Jack OBrien Cairney Why did Italy become unified in 1859 to 1860?

It is the common belief that Italy became unified in the years 1859 to 1860, but this belief can be argued against or in favour of simply depending on how the term unified is defined. There is more to the process of unification than simply where the borders lie, for example the states of Piedmont, Lombardy and Venetia united to form a Kingdom of North Italy but these borders were redefined when at the Truce of Villafranca, Napoleon III agreed that Lombardy would remain as part of the Kingdom of North Italy however Austrian control would be re-instated in Venetia. This is an example of geographical unification where the borders are shifted and or removed by the method of annexation in which two or more states are joined together under a singular government or power. When people talk about Italy being unified during this period they generally only consider the geographical unification but there are many other fields in which unification can take place or where there would be a lack of unity. For example political unity; the southern region of Italy was of an almost antagonistic political view to that of the north. Piedmonts Prime Minister at the time Camillo Benso conte di Cavour (or simply Cavour for short) was not at all fond of the idea of Italy being truly united as a single nation, he believed that only the northern states of the Italian (Apennine) Peninsula should be unified to form a Kingdom of North Italy hence there must be evidence to show that certain elements of his control were lost during this period as Italy had not become unified in the manner of which he wanted. There of course were other influential figures whom did not necessarily share the same ideology as Cavour, such as Garibaldi for example whose political ideology is under a fair amount of dispute as on the one hand he believed in speaking for the masses and unifying the Italian Peninsula as a single sovereign state which is definitely a democratic ideology but the question with Garibaldi was what form of democratic state did he believe in? Because in the era of the Roman Republic, there is evidence to show that Garibaldi fought for a somewhat republican ideology but there are other times which show that he believed in constitutional monarchy in which the monarch would have his or her powers limited. Another form of unification would be the aspect of social or cultural unification. Once again the southern states of Italy were mainly full of illiterate farm-workers, whom believed in a country led by a spiritual leader i.e. The Pope, were money was scarce, as was modern idealism; the southerners were weary of banks and paper money for example; they relied on the partial wealth of the monasteries to tend to the needy when situations grew tedious hence Cavours imposing of northern ideals, which was later to become known as Piedmontisation, seemed inappropriate for the southern lifestyle therefore showing that regardless of geographical unity there were other fields in which there was a strong lack of unity. Economic unity is also an issue as much like ideological differences they exist on a north-south divide where the agricultural southern states were far poorer than those in the state of Piedmont for example. Customs tariffs also existed within the space of the nation hence there was a lack of unity in the trading business as more and more money was being lost due to the crossing of Italian borders. These fields suggest that there were more than one type of unification rather than simply geographical unification; there are aspects such as economic factors, ideological factors, political, social, cultural factors et cetera. But there was not simply just one factor which affected or caused Italian unification in 1859 to 1860 to end up in the way that it did, rather it was the consequence of many factors of different relative weights affecting one another in a simultaneous and consecutive manner; for example the clashing ideologies of Garibaldi and Cavour, the influences of foreign entities in the form of aid and or support for the prospect of Italian unification, or even such things as the historic legacy of previous eras and events such as the 1848 revolutions in Italy which once again showed that there were certain areas in which Italy had and or lacked unity, as well as the eventual declination of Austrian power from 1848 via the Austrian Revolution, the fact that Austria was fighting on many fronts in order to maintain its power in the Apennine Peninsula hence weakening it, as well as the fall of Metternich (the previous Austrian Chancellor) or the fact that the Statuto remained in place, arguably because it meant that Austria had an easier job of maintaining it rather than fighting another war against Piedmont over it. It is simplistic to say that Italian unification occurred because of any particular thing happening, when rather as

mentioned earlier it is the result of a chain of influential factors which may have been of different weight but these weights are regarded as subjective and are therefore up to debate but regardless they existed and they were all necessary but they were not all necessarily responsible for the actual unification itself. Firstly, Cavours influences and his policies affected the process of Italian Unification in many ways for example the annexation of Lombardy and Venetia to Piedmont forming what had become known as the Kingdom of North Italy were these three northern states were run under a single government run under a constitutional monarchy in which Victor Emmanuel II and Cavour would rule politically; as well as the introduction of plebiscites in Tuscany, Modena, Parma and Romagna. This shows that there were elements of unity in what these northern states wished for. Cavour knew that unless Austrian control was abolished and removed from the Italian states then Cavours ideals about unification could not occur hence he required an alliance with a foreign power which in this case was France. This alliance was made in January 1859 following the meeting at Plombires in July 1858 which was a formal meeting between Napoleon III and Cavour following the failed assassination attempt on Napoleon III by Felice Orsini in January 1858. This shows that it was Cavours initiative to create alliances with foreign powers as it would allow Piedmonts strength to increase and Italian Unification would also have a greater deal of support. Austria was fairly weak at this point hence Cavour saw this as a good moment to attack Austria alongside Piedmonts new ally France who provided approximately triple the number of men that Piedmont was able to supply. A week after Austria had invaded Piedmont, France officially declared war on Austria. The Austrians were successfully defeated at Magenta, just within Lombardy by the French (the Piedmontese did not arrive on time for this battle). Eventually the combined force of the French and Piedmontese military defeated the Austrians at Solferino. As a side note, one man who witnessed the events of the battle first hand went away and invented the Red Cross, so that is where that came from. When comparing Cavours influences alongside the influences of foreign powers, it is rather inaccurate to say that they were equally important as they were not because in this particular section, their contributions did not have the same relative weight; on the one hand France was able to supply more men and lost more lives than the Piedmontese did during this Third War of Unification hence France was more responsible for the progression of unification however it is possible to argue that Cavour was more necessary for the process of unification to progress as without his direct influences the alliance between France and Piedmont would never have been made, and therefore war would not have been declared on Austria which would have resulted in the retaining of Austrian influence in the northern states of Italy. Regardless this shows that Cavour was supportive of partial unification for Italy and was willing to create alliances in order to achieve his goals, which was to further Piedmontise the northern regions of Italy. Other than the Third War of Independence, Cavour had influenced the sequence of events in other ways. An example of this would be the clashing ideologies between him and Guiseppe Garibaldi whom was more of a democrat than Cavour was, as he believed that the southern region of Italy, Sicily and Naples, should be part of a single unified state which was not what Cavour wished to achieve. Cavour did not aid Garibaldi in his contributions to the isle of Sicily because of their differences and his distrust of Garibaldis mindset; hence Cavour became somewhat timid upon hearing the news relating to Garibaldis progression in the south, and when Garibaldi had reached a zenith as far as how north he could go, Cavour intervened and entered the Papal States, once again joining the side of France whom had troops stationed in Rome in order to protect the Pope and the Papacy. There is much debate and dispute to why Cavour did this. One argument is that Cavour grew fearful of Garibaldis progress and feared that he would have been successful in overthrowing the Papal States and would have progressed further north. But if the situation is looked at in a more analytical and realistic sense, the probability that Garibaldi would have been successful post entering the Papal States is extremely low because even prior to Piedmontese intervention, Garibaldi would have still had to face French opposition which even he knew was not a good idea as despite his introduction of guerrilla tactics he would have been incapable of defeating the army of a nation more powerful than that of Italy. Therefore there is a more realistic argument which proposes the idea that Cavour intervened in the Papal States both to prevent Garibaldis progression but

also to prevent civil instability as he did not wish to govern any state or nation which was in the midst of civil war. Hence it is possible to say that Italian Unification played out in the manner which it did, primarily due to Cavours intervention in the Papal States and forming an agreement with Garibaldi to hand over his conquests in Naples and Sicily to the Kingdom of Piedmont, which was not the outcome which Cavour had initially planned therefore although Cavour was a primary factor in the process of unification, there is evidence to show that he did in fact lose control of his goals concerning the further Piedmontisation of Northern Italy. Another crucial figure involved in the process of Italian Unification was Guiseppe Garibaldi, who was not initially trained in a military school hence he should have not been able to fight at all, but much like in the battle which resulted in the fall of the Roman Republic in 1848, there is evidence to show that he was a truly able fighter. One of the main catalysts to Garibaldis voyage to Marsala in 1860 was the agreement between Cavour and Napoleon which stated that in order to gain an alliance with France, the state of Nice was to be given over (relinquished) over to Napoleon III. This angered Garibaldi because he was a native to Nice, hence the handing over of his homeland to France would result in the furthering of the dispute and mutual abhorrence between Cavour and Garibaldi. Garibaldi was thought of by many people as a national hero, as after all he appeared to carry out nearly half of the unification of Italy by himself. But just how true is it to say this? Garibaldi was not given any physical support by Piedmont, due to the somewhat paranoia like feelings that Cavour had towards Garibaldi; once again this is a result of their differing ideologies hence showing that in this particular stage there was little unity between Garibaldis system and the state of Piedmont. However as a counter-argument it is possible to say that Victor Emmanuel II gave moral support to Garibaldi as Garibaldi was willing to sail down to Sicily in the name of a future Italy and in the name of Victor Emmanuel and thus Piedmont. The only reason why Garibaldi was not given any true aid from Piedmont was simply due to Cavours distrust, hence this was a result of ideological difference. Garibaldi according to Denis Mack Smith was deemed to be un-corruptible by money and or power. This characteristic was unique amongst politicians both then and now, but of course it is essential to understand that these political characteristics of Garibaldi must not be judged anachronistically as his lack of corruptibility may be exaggerated and or glorified. Even more important was the way in which Garibaldi was able to persuade foreign nations that Italian Unification was worth fighting for, due to a variety of reasons both for Italys benefits and the external powers benefits. The British government was in a state of mind in which it was pro-Garibaldi, and not necessarily anti-Cavour but rather they did not trust Cavour and believed that he was a dangerous warmonger and untrustworthy to quote Denis Mack Smith once again. The British governments reaction and interpretation of Garibaldi was deemed to be great hence it is said that this was welcomed warmly by Italians as they were aware that foreign support was essential to the success of the Risorgimento. Later however it can be seen that although British support was there in a verbal sense, there are arguments which suggest that the British were not really in attendance. There were two British ships in the vicinity of Garibaldis men but they were largely there by coincidence as the British had wine stores in North-Eastern Sicily hence the ships were largely there for transport reasons alongside to protect the merchandise. Therefore it can be said that British support was not as necessary as once deemed and the majority of the progress in Sicily by Garibaldi and his Thousand was brought on by themselves rather than the British aid. But the attackers refrained from attacking Garibaldi due to the fear that the British were defending Garibaldi hence the physical progress was carried on by Garibaldi but probably started by the fear of the British protecting Garibaldi. Upon his success in Palermo against the Neapolitan army he declared himself dictator of Sicily by which he was able to abolish certain elements of Sicilian politics such as the taxation on corn which gained him the support of the peasants. He used the support of the land-lords to maintain law and order and hence was able to use Sicily as a platform from which he could progress further northward. Therefore the moral support which was given to Garibaldi by the British and Victor Emmanuel was somewhat essential in allowing Garibaldi to pass into Sicily safely and hence was required to unify Sicily together for the purpose of unification. From Sicily, Garibaldi progressed into the region of Naples in which he exponentially gathered support from the people and was able to govern Naples for a period of two months, after which he daringly ventured further north and therefore Cavour was required to

intervene and prevent the highly probable civil war which would have most likely occurred if Garibaldi were to venture into the Papal states, regardless of his actual strength and incapability of taking on the French he was vigorous in his rationale. Following this intervention Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi met at Teano. Therefore we can see that Cavour had not truly achieved his goals as the Kingdom of North Italy was only formed temporarily and the near total unification of Italy was the result of a compromise between Garibaldi and Cavour in which Garibaldis conquests in Naples and Sicily were handed over to the Piedmontese government. Therefore it is correct to say that the near total unification of Italy was majorly due to the influences of Garibaldi who was able to succeed in his battles via the introduction of guerrilla warfare tactics, but without Cavours fears of civil war the intervention would not have happened hence both Cavour and Garibaldi are responsible for the near total unification of Italy. However it is possible to say that Garibaldis advances were helped covertly or simply less obviously by the formation of the Kingdom of North Italy as it acted as a buffer against the already weakened Austria hence Austria was less of an issue for Garibaldi. Overall it is difficult to say who had more of an influence in the unification of Italy by 1860 as both Cavour and Garibaldi had near equal relative weight but like mentioned earlier, relative weight is subjective and up for debate. Both Cavour and Garibaldi are known as intrinsic or domestic influences, but one has to consider the influences of external powers such as Britain and France when considering why the unification of Italy occurred by 1860. France arguably was the most influential foreign power when talking about the unification of Italy by 1860. France created an alliance with Cavours Piedmont in the January following the 1858 meeting at Plombires, this shows that Cavours initiative was to create foreign alliances to gain support against Austria, hence showing that foreign support was of the utmost importance when Cavour was trying to create the Kingdom of North Italy. Upon creating the alliance, France and Piedmont were able to declare war on Austria, where Piedmont was able to supply 100,000 men and France near enough triple that amount. During these Wars of Independence and Unification, it is said that more French blood was spilt whilst fighting against Austria than Piedmontese, which suggests that the defeat of the Austrians in the northern states of Italy was primarily due to the French contribution rather than the Piedmontese military. What this argument suggests is that for Piedmont to evolve and be able to annex the states of Lombardy and Venetia, foreign support and aid was utterly necessary hence also suggesting that Piedmont was still too weak to be able to become victorious alone. However France became somewhat traitorous to the agreements of Plombires, such that Napoleon III created a separate peace with Austria which enabled Austria to seize control of Venetia once again, creating a resurgence of power for Austria which had been lacking since its declination since 1848. This separate peace was a catalyst if not cause of Cavours resignation in 1859, as it was made outside of Cavours initial knowledge hence it essentially formed a more pessimistic rationale in Cavours mind-set. It was only in 1860 when Cavour was returned to his previous position as Prime Minister that he reconciled with Napoleon III hence showing that Cavour was willing to try again with France and sought out a larger issue. The British government had also been pro-unification hence it was willing to help Garibaldi if he needed assistance; how much help was actually received is debatable as to help someone does not always mean physically aid them, it can mean to simply give moral support. Both France and Britain however are foreign nations and therefore would at some point in time require some means of trade with the Apennine Peninsula hence the non-unified form of Italy was not optimal for this to work. So the reasons for why these nations were pro-unification were simply for economic reasons, as if the country was unified both geographically and economically, there would be a severe reduction in the number of tax tariffs along the borders which would therefore reduce the amount of money which would be lost through simple exchanges. So regardless of whether a nation was pro-Cavour or pro-Garibaldi, both France and Britain had their own economic reasons for wanting Italy to be unified. Also the unification as well as reducing the amount of money lost through trade, would also be a form of simplification as a single sovereign state by nature or decree is defined to have only one single currency, which for the Italians was the Italian Lire hence at each customs barrier currency did not have be constantly re-exchanged into foreign or different currencies. As far as Piedmontisation of Northern

Italy is concerned, France provided a substantial degree of assistance to Cavour, until of course Napoleon III made a separate peace with the Austrians at Villafranca in Venetia. This can be shown by a previous point mentioning that although France was able to supply more men anyway, the majority of blood spilt whilst fighting for Italian Unification in the North was French. The British however gave more of a moral approach to giving support; they were pro-unification however they only supported Garibaldi as they believed that Cavour was a dangerous and untrustworthy warmonger. But regardless of moral support, Britain did not give any support in the form of armament or physical support other than when Garibaldi actually came to England where thousands of civilians and aristocrats were eager and almost competing with each other in order to meet him. Economics as mentioned before was a driving force for pro-unification ideals to arise in foreign nations for reasons of simplicity and thereby less confusion in Europe. However it also a domestic issue in which local tradesmen and merchants were struggle to reach their financial income goals due to the loss of money through various and varying customs barriers which existed along the entire of the Apennine Peninsula. When states are annexed to another it reduces the number of customs barriers as customs barriers only exist on geographical borders therefore it can be said that the majority of Italians who wished for total unification of Italy were merchants and or tradesmen and once again wished for economic stability and simplicity. But economics was not the only domestic issue which was present at the time. But another domestic issue would be that of whether nationalism had any effect on the process of unification. The answer to that is somewhat complicated as one the one hand you could argue as Denis Mack Smith does by saying that nationalism simply did not exist to the extent of which it is purported to be, but rather was used as a cover-up to simplify the history of reasoning behind the process of Italian Unification by 1860, but on the other hand one would need to argue about what nationalism actually is. Many Italians throughout the peninsula believed that a singular state ruled by a single government simply would not work due to many reasons such as the cultural, social and ideological differences between the current separate states. They generally believed in a form of nationalism called mono-separatism by which the states themselves would not be classes as separate states but rather each individual state was free of other foreign states from ruling over them in a near absolutist fashion, which in this case was the ideal to get rid of Austrian influence in the Italian states. So it is difficult to say who is a true nationalist as there are multiple, perfectly valid forms and definitions of the phrase, but we can say that the majority of the mono-separatists (nationalists) did venture to and eventually move to the state of Piedmont, which of course was then known as a collective state for nationalists hence its political growth and development. Therefore we can say that nationalism led to the increased rate of development of Piedmont between 1848 and 1860, within which the majority of the unification process occurred. This suggests that the mono-separatists did not truly get what they wanted as they did not initially wish for a completely unified state, they simply wanted to abolish Austrian influence in the states along the Apennine Peninsula, therefore nationalism could not be the only cause of further unification and Piedmontisation but rather it affected other influences and these influential factors also affected the process of nationalism. However it is also possible to say that nationalism did exist enough to the extent that is covertly approved of Garibaldis voyages to Sicily via the jurisdiction of The National Society, which Cavour belonged to hence providing a counter argument for an earlier point as this suggests that despite Cavours antagonistic views compared to Garibaldis he did have some influence about whether or not he was allowed to venture southward and whether he would gain domestic support. Therefore some elements of nationalism did help the process of unification in both the north via the process of political growth in Piedmont hence providing a seed from which Piedmontisation of Northern Italy could grow; and in the south via giving support to Garibaldi during his progression in Naples and Sicily. As mentioned earlier, cultural differences had an effect on unification in the sense that the southerners believed that a spiritual leader was required hence when the Pope decided to make his official withdrawal from any war against Austria, known as the Allocution, it was thought then that the only other option was to follow the political ideology of Piedmont resulting in the addition of plebiscites in southern Italy which turned out to be staggering (although some say rigged) proportion in favour of annexation with the unified Kingdom of Italy. This means that due to the sudden lack of spiritual guidance,

unification was able to progress further hence showing that compromises could be made in times of great discomfort and or confusion. The 1848 revolutions, although over a decade prior to these events, left behind a legacy and somewhat of a precedent to what should be done later in the process of Italian unification. One aspect of legacy left behind is that in Northern Italy especially there was some elements of ideological unity which had persisted even to 1860 hence if it was not for this initial scene of unity then it could be said that certain events of 1859 to 1860 would not have happened in the way that they did. There was a fundamental difference in where France stood with regards to both of these sections of Italian history; as in 1848 the French were in favour of maintaining the status quo in Italy and this was made known when the French army were sent into Rome in order to abolish the republic that was there and to restore the power of the papacy; where as in 1859, Napoleon III was allied with Cavour and therefore stood alongside Piedmont in a war against Austrian rule, which were largely successful proving that foreign aid was not accessible then no progress would have been made, or similar progress would have been made over a much longer period of time. Austria has been mentioned earlier as being weakened. The reason for this lies with many aspects of the previous revolutionary period (1848 to 1849), in which Austria was desperate to maintain its power in Italy and therefore due to complications with Lombardy, Venetia (The Republic of Saint Mark) and also in southern areas, Austrian troops were forced to fight a war on various fronts which therefore made Austrian forces less organised and also fewer in number hence weakening the Austrian nation. The complications on the frontline were not the only reason why Austrian power began to decline since 1848; another reason would be that revolution broke out in its capital city of Vienna hence Austria alongside external war also had to fight on the domestic front as well, this caused a great deal of confusion and discomfort for the Austrian leaders, who since the fall of Metternich in the mid 1840s appeared increasingly more desperate and weak. But one has to ask whether or not the declination of Austria was essential for Italian unification. The answer is yes, to an extent as one could argue that due to the placement of the Statuto in Piedmont, that Piedmont would eventually grow more powerful regardless of Austrian power but it is possible to say that at a point Austria would realise that competition was present and would have to be forced to impose regulation over Piedmont. Another, more factual argument is that if Austria had not been weakened in the 1848 revolutions then the war between Austria and the Franco-Piedmontese alliance of 1859 would have been more difficult to win due to the rebalancing of power in the nations, therefore it is more accurate to say that the fall of Austria was necessary for Italian unification to progress but it was not absolutely essential as unification would have progressed due to a series of other catalysts such as the emergence of mono-separatism or nationalism in more abstract terms and the effects of foreign support and simple economics. But if it were not for the declination of Austria, unification arguably would have only reached the same extent at a much later date or possibly end up the same way as it did shortly after the 1848 revolutions. In conclusion, there were many influential factors which affected the process of Italian Unification. It can be said that all of these factors were necessary however some are debatable due to the way in which they are described; such as nationalism which has a very broad, abstract meaning. However not all of the necessary factors were directly responsible for the unification process to actually occur in the way that they did, rather it can be narrowed down to three factors which have the highest relative weight. These factors would be the influences of Cavour, Garibaldi and the foreign nations of France and Britain. It is difficult to judge which is the most important as each of these factors affected one another in a near enough equal number of ways, such as Frances status regarding Italy whether it was trying to maintain the 1848 status quo or aiding the process of unification like it was in 1859 to 1860. It can be said that both Garibaldis and Cavours influences were greatly affected by the actions and interpretations of foreign powers, and there is evidence to show that even though Cavour and Garibaldi influenced one another, both factors have a strong mutuality which is that they were both aided greatly in some ways which are not always obvious to see, by foreign nations. Therefore it is possible to conclude that the most important factor in explaining why Italy became unified in 1859 to 1860 was the status of the foreign powers,

France, Britain and Austria. This can be shown by the fact that the declination of Austria affected the rate of which pro-unification rationales could develop hence speeding up the process of unification. The status of Frances relationship with Italy also affected its rate of unification as in 1848 due to the French army protecting the papacy; little was achieved however in 1859 when a Franco-Piedmontese alliance was created, much more was achieved in the field of unification and the abolishment of Austrian rule. Garibaldi would not have truly been able to venture successfully into Sicily and unify the South if it was not for the support given morally by Britain and The National Society (Italian) hence showing that for unification to occur, support from other nations is required.