THREE PHASES of the European Revolution:
(1) The European Liberal revolution
(2) The rise of social democracy
(3) Managerial statism


A 4-part definition of "revolution" =

(1) Revolution is a conscious assault on an existing governmental system.

An assault simply to change who is in power is, by itself, not revolution. We call that "coup d'etat". Therefore =

(2) Revolution seeks to put another governmental system in the place of the old.

So far, this definition of revolution is a lot like the definition of war, especially wars of conquest. In fact, revolutions have historically been associated with wars -- before, during and/or after revolution. A research group once concluded that revolution ought to be called "internal war". Thus a third component is necessary to distinguish revolution from inter-state or international war (between two existing governmental systems) =

(3) Revolution originates within the existing governmental authority and
participants from within that sphere are at the center of the action.

To be a revolution, events must be largely "home grown", not introduced from beyond the limits of the governmental system under revolutionary assault.

The most famous revolutions involved great masses of participants and a degree of violence, though the numbers involved and the levels of violence are not essential to the definition. Certainly the effects of authentic revolution will always involve great masses of people, whether they actively participate or not. That is so because governmental systems are always intertwined with the full life of those within the systems' jurisdiction.

Let's add a final component to our definition, at least for consideration =

(4) Revolution is a distinctly modern experience

Not all epochs experienced revolution. For one thing, revolutions are unlikely in times or places where there does not exist the idea of "progress" and the belief in the possibility -- maybe we should say "the democratic imperative" -- of popular political mobilization. Only in the modern historical epoch has revolution become one of the standard (if ultra extreme) forms of domestic political behavior. Three early modern European "thinkers" captured these modern ideas or sentiments and left a legacy that has proved controversial but enduring and globally influential = John Locke [ID], Jean Jacques Rousseau [ID], Jeremy Bentham [ID]. Into the 19th century, four further figures gave wide credence to related but different visions of history as progress = Charles Fourier [ID], Saint-Simon [ID], Auguste Comte [ID], and Karl Marx [LOOP]


The era of European liberal revolution began with what some call the "Atlantic Revolution"
*1776:1826; The Atlantic Revolutionary epoch [MAP]

The central liberal concept, the guiding revolutionary social-political idea or ideal, both in the American and French revolutions, was "constituency" =

Ideas and ideals were only part of the equation. Great changes caused by revolutionary transition from pre-modern ways ("feudal" in Europe) to modern ways have everywhere forced a rebalancing of traditional relationships. The modern world has posed a profound challenge to traditional cultures, in "The West" and everywhere else =

"The Left" and "The Right"

Out of the French Revolution came the now universal symbolism for the spectrum of political opinion that arose in response to this transformation of public life = "left", "center", "right".  These cardinal points in the European political universe might not be best arrayed in a straight line, left to right, but around a near-circular Greek letter "omega" =

liberal   conservative
radical      reactionary

Around these points on the political spectrum that great swarm of 19th-century "-isms" hived themselves.

Liberals strove for independence from institutional authority and maximum individual freedom
Social ties were understood less in a "communitarian" way, more in terms of what came to be widely designated as "the social contract",
such as espoused by John Locke [EG]. [LOOP on "liberal" from 1780s to 1880s]

Conservatives strove to preserve traditions and sustain historically proven ways of life
Social ties were understood to be hierarchical and stable in a traditional "community",
such as espoused by Edmund Burke [EG]

Radicals strove for a better future, such as had not yet been experienced, only conceptualized
Social ties might be thought of in rigorous and confining communitarian terms [EG],
or in an opposite direction, utterly spontaneous and anarchistic [EG]

Reactionaries strove to restore a past perfection, also not yet experienced, only conceptualized
Society was generally subordinate to authoritarian regulatory agencies, such as church, state, censors, police and military,
as urged by Joseph de Maistre [EG] or Metternich [EG]

The omega form presented above reminds us that liberals and conservatives do group together around the upper curve
While radicals and reactionaries are at the extremes, they seem almost to make contact with one another at low center

Post-French-Revolutionary Chronology

*1799no09:Napoleon's military coup [ID] brought French Revolution into its fifteen-year militarist-expansionist phase

*1801:1825; the spirit of the unfolding European revolution moved Russian Emperor Alexander I to make significant efforts at reform [LOOP on "reform"]

*1814mr30:Russian Emperor Alexander I entered Paris at the head of a great international army of liberation, freeing Europe from Napoleonic imperial rule [ID], followed soon by =
*1814no01:Convocation of the reactionary Congress of Vienna [ID] which tried to put old Europe together again, but Old Europe was not to be revived, whatever the hopes of the Congress of Vienna
*1814:+; Certain educated Russians, veteran officers in the Napoleonic Wars, returned home and began organizing themselves, sometimes secretly, to explore possibilities of "liberal" or "progressive" change in their homeland. Ten years later, their several inchoate groups received a single name almost by accident, from the month in which they took clumsy steps to prevent new tsar Nicholas I from assuming the throne = "The Decembrist Movement" [LOOP]

*1820s:Revolutions in Latin America [ID] broke away from the imperialist, mercantilist colonial power of West European monarchies

*1825:1855; Russian Emperor Nicholas I became the paragon of "reactionary reform" [LOOP]. He introduced changes designed to bring an end to change, all in order to defend autocratic state power

*--European Revolution of 1830 [ID] consolidated earlier radical change

*1836fe04:Irish independence movement against English oppression intensified [ID]
*--That spring, Shamil's Islamic revolution against Russian imperial power had new success [LOOP]
*--And Texas broke from Mexico [LOOP]

Historical Contradictions within Liberalism

At the heart of the "Atlantic" or "liberal" revolution two sets of contradictions festered =

* freedom vs. equality [EG]
* nationalism vs. civil liberty [EG]]

Striking different compromises along the ridge of these contradictions, European nations shaped their various domestic political, social and economic futures [more on relationship of political/institutional and economic changes in this era]

"Crunch Time" =

*1848 Revolution [ID] rocked major European capitals. New fissures opened in social life between property owners ("the capitalist class") and a huge new social formation = those who had only their labor to sell (workers or "the proletariat"). Those who hungered for equality turned against those who prospered with freedom. Dominant "bourgeois" entrepreneurs increasingly demanded protection, just as they welcomed state-proffered opportunity. They were willing to strengthen the sort of state power that furthered their interests, and they were anxious to curtail that sort of state power that furthered the interests of competing economic forces, for example, wage labor. When some said "laissez faire" they seemed to mean that officials should keep "hands off us" but lay "hands on all those in our way". Increasingly wealthy and powerful bourgeois industrialists and financiers were willing to sacrifice civil liberties for governmentally enforced security. Politics are always beautifully complex [EG = "interests"], but we can discern a major shift in the European revolution. Earlier, the main factional lines were defined by relationships to the pre-modern ("feudal") and agrarian economic and social structures. Now the major factions in European political life were defined by relationships to the modernizing industrial economy. Conflict was no longer "commoners" vs. "aristocrats, monarchs and priests" but prosperous commoners ("owners") vs. commoners who worked for them ("labor")

*--The 1848 Revolution was faintly echoed in Russia by what has come to be called "the Petrashevtsy" [ID]


The central feature of the second phase of the European Revolution =
 the clash of interests of workers with the interests of owners
If the first phase can be called "liberal", the second can be called "social-democratic"
Big SAC LOOP on "wage labor", from 1860s up to WW1

The era of social-democratic reform and revolution evolved out of the European liberal revolution and came into conflict with it. Liberalism had long struggled against opponents to the "right", and that struggle continued. But now opposition arose on the "left". Social-democracy sought to resolve the contradictions between freedom and equality in new and more radically egalitarian though not necessarily more democratic ways. This phase, like the liberal phase before it, revealed an eventually tragic set of contradictions visible in the growth of aggressive military-statism and imperialistic internationalism, along with intense self-centered, often racist and chauvinistic nationalism

*1859:A remarkable year in the annals of publication [ID] For example = Karl Marx' first mature expression of the foundations of "Marxism" [ID]

*1855:1881; the reign of Russian Emperor Alexander II was marked by dramatic episodes of "liberal" reform, in fact an era of "great reforms" [LOOP on "reform"], but it was also an era of "revolutionary situations" [LOOP]. The first two phases of the European revolution were chronologically jammed together in Russia.

*--Italy entered into a long and arduous period of national unification [6-hop LOOP], at first liberal and civilian-oriented, soon also militaristic and imperialistic

*--Polish Rebellion [ID] tried for nationalist independence and social reform, attempting all at once to resolve the conflicts between these two goals, but Russia crushed the uprising

*1871:Paris Commune [ID]. By this time the social contradiction between freedom (e.g., entrepreneurial freedom) and equality (e.g., the growing injustice of industrial working-class conditions) marked the end of the era of the largely triumphant "European Liberal Revolution" and the beginning of a troubled half century of social democratic or labor politics


The violence and disorder of the Paris Commune came at the tail-end of a disturbing war between France and Prussia. This clusteration of events was evidence of transition from the grand 19th-century liberal phase toward the troubling third phase, the 20th-century phase of the European revolution. The third phase was predicted in two remarkable developments, in France in the northern German-speaking territories of middle Europe =

*--The two decades (1850-1870) of Louis Napoleon (Napoleon III) in France [5-hop LOOP] were clear warning that the French Revolution could go sour, not just in the relationship of capitalists with labor but also in the relationship of the nation state to civil freedoms (including the so-called "free market")

*--Otto von Bismarck [6-hop LOOP] was born a Prussian but engineered creation a new European nation-state, Germany [MAP#1] [MAP#2]. Bismarck represented an old Junker [Prussian aristocratic] elitist conservatism and a new "statist welfare" [LOOP on "welfare"] approach to problems of national unity, security and prosperity. Bismarck had not an ounce of the reactionary in him. He could disavow any conservative doctrinal principle that stood in the way of practical political action. He could embrace liberal, even mildly social-democratic policy, if it forwarded the cause of his newly united nation Deutschland. Bismarck's indistinct political "ideology" reflected general trends = "Liberal" politics evolved away from the careful and insistent attention to institutional procedure (representative government of, by and for the people, independent courts, civil rights, checks and balances). "Conservative" politics evolved toward emphasis on security, economic prosperity (at least for some) and welfare (for all the others). Bismarck liked the term "Realpolitik" [practical politics with emphasis on actual power relations]. Under the influence of these trends, suddenly the power of the state lifted itself above the realm of "radical, liberal, conservative or reactionary" doctrines. In this sense, Bismarck was a thoroughly modern political figure, but in the masterful control he exercised over German politics he showed himself to be extraordinary. His pragmatic, managerial, statist legacy had global implications, but not all later practitioners had his ability. He saw the advantages of carefully calibrated projection of modern statist military power, a form of imperialism that combined European continental expansion [EG] with over-seas ambition [EG].

The third phase was inevitable when the habits and practices of European Imperialism came home to roost. The first unpleasant truth about the homeward course of Imperialism pops out when we ask what was happening to liberal concepts out in the imperialized world. About halfway through chapter one of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, one of the insoluble problems of European liberalism forced a footnote on this great hymn to liberty [boldface added] =

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine [liberty] is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one. But as soon as mankind have attained the capacity of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion (a period long since reached in all nations with whom we need here concern ourselves), compulsion, either in the direct form or in that of pains and penalties for non-compliance, is no longer admissible as a means to their own good, and justifiable only for the security of others.

How do you explain the relationship of the preceding paragraph to the whole set of arguments put forward by Mill? More broadly, what happened to liberal Europe in the emerging age of aggressive Imperialism?

*1889jy14:The founding congress of the Second International [ID] signaled the growing strength of social democratic political movements in Europe. But as European domestic and international politics grew more tense, social democracy showed that it, like liberalism, was riven by contradiction and factional discord
*--Two main trends grew out of this process =
(1) The moderate "economism" of the German theorist and activist Eduard Bernstein [TXT] and
(2) The disciplined revolutionary party politics of the Russian theorist and activist Vladimir Il'ich Lenin [TXT]

*--The Russian Revolution of 1905 [ID] demonstrated the difficulties of combining the ascendant liberal revolutionary tradition with the new social democratic movement. Furthermore, a new and activist-oriented reactionary tradition [ID] made its forceful and organized historical debut at this time

*--The looming power of the Austrian, Ottoman and Russian empires had more influence on the development of Serbian nationalism than did concepts of liberal national independence or social-democratic egalitarianism [5 hops on word "Yugoslav" into the period of WW1]

Louis Napoleon's failure, Bismarck's success, Russian disorder and Serbian agony suggested that a third phase in the history of the "European revolution" was dawning. That became abundantly clear after the catastrophe of World War One [ID]


The era of managerial statism followed. Important reverberations of the previous two phases ran through the 20th and into the 21st centuries. The legacy of the previous two phases was far from extinguished. But however frequently we meet it, the traditional European political spectrum of "left" and "right" [ID] gives little authentic guidance to those who would try to understand this third phase of the European revolution

But we can point to three salient features, each of which arose in the late 19th century =

"Unnamed Revolution" =

At first, the two Russian Revolutions, February (March) 1917 [ID] and October (November) 1917 [ID] seemed to harbinger a new era of social-democratic victory, a resolution of contradictions and a realization of ideals met in the first [ID] and the second [ID] phases of the European revolutionary tradition. Europeans widely assumed that the first phase made the second phase possible. Some thought it made it inevitable. The strengths of the two phases complimented one another. The second phase fulfilled the first. And now the Russian Revolution seemed to take giant steps toward that fulfillment =

*1917 February Revolution in Russia = Beginning | February Revolution as a global event (collapse of four great Empires) [ID]
*1917 Soviet Revolution in Russia [ID]
*1921:1927; These hopes for the Russian Revolution were bolstered when the Communist Party introduced "The New Economic Policy" [ID]

There seemed some uncertainty about the nature of this revolution, reflected in the fact that it bore so many different names = "Russian Revolution", "Communist Revolution", "Soviet Revolution", and "Bolshevik Revolution". Calendar reform in 1918 further blurred the picture as it put the anniversary of the "October Revolution" in November [ID]. Nonetheless, official Soviet designation was "Great October". (SAC prefers "Soviet Revolution")

Sociologist Harold Lasswell identified these events as "The Unnamed Revolution" [ID] and thus helped define this novel third phase of the European revolution which swept out of eastern Europe and across the global landscape in the 20th century. It was neither a bourgeois liberal [phase one] nor a proletarian socialist revolution [phase two]. Whatever it set out to be, it became a managerial statist enterprise under the disciplined and centralized control of modernizing cadre political party, at the head of which was a "boss", a political chief executive officer (or tight-knit oligarchy) who operated on a trans-national globalized field of action. Harold Lasswell's concept of "The Unnamed Revolution" owed a great deal to the influential Yugoslavian theorist Milovan Djilas [ID], but was rooted also in Lasswell's own pre-Pearl-Harbor vision of world trends [ID]

*1927: It became clear to all that the Russian Revolution was not the apotheosis of the 150-year European revolutionary dream
A third and very different phase arose out of the catastrophe of WW1, showing many traces of that world-shaping industrial total war [EG=LOOP on "mobilization"]

The novelty of these Russian events was clear to many as early as a quarter-century before 1927 =

*1918:1920; Revolutionary Civil War and Allied intervention = [LOOPS]
*1921:+; Third International or Comintern [ID]

The revolutionary Soviet state, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was the first massive expression of the third phase of the European revolution =

The politics of Joseph Stalin (Stalinism as a global "ism") were explained in two of Stalin's writings =
A theoretical article, "Socialism in one country" [ID], and an urgent speech, "You must abolish backwardness" [ID]

Stalinism in practice can be summarized in four categories of state policy [ID]
Stalinism arose in a time of expanding Fascist and Nazi "statism", creating a new form of "government" which came to be called "totalitarianism" [ID]

By the 1930s, it was clear that this third phase of the European Revolution found expression in several regions [EG]
By the 1940s, it was clear that this third phase of the European Revolution found expression around the world [EG]


-- Bibliography --

Work in progress = the following is still highly coded and difficult to use without "translations"

<>Ackerman,Bruce| a{}
*1980:N.CN:YUP|>Social Justice in the Liberal State| ((plt.trx not same as Mds & Fedor|This is A’s “dialogue as it might be” but then he turned to “dialogue as it is” SO,GO “Neo-federalism”:”entire approach to political legitimacy centers on the possiblility of successful dialogue” [“Neo-federalism”:156] ))
*1988:EC&D:153-93| “Neo-federalism?”| ((fdr idl=rvs legitimacy,not an oxymoron but as final essential moment in rvs process; thus of global significance (vs.Arendt idl of local sig of AREV)|Fedor=3rd way of legitimacy (combining #1=permanent rvs & #2=“rvsy amnesia”) by positing “dualistic conception of political life”: (1) common good,ratified [rzr] by mobilized mass,expressing assent through extraordinary tUt forms [cf=mainly #49] [highest cncept,but shd dominate only rarely] & (2) normal politics|Normal plt is “representational”|Not “mimetic” but “semiotic” (symbol is not the thing represented, and obviously so,explicitly a stand-in) [169!] Dahl is most wrong to say Mds sought rxp w/o virtue, i.e., as solution of problem posed by Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees [173] idl is to “economize on virtue”;presume neither that it will prevail nor that it will cease to be needed [173,quotes #57] Mds thought highest virtue in pbl life,but recognized duality embraced in common phrase:PRIVATE CITIZEN [174-5] cst=“creative synthesis”of two great zpd traditions of pbl virtue [cvc.virtu] and private salvation))
*1993ap02:MNe#14:3| “Boris Yeltsin and George Washington”| ((RUS/USA2.cst YlcB |W also tore up cst= 1781:Art.of Confdr calling for unanimous assent of 13 colonies to any ammendment|rvs act now forgotten:cst.Convention said 9 wld do| “By lending his immense prestige to the Convention’s revolutionary break with legality,Washington made it possible to make the new cst more than a piece of paper|By seeking ratification [rzr] by the People, and not merely their standing governments, Washington began the long and complex process of making the Constitution into a specially compelling symbol of dmkic legitimacy”|YALE Sterling prf of lwx & plt.scs|W & YlcB “It is easy to mock the comparison”|A contrasts promise of strong YlcB w/ Havel CZC loss of unity & POL decline| Many mistakenly put ekn rfm ahead of plt,but that is mistake|As a man,Yeltsin does not have the qualities of either Havel or Walesa| “But his dmkic instincts are sounder”))

<>Amann,Peter H| a{}
*1962mr:PSQ#77,1:36-53| “Revolution: a Redefinition”| ((8x11 REV.trx|48:REV=“when the state’s mpy of power is effectively challenged & persists until a mpy of power is re-established”| Weakness? fdr rpz gvt etc has no plt.mpy, yet rvs challenge possible| Better say mpy of physical violence cf=BBL/Castoriadis))
|>Revolution and Mass Democracy: The Paris Club Movement in 1848|P.NJ:1975| ((obx REV48))

<>Artz,F. B| a{}
|>Reaction and Revolution,1814-1832|Langer series|(1934)| ((rxn rvs REV30 CIV))

<>Bertrand,Charles ??, ed| a{}
*1977:Montreal,Proceedings of the Interuniversity Centre for Euoprean Studies 2nd International Colloquium||>Revolutionary Situations in Europe,1917-1922: Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary| ((sbr trx RSR rvs.sit GRM ITL OST))

<>Blackey,Robert, ed|>Revolutions and Revolutionists: A Comprehensive Guide to the Literature|:| ((REF Z7164.R54.B55| rvs REV))

<>Blanchard,William H| a{}
*1984:Santa Barbara|>Revolutionary Morality: A Psychosexual Analysis of Twelve Revolutionists| ((REV.trx rvs.mrl psx lbv))

<>Drucker,Peter F|
*1993sp:WWQ#17,2:52-73| "The Rise of the Knowledge Society"| ((svt ntg ))

<>Esler,Anthony| a{}
|>“Youth in Revolt”|In txt Mod EUR Social Hst ??| ((REV rvs std ~~ CIV re.830s:FRN generation REV30 REV48))

<>Forster,Robert| a{}
| “The French Revolution and the ‘New’ Elite,1800-50”|In Pelenski,Jaroslaw,ed., The American and European Revolutions,1776-1848: Sociopolitical and Ideological Aspects|Iowa City:| ((ntg rvs FREV REV48))<>/p

<>Forster,Robert, and Jack P. Greene, eds| a{}
|>Preconditions of Revolution in Early Modern Europe|:1970| ((REV.trx))

*1969:Journal of International Affairs#23,1:54-75| “A Redefination of the Revolutionary Situation”| ((9x11-rvs.sit))

<>Malefakis,E. E| a{}
*1970:|>Agrarian Reform and Peasant Revolution in Spain: Origins of the Civil War| ((skz SPN.srf.rfm rvs CIV))

<>McDaniel,Tim| a{}
*1988:B.CA, UCP|>Autocracy,Capitalism, and Revolution in Russia| ((HD8526.M385| trx stt cpt rvs RREV|Wbr??))

<>Rejai,Mostafa, and Kay Phillips| a{}
|>World Revolutionary Leaders|New Brunswick NJ:1983| ((USA3.rvs REV.trx rvs))

<>Shy,John, and Thomas W. Collier| a{}
*1986:P.NJ|Peter Paret,ed|>Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age| “Revolutionary War”| ((rvs.wrx REV.trx hst.gph MchN|2nd,throughly rewritten edition))

<>Tackett,Timothy|>Becoming a Revolutionary| ((rvs trx REV))

<>Tilly,Charles| a{}
*1973my:|Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, Handbook of Political Science|Center for Research on Social Organization, University of Michigan, Working Paper no. 83| “Revolutions and Collective Violence”| ((8x11”Rev Readings” OWN REV.trx))

<>Tilly,Charles, L. Tilly, and R. Tilly| a{}
*1975:|>The Rebellious Century,1830-1930| ((REV prl CIV))

<>Wood,Gordon S| a{}n{USA Cst rdx.plt dmk}
|>The Creation of the American Republic|:| ((USA2.REV|how rvs.idl developed after AREV))
*1987:Beeman,Beyond:69-109| “Interests and Disinterestedness in the Making of the Constitution”| ((INX Mds cst| Federalists feared “good old American popular politics” (73) esp. states legislatures, IE: regional or provincial vitality; dmk not solution but problem(75) [Put this in terms that appear to conform to Telos glossary, Enlightened absolutist vs.populist axiology; cosmopolitans vs.gbx; court all this helps focus on the sttist!! quality of debate] Superior,distinterested pzn best suited to plt life [ntg?] (85,cf=Fed#35),but vs.fdrists knew better (89)| PS:mny of feds=interest on loans & lnd vs.feds (e.g.,William Findley [93-8])=freebooting entrepreneurial trd))
|>The Radicalism of the American Revolution|N.NY:Knopf,??| ((447p|Edmund Morgan rvw in 8x11 AREV in human relations,frm pbl order to pbl anx,frm hierarchy to eqly,frm know your place to make your place|Not intention of “Fathers” but all REV~ leave leaders behind|pbl changes made AREV “most rdxal and most far-reaching event in American history”|Look years bfr 1776,Am bcm like ENG,pbl bcm mnxal,vertical hierarchy etc|eqly in pbl relations,though,also grew|Crude dmk of behaviour|787:cst tried to check headlong dmk,but too late|Pursuit of happiness won out over notion of disinterested virtue|Cash nexus replaced pbl.hierarchy| Not eqy just of opportunity,or rough fxx,etc| “Equality became so potent for Americans because it came to mean that everyone was really the same as everyone else,not just at birth,not in talent or fxx or wlt,& not just in some transcendental rlgious sense of the equality of souls| Ordinary Americans came to believe that no one in a basic down-to-earth and day-in-and-day-out manner was really better than anyone else|That was equality as no other nation has ever quite had it”|wrk essential))

<>Wright,Mary C| a{}
*1962ja:CS&H#:| “Revolution from Without”| ((rvs REV.trx| cf=VonLaue))


*1776:1826; The Atlantic Revolutionary epoch

Early 20th-century photo of grape vines at Harmony Community

*1831:Bristol riots put down violently by 3rd Dragoon Guards

*1846:Anti-Corn Law League

*1848:London Chartist meeting

Contemporary newspaper gravure depicted same scene

*1870c:Germany before unification

*1871:Germany unified

*1890:Punch cartoon depicted Kaiser Wilhelm "putting down the pilot" [Bismarck]