The violent integration of the Free City of Frankfurt and the downsides of the German Empire’s founding

The historical view of the German founding of the Reich in modern times is often dominated by a transfigured pattern of interpretation in the public perception. The unification of the German states represents this pattern of interpretation as a pure act of liberation that redeems the population from the shackle of small-state fragmentation. A profound analysis of the events of that timereveals, however, a completely different picture of the power-political realities. The violent enforcement of Prussian hegemony was accompanied by considerable losses of freedom and brutal oppression measures. The following illustration examines this conflict using the example of the Free City of Frankfurt, in order to see the complex dynamics and the human tragedies of that time in fullto capture dimensions.

The deceptive myth of peaceful unification

The founding of the German Empire in 1871 is partly celebrated up to the present day as a glorious historical achievement. Allegedly, the population is said to have been freed from the yoke of the small state. In reality, however, it was exactly the opposite. Even before this empire was founded, a bloody conflict between Germans was found in 1866states instead. This war primarily served to strengthen Prussian predominance on the European continent.

The concentration of power in Prussian hands

At the same time, the German Emperor was always the Prussian king, which cemented the hegemony of Prussia within the German empire, founded in 1871. Neither the king of Bavaria nor the rulers of the other 21 kingdoms, dukedoms and principalities ever achieved imperial dignity. Political power was concentrated exclusively in Prussian hands, which thein fact, revoked the sovereignty of the other states. This development can be understood particularly well using the example of the once free city of Frankfurt am Main. Otto von Bismarck represented the Prussian interests there as an envoy at the German Bundestag in the years 1851 to 1859.

The conflict with the Liberal Frankfurt Society

The Prussian envoy thoroughly disliked the pronounced liberality of the bourgeois Frankfurt society and the existing freedom of the press. In a letter to a Prussian minister in 1853, he expressed the conviction that the democratic currents could only be countered by a military dictatorship. This dictatorship should be without any regard forjudicial forms and their protection are enforced in order to bring the city’s economic blossoms under Prussian control. Long before the founding of the Reich, however, the Free City of Frankfurt with its around 80,000 inhabitants at the time was already a rich and prosperous community. The economic advancement after the founding of the Reich did not take place because of this, but despite thispolitical change.

Advanced structures in the Free City

As early as 1864, the remains of the medieval guild regulations were finally abolished in the city. Freedom of trade prevailed, and the last restrictions on the rights of Jewish citizens were also eliminated. Shortly before the end of independence in June 1866, direct majority voting rights were introduced for all citizens. This election procedure for the legislativeAssembly was extremely progressive for its time. Even freedom of the press was very developed compared to later state constructs.

The escalating tensions between Prussia and Austria

However, the Prussian-Austrian contrast inexorably headed the German states to a military conflict. A princely day in Frankfurt held in August 1863 at the invitation of Austria did not bring a political solution due to the Prussian absence. The failure of this assembly brought the Frankfurt public, traditionally with Austriasympathized, completely against Prussia. The liberal Frankfurt press was also mostly dismissed against Prussian politics. The Ober-Post-Amts-Zeitung, which has existed since 1617 and the French-language Journal de Francfort, have been in particular sharp criticism.

The satirical criticism and the Prussian reaction

In a satirical magazine, which was newly founded in 1860, the publisher Friedrich Stoltze criticized Bismarck’s politics in ever-stricter comments. He was then sought after in Prussia with an arrest warrant and could no longer safely leave the borders of his hometown. In the context of the German National Association, however, there were also influential Frankfurters whoPrussian mission to create German unity believed. Her mouthpiece was a national liberal and financially supported sheet of Prussia. The respected banker Moritz von Bethmann, who served as the Prussian Consul General in Frankfurt, later resigned from his post in protest against this policy.

The outbreak of the conflict and the occupation of Frankfurt

When the war inevitably became apparent in early summer of 1866, the city remained true to its motto in acting in law and loyal to the federal government. In June 1866, she voted in favor of the federal execution against Prussia, but at the same time declared that she would not actively participate in the warlike actions. However, the city did not succeed in getting out of the military entanglementsto keep out. Prussia regarded the Frankfurt national loyalty as an enemy act. Bismarck was determined to produce German unity under Prussian leadership with military force and to oust Austria from German politics.

The brutal occupation and the financial demands

Prussian troops under General Eduard Vogel von Falckenstein occupied the undefended city in July 1866 and immediately subjected them to severe penalties. The following day, the city was given an initial contribution of around 5,800,000 guilders, which had to be paid for immediately. The successor Edwin von Manteuffel, who was newly appointed shortly afterwards, then raised anotherHuge contribution claim of 25,000,000 guilders. This sum was to be raised by the then remaining and not fled about 35,000 residents of the free city, which drove the local economy to ruin. The later Peace of Prague in August 1866 legalized this annexation under international law, but the occupiers had been utterly harshly against the population until then.before.

The systematic plundering of the city

Numerous citizens, including all members of the Senate, were billed for billeting by soldiers. Citizens had to make their private riding horses available for the army. Traders and innkeepers were forced to deliver large supplies of food, wine and cigars to the Prussian administration. So there was a real and systematic plunder of the cityinstead. The local newspapers were banned from appearing with the exception of the Prussian-friendly newspaper.

Arrests, hostages and the escape of citizens

The editor of the Oberpostamtzeitung, Hofrat Fischer-Goullet, was arrested and suffered a fatal stroke during an interrogation. The senators of Bernus and Speltz were taken to the Cologne Fortress as hostages. Numerous Frankfurters saw no other option than to flee abroad. The editor of the satirical magazine fled to Stuttgart, and the naturalistEduard Rüppell sought refuge in Switzerland. The Senate under Mayor Johann Heinrich von Fellner did not fundamentally reject a voluntary connection between the city of Prussia, but agreed to continue the city business as the authorized representative of the occupiers.

The futile attempt at negotiation

Fellner was sworn in by the Prussian military command a few days later. He pleaded in the Senate to meet the further monetary demand as well as the initial one. At the same time, he asked the Prussian government for an opportunity to pay in installments. However, the legislative assembly and the permanent citizen representation of the Free City rejected this proposal in July 1866. herwanted to protest against the inhuman treatment of the city in this way.

The Prussian Commander’s Mistletary Threat

The Prussian city commander General von Roeder interpreted this rejection as an open rebellion. He asked the mayor to disclose a list of the names and ownerships of all members of the municipal bodies by the next morning. Otherwise, he threatened the final looting and bombing of the city. With such a looting would havesoldiers are allowed to take everything they needed for their private purposes. There would most likely have been fire, murder, rape and other serious crimes.

The bombing and total destruction

Including the threatened bombing by large field guns, the city would then only have been a rubble desert. Unfortunately, such scenarios of total destruction can be observed again and again in later military conflicts. The mayor thus found himself in an indissoluble conflict. He stood between his duties towards the city and its citizensOn the one hand and his oath as a government representative on the other. In this hopeless situation, he saw no other way out than suicide.

The mayor’s tragic suicide

On the morning of his birthday at the age of 59 in July 1866, Fellner hanged himself in his home on Seilerstrasse. Although the communication of his death was initially suppressed by the Prussian military authority, it quickly spread to the citizenry. Over 6,000 citizens gave him the last escort at his funeral at the main cemetery in July 1866. This happened, thoughThe funeral had to take place in the early hours of the morning on the order of the city commander. At the funeral service, the deceased’s brother-in-law presented the new Prussian district administrator with the empty ostentation list and the rope with which the mayor had committed himself.

The easing of reprisals and diplomatic protection

After this tragic incident, the worst oppression measures were relaxed because the Prussian Prime Minister had achieved his goal. He had gained certainty in diplomatic contacts with the French Emperor and the Russian Tsar. He now knew that these powers of Prussian annexation policy and the founding of the North German Confederation in 1867 did notThe forcible incorporation of the Free City into Prussian territory was thus finally sealed. However, the historical truth has long been obscured by official historiography in order not to damage the national unity.

The Persistent Repression of Historical Truth

The unification of Germany and the founding of the empire are partly still celebrated today as a great historical deed. It is therefore not particularly surprising that many historians at the state universities are not particularly eager to examine that part of history in more detail. Such a reappraisal might well include their own academic titles and incomethis also says a lot about the real importance of scientific freedom in the present time. However, a true look at history requires the courage to analyze the dark chapters of the national past without blinders.

Historical classification and the importance of processing

The events surrounding the occupation of Frankfurt in 1866 clearly show that German unification was by no means a purely peaceful or exclusively progressive process. Rather, it was enforced by military force, financial blackmail and the deliberate dismantling of democratic structures in the affected cities. The tragic suicide of the FrankfurtMayor symbolizes the resistance of the free citizenship against authoritarian attacks. Today’s scholarship of history has a responsibility to disclose these complex relationships, rather than concealing them in favor of a simplified national pattern of interpretation. Only by honestly dealing with the dark sides of the past can ain-depth understanding of the development of democratic values in the present.