Conservatism

=Conservatism =

**Introduction** (BM)
Conservatism is an ideology that has been used to promote a diverse range of political platforms and philosophies in various times and places. However, conservatives throughout history have agreed that lessons are learned throughout time, and that political philosophies based on idealistic thought are not to be trusted. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines conservatism as “the preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal (1).” Therefore, to understand a conservative philosophy, one must first understand the historical context from which it came. The following article is based on conservatism of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. The following paragraphs will be a general analysis of the European context from which conservative thought was be greatly influenced.

= The Enlightenment (BM) = Most historians cannot agree on an exact date in which the Enlightenment began; in fact, many historians agree that defining the beginning with an exact date would be impossible. However, a common textbook definition would say that it begins somewhere around 1650. The Enlightenment is an umbrella term that encompasses the births of a large array of philosophies in science and culture. Roy Porter, author of //__The Enlightenment__//, defines the Enlightenment as “… that body of ‘Progressive and ‘Liberal’ ideas and opinions advanced by the leading intellectuals and propagandists of the day…(2)” One should note an immediate contrast between conservative and enlightenment thought. Enlightenment thinkers agreed that through reason mankind could develop an understanding of science and human nature, and many agreed that mankind could eventually create an ideal political and social structure based on this understanding (3). This type of thought gained popularity and momentum quickly. In 1688, the Glorious Revolution occurred in England. As a result, England attained a constitutional and representative government largely mirroring the writings of, early enlightenment philosopher, John Locke (4). The Glorious Revolution, in many ways, was the foundation for the following century. People began using reason as a weapon to threaten existing political and religious institutions. Enlightenment thinkers popularized the concept of the Social Contract; in which a government’s authority can only become legitimate under the consent of the people of which it governs (5). By the late eighteenth century, enlightenment thought reached a boiling point. Britain lost colonies in North America, due to uprisings based on enlightenment principles made tangible by Thomas Jefferson’s //Declaration of Independence// in 1776. In the following decade the French Revolution began under enlightenment principles as well. The French Revolution will be discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, in 1776, Adam Smith published his work //The Wealth of Nations//. In this work, Smith lays the foundation for modern capitalism. Smith believed that through division of labor, or specialization, individuals could easily find work, and together, they could mass-produce affordable goods. He also believed that the wealth of a nation is dependent on its level of production. This new economic structure also created a new social structure; social class would be determined by how much capitol one attains and, in theory, all individuals will have an equal opportunity to attain capitol. Therefore, social mobility would be possible. This, of course, was at odds with the current system of which heredity played the key role in both social class and wealth.

= Industrial Revolution (BM) = Like the Enlightenment, historians disagree on when exactly the Industrial Revolution began. One could argue that a legitimate starting point is 1764: the point at which James Hargreaves invented the Spinning Jenny and revolutionized the textile industry (6). The Industrial Revolution is largely a product of the Enlightenment. The scientific knowledge acquired during the Enlightenment allowed for the inventions and breakthroughs that made mass production possible. It was also a product of the Enlightenment in that it was greatly influenced by the principles of modern capitalism; these principles were idealized by Adam Smith and were discussed above. The Industrial Revolution is important to conservatism in two major ways. First, it created a strong middle class that could threaten the institutions of the time; second, it created a desperate working class, which represented the failure of the ideal and served as a grassroots support for the old institutions. ‘Wealth has more and more increased, and at the same time gathered itself more and more into masses, strangely altering our old relations, and increasing the distance between rich and poor (7).” Thomas Carlyle, 1826 This quotation is an excellent depiction of this social change. Carlyle is speaking of England, which was at the forefront of the revolution. However, a few decades earlier, in France, the negative effects of the class division had not yet materialized. Prior to the French Revolution, France was divided into three Estates. The First Estate was made up of Catholic officials, the Second Estate was made up of Nobles, and the Third Estate was made up of everyone else. The wealthiest members of the Third Estate were called the Bourgeois. Members of the Bourgeois could open factories and in other ways invest in the mass production of the time period. These investments brought great wealth to the Third Estate. With this wealth, the Bourgeois had more time and money for education, more time to debate philosophies among each other, more resources to organize, and more money to purchase arms. This proved to be a deadly combination for all of Europe.

= The French Revolution and the Napoleonic War (BM) =

To discuss all the complexities of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars would be unnecessary in regards to our relatively brief analysis of conservatism of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. The atrocities and the failures of these events are what the conservatives based their philosophies on. Enlightenment idealism had promised natural rights, equality, and political and social systems as perfect as nature itself (3). In Europe, the French Revolution was to be the long awaited culmination of these ideas. However, during the Revolution, enlightenment thought was used to justify the Reign of Terror, during which hundreds of thousands were arrested and over seventeen thousand were executed at the hands of the new system (8). The violent uprising and the violent policies of the new French government inspired the following quote: “How could the sons of the Enlightenment have fathered such a state? ‘//Because// they were sons of the Enlightenment,’ Carlyle grimly replies. ‘Atrocity is the bloody underbelly of the Social Contract, darkness the underside of the Enlightenment, the wages of believing we are creatures of pure reason and benevolence (9).’” The French Revolution was met with resistance throughout Europe; European Elites saw the Revolution as a threat to the European power structure as a whole. In 1792, Austria, expecting little resistance, attacked France. Later, Austria was joined by several other European powers, including England and Spain. However, after five years of war, France was victorious. This force of European allies would later be termed the First Coalition. The First Coalition was merely the beginning of a long period of war in Europe. Early victories, many of which carried out by military genius, Napoleon Bonaparte, left France in a powerful position. And when Napoleon took over the French government in 1799, he changed the primary focus of the military; shifting it from defending the French Revolution to conquering the European sub-continent (11). Europe’s near constant state of war from 1799 to 1815 was an extension of the initial conflict starting in 1792. However, historians have termed the period of France’s offensive military campaigns under Napoleon’s rule as the Napoleonic Wars (10). The conflicts occurring between 1792 and 1799 are now known as the French Revolutionary Wars (10)//.// Between 1792 and Napoleon’s eventual defeat at Waterloo in 1815 seven coalitions, comprised of nations all over Europe, went to war with France; the vast majority of European states from the Iberian Peninsula to Russia were dissolved, and their people placed under Napoleon’s rule. Europe had experienced wars and instability for over two decades; and it is estimated that over three million Europeans died (11). The people of Europe longed for peace and stability.

= Re-cap and the rise of Conservatism (BM) = Conservatives believe that society is a single interconnected organic unit, and that change should occur through small alterations of the existing institutions in reaction to the organic growth of the society (1). Conservatives also find that history is the most acceptable medium to draw philosophical conclusions from. Thus, the liberal ideologies of the Enlightenment represented the absolute polarization of conservative thought. Enlightenment philosophers believed that society was made up of individuals. Many believed that through reason man could create a perfect society, they believed that existing institutions could be dissolved and ideal institutions put in their place (3). Liberal enlightenment philosophy dominated the minds of Europe’s middle class in the eighteenth century. In 1784, German Philosopher, Immanuel Kants clamed that “The Enlightenment is mankind’s exit from its self-incurred immaturity (12)…” Enlightenment philosophy was accompanied by the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1700s. The Industrial Revolution, brought wealth to the middle classes of Europe, and later created a poor working class. In France, the middle class, or Bourgeois, used the wealth acquired from the Industrial Revolution to finally put enlightenment social theory to the test. When the French Revolution began in 1789, it marked the beginning of a long period of violent conflict and instability for all of Europe. Conservatives of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries used the atrocities of the French Revolution, the French Revolutionary Wars, and the Napoleonic Wars to promote political platforms based on the religious and political institutions of the old regimes. Conservatives also used the fact that enlightenment idealism had failed to produce a perfect political structure as an example of conservatives’ legitimate distrust for the “abstract and ideal (1).” Early nineteenth century conservatism’s popularity can largely be attributed to a Europe that was longing for stability. Throughout the Napoleonic Wars, European governments were overthrown and nations were placed under the rule of the French Empire. Amongst this instability, Europeans experienced constant war and violent atrocities. Furthermore, the liberal economic structure of the time had begun to create a large poor working class; this group resented the middle class and was looking for both economic and political stability (14). By 1815, Europeans had grown tired of the Enlightenment, and they were eager to accept a form of government that was both stable and familiar.

Edmund Burke By Blake Hartman

 * Introduction and Background Information**

The foundation of conservatism as a political movement is most often credited to the philosophy and writings of Edmund Burke. More specifically, the publication of his most important and influential work, //Reflections on the Revolution in France//, can reasonably be considered the launching point of the movement. Before examining Burke’s works and ideas and their effect on conservatism and the history of philosophy in general, some background information on the man himself should first be provided.

Burke was born in Dublin in 1729. He was the son of a successful attorney and enjoyed a middleclass upbringing which afforded him a substantial early education in a Quaker school outside of Dublin.13 In the furtherance of his father’s wishes, Burke entered Trinity College in Dublin to pursue studies in law. After starting his legal training at Trinity he moved to London to complete his law degree. It was soon after this move that Burke realized he had no desire to become a lawyer and began to drift away from his legal studies.14 This naturally resulted in an unfortunate dwindling of contact with his now disappointed father.

It is at this point that Burke began traveling around Europe, primarily in England and France. He was married in 1756 to Jane Nugent, with whom he would have his only surviving child, a son named Richard.15 It was also during this time that Burke began writing and publishing works, his first publication being //A Vindication of Natural Society// in 1756. Burke continued to make a living through his writings alone until 1765 when he was elected into the British House of Commons and thus began his political career. He would be an influential force in British politics, keeping his seat in the House of Commons until 1794.16 He made a name for himself through the persuasive speeches he presented during his parliamentary tenure, many of which can be seen as precursors to his future influential works.

Burke began writing in the 1750’s and quickly developed strong opinions about political methods through his observation of and participation in the political arena. His early works were most often narratives, a style that was both popular and marketable at the time.17 //A Vindication of Natural Society//, his first published work, is a somewhat troublesome one to those who have studied his works. This is largely due to the fact that though it is understood to be a work of satire, it was not completely clear at the time and there has been debate regarding to what extent it is in fact satire.18 This uncertainty is heightened by the assumption that the ideas in the work may have been tempered in order to avoid negative backlash and the fact that it was originally published anonymously.


 * The Roots of Conservatism in Burke’s Philosophy**

As mentioned before, the establishment of political conservatism is universally traced back specifically to Burke’s philosophy and writings. Many of the beliefs about government, leadership, and politics typically associated with conservatism were first enumerated in Burke’s writings and speeches.

One of the important conservative ideas that Burke championed was a strong respect of custom and tradition. He believed that the public interest was best served by the political structures which had been implemented and developed over time.19 He was concerned by what he saw in the radical revolutions of the day as a complete disregard of those aspects of government which had been successful in the past. As stated in one of his most famous passages in //Reflections// that “people will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.”20 This simple, straightforward statement encapsulates an important tenet of Burkean conservatism; that the complex political institutions which had survived over the ages were more capable of properly governing a society than those institutions based on the new ideals of the enlightenment. This idea likely the most enduring of Burke’s political philosophy as it relates to conservatism.

Another of Burke’s ideas that fostered the rise of conservative thought was his ideal construction of society. He believed in a class structure in which differentiations in status afforded members of different groups certain privileges. He did not see any problems with these societal distinctions because they too had been carefully created through a long series of traditions which became a contract in nature.21 He held that such a class structure was beneficial to every group and effectively maintained order.

Burke was also an advocate of the strong presence of Christianity in government and society. He believed the church acted as a stabilizing force in both family and civil life. He was proud of the established church in England and often referenced it in his arguments for the importance of religiosity.22 In //Reflections//, Burke spoke for the English in stating that “we know, and what is better, we feel inwardly, that religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good, and of all comfort.”23

All of these tenets of Burke’s philosophy can be thought of as his interpretation of exactly what is “natural.” The revolutionaries across Europe at the time were using that term to explicate what they believed to be their “natural rights.” Burke, on the other hand, argued that something can only become natural through long term application and adaptation as an established tradition. Again, in //reflections,// he commends the application of this idea in England and proudly speaks as a member of English government. “We are resolved to keep an established church, an established monarchy, an established aristocracy, and an established democracy.”24 These are all the things Burke believed to be truly natural, as opposed to the abstract and artificial declarations of the revolutionaries.


 * Burke as a Counter-Revolutionary: //Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)//**

Most of Burke’s significant contributions to political philosophy and the conservatism movement came out of his criticisms of the radical revolutions taking place in Europe at the time, specifically the French Revolution. It is on this topic that Burke wrote what has become his most enduring and influential work, //Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)//.

Burke was very uneasy about what he was happening in France at the time. Certainly a strong advocate of the need for structure and order in society, Burke criticized the ideas behind the declarations of the revolutionaries, which were put into writing as the //Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen//. This document of the Enlightenment enumerated the presence of individual liberties believed to result from certain “natural rights” which every man possessed. The declaration also made reference to the sovereignty of the nation and a rejected the monarchial authority which had claimed its power from the divine right of kings. It attacked the aristocracy and the fundamental social and class structures of France.25 Burke saw all of this as a troubling disregard for the complex ingrained traditions of the past which had developed the strong and stable aspects of society. He was in severe opposition of any group willing to dispose all the sum of historical precedent in one fell swoop.

In //Reflections,// Burke claimed that the aims of the revolutionaries were overly simplistic. He viewed their definition of “natural rights” and dangerously misguided and abstract.26 To Burke, it was simply not possible that a group which completely ignored the complexity of the governmental and social arrangements that had been set over time could truly serve the public interest. In the text he also defends the holding of private property and the necessary class division he believed to be beneficial to all.27

It is important to note, however, that Burke’s philosophy, and the idea of conservatism in general, is not inherently opposed to all kinds of change. Burke criticized not so much the desire of the revolutionaries to enact change, but the way in which they went about it. Conservatism allows for changes to be made for the better. He even supported the idea that the people have the right to rid themselves of a poor or oppressive government, but change can only be true and beneficial if it comes about gradually and organically in response to specific needs. In a sort of sum of his philosophy, Burke stated that the most important right of any society was to be well governed by its leaders.28

Joseph de Maistre was born on April 1, 1753 into a well-to-do family in Chambery, France. He received a strict religious education through the Jesuits and later became a member of the Savoy Senate, following the footsteps of his father who was previously the president of the Senate (30.) This Senate appointment was the first of many distinguished positions to follow in his career, others including service as a regent in Sardinia and Piedmont-Sardinia, and also as an ambassador to the St. Petersburg court system (31.)
 * Background: **

Joseph de Maistre is considered to be one of the most influential Conservatism writers of the 19th century due to his ardent belief in the inseparability of religion, politics, and daily life. Much of his appeal came from his reverence for God and the pope, two aspects of daily life still dominant for much of the general population in this period. But because of his fiery passion he was on the run for most of his adult life, fleeing France when the French Revolution threatened his social prestige and traveling back and forth between Russia and Italy later. His letters and books are affirmations of his zeal and throughout the study of his works it becomes apparent he was disgusted by the violence and animosity introduced, as he states, by not only the French Revolution but the Enlightenment in general (32.)

** Reaction to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution: **

As stated earlier, the main focus of the Enlightenment centered on challenging traditions such as divine mandate and other cultural customs. Philosophers claimed rational thought could free the people from the oppressive traditions of their monarchies. According to Richard Lebrun’s book, //Joseph de Maistre’s Life, Thought and Influence: Selected Studies//, de Maistre reacted passionately against these ideas, calling Enlightenment rationalization naïve and even condones Francis Bacon for promoting what de Maistre called “scientism and atheism” during Bacon’s influential period. Elisha Greifer mentions in his journal article, “Joseph de Maistre and the Reaction Against the Eighteenth Century”, that de Maistre commends a fellow conservatist for being a “wise and profound theologian who saw that social contract was only a frivolous promise….” This idea promoted by de Maistre, the idea that no human being can produce a set of laws, is further explained in his work titled //Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions//. He states “the influence of human agency in the formation of political constitutions…enters…only in a manner infinitely subordinate” because only God can prescribe law (33.)

A surprising point about de Maistre though is made by Lebrun when he comments on how some Enlightenment influence is seen in de Maistre’s view on authority. The quote from his book is as follows: "In fact, his whole work seeks to show that authority forms a system: the metaphysical authority of God is necessarily realized in the political authority of the sovereign and in the spiritual authority of the pope. The remarkable point however is that this systematic defence of authority is itself tributary to Enlightenment rationalism, since Maistre thinks of authority on the model of the notion of sovereignty, in common with the thought of Pufendorf, Rousseau, and the physiocrats." Although de Maistre believed using human rationalization would result in selfish human will, he himself did use it to defend his own arguments.

As mentioned previously, de Maistre also attacked the French Revolution. Lebrun states that he believed the Revolution was full of “violence”, “immorality”, and “atheism.” As one can tell so far, de Maistre had very strong feelings against these movements, but Greifer claims he was not always so fiery. It wasn’t until when the Revolution threatened his position in society and degraded the importance of religion that he became more outspoken and forceful with his beliefs. But de Maistre does not only address the Revolution, he also laments about the Restoration period. According to him some of the kings helped support some aspects of the Revolution, dooming the natural laws of social order and thus making society incapable of stability and peace (34.)


 * Joseph de Maistre’s Philosophy: **

Joseph de Maistre’s philosophy relies heavily on his religious education from the Jesuits. This influence becomes very apparent when studying his //Essay on the Generative Principle of Political Constitutions//, written in 1810. The bulk of his essay focuses on the ideas that the only law which exists for humans does not have to be written, it is innate through the work of God; yet he states “one single exception…the legislation of Moses…binding still…the different families of a people, which remain dispersed without being disunited.” He does not have any faith in man to create laws or constitutions to live by, “no human institution can endure unless supported by [God] [who] supports all” (35) but does advocate for the papacy as “infallible” (36) and “sovereign” (37.)

Other sources, such as Lebrun’s book, also state that de Maistre believed the support of the pope was needed for Europe to attain stability once again, but not only was he supposed to be supported he also needed complete control to do God’s will (38.) Joseph de Maistre also stated that the “doctrinal declarations of the pope are binding on man without the right of appeal” (39), he clearly believed in the idea of divine mandate, something that much of the European population was trying to get away from through the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. As stated previously, he believed the idea of a social contract was flawed (40) in that a superior can abuse the power over people and only the papacy can save “European civilization from the barbarians” (41.)

One last key figure in de Maistre’s philosophy regards the public executioner. The Encyclopædia Britannica relays that he believed the public executioner was a “necessity” for society to put down rebels attempting to uproot the natural social order (42.) His emphasis on the public executioner, though, may have caused some contention among people during the time period and even today. Lebrun remarks that “Maistre has been sharply criticized for the extremism of his views, and in particular for his reflections on the social role of the executioner…” (43.)


 * Reflection: **

As one can tell, Joseph de Maistre had a very radical view on society during a time when Enlightenment ideals prevailed. Maistre believed firmly in divine mandate, the strength of which can be attributed to his education from the Jesuits. God can do no wrong; neither can any one given power by him, the first of which was the pope and then any monarchy receiving power. He believed the rampant instability and violence coursing through Europe at the time was divine retribution for rejecting God and religion as a stable support for politics and society (44.)

Although Maistre’s ideas were and still may seem to be extreme, his influence can still be seen throughout the years. Radical views fighting against traditions are still harshly critiqued because most people would rather do things the way they have always been done. “Rational” thought does not need to be behind these traditions, Maistre would argue, because in the end it is just human irrationality and God will have the final say.

The dismembering of absolutism in France’s Revolution – with all its positive and negative outcomes – caused almost every thinking person in Europe to assess and reassess the //Social Contract//. Many debates arose concerning what the new social contracts in liberal government meant and what the implications of the Revolution meant. People throughout Europe were analyzing politics in a systematic way and the modern political party system began to formulate (45). Many people throughout did not agree that the French Revolution – and its experiments with liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism – was a success. Many people in Europe were turned-off by the idealistic/utopian ideals of liberal governments and were turned away from politics; these people, mostly middle class appreciated more practical modes of governing. Moreover, their analysis of society was dominated by a fear of the return of great calamities and uncertainty (46). Also, as seen above in the first section we see that the Enlightenment had a large impact on how different people thought (i.e. reason and science vs. religion, faith and tradition) specifically about individualism, human nature, and sources of social authority throughout Europe. Conservatism became the platform across Europe from which to launch this dissatisfaction.
 * __Conservatism throughout Europe__** (NS)

Leaders (above) including Burke and De Maistre incised the spread of conservative thought Europe via new technological advances that facilitated the communicating, publicizing, and spreading ideas. The theme of the Conference of Vienna in 1815 was to secure lasting peace, and the resulting settlement was one that resurrected religious and aristocratic privilege in many European countries (47). Agitators were suppresses rigorously by police agents in many major countries as the prestige of the Roman Catholic church soared during this period (Britannica “Conservatism”). Conservatism came to dominate the European political agenda well into the 1830s; Specifically, Russia, Austria, Prussia, the Catholic Church/the Vatican Council, and Britain proved to be the most fertile for conservative ideals to blossom.

In a context of rural poverty of the permanent serf-caste and a government unwilling to address the failures of a traditional social structure a debate arose over what path Russia should take to get to a better future. Would they turn to industrializing and liberal European methods? Many Russian thinkers were against this because they thought doing so would diminish the unique Russian identity and social order – the Autocratic Tsar system would be demolished, the Christian Orthodox faith would crumble, the productive agrarian lifestyle would disappear, and revolution and chaos would ruin stability. Of course, this line of thought was held by those who had power and privilege, specifically Tsar Nicholas I (48).
 * __Russia__** (NS)

Two lines of Conservatives evolved in Russia at this time. The first being those who supported the traditional system as described above; primarily the government and the wealthy serf owning nobility (49). They were less intellectually sequence and substance in their ideology than the next group (50). The second group came to be known as the “Slavophiles.” They were typically intellectuals who opposed serfdom, the bureaucracy, governmental meddling with intellectual pursuits, and militarism. Their conservatism stems from their criticism of Peter I the Great’s pro-western reforms (1682 – 1696); Slavophiles sought to retain as much of the pre-Petrine social and political order as they could. It is important to note that the of the strongest pushes to abolish serfdom came from the landowning nobility, who was becoming more focused on cash-crops and thus wage-labor began to replace the more expensive, obligations of serfdom.

Conservative ideas and political ideology transformed in to a ridged absolutism that opposed almost any political change in Austria in the early 1800s (51). This altered and new form of conservatism is known as the “Metternich system” named after its most prominent proponent and conservative leader, Klemens Wenzel, Prince von Metternich – in spite of his denunciation of the word “system” and favor or the word “principles” (52). Metternich was a state minister in Hapsburg who contributed to the fall of Napoleon. He once said “The principles of conservatism apply to the most diverse situations; their application is not confined within narrow limits; these principles are the enemies of anarchy, moral and material” (53). He, like Burke, viewed revolution as a kind of destabilizing disease that negatively impacted the public’s wellbeing and saw it as the government’s duty to intervene. Thus, he concluded, the government required as much authority as possible – even a monarchical constitution to solidify that authority (54). Because Kingship was the traditionally stable form of government under attack, it needed to be defended and upheld. Metternich saw the pre-revolutionary world as one of social “equilibrium”, anything that challenged it, he thought, should be suppressed (55). Moreover, he saw “popular sovereignty” or democratic modes of decision-making as dangerous because the workings of the state would be hampered or rendered inefficient by “talk, corruption, and disputes.” Moreover, Metternich saw it as unnecessary because the vast majority simply wanted stability and tranquility (56).
 * __Austria__** (NS)

Metternich’s statesman career stemmed from his diplomatic role with Napoleon and later successful efforts to topple Napoleon’s campaign. In 1813 he was given the hereditary title of prince by the Austrian emperor – a move which ushered in the “age of Metternich” in both Austria and Europe. Metternich hosted the Congress of Vienna where he proposed the creation of a hereditary German imperial title – AKA an absolutist government – and forged a common front of Austria, England, and France by convincing leaders of their mutual interest of stability. As the most powerful statesman in Austria, Metternich sought to dampen the spirit of nationalism and revolution where ever it may be and refresh the old historical rule/status quo – many times with police brutality (57).

The forces of the day were too strong, however, and he ultimately failed. In the face of expanding industrialization, rising nationalism, increasing demands for political power by people outside of the traditional elite (specifically anti-conservative students at universities), and new social problems caused by a volatile economy, resulted in harsh repressive policies – even at his own regret in doing so. Metternich became a symbol of repression and reaction and eventually was forced to resign and live in exile after the revolutions of 1848 (57).

The French Revolution was cause of a major reshuffling and reorganization of British political parties. The two major political parties in Britain at the time were the Whigs and the Tories. However, moderate Whigs in the late 1700s began to shift towards the Tory party, and William Pitt. It is important to note that at the time politics had less to do with any “party platform” and more to so with a certain temperament (58).
 * __Britain__** (NS)

The period of 1815 -1822 was dominated by conservative Tory political rule. In general, the Tories stood for the following: the old patriarchal conception of government, the prevention of anarchy, the preservation of the Anglican Church, free trade, new imperialism, and the maintaining of landed property (59). Leaders in the conservative party of Britain included Sir Robert Peel and Benjamin Disraeli (Britannica “Tory Party”). Industrialist, evangelicals, and those with substantial power and privilege were particularly attracted to and supportive of this party. In action, Tory rule meant harsh reaction to any social developments they viewed as radical.

In 1816, a period of unhappiness set-in and the government feared revolution. The government reacted with harsh tactics - spies, anti-organizing laws, anti-gun ownership laws and police brutality - to clamp agitation (60). The party eventually fell out of favor, but the conservative party continues as a prominent party today: [].

media type="youtube" key="IO52TjI88tE" height="340" width="560" align="right"

(1). Encyclopedia Britannica, Conservatism. [] (2). Roy Porter, //The Enlightenment// (New York NY: PALGRAVE, 2001) pp. 1 (3). Roy Porter, //The Enlightenment//, pp. 2 (4). Mark Plozay, The Early Reception of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government,” Hanover University, [] (5). Encyclopedia Britannica, Social Contract. [] (6). Ernest Bogart, //The Economic History of the United States// (New York NY: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917) pp. 149 (7). Pat Hudson, //The Industrial Revolution// (London, England: Edward Arnold, 1992) pp. 10 (8). Encyclopedia Britannica, Reign of Terror. [|http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588360/Reign-of-Terror#] (9). John Rosenberg, //The French Revolution: a History, Introduction// (London, England: 1857) pp. //xx// (10). Encyclopedia Britannica, Napoleonic Wars. [|http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/219456/French-revolutionary-wars#] (11). Joseph Cummins, //The War Chronicles; from Flintlock to Machine Guns// (Beverly, MA: Fair Winds Press, 2009) pp, 10 and 30 (12). James Schmidt, //What is the Enlightenment? : Eighteenth Century Answers for Twentieth Century Questions// (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1996) pp. 58

13. Newman, Bertram, //Edmund Burke// (1927), 4 14. Morley, John, //Burke// (1879), 5 15. Newman, 9-10 16. //Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy//, “Edmund Burke,” 2004. [] 17. //Stanford(web)// 18. Morley, 13 19. Bredvold, Louis, //The Philosophy of Edmund Burke// (1960), 43-45 20. Burke, Edmund, //Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790),// 47-48 21. Bredvold, 44 22. Bredvold, 105 23. Bredvold, 104 24. Burke, //Reflections,// 136-137 25. //Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (National assembly of France, 1789)// 26. Morley, 147-148 27. Burke, //Reflections,// 241 28. // Stanford(web) // 45. Robin Wink, Jan Neuberger. //Europe and the Making of Modernity: 1815-1914//. Oxford university Press. New York. 2005. P. 125 46. E. L. Woodward. //Three Studies in European Conservatism//. Frank Cass and Co. Ltd. London. 1963. P. 5 47. Desmond Seward. //Metternich//. Viking Penguin. New York. 1991. P 74-76 48. Wink 128 49. Wink 220 50. Woodward 2 51. Wink 129 52. Woodward 37 53. Woodward 6 54. Woodward 41 55. Wink 129 56. Woodward 42, 46 57. Encyclopædia Britannica, “Metternich” 58. Wood 41 59. Wood 41, 43 60. Wood 49, 50
 * 30. ** "Joseph de Maistre." __Encyclopædia Britannica__. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. 14 Nov. 2009.
 * 31. ** Lebrun, Richard. //Joseph de Maistre’s Life, Thought, and Influence: Selected Studies.// McGill-Queen’s Press: Canada. 2001.
 * 32. ** Lebrun, 2001.
 * 33. ** Halsall, Paul. “Joseph De Maistre: The Divine Origins of Constitutions, 1810.” //Internet Modern History Sourcebook.// 1997.
 * 34. ** Lebrun, 2001.
 * 35. ** Halsall, 1997.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">36. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Lebrun, 200.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">37. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Bertrin, Georges. “Joseph-Marie, Comte de Maistre.” //The Catholic Encyclopedia//. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1910.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">38. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Lebrun, 2001.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">39. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Bertrin, 1910.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">40. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Greifer, Joseph. “Joseph de Maistre and the Reaction Against the Eighteenth Century.” //The American Political Science Review//. Vol 55, No 3. American Political Science Association. 1961. Pp. 591-598.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">41. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Bertrin, 1910.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">42. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> //Encyclopædia Britannica//, 2009.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">43. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Lebrun, 2001.
 * <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';">44. **<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif';"> Bertrin, 1910.