Opposing Views of the Congress of Vienna and Concert of Europe

The Congress of Vienna was called into being by the states of the quadruple alliance who fought against Napoleonic forces: Great Britian, Austria, Prussia, and Russia (1). Each state desired to make a peace settlement after the defeat of the Napoleonic forces, as they were grown tired of the previous decade of war. The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to “restore stability found in the old order of Europe,” which was grounded in conservative principles such as tradition, social stability, organized religions, and obedience to authority (1).

            The Congress of Vienna chastised the liberal, nationalist country of France by making them “pay indemnity and accept an army of occupation for five years” (1). The Concert of Europe was the implemented means to uphold what had been determined during the Congress of Vienna in June of 1815. Periodic congresses were held between Great Britian, Russia, Prussia, and Austria to discuss their commitment to the peace that had been established prior. During the first congressional meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle, the Concert of Europe added France into the alliance.

            The Congress of Vienna proved beneficial to upholding the ideological viewpoint of the Conservative Europeans of the time. In his Political Confession of Faith from 1820, Prince Klemens von Metternich argued against liberal ideas and modern innovations. The prince called to monarchs to rule with traditional values, “Let them be just, but strong; beneficent, but strict. Let them maintain religious principles in all their purity and not allow the faith to be attacked and morality interpreted according to the social contract or the visions of foolish sectarians” (2). He also described the Revolutionaries’ actions as an evil that “may be described in one word - presumption;”

Edmund Burke, in his Reflections of the Revolution in France written in 1791 echoed a similar sentiment when he wrote of the “extravagant and presumptuous speculations which have taught [their] leaders to despise all their predecessors, and all their contemporaries, and even to despise themselves, until the moment in which they became truly despicable” (3).Burke stressed that through the revolutionary actions which were incredibly contrary to the traditional actions of their predecessors, “France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings! France has bought poverty by crime! France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue.”

            To Conservative thinkers such as these, the Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe would have been highly favored.

            On the contrary, Liberals and Nationalists believed that “people should be as free from restraints as possible” and that “there should be restraints on the exercise of power” (1) in the name of basic human rights. To the liberals of the time, the Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe would have been seen as a repression of modern thought and innovation, as the goal of the congress was to return to the old ways of European living. One example of this repression of liberal thought can be seen in the ending of the German Burschenschaften—the university student nationalist groups. The Carlsbad Resolutions were enforced to prevent university students and professors from spreading information contrary to conservative belief. In the resolutions, it is stated that the appointed representative would, “see to the strictest enforcement of existing laws and disciplinary regulations; to observe carefully the spirit which is shown by the instructors in the university in their public lectures and regular courses” (4). It is of great importance to note, however, that these regulations were put into place after a “deranged student” assassinated a play write who opposed their nationalist view.

            Nevertheless, other liberal thinkers had opinions of the conservative resistance to change. In John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, he argued that, “No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified” (5). He described that the “The aim, therefore, of patriots, was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; “and that this “was what they meant by liberty.” He also argued that if those in power would listen to the people, that they would lose nothing, but rather gain support of what he called “the strongest party” (5).

            Additionally, Sydney Smith, one of the sharpest intellectuals of his time, wrote in his 1824 Fallacies of Anti-Reformers, that the conservatist language of following “our ancestors’ wisdom” was hypocritical, as the ancestors, he wrote “are the young people [of their times], and have the least experience.” This he added that, “we [modern men] have added to their experience the experience of many centuries; and, therefore, as far as experience goes, are wiser, and more capable of forming an opinion than they were” (6).

            In final, the Conservatives were in favor of the Congress of Vienna and the Concert of Europe, as they both reinforced the push for traditional European values and governmental systems. In contrast, the liberals and nationalists saw the congress and concert as governmental action that did not have the best interest of the people of Europe in mind. They felt the repression of modern ideologies was an unacceptable action.

Resources

1)    Jackson Spielvogel, Western Civilization

2)    Prince Klemens von Metternich, Political Confessions of Faith

3)    Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

4)    Carlsbad Resolutions

5)    John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

6)    Sydney Smith, Fallacies of Anti-Reformers