Imperial citizenship 1848–1850

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the attempts at unification from 1848 to 1850, the question arose as to how an imperial civil right was to be realized. Every German should have the same rights in every member state of Germany. This contrasted with older, national and in some cases also local regulations, which for example denied non-residents to stay in a municipality. Provisions on imperial citizenship are contained in the basic rights of the German people of December 27, 1848, which were then incorporated into the Frankfurter Reichsverfassungs (FRV) in 1849 .

A core component of the Reich citizenship law was the freedom of movement for Germans, i.e. the right to freely choose one's place of residence in the Reich. This also included the right to emigrate. The Reich Citizenship Law also regulated equality before the law, abolished the privileges of the nobility and provided equality in military service.

Starting position

The German Federal Act was not a forerunner of the FRV, but rather a counter-model. She already spoke of indigenous rights (Art. 18), which was referred to as general German citizenship. But the German Confederation was not a federal state, and the Germans had individual rights exclusively through their individual states. According to the federal act, a German was actually allowed to move from one state to another federal state. Whether you were actually allowed to do so depended on the receiving state.

The National Assembly had high hopes for freedom of movement, also for economic reasons. The impoverishment, the pauperism , the hunger in rural areas like East Prussia, Upper Silesia and Westphalia should be eliminated. Society regulates itself with freedom of movement.

Frankfurt Imperial Constitution 1849

Frankfurt Constitution of 1849

Article IV. On the basic rights of the German people begins in Article I with several paragraphs on Reich citizenship per se and equal treatment in all German countries:

§ 131. The German people consists of the members of the states which make up the German Reich .
§ 132. Every German has German Reich citizenship. He can exercise the rights to which he is entitled in any German state. The Reich Election Act has the right to vote for the German Reich Assembly.
§ 133. Every German has the right to take up residence and residence in any place in the Reich, to acquire property of any kind and to dispose of it, to pursue every branch of food, to gain community citizenship.
The conditions for residence and domicile are determined by a home law, those for commercial operations by trade regulations for the whole of Germany by the authorities of the Reich.
§ 134. No German state is allowed to make a distinction between its members and other Germans in terms of civil, embarrassing and litigation rights, which resets the latter as foreigners.

Here, according to Jörg-Detlef Kühne , § 132, with its definition of " German property [...] is the key to a bundle of constitutional material authorizations that made up the material (general) citizenship rights of Germans in 1849." The materially narrow term contains before Above all, personal freedom of movement, so that every German is allowed to reside throughout Germany, including emigration abroad, but also economic freedom, so that every German can pursue any trade anywhere in Germany. The FRV deliberately included the right to vote in the Reichstag in the catalog of basic rights, which is rather atypical.

Freedom of movement

The National Assembly had refused to allow a German to decide where to live by himself. This would have involved difficult procedures in practice, and at that time there was no immigration in the individual states without conditions. In the Frankfurt case, these conditions were described in a planned introduction law (EEG) and a home law (HGE). According to these drafts, a place should in principle have to accept a non-resident German. But the place could refuse admission immediately or later if the stranger was or became needy, or if he had been convicted of a common crime. Whoever wanted to gain municipal citizenship of a place did not first (unlike 1867) acquire citizenship of the state concerned. Interestingly, there was no reservation for reasons of epidemic policy, although epidemics were already known in large cities at the time.

Emigration and Protection Abroad

Ship with emigrants, 1850

Emigration to third countries was a special case of freedom of movement . 1.2 million people had emigrated from Germany since 1815; This was encouraged by the state in order to strengthen the German element in America or south-eastern Europe, to promote trade relations, but also because of a feeling of guilt towards the emigrants because their departure was good against the poverty of those who stayed behind. But those wishing to emigrate had to report their intention to the authorities, or they even needed a permit. The point was that creditors could come forward. You may have to sign a waiver stating that if you return from abroad impoverished, you will not receive poor relief. In some cases, withholding money was levied because a sovereign or a city viewed the subjects as assets that flowed abroad.

The Frankfurt Imperial Constitution, on the other hand, stipulates emigration:

§ 136. The freedom of emigration is not restricted by the state; Withholding fees may not be charged.
The emigration matter is under the protection and care of the Reich.

A law was also planned to regulate the welfare of the empire for emigrants; it stipulated that the imperial consuls should, for example, monitor the transport and help the emigrants with settlement. The emigrant should leave the German state association only at his own request. The generous duty of care was adopted in later constitutions and only weakened in 1924.

Economic freedom of movement

It was not the constitutional committee, but the national economic committee that suggested that every German everywhere in Germany should decide for himself which food he wanted to pursue. This also applied to factory workers and other dependent employees, who at that time made up 22-25 percent of the total population. The planned freedom of trade went much further in 1849 than in later constitutions and was only achieved again a hundred years later with Article 12 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany .

The liberalism was in the cathedral still much less individualistic traits than later and walked social ills even less insulated on. According to Jörg-Detlef Kühne, "contrary to widespread opinion [...] in 1848/49, an astonishing degree of consideration was given to social issues, which up to now has only received cautious recognition, especially in the area of ​​personal and economic freedom of movement." While later German constitutions wanted to preserve or defend civil property, the imperial constitution of 1849 wanted to fight for it.

Equality of the Reich Citizens

Sections 146–148 of the Imperial Constitution dealt with the legal status of denominations in order to eliminate the previous discrimination against Jews and certain Christian sects:

§ 146. The enjoyment of civil and civic rights is neither conditioned nor restricted by religious denomination. The same must not detract from civic duties.
§ 147. Each religious society organizes and administers its affairs independently, but remains subject to general state laws.
No religious society enjoys privileges over others through the state; furthermore there is no state church.
New religious societies are allowed to form; the state does not need to recognize their commitment.
§ 148. Nobody should be compelled to perform an ecclesiastical act or ceremony.

In March the Protestant and the Catholic Church had to experience how opposition, rationalist groups enjoyed a lively influx, the Protestants the light friends , the Catholics the German Catholics . They turned against the officially controlled pietism and against the claims of supremacy of the Pope and organized themselves presbyterially outside the major churches. That made them a model for a democratically organized society.

There were some improvements for the Jews in 1848, albeit less in administrative practice. As early as 1851 she excluded Prussia from serving in the judiciary and school. The organizations and services of light friends and German Catholics were severely persecuted and monitored in the reaction era.

Section 137 of the Imperial Constitution of 1849 abolishes the privileges of the nobility:

  • manorial court privileges,
  • Fideikommisse ,
  • special civil family rights,
  • Incommunalization of community-free manors,
  • Abolition of the aristocratic country, especially the representation of the basic nobility in the chambers of the individual states.

Furthermore, public offices should be made generally accessible, which was directed against the privileges of the nobility and the preferential attitude of nobles . Since the preference was more in line with practice than it was based on orders, it is debatable whether the imperial constitution would have changed anything or whether it had any effect at a later date. In reality, the nobility still had considerable privileges until 1918, including when it came to recruitment. From around 1918 the influence of the parties increased in the latter. Not least in the first chambers of the parliaments in the individual states, the privileges of the nobility were preserved. They significantly inhibited later political development. While the FRV still privileged the families of the regents, around 130 noblemen, after 1850 around one percent of the population was still privileged.

Section 137 was also intended to establish equality of defense . According to the German Federal Act, wealthy people could free themselves from military service in return for payment. About a quarter of the conscripts made use of it, so that (with the exception of Prussia) only the lower classes served. The National Assembly wanted to abolish the exemption from service in order to eliminate a plutocratic institution and to increase the military strength. She also denied a request that members of certain sects such as the Mennonites be allowed to refuse military service. The individual states wanted to hold on to the exemption payments because they used them to finance a large part of the military budget; however, the practice subsequently became less important, as industrialization and emigration made it difficult to find a substitute.

Erfurt Union

Two months after the Frankfurt constitution, Prussia presented a constitution for the German Empire that would become the basis of the Erfurt Union . It adopted almost the entire text of the Frankfurt model. While the model made the basic rights the norm for the individual states, the Erfurt copy spoke of the special conditions in the individual states which should be taken into account when applying (§ 128). The copy also eliminated u. a. the abolition of aristocratic privileges and the death penalty, it made it easier to restrict freedom of the press and weakened the separation of church and state.

Later development

After 1848/1849, the practice of freedom of movement in the German federal states tended to be more liberal; a Dresden Convention of 1850 , for example, simplified the passport system. In some cases, there were agreements on the free movement of persons between the states, and taxes on emigrants were hardly ever levied. However, contrary to the FRV's demand, military service was still a reason to refuse to leave the country for men of the appropriate age. In 1867, the Prussian regulation prevailed in this regard that emigration for military conscripts between the ages of 17 and 25 could be allowed if they were not actively serving or only wanted to bypass the registration requirement.

The Bismarckian Reich constitution of 1867/1871 regulates the common indigenous in Art. 3, the Basic Law with the freedom of movement and occupational freedom (still German, not everyone's rights). While the regulation of 1849 provided for uniform treatment throughout for all Germans, the regulation of 1867 only wanted to exclude certain items from the individual states treating their own relatives better than other northern Germans. However, through Art. 4 No. NBV it was possible for the simple legislation to approximate the regulation of the FRV more closely. In 1870, federal or nationality was regulated by simple law. It was based on the Prussian Subject Law of 1842.

Despite the superficial similarities between FRV and the regulation in the North German Confederation, the intentions were different. The FRV provided for Reich citizenship for every German. The definition of German was ostensibly politico-territorial, as German was someone who was a member of the affiliated states. In addition, there was a subtle echo of ethnic-cultural influences, as can be seen from the Schleswig and Posen question . The Bismarck Reich constitution, on the other hand, was against an ethnic-cultural orientation with a view to southern Germany.

The North German Confederation's Freedom of Movement Act gave the municipalities more reasons with which they could reject non-residents: not just neediness, but disability in general; not just conviction for common crimes, but any punishment. Overall, the north German regulations came pretty close to those in Frankfurt. Jörg Detlef-Kühne: "Regardless of the exception rules noted, the freedom of movement law of 1867 can be viewed as a substantial realization of the ideas of 1848, despite its pre-March origin," provided that the minority opinions in the constitutional committee 1848/1849 are also taken into account.

However, with the later Kulturkampf (1870s) and the Socialist Law (1878–1890), restrictions on freedom of movement for political reasons with expulsion to certain districts (Konfinierung) were frowned upon in Frankfurt. In Weimar times, the Republic Protection Act (1922) restricted freedom of movement for a limited period only and made it dependent on a judicial decision.

See also

literature

  • 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)

supporting documents

  1. ^ 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. 204.
  2. ^ 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), pp. 207/208.
  3. ^ 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. 203.
  4. ^ 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. 204.
  5. ^ 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), pp. 209/210, 285.
  6. ^ 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. 217.
  7. ^ 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), pp. 218/219, 225.
  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), pp. 224/225.
  9. ^ 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), pp. 226, 245.
  10. ^ 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), pp. 245, 282.
  11. ^ 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), pp. 245, 300-302.
  12. ^ 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), pp. 245, 305/306.
  13. ^ 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), pp. 287/288, 295-298.
  14. ^ 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. 328.
  15. ^ 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. 299/300.
  16. ↑ Manfred Botzenhart: German Parliamentarism in the Revolutionary Period 1848–1850. Droste Verlag, Düsseldorf 1977, p. 719.
  17. ^ 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), pp. 209/210.
  18. ^ 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), pp. 220-223.
  19. ^ 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. 203.
  20. ^ 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. 204 f.
  21. ^ 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), pp. 213/214.
  22. ^ 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. 216.
  23. ^ 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), pp. 214-216.