meet the demands of the left in a milder form: The left had demanded that all troops be sworn in to the imperial administrator. Schmerling was therefore primarily responsible for the consequences of the decree of homage, while Peucker was not a member of the National Assembly, did not take part in the discussions there and could therefore possibly not correctly assess the political implications of the circular. Schmerling later admitted that the decree was a mistake.

content

Eduard von Peucker , Reich Minister of War

The circular refers to the Central Power Act of June 28, 1848 and the formation of the Reich Ministry. The royal Prussian Major General Eduard von Peucker, the undersigned, was appointed Reich Minister of War. He hereby announces his appointment. In urgent exceptional cases, the Reich Minister of War would give orders; He asks the War Department to instruct the respective troops to obey these orders: Literally it says:

"The undersigned Reich War Minister has the honor of requesting the War Ministry for now to enter into dealings with the Reich War Ministry immediately in all matters within the sphere of activity of the Reich War Ministry, but to want to instruct the troops in its area, which exceptionally in particularly urgent cases, directly to them to follow orders issued by the Reich Ministry of War immediately. "

He also asked for information about the state and needs of the federal troops. Since the Reichsverweser has taken over the "overall direction of the entire German armed power", all troops are to take note of the Reichsverweser's appeal to the German people and to pay a "public homage" to the Reichsverweser. For this purpose, on Sunday, August 6th, 1848, "all German federal troops in their garrisons in parade" should march out. The appeal is to be read out to them, the Reichsverweser is to be given a "three times high life" and a three-time salvo of cannons is to be fired. If not already done, the troops should put on " the German colors ".

Compliance

All states followed the homage decree in terms of its meaning and form, with the exception of the largest and most important states Austria , Prussia , Bavaria and Hanover . They did it only partially or hardly at all. In the specialist literature, it is sometimes said in a simplistic way that the states or the larger states have not followed the decree.

The Reichsverweser himself spent the day in Frankfurt am Main , in the Hotel Russischer Hof, with his wife and son. After the appeal to the German people had been read out and had been celebrated three times, the troops parade in front of the hotel of the imperial administrator. When he and his family showed up, “there was a new burst of life from the ranks of the military as well as the crowded masses”, it said in a newspaper.

In Hanover, the military parade was canceled ten minutes before the start, allegedly the weather was too bad. The troops received the contents of the decree only by order of the day. Württemberg followed the decree; when the left imperial government declared the imperial administrator deposed in June 1849 and wanted to subordinate himself to the Württemberg imperial general von Miller, the latter referred to the homage. As a soldier it forbids him to decide whether the Reichsverweser has been deposed or not.

Austria

A public military parade of the garrison took place in Vienna. Only the battalion, which belonged to the federal contingent of Austria, put on the German colors for the parade and immediately removed them again. War Minister Latour complained to the Reichsverweser that the decree was tactless and presumptuous and harmed army discipline. The Reichsverweser replied that he knew nothing of the decree. (Paradoxically, Reichsverweser Archduke Johann had not only installed the Reich Ministry, but also the Austrian government on behalf of his imperial nephew.)

Prussia

Even where no homage was paid, Germans celebrated the Reichsverweser on August 6, here at a pageant to Kreuzberg near Berlin.

Reactions in the capital

The Prussian government announced in a frosty letter to the Reich Ministry that it would not comply with the decree. She cited the fact that the Prussian army also includes troops from areas that are not part of the German Confederation . They could not be expected to attend the homage ceremony. In addition, the Prussian troops in the service of the Confederation had already put on the German colors, and there had already been a military celebration when the Reich administrator was elected. In a daily order dated July 29, the Prussian king repeated that he had agreed to the imperial administration of Johann and promised that Prussian troops could be placed under the command of Johann for federal purposes , but only with the express order of the king.

Max von Gagern was in Berlin in August and wrote to his brother Heinrich von Gagern , the President of the National Assembly, that he had “an evil, sinister spirit”. The bad tendency there for the National Assembly and the central authority does not come from the Prussian government alone, but “follows the crowd more than it leads; the philistine tribal jealousy, the fear of the shopkeepers, the beggarly junkerism in the provinces and in the army, in short everything that hinders a revival of the nation seems to be awakening to new life [...]. "

Celebrate in the province

On August 6th, Prussian parades of homage actually took place on a smaller scale, namely by troops who at that time were performing federal tasks. These were the Prussian army in Schleswig-Holstein and the Prussian garrisons in the federal fortresses of Mainz and Luxembourg.

Prussian citizens were not deterred from celebrations, not least in the Rhineland . One of the biggest events took place on August 7th in Mönchengladbach , while the Rhine metropolis Cologne concentrated on the cathedral festival on the 14th. The day began with 21 cannon shots at five in the morning. After church services, schoolchildren led a parade, with the boys wearing black, red, and gold flags and the girls dressed in white with black, red, and gold ribbons and oak wreaths in their hair. Gymnasts, vigilantes and singing clubs followed. Outside the city the gymnasts presented their arts in the pastures, and cheers were raised on the imperial administrator and the Prussian king in the market square.

Jonathan Sperber : The revolutionary colors were combined with the white of purity, the gymnasts and the vigilante groups showed the armed citizenship, whereby the celebration connected them with the new united Germany and the existing Prussian monarchy. But these peaceful and planned unity celebrations were overshadowed by public unrest the night before, when angry crowds smashed the windows of Protestant factory owners.

Engraving for the Unity Festival in Düsseldorf, August 6, 1848

Düsseldorf was a center of the revolution in which representatives of the constitutional monarchy prevailed over the republicans, and its tribute ceremony was organized by monarchist democrats, the Association for Democratic Monarchy under its leaders Hugo Wesendonck and Lorenz Cantador . But the extreme left (including Ferdinand Lassalle ) stayed away because they rejected the monarchical administrator. The Prussian officers boycotted the celebration, but many ordinary soldiers joined the celebrations in the afternoon and evening and “fraternized” with the residents under the influence of alcohol.

The highlight of the Düsseldorf celebration was a torchlight procession on the evening of August 6th, which was led by 38 students from the art academy in medieval costumes, each with a flag of the German states. The end of the parade was the central Friedrichsplatz with a huge statue of Germania , an unspoken non-monarchist symbol. The students dropped the national flags there, and another student appeared with a black-red-gold, whereupon the audience spontaneously What is the German Fatherland? intoned. When, on the other hand, the Prussian king visited Düsseldorf on August 15, he was greeted by a hostile crowd with horse manure, while the vigilante boycotted the visit and the city council refused to see the king.

In Eupen (now Belgium) the common people understood the celebrations as the end of Prussian rule and the return of the Habsburgs. The conflict between Catholics and Protestants (or Habsburg and Hohenzollern) was more significant than the celebration of the new national unity. The Protestant Langenlonsheim an der Nahe in the Hunsrück celebrated August 6th with a parade of the 6th Uhlan regiment, the black and white flag and the royal anthem Heil dir in the wreath . In the Westphalian, Catholic cities of Münster and Paderborn , too, people were more enthusiastic about Habsburgs like Johann. The churches in Münster rang all bells on August 5th, and the next day there was a solemn high mass and a parade of the civil guard. In Paderborn, after services of all denominations, people met in a people's assembly, with singing from the hymn board and dancing on the Schützenplatz.

Bavaria

In Bavaria there were three cheers: first to their own king, then to the imperial administrator and finally to the German fatherland. Despite the much-noticed presence of Prince Luitpold , there was an all-round upset, according to Veit Valentin: The Landwehr and Freikorps were originally not supposed to take part, as the Reich Minister of War had only mentioned the standing army. The cheers for both the imperial administrator and the king left it open as to which of the two was the warlord.

Grand Duchy of Hesse

The celebration in Worms , in the Grand Duchy of Hesse , was dominated by the left. The Worms vigilante chose August 5th instead of the 6th, and the commandant paid homage to the central authority instead of the imperial administrator. A mass event the following day attracted thousands of townspeople and villagers. The gymnasts from Mainz led the parade, and two left-wing members of the Frankfurt National Assembly stood at the center of the celebration with their call for popular sovereignty.

Braunschweig

Duke Wilhelm strictly rejected the decree of homage and saw his position confirmed by consultations with Prussia and Hanover. He had written to the Prussian King on August 1st: “The presumptuousness of the Paulskirche goes too far, if you let it go, all the princes would soon be mediatized, and I think it is good to speak out quickly and decisively against this nonsense. The King of Hanover, with whom I was a few days ago, thinks the same way. "

The population in the Duchy of Braunschweig reacted bitterly, but several deputations (after a popular assembly on August 4th, for example) were unable to change the Duke's mind. Due to a trade fair, thousands of foreigners were in the city of Braunschweig , which increased the excitement. It was not until August 5 that the government was able to persuade the Duke to give in. The military, insofar as they were not in Schleswig-Holstein, and the vigilante groups moved to the large parade ground the next day and gave the imperial administrator a hurray. The Duke appeared, but his expression betrayed his reluctance.

The exact course of the festival on August 6th was recorded in the adjutant's diary:

"S [a] highness] rode with all the wing adjutants at ½ 1 to the Gr. Exercise area. There were set up there for a parade: the line troops, the vigilante groups, etc. the foreigners divided into troops according to their fatherland, among which were distinguished by flags and numbers: the Prussians, the Saxons, the Schleswig-Holsteiners, and the Lauenburgers. SH rode down the lines at a step and were received by the vigilantes as well as by the foreigners with a loud hurray. Then the march past took place, with the foreigners marching without weapons again giving their greetings by hurray, which was always accompanied by the waving of the headgear near SH. The whole corps of officers was ordered to the table, which took place in the garden hall at 5 o'clock, and after the same went in pleno to the Kl. Exercierplatz, where the city had invited them to celebrate the day, along with all the soldiers, to the great festival. The same is said to have lasted until the dawn of the following day without any major disturbances in all kinds of amusements. To celebrate the day, SH had 6 u. Pay 4 ggr . "

Despite the Duke's ultimate relenting, his negative attitude towards the homage had caused the mood in Braunschweig to plummet. Its previous popularity was damaged or even destroyed. When the King of Prussia was received by the Duke on August 13 in the presence of a large crowd, the people left their hats on.

Lippe-Detmold

The Vaterländische Blätter from Lippe-Detmold described the celebration of homage in their smallest state. At 6 a.m., the military music corps marched through the streets of Detmold . At around 12 noon the entire battalion came out of the barracks to a place near the city gates (the Bruch), for the first time with the black, red and gold cockade and a ribbon of the same kind on the national flags. It marched in the company of a dense crowd. When Prince Leopold and his family appeared, the crowd greeted him with a hurray. Officers read a statement about the day as well as the imperial administrator's appeal to the German people. Accompanied by cannon shots, three cheers were raised on the imperial administrator. This was repeated in the afternoon with the vigilante group. Your Major Heiwing said:

“[...] the man whom the representatives of the nation elected almost unanimously has a dignified, impeccable life. - A simple, pure person, - a noble prince, - a whole man, he has lived so far among the brothers of Tyrols and Steyermarks, - in the midst of the people, for the people, as a real man of the people in that country in which old German loyalty still lives, solid and unshakable as its mountains!
That is a good omen for the German fatherland, for all of us and our own future!
We therefore greet him, the man of the Tyrolean mountains, with the best that we have, with our full devotion and true love. Archduke Johann, the German imperial administrator, live high! "

After three highs under the thunder of cannons, the major continued:

“If we have thought of the one great fatherland and its present head, then we must not forget what God gave us as our neighbor - our beloved homeland and the honest prince who has ruled over us with mild justice for almost 30 years ! [...] Therefore let us also bring our innate ruler our joyful homage on this day. Our beloved Prince Paul Alexander Leopold live high! "

In the evening, many people gathered in different places, for example in the town hall's citizen hall, to dance.

Consequences and evaluation

"In homage to the imperial administrator Archduke Johann", fantasy representation

The decree had caused great excitement all over Germany, especially in Prussia, and became the focus of a fundamental political dispute. The partially negative behavior in the larger individual states had exposed the powerlessness of the central power. The central authority could already see the limits of its real power, and this is also clear in an internal letter from Schmerling. In contrast to the National Assembly, Peucker gave a positive assessment of his decree.

According to the constitutional historian Ernst Rudolf Huber , the individual states had accepted the Central Power Act of June 28, so that they no longer had the right to revolt against the consequences of the law. From their point of view it was "not unjustified to call the decree of homage a coup d'état by Peucker ", because symbolically an homage had almost the same content as an oath. But from the standpoint of the emerging nation-state, this preliminary decision on the military constitution was necessary in order to later secure the constitutional work of the National Assembly. In the transition from the confederation to the federal state, "perfect legality" could not be maintained. But the corresponding break occurred with the election of the National Assembly, at the latest with the Central Power Act.

Ralf Heikaus believes that the arguments of Prussia or the individual states were no less weighty than the standpoint of the central authority: Military sovereignty still lies with the individual states, and only after the definitive establishment of a German federal state, if a definitive Reich constitution is available, can it arise bypassing a national central authority. Not only in highly conservative circles around the king, but also more generally in the Prussian bourgeoisie, the decree was therefore perceived as an interference with the independence of Prussia, even of the king, who personally had military command. The Central Authority, on the other hand, understood the Central Authority Act as a provisional constitutional order and did not want to immediately subordinate the troops to the Reich Administrator, but rather to demonstrate German unity.

source

  • No. 89 (No. 85). Decree of homage by Reich Minister of War v. Peucker. Circular letter to the war ministers of the German states concerning the assumption of central power by the Reichsverweser from July 16, 1848. In: Ernst Rudolf Huber: Documents on the history of the German constitution. Volume 1: German constitutional documents 1803-1850. 3. Edition. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1978 (1961), pp. 343/344.

literature

  • Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310.

See also

supporting documents

  1. ^ Veit Valentin: History of the German Revolution from 1848–1849. Second volume: Until the end of the popular movement of 1849. Reprint. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1977 (1930/1931), p. 91.
  2. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation . Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 97, p. 123.
  3. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, pp. 97/98.
  4. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, pp. 98-100, p. 377.
  5. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. 3rd edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart et al. 1988, pp. 652/653.
  6. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 103.
  7. ^ Rudolf Stadelmann: Social and political history of the revolution of 1848 . Münchner Verlag, Munich 1948, p. 23.
  8. ^ Otto Kimminich: German constitutional history. 2nd Edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 1987, p. 357.
  9. ↑ Dieter Hein: The revolution of 1848/49 . CH Beck, Munich 1998, p. 52.
  10. ↑ Luxembourg word for truth and law. No. 43, August 13, 1848.
  11. ^ Veit Valentin: History of the German Revolution from 1848–1849. Second volume: Until the end of the popular movement of 1849. Reprint. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1977 (1930/1931), p. 91.
  12. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 103.
  13. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. 3rd edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart et al. 1988, p. 880.
  14. ^ Veit Valentin: History of the German Revolution from 1848–1849. Second volume: Until the end of the popular movement of 1849. Reprint. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1977 (1930/1931), p. 91.
  15. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 103.
  16. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 102.
  17. ^ After Frank Möller: Heinrich von Gagern. A biography . Habilitation thesis, University of Jena 2004, p. 282. Omissions there.
  18. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, pp. 102/103.
  19. ^ Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310. Here p. 290, p. 294.
  20. ^ Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310. Here p. 290/291.
  21. ^ Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310. Here p. 302.
  22. ^ Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310. Here p. 302/303.
  23. ^ Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310. Here p. 292/293.
  24. ↑ Wilfried Reininghaus, Axel Eilts: Fifteen months of revolution: the province of Westphalia from March 148 to May 1849. In: Wilfried Reininghaus and Horst Conrad (eds.): For freedom and law. Westphalia and Lippe in the revolution of 1848/1849. Aschendorff, Münster 1999, pp. 32–73, here p. 48.
  25. ^ Veit Valentin: History of the German Revolution from 1848–1849. Second volume: Until the end of the popular movement of 1849. Reprint. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1977 (1930/1931), p. 91.
  26. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. 3rd edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart et al. 1988, pp. 652/653.
  27. ^ Jonathan Sperber: Festivals of National Unity in the German Revolution of 1848–1849. In: Past and Present. 136, pp. 114-138, printed in: Peter H. Wilson (Ed.): 1848. The year of revolutions. Pp. 285-310. Here p. 300/301.
  28. ^ Bernhard Kiekenap: Karl and Wilhelm. The sons of the Black Duke. Volume 1. Appelhans Verlag, Braunschweig 2000, p. 633.
  29. ^ Bernhard Kiekenap: Karl and Wilhelm. The sons of the Black Duke. Volume 1. Appelhans Verlag, Braunschweig 2000, p. 631, p. 635.
  30. ↑ Quoted from: Bernhard Kiekenap: Karl und Wilhelm. The sons of the Black Duke. Volume 1. Appelhans Verlag, Braunschweig 2000, pp. 636/637.
  31. ^ Bernhard Kiekenap: Karl and Wilhelm. The sons of the Black Duke. Volume 1. Appelhans Verlag, Braunschweig 2000, p. 638.
  32. ^ The sixth of August in Detmold. In: Patriotic papers. Volume 6, August 9, 1848, pp. 364–366. See also: The sixth of August in Detmold. In: Harald Pilzer, Annegret Tegtmeier-Breit (ed.): Lippe 1848. To hand over a petition from the democratic manner. Lippische Landesbibliothek, Detmold 1998, pp. 183–185.
  33. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 95, p. 103.
  34. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850. 3rd edition. Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart et al. 1988, pp. 652/653. Emphasis in the original.
  35. ^ Ralf Heikaus: The first months of the provisional central authority for Germany (July to December 1848). Dissertation. Frankfurt am Main u. a., 1997, p. 96, p. 377.