Mediatization question 1848/1849
In 1848/1849, under the heading of mediatization , people spoke of the possibility of reducing the number of individual German states. The idea arose of merging small states or joining larger states. However, the Frankfurt National Assembly decided on December 5, 1848 that the central authority should mediate at most if the population showed an interest. Indeed, at that time there was virtually no reduction in the number of states.
Opinions in the National Assembly
According to the MP Georg Beseler , the question of whether and to what extent the individual German states in a federal state should lose their independence should be expressed by “mediatization”. So it was about federalism itself. Almost everyone else meant by the term, however, the elimination of small states and their royal houses.
The question was relatively little discussed in the country. In the pre-parliament it was the radical left with Gustav Struve that wanted to divide Germany into imperial circles. On the same March 31, 1848, representatives from the small states recorded the success that countries should also elect their own representative to the national assembly if they had fewer than 50,000 inhabitants.
In the months to come, the question of mediation only came up sporadically. Prussia would have been in favor of mediatization, but did not pursue the matter further; Austria would have liked to see the connection of small, Prussian-friendly states to the medium-sized states in order to reduce Prussia's importance. The middle states wanted to enrich themselves territorially, and the MPs from the small states mostly spoke out against the mediatization. For example, two MPs from small states argued that mediatization would promote particularism , that is, national awareness. Many MPs, including the German Prime Minister Leiningen and Schmerling, were in favor of eliminating the small states.
Subcommittee
On November 27, 1848, the Constitutional Committee discussed a report by a sub-committee on mediatization. Rapporteur Georg Beseler told of talks with MPs, of which Moritz Mohl had most strongly advocated the abolition of the small states. They also thought of the circle division with its great advantages, for reducing inequality and for better administration. Such a profound change in Germany should only take place over time on the basis of the constitution.
According to Beseler, the subcommittee was against the mediatization of all small states, since states that do not want that are then only out to separate again. Mediatization without necessity violates the sense of justice and the question arises as to where the areas should then go. Imperial states are not expedient, and the larger states should not be encouraged to seek profit. But in some cases mediatization is unavoidable. Very small countries do not have the intellectual and material prerequisites to survive in the modern age. The subcommittee proposed that the National Assembly move on to the agenda.
In the discussion in the Constitutional Committee, the proposal came up that the central power should mediate the unification of smaller states. Beseler did not think the time was ripe for such a mediation, and Alexander von Soiron pointed out that the small states were no obstacle to German unity. The majority followed Beseler, and for the state house of the future Reichstag the constitutional committee reversed a decision according to which the small states had not sent representatives. Some small states should be represented “unitedly”, namely with a neighboring large state: both Hohenzollern with Württemberg, Homburg with Hessen-Darmstadt, the Thuringian states together with both Schwarzburg and both Reuss, and Liechtenstein with Austria. Both Lippe and Waldeck should send a representative together.
Consultation in the plenary session of the National Assembly
On December 4th and 5th, 1848, the members of the entire National Assembly deliberated on the question of small states. There were two minority opinions from the committee and several other motions, all of which went in the direction that the central authority should work towards the unification of small states. Moritz Mohl in particular spoke out vehemently in favor of mediatization.
On December 5, the MPs adopted the majority proposal to go back to the agenda by 253 votes to 198. But the mediation plan also received a majority, so the National Assembly called on the central power to mediate between the governments and popular assemblies in question where the populations want mediatization. The proposal of the majority of the committee on the representation of the small states in the state house was also accepted.
consequences
Only Prince Reuss-Lobenstein-Ebersdorf abdicated in order to free up a reorganization - this ultimately benefited the Prince von Reuss younger line. The Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen transferred his powers to the central authority in December 1848, but this did not lead to a solution until December 1849, namely the absorption of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Hohenzollern-Hechingen into Prussia.
However, in the 20th century at the latest, the aforementioned small states became mediatized. For example, in the Weimar Republic, the Thuringian states were amalgamated and Waldeck came to Prussia; otherwise the corresponding article 18 of the Weimar Imperial Constitution had little effect. The National Socialists ruled some small states such as Lippe and Schaumburg-Lippe through a single governor, united both Mecklenburg into one state and added Lübeck to Prussia. After the Second World War, Lippe-Detmold came to North Rhine-Westphalia and Schaumburg-Lippe and Braunschweig to Lower Saxony.
See also
literature
- Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Scientific and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965
supporting documents
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 63.
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 64.
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 90/91.
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 124/125.
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 126/127.
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 127/128.
- ↑ Ernst-Hermann Grefe: The Mediatization Question and the Principality of Lippe in the Years 1848-1849. Natural science and historical association for the state of Lippe, Detmold 1965, p. 129.
- ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume II: The struggle for unity and freedom 1830 to 1850 . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [et al.] 1988, p. 796.
- ↑ Willibalt Apelt: History of the Weimar Constitution . 2nd edition, CH Beck, Munich, Berlin 1964, pp. 138/139.