sign in sign up
<<
Home , Holstein, Jutland, London Protocol (1852)

131 THE DANISH-GERMAN WAR OF 1864 AND BRITISH POLITICS

War~en B. Morris, Jr.

Department of History, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma

In 1863, and the German ficult had the matter of succession not en­ powers found themselves engaged in a series tered into the already complex affair. The of conflicts that led to the outbreak of the Duchies were under the rule of the Danish Danish-German War of 1864. The effects King, as of Schleswif·, and of this war were not confined to the coun­ were not considered a part 0 Denmark. The tries directly involved in combat, but spread Danish Kingdom was under the ux Regw to and had a significant ef­ law of succession of 1665, and the royal fect on British politics. In the face of the line could be transmitted through the fe­ growing conflict, lack of a decisive policy male branch of the royal family. The by the British Prime Minister, Viscount Duchies were not, however, under this John Palmerston, caused a great deal of dis­ law, and, thus, the nearest male heirs to the cussion in the press and in public meetings, Danish King, the Princes of Augustenburg, and finally led to his near censure by Parl­ had a legal claim to rule over them (2, iament. Even Queen Victoria was affected p. 5). by the war and her interference was respon­ sible for the Government's lack of a de­ In January, 1848, King Christian VlII cisive policy. died, thus ending the Danish royal line based on male succession. In , the In order to understand the effect of the new ministry in , insraIled as a war on the British, it is necessary, first, result of the Revolution of 1848, announced to examine the nature of the Schleswig­ that the Duchies were to be united with Holstein problem. The issues involved are Denmark under a new constitution. This complex and difficult to understand. Vis­ caused the Germans in the Duchies to re­ count Palmerston stated that only three volt and to set up a provisional government men had understood the problem and all at KieI. There followed a short war between its intricacies: the first was the King of Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein, which Denmark, who had died; the second was an had the support of the German Confedera­ unidentified Danish Minister, who had tion and (3). The war was ended gone insane thinking about it; lastly, there with the signing of the was Palmerston himself, who had forgotten of May 8, 1852 by England, , , it (I). Because of its complex nature, it is Denmark, and Russia. This Proto­ doubtful whether very many members of col guaranteed the union of the Duchies, the British public or Government actually recognized the heir to the Danish throne, understood the true nature of the conflict. Prince Christian of Gliicksburg, as sole in­ heritor, and guaranteed that the Duchies The major cause of the problem was that would never become a part of the Kingdom the King of Denmark was also the Duke of of Denmark ("). As a corollary to tbe Pro­ Schleswig-Holstein. The population of Hol­ tocol, Prince Christian of Augustenburg re­ stein was German, while Schleswig was a nounced his claims to Schleswig-Holstein border area with mixed German and ­ (5). ish populations. The claims of the Danish King to the Duchies can be traced back to The issue was not solved by the London the time of Queen Margaret in the Middle ProtoCOl and it became a major problem Ages. After the close of the Napoleonic in 1863. A crisis developed on March 30, wars, be was awarded Holstein as a partial when King Frederick VII issued a procla­ compensation for the loss of Norway to mation claiming Schleswig u a part of Sweden. Since Holstein was a part of tbe Denmark proper. On July 6, the German , the Danish King Federal Diet demanded the renunciation of was represented in tbe German Federal this announcement. On August 28, the Diet at Frankfurt am Main (2). Danish King rejected tbe German demands and procIaimed, on September 28, to a The problem would have been less diE- specially called Danish Parliament, the uni- Ploc. 0Ida. Aad. Sci. 51: 131-135 (1971) 132

ficatioo of Schleswig with Denmark under The Prussian involvement in the war a new constitution. On the same day, the caused a wave of anti-German feeling to German stateS issued a demand that this sweep England. Most Englishmen forgot action be rescinded or the invasion of Hol­ about the compleXities of the situation and stein would follow. Ignoring the German only saw it &S a battle between a weak na­ threat, the approved the new consti­ tion, Denmark, and two great powers. One tution on November 13 (6). Two days British newspaper stated that all concerned later, the king died and Prince Christian persons should be disturbed to see little of Schleswig-Holstein-Sfinderborg-Gliicks­ Denmark attacked by such a strong com­ burg ascended the Danish throne(7) . bination as Prussia and Austria. A leading magazine maintained that the Danes had The new king adopted the proposed con­ done everything possible to avoid war, and stitution and the conflict intensified. The that Austria and Prussia had actually at­ German states claimed that the unification tacked Denmark, not because of the fail­ of Schleswig with Denmark and its separa­ ures of the Danes, but because of the de­ tion from Holstein under the new constitu­ mands of the German masses (13). Even tion was a direct violation of the London Punch departed from its usual humor to Prococol, thereby nullifying it and justify­ denounce the Germans for their "plunder ing a German invasion of Holstein and a and slaughter of the Danes" (14). renewal of the claims of the Prince of Augustenburg. The Federal German troops The press was not alone in its statements consequently entered Holstein on December of sympathy for Denmark and condemna­ 7, 1863 (5, pp. 170-171). On December tion of the Germans. There was an outcry 31, Prince Friedrich of Augustenburg pro­ of support of the Danes from many mem­ claimed himself the rightful Duke of bers of the British public. The strongest Schleswig-Holstein (8). expression of support for Denmark came The reports contained in the British from Ireland where a group of "Cent Gar­ press emphasized the popular support given des" volunteered their services to the Danish to the Duke upon his entrance into Hol­ King, who wrote a letter of thanks but stein. One magazine reported that with declined the offer (15). Other British sub· the departure of the Danish troops rejoic­ jects chose other expressions of support for ing broke out and national flags flew from the Danes. Several groups were occupied every window (9). Another reported popu­ in gathering funds for Danish relief. One lar demonstrations in favor of the Duke, of the first of these was headed by the the coveting of the walls with signs wel­ Marquis of Clanricarde (13, p. 141). On coming him, and violence against persons March 1, the Times reported that the "Re­ with known pro-Danish feelings (8, p. 42). lief Fund for the Wounded Danes and the This pro-German attitude on the part of the Families of the Fallen," under the leader­ press soon changed, however, into one ship of A. Westerhale, had sent 2,333 violently anti-German. Pounds to the Central Committee for Dan­ ish Relief in Copenhagen (16). Another The reason for this change in attitude 1,000 Pounds was sent to the Danish capi­ was the Austro-Prussian ultimatum to tal by the Liverpool Danish Relief Fund Denmark on January 16, 1864, which de­ (17). manded the revocation of the new consti­ tution within 48 hours. On January 21, The Prussian attack on Diippel, and the the Federal troops, composed of Saxon and bombardment of Sonderborg that accom· Hannoverian detachments, were joined in panied it, enhanced the development of Holstein by those of Prussia and Austria pro-Danish feeling in England. Even such a (S, p. 169). On February 1, the Prussians Germanophile as Queen Victoria wrote a entered Schleswig (10), and on February letter of protest to her daughter, Victoria, 18 they crossed into at the Prussian Crown Princess (18). Punch ( 11) . Meanwhile, the Danes had withdrawn suggested that an artist paint a picture into the fortress at D\ippel, which fell 00 of the "mangled mass of raw flesh and April 18, after a long Prussian siege, during blood" as a fitting memorial to the work which time the village of Sooderborg had of the Austrian Kaiser and the prussian been bombarded, and one-third of the town King. PlllUb informed the monarchs, cfestro1ed (12 ). ''Your Majesties cannot conceive the dis- 133

gust and detestation with which yoW' out­ respondence concerning the affair. The ma­ rage on Denmark is regarded" (19). jor leader of the opposition was Benjamin Disraeli who, in a speech in the House of It is a mistake to assume that the pro­ Commons on February 22, demanded that Danish movement represented all British the Government inform the people of its subjects. Some were very openly pro-Ger­ position and cease all delay in the publi­ man. In March, 1864, Blackwood's Ed;,,­ ~t.ion of the recon:Js. Disraeli took the po­ burgh MaganM carried a letter pleading Sillon that it was the duty of the members the German case. The unnamed author of Parliament to seek information on the expressed the idea that the Schleswig-Hol­ subject and that it was also their right to stein problem was the result of an oppressed receive it (21, CLXXIII, col. 873). In reo nationality seeking self-determination, and sponse to the criticism against its policy, that if the people of the Duchies were given the Government held that a publication of a chance to choose their ruler they would, the diplomatic correspondence would harm without hesitation, choose the Prince of the chances of the ministry to carry on suc­ Augustenburg. This writer believed that cessful negotiations. The Government main· the affair was not directly the concern of tained that its policy toward the war should the British, and that it was wrong to con· not be a matter open to parliamentary de· sider the possibility of going to war to de­ bate (21, CLXXIII, col. 1618). fend the right of the Danish King to rule over the Germans in Schleswig-Holstein Some members of the Parliament, reflect­ (9, pp. 388-393). ing the opinions of their constituents, de· There were also Englishmen who simply manded drastic actions. Typical of this advocated a policy of non-intervention. school of thought was Lord Cambell, who This view found its largest following in demanded that the British fleet be sent into the city of Manchester, where the mayor the Baltic as a demonstration of British called a meeting to discuss the dispute and support for the Danes (21, CLXXIV, col. to formulate a petition to Parliament. T. 732). Lord John Russell, Foreign Minister, B. Potter introduced a resolution stating answered for the Ministry with a statement that the London Protocol of 1852 did not that, before action of this nature should be obligate the British to go to war for Den· taken, the Government needed to make a mark and petitioned the Government and serious study of the situation (21, CLXXIV, Parliament to adopt a course of non-inter· col. 755). Russell also pled the presence of vention. The resolution was adopted by a ice floes on the Baltic as a major reason large majority and sent to London (20). why Cambell's plan would not work (21, CLXXIV, col. 760). The official position of the Government was unclear. Viscount Palmerston at first The debate in Parliament reached its seemed to take a pro-Danish stand. After conclusion on July 4, when Benjamin Dis­ the Germans issued their demands, he made raeli gave a speech in which he denounced a speech in Parliament in support of the the Government for a complete lack of Danes and stated that if adopted determination and stated that its policy a policy of force "it would not be Den· had been completely inadequate. He mark alone with which they would have charged that this impotence was responsi. to contend" (21). Palmerston's strong ble for a major lowering of British prestige statement led many to believe that the Gov­ in the eyes of the rest of . Disraeli ernment would stand behind the Danes and concluded his attack with a motion of cen· was qUOted many times in the debate over sure on the Government for its failure the Government's policy. in "upholding the integrity and independ­ The major criticism of the Government ence of Denmark" (21, CLXXVI, col. 743). ~as that it did not inform the public of The debate lasted three nights and repeated Its position. One magazine expressed the all the charges and countercharges of the ~eelIngs of many when it stated, "We seek last several months. On July 8, the Govern­ ~n v~in for .the guiding principle of British ment won the vote by 313 to 295 (21, ~orelgn polIcy (9, p. 383)." This complaint CLXXVI, cols. 750-751) . The fact that found its way into Parliament and a long the Ministry won by only 18 votes demon· je~te took place over the delay in publi­ strated the depth of discontent with its -'Btlon of the record of the diplomatic cor· policy. 134

Palmerston's policy was rejected by the it be called to the attention of the Cabinet. House of Lords. On July 8, James Howard, The Queen believed that Denmark had the Third Earl of Malmesbury, introduced violated the London Protocol and that the a motion of censure during a speech in German powers had a right to take action, which he condemned the Prime Minister even to the extent of a declaration of war, for his failure to "make up his mind to any in order to force the Danes to respect the policy whatever (21, CLXXVI, col. 1300)." rights of the Germans in Schleswig-Hol­ The debate centered around the charge stein. She sided with the Prince of Augus­ that Palmerston's statement of 1863 had tenburg and informed her ministers that falsely assured the Danes of British support she would never allow England to go to in the event of a war with the German war to proteCt the Danes (23, p. 274). In Powers. The Government countered this her efforts to keep the Government from charge by denying it, and Russell claimed siding with the Danes, the Queen relied that, regardless of the Government's action, on Lord Granville, the Lord President of the situation would have been completely the Council, as her chief spokesman. Russell out of its control (21, CLXXVI, col. 1088). and Palmerston attempted to send a series The final vote was 177 for censure and of dispatches to Berlin, Vienna, Paris, and 168 against, thus showing once again the St. Petersburg expressing support of Den­ depth of discontent with the Ministry's mark. These were not sent, however, be­ policy (21, CLXXVI, col. 1177). cause of the work of the Queen through her supporters in the cabinet. (23, pp. 270­ One might be led to ask why Palmerston 272). failed to carry Out a policy of strength as was indicated by his statement of 1863. When the threat of Prussian invasion was This question is especially pertinent after first imminent, Palmerston wanted to go an investigation of the British press and of to the aid of the Danes. When Victoria the debates in Parliament. After all, would heard that Palmerston had informed the not Palmerston have been much more pop­ Prussian Minister to London, Count Bern­ ular had he met the German challenge with storEf, that Britain would aid the Danes, a show of strength? The answer lies in the she sent Palmerston a letter informing him attitude of Queen Victoria. The Queen be­ that England could not be committed to lieved that Germany and England should support Denmark, and that she would op­ have "..• a good and friendly understand­ pose war over the matter (24). After the ing between them" (22). Prussian invasion of Jutland, Russell and Palmerston tried to adopt a strong policy Palmerston urged that the British EJeet be toward the question, but was prevented by sent into the Baltic as a show of force in the influence of the Queen on the cabinet. favor of Denmark. Once again the Queen As early as September, 1863, he sought stepped in and stopped the Government French aid in protecting the rights of the from taking aCtion (23, p. 274>. When it Danish King. In this effort he was stopped seemed possible that the Austrian fleet by the intervention of the Queen, who would sail through the English Channel to forced him to rewrite his note in such terms the Baltic, Palmerston demanded that the as to dilute any strong effect it might have Government take action to prevent it. Upon had. In NoveQlber, Foreign Minister Russell hearing of this, the Queen directed Sir tried to send a series of notes to the Ger. Charles Phipps to write a letter to Palmers­ man states warning of the danger of war as ton informing him in clear terms that the a result of the German threats to Denmark. sole policy of the Government must be to Because of the insistence of Queen ViCtoria avoid the involvement of England in a war the notes were submitted to the Cabinet over Schleswig-Holstein. A debate took for approval. Before the meeting took place in the Cabinet and it was decided not place, ViCtoria sent General Grey to lobby to take any action then (24, p. 387). By the QleJDbers to vote against the corres. this time, events had progressed to the point pondence. When the Cabinet met on No­ where it was praCtically impossible for the vember 25, the dispatches were rejected British to take any aCtion short of military (23). intervention.

On January 1, 1864, the Queen wrote a The attitude of the Queen toward the formal letter to Russell and instruCted that affair soon became public, and she was 135 severely criticized for her policy. The r.o.. inet, which forced Palmerston to refrain dOlI Retliew charged that Victoria had il­ from any decisive action. legally exerted her authority on the matter by ooercing the Government to follow her REFERENCES wishes (23, pp. 278·279). Lord Ellenbe­ I. W. P. HALL and W. S. DAVIS, Tb. COllrS. of B_p. Si"e. W"'"100, Appleton-Ceo· rough, in the House of Lords. on May 26, tury-Crofts, New York, 1968, p. 174. charged that the Queen had forced the 2. L D. STIlEf'EL, Th. Se"usu'ig-Hols,ei" a".s­ Ministry to disregard the welfare of Eng. '10", Harvard Press, Cambridae, Mass., 1932, p. 4. land by adopting a pro-German policy 3. A. W. WAD and G. P. GoocH