How to study History well?     |     home
                                                  
Students' essays: Italian Unification
Yanie  (March 31, 2001)
Q: Do you agree with the view that "Cavour hindered the process of Italian unification." Explain your answer. (99AL-Hist I)
"Hinder" means prevent somebody doing something or stop something from being doing. In the eyes of the Italians, Cavour was a chief architect for the Italian unification. However, from my points of view, Cavour hindered the process of Italian Unification. Although he died in 1861, the year before the unification was achieved, he intended to delay or even prevented the unification in his mind.
Nothing to say, Cavour made Piedmont economically progressive, politically liberal and financially stable through many reform programmes after he became the Prime Minister in 1852. From administrative aspect, he encouraged reforms in the army, state administration and legal systems; in trade and industry, he pioneered scientific agriculture, negotiated trade treaties and introduced new industries and he encouraged overseas investors and advisors to help in the economic development of Piedmont; in the communication network, schemes were initiated for the piecing of Mont Cenis by a rail tunnel and for turning Genoa into a great commercial port. Cavour did many things and has many contributions to Italy. But the main aim was not unified Italy. He hoped that Piedmont would be strong enough to assume the leadership of Italy in the event of another wars with Austria, France and the House of Hapsburg of Austria.
  Many facts and evidence could see that Cavour did not want a unified Italy. He tried to prevent it and the "unification" was only Piedmontization (tried to extent the influence of Piedmont). In the nineteenth century, some historians subscribed to the view that Cavour did not want a united Italy.
  In Cavour's domestic policy, he was not concentrated on the affairs of unification. He only wanted Piedmont to become a strong leader in Italy only. In many aspects, Cavour made reforms to improve the efficiency of government; the main aim was to make Piedmont stronger and extended the influence of Piedmont. Even in the religious aspect, he drafted the Siccardi Laws that curbed the powers of the Church by abolishing ecclesiastical courts in 1850. He wanted to achieve the secularization. But he wanted the Piedmont could hold the absolute power in Italy in real. And in the communication network, he tried to improve it. But he concentrated on the Northern Italy, not the whole Italy. Many reforms made in Northern Italy, the Southern part of Italy was still backwardness and extreme poverty. From the domestic policy, we could prove that Cavour wanted to control the Northern Italy only. He was not interested in the South. (He was not interested at it or he did not have confidence to unify it?)
  In the ideals of Cavour, he did not want Italy be unified. He wanted a strong Piedmont under a constitutional monarchy. Piedmont could act as a leader among the Italian states.
In his foreign policy, he could see that Cavour tried to prevent the unification.  Mazzini and Cavour held different attitude towards the external policy. Cavour wanted to gain the national glory through war. He wanted to get the foreign aid, too. But Mazzini disliked these diplomatic methods used by Cavour. Although Cavour wanted to gain the national glory through war, he did not help to unify the Italy. He used the war to gain the national glory only. And he was not using the foreign aid to help Italy to achieve the unification. (However, through participating into any wars with Austria, Russia or France and Britain, such as Crimean War and Seven Weeks' War,  Italy gained territories, it gave way for a unified Italy, right?) Therefore, he and Piedmont could get the popular support and saw Piedmont as a leader. From those points, we could see that Cavour was not helped to unify Italy. He tried to achieve the Piedmontization. Tell the difference between unification of Italy and the term Piedmontization!  Why this difference is so important to determine the aims of Cavour on the process of Italian unification?
  Not only the attitude towards the external policy that prevents the unification to occur, Cavour also did some actions that prevent it to occur. Cavour wanted to get the foreign aid to fight the war with Austria in order to win the war. He got the foreign aid not to achieve the unification. He only wanted to win the war and gain the national glory for Piedmont. In 1858, before the Independence war, Cavour tried to get France's support in fighting war with Austria. Cavour and Napoleon III signed the Plombieres agreement. Under this agreement, Napoleon III agreed to help Piedmont if she were involved in war with Austria. Nice and Savoy were to be ceded to France in return for her assistance. But France did not wholly implement the agreement and helped Italy to get the Northern Italy. Italy was only got Lombardy from the hands of Austria. Venetia was still under Austrian control. Moreover, France was agreed to help Piedmont in fighting with Austria. However, France feared that a strong, united Italy beside France would be a threat, that fighting against Catholic Austria would lead to the discontent of the French Catholics, and that Prussia would help its ally, Austria, fight against France, Napoleon III withdrew his support from Italy without informing Cavour. Napoleon III signed a Truce of Villafranca with Austria. France did not wholly implement the Plombieres agreement, however, Cavour still ceded Nice and Savoy to France in 1860. From this point, Cavour upset the territorial integrity of Italy. (Did he do that for the sake of compensating France for granting the annexation of several parts of Italian states?)He was prevented the unification and even hindered the process of the Italian Unification that hoped by the Italians.
  In the expedition of Garibaldi in the Southern Italy, Cavour opposed it and tried to prevent insurrection. In this event, Cavour made and did something to prevent it to occur. (Did he avoid a civil war? Or a direct confrontation with France at that time?) And many pieces of evidence could prove him to prevent the unification. In fact, before 1860, even in the 1858, in the Plombieres meeting, Cavour suggested that a northern Italian state under Victor Emmanuel II and a central Italian federation under the presidency of the Pope should be formed. From this, Cavour was not interested in the Southern Italy and he did not want to establish a big nation that includes the Southern Italian states. He thought that gained Naples and Sicily in the Southern part would provoke foreign opposition and be impractical. From this reason, he not condemned Garibaldi's expedition in public but tried to stop him in private. In 1860, when Garibaldi started to attack the Southern Italy, Cavour wrote, " I regret Garibaldi's expedition as much as anyone…At the same time I omitted nothing to persuade Garibaldi to stop his mad scheme." We could see Cavour hindered the unification. Cavour did not support Garibaldi. After one month later, on May 1860, a telegram from the Minister of the Interior informed that "Piedmontese warships have been ordered to stop Garibaldi if he is in Tuscan or Roman waters" And in the next day, a further telegram said that Garibaldi was not be arrested anywhere outside Sicilian orders at all costs. "At all costs" was underlined and the other words in the telegram were in cipher. On July 1860 (at which point Garibaldi was readying to invade Naples), Cavour wrote to the Admiral of the Fleet, Persana, to say: "We must at all costs on the one hand prevent Garibaldi from crossing the straits, and on the other excite a revolution in Naples." In the above secret telegrams and letters, we could prove that Cavour was not wanted the Southern Italy united with the Northern Italy. He only concentrated on the affairs of the Northern Italy only.
  The Italian states wanted and demanded to unify with Piedmont, but Cavour didn't / no short form want to unify with these states. He has no interests to unify the whole Italy. Parma, Modena and Tuscany demanded a union with Piedmont through plebiscites. Under Cavour's diplomacy, he only wanted to control the northern part of Italy. When Garibaldi gave in and handed over Sicily and Naples to Emmanuel II. Plebiscites were also held. People there voted for union with Piedmont. Therefore, the Kingdom of Italy was formed. Victor Emmanuel II was proclaimed King of Italy. And in 1870, when Italian army moves in and occupied Rome, the people in Rome also voted for union with Italy. Then Italian unification was completed. We could see that Italian Unification was not under Cavour's policy. It was only because the Italians wanted to unify and they were willing to unify with Piedmont. They held the plebiscites to join with Piedmont. Cavour was only wanted the Italians under Piedmont's constitutional monarchy. But he failed due to the favourable factors that helped the Italian Unification successful. The help of Garibaldi, the foreign aids and the demands of the Italians were all made the Italian Unification successful and completed in 1870.
 On the whole, Cavour hindered the unification. Even if he was supported the unification, he also hindered the process of unification when he suppressed Garibaldi to get the Silicy and Naples in 1860. But in fact, he was not supported the unification, he tried to stop the process of unification. He was the main obstacle that hindered the process of unification. If he wasn't hindered the Garibaldi's expedition, the Italian Unification may be successful before 1870.  (Don't you note that after Cavour's death, Garibaldi experienced failure on Rome expedition twice!! Will it be succeeded if Cavour did not stop Garibaldi's expedition? Will a civil war and a defeat from French's troops be happened instead?

Also, any other persons should be responsible for the hindrance on Italian unification?