Unit 5 The Birth of Belgium PDF

Historical Thinking Napoleon Bonaparte Restoration vs. Modern Ideologies The Unification of Germany u n i t 5 THE BIRTH OF BELGIUM The Industrial Revolution...

Historical Thinking Napoleon Bonaparte Restoration vs. Modern Ideologies The Unification of Germany u n i t 5 THE BIRTH OF BELGIUM The Industrial Revolution The Social Question in the 19th Century Conflicts in Belgium New Imperialism Eurocentrism & World View Decline & Fall of the Chinese Empire Migration & Integration The First World War A New World after WW1? The Russian Revolution Global Economic Depression Totalitarianism The Run-up to WW2 Art in the Modern Period Science & Technology since 1800 S I N T - P A U L U S S C H O O L C A M P U S S J B C L I L / H I S T O R Y — C O U R S E B O O K , 2 0 2 4 E D I T I O N Edited in 2024 by Michaël Delange | Sint-Paulusschool Campus SJB  T H E B I R T H O F B E L G I U M W h a t i s U N I T 5 a l l a b o u t ? Present-day Belgium owes its existence as an independent state to the revolution of 1830, although it had existed as a political entity since the late 16th century, first under the Spanish and later the Austrian Habsburgs (YEAR 4). The Belgian Revolution ended the short-lived [*KORTSTONDIGE] reunification of North and South in the  Kingdom of the Netherlands [KONINKRIJK DER NEDERLANDEN] (1815). This upheaval [*OMWENTELING] can be viewed from different perspectives. It can be seen as a step in the gradual dismantling [*AFBOUW] of the Ancien Régime (YEAR 4), as a part of an irreversible [*ONOMKEERBARE] process of modernisation in the Atlantic world, without, however, completing that process. As everywhere in Europe between 1815 and 1848, the period of the so-called  restoration [RESTAURATIE] (UNIT 3), a tension indeed remained between reform and tradition. In addition, it was also a reaction to the policies of the Dutch monarch,  William I [WILLEM I], who showed both liberal and national traits [*KARAKTERTREKKEN]. And finally, we can also view it as an event with an almost accidental [*TOEVALLIG] character, when we link it to the French July Revolution of 1830 (UNIT 3), which – thanks to a favourable international constellation – succeeded because the powers were fearful of a new European war. 1 United (?) Kingdom of the Netherlands In 1815, the Congress of Vienna (UNIT 3) united – without being solicited [*ONGEVRAAGD] – the abolished Habsburg/Austrian Netherlands and the territory of the Prince-Bishopric [*PRINSBISDOM] of Liège (in fact the 9 previously French départements/provinces) with the former Republic of the 7 United Provinces (YEAR 4), which had also disappeared at the same time period, into the (United) Kingdom of the Netherlands. This new creation was intended as a solid barrier against France, entirely in keeping with [*IN HET TEKEN VAN] the geopolitical strategy of the great powers. Strictly speaking, the also newly created Grand Duchy [*GROOTHERTOGDOM] of Luxembourg was outside the kingdom, but the Dutch sovereign, William I of Orange-Nassau (1772-1843, r. 1813-39/40), administered it in practice as a Dutch province. This new country was a centrally governed unitary state [*EENHEIDSSTAAT], where (as in French times) the same laws and rules applied everywhere to everyone. It had a restoration regime headed by the monarch, bound by a constitution that granted [*TOEKENDE] a number of freedoms/rights to its citizens (e.g., religion, printing press and the right to vote). This may all sound quite democratic, but in reality, the royal will stood above the constitution. Although there was a parliament (the  Estates-General [STATEN-GENERAAL]), the KN did not have a parliamentary regime. The king himself decided who his ministers would be, the Estates-General could not hold the ministers to account [*TER VERANTWOORDING ROEPEN] (no  ministerial responsibility [MINISTERIËLE VERANTWOORDELIJKHEID]) and, furthermore, William could dissolve [*ONTBINDEN] a (in his eyes) critical Estates-General without any problem at all. The way that parliament was established was not particularly democratic either. There were 2 Houses. The members of the  Lower House [TWEEDE KAMER] were elected, but indirectly. First, a very small part of the (rich, male) population was allowed to vote for members of the Estates-Provincial. Then, the province’s elected officials the members of the Lower House. The composition [*SAMENSTELLING] of the  Upper House [EERSTE KAMER] involved [*GING GEPAARD MET] no elections at all: the king himself chose and appointed its members. And, finally, the constitution stated that William could also make  royal decrees [KONINKLIJKE BESLUITEN]. He did not need to consult parliament to do so. Thus, the Dutch regime was utterly [*VOLSTREKT] in line with the principles of the Congress of Vienna in not allowing too much say [*INSPRAAK] to subjects [*ONDERDANEN], while giving all opportunity to the monarch for personal rule. In brief, William behaved like an enlightened despot (YEAR 4). This provoked [*LOKTE UIT] a reaction from the Edited in 2024 by Michaël Delange | Sint-Paulusschool Campus SJB  Unit 5 – T he bir th of B el gium II /V A new kingdom no longer united (1815-39) liberals, both in the North and the South. They wanted a  constitutional monarchy [CONSTITUTIONELE/GRONDWETTELIJKE MONARCHIE] and a parliamentary regime. However, the union [*VERENIGING] did not lead to the unity desired by the Congress of Vienna. North and South had grown increasingly [*ALSMAAR STERKER] apart since the 16th century, especially in the religious, linguistic [*TAALKUNDIGE] and economic fields. These differences hypothesised [*HYPOTHEKEERDEN] ‘the perfect fusion’ of the 2 regions in the new state. King William’s arbitrary [*EIGENMACHTIGE] policies [*BELEID] widened that gap, however ‘well’ he may have meant it all. To begin with, in 1815, he forced the approval of the constitution with an equalisation [*GELIJKSTELLING] of the religions upon the almost exclusively Roman Catholic South ( arithmétique hollandaise [HOLLANDSE REKENKUNDE], 1815), whereas [*TERWIJL] the North was only majority Calvinist. With its c.3.5 million inhabitants, it also got just as many representatives in the administrative institutions [*BESTUURSINSTELLINGEN] as the North (c.2 million inhabitants). The linguistic diversity in the South and the strong presence of French in the administrative upper class and in the ‘Walloon’ provinces contrasted sharply with the linguistic homogeneity of the North. The authoritarian king pursued a policy [*VOERDE EEN BELEID] of  dutchification [VERNEDERLANDSING] in the South, especially in education – to begin with [*IN EERSTE INSTANTIE] above, but in the long term also below the language border [*TAALGRENS]. As a result, the French-speaking elite (throughout the country) saw its promotional opportunities thwarted [*GEDWARSBOOMD]. And the ‘Flemish’ population regarded ‘Hollandic’ as the language of the Protestant ‘heretics’. William promoted [*BEVORDERDE] a state education (state monopoly on education from 1825), much to the dismay [*ONGENOEGEN] of the once [*EERTIJDS] (all) powerful Roman Catholic Church – threatened in its school monopoly. With this, he wanted to raise the cultural level of the South and reduce the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. As an enlightened despot, he had the public interest in mind, but with his self-opinionated [*EIGENZINNIGE] policy he not only defied [*DAAGDE UIT, TARTTE] the liberal and the Roman Catholic bourgeoisie and nobility, the  French speakers [FRANSTALIGEN], but also the ‘Flemish’ population and the Roman Catholic Church. William’s active economic policy was also enlightened: he promoted trade and industry. While the South experienced an early Industrial Revolution (UNIT 6), the North remained attuned to [*AFGESTEMD OP] colonial trade. The most prominent measure was the establishment of the Brussels- based Société Générale (1822) as an investment bank for the South’s burgeoning [*ONTLUIKENDE] industrialisation. 2 Opposition & Revolt In 1828, an economic crisis broke out in a country where 10 per cent of the population was already living in great poverty. That indigence [*BEHOEFTIGHEID], however, was not evenly distributed [*VERDEELD] across the kingdom. In rural areas, farmers could often still scrape together a meagre living, but in the cities for many the situation was hopeless. This increasing group was not only an economic and social burden, there also was – rightly [*TERECHT] – the fear that it would (eventually) become a threat to public order. In the fall of that same year, despite mutual differences [*ONDERLINGE TEGENSTELLINGEN], (progressive) liberals and (conservative) Catholics in the South formed an alliance against William: the  Union des Oppositions [MONSTERVERBOND]. This strange collaboration immediately offers an explanation for the ambivalence [*TWEESLACHTIGHEID] of the Belgian Revolution: the liberals wanted a modern state, the Church sought a restoration of past influence. Although they were each other’s fundamental opposites – the liberal bourgeoisie actually liked William’s economic policies (some were even  orangists [ORANGISTEN]) – rapprochement [*TOENADERING] arose between the liberal and Catholic elite, because of the authoritarian character of the monarch. Their  unionist [UNIONISTISCH] covenant [*VERBOND] strived for liberal freedoms and ministerial responsibility (or, put another way [*ANDERS GEZEGD], for a system where the government depended on the support of parliament). It organised press campaigns RETROSPECT – History with Hindsight | CLIL History Course Book, Year 5  Unit 5 – T he bir th of B el gium III /V A new kingdom no longer united (1815-39) and petitions to persuade the King to meet [*TEGEMOET TE KOMEN AAN] the grievances [*GRIEVEN] of the South. However, according to Belgian liberals and Catholics, William’s hesitant concessions [*AARZELENDE TOEGEVINGEN] did not go far enough and the situation escalated. The serious crisis of authority in the (southern part of the) kingdom affected both political decision-making, the stability of the national administration and the legitimacy of William’s kingship. Against this background, the political and social unrest of 1830 gave rise to the Belgian Revolution. From 1826, the economic situation deteriorated [*VERSLECHTERDE], reinforced [*VERSTERKT] by the sky-high national debt caused by the Napoleonic Wars. In 1830, crop failures [*MISOOGSTEN] due to a very harsh winter threatened the food supply once more – the already increased food prices threatened to rise again. The progressive July Revolution that ended the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty and brought ‘citizen king’ Louis Philippe d’Orléans to the throne (UNIT 3) made trade with France more difficult for the industry in the South. Overproduction in industry led to bankruptcy [*FAILLISSEMENTEN], a reduction in wages [*LONEN] and unemployment. The political uprising that followed was based on this social unrest. The Belgian Revolution did not follow a preconceived [*VOOROPGEZET] plan, although since the upheaval in Paris, there have been revolutionary planners in Brussels too who hoped that Belgium would also be swept up [*MEEGETROKKEN] in the wave of revolution. On 25 August, a liberal manifestation in the Brussels Monnaie Theater [MUNTSCHOUWBURG] following the performance of the infamous [*BERUCHTE] opera ‘La Muette de Portici’ culminated [*MONDDE UIT] in the uproar of the impoverished [*VERARMDE] masses. It became a hunger revolt that turned against the Dutch authorities and the Brussels bourgeoisie, and it quickly spread: first to the Walloon cities, and soon after all over ‘Flanders’ as well. The bourgeoisie in Brussels used its suppression [*ONDERDRUKKING] of the social unrest to put pressure on the king and demanded an  administrative separation [BESTUURLIJKE SCHEIDING]. However, political-social unrest increased. To maintain control of the situation, the revolutionary pacemakers [*GANGMAKERS] radicalised, without there being a clearly preconceived [*VOOROPGEZET] scenario. The initial [*AANVANKELIJKE] social demands were soon supplanted by liberal and nationalist demands; this is called ‘recuperation’. Mid-September 1830, the Estates-General met over an administrative separation, a viable [*HAALBAAR] compromise that most members were inclined to [*GENEGEN]. Most of the representatives of the South voted in favour of a military intervention to restore order and peace. But because of William’s hesitant [*AARZELENDE] attitude, who eventually sent troops to take Brussels, the revolt radicalised: from a movement for the redress [*HERSTEL] of grievances, it evolved into a secessionist [*AFSCHEIDINGS-] movement. The (small) army thought it would be welcomed as a liberator, but it faced desertion, a cool reception, military resistance from Belgian ‘volunteers’ who quite surprisingly withstood the ‘Hollandic’ siege [*BELEGERING], mainly because of tactical mistakes and the hesitation to use excessive [*BUITENSPORIGE] force. The revolution generalised to the entire South, including the province of Limburg and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Subsequently, the unionist elite established a  Provisional Government [VOORLOPIG BEWIND] (26 September). On 4 October 1830, it proclaimed the independence of Belgium and issued elections on the basis of census (i.e., on the basis of a sufficient amount paid in direct taxes) and on the right to vote (i.e., on the basis of a diploma) for a  constituent assembly [GRONDWETGEVENDE VERGADERING/CONSTITUANTE]: the  National Congress [NATIONAAL CONGRES] (3 November). Because the right to vote was thus concretely restricted to proprietors [*EIGENAARS], the noble landlords [*GROOTGRONDBEZITTERS] and the high- ranking bourgeoisie would manage for decades (at least until 1893) to shape political life to their liking. No one defended universal male or women’s suffrage in 1831 (UNIT 8). 3 Independent, but for how long? The National Congress (consisting of 200 members, directly elected by about 30,000 citizens) opted [*KOOS] for a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary regime. The then [*VOOR ZIJN TIJD] Edited in 2024 by Michaël Delange | Sint-Paulusschool Campus SJB  Unit 5 – T he bir th of B el gium IV /V A new kingdom no longer united (1815-39) very modern constitution (7 February 1831) was entirely in the tradition of the Enlightenment. It contained the individual freedoms (e.g., the freedom of education, printing press, language, association [*VERENIGING]). Important were equality before the law (no estates and privileges) and the inviolability [*ONSCHENDBAARHEID] of person, home and property (against the arbitrariness [*WILLEKEUR] that typified [*KENMERKTE] the Ancien Régime). The constitution also laid down the principles of the  rule of law [RECHTSSTAAT]. The government could not take preventive measures to restrict Belgian citizens’ rights. It could only take repressive action to punish violation [*OVERTREDING] in their exercise (such as slander [*LASTER] and defamation [*EERROOF], or vandalism during a demonstration). These freedoms far outweighed [*WOGEN VEEL ZWAARDER DOOR DAN] political equality. After all, the liberal bourgeoisie excluded [*SLOOT UIT] the broad population from political decision- making through census suffrage (workers and women). Other measures also weakened the regime’s democratic worth [*GEHALTE]. A high tax on newspapers (newspaper stamp [*DAGBLADZEGEL]) eroded [*HOLDE UIT] the freedom of the press. Freedom of association did not exist in reality because of the inability to be recognised as a legal person (which, for example, prevented the acquisition [*VERWERVING] of property) and because of the prohibition of  coalition [COALITIEVERBOD]. This ban on association would for a long time slow down the breakthrough of the  trade unions [VAKBONDEN] and thus the emancipation of the workers. In the meantime, the Belgian government started looking for a suitable [*GESCHIKTE] head of state. Although there were a few convinced republicans, the moderates understood that the great powers would only accept a monarchy. After a relatively long search, the German prince  Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha [LEOPOLD VAN SAKSEN-COBURG-GOTHA] (1790-1865, r. 1831-65) was chosen, a candidate acceptable to all European powers. He became ‘King of the Belgians’ on 21 July 1831. According to the constitution, however, no personal power accrued [*KWAM TOE] to the monarch. In practice, however, Leopold and his successors Leopold II (r. 1865-1909), Albert I (r. 1909-34) and Leopold III (r. 1934-44/50) would try to increase their (executive) power, with varying degrees of success (YEAR 6). In the meantime, King William called for help of Russia, Prussia and Austria. In November and December 1830, all European powers gathered in London to deliberate [*BERAADSLAGEN OVER] the unstable situation in the Netherlands. The birth of Belgium was a mockery [*AANFLUITING] of the Congress of Vienna: a restoration regime was to making way [*MAAKTE PLAATS] for a liberal regime! Above all, they wanted to prevent revolutionary violence from spreading to the rest of the continent. A military intervention, however, was thwarted [*GEDWARSBOOMD] by an uprising in Poland (November 1830). Quickly, the  London Conference [CONFERENTIE VAN LONDEN] recognised [*ERKENDE] Belgian independence. The Treaty of the XVIII Articles imposed [*LEGDE OP] mandatory [*VERPLICHTE] neutrality on Belgium which the Powers vowed to protect (guarantees of neutrality and security). Conditions, arising [*VOORTKOMEND] from the political purpose of Vienna, were relatively favourable to the new state, thanks in part to William’s stubborn attitude at the conference. Very disappointed in the stance of the G5, he refused to accept the loss of more than half of ‘his’ kingdom. In August 1831 he attempted to reclaim the rebellious South by military force. This failed only because of the armed intervention of French troops sent by Louis-Philippe d’Orléans (1773-1850, r. 1830-48), the new citizen king, to keep his future son-in- law Leopold on the throne. By the way, British pressure was then needed to secure the French withdrawal [*TERUGTREKKING]. Because of that loss of prestige, Belgium had to accept the new, disadvantageous [*NADELIGE]  Treaty of the XXIV Articles [VERDRAG VAN DE XXIV ARTIKELEN] (1838/39), as a result of which it lost, among others, North Limburg and half of Luxembourg. Only then did William accept Belgian independence, and Belgium – also quite reluctantly [*MET TEGENZIN] – was willing to accept the not insignificant [*ONBEDUIDENDE] territorial loss and financial conditions. However, the continued existence [*VOORTBESTAAN] of Belgium is not set in stone [*IN STEEN GEBEITELD]. In the almost 200-year existence of Belgium, the future of our fatherland (?) has hung by a thread [*HING AAN EEN ZIJDEN DRAADJE] at least 3 times: the ambition of Napoleon III (r. 1848/52-70) to give his RETROSPECT – History with Hindsight | CLIL History Course Book, Year 5  Unit 5 – T he bir th of B el gium V /V A new kingdom no longer united (1815-39) French empire more strategic natural borders by annexing Belgium and during the 2 world wars (1914-18 & 1940-44), each time with Germany as aggressor. And since 1945, the national consensus has been evaporating [*AAN HET VERDAMPEN]: a Flemish identity has gradually developed within the Belgian state and the Flemish-Walloon opposition [*TEGENSTELLING] now acts as a centrifugal [*MIDDELPUNTVLIEDENDE] force that puts the existence of Belgium in jeopardy (YEAR 6). Edited in 2024 by Michaël Delange | Sint-Paulusschool Campus SJB  Unit 5 – T he bir th of B el gium 13 /… A new kingdom no longer united (1815-39) Edited in 2024 by Michaël Delange | Sint-Paulusschool Campus SJB  Unit 5 – T he bir th of B el gium 14 /… A new kingdom no longer united (1815-39) PRIOR LEARNING Before you begin, you need to know something about… (it would be useful to know something about…)  the Restoration (UNIT 3)  liberalism & nationalism (UNIT 3) ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS – KEY ISSUES (Focus)  Why did the ‘United’ Kingdom of the Netherlands fail?  How was the Belgian state different from the Dutch state?  What impact did the Belgian Revolution have on Viennese Europe? LEARNING OBJECTIVES (Knowledge & Comprehension) TE Use and explain the following concepts: T E National Congress, T E orangism, T E Provisional Government, T E unionism. TE Explain the economic cooperation between North and South. TE Demonstrate with 3 examples William I’s enlightened despotism. TE Explain the liberal and Catholic opposition to William I. TE Explain William’s language policy and the opposition to it. TE Demonstrate the influence of France and the French on the Belgian Revolution. TE Outline the course of the revolt. TE Explain the different attitudes of the European powers towards Belgium. TE Explain the difficult choice of Belgium’s head of state. TE Give the date of Leopold I’s swearing-in. TE Explain the constitution as a compromise between liberals and Catholics. TE Explain Belgium’s loss of territory to the Netherlands. SKILLS (Application & Analysis)  Situate the origins of Belgium in time.  Analyze texts, pictures and diagrams.  Distinguish between historical sources and works.  Explain the evolution of the Belgian territory with the help of a map.  Compare historical documents with each other.  Determine presentation, usability, reliability, historically situated perspective, and purpose of a source in function of a historical question. VISIBLE THINKING ROUTINE Reflect on your understanding of history before beginning this unit and what it is now.  How and why has your understanding of history changed?  Divide a piece of paper in 2 halves under the headings ‘I used to think’ and ‘Now I think’.  List your ideas before and after completing this unit. RETROSPECT – History with Hindsight | CLIL History Course Book, Year 5