Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:30:51.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Split in the German National Liberal Caucus over the Military Budget Bill of 1871

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

John Francis Flynn
John Francis Flynn
Affiliation:
The University of the South, Tennessee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 687 - 695
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This work is a revised chapter of the author's dissertation, ‘The National Liberal party in the German Reichstag, 1868–1879’, completed in 1971 at Columbia University under the direction of Professor Fritz Stern.

2 German Empire, Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstages, 16 Oct. 1871; hereafter S.B. V.R.

3 Nationalzeitung, 10, 18, 20 Oct. 1871; hereafter N.Z.

4 H. Müller, ‘Die Auseinandersetzungen über das Reichsmilitärgesetz von 1874’ (phil. Hab., Humboldt U., E. Berlin, 1960), p. 96.

5 Forckenbeck to wife, 10, 13 Apr. 1867, ‘Aus Max von Forckenbecks ungedruckten Briefen’, Deutsche Revue, xxiii, 4 (1898), 14–15Google Scholar; hereafter D.R. M. Philippson, Max von Forckenbeck (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 171–3. Bennigsen to wife, 12 Apr. 1867, Oncken, H., Rudolf von Bennigsen. ein deutscher liberaler Politiker (Stuttgart, 1910), II, 62Google Scholar. Twesten to Lipke, 7 May 1867, Poschinger, H. Von (ed.), FürstBismarck und die Parlamentarier (Breslau, 1894-6), III, 93–5.Google Scholar

6 Becker, O., Bismarcks Ringen um Deutschlands Gestaltung (Heidelberg, 1959), pp. 448–52.Google Scholar

7 North German Confederation, S.B.V.R. 16 Apr. 1867, p. 717. Oncken, II, 62. Unruh, H. V. von, Erinnerungen aus dem Leben, 1806–1886 (Stuttgart, 1895), pp. 279–80Google Scholar. Forckenbeck to wife, 13, 16 Apr. 1867, D.R. XIII, 11–17. Philippson, p. 176. G. Mork, ‘The National Liberal party in the German Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag, 1866–1874’ (Ph.D. diss., U. of Minn., 1966), p. 171, and Pflanze, O., Bismarck and the development of Germany (Princeton, 1963), p. 360Google Scholar, have suggested that the left National Liberals did not intend to apply for an annual review of the military budget in 1871. They contend that the expiration date of the military budget, scheduled to fall in the middle of a term rather than at election time, proved that point because the liberals avoided an election in which the military issue could have been brought up. Many National Liberals, no doubt, intimated that the fixed budget might be renewed, but this was not a general position in the party. Indeed, fear existed that the National Liberals would try to reduce the budget in 1871. See Duncker to Treitschke, 23 June 1867, Heyderhoff, J. and Wentzcke, P. (eds.), Deutscher Liberalismus im neuen Reich im Zeitalter Bismarck, 1871–1890 (Bonn, 1925–1927), 1, 382Google Scholar; hereafter Bernhardi, H. W. T. von, Aus dem Leben (Leipzig, 1893–1896), VII, 375.Google Scholar

8 Hamburger Correspondenz, 15 Mar. 1871, p. 9; hereafter H.C. Hargones to Bürgermeister, 4 Mar. 1871, Stadtarchiv Hamburg, 132–5/4, II, 16, ‘Die Reichstagswahlen 1870–77’. Deutschen Zentralstaatsarchiv, Merseburg, Rep. 92, Nachlaβ von Sybel, A, no. 6, ‘Gegen das allgemeine unbeschrankte Stimmrecht’ (1874). Elben, O., Lebenserinnerungen 1823–1890 (Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 285–6Google Scholar. Richter, E., Im alten Reichstag (Berlin, 1894), 1, 6Google Scholar. Reyscher, A. L., Erinnerungen aus alter und neuer Zeit, 1802–1880 (Freiburg, 1884), p. 287Google Scholar. Bennigsen to wife, Oncken, II: 26 Mar. 1871, 230; 2 May 1871, 234. Unruh, p. 317. N.Z. 4 Oct. 1871.

9 D.Z.A. Merseburg, Rep. 92, Nachlaβ von Forckenbeck, B2d, ‘Rede des herrn Justizrath Lesse’, 18 Feb. 1871. D.Z.A. Potsdam, Nr. 22, Nachlaβ Marquardsen, Bl. 216, Stauffenberg's election appeal; Nr. 365, Nachlaβ Lasker, Bl. 303–4, Freytag to Lasker, 9 Jan. 1871.

10 Kalkoff, H. (ed.), Nationalliberale Parlamentarier des Reichstages und der Einzellandtage, 1867–1917 (Berlin, 1917), pp. 26–8, 262–3, 322–3Google Scholar. Mohl, R. von, Lebenserinnerungen, 1799–1875 (Stuttgart, 1902), II, 194Google Scholar. Richter, p. 29. Biedermann, K., Mein Leben und ein Stück Zeitgeschichte (Breslau, 1886–1887), II, 306–7. Reyscher, 292–3.Google Scholar

11 Nachlaβ Lasker, Unruh to Lasker, 26 Jan. 1871, Bl. 7. Lasker to Stauffenberg, 14 Mar. 1871, H.W. II, 11–12. P. Wentzcke, Geschichte der nationalliberalen Partei bis ca 1874 MSS, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, Nachlaβ Goldschmidt, KL.ERW, Nr. 303–2, p. 80. Nachlaβ Lasker, Lasker to Marquardsen, Bl. 198.

12 Richter, p. 34. Bebel, A., Aus Meinem Leben (Stuttgart, 1914), II, 241. N.Z. 20 Oct. 1871.Google Scholar

13 M. Stürmer, Regierung und Reichstag im Bismarckstaat, 1871–1880 (Düsseldorf, 1974), p. 68. D.Z.A. Merseburg, Preuss. Staatsministerium Protokolle, Br. St. Rep. 90aB III. 2b. Nr. 6. Vol. 83, 21 Sept.-8 Oct. 1871, pp. 229–34. D.Z.A. Potsdam, Nr. 1452, Reichskanzlei Sachenfremder Ressorts Generalia, No. 1, Staatsministerial Protokolle, 18 June 1871, Bl. 151; hereafter S.M.P. Roon, W. von, Denkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben (Breslau, 1892), III, 251.Google Scholar

14 Reichskanzlei, S.M.P., 8 Oct. 1871, Bl. 162–5.

15 Lasker to Elben, 12 Mar. 1871,’ Aus Eduard Laskers Nachlaβ: Sein Briefwechsel in den Jahren 1870–71’, D.R. xvii, 4 (1892), 257. Parisius, L., Deutschlands politische Parteien und das Ministerium Bismarcks (Berlin, 1878), p. 129Google Scholar. Bebel, II, 204. Unruh, p. 317. Stillich, O., Die politischen Parteien in Deutschland (Leipzig, 1908–1911), II, 284–9. G. Stoltenberg, Der Deutsche Reichstag, 1871–73 (Düsseldorf, 1955), pp. 49–81.Google Scholar

16 Bennigsen to wife, 30. Nov. 1870, Oncken, II, 201. Forckenbeck to wife, 14 Nov. 1871, D.R. xxiv, 166. Stoltenberg, pp. 49–81. Wentzcke, pp. 10 ff. Poschinger, I, 56; II, 160.

17 N.Z. 18, 20, 24, 31 Oct. 1871. Kölnische Zeitung, 18, 20 Nov. 1871; hereafter K.Z. Weser Zeitung, 31 Oct. 1871; hereafter W.Z. Parisius, L., Leopold Freiherr von Hoverbeck (Berlin, 1897–1900), I, 261.Google Scholar

18 Richter, pp. 33–6, 45–6. K.Z. 14, 20 Nov. 1871. W.Z. 31 Oct. 1871. Parisius, Hoverbeck, 1, 261.

19 Blum, H., Das Deutsche Reich zu Zeit Bismarcks (Leipzig, 1893), p. 54. N.Z. 12 Nov. 1871.Google Scholar

20 Poschinger, I, 56. K.Z. 26 Nov. 1871. Richter, p. 36.

21 W.Z. 25 Nov. 1871.

22 D.Z.A. Merseburg, Preus. S.M.P., 24 Nov. 1871.

23 H.C. 26 Nov. 1871. N.Z. 29 Nov. 1871. Stürmer, p. 68. Roon, II, 251. D.Z.A. Merseburg, Preus. S.M.P., vol. 83. 21 Sept.-8 Oct. 1871, 229–34. D.Z.A. Potsdam, Reichskanzlei, S.M.P., 18 June 1871, Bl. 151.

24 Oncken, II, 218. Forckenbeck to wife, 9 Dec. 1871, D.R. xxiv, 168.

25 N.Z. 26 Oct. 1871. Böttcher, F, Eduard Stephani (Leipzig, 1887), p. 124.Google Scholar

26 Wehrenpfennig to Treitschke, 16 Feb. 1872, H.W. 11, 44.

27 Von Sybel to Baumgarten, 26 Nov. 1871, H.W. II, 33–4.

28 Forckenbeck to wife, 14 Nov. 1871, D.R. xxiv, 166–7. N.Z. 25 Nov. 1871.

29 Parisius, Hoverbeck, pp. 261 ff. Richter, pp. 35 ff. K.Z. 14, 20 Nov. 1871. Böttcher, p. 121. W.Z. 31 Oct. 1871. N.Z. 11, 24, 25 Nov. 1871. ‘Rückblick auf die erste Legislaturperiode des deutschen Reichstags’, Annalen des Deutschen Reichs für Geseizgebung, Verwaltung, und Statistik, vii (1874), 174.Google Scholar

30 Lasker carefully scrutinized government speeches concerning the budget of the military establishment. See annotated copy of speech by von Roon, Lasker papers, Brandeis U. Lib., Waltham, MA, 1, 1–3, 2a, 32–3.

31 Forckenbeck to wife, 24 Nov. 1871, D.R. xxiv, 166–7. Böttcher, p. 125.

32 Bennigsen to wife, 21 Nov. 1871, Oncken, II, 235.

33 N.Z. 25 Nov. 1871.

34 N.Z. 25 Nov. 1871. H.C. 2 Dec. 1871.

35 Richter, 1, 34. C. zu Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, Denkwürdigkeiten (Stuttgart, 1907), II, 76. K.Z. 24, 25 Nov. 1871. H.C. 26 Nov. 1871. Parisius, Parteien, p. 183, and Böttcher, p. 125, dispute the relationship between the caucus decision on the three-year budget and the government decision. Parisius contends the government submitted the three-year bill because it had prior knowledge that the caucus would support this bill. Stephani's diary shows that the caucus was undecided until after the government introduced its bill to the Reichstag. Forckenbeck to wife, 24 Nov. 1871, D.R. xxiv, 166–7, also bears out Stephani. However, although no proof exists, Forckenbeck could have conveyed to the government on 22–23 Nov. the sentiment of the caucus for a three-year bill, thus going beyond his instructions.Google Scholar

36 S.B.V.R. 29 Nov. 1871, pp. 599–605.

37 S.B.V.R. 29 Nov. 1871, pp. 612–17.

38 Parisius, Parteien, p. 174. Bismarck to Roon, 25 Nov. 1872, D.Z.A. Potsdam, Nr. 1036, Reichskanzleramt, Bl. 80–3. S.B.V.R. 30 Nov. 1871, pp. 641–2.

39 S.B.V.R. 30 Nov. 1871, pp. 631–2.

40 S.B.V.R. 30 Nov. 1871, pp. 628–9. Elben to Lasker, 11 Dec. 1871, H.W. II, 34. Elben to Lasker, 13 Dec. 1871, D.Z.A. Potsdam, Nr. 69, Nachlaβ Lasker, Bl. 3.

41 S.B.V.R. 30 Nov. 1871, pp. 641–3.

42 Böttcher, pp. 125–7. Elben, pp. 170–1. Elben to Lasker, 11 Dec. 1871, H.W. II, 34. Elben to Lasker, 13 Dec. 1871, D.Z.A. Potsdam, Nachlaβ Lasker, Bl. 3.

43 Freytag to Treitschke, 27 Nov. 1871, Dove, A. (ed.), Gustav Freytag and Heinrich von Treitschke im Briefwechsel (Leipzig, 1900), p. 161. S.B.V.R. 30 Nov. 1871, pp. 631–2. Rohmer to Marquardsen, 31 Dec. 1871, H.W. II, 34.Google Scholar

44 Wehrenpfennig to Treitschke, 16 Feb. 1872, H.W. II, 44. Wehrenpfennig, W., Preussische Jahrbuch, xxviii (1871), 689.Google Scholar

45 Dispatch to Senate, Stadtarchiv Hamburg, 132–5/2, Hanseatic Gesandschaft Berlin 61 Va, Berichte politischen und allgemein Inhalts, vol. v, 30 Nov. 1871.

46 K.Z. 2, 3, 5, Dec. 1871. N.Z. 1 Dec. 1871. Böttcher, pp. 125–7.

47 Blum 1, 55.

48 The best brief accounts of the bill can be found in: D. Dietz, ‘Die Heeresvorlage von 1880 und die liberale Parteien’ (phil. Hab., U. Berlin, 1929); Klein-Hattingen, O., Geschichte des deutschen Liberalismus (Berlin, 1911–1912); Mork; Müller; H. Schwab, ‘Aufstieg und Niedergang der nationalliberalen Partei’ (phil. Hab., U.Jena, 1968); Stürmer; Wentzcke.Google Scholar