The Story of Mankind [148]
have a thorough knowledge of this era. It was
not the first time that an attempt had been made to set the
clock of history back. The result was the usual one.
NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE
THE LOVE OF NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE,
HOWEVER WAS TOO STRONG TO BE
DESTROYED IN THIS WAY. THE SOUTH
AMERICANS WERE THE FIRST TO REBEL
AGAINST THE REACTIONARY MEASURES
OF THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, GREECE
AND BELGIUM AND SPAIN AND A LARGE
NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE
EUROPEAN CONTINENT FOLLOWED SUIT
AND THE NINETEENTH CENTURY WAS
FILLED WITH THE RUMOUR OF MANY
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE
IT will serve no good purpose to say ``if only the Congress
of Vienna had done such and such a thing instead of taking
such and such a course, the history of Europe in the nineteenth
century would have been different.'' The Congress of Vienna
was a gathering of men who had just passed through a great
revolution and through twenty years of terrible and almost
continuous warfare. They came together for the purpose of
giving Europe that ``peace and stability'' which they thought
that the people needed and wanted. They were what we call
reactionaries. They sincerely believed in the inability of the
mass of the people to rule themselves. They re-arranged the
map of Europe in such a way as seemed to promise the greatest
possibility of a lasting success. They failed, but not through
any premeditated wickedness on their part. They were, for the
greater part, men of the old school who remembered the happier
days of their quiet youth and ardently wished a return of that
blessed period. They failed to recognise the strong hold which
many of the revolutionary principles had gained upon the people
of the European continent. That was a misfortune but
hardly a sin. But one of the things which the French Revolution
had taught not only Europe but America as well, was the
right of people to their own ``nationality.''
Napoleon, who respected nothing and nobody, was utterly
ruthless in his dealing with national and patriotic aspirations.
But the early revolutionary generals had proclaimed the new
doctrine that ``nationality was not a matter of political
frontiers or round skulls and broad noses, but a matter of the
heart and soul.'' While they were teaching the French children
the greatness of the French nation, they encouraged Spaniards
and Hollanders and Italians to do the same thing. Soon
these people, who all shared Rousseau's belief in the superior
virtues of Original Man, began to dig into their past and found,
buried beneath the ruins of the feudal system, the bones of the
mighty races of which they supposed themselves the feeble
descendants.
The first half of the nineteenth century was the era of the
great historical discoveries. Everywhere historians were busy
publishing mediaeval charters and early mediaeval chronicles
and in every country the result was a new pride in the old
fatherland. A great deal of this sentiment was based upon the
wrong interpretation of historical facts. But in practical politics,
it does not matter what is true, but everything depends
upon what the people believe to be true. And in most countries
both the kings and their subjects firmly believed in the glory
and fame of their ancestors.
The Congress of Vienna was not inclined to be sentimental.
Their Excellencies divided the map of Europe according to the
best interests of half a dozen dynasties and put ``national
aspirations'' upon the Index, or list of forbidden books, together
with all other dangerous ``French doctrines.''
But history is no respecter of Congresses. For some reason
or other (it may be an historical law, which thus far has
escaped the attention of the scholars) ``nations'' seemed to be
necessary for the orderly development of human society and
the attempt to stem this tide was quite as unsuccessful as the
Metternichian effort to prevent people
not the first time that an attempt had been made to set the
clock of history back. The result was the usual one.
NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE
THE LOVE OF NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE,
HOWEVER WAS TOO STRONG TO BE
DESTROYED IN THIS WAY. THE SOUTH
AMERICANS WERE THE FIRST TO REBEL
AGAINST THE REACTIONARY MEASURES
OF THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA, GREECE
AND BELGIUM AND SPAIN AND A LARGE
NUMBER OF OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE
EUROPEAN CONTINENT FOLLOWED SUIT
AND THE NINETEENTH CENTURY WAS
FILLED WITH THE RUMOUR OF MANY
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE
IT will serve no good purpose to say ``if only the Congress
of Vienna had done such and such a thing instead of taking
such and such a course, the history of Europe in the nineteenth
century would have been different.'' The Congress of Vienna
was a gathering of men who had just passed through a great
revolution and through twenty years of terrible and almost
continuous warfare. They came together for the purpose of
giving Europe that ``peace and stability'' which they thought
that the people needed and wanted. They were what we call
reactionaries. They sincerely believed in the inability of the
mass of the people to rule themselves. They re-arranged the
map of Europe in such a way as seemed to promise the greatest
possibility of a lasting success. They failed, but not through
any premeditated wickedness on their part. They were, for the
greater part, men of the old school who remembered the happier
days of their quiet youth and ardently wished a return of that
blessed period. They failed to recognise the strong hold which
many of the revolutionary principles had gained upon the people
of the European continent. That was a misfortune but
hardly a sin. But one of the things which the French Revolution
had taught not only Europe but America as well, was the
right of people to their own ``nationality.''
Napoleon, who respected nothing and nobody, was utterly
ruthless in his dealing with national and patriotic aspirations.
But the early revolutionary generals had proclaimed the new
doctrine that ``nationality was not a matter of political
frontiers or round skulls and broad noses, but a matter of the
heart and soul.'' While they were teaching the French children
the greatness of the French nation, they encouraged Spaniards
and Hollanders and Italians to do the same thing. Soon
these people, who all shared Rousseau's belief in the superior
virtues of Original Man, began to dig into their past and found,
buried beneath the ruins of the feudal system, the bones of the
mighty races of which they supposed themselves the feeble
descendants.
The first half of the nineteenth century was the era of the
great historical discoveries. Everywhere historians were busy
publishing mediaeval charters and early mediaeval chronicles
and in every country the result was a new pride in the old
fatherland. A great deal of this sentiment was based upon the
wrong interpretation of historical facts. But in practical politics,
it does not matter what is true, but everything depends
upon what the people believe to be true. And in most countries
both the kings and their subjects firmly believed in the glory
and fame of their ancestors.
The Congress of Vienna was not inclined to be sentimental.
Their Excellencies divided the map of Europe according to the
best interests of half a dozen dynasties and put ``national
aspirations'' upon the Index, or list of forbidden books, together
with all other dangerous ``French doctrines.''
But history is no respecter of Congresses. For some reason
or other (it may be an historical law, which thus far has
escaped the attention of the scholars) ``nations'' seemed to be
necessary for the orderly development of human society and
the attempt to stem this tide was quite as unsuccessful as the
Metternichian effort to prevent people