UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Daily Plebiscite: Political Culture and National Identity in Nice and Savoy, 1860-1880 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8dj2f20d Author Sawchuk, Mark Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California The Daily Plebiscite: Political Culture and National Identity in Nice and Savoy, 1860–1880 by Mark Alexander Sawchuk A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge Professor Carla Hesse, Chair Professor James P. Daughton Professor John Connelly Professor Jonah Levy Spring 2011 The Daily Plebiscite: Political Culture and National Identity in Nice and Savoy, 1860–1880 Copyright 2011 Mark Alexander Sawchuk Abstract The Daily Plebiscite: Political Culture and National Identity in Nice and Savoy, 1860–1880 by Mark Alexander Sawchuk Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Carla Hesse, Chair Using the French philosopher Ernest Renan’s dictum that the “nation’s existence is ... a daily plebiscite” as an ironic point of departure, this dissertation examines the contours of oppositional political culture to the French annexation of the County of Nice and the Duchy of Savoy in 1860. Ceded by treaty to France by the northern Italian kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, these two mountainous border territories had long been culturally and geo-strategically in the French orbit. Unlike their counterparts in any other province of France, the inhabitants of the two territories were asked to approve or reject the annexation treaty, and thus their incorporation into France, in a plebiscite employing universal male suffrage. The 1860 annexation has traditionally been viewed as a rare example of an uncontroversial nineteenth-century territorial realignment, an instance where French strategic and diplomatic interests aligned perfectly with the national aspirations of the inhabitants. In fact, the annexation was always more controversial than the virtually unanimous plebiscite results indicate. The archival record shows surprisingly strong and long-lived resistance to the settlement of 1860 in both territories. Cultural tensions between French administrators and the annexed populations exacerbated separatist sentiment as the gulf between the expectations of an easy transition and the far more complex reality of the enormous administrative transformation became increasingly manifest. Unsettled and antagonistic diplomatic relationships with Switzerland (which felt entitled to territorial compensations in Savoy) and Italy (where many nationalists resented having to give up Nice) contributed to French fears that these neighboring countries would try to subvert the annexation. French administrators consistently turned to the quasi-mythical notion of “Swiss agents” or “Italian subverters” to explain the resistance that they encountered to French rule. These tensions resulted in the emergence of anti-French movements, oriented in Savoy toward nearby Switzerland and in Nice toward the newly-unified Italy. The opposition in Savoy was predominantly political and republican in character. Attracted to Switzerland’s decentralized government and political liberties, it grew stronger in the 1860’s as opposition to the Second Empire increased. Niçois opposition, by contrast, maintained an essentially ethno-national-territorial agenda oriented towards Italy, and had great affinities to the irredentism of Italian nationalists after 1861. The catastrophic Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871 brought these movements to a head. Fears that Savoy and Nice might voluntarily detach themselves from the French state appeared very quickly after the Sedan disaster, culminating in street riots in Nice and the election of three 1 separatist deputies to the National Assembly, and a movement in the northern Savoy in favor of inviting Switzerland to occupy and annex territory in the Haute-Savoie. In both provinces, separatism drew strength from the unresolved tensions of the annexation as well as from the uncertain political climate of France’s Third Republic. As monarchists and republicans battled for control of the state, separatism became linked to the national political struggle. Initially this was most evident in Savoy, where the pro-Swiss separatist current in Savoy remained grounded in the area’s precocious republicanism. In Nice separatism maintained its Italian dimension, but gradually became marginalized and discredited when separatist leaders became involved with the conservatives. The firm establishment of the Republic by 1880 thus, paradoxically, helped to neutralize both separatist currents and finally cemented the annexation that had occurred two decades earlier. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of institutions and organizations for their support. At U.C. Berkeley, a grant from the Institute for European Studies enabled me to take my first research trip in the summer of 2006, and a grant from the Institute for International Studies helped support one year of writing. My research year in France was supported by a grant from the Fulbright Institute for International Education. I also want to thank the Department of History for a final year dissertation write-up grant. I’m fortunate to have so many wonderful people to thank for all of their help over the years. I would like to begin by acknowledging my mentors at Brown University: Tom Gleason, Amy Remensnyder, and Patricia Herlihy, all of whom supported my decision to undertake graduate study. My academic mentors at Berkeley have been nothing short of extraordinary. With her unmatchable attention to detail and breadth of knowledge, Margaret Lavinia Anderson encouraged the development of my interests and provided me many wonderful teaching opportunities. John Connelly kindly allowed me to attend his seminar during my visit to Berkeley and was, consequently, in large part responsible for my decision to attend. He has steadfastly supported my development as a scholar and has applauded my idiosyncratic interest in both Western and Eastern Europe. In the French department, Michael Lucey good-naturedly allowed me to read French novels with him, while Jonah Levy in Political Science provided extremely helpful comments on the dissertation draft. During the difficult months following the death of Susanna Barrows, J.P. Daughton at Stanford stepped in with his usual good cheer to help oversee the project’s completion. I reserve special thanks for Carla Hesse. With her conceptual brilliance, she encouraged me to ask questions and pursue approaches that I otherwise would not have considered. This dissertation matured under her insightful guidance. She also took over as chair of the dissertation committee and continued to advise me even while assuming new responsibilities at the university. I cannot thank her enough for her perseverance and support. Many people have helped to make France a second home for me. Since my first trip to France at the age of ten, Pierre and Françoise Chavel have always provided me with a warm welcome and have consistently encouraged my interest in French history and culture. Annie Wiart and David Alcaud helped me navigate the Scylla of the fiche téchnique and the Charybdis of the exposé during my undergraduate year at Sciences-Po. Jean-Pierre and Annie Stora- Lamarre have made my recent trips to France both academically and personally rewarding. The biggest acknowledgement goes to André Palluel-Guillard, who personifies the best of Savoyard hospitality. He welcomed an unknown American into his home and could not have been more supportive of my interest in the unique history of his pays. At U.C. Berkeley, I was fortunate to be a member of an unusually large entering cohort in European history, many of whose members and families have become close friends. I want to thank all of my friends, academic and otherwise, for their enduring love and support, especially Karin Atthoff, Helaine Blumenthal, Joe Bohling, Eliah Bures, Bathsheba Demuth, Chad Denton, Darcie Fontaine, Faith Hillis, Caitlin Jordan, Alexander Labinov, Chrissa La Porte, John Paul i Narcisse, Jovelle Narcisse, Keeli Nelson, Martina Nguyen, Katharine Norris, Nora Pines, and Erik Scott. There are a few people whom I need to single out for special mention. Nicholaas Barr, Farren Briggs, Stephen Gross, Tyler Lange, Stephanie Morgan, Rebecca Moyle, Alexis Peri, and Sabrina Rahman all provided extra support during difficult times. Helena Chadderton, Lindsey Dodd and Matthew Moran became instant soulmates and friends, and have made my periodic trips to the United Kingdom extremely memorable. In the past three years, I have lost two extraordinary and very dear mentors who greatly enriched my life. During my time in Washington, D.C., Sharon Pickett was a steadfast and inspiring friend, mentor, and confidant, and I miss her gentle yet firm advice. Susanna Barrows, my late adviser at Berkeley, was the single most influential person in my academic development. When I was struggling to find a workable dissertation topic, she encouraged me to go out on a limb and try something new. Her generosity, modest personality, witty sense of humor, intellectual anarchism and boundless reserves of love for her students are justifiably legendary. She is deeply missed. And last, but certainly not least,