To what extent was Count Camillo Benso di Cavour dedicated to the unification of Italy in the Period 1848 1961 Essay Example

To what extent was Count Camillo Benso di Cavour dedicated to the unification of Italy in the Period 1848 1961? Paper It is suggested that the most notable achievement of Count Camille di Cavour was to preside over the unification of Italy in the period 1848-1861. It was a few weeks before his death, in 1860, that the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed after many centuries which had seen Italy divided into separate states. Together with others, such as Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel II, it is unquestionable that Cavour played a major role in the unification of Italy. Cavours foreign policy (his relationship with both France and Britain) and his early career and beliefs make up the focal points of this argument. However, there is an issue of debate amongst historians that questions how dedicated Cavour was to total unification. Historians such as Mack Smith and Hearder, that question his dedication, express the view that Cavour was more interested in expelling foreign influence and creating a powerful, dominant Northern Kingdom of Italy shaped by Piedmont. They also concentrate on Cavours poor relationsh ip with other protagonists, such as Garibaldi and Mazzini, to further champion their belief. Those historians who suggest that Cavours actions showed his dedication to the unification of Italy look at his early career and beliefs shown within Il Risorgimento. Cavour, born in 1810, lived in the capital city of Piedmont, Turin. Before becoming Prime Minister in 1852, Cavour used his and Cesare Balbos co-owned journal Il Risorgimento to illustrate his ideas for a united Italy. Founded in 1847 after Charles Albert had freed the press from censorship, Il Risorgimento allowed Cavour to publicise his political ideas for the future. Mack Smith states, its programme was to champion liberal conservatism and moderate reforms1. One of his main recommendations was for a constitution2; he wanted to totally change how Piedmont was run. Cavour was dedicated to the bettering of Piedmont as a state and improving Italy as a country. He also wrote numerous articles full of patriotic rhetoric3 speaking of his nation (both Piedmont and Italy). He wanted the best for Italy and was therefore commit ted to the creation of an Italy free of foreign influence Cavour wished to pronounce these ideas to his audience. It is with this that it can be argued that Cavour was dedicated to unification during his early life. We will write a custom essay sample on To what extent was Count Camillo Benso di Cavour dedicated to the unification of Italy in the Period 1848 1961? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on To what extent was Count Camillo Benso di Cavour dedicated to the unification of Italy in the Period 1848 1961? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on To what extent was Count Camillo Benso di Cavour dedicated to the unification of Italy in the Period 1848 1961? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer However, the evidence that suggests that Cavours beliefs displayed in Il Risorgimento exhibited his desire to create a totally unified Italy is weak. Whilst stating that Cavour was committed to the creation of an Italy free of foreign influence, Mack Smith does not state that Cavour wished for a Kingdom of Italy to be formed. It can therefore be argued that all Cavour wanted was to remove Austrian influence in order to allow Piedmont to expand into the Austrian controlled Lombardy and Venetia, depicting Cavours lack of dedication to the unification of Italy. Subsequently, this point cannot be completely relied on to sustain the argument that Cavour was committed to the creation of the Kingdom of Italy. Cavour was elected as Prime Minister in 1852. His foreign policy from then onwards is also used by historians such as Mack Smith, Hearder and Stiles to strengthen the argument that Cavour was dedicated to the unification of Italy. Cavours immediate aim was to break up the Dreikaiserband, the alliance between Germany, Russia and Austria. Accordingly, Cavour attempted to raise Piedmonts standing with Britain and France4, joining them in the Crimean War in 1854. Cavour could not envisage his country from becoming isolated from the Great Powers5. Cavour needed the backing of these countries in order to successfully create a united Italy. It can therefore be argued that Cavours subtle diplomacy6 shows that he was dedicated to the unification of Italy. Martin Collier completely contradicts this point; he states, the king was prepared to appoint a pro-war prime minister such as Count Thaon de Revel because of Cavours reluctance for war in 18557, suggesting that Cavour was in fact not in favour of entering the Crimean War and therefore not interested in allying with Britain and France, which would have helped the Italian cause. That is, his disinterest in building a relationship with Britain and France through joining them in war implies that he was not keen on unifying Italy. Furthermore, the reliability of Hearders evidence can be questioned. Hearders viewpoint appears limited, due to the sheer number of books he has written on Cavour and unification, showing his blatant focus on his role in the formation of Italy. It can therefore be argued that Hearder might be favourable in his views towards Cavour and his actions, concentrating on his dedication to the unification of Italy despite the strong evidence to suggest otherwise. Thus, the evidence provided by Hearder should not be the basis for the argument that proposes that Cavour was dedicated to the unification of Italy. Nevertheless, once Cavour had the camaraderie of Napoleon III and Lord Palmerston he made full use of its advantages. At the Congress of Paris in1856, Cavour was able to negotiate on equal terms with the Great Powers8, as Stiles states, and succeeded in raising the issue of Italy9. Consequently, Napoleon III and Cavour met at Plombià ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½res. It was here that the idea of war with Austria was discussed and eventually agreed. Therefore, it can be argued that Cavour, through use of his political skill, raised the idea of Italian unification amongst the major European powers and thus was dedicated to the process. Finally, historians use Cavours resignation after the Treaty of Villafranca (in which peace was declared without a Piedmontese representative apparent) to strengthen their argument. Cavour felt that Napoleon III had betrayed the Italian cause and therefore resigned in order to show his discontent. Thus, Stiles and Duggans interpretations of Cavours foreign policy can be us ed along with Mack Smiths and Hearders to strengthen the argument that Cavour was dedicated to the unification of Italy. Whilst agreeing that to some extent Cavour was dedicated to the unification of Italy, Mack Smith states, Cavour should perhaps be called a patriot rather than a nationalist. In his own way he was like them an idealist, but he was far more pragmatic and empirical in his approach to the national problem. Whereas the radicals argued from the theory to the facts, he began with the facts and was ready to fight for national unification only when the facts seemed to justify it [after Garibaldis successful expedition to the South in 1860], only when the forces for unification seemed to be sufficient and to have enough of their own10. This therefore shows that it can be strongly argued that Cavour was not interested (and therefore not dedicated) to the unification of Italy until 1860 when the idea was forced upon him. Despite the evidence that suggests Cavour was dedicated to the unification of Italy, there is a stronger argument that most historians focus on contradicting the preceding evidence. Giuseppe Mazzini, whilst taking a backseat in the later stages, was a prominent figure in the early phases of the Risorgimento. Young Italy, founded in 1831, had a significant impact on the political development of Italy. Its founder, Mazzini, believed that people should live in an independent nation of free men and equals11. It was together with his protà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½gà ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½e, Garibaldi, that the Italian Question became an international affair. Cavours open condemnation of Mazzinian principals, to many, suggests that Cavour was not dedicated to the unification of Italy. It is clear to see that Cavour and Mazzini differed significantly on points of principle. Cavour believed that revolutionary action, promoted by Mazzini to unify Italy, would be detrimental to Piedmonts position; firstly, unification with the backward South would ruin Piedmonts reputation as a powerful state and secondly, a revolution would upset Piedmonts political stability. Thus, Cavours hatred of Mazzinian views shows his lack of dedication to unification. Mack Smith states, Cavour used to tell people that Mazzini ought to be arrested and executed without pity12. As a result, Cavour was willing to side with Austria in order to see that a number of Mazzinians were imprisoned. This can therefore be used to suggest that Cavour was willing to go to any extent in order to stop Mazzini and his followers, which subsequently implies that he was uncommitted to unification. Furthermore, Mack Smith states, the Mazzinians said that they wanted national unity far more than they wanted a republic13, showing that they were willing to compromise. Cavour on the contrary said that he would refuse an alliance with them even if it meant Italy remained divided14, which displays his stubbornness. Hence, it can be argued that Cavour was not dedicated to the unification of Italy. Overall, Dennis Mack Smith appears to give a balanced argument. He both emphasises Cavours dedication to the unification of Italy and considers evidence that suggests otherwise. However, Mack Smiths support should be considered with a critical approach, as he has written a number of books on Cavours life including his biography. It is not surprising that other historians such as Collier regard Mack Smiths judgements as generous15. They argue that Mack Smith, especially within his biography, places emphasis on Cavours positive role in unification rather than his failings. Therefore, whilst references towards Mack Smiths viewpoints should not be ignored, it can be argued that there may be elements of bias within them, discrediting them as a basis for the overall line of reasoning. Historians, also often use Cavours poor relationship with Garibaldi as evidence to support the idea that Cavour was not dedicated to the unification of Italy. Giuseppe Garibaldi came into contact with Mazzini in 1833 after he joined Young Italy. For a while, he was the most widely known figure in the world and a national hero; Garibaldi was charismatic and dedicated to the cause of Italian unification. Tension arose between the two figureheads after the ceding of Nice and Savoy to France in the summer months of 1860 (Nice being Garibaldis birthplace). Nice and Savoy had been used as a bargaining tool to secure the support of France in the war against Austria. Cavour seemed to prefer the less immediately attractive but apparently more realistic idea of a gradually expanding Piedmont if necessary, sacrificing national territory in the process16. This confirmed Garibaldis own suspicion that Cavour was not dedicated to unification, as by giving away Italian states a totally unified Ital y could never be achieved. Furthermore, Cavours reaction to Garibaldis expedition to unite the South in 1860 is used to support the argument that Cavour was uncommitted to unification. Although Cavour was limited by both public opinion and political paralysis, he still tried to stop the expedition. He dared not oppose Garibaldi openly, since Piedmontese public opinion was enthusiastic about the expedition [therefore] Cavour did his best to thwart Garibaldi and the Thousand covertly17. It was important that Cavour was seen to support Garibaldi but he had to make sure his vision rather than Garibaldis or Mazzinis was assured18. Cavour confiscated the expeditions weapons, ordered his navy to arrest the expedition at all costs and asked France to stop Garibaldi crossing the straights of Messina in his bid to unify Italy. In private letters he said how little he approved of Garibaldis foolish venture. Cavour tried to make the king think that Garibaldi was using the royal name for a purpose which has nothing whateve r to do with the monarchy19. Collier argues, Cavours actions in 1860 were not of a man with a desire to unify Italy20 instead he was more interested in taking control over the actions of the protagonists. After Garibaldis success in the South it was clear that Cavour had to annex the South quickly to regain control over the situation; Darby goes far enough to state, we can see that Cavour was in effect forced into unifying Italy just to stop Garibaldi21 and argues that it was a desperate gamble to preserve an enlarged Piedmont22. Thus, although Cavour is regarded as one of the Founding Fathers of Italy, it can be strongly argued that Cavour was forced into unification and that Cavours covert operation in order to stop union with the South demonstrates Cavours lack of dedication to the unification of Italy.