Prince Bismarck,
chapter 14 (volume 2)._
GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.
The Culturkampf.
The "May Laws" and their repeal.
"The German Culturkampf, or civilization-fight, as its
illustrious chief promoter is said to have named it, may
equally well be styled the religion combat, or education
strife. ... The arena of the Culturkampf in Germany is,
strictly speaking, Prussia and Hesse Darmstadt--pre-eminently
the former. According to the last census, taken December 1,
1880, the population of Prussia is 27,278,911. Of these, the
Protestants are 17,645,462, being 64.7 per cent., and the
Catholics 9,205,136, or 34.1 per cent., of the total
population. The remainder are principally Jews, amounting to
363,790, or 1.334 per cent. It was on the 9th of January,
1873, that Dr. Falk, Minister of Public Worship, first
introduced into the Prussian Diet the bills, which were
afterwards to be known as the May Laws [so called because they
were generally passed in the month of May, although in
different years, but also called the Falk Laws, from the
Minister who framed them]. These laws, which, for the future,
were to regulate the relations of Church and State, purported
to apply to the Evangelical or united Protestant State Church
of Prussia ... as well as to the Catholic Church. Their
professed main objects were: first, to insure greater liberty
to individual lay members of those churches; secondly, to
secure a German and national, rather than an 'Ultramontane'
and non-national, training for the clergy; and, thirdly, to
protect the inferior clergy against the tyranny of their
superiors--which simply meant, as proved in the sequel, the
withdrawal of priests and people, in matters spiritual, from
the jurisdiction of the bishops, and the separation of
Catholic Prussia from the Centre of Unity; thus substituting a
local or national Church, bound hand and foot, under State
regulation, for a flourishing branch of the Universal Church.
To promote these objects, it was provided, that all
Ecclesiastical seminaries should be placed under State
control; and that all candidates for the priesthood should
pass a State examination in the usual subjects of a liberal
education; and it was further provided, that the State should
have the right to confirm or to reject all appointments of
clergy. These bills were readily passed: and all the religious
orders and congregations were suppressed, with the provisional
exception of those which devoted themselves to the care of the
sick; and all Catholic seminaries were closed. ... The Bishops
refused to obey the new laws, which in conscience they could
not accept; and they subscribed a collective declaration to
this effect, on the 26th of May 1873. On the 7th of August
following, Pope Pius IX. addressed a strong letter of
remonstrance to the Emperor William; but entirely without
effect, as may be seen in the Imperial reply of the 5th of
September. In punishment of their opposition, several of the
Bishops and great numbers of their clergy were fined,
imprisoned, exiled, and deprived of their salaries. Especially
notable among the victims of persecution, were the venerable
Archbishop of Cologne, Primate of Prussia, the Bishop of
Munster, the Prince Bishop of Breslau, the Bishop of
Paderborn, and Cardinal Ledochowski, Archbishop of Gnesen and
Posen, on whom, then in prison, a Cardinal's hat was conferred
by the Pope, in March 1875, as a mark of sympathy, encouragement,
and approval. ... The fifteen Catholic dioceses of Prussia
comprised, in January 1873, a Catholic aggregate of 8,711,535
souls. They were administered by 4,627 parish-priests, and
3,812 coadjutor-priests, or curates, being a total of 8,439
clergy. Eight years later, owing to the operation of the May
Laws, there were exiled or dead, without being replaced, 1,770
of these clergy, viz., 1,125 parish-priests, and 645,
coadjutor-priests; and there were 601 parishes, comprising
644,697 souls, quite destitute of clerical care, and 584
parishes, or 1,501,994 souls, partially destitute thereof.
Besides these 1,770 secular priests, dead or exiled, and not
replaced, there were the regular clergy (the members of
religious orders), all of whom had been expelled."
_J. N. Murphy,
The Chair of Peter,
chapter 29._
{1546}
"Why was the Kulturkampf undertaken? This is a question often
asked, and answered in different ways. That Ultramontanism is
a danger to the Empire is the usual explanation; but proof is
not producible. ... Ultramontanism, as it is understood in
France and Belgium, has never taken root in Germany. It was
represented by the Jesuits, and when they were got rid of,
Catholicism remained as a religion, but not as a political
factor. ... The real purpose of the Kulturkampf has been, I
conceive, centralisation. It has not been waged against the
Roman Church only, for the same process has been followed with
the Protestant Churches. It was intolerable in a strong
centralising Government to have a Calvinist and a Lutheran
Church side by side, and both to call themselves Protestant.
It interfered with systematic and neat account-keeping of
public expenditure for religious purposes. Consequently, in
1839, the King of Prussia suppressed Calvinism and
Lutheranism, and established a new Evangelical Church on their
ruins, with constitution and liturgy chiefly of his own
drawing up. The Protestant churches of Baden, Nassau, Hesse,
and the Bavarian Palatinate have also been fused and organised
on the Prussian pattern. In Schleswig-Holstein and in Hanover
existed pure Lutherans, but they, for uniformity's sake, have
been also recently unified and melted into the Landeskirche of
Prussia. A military government cannot tolerate any sort of
double allegiance in its subjects. Education and religion,
medicine and jurisprudence, telegraphs and post-office, must
be under the jurisdiction of the State. ... From the point of
view of a military despotism, the May laws are reasonable and
necessary. As Germany is a great camp, the clergy, Protestant
and Catholic, must be military chaplains amenable to the
general in command. ... I have no doubt whatever that this is
the real explanation of the Kulturkampf, and that all other
explanations are excuses and inventions. ... The Chancellor,
when he began the crusade, had probably no idea of the
opposition he would meet with, and when the opposition
manifested itself, it irritated him, and made him more dogged
in pursuing his scheme."
_S. Baring-Gould,
Germany, Present and Past,
chapter 13 (volume 2)._
"The passive resistance of the clergy and laity, standing on
their own ground, and acting together in complete agreement,
succeeded in the end. The laity had recognised their own
priests, even when suspended by government, and had resolutely
refused to receive others; and both priests and laity insisted
upon the Church regulating its own theological education.
Prussia and Baden became weary of the contest. In 1880 and
1881 the 'May Laws' were suspended, and, after negotiation
with Leo XIII., they were to a large extent repealed. By this
change, completed In April, 1887, the obligations of civil
marriage and the vesting of Catholic property in the hands of
lay trustees were retained, but the legislative interference
with the administration of the Church, including the education
required for the priesthood, was wholly abandoned. The
Prussian Government had entirely miscalculated its power with
the Church."
_S. Baring-Gould,
The Church in Germany,
chapter 21._
By the Bill passed in 1887, "all religious congregations which
existed before the passing of the law of May 31, 1875, were to
be allowed to re-establish themselves, provided their objects
were purely religious, charitable, or contemplative. ... The
Society of Jesus, which is a teaching order, was not included
in this permission. But Prince Bismarck's determination never
to readmit the Jesuits is well known. ... The Bill left very
few vestiges of the May laws remaining."
_Annual Register, 1887,
part 1, page 245._
ALSO IN:
_C. Lowe,
Prince Bismarck,
chapters 12-13 (volume 2)._
GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1879.
Prince Bismarck's economic revolution.
Adoption of the Protective policy.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.
GERMANY: A. D. 1878-1893.
The Socialist Parties.
See SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.
GERMANY: A. D. 1882.
The Triple Alliance.
See TRIPLE ALLIANCE.
GERMANY: A. D. 1884-1889.
Colonization in Africa.
Territorial seizures.
The Berlin Conference.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
Death of the Emperor William I.
Accession and death of Frederick III.
Accession of William II.
The Emperor William died on the 9th of March, 1888. He was
succeeded by his son, proclaimed under the title of Frederick
III. The new Emperor was then at San Remo, undergoing
treatment for a mortal malady of the throat. He returned at
once to Berlin, where an unfavorable turn of the disease soon
appeared. "Consequently an Imperial decree, dated the 21st of
March, was addressed to the Crown Prince and published,
expressing the wish of the Emperor that the Prince should make
himself conversant with the affairs of State by immediate
participation therein. His Imperial Highness was accordingly
entrusted with the preparation and discharge of such State
business as the Emperor should assign to him, and he was
empowered in the performance of this duty to affix all
necessary signatures, as the representative of the Emperor,
without obtaining an especial authorisation on each occasion.
... The insidious malady from which the Emperor suffered
exhibited many fluctuations," but the end came on the 15th of
June, his reign having lasted only three months. He was
succeeded by his eldest son, who became Emperor William II.
_Eminent Persons:
Biographies reprinted from The Times,
volume 4, pages 112-115._
ALSO IN:
_R. Rodd,
Frederick, Crown Prince and Emperor._
_G. Freytag,
The Crown Prince._
GERMANY: A. D. 1888.
The end of the Free Cities.
"The last two cities to uphold the name and traditions of the
Hanseatic League, Hamburg and Bremen, have been incorporated
into the German Zoll Verein, thus finally surrendering their
old historical privileges as free ports. Lübeck took this step
some twenty-two years ago [1866], Hamburg and Bremen not till
October, 1888--so long had they resisted Prince Bismarck's
more or less gentle suasions to enter his Protection League.
... They, and Hamburg in particular, held out nobly, jealous,
and rightly jealous, of the curtailment of those privileges
which distinguished them from the other cities of the German
Empire. It was after the foundation of this empire that the
claim of the two cities to remain free ports was conceded and
ratified in the Imperial Constitution of April, 1871, though
the privilege, in the case of Hamburg, was restricted to the
city and port, and withdrawn from the rest of the State, which
extends to the mouth of the Elbe and embraces about 160 square
miles, while the free-port territory was reduced to 28 square
miles.
{1547}
This was the first serious interference with the city's
liberty, and others followed, perhaps rather of a petty,
annoying, than of a seriously aggressive, character, but
enough to show the direction in which the wind was blowing. It
was in 1880 that the proposal to include Hamburg in the
Customs Union was first politically discussed. ... In May,
1881, ... was drafted a proposal to the effect that the whole
of the city and port of Hamburg should be included in the Zoll
Verein." After long and earnest discussion the proposition was
adopted by the Senate and the House of Burgesses. "The details
for carrying into effect this conclusion have occupied seven
years, and the event was finally celebrated with great pomp,
the Emperor William II. coming in person to enhance the
solemnity of the sacrifice brought by the burghers of the erst
free city for the common weal of the German Fatherland. ...
The last and only privilege the three once powerful Hanseatic
cities retain is that of being entitled, like the greatest
States in the empire, to send their own representatives to the
Bundesrath and to the Reichstag."
_H. Zimmern,
The Hansa Towns, period 3,
chapter 8, note._
GERMANY: A. D. 1888-1889.
Prussian Free School laws.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
PRUSSIA: 1885-1889.
GERMANY: A. D. 1889-1890.
Rupture between Emperor William II. and Chancellor Bismarck.
Retirement of the great Chancellor.
Soon after the accession of William II., signs of discord
between the young Emperor and the veteran statesman,
Chancellor Bismarck, began to appear. "In March, 1889, the
Minister of Finance had drawn up a Bill for the reform of the
income tax, which had been sanctioned by the Emperor; suddenly
Prince Bismarck interfered, declaring that it was against the
agrarian interest, and the Landtag, summoned expressly to vote
that Bill, was dismissed 're inacta.' Count Waldersee, the
Chief of the General Staff, an eminent and independent man,
and standing high in favour, had for years been a thorn in the
Chancellor's side, who looked upon him as a possible rival; he
had tried to overthrow him under Frederic III., but had not
succeeded, Moltke protesting that the general was
indispensable to the army. When Waldersee, in the summer of
1889, accompanied the Emperor to Norway, a letter appeared in
the Hamburger Nachrichten, to the effect that in a Memoir he
had directed his sovereign's attention to the threatening
character of the Russian armaments, and had advised, in
contradiction to the Chancellor's policy, the forcing of war
upon Russia. The Count from Trondhjem addressed a telegraphic
denial to the paper, stating that he had never presented such
a Memoir; but the Nachrichten registered this declaration in a
garbled form and in small type, and the Norddeutsche Zeitung,
which at the same time had published an article, to the effect
that according to General von Clausewitz, war is only the
continuation of a certain policy, and that therefore the Chief
of the General Staff must needs be under the order of the
Foreign Minister, took no notice of the Count's protest. ...
In the winter session of the Reichstag the Government
presented a Bill tending to make the law against
Social-Democracy a permanent one, but even the pliant National
Liberals objected to the clause that the police should be
entitled to expel Social-Democrats from the large towns. They
would have been ready to grant that permission for two years,
but the Government did not accept this, and the Bill fell to
the ground. The reason, which at that time was not generally
understood, was, that there existed already a hitch between
the policy of the Chancellor and that of the Emperor, who had
arrived at the conviction that the law against Social
Democrats was not only barren, but had increased their power.
This difference was accentuated by the Imperial decree of
February 4 in favour of the protection of children's and
women's labour, which the Chancellor had steadily resisted,
and by the invitation of an international conference for that
end. Prince Bismarck resigned the Ministry of Commerce, and
was replaced by Herr von Berlepsch, who was to preside at the
conference. The elections for the Reichstag were now at hand,
a new surprise was expected for maintaining the majority
obtained by the cry of 1887; but it did not come, and the
result was a crushing defeat of the Chancellor. Perhaps even
then the Emperor had discerned that he could not go on with
Bismarck, and that it would be difficult to get rid of him, if
he obtained another majority for five years. At least it seems
certain that William II. already in the beginning of February
had asked General von Caprivi whether he would be ready to
take the Chancellor's place. Affairs were now rapidly pushing
to a crisis. Bismarck asked the Emperor that, in virtue of a
Cabinet order of 1852, his colleagues should be bound to
submit beforehand to him any proposals of political importance
before bringing it to the cognizance of the Sovereign. The
Emperor refused, and insisted upon that order being cancelled.
The last drop which made the cup overflow was an interview of the
Chancellor with Windthorst. The Emperor, calling upon Bismarck
the next morning, asked to hear what had passed in that
conversation; the Chancellor declined to give any account of
it, as he could not submit his intercourse with deputies to
any control, and added that he was ready to resign."
_The Change of Government in Germany
(Fortnightly Review, August, 1890),
pages 301-304._
"Early on the 17th of March the Emperor sent word that he was
waiting for Bismarck's resignation. The Prince refused to
resign, on grounds of conscience and of self-respect. ... The
Emperor must dismiss him. A second messenger came, in the
course of the day, with a direct order from the Emperor that
the Prince should send in his resignation within a given
number of hours. At the same time Bismarck was informed that
the Emperor intended to make him Duke of Lauenburg. The Prince
responded that he might have had that title before if he had
wished it. He was then assured (referring to the grounds on
which he had previously declined the title) that the Emperor
would pledge himself to secure such a legislative grant as
would suffice for the proper maintenance of the ducal dignity.
Bismarck declined this also, declaring that he could not be
expected to close such a career as his had been 'by running
after a gratuity such as is given to a faithful letter-carrier
at New Year's.' His resignation, of course, he would send in
as soon as possible, but he owed it to himself and to history
to draw up a proper memorial. This he took two days to write.
... He has since repeatedly demanded the publication of this
memorial, but without success. ... On March 20, the Emperor,
in a most graciously worded letter (which was immediately
published), accepted Bismarck's 'resignation.' ... The
immediate nomination of his successor [General von Caprivi]
forced Bismarck to quit the Chancellor's official residence in
such haste that ... 'Bismarck himself compared his exit to the
expulsion of a German family from Paris in 1870.'"
_Nation, March 22, 1894 (reviewing 'Das Deutsche
Reich zur Zeit Bismarcks,' von Dr. Hans Blum)._
{1548}
GERMANY: A. D. 1890.
Settlement of African claims with England.
Acquisition of Heligoland.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
GERMANY: A. D. 1894.
Reconciliation of Bismarck with the Emperor.
In January, 1894, the complete rupture of friendly relations
between Prince Bismarck and the Emperor, and the Emperor's
government, which had existed since the dismissal of the
former, was terminated by a dramatic reconciliation. The
Emperor made a peace-offering, upon the occasion of the
Prince's recovery from an illness, by sending his
congratulations, with a gift of wine. Prince Bismarck
responded amiably, and was then invited to Berlin, to be
entertained as a guest in the royal palace. The invitation was
accepted, the visit promptly made on the 26th of January, and
an enthusiastic reception was accorded to the venerable
ex-chancellor at the capital, by court and populace alike.
----------GERMANY: End----------
GERMINAL, The month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
GERONA, Siege of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809. (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
GERONTES.
Spartan senators, or members of the Gerusia.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
GERONTOCRACY.
See HAYTI: A.D. 1804-1880.
GEROUSIA.
See GERUSIA.
GERRY, Elbridge, and the framing of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
GERRYMANDERING.
"In the composition of the House of Representatives [of the
Congress of the United States] the state legislatures play a
very important part. For the purposes of the election a state
is divided into districts corresponding to the number of
representatives the state is entitled to send to Congress.
These electoral districts are marked out by the legislature,
and the division is apt to be made by the preponderating party
with an unfairness that is at once shameful and ridiculous.
The aim, of course, is so to lay out the districts 'as to
secure in the greatest possible number of them a majority for
the party which conducts the operation. This is done sometimes
by throwing the greatest possible number of hostile voters
into a district which is anyhow certain to be hostile,
sometimes by adding to a district where parties are equally
divided some place in which the majority of friendly voters is
sufficient to turn the scale. There is a district in
Mississippi (the so-called Shoe-String District) 250 miles
long by 30 broad, and another in Pennsylvania resembling a
dumb-bell. ... In Missouri a district has been contrived
longer, if measured along its windings, than the state itself,
into which as large a number as possible of the negro voters
have been thrown.' This trick is called gerrymandering, from
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who was vice-president of
the United States from 1813 to 1817. It seems to have been
first devised in 1788 by the enemies of the Federal
Constitution in Virginia, in order to prevent the election of
James Madison to the first Congress, and fortunately it was
unsuccessful. It was introduced some years afterward into
Massachusetts. In 1812, while Gerry was governor of that
state, the Republican legislature redistributed the districts
in such wise that the shapes of the towns forming a single
district in Essex county gave to the district a somewhat
dragon-like contour. This was indicated upon a map of
Massachusetts which Benjamin Russell, an ardent Federalist and
editor of the 'Centinel,' hung up over the desk in his office.
The celebrated painter, Gilbert Stuart, coming into the office
one day and observing the uncouth figure, added with his
pencil a head, wings and claws, and exclaimed, 'That will do
for a salamander!' 'Better say a Gerrymander!' growled the
editor; and the outlandish name, thus duly coined, soon came
into general currency."
_J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the U. S.,
pages 216-218._
ALSO IN:
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
volume 1, page 121._
_J. W. Dean,
The Gerrymander (New England History
and Genealogical Register, October, 1892)._
GERSCHHEIM, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
GERTRUYDENBERG: Prince Maurice's siege and capture of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.
GERTRUYDENBERG: Conferences at.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1710.
GERUSIA, OR GEROUSIA, The.