Compare And Contrast Italy And Germany In The 19th Century

Compare and Contrast nation building in the United States, Italy, and Germany in the 19th century. The fall of Napoleon in the early 19th century had awoken a spirit of nationalism and sparked the unification of many countries around the world. The Congress of Vienna restored territories conquered by Napoleon, but it distributed land in ways that methodically kept certain territorial areas from uniting to form large, possibly powerful countries. Nonetheless, people across Europe fought for unification. For some – like Italy – unification meant unifying states into a single country; for others, specifically Germany, unification was a means for one state to make itself the leader of a confederation. The United States took note of such global
nationalism, began their own campaign of nation building and nationalism within North America. While Italy viewed unification as a means of political stability and protection against foreign aggression, the United States and Germany elaborated upon such ideas and sought to establish themselves as the sole leaders of large areas of land – something that would afford them with great spheres of influence. For centuries, Italy was dominated by foreign and local princes; however, people in Italy felt a strong sense of identification, not with their leaders, but within with their local regions.
These small states felt the need to form one unified Italy – something they felt would help protect them against future territorial expansion campaigns. While the Congress of Vienna redistributed European lands and established a means to keep peace, Italian cries for unity were largely ignored by Metternich (de facto leader of the congress, from Vienna) and Italy was divided among many nationalities and groups. Metternich allotted Northern Italy to the control of his own people, the Austrians, Tuscany and Modena to the Hapsburg Princes, the Papal States to the pope, Parma to Marie Louise (Napoleon’s wife), Piedmont and Sardinia to the King of Sardinia, and Naples to the Bourbon King Ferdinand IV. Despite such divisions, the goal of a unified Italian nation captured the imaginations of many Italians; several approaches to unify the principalities emerged. While some radical programs (those of Mazzini for example) were slightly successful, the most popular of unification plans involved looking towards the liberal, progressive state of Sardinia-Piedmont (Northern Italy) to lead a free Italy. Sardinia’s prime minister, Count Camillo Benso di Cavour had unification goals that were realistic and attainable. Cavour realized that Sardinia could not drive Austria out of Italy without the help of a powerful ally. Cavour secretly gained the support of Napoleon III and goaded Austria into attacking Sardinia. Worried about criticism from his own people, Napoleon III backed out, and Cavour gained little land from the Austrian-Sardinian squabbles. Understanding Cavour’s actions, pro-Sardinian nationalists across Northern Italy began to revolt and topple foreign governments in place. Utilizing this popular enthusiasm, the new leaders of central Italy called for unification with Sardinia.
However, for super-nationalists like Giuseppe Garibaldi, the job of Italian unification was only half done. With Cavour’s support, Garibaldi led this guerilla army of Red Shirts to liberate and unite the kingdom of Two Sicilies with Northern Italy. The Red Shirts quickly gained followers and volunteers, capturing Palermo and setting their sights on Rome. Cavour, realizing that an attack on Rome would being about a war with France (and fearful of Garibaldi’s radicalism and popular support), quickly sent forces to occupy the Papal States and intercept Garibaldi. Shortly after, Cavor organized agreements between Northern and Southern Italy; the new kingdom of Italy was to be a parliamentary monarchy under Victor Emmanuel (of Sardina). The United States, still a budding world power, took note of European nation building and embarked on their own campaign of nationalism. With the goal of extending their territories and sphere of influence across North America, the United States aimed, not to unify territories of varying beliefs and ideologies (like Italy), but also expand their territories. The growing ‘question’ of slavery however, threatened such nationalism. The sharp divide between the North (whose way of life did not necessitate large-scale slavery) and the slavery dependent South threatened to divide the United States in half. People of the North and South could not identify with each other; their life experiences as ‘city’ or ‘country’ folk was so vastly different that there was very little holding them together. This divide also manifested in moral ideologies. People of the South, who benefited financially from slavery, sought to keep slave-based agriculture legal. Those in the North, saw this practice as morally wrong and economically pervasive. These sharp differences came to a head when in 1848, Mexico ceded a vast area of territory to the United States. The debate over the expansion of slavery to these lands – stretching from Texas to the Pacific Ocean – caused attitudes to harden on both sides of the debate, and eventually the South decided to leave the “Union”. The long and bloody civil war that followed asserted Northern dominance over all American Territories. To further national unity and foster the United States growing power, the Homestead Act of 1862 gave western land to willing settlers – with the few possessions that they owned packed into covered wagons, Americans made their way west, sealing U.S. ownership of the west. American ‘manifest destiny’ – the idea that it was the American right to expand and exert power over North American territories – closely resembles the beliefs of pre-unification Germany. Similar to Italy, German-speaking people were spread across varying states; while the congress of Vienna created a German confederation, there was no unifying force or power that held people of such states together. The most powerful of these states – ruled by Austria and Prussia – had very different senses of national unity (much like those of the American North and South), which made leadership from either side an impossibility. However, Prussia’s appointment of Otto Von Bismarck to power changed this dramatically and allowed Prussia to gain a powerful foothold in the German unification process. Bismarck reorganized the army and pushed for the spread of industrialism – a theory known as ‘blood and iron’. Although Austria and Prussia joined together for a short time to expel the Danish from the confederation, Bismarck became more and more convinced that Prussia alone should dominate Germany. The resulting Austro-Prussia war dissolved the existing German Confederation and forced Austria to withdraw from German affairs. Prussia also gained several small states, and was able to dominate any remaining principalities in the newly formed North German Confederation. Still feeling his job was only half done, Bismarck quickly realized that causing a patriotic war with France could drive southern German states into his arms. He goaded France into war (reminiscent of the Italians goading the Austrians) and gained the unwavering support of the south. The large army of Prussia and the manpower afforded by the south combined forces and swiftly defeated France. Enormously proud, the Germans unified to become the most powerful state in all of Europe. The solidification of Italian, American, and German states gave each new nation a great deal of power and influence. This clout, along with the resurgence of national pride, honor, and solidarity enforced the idea of each state that they and they alone possessed the right customs, ideologies, and political systems. Such beliefs would later play a part in global conflicts concerning the ‘right’ methods to rule. Italy and Germany would later favor fascism and socialism, while the United States would hold firm in its trust of democracy; such nationalistic pride would fuel World War II and later, the Cold War and Global War on Terror.