The Year Without a Summer (1816 to 1824)
Summary
TLDRIn 1816, known as 'The Year Without a Summer' due to volcanic eruptions altering global weather patterns, Europe faced catastrophic conditions leading to widespread famine and discontent. This environmental crisis exacerbated political tensions, particularly in France, where the restored monarchy struggled to maintain power amidst a failing economy and public anger. The decade marked the coldest in 500 years, and the harsh conditions significantly impacted agricultural production and societal stability. The crisis also influenced international relations, with Britain asserting its power and influence under the diplomatic leadership of George Canning, who navigated the complex dynamics of the Great Powers, ultimately shaping the course of European politics and the global colonial landscape.
Takeaways
- đ The Year Without a Summer (1816) was caused by volcanic eruptions that altered global weather patterns, leading to catastrophic effects in Europe.
- đŸ The abnormally cold and rainy weather in 1816 led to widespread crop failure and famine across Europe, exacerbating existing political tensions.
- đ«đ· The French government's inability to effectively address the crisis and the public's anger towards the monarchy and the political system contributed to social unrest.
- đȘđș The political landscape in France was complex, with a balance between royalist Ultra-Conservatives, Liberal centrists, and Radical Republicans.
- đ€ The French Prime Minister Richelieu's diplomatic efforts helped France regain its status as a Great Power, but his success was not rewarded due to political shifts.
- đ©đȘ The rise of German Nationalism and the proposed unification of Germany caused concern among the Great Powers, particularly Austria and Prussia.
- đŠđč Austria's occupation of Northern Italy led to significant challenges and a shift in national priorities, causing Metternich to become distracted from other European issues.
- đȘđž The Spanish crisis and the intervention by the Great Powers, particularly France's decision to restore the Spanish King to power, tested the post-war international order.
- đŹđ§ The British Foreign Secretary George Canning's noninterventionist stance and support for the Spanish Liberals signaled a shift in British foreign policy.
- đŁïž The Monroe Doctrine, developed in collaboration with the US, effectively prevented further European colonization in the Americas and served British interests.
- đ The events of the early 19th century, including the Spanish crisis and the rise of British influence, set the stage for the geopolitical dynamics of the century.
Q & A
What factors led to the 'Year Without a Summer' in 1816?
-The 'Year Without a Summer' in 1816 was caused by a combination of volcanic eruptions that altered global weather patterns for 2 to 3 years. This resulted in unusually cold temperatures, even during the summer months, affecting agriculture and leading to widespread famine in parts of Europe.
How did the unusually cold temperatures in 1816 affect agriculture in Europe?
-The cold temperatures in 1816 meant that there were significant non-growing periods throughout the spring and summer. Most plants require temperatures above 10°C to grow, and in London, it was below this temperature for 146 days that year, compared to the average of 66 days, leading to crop failures and famine.
What was the impact of the weather changes on the French people in 1816?
-The weather changes led to an unusually rainy and overcast summer in France, resulting in 20 days of rain per month compared to the usual 8. This caused crops to fail, leading to widespread famine, and people were forced to eat unripened or rotten plants from abandoned fields.
How did the French political landscape change after the restoration of King Louis XVIII?
-After the restoration of King Louis XVIII, France operated under a new Liberal constitution with regular elections. However, the King had the power to dismiss the results and his ministers answered to him, not the public. This system was weak and fragile, leading to public discontent and political instability.
What was the role of Richelieu as Prime Minister of France?
-Richelieu, a centrist Liberal, served as the first Prime Minister under the restored King Louis XVIII. He successfully negotiated with the Great Powers for the removal of occupying armies from France and the end of France's reparation payments, returning France to its position as an equal Great Power without the need for war.
How did the German Nationalism movement affect the relations between Prussia and Austria?
-The rise of German Nationalism led Prussia to propose reforms to the German Confederation and revive talks of a united German Empire. This alarmed Austria, leading to tensions between the two powers as Austria, part of the Austrian Empire, sought to suppress nationalism, while Prussia leaned into it.
What was Metternich's reaction to the proposal of a German Empire?
-Metternich, the Chancellor of Austria, was horrified by the proposal of a German Empire. He saw it as a threat to the carefully negotiated post-war order established at the Congress of Vienna and feared it could lead to conflict with Russia over Polish territories.
How did Austria's occupation of Northern Italy impact its foreign policy?
-Austria's occupation of Northern Italy led to a shift in its national priorities, as it became an occupier and colonizer. This occupation was costly and difficult to manage, leading to increased taxation and further alienation of the Italian population, which in turn fueled nationalist movements.
What was the outcome of the Spanish political crisis in the early 1820s?
-The Spanish political crisis led to the removal of the King by the Republican-backed military. However, instead of negotiating with the Liberals, the King, with the support of France, refused to compromise, leading to a prolonged period of political instability in Spain.
How did the British Foreign Secretary George Canning influence the international response to the Spanish crisis?
-George Canning, the British Foreign Secretary, declared British neutrality in the Spanish crisis but expressed hope for the success of the Spanish Liberals. This stance signaled to other powers that Britain would not support attempts to suppress liberal movements in Europe, potentially altering the balance of power.
What was the significance of the Monroe Doctrine in relation to British interests?
-The Monroe Doctrine, developed in collaboration with Canning, declared that the Americas were no longer open for European colonization. This effectively locked in Britain's existing colonies and prevented other European powers from expanding in the region, with the United States committing to resist any such attempts, thereby defending British interests.
Outlines
đ§ïž The Year Without a Summer
This paragraph discusses the unusual weather conditions of 1816, known as 'The Year Without a Summer,' caused by volcanic eruptions that altered global weather patterns. The cold temperatures and increased rainfall led to crop failures and famine across Europe, with significant impacts on agriculture and societal stability. The paragraph also highlights the political implications of the crisis, particularly in France, where the restored monarchy faced public outrage and the beginning of a series of political upheavals.
đ The Struggle for Power in Post-Napoleonic France
The paragraph delves into the political landscape of France after Napoleon, focusing on the challenges faced by King Louis XVIII and his Prime Minister, Richelieu. It describes the delicate balance between the Ultra-Conservatives, who sought to increase royal and aristocratic power, and the Republicans, who wanted to continue the revolution's work. The paragraph also discusses the limitations of the French constitution and the political instability it created, setting the stage for future conflicts.
đ The Rise of German Nationalism and Metternich's Response
This section explores the rise of German Nationalism and the differing reactions of Austria and Prussia. It details the Prussian proposal for a united German Empire and the conservative Metternich's resistance to the idea, fearing the potential for war with Russia over Polish territories. Metternich's efforts to maintain the status quo in the German Confederation and his focus on preventing revolution are highlighted, as well as the impact of Austria's occupation of Northern Italy on its foreign policy and domestic priorities.
đȘđž The Spanish Crisis and the Test of the Post-War Order
The paragraph discusses the Spanish Crisis, which threatened the post-Napoleonic peace. It describes the struggle between the absolutist Spanish King and the Liberal Spanish Legislature, leading to a potential civil war. The King's call for international intervention to restore his powers risked escalating the conflict into a larger European war, with Britain's Foreign Secretary Castlereagh opposing any intervention and advocating for non-interference in Spain's internal affairs.
đ The Shift in British Foreign Policy and the Monroe Doctrine
This section focuses on the changes in British foreign policy under the new Foreign Secretary, George Canning, following Castlereagh's death. Canning's non-interventionist stance and support for the Spanish Liberals against French intervention are detailed. The paragraph also discusses Canning's collaboration with the United States to establish the Monroe Doctrine, which aimed to prevent future European colonization in the Americas and solidify British influence in the region.
đ The Aftermath of the Spanish Crisis and the Emergence of Britain
The paragraph reflects on the outcomes of the Spanish Crisis, noting the increased instability in Spain and the lessons learned by the Great Powers. It highlights Metternich's waning influence and the new prominence of Britain as a global power under Canning's leadership. The ideological shift in France towards conservatism and its consequences for the 19th century are also discussed, setting up the context for future events.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄThe Year Without a Summer
đĄVolcanic Eruptions
đĄCrops Failure
đĄFamine
đĄLiberalism
đĄGerman Nationalism
đĄMetternich
đĄRichelieu
đĄMonroe Doctrine
đĄPax Britannica
đĄSpanish Crisis
Highlights
The Year Without a Summer occurred in 1816 due to volcanic eruptions that altered global weather patterns.
The 1810s were the coldest decade in 500 years, with 1816 being particularly disastrous for agriculture and leading to famine.
The French were furious at their government for the environmental catastrophe and the resulting hardships.
King Louis XVIII of France had to break his promise to lift taxes on the poor due to the crisis.
The French political system was fragile, with the King having the power to dismiss the Prime Minister and the ministers not being accountable to the public.
Richelieu, as Prime Minister of France, successfully negotiated the removal of occupying armies and end of reparation payments, restoring France as a Great Power.
The rise of German Nationalism within the German Confederation caused concern among the Great Powers.
The Austrian Empire and Prussia had different approaches to nationalism, with Austria seeking to suppress it and Prussia embracing it.
Metternich's focus on preventing a French-style revolution in Germany distracted him from other important issues in Europe.
Austria's occupation of Northern Italy led to financial and administrative difficulties, as well as a rise in Italian nationalism.
The Spanish King's absolutist rule after the defeat of Napoleon led to a political crisis and the threat of civil war.
The Spanish crisis highlighted the ideological shift in France towards conservatism, which had significant implications for the 19th century.
British Foreign Secretary George Canning's policy of nonintervention and support for liberal movements made him popular and strengthened Britain's position as a Great Power.
Canning's diplomatic maneuvering led to the recognition of South American independence and the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine, although unenforceable by the United States alone, effectively prevented European powers from colonizing the Americas, thus protecting British interests.
The Spanish crisis demonstrated the fragility of the post-Napoleonic peace and the shifting balance of power among the Great Powers.
Transcripts
It was 1816, and after almost 25 years of unrelenting warfare, Europe had been at peace
for one year.
The reprieve had been a blessing.
In England, one could see a familiar sight.
The wind was still bitterly cold and the sky was still grey, but the snow was finally starting
to retreat from the hills and the trees had just begun to bloom.
Farmers shuffled about in their fields, fretting over whether they planted too early.
They took inventory of their winter stores, and wondered if they might go hungry before
the first harvest came in.
These were all normal sights for the early spring, but this year, something had gone
terribly wrong.
This was all happening in June.
They called 1816 âThe Year Without a Summer.â
It happened for complicated reasons, but basically there was an unlucky combination of volcanic
eruptions that altered global weather patterns for 2 or 3 years.
In some parts of the world the changes were relatively minor and went by unnoticed, but
in others, the changes were catastrophic.
In Europe, they happened to be catastrophic.
That July turned out to be the coldest July on record.
That summer turned out to be the coldest summer on record.
That decade of the 1810s would be the coldest decade in 500 years, all the way back to the
1300s.
You might be thinking to yourself âokay, so it was unusually cold,â but the problem
waosnât that it was cold.
The problem was that nothing grew.
Most plants donât really grow unless the temperature is above 10°C. In London, England,
itâs below 10° for about 66 days on the average year.
In 1816, it was below 10° for 146 days, which meant that there were significant non-growing
periods scattered throughout the spring and even the summer.
That fact alone would have been bad enough, but there was another issue.
The changes to the weather caused most of Europe to be unusually overcast and rainy.
Farmers in France usually had to deal with 8 days of rain per month in the summer.
In 1816, they had 20 days of rain per month.
In England, crops had just begun to sprout when they got 8 straight weeks of rain.
The rain led to flooding, and wherever there was flooding, crops failed.
Northern France and the Netherlands basically turned into one giant swamp.
On average, the cold temperatures and the rain pushed the harvest one month later than
it should have been.
In France, it was more like 2 months.
Farmers relied on early harvests to replenish their stores and get them through the summer,
but this year, with the harvest pushed back a month or more, you instead saw widespread
famine in the early summer.
It became common to see people picking through abandoned fields that had been lost to flood,
eating unripened or rotten plants straight out of the mud.
This was how Europeâs century of peace began.
After 25 years of war, after sending an entire generation of young men into the meat grinder,
people were reduced to picking through the fields for rotten food.
What was it all for?
The environmental catastrophe was nobodyâs fault, but people were furious at their own
governments for allowing this to happen.
And nowhere were they more furious than in France.
France was broke, the people were starving, and the country was in the middle of an environmental
catastrophe.
The restored King Louis XVIII had come to power promising to lift a bunch of unpopular
taxes on the poor, but he was immediately forced to break that promise.
The grumbling began immediately.
Conditions in France had never been this bad under Napoleon.
As part of the compromise that restored the King to power, France operated under a new
Liberal constitution.
But the constitution was weak.
France now held regular elections, but the King had the power to throw out the results
whenever he wished.
His ministers did not answer to the public, they answered to him.
This actually made the new system weak and fragile.
Say what you will about the British system, but at least the British Prime Minister took
most of the heat.
If things were going really badly, replacing the Prime Minister was an uncomplicated and
yet meaningful act.
Now the French had a Prime Minister too, but their Prime Minister was just an extension
of the Kingâs will.
If things were going really badly, replacing the Prime Minister would not be enough.
They may need to replace the King.
The restored King Louis XVIII wisely selected a centrist Liberal named Richelieu as his
first Prime Minister.
The centrists in France at this time were extremely supportive of the new French Constitution,
were comfortable with many of the reforms of the French Revolution, and also favoured
the restoration of the monarchy.
They were trying to split the difference between the Ultra-Conservatives, who favoured increasing
the power of the King and the aristocracy, and the Republicans, who wanted to disseminate
more power to the people and continue the work of the French Revolution.
The King favoured the Ultra-Conservatives, but he correctly assessed that there would
be a popular uprising if he came out of the gates pushing their agenda.
The centrists would have to do for now.
The selection of Richelieu was perhaps the wisest decision the King ever made.
Richelieu was a steady hand, and inspired trust abroad.
In 1818, he successfully negotiated with the Great Powers for the removal of the armies
that were occupying France, and for the end of Franceâs reparation payments.
In only 3 years, Richelieu had returned France to its rightful place as an equal Great Power,
and it had all been done diplomatically.
France didnât even have to fight a war to re-establish itself on the international stage.
A small miracle.
But Richelieu was not rewarded for his hard work.
For 3 years in a row, the French Republican Left made substantial gains in their annual
elections.
The King was forced to dismiss Richelieu in favour of a Prime Minister that could draw
support from the Republicans.
Obviously this went against everything that the King stood for, and without the Kingâs
support this new Prime Minister was not able to achieve anything meaningful.
Letâs pause here for now.
France had successfully re-integrated itself back into the international system by forging
a moderate path led by centrist Liberals like Richelieu.
Franceâs politics had settled around a grand compromise between the royalist Ultra-Conservatives,
the Liberal centrists, and the Radical Republicans.
France would have a monarchy, and a Liberal Constitution, and it would keep the reforms
of the French Revolution.
France would have an aristocracy, but it would also have elections.
It wasnât quite a democracy yet, but it was on that path.
Hold all of this in your head because it will become important in a future video.
While Liberalism was taking hold in France, that wasnât necessarily true in the rest
of continental Europe.
Over in the newly formed German Confederation, German Nationalism was on the rise, and the
other Great Powers were getting nervous.
The two German Great Powers had different reactions to the Nationalist movements within
their borders.
In the multi-ethnic Austrian Empire, the instinct was to tamp it down.
In the mostly German-speaking Prussia, they decided to lean into it.
The King of Prussia sent Hardenberg, his Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, to meet with
Metternich, the Chancellor and Foreign Minister of Austria.
The Prussians wanted to reform the German Confederation, to which both Prussia and Austria
were members.
Riding the wave of German Nationalism, the Prussians wanted to revive talks of a united
German Empire, uniting the German-speaking peoples of central Europe under one state.
This new state would instantly become a new Great Power, with enough strength on their
own to rival France.
Hardenberg proposed that Prussia and Austria roll their territory into this new Empire,
but if that proved to be impossible, he alternately proposed that they could create a smaller
German Empire from the various small German states.
In this scenario, Prussia and Austria could remain independent and control this new smaller
German Empire as allies from the outside.
Metternich was horrified by this idea.
After such careful and difficult negotiation at the Congress of Vienna to create the German
Confederation, Prussia wanted to blow it all up after only 3 years?
Why?
What was wrong with how the Confederation was working?
The German states had agreed to band together for military defense and to resist outside
meddling.
It was working.
Central Europe was at peace.
Prussia and Austria had the strength and the leverage to force their tiny German allies
to do whatever they wished.
Wasnât that enough?
Why on Earth would Prussia want to start negotiations all over again?
Metternichâs analytical mind went to work.
Both Prussia and Austria controlled substantial Polish-speaking provinces in the east.
If their new German Empire was home to a large Polish population, itâs obvious what would
happen next, isnât it?
Poland would ask to join the German Empire.
Donât you think the Tsar of Russia would have something to say about that?
The Tsar of Russia was the King of Poland, he had threatened a war in order to pull Poland
into Russiaâs sphere of influence only 3 years earlier.
The new German Empire would instantly be on the brink of war.
To what purpose?
Because a bunch of young Germans in Berlin got caught up in the nationalist mood of the
moment and thought that a German Empire sounded cool?
What a mess.
In order to appease Hardenberg and the German Nationalists back in Prussia, Metternich proposed
some minor reforms to the existing German Confederation so that it might feel a little
more like a unified Empire.
The Confederation would operate a federal secret police to monitor any revolutionary
activity.
To the same end, freedom of the press would be standardized across the different German
states and heavily restricted.
Similarly, student associations at Universities, traditionally a friendly home to revolutionary
thought, would be outlawed across the Confederation.
To allow for all of this, the Confederation as a whole would now be able to force individual
states to modify their domestic laws in the name of preserving order.
Of course in practice these modifications would not be coming out of the small German
states.
The modifications would be coming out of Prussia or Austria.
All of these reforms have a certain flavour to them, donât they?
Metternich was the conservative architect of the post-war order, and itâs clear where
his priorities lay.
His singular focus was on preventing a French-style Revolution from breaking out in Germany.
An understandable fear having just lived through 25 years of war, but I would argue that it
was a preoccupation that drove him to distraction.
We have the advantage of knowing what would happen in the future, and we know that debate
over a potential German Empire would be one of the key questions of the 19th century.
Metternich had no way of knowing this, but there would be 3 wars fought over this issue,
to say nothing of what happened in the 20th century, my God.
I have no idea if Metternichâs intervention at this point could have prevented any of
those wars, but I do know that Metternich was a lot smarter than me, and when presented
with this problem, he totally shrugged it off.
He was so distracted thinking about 18th century France that he wasnât really thinking about
19th century Germany.
As part of the 1815 post-war settlement, Austria got control of Northern Italy.
As the Austrians moved into Northern Italy, it fundamentally altered their national priorities.
Before the war, Austria had been a pretty conservative and inward-looking power.
Northern Italy turned Austria into an occupier and a colonizer.
A role that Austria was ill-equipped to handle.
Historian Paul W. Schroeder argued that Austriaâs expansion into Northern Italy âforced Austria
to lead and organize Italy, yet did not really empower her to do so.â
Austria had to pump Italy for taxes just to offset the massive costs of occupying it in
the first place.
It was like a snake eating its own tail.
The more difficult the occupation became, the more they taxed.
The more they taxed, the more difficult the occupation became.
Metternich was the mastermind of the occupation of Italy, and as the occupation began to deteriorate,
he began to micromanage Italyâs domestic policies.
Another distraction.
He brought in a wave of Germans from Austria to help administer the Italian occupation,
which only further alienated the Italians and made the situation deteriorate even further.
On the one hand, he was telling the German administrators to defer to the Italians whenever
possible, while on the other hand he was having the Austrian bureaucracy micromanage everything
from Vienna.
Colonization makes hypocrites of us all.
Dissent was growing, and soon Austria found itself sitting atop a genuine nationalist
movement calling for Italian unification.
This was way more than the Austrians had bargained for.
Metternich set up a robust spy network targeting Italian Nationalists, but this did not make
the Austrians any more popular.
Even the more moderate Italians who were willing to tolerate the Austrian occupation began
calling for a Liberal Italian Constitution.
This was not a thing that the conservative icon Metternich could contemplate.
Even geopolitically, the occupation of Italy made a mess of things for Austria.
The Italian Kingdom of Piedmont had been set up as kind of a neutral buffer state so that
Austria and France didnât have to share a border, but Austrian paranoia over Italian
Nationalism and their goonish spy network had soured relations with their Italian neighbour.
For their own protection, Piedmont sought to establish deeper relations with France.
This sent the Austrians into a paranoid tailspin.
The French were establishing a beachhead in Italy, in Austriaâs backyard.
Were the French behind the rising tide of Italian Nationalism?
The occupation of Italy had made Austria totally neurotic.
This was a lesson that every Great Power would have to learn in the 19th century.
The Austrian expansion into Italy may have looked good on a map, but the occupation did
not generate any income, did not increase Austrian military prowess, and did not benefit
Austria geopolitically.
In the end, it was a total distraction from the important issues in Europe that were threatening
the fragile peace.
With Metternich up to his eyeballs with problems of his own making, it would fall to others
to prevent the next Great Power Conflict.
The post-war international order faced its first
major test in the early 1820s.
The King of Spain, restored to power after the defeat of Napoleon, turned out to be an
absolutist ruler in the old 18th century style.
This turned out to be a problem.
Eighteenth century Spain was dead and gone.
When Napoleon was in power he imposed a Liberal constitution upon Spain, one that granted
real political rights to its citizens.
Virtually all adult men were given the right to vote, and with this change, political life
within Spain flourished for the first time.
Elections, newspapers, political debate, all of these things popped up within a few years,
and the people loved it.
So when the absolutist Spanish King was restored to the throne, his first move was to tear
up the Spanish Constitution and return things to how they had been in the 18th century.
The Spanish Legislature, which was full of proud Spanish Liberals who loved their new
Constitution, were extremely vocal in their opposition.
Radical Republicans and Revolutionaries quickly joined forces with the more moderate Liberals,
which created a genuine political movement.
Pretty soon, even generals in the Royal Army were coming out in support of the Liberal
Legislature and the Constitution.
The King was losing control of the country.
Virtually overnight, Spain was on the brink of civil war.
At the urging of his advisors, the King reluctantly - very reluctantly - stepped back from his
position.
He would sign onto the Liberal Constitution.
The King of Spain would become significantly less powerful, and most of the business of
the country would be run through the Spanish Legislature, which would be freely elected
by the people.
Spain would become one of the most Liberal countries in Europe, with stronger political
institutions than even Britain.
The King said all of that, but he lied.
Instead, he began exerting his power by vetoing every little thing that came out of the Liberal
Spanish legislature.
He fired all of his elected Liberal ministers and replaced them with unelected men who were
loyal only to him.
He then appealed to the 5 Great Powers and called for an international coalition to march
into Spain and restore him to his full powers.
A civil war now seemed inevitable, and by making an international appeal, the Spanish
King was taking an awful risk.
Once the Great Powers got involved, Spain could turn into the arena for the next Great
Power Conflict.
The country could be destroyed.
Inspired by the courage and the success of the Spanish Liberals, there were uprisings
in Naples and Piedmont, calling for Liberal Constitutions of their own.
This movement had jumped international borders, which freaked out the Great Powers.
It was their worst fears realized.
It reminded them of the French Revolution.
Everybody needed to be careful here.
Metternich was particularly freaked out by the uprisings, not only because of his conservative
ideology, but also because the countries in revolt happened to be Austriaâs neighbours.
In correspondence with the other Great Powers, he expressed his fears that this may spark
a wave of Revolution across Europe.
Since Italy was in Austriaâs sphere of influence, the other Great Powers agreed to give Austria
a free hand to deal with the uprisings however they wished.
In 1821, Austria marched into the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to the south and the Kingdom
of Piedmont-Sardinia to the west.
In both cases they came to the rescue of the existing Conservative regimes.
In short order, they put down the uprisings that were calling for new, Spanish-style Liberal
Constitutions.
The copycat uprisings were resolved, but the central
problem of Spain remained.
Of all of the Great Powers, Britain greeted the calls for a Spanish intervention with
the most skepticism.
The Liberals in the British Parliament wholeheartedly supported the Spanish Liberals, but even the
British Conservatives were sympathetic to their cause.
They had gone through their own crisis with the monarchy in the 17th century, and even
the most hardcore Conservatives believed that Britain was better off for it.
They viewed what was happening in Spain as a part of a natural political evolution that
every country must go through at some point.
The Conservatives were in government in Britain, and the Conservative Foreign Secretary, Castlereagh,
was dead set against any Spanish intervention.
He publicly declared that he had never intended the Quadruple Alliance, by which he meant
the 4 Great Powers that had brought down Napoleonic France, to be a âunion for the government
of the world or for the superintendence of the internal affairs of other states.â
He argued that the Spanish situation was not a threat to the peace in Europe.
Prime Minister Liverpool agreed.
The Emperor of Russia, Tsar Alexander, was on the opposite end of the spectrum.
He believed that the uprising in Spain was the result of a coordinated international
conspiracy, and that this conspiracy was an active threat to European stability.
He was fully prepared to mobilize the Russian army and march it all the way across Europe
in support of the Spanish King.
This freaked everybody out even more than the uprisings in Italy did.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - wanted this.
Metternich was particularly disturbed.
He wanted to restore the Spanish King to his full powers, but not if it meant having the
Russian army muddy their boots all over Europe.
For some time, nobody was quite sure what to do about Spain.
The Great Powers were all afraid to do anything, and hoped that maybe Spain would just come
to a compromise on their own.
During this pause, something unexpected happened.
British Foreign Secretary Castlereagh unexpectedly took his own life.
He was replaced by a politician named George Canning.
Internationally, the news came as a thunderbolt.
Castlereagh and Metternich had a special relationship, and the two were kinda the co-authours of
the post-war international system.
Now Metternich was on his own.
He had no idea how this new fellow Canning might approach the post-war settlement.
This news was equally distressing to Britainâs political class.
The current government was a moderate Conservative government, and Castlereagh had been thought
of as a pragmatic Conservative that had good relations with the British Liberals.
Canning had a different reputation.
He was known as a Conservative-Conservative, kind of an attack dog, rabidly ideological
and not that well disposed toward the moderates currently leading the government.
Castlereagh and Canning never really saw eye-to-eye.
In fact, CastlereaghâŠ
um, how do you say this, shot him.
Things got so heated at one point during the war that the two exchanged pistol shots.
Canning lost.
So you can understand everybodyâs surprise when Canning replaced his longtime enemy as
Foreign Secretary.
Many legitimately wondered whether Canning would tear up all of Castlereaghâs peace
agreements and throw British foreign policy into chaos.
But everybody was wrong about Canning.
Everybody.
In the immortal words of Robert Caro, power doesnât corrupt, it reveals.
What did Canningâs newfound power reveal about him?
Well, before Castlereaghâs death, Castlereagh had been consumed with the project of disentangling
Britain from continental European affairs.
Castlereagh didnât want to be sending the British army all over Europe to put down minor
uprisings from people that were only asking for quite sensible reforms.
To the surprise of all of his contemporaries, the supposed ideological attack dog Canning
shared that vision.
No armies in Europe.
In fact, Canning went even further.
He shared Castlereaghâs belief that British prosperity depended upon how well they did
out in the colonies, but unlike Castlereagh, he thought that trade, rather than colonialism,
was really the thing that set Britain apart.
Colonies were only useful in so far as they facilitated trade, they were not an end unto
themselves.
To that end, British interests lay in the pursuit of peace.
Peace facilitated trade, and trade made Britain prosperous.
Unlike his predecessor, Canning was agnostic when it came to the colonies, and outright
noninterventionist when it came to war.
This makes Canning pretty unique in an era that was dominated by colonial obsession.
Colonialism can make a country prosperous, but it can also be a trap.
Canning was one of the few people who could see this clearly.
There is one other thing that set Canning apart.
He was a deeply committed slavery abolitionist.
This didnât make his life any easier, it was a controversial stance for a British Conservative
to take, and in fact most abolitionists lived in the Liberal Whig party.
Canning just felt it deep in his bones, which makes him cool, or at least as cool as a 19th
century British politician can be.
British politicians of this era liked to talk a big game when it came to political rights,
but unlike many of his contemporaries, including his predecessor Castlereagh, Canning wasnât
a goddamned hypocrite.
Canning had just become Foreign Secretary when the Spanish Crisis finally boiled over.
In 1823 the Spanish Legislature, backed by the military, removed the King from power.
The victorious Spanish Republicans got very excited by this move, and began calling for
a Revolutionary Spanish Republic.
This was bad.
A Spanish Revolution so soon after the French Revolution threatened to plunge all of Europe
into war again.
The Great Powers would have preferred to sit back and wait for Spain to resolve its own
crisis, but they couldnât ignore this development.
France acted first.
After briefly consulting with the other Great Powers, the Conservative King of France sent
the French Army into Spain.
Every other Great Power signed off on this intervention.
Everyone except Britain.
Metternich signed off on the intervention, but he wasnât happy about it.
The international system was on the brink of collapse.
One false move now and all of Europe would be at war.
France restored the Spanish King to the throne, and then urged him to hammer out a compromise
with the Spanish Liberals.
This was their big plan to resolve the crisis.
Give the King everything he wanted, and then say âpretty please will you do the thing
that you have been refusing to do all along?â
Why would he do that?
It was an incoherent plan, and it turned out to be a catastrophic failure.
Having received from the French everything he wanted, the Spanish King refused to even
meet with his political opponents.
Not only that, but now the Spanish Liberals, Republicans, and Revolutionaries knew that
there could be no political solution to this crisis.
Any negotiated settlement would just be thrown out by the Spanish King and the French Army.
Now the only way forward was through force of arms.
It really was a bone-headed move by the French.
They had hoped to force a compromise, but instead, they had picked sides in a civil
war and were now stuck occupying parts of Spain.
This was the first great test for the new British Foreign Secretary Canning.
In a speech before Parliament, he reaffirmed British neutrality over this matter, but noted
at the end of his speech that he dearly hoped that the Spanish Liberals would be victorious
in their struggle against the tyrannical Spanish King and the French Army.
This was a shocking statement to the other Great Powers.
They had all assumed that they were all on the same page, but apparently not!
Apparently the conservative government in Britain was sympathetic to the Spanish Liberals
and Republicans and Revolutionaries!
It was a clever move by Canning.
It sent a strong signal to the other powers that they could not necessarily count on British
support if they wanted to march all over Europe putting down Liberal uprisings.
If they pulled a stunt like this again, they might find Britain on the other side of the
fight.
British Liberals, who up until now had looked at Canning with trepidation, heaped praise
upon the Conservative Foreign Secretary for orienting Britain as a defender of Liberal
movements all across Europe.
British Liberals were now confident that they had one of their own in the Foreign Office.
Out on the streets, the people rushed to support Canningâs declaration.
Only 8 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the question on everybodyâs mind was
would Franceâs recklessness lead to another Great Power Conflict?
The consensus on the streets was that by standing up to France and those other European tyrants
who were eager to invade their neighbours over petty political disputes, Canning was
the only person working to prevent another war.
This made him unexpectedly popular with the British people.
Before the speech, there had been a whisper campaign to remove Canning from power.
After the speech, he was untouchable.
In the midst of all the chaos, something special was happening out in the Spanish colonies.
In rapidfire succession, the following Spanish colonies declared independence.
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Peru.
Ecuador, Bolivia, and Uruguay would declare independence a little bit later, as would
the Portuguese colony of Brazil.
South America was having a moment, you might say.
While all of this was going on, the Spanish King, backed by France, predictably refused
to negotiate with any of the South American Revolutionaries.
He refused to make even symbolic concessions that might have kept them under the Spanish
Crown.
Canning saw an opportunity.
He wanted Britain to be the first to recognize these newly independent states.
He believed that having some friends in South America might prove to be a useful counterbalance
against any other power trying to push into the region.
And there was one other thing.
Canning mistrusted the French.
When it came to Spain, their true intentions were not yet clear.
Why would they recklessly march into Spain like that?
It made no sense.
Canning feared that they may try to restart the lost French Empire by seizing all of Spainâs
colonies in the name of stability.
If Canning saw to it that these newly independent states were recognized by the British government
and supported by the British fleet, maybe France would think twice before doing something
foolish like that.
Canning began the process of recognizing the new South American states, and sent a message
to France saying that any French adventurism in South America would be interpreted by Britain
as an act of war.
The French fell all over themselves assuring Canning that this was never their intention.
Regardless as to whether that was true or not, they heard the message loud and clear.
Canningâs diplomatic maneuver was remarkably successful.
At a later international conference, the question of reconquering Spainâs lost colonies was
floated.
When France informed the other Great Powers of Britainâs threat, the matter was immediately
dropped.
Canningâs threat worked.
Peace in South America was preserved at no cost to Britain.
The other Great Powers were also put on notice.
If they wanted to go around the world opportunistically snapping up colonies, they would need to go
through Britain first.
Pax Britannica at its finest.
At this time I would like to ask all Americans to leave the room.
Shortly after the wave of revolutions in South America, Canning began collaborating with
the American Secretary of State John Quincy Adams.
What came out of this collaboration was the Monroe Doctrine in 1823.
The Monroe Doctrine, really developed by Secretary of State Adams, stated âthe American continents
[...] are henceforth not to be considered as future subjects for colonization by any
European power.â
The funny thing about this declaration was that at the time, it was completely unenforceable.
Or, I should say, it was completely unenforceable by the Americans.
But you know who could enforce it?
The British.
The Monroe Doctrine declared no new colonization of North or South America.
No new colonization meant that the current colonization was locked in place.
Who did that help?
Britain at this time was by far the #1 European power in North America, and with these new
Revolutions in the Spanish colonies, it was fast becoming the #1 European power in South
America.
If Spain or France or any other power attempted to move back into South America, the Monroe
Doctrine stated that the United States would resist, which in effect meant that the United
States would defend British interests.
Pushing the Americans in this direction was a master stroke by Canning.
They didnât really understand at the time that this declaration committed the American
Navy to defending British sugar plantations on Jamaica, but it did.
And in exchange for this, the British gave the Americans nothing.
Canning said of the Monroe Doctrine when it was first announced, âthe effect of the
ultra-liberalism of our Yankee co-operators on the ultra-despotism of our [...] allies,
gives me just the balance I wanted.â
By this he meant that yes, the British and the French were playing nice at the moment,
but if that ever changed, the Americans would serve as a useful counterbalance against French
overseas expansion.
Canning felt free to speak more plainly a year later, after all the dust had settled.
He described the Monroe Doctrine as âan act which will make a change in the face of
the world almost as great as the discovery of the continent now set free.
The Yankees will shout in triumph, but it is they that lose most by our decision.â
It must be said that Canning didnât get everything he wanted.
The Monroe Doctrine contained a massive loophole that allowed for American colonialism, which
did make Canning nervous, especially when he looked at the American ambitions toward
the Caribbean and the newly independent Mexico.
But as a general principal, Canning had secured American support against any European power
moving into North or South America.
It was a diplomatic coup for the British.
Okay, the Americans can come back into the room now.
The Great Powers never went to war over Spain, but it was a very near thing.
France would end their misguided occupation after 5 years, and political instability within
Spain would persist for the next 40 years.
Or 80 years.
Or 120 years.
Or⊠letâs just say that political instability in Spain would persist.
However, the Spanish Crisis proved that the post-war peace was more fragile than anybody
realized.
The Great Powers walked away having learned several lessons.
First, Metternich was beginning to lose his grip on Europe.
He had been the Great Man during the post-war settlement, but after 8 years, he was becoming
increasingly distracted by the Austrian occupation of Italy and by the festering issues within
the German Confederation.
The international system that he had helped design was still intact, but with Franceâs
reckless invasion of Spain it had entered a new phase, one where he was no longer the
main character.
Second, Britain under Canningâs stewardship had fully emerged as the greatest of the Great
Powers.
The Spanish Crisis taught everybody that when Britain put its foot down, every other Great
Power hesitated.
It was a new world.
And then lastly, there was France.
What to say about France?
They got off to such a great start by successfully reintegrating themselves back into the international
system under Richelieu, but after that, it seems like they were bonked over the head
with an idiot stick.
Well, in a way they were.
Iâve talked around this point up until now, but right around the time that France recklessly
invaded Spain, the government of France underwent an abrupt ideological shift.
They abandoned the grand compromise that had restored the monarchy to power, and decided
to lurch quite suddenly in a Conservative and autocratic direction.
This decision set up a chain of events in France that would have profound consequences
for the rest of the 19th century.
And weâll discuss all of that in the next video.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/obEWfFejJ44/hq720.jpg)
"Empire's Laboratory": How 2004 U.S.-Backed Coup Destabilized Haiti & Led to Current Crisis
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wth2YE9pot0/hq720.jpg)
BREAKING NEWS: Speaker Johnson Issues Blunt Message To Biden Over Border Before State Of The Union
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WvzZYynDkwA/hq720.jpg)
Heeramandi: The Diamond Bazaar | Sanjay Leela Bhansali | Official Trailer | Netflix India
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gZnUEta1jgU/hq720.jpg)
How will Israel and the US respond to Iran's attack on Israel? | DW News
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pjoQdz0nxf4/hq720.jpg)
How The Dinosaurs Actually Died
![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FEZyHNoxEcE/hq720.jpg)
What the Death of Iran's President Means for the Middle East and the World