# data[].attributes.body
The Piedmontese defeated the Austrians in 1859 with assistance from the French. In 1861 this caused most of Italy to fall under their rule. The annexation of papal Rome in 1870 and Venetia in 1866 was the last unification of Italy and caused the end of the Risorgimento.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Risorgimento, (Italian: "Rising Again"), 19th-century movement for Italian unification that culminated in the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. The Risorgimento was an ideological and literary movement that helped to arouse the national consciousness of the Italian people, and it led to a series of political events that freed the Italian states from foreign domination and united them politically. Although the Risorgimento has attained the status of a national myth, its essential meaning remains a controversial question. The classic interpretation (expressed in the writings of the philosopher Benedetto Croce) sees the Risorgimento as the triumph of liberalism, but more recent views criticize it as an aristocratic and bourgeois revolution that failed to include the masses.

The main impetus to the Risorgimento came from reforms introduced by the French when they dominated Italy during the period of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (1796-1815). A number of Italian states were briefly consolidated, first as republics and then as satellite states of the French empire, and, even more importantly, the Italian middle class grew in numbers and was allowed to participate in government.

After Napoleon's defeat in 1815, the Italian states were restored to their former rulers. Under the domination of Austria, these states took on a conservative character. Secret societies such as the Carbonari opposed this development in the 1820s and '30s. The first avowedly republican and national group was Young Italy, founded by Giuseppe Mazzini in 1831. This society, which represented the democratic aspect of the Risorgimento, hoped to educate the Italian people to a sense of their nationhood and to encourage the masses to rise against the existing reactionary regimes. Other groups, such as the Neo-Guelfs, envisioned an Italian confederation headed by the pope; still others favoured unification under the house of Savoy, monarchs of the liberal northern Italian state of Piedmont-Sardinia.

After the failure of liberal and republican revolutions in 1848, leadership passed to Piedmont. With French help, the Piedmontese defeated the Austrians in 1859 and united most of Italy under their rule by 1861. The annexation of Venetia in 1866 and papal Rome in 1870 marked the final unification of Italy and hence the end of the Risorgimento.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Risorgimento | Italian Unification, Nationalism & Revolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Risorgimento, (Italian: "Rising Again"), 19th-century movement for Italian unification that culminated in the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. The Risorgimento was an ideological and literary movement that helped to arouse the national consciousness of the Italian people, and it led

# data[].attributes.body
Since the fall of Rome, the Italian Peninsula was fragmented into independent states, lacking a strong sense of shared culture or calls for unification until Napoleon's invasion. He established the Kingdom of Italy in the north, but after his defeat, Italy reverted to its divided states. The region included the conservative Kingdom of Naples, the Papal States, and Austrian-controlled territories, with only the Kingdom of Sardinia (Piedmont) as a genuinely independent state.

The Revolutions of 1848 sparked uprisings across Italy, but these were quickly suppressed. Despite this, King Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia emerged as a leader for unification, seeking powerful allies. His prime minister, Cavour, forged an alliance with France, culminating in the Second War of Italian Independence against Austria, leading to the annexation of Lombardy.

In 1860, Giuseppe Garibaldi launched a campaign in Sicily, successfully capturing Naples. He handed over control to Victor Emmanuel, who proclaimed the Kingdom of Italy in 1861, though Venice and Rome remained outside its borders. In the 1866 Austro-Prussian War, Italy joined against Austria but faced setbacks. However, Venice was eventually ceded to Italy.

The final piece of unification came in 1870 when the Franco-Prussian War led to the withdrawal of French troops from Rome, allowing it to be declared the capital of the newly unified Kingdom of Italy. Despite this achievement, the new nation faced significant internal challenges, including linguistic and economic disparities between the North and South. Ultimately, Italy's expansionist ambitions contributed to the shifting power dynamics in Europe, setting the stage for World War I.

4o mini

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Printerval.com - T-Shirts Starting at $14 Featuring Your Favorite TV Shows, Movies, Comics, and More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find the perfect handmade gift, vintage & on-trend clothes, unique decor home & living and more on Printerval.com

# data[].attributes.body
The Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821) was a complex conflict leading to Mexico's independence from Spain, marked by local and regional struggles rather than a single event. It began with Miguel Hidalgo's "Cry of Dolores" in 1810, and despite initial successes, leaders like Hidalgo and José María Morelos were captured and executed. The conflict evolved into guerrilla warfare, with Vicente Guerrero emerging as a key figure.

The turning point came in 1821 when former royalist Agustín de Iturbide allied with Guerrero, leading to a military force that forced the Spanish viceroy to sign the Treaty of Córdoba, ending Spanish rule. Following independence, Mexico was briefly organized as the First Mexican Empire under Iturbide before becoming a federal republic in 1823. Spain recognized Mexico's independence in 1836 after failed reconquest attempts. The conflict was influenced by political upheavals in Spain, particularly Napoleon's invasion, which challenged the legitimacy of Spanish rule.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Mexican War of Independence (Spanish: Guerra de Independencia de México, 16 September 1810 - 27 September 1821) was an armed conflict and political process resulting in Mexico's independence from the Spanish Empire. It was not a single, coherent event, but local and regional struggles that occurred within the same period, and can be considered a revolutionary civil war. It culminated with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire in Mexico City on September 28, 1821, following the collapse of royal government and the military triumph of forces for independence.

Mexican independence from Spain was not an inevitable outcome of the relationship between the Spanish Empire and its most valuable overseas possession, but events in Spain had a direct impact on the outbreak of the armed insurgency in 1810 and the course of warfare through the end of the conflict. Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Spain in 1808 touched off a crisis of legitimacy of crown rule, since he had placed his brother Joseph on the Spanish throne after forcing the abdication of the Spanish monarch Charles IV. In Spain and many of its overseas possessions, the local response was to set up juntas, ruling in the name of the Bourbon monarchy. Delegates in Spain and overseas territories met in Cádiz-a small corner of the Iberian Peninsula still under Spanish control-as the Cortes of Cádiz, and drafted the Spanish Constitution of 1812. That constitution sought to create a new governing framework in the absence of the legitimate Spanish monarch. It tried to accommodate the aspirations of American-born Spaniards () for more local control and equal standing with Peninsular-born Spaniards, known locally as peninsulares. This political process had far-reaching impacts in New Spain during the independence war and beyond. Pre-existing cultural, religious, and racial divides in Mexico played a major role in not only the development of the independence movement but also the development of the conflict as it progressed.

The conflict had several phases. The first uprising for independence was led by parish priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, who issued the Cry of Dolores on 16 September 1810. The revolt was massive and not well organized. Hidalgo was captured by royalist forces, defrocked from the priesthood, and executed in July 1811. The second phase of the insurgency was led by Father José María Morelos, who was captured by royalist forces and executed in 1815. The insurgency devolved into guerrilla warfare, with Vicente Guerrero emerging as a leader. Neither royalists nor insurgents gained the upper hand, with military stalemate continuing until 1821, when former royalist commander Agustín de Iturbide made an alliance with Guerrero under the Plan of Iguala in 1821. They formed a unified military force rapidly bringing about the collapse of royal government and the establishment of independent Mexico. The unexpected turn of events in Mexico was prompted by events in Spain. When Spanish liberals overthrew the autocratic rule of Ferdinand VII in 1820, conservatives in New Spain saw political independence as a way to maintain their position. The unified military force entered Mexico City in triumph in September 1821 and the Spanish viceroy Juan O'Donojú signed the Treaty of Córdoba, ending Spanish rule.

Following independence, the mainland of New Spain was organized as the First Mexican Empire, led by Agustín de Iturbide. This ephemeral constitutional monarchy was overthrown and a federal republic was declared in 1823 and codified in the Constitution of 1824. After some Spanish reconquest attempts, including the expedition of Isidro Barradas in 1829, Spain under the rule of Isabella II recognized the independence of Mexico in 1836.

Prior challenges to crown rule

There is evidence that even from an early period in post-conquest Mexican history, some began articulating the idea of a separate Mexican identity, though at the time this would have occurred only among elite Creole circles. Despite these murmurings of independence, serious challenges to Spanish imperial power before 1810 were rare and relatively isolated.

One early challenge to crown authority came after the introduction of the New Laws in 1542 by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Under these laws, the grants of the encomenderos were to be ended following the deaths of the current grant holders. The encomenderos' conspiracy included Don Martín Cortés, son of Hernán Cortés, who was exiled, with other conspirators executed.

Another challenge to crown authority occurred in 1624 when elites ousted the reformist Viceroy Diego Carrillo de Mendoza, 1st Marquess of Gelves, who sought to break up crime rackets from which the elites profited and curtail opulent displays of clerical power. The viceroy was removed following an urban religious riot of Mexico City commoners in 1624 stirred up by the elites. The crowd, which was mostly Catholic, was reported to have shouted, "Long live the King! Long live Christ! Death to bad government! Death to the heretic Lutheran [Viceroy Gelves]! Arrest the viceroy!" The attack was specifically against Gelves, seen as a bad representative of the crown, rather than against the monarchy or colonial rule itself.

In 1642, there was a brief conspiracy to unite American-born Spaniards, blacks, Indians and castas against the Spanish crown and proclaim Mexican independence. The man seeking to bring about independendence called himself Don Guillén Lampart y Guzmán, an Irishman with the birthname William Lamport. Lamport's conspiracy was discovered, and he was arrested by the Inquisition in 1642 and executed fifteen years later for sedition. Today, there is a statue of Lamport in the mausoleum at the base of the Angel of Independence in Mexico City.

Cristóbal de Villalpando, 1695. View of the Plaza Mayor of Mexico City, showing damage of the viceroy's palace by the 1692 rioters (top right).

In 1692, there was a major riot in Mexico City, where a plebeian mob attempted to burn down the viceroy's palace and the archbishop's residence. A painting by Cristóbal de Villalpando shows the damage of the tumulto.[clarification needed ] Unlike the riot in 1624, in which elites were involved and the viceroy ousted with no repercussions against the instigators, the 1692 riot was instigated by plebeians alone and had an additional racial component. The rioters attacked key symbols of Spanish power and shouted political slogans, such as, "Kill the [American-born] Spaniards and the Gachupines [Iberian-born Spaniards] who eat our corn! We go to war happily! God wants us to finish off the Spaniards! We do not care if we die without confession! Is this not our land?" The viceroy attempted to address the cause of the riot, a hike in maize prices that affected the urban poor. But the 1692 riot "represented class warfare that put Spanish authority at risk. Punishment was swift and brutal, and no further riots in the capital challenged the Pax Hispanica."

Various indigenous rebellions in the colonial era occurred but were generally local in nature, attempting to redress perceived wrongs of immediate authorities rather than throw off crown rule more broadly. They were not a broad independence movement as such. However, during the War of Independence, issues at the local level in these rural areas were so widespread as to constitute what some historians have called "the other rebellion".

Finally, before the events of 1808 upended the political situation in New Spain, there was an isolated and abortive 1799 event called the Conspiracy of the Machetes, perpetrated by a small group in Mexico City seeking independence.

Age of Revolution, Spain and New Spain

In the early 19th century, the Age of Revolution was already underway when the 1808 Napoleonic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula destabilized not only Spain but also Spain's overseas possessions. In 1776, the Anglo-American Thirteen Colonies and the American Revolution successfully gained their independence in 1783, with the help of both the Spanish Empire and Louis XVI's French monarchy. Louis XVI was toppled in the French Revolution of 1789, with the aristocrats and the king himself losing his head in revolutionary violence. The rise of military strongman Napoleon Bonaparte brought some order within France, but the turmoil there set the stage for the black slave revolt in the French sugar colony of Saint-Domingue (Haiti) in 1791. The Haitian Revolution obliterated the slavocracy and gained independence for Haiti in 1804.

Political and economic instability

The crown removed privileges (fuero eclesiástico) from ecclesiastics that had a disproportionate impact on American-born priests, who filled the ranks of the lower clergy in New Spain. A number of parish priests, most famously Miguel Hidalgo and José María Morelos, subsequently became involved in the insurgency for independence. When the crown expelled the Jesuits from Spain and the overseas empire in 1767, it had a major impact on elites in New Spain, whose Jesuit sons were sent into exile, and cultural institutions, especially universities and colleges where they taught were affected. In New Spain there were riots in protest of their expulsion.

Colonial rule was not based on outright coercion, until the early nineteenth century, since the crown did not have sufficient personnel and firepower to enforce its rule. Rather, the crown's hegemony and legitimacy to rule was accepted and ruled through institutions acting as mediators between competing groups, many organized as corporate entities. These were ecclesiastics, mining entrepreneurs, elite merchants, as well as indigenous communities. The crown's creation of a standing military in the 1780s began to shift the political calculus since the crown could now use an armed force to impose rule. To aid building a standing military, the crown created set of corporate privileges () for the military. For the first time, mixed-race castas and blacks had access to corporate privileges, usually reserved for white elites.

Religious, racial, and cultural tensions

Within the Spanish Empire there was an unofficial yet apparent racial hierarchy which affected the social mobility of those not at the top of society. White, Spanish-born Peninsulares were at the top where many occupied the highest levels of government. This was followed by Mexican-born pure Spanish descendants, who also occupied most government positions, and Creoles. Below this were indigenous groups, African Mexicans and mixed race Mexicans. Many Creole elites deeply resented the lack of social mobility this brought as only Peninsular-born Spaniards could occupy the highest levels of government. This contributed to their reasoning behind backing the move for independence, to achieve power. They did not wish to overthrow the status quo entirely, as this would threaten their lucrative position in Mexican society. Instead, they wished to move up the social ladder, unable to under the unspoken racial hierarchy of the regime.

Religious tension is arguably one of the biggest contributions to tension before the French invasion of Spain in 1808. Many Creoles, Mexican Spaniards and the majority of indigenous, mixed and African groups in Mexico practiced Mexican Catholicism while the ruling Peninsulares preferred Modern Catholicism. Mexican or traditional Catholicism often worshiped through the use of relics, symbols and artifacts where they believe the Holy Spirit existed in the physical form of the artifact, and was a mix of traditional indigenous forms of worship and Catholicism. This contrasted with the view of modern Catholicism that many Peninsulares shared, where God was worshiped through divine artifacts and relics, but there was no religious presence within the physical artifact. Laws prohibiting Lay preachers, a major part of Mexican Catholicism, from preaching and restrictions on villagers to engage in processions around communal land to protect from unwanted spirits caused much outcry and prompted a multitude of legal battles between indigenous groups and the colonial regime through the separate indigenous courts. Not only this, but new laws essentially forcing indigenous groups to learn Spanish in schools and the taxation of Cofradias or Confraternities negatively affected the literacy and living standards in villages.

Leading up to the crisis in 1808 both Creole and Mexican-born Spaniards, and indigenous and mixed groups had come to dislike the colonial regime for different reasons.

French invasion of Spain and political crisis in New Spain, 1808-1809

The Napoleonic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula destabilized not only Spain but also Spain's overseas possessions. The viceroy was the "king's living image" in New Spain. In 1808 viceroy José de Iturrigaray (1803-1808) was in office when Napoleon's forces invaded Iberia and deposed the Spanish monarch Charles IV and Napoleon's brother Joseph was declared the monarch. This turn of events set off a crisis of legitimacy. Viceroy Iturrigaray had been appointed by Charles IV, so his legitimacy to rule was not in doubt. In Mexico City, the city council ( ayuntamiento), a stronghold of American-born Spaniards, began promoting ideas of autonomy for New Spain, and declaring New Spain to be on an equal basis to Spain.

Their proposal would have created a legitimate, representative, and autonomous government in New Spain, but not necessarily breaking from the Spanish Empire. Opposition to that proposal came from conservative elements, including the peninsular-born judges of the High Court ( Audiencia), who voiced Peninsular interests. Iturrigaray attempted to find a compromise between the two factions, but failed. Upon hearing the news of the Napoleonic invasion some elites suspected that Iturrigaray intended to declare the viceroyalty a sovereign state and perhaps establish himself as head of a new state. With the support of the archbishop, Francisco Javier de Lizana y Beaumont, landowner Gabriel de Yermo, the merchant guild of Mexico City (), and other members of elite society in the capital, Yermo led a coup d'état against the viceroy. They stormed the Viceregal Palace in Mexico City, the night of 15 September 1808, deposing the viceroy, and imprisoning him along with some American-born Spanish members of the city council.

The peninsular rebels installed Pedro de Garibay as viceroy. Since he was not a crown appointee, but rather the leader of a rebel faction, creoles viewed him as an illegitimate representative of the crown. The event radicalized both sides. For creoles, it was clear that to gain power they needed to form conspiracies against Peninsular rule, and later they took up arms to achieve their goals. Garibay was of advanced years and held office for just a year, replaced by Archbishop Lizana y Beaumont, also holding office for about a year. There was a precedent for the archbishop serving as viceroy, and given that Garibay came to power by coup, the archbishop had more legitimacy as ruler. Francisco Javier Venegas was appointed viceroy and landed in Veracruz in August, reaching Mexico City 14 September 1810. The next day, Hidalgo issued his call to arms in Dolores.

Immediately after the Mexico City coup ousting Iturrigaray, juntas in Spain created the Supreme Central Junta of Spain and the Indies, on 25 September 1808 in Aranjuez. Its creation was a major step in the political development in the Spanish empire, once it became clear that there needed to be a central governing body rather than scattered juntas of particular regions. Joseph I of Spain had invited representatives from Spanish America to Bayonne, France for a constitutional convention to discuss their status in the new political order. It was a shrewd political move, but none accepted the invitation. However, it became clear to the Supreme Central Junta that keeping his overseas kingdoms loyal was imperative. Silver from New Spain was vital for funding the war against France. The body expanded to include membership from Spanish America, with the explicit recognition that they were kingdoms in their own right and not colonies of Spain. Elections were set to send delegates to Spain to participate in the Supreme Central Junta.

Although in the Spanish Empire there was not an ongoing tradition of high level representative government, found in Britain and British North America, towns in Spain and New Spain had elected representative ruling bodies, the or ayuntamientos, which came to play an important political role when the legitimate Spanish monarch was ousted in 1808. The successful 1809 elections in Mexico City for delegates to be sent to Spain had some precedents.

The Hidalgo revolt, 1810-1811

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, by José Clemente Orozco, Jalisco Governmental Palace, Guadalajara

Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla is now considered the father of Mexican independence. His uprising on 16 September 1810 is considered the spark igniting the Mexican War of Independence. He inspired tens of thousands of ordinary men to follow him, but did not organize them into a disciplined fighting force or have a broad military strategy, but he did want to destroy the old order. Fellow insurgent leader and second in command, Ignacio Allende, said of Hidalgo, "Neither were his men amenable to discipline, nor was Hidalgo interested in regulations." Hidalgo issued a few important decrees in the later stage of the insurgency, but did not articulate a coherent set of goals much beyond his initial call to arms denouncing bad government. Only following Hidalgo's death in 1811 under the leadership of his former seminary student, Father José María Morelos, was a document created that made explicit the goals of the insurgency, the Sentimientos de la Nación ("Sentiments of the Nation") (1813). One clear point was political independence from Spain. Despite its having only a vague ideology, Hidalgo's movement demonstrated the massive discontent and power of Mexico's plebeians as an existential threat to the imperial regime. The government focused its resources on defeating Hidalgo's insurgents militarily and in tracking down and publicly executing its leadership. But by then the insurgency had spread beyond its original region and leadership.

Hidalgo was a learned priest who knew multiple languages, had a significant library, and was friends with men who held Enlightenment views. He held the important position of rector of the Seminary of San Nicolás, but had run afoul of the Inquisition for unorthodox beliefs and speaking against the monarchy. He had already sired two daughters with Josefa Quintana. Following the death of his brother Joaquín in 1803, Hidalgo, who was having money problems due to debts on landed estates he owned, became curate of the poor parish of Dolores. He became member of a group of well-educated American-born Spaniards in Querétaro. They met under the guise of being a literary society, supported by the wife of crown official ( corregidor) Miguel Domínguez, Josefa Ortíz de Domínguez, known now as "La Corregidora". Instead the members discussed the possibility of a popular rising, similar to one that already had recently been quashed in Valladolid (now Morelia) in 1809 in the name of Ferdinand VII.

Hidalgo was friends with Ignacio Allende, a captain in the regiment of Dragoons in New Spain, who was also among the conspirators. The "Conspiracy of Querétaro" began forming cells in other Spanish cities in the north, including Celaya, Guanajuato, San Miguel el Grande, now named after Allende. Allende had served in a royal regiment during the rule of José de Iturrigaray, who was overthrown in 1808 by peninsular Spaniards who considered him too sympathetic to the grievances of American-born Spaniards. With the ouster of the viceroy, Allende turned against the new regime and was open to the conspiracy for independence. Hidalgo joined the conspiracy, and with Allende vouching for him rose to being one of its leaders. Word of the conspiracy got to crown officials, and the corregidor Domínguez cracked down, but his wife Josefa was able to warn Allende who then alerted Hidalgo. At this point there was no firm ideology or action plan, but the tip-off galvanized Hidalgo to action. On Sunday, 16 September 1810 with his parishioners gathered for mass, Hidalgo issued his call to arms, the Grito de Dolores. It is unclear what Hidalgo actually said, since there are different accounts. The one which became part of the official record of accusation against Hidalgo was "Long live religion! Long live Our Most Holy Mother of Guadalupe! Long live Fernando VII! Long live America and down with bad government!"

Banner with the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe carried by Hidalgo and his insurgent militia. Liberal bishop-elect Manuel Abad y Queipo denounced the insurgents' use of her image as a sacrilege.

Towns on the route of Hidalgo's campaign and the regions where the insurgency took hold in 1810-1811.

The religious character of the movement was present from the beginning, embodied in leadership of the priest, Hidalgo. The movement's banner with image of the Virgin of Guadalupe, seized by Hidalgo from the church at Atotonilco, was symbolically important. The "dark virgin" was seen as a protector of dark-skinned Mexicans, and now seen as well as a liberator. Many men in Hidalgo's forces put the image of Guadalupe on their hats. Supporters of the imperial regime took as their patron the Virgin of Remedios, so that religious symbolism was used by both insurgents and royalists. There were a number of parish priests and other lower clergy in the insurgency, most prominently Hidalgo and José María Morelos, but the Church hierarchy was flatly opposed. Insurgents were excommunicated by the clergy and clerics preached sermons against the insurgency.

The growing insurgent force marched through towns including San Miguel el Grande and Celaya, where they met little resistance, and gained more followers. When they reached the town of Guanajuato on 28 September, they found Spanish forces barricaded inside the public granary, Alhóndiga de Granaditas. Among them were some 'forced' Royalists, creoles who had served and sided with the Spanish. By this time, the rebels numbered 30,000 and the battle was horrific. They killed more than 500 European and American Spaniards, and marched on toward Mexico City.

The corner of the Alhóndiga de Granaditas in Guanajuato where insurgents massacred all the Spaniards who went thinking it was a safe refuge. After his execution, Hidalgo's head hung on one corner.

The new viceroy quickly organized a defense, sending out the Spanish general Torcuato Trujillo with 1,000 men, 400 horsemen, and two cannons-all that could be found on such short notice. The crown had established a standing military in the late eighteenth century, granting non-Spaniards who served the fuero militar, the only special privileges for mixed-race men were eligible. Indians were excluded from the military. Royal army troops of the professional army were supplemented by local militias. The regime was determined to crush the uprising and attempted to stifle malcontents who might be drawn to the insurgency.

Ignacio López Rayón joined Hidalgo's forces whilst passing near Maravatío, Michoacan while en route to Mexico City and on 30 October, Hidalgo's army encountered Spanish military resistance at the Battle of Monte de las Cruces. As the Hidalgo and his forces surrounded Mexico City, a group of 2,500 royalist women joined under Ana Iraeta de Mier, to create and distribute pamphlets based on their loyalty towards Spain and help fellow loyalist families. Hidalgo's forces continued to fight and achieved victory. When the cannons were captured by the rebels, the surviving Royalists retreated to the city.

Despite apparently having the advantage, Hidalgo retreated, against the counsel of Allende. This retreat, on the verge of apparent victory, has puzzled historians and biographers ever since. They generally believe that Hidalgo wanted to spare the numerous Mexican citizens in Mexico City from the inevitable sacking and plunder that would have ensued. His retreat is considered Hidalgo's greatest tactical error and his failure to act "was the beginning of his downfall." Hidalgo moved west and set up headquarters in Guadalajara, where one of the worst incidents of violence against Spanish civilians occurred, a month of massacres from 12 December 1810 (the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe) to 13 January 1811. At his trial following his capture later that year, Hidalgo admitted to ordering the murders. None "were given a trial, nor was there any reason to do so, since he knew perfectly well they were innocent." In Guadalajara, the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe suddenly disappeared from insurgents' hats and there were many desertions.

The royalist forces, led by Félix María Calleja del Rey, were becoming more effective against disorganized and poorly armed of Hidalgo, defeating them at a bridge on the Calderón River, forcing the rebels to flee north towards the United States, perhaps hoping they would attain financial and military support. They were intercepted by Ignacio Elizondo, who pretended to join the fleeing insurgent forces. Hidalgo and his remaining soldiers were captured in the state of Coahuila at the Wells of Baján ( Norias de Baján). When the insurgents adopted the tactics of guerrilla warfare and operated where it was effective, such as in the hot country of southern Mexico, they were able to undermine the royalist army. Around Guanajuato, regional insurgent leader Albino García for a time successfully combined insurgency with banditry. With the capture of Hidalgo and the creole leadership in the north, this phase of the insurgency was at an end.

The captured rebel leaders were found guilty of treason and sentenced to death, except for Mariano Abasolo, who was sent to Spain to serve a life sentence in prison. Allende, Jiménez, and Aldama were executed on 26 June 1811, shot in the back as a sign of dishonor. Hidalgo, as a priest, had to undergo a civil trial and review by the Inquisition. He was eventually stripped of his priesthood, found guilty, and executed on 30 July 1811. The heads of Hidalgo, Allende, Aldama, and Jiménez were preserved and hung from the four corners of the Alhóndiga de Granaditas of Guanajuato as a grim warning to those who dared follow in their footsteps.

Insurgency in the South under Morelos, 1811-1815

Warfare in the northern Bajío region waned after the capture and execution of the insurgency's creole leadership, but the insurgency had already spread to other more southern regions, to the towns of Zitácuaro, Cuautla, Antequera (now Oaxaca) towns where a new leadership had emerged. Priests José María Morelos and Mariano Matamoros, as well as Vicente Guerrero, Guadalupe Victoria, and Ignacio López Rayón carried on the insurgency on a different basis, organizing their forces, using guerrilla tactics, and importantly for the insurgency, creating organizations and creating written documents that articulated the insurgents' goals.

Following the execution of Hidalgo and other insurgents, leadership of the remaining insurgent movement initially coalesced under Ignacio López Rayón, a civilian lawyer and businessman. He had been stationed in Saltillo, Coahuila with 3,500 men and 22 cannons. When he heard of the capture of the insurgent leaders, he fled south on 26 March 1811 to continue the fight. He subsequently fought the Spanish in the battles of Puerto de Piñones, Zacatecas, El Maguey, and Zitácuaro.

In an important step, Rayón organized the Suprema Junta Gubernativa de América (Supreme National Governing Junta of America), which claimed legitimacy to lead the insurgency. Rayón articulated Elementos constitucionales, which states that "Sovereignty arises directly from the people, resides in the person of Ferdinand VII, and is exercised by the Suprema Junta Gubernativa de América. The Supreme Junta generated a flood of detailed regulations and orders. On the ground, Father José María Morelos pursued successful military engagements, accepting the authority of the Supreme Junta. After winning victories and taking the port of Acapulco, then the towns Tixtla, Izúcar, and Taxco, Morelos was besieged for 72 days by royalist troops under Calleja at Cuautla. The Junta failed to send aid to Morelos. Morelos's troops held out and broke out of the siege, going on to take Antequera, (now Oaxaca). The relationship between Morelos and the Junta soured, with Morelos complaining, "Your disagreements have been of service to the enemy." Morelos was a real contrast to Hidalgo, although both were rebel priests. Both had sympathy for Mexico's downtrodden, but Morelos was of mixed-race while Hidalgo was an American-born Spaniard, so Morelos experientially understood racial discrimination in the colonial order. On more practical grounds, Morelos built an organized and disciplined military force, while Hidalgo's followers lacked arms, training, or discipline, an effective force that the royal army took seriously. Potentially Morelos could have taken the colony's second largest city, Puebla de los Angeles, situated halfway between the port of Veracruz and the capital, Mexico City. To avert that strategic disaster, which would have left the capital cut off from its main port, viceroy Venegas transferred Calleja from the Bajío to deal with Morelos's forces. Morelos's forces moved south and took Oaxaca, allowing him to control most of the southern region. During this period, the insurgency had reason for optimism and formulated documents declaring independence and articulating a vision for a sovereign Mexico.

Morelos was not ambitious to become leader of the insurgency, but it was clear that he was recognized by insurgents as its supreme military commander. He moved swiftly and decisively, stripping Rayón of power, dissolving the Supreme Junta, and in 1813, Morelos convened the Congress of Chilpancingo, also known as the Congress of Anáhuac. The congress brought together representatives of the insurgency together. Morelos formulated his Sentiments of the Nation, addressed to the congress. In point 1, he clearly and flatly states that "America is free and independent of Spain."

Official seal of the Supreme Junta

Insurgency under Vicente Guerrero, 1815-1820

With the execution of Morelos in 1815, Vicente Guerrero emerged as the most important leader of the insurgency. From 1815 to 1821, most of the fighting for independence from Spain was by guerrilla forces in the tierra caliente (hot country) of southern Mexico and to a certain extent in northern New Spain. In 1816, Francisco Javier Mina, a Spanish military leader who had fought against Ferdinand VII, joined the independence movement. Mina and 300 men landed at Rio Santander ( Tamaulipas) in April, in 1817 and fought for seven months until his capture by royalist forces in November 1817.

Two insurgent leaders arose: Guadalupe Victoria (born José Miguel Fernández y Félix) in Puebla and Vicente Guerrero in the village of Tixla, in what is now the state of Guerrero. Both gained allegiance and respect from their followers. Believing the situation under control, the Spanish viceroy issued a general pardon to every rebel who would lay down his arms. Many did lay down their arms and received pardons, but when the opportunity arose, they often returned to the insurgency. The royal army controlled the major cities and towns, but whole swaths of the countryside were not pacified. From 1816 to 1820, the insurgency was stalemated, but not stamped out. Royalist military officer, Antonio López de Santa Anna led amnestied former insurgents, pursuing insurgent leader Guadalupe Victoria. Insurgents attacked key roads, vital for commerce and imperial control, such that the crown sent a commander from Peru, Brigadier Fernando Miyares y Mancebo, to build a fortified road between the port of Veracruz and Jalapa, the first major stopping point on the way to Mexico City. The rebels faced stiff Spanish military resistance and the apathy of many of the most influential criollos.

Royalist issue Ferdinand VII Durango 8 Reales

The period 1816-1820 is often considered a period of military stalemate, unable to delivery a knockout blow. Insurgents often settled into guerrilla warfare with some banditry, while royalist forces became increasingly demoralized. Spain sent insufficient reinforcements, although a number of senior officers arrived. By 1814, the Peninsular War against Napoleon was won and Ferdinand VII became the monarch, initially as a constitutional ruler under the Spanish constitution of 1812, but once in power, reneged on promises to have constitutional limits on his power. Crown resources did not go toward funding the war against the insurgents, so that many expeditionary soldiers were not paid and left to their own devices in territory largely controlled by insurgents. Rather than risk life and limb fighting insurgents, they avoided risky operations and stayed close to fortified garrisons. Since money to pay and supply soldiers was not forthcoming from the crown, royal forces pressed local populations for supplies. As for high officers, many saw the hopelessness of the situation and decided to make the best of it by creating what one historian has called "veritable satrapies", becoming wealthy from confiscated insurgent properties, and taxing local merchants.

Guerrero, Iturbide, and the Plan of Iguala

Abrazo de Acatempan, Guerrero and Iturbide form an alliance, 1821.

Iturbide's assignment to the Oaxaca expedition in 1820 coincided with a successful military coup in Spain against the monarchy of Ferdinand VII. The coup leaders, part of an expeditionary force assembled to suppress the independence movements in the Americas, had turned against the autocratic monarchy. They compelled the reluctant Ferdinand to reinstate the liberal Spanish Constitution of 1812 that created a constitutional monarchy. When news of the liberal charter reached New Spain, Iturbide perceived it both as a threat to the status quo and a catalyst to rouse the creole elites to gain control of Mexico. Independence was achieved when conservative Royalist forces in the colonies chose to rise up against the liberal regime in Spain; it was an about-face compared to their previous opposition to the peasant insurgency.

The royalist army was demoralized and the insurgents were unable to oust them. With the re-imposition of the Spanish Constitution, the relationship between newly elected town councils ( ayuntamientos) and the military meant that councils could put limits on taxation and many voted to cease exacting taxes to support the royalist army. Commanders lost their financial support and could no longer compel men to join militias. Militias were demobilized and men who had served outside of their native areas went home. The insurgents no longer felt the continuous pressure of the royalist military. Militia men abandoned areas where insurgents were active.

A representation of mestizos in a "Caste Painting" from the colonial era.

With the situation changed in part because of the Spanish Constitution, Guerrero realized that creole elites might move toward independence and exclude the insurgents. For that reason, his reaching an accommodation with the royalist army became a pragmatic move. From the royalist point of view, forging an alliance with their former foes created a way forward to independence. If creoles had declared independence for their own political purposes without coming to terms with the insurgency in the south, then an independent Mexico would have to contend with rebels who could threaten a new nation. Iturbide initiated contact with Guerrero in January 1821, indicating he was weighing whether to abandon the royalist cause. Guerrero was receptive to listening to Iturbide's vague proposal, but was not going to commit without further clarification. Iturbide replied to Guerrero's demand for clarity, saying that he had a plan for a constitution, one apparently based on the 1812 Spanish liberal constitution. Guerrero responded that the failure of that constitution to address the grievances of many in New Spain, and particularly objected to that constitution's exclusion of Afro-Mexicans from citizenship, while according it to European whites, Indians, and mestizos.

The question of equality for all races was a key matter for Guerrero and other insurgents, many of whom had African ancestry. Iturbide accepted that important change. The two men negotiated about how the merging of the old insurgent forces and the former royalist army would occur. Iturbide wrote the final draft of the Plan of Iguala, named for the place where it was proclaimed on 24 February 1821. Iturbide proclaimed three principles, or "guarantees", for Mexican independence from Spain. Mexico would be an independent monarchy governed by King Ferdinand, another Bourbon prince or some other conservative European prince; creoles would be given equal rights and privileges to peninsulares; and the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico would retain its privileges and position as the established religion of the land.

After convincing his troops to accept the Plan of Iguala, Iturbide persuaded Guerrero to join his forces in support of this conservative independence movement. A new army, the Army of the Three Guarantees, was placed under Iturbide's command to enforce the plan. The plan was so broadly based that it appealed both patriots and loyalists. The goal of independence and the protection of Roman Catholicism brought together most factions. To symbolize these three guarantees of unity, religion, and independence, Iturbide adopted a green, white, and red flag; these colors are still used in the modern Mexican flag.

Although the alliance of Iturbide and Guerrero resulted in the Plan of Iguala, there was not universal acclaim of the accord. A number of important insurgents, including Juan Álvarez, Pedro Ascensio and Gordiano Guzmán rejected it. Guzmán articulated his objection to the plan, saying that it guaranteed the privileges of the elites, welcomed opportunists who supported independence late in the struggle, and cast doubt on the clause that was to guarantee racial equality. He focused on the final words that guaranteed rights "according to their merits and virtues". Álvarez, Ascencio and Guzmán declined to join the Army of the Three Guarantees, the military force created by Iturbide and Guerrero, but did continue to fight the royalists.

Collapse of imperial rule and independence

Iturbide persuaded royalist officers to change sides and support independence as well as the mixed race old insurgent forces. For some royalist commanders, their forces simply left, some of them amnestied former insurgents. The high military command in Mexico City deposed the viceroy, Juan Ruiz de Apodaca in July 1821, replacing him with an interim viceroy, royalist general Francisco Novella. By the time that Juan O'Donojú became the new viceroy, practically the whole country supported the Plan of Iguala. Most soldiers had defected to Iturbide's Army of the Three Guarantees and the Spanish cause was lost. On 24 August 1821, representatives of the Spanish crown, including the new viceroy Juan O'Donojú and Iturbide signed the Treaty of Córdoba, which recognized Mexican independence under the Plan of Iguala. O'Donojú then resigned as viceroy. The Spanish government denied that O'Donojú had the authority to sign the treaty, but events on the ground saw Iturbide and the Army of Three Guarantees march into Mexico City in triumph on 27 September 1821. The next day, the Mexican independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence of the Mexican Empire. The Plan of Iguala and the Treaty of Córdoba had rapidly brought about an alliance of insurgents and former royalists turned autonomists resulting in the rapid achievement of independence virtually without further military conflict. Once independence was achieved, the fissures between different interests rapidly re-emerged.

Creation of the First Mexican Empire

Spanish attempts to reconquer Mexico

On 28 December 1836, Spain recognized the independence of Mexico under the Santa María-Calatrava Treaty, signed in Madrid by the Mexican Commissioner Miguel Santa María and the Spanish state minister José María Calatrava. Mexico was the first former colony whose independence was recognized by Spain; the second was Ecuador on 16 February 1840.

Although Mexico gained its independence in September 1821, the marking of this historical event did not take hold immediately. The choice of date to celebrate was problematic, because Iturbide, who achieved independence from Spain, was rapidly created Emperor of Mexico. His short-lived rule from 1821 to 1823 ended when he was forced by the military to abdicate. This was a rocky start for the new nation, which made celebrating independence on the anniversary of Iturbide's Army of the Three Guarantees marching into Mexico City in triumph a less than perfect day for those who had opposed him. Celebrations of independence during his reign were marked on 27 September. Following his ouster, there were calls to commemorate Mexican independence along the lines that the United States celebrated in grand style its Independence Day on 4 July. The creation of a committee of powerful men to mark independence celebrations, the Junta Patriótica, organized celebrations of both 16 September, to commemorate Hidalgo's grito and the start of the independence insurgency, and 27 September, to celebrate actual political independence.

Plans were drawn up for the commemoration of independence in 2021, as well as the establishment of the Mexican republic in 2024. The 2021 event was termed the Consummation of Independence.

References

Further reading

Anna, Timothy E. (1978). The Fall of Royal Government in Mexico City. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-0957-6.

Anna, Timonty E. "The Army of New Spain and the Wars of Independence, 1790-1821". Hispanic American Historical Review 61:4 (Nov. 1981).

Archer, Christon I. (1 January 1994). "Insurrection - Reaction - Revolution - Fragmentation: Reconstructing the Choreography of Meltdown in New Spain during the Independence Era". Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos. 10 (1): 63-98. doi:10.2307/1051967. JSTOR 1051967.

Archer, Christon I., ed. The Birth of Modern Mexico. Wilmington DL: SR Publishers 2003.

Beezley, William H. and David E. Lorey, eds. !Viva Mexico! !Viva la Independencia!: Celebrations of 16 September. Wilmington DL: Scholarly Resources Books 2001.

Benson, Nettie (1 February 2004). "The Elections of 1809: Transforming Political Culture in New Spain". Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos. 20 (1): 1-20. doi:10.1525/msem.2004.20.1.1.

Benson, Nettie Lee (1 August 1946). "The Contested Mexican Election of 1812". Hispanic American Historical Review. 26 (3): 336-350. doi:10.1215/00182168-26.3.336.

Benson, Nettie Lee, ed. Mexico and the Spanish Cortes. Austin: University of Texas Press 1966.

Dominguez, Jorge. Insurrection or Loyalty: the Breakdown of the Spanish American Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1980.

Flores Caballero, Romero. Counterrevolution: The Role of Spaniards in the Independence of Mexico, 1804-38. Translated by Jaime E. Rodríguez O. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press 1974.

García, Pedro. Con el cura Hidalgo en la guerra de independencia en México. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica 1982.

Guedea, Virginia. "The First Popular Elections in Mexico City, 1812-1813" in the Evolution of the Mexican Political System. Jaime E. Rodríguez O., ed. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources 1993.

Hamill, Hugh M. (1961). "Early Psychological Warfare in the Hidalgo Revolt". The Hispanic American Historical Review. 41 (2): 206-235. doi:10.2307/2510201. JSTOR 2510201.

Hamill, Hugh M. (1966). The Hidalgo Revolt: Prelude to Mexican Independence. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Hamnett, Brian R. (1986). Roots of Insurgency: Mexican Regions, 1750-1824. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-32148-8.

Hamnett, Brian R. (1 February 1982). "Royalist Counterinsurgency and the Continuity of Rebellion: Guanajuato and Michoacán, 1813-20". Hispanic American Historical Review. 62 (1): 19-48. doi:10.1215/00182168-62.1.19. JSTOR 2515413.

Hamnett, Brian R. Roots of Insurgency: Mexican Regions 1750-1824. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1986.

Knight, Alan (2002). Mexico: The Colonial Era. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89196-7.

Macías, Ana. Génesis del gobierno constitucional en México. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública 1973.

Rodríguez O. Jaime E. The Independence of Spanish America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998. ISBN 978-0-521-62673-6

Rodríguez O., Jaime E. "We are Now the True Spaniards": Sovereignty, Revolution, Independence, and the Emergence of the Federal Republic of Mexico, 1808-1824. Stanford: Stanford University Press 2012.

Rodriguez O., Jaime E. (2018). "The Nature of Representation in New Spain". Political Culture in Spanish America, 1500-1830. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 31-50. ISBN 978-1-4962-0470-7. JSTOR j.ctt1xhr7ns.7.

Rodríguez O., Jaime E., ed. The Independence of Mexico and the Creation of the New Nation. Los Angeles: UCLA Latin American Center Publications 1989. ISBN 978-0-87903-070-4

Timmons, Wilbert H. (1963). Morelos of Mexico: Priest, Soldier, Statesman of Mexico. El Paso: Texas Western College Press.

Tutino, John. From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico: Social Bases of Agrarian Violence, 1750-1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1986.

Tutino, John (1 August 1998). "The Revolution in Mexican Independence: Insurgency and the Renegotiation of Property, Production, and Patriarchy in the Bajío, 1800-1855". Hispanic American Historical Review. 78 (3): 367-418. doi:10.1215/00182168-78.3.367.

Tutino, John. Mexico City, 1808: Power, Sovereignty, and Silver in an Age of War and Revolution. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press 2018.

Van Young, Eric (1988). "Islands in the Storm: Quiet Cities and Violent Countrysides in the Mexican Independence Era". Past & Present (118): 130-155. JSTOR 650833.

Van Young, Eric. The Other Rebellion: Popular Violence, Ideology, and the Mexican Struggle for Independence. Stanford: Stanford University Press 2001.

Van Young, Eric. (2022). Stormy Passage: Mexico from Colony to Republic, 1750-1850. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield 2022. ISBN 978-1-4422-0901-5

Vincent, Theodore G. The Legacy of Vicente Guerrero, First Black Indian President of Mexico. Gainesville: University of Florida Press 2001.

Warren, Richard A. Vagrants and citizens: Politics and the Masses in Mexico City from Colony to Republic. Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Mexican War of Independence (Spanish: Guerra de Independencia de México, 16 September 1810 - 27 September 1821) was an armed conflict and political process resulting in Mexico's independence from the Spanish Empire. It was not a single, coherent event, but local and regional struggles that occurred within the same period, and can be considered a revolutionary civil war.

# data[].attributes.body
The video discusses the Mexican War of Independence, emphasizing the complex social, political, economic, and religious factors that spurred the revolution. It begins by outlining the governance of the Viceroyalty of New Spain, where a Viceroy, appointed by the Spanish monarch, oversaw a vast territory with significant local administrative autonomy.

Key points include the casta system, which categorized people based on racial background, creating a hierarchy that disadvantaged Criollos (American-born descendants of Europeans), Mestizos (mixed heritage), and Indios (Native Americans). The social divisions and economic disparities fueled discontent, especially following the Bourbon reforms, which centralized power and favored Peninsulares (Spanish-born individuals).

The revolution gained momentum after the abdication of the Spanish monarch during the Peninsular War, leading to confusion and power struggles in New Spain. Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla emerged as a leader of the independence movement, rallying support with a diverse army but ultimately facing defeat.

The struggle continued with new leaders like José María Morelos and Ignacio López Rayón. By 1820, political fatigue set in, and Agustín de Iturbide, initially a royalist, shifted to support the insurgents, leading to the Three Guarantees, which united various factions. This resulted in Mexico's independence in 1821, with Iturbide crowned emperor.

However, his reign faced challenges, including political division and dissatisfaction with his leadership. He was eventually overthrown in 1823 and faced execution in 1824. Despite his controversial legacy, Iturbide remained a respected figure in Mexican history, embodying the turbulent political landscape of the time.

4o mini

# data[].attributes.body
The history of modern-day Germany involves a long period of division among various states, largely influenced by the Holy Roman Empire, with Austria as a dominant power until its influence waned during the Reformation. In the 18th century, Prussia rose to prominence. The Napoleonic Wars sparked a growing sense of German unity, leading to the formation of a German Confederation after Napoleon's defeat. Despite this, tensions between Prussia and Austria persisted, culminating in the revolutions of 1848, which called for unification.

By 1861, King Wilhelm I of Prussia appointed Otto von Bismarck as Chancellor, who pursued an aggressive policy of expansion through conflict, notably instigating wars against Denmark and Austria. Prussia’s victory in these conflicts led to the formation of the Northern German Confederation, strengthening its dominance.

In 1871, Bismarck provoked France into declaring war, which resulted in a decisive German victory. This led to the proclamation of Wilhelm I as the first emperor of the unified German Empire, which took Alsace-Lorraine from France. Under Bismarck, Germany emerged as a major continental power, but he also faced challenges in maintaining stability, particularly regarding relations with neighboring countries and the authority of the Catholic Church.

# data[].attributes.body
The German Empire was established on January 18, 1871, following Prussia's victories in three wars against Denmark, the Habsburg monarchy, and France. This unification was primarily achieved through diplomatic negotiations among the leaders of various German states, rather than widespread nationalist movements. Prussia, which made up over 60% of Germany's territory and population, remained the dominant power until the empire's collapse in 1918.

At its founding, the empire spanned 208,825 square miles and had a population of over 41 million, growing to 67 million by 1914. The population was predominantly Protestant (63%), with a significant Roman Catholic minority (36%) and a small Jewish community (1%). Ethnically, the country was largely homogeneous, aside from modest Polish, Danish, French, and Sorbian populations. Approximately 67% of the people lived in rural areas, and literacy was nearly universal due to compulsory education laws established in the 1820s and ’30s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The German Empire was founded on January 18, 1871, in the aftermath of three successful wars by the North German state of Prussia. Within a seven-year period Denmark, the Habsburg monarchy, and France were vanquished in short, decisive conflicts. The empire was forged not as the result of the outpouring of nationalist feeling from the masses but through traditional cabinet diplomacy and agreement by the leaders of the states in the North German Confederation, led by Prussia, with the hereditary rulers of Bavaria, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Württemberg. Prussia, occupying more than three-fifths of the area of Germany and having approximately three-fifths of the population, remained the dominant force in the nation until the empire's demise at the end of another war in 1918.

At its birth Germany occupied an area of 208,825 square miles (540,854 square km) and had a population of more than 41 million, which was to grow to 67 million by 1914. The religious makeup was 63 percent Protestant, 36 percent Roman Catholic, and 1 percent Jewish. The nation was ethnically homogeneous apart from a modest-sized Polish minority and smaller Danish, French, and Sorbian populations. Approximately 67 percent lived in villages and the remainder in towns and cities. Literacy was close to universal because of compulsory education laws dating to the 1820s and '30s.

Domestic concerns

From its origins in 1871, the empire was governed under the constitution designed four years earlier by Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian prime minister, for the North German Confederation. This constitution reflected the predominantly rural nature of Germany in 1867 and the authoritarian proclivities of Bismarck, who was a member of the Junker landowning elite. There were two houses: the Reichstag, to represent the people, and the Bundesrat, to represent the 25 states. The former comprised 397 members elected by universal manhood suffrage and a secret ballot. The constituencies established in 1867 and 1871 were never altered to reflect population shifts, and rural areas thus retained a vastly disproportionate share of power as urbanization progressed. In theory the Reichstag's ability to reject any bill seemed to make it an important reservoir of power; in practice, however, the power of the lower house was circumscribed by the government 's reliance on indirect taxes and by the parliament's willingness to approve the military budget every seven (after 1893, every five) years. Most legislative proposals were submitted to the Bundesrat first and to the Reichstag only if they were approved by the upper house. Although members of the Reichstag could question the chancellor about his policies, the legislative bodies were rarely consulted about the conduct of foreign affairs. Imperial ministers were chosen by and were responsible to the emperor rather than to the legislature.

A problem that was to plague the empire throughout its existence was the disparity between the Prussian and imperial political systems. In Prussia the lower house was elected under a restricted three-class suffrage system, an electoral law that allowed the richest 15 percent of the male population to choose approximately 85 percent of the delegates. A conservative majority was always assured in Prussia, whereas the universal manhood suffrage resulted in increasing majorities for the political centre and left-wing parties in the imperial parliament. William I was both German emperor (1871-88) and king of Prussia (1861-88). Apart from two brief instances the imperial chancellor was simultaneously prime minister of Prussia. Thus, the executives had to seek majorities from two separate legislatures elected by radically different franchises. A further problem was that government ministers were generally selected from the civil service or the military. They often had little experience with parliamentary government or foreign affairs.

The constitution had been designed by Bismarck to give the chancellor and monarch primary decision-making power. Universal manhood suffrage had been proposed because of Bismarck's belief that the rural population would vote for either the Conservative or Free Conservative parties. (Female suffrage had not been proposed because politics was considered a male preserve at the time.) The Progressives, a left-wing liberal party, were expected to do poorly in the two-thirds of Germany that was rural in 1867. Bismarck had not counted on new parties such as the Centre Party, a Roman Catholic confessional party, or the Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands; SPD), both of which began participating in imperial and Prussian elections in the early 1870s. The Centre generally received 20-25 percent of the total vote in all elections. The SPD grew from 2 seats in the first imperial election to 35 by 1890, when the SPD actually gained a plurality of votes. Bismarck termed the Centre and SPD along with the Progressives Reichsfeinde ("enemies of the empire") because he believed that each sought in its own way to change the fundamental conservative political character of the empire.

Beginning in 1871, he launched the Kulturkampf ("cultural struggle"), a campaign in concert with German liberals against political Catholicism. Bismarck's aim was clearly to destroy the Centre Party. Liberals saw the Roman Catholic church as politically reactionary and feared the appeal of a clerical party to the more than one-third of Germans who professed Roman Catholicism. Both Bismarck and the liberals doubted the loyalty of the Catholic population to the Prussian-centred and, therefore, primarily Protestant nation. In Prussia the minister of ecclesiastical affairs and education, Adalbert Falk, introduced a series of bills establishing civil marriage, limiting the movement of the clergy, and dissolving religious orders. All church appointments were to be approved by the state. As a result hundreds of parishes and several bishoprics were left without incumbents. Clerical civil servants were purged from the Prussian administration.

The Kulturkampf failed to achieve its goals and, if anything, convinced the Roman Catholic minority that their fear of persecution was real and that a confessional party to represent their interests was essential. By the late 1870s Bismarck abandoned the battle as a failure. He now launched a campaign against the SPD in concert with the two conservative parties and many National Liberals. Fearing the potential of the Social Democrats in a rapidly industrializing Germany, Bismarck found a majority to outlaw the party from 1878 to 1890, although constitutionally it could not be forbidden to participate in elections. Party offices and newspapers were closed down and meetings prohibited. Many socialists fled to Switzerland and sought to keep the party alive in exile. During the 1880s Bismarck also sought to win the workers away from socialism by introducing legislation granting them modest pensions, accident insurance, and a national system of medical coverage. Like the Kulturkampf, the campaign against the SPD was a failure, and, when the 1890 elections showed enormous gains for the Reichsfeinde, Bismarck began to consider having the German princes reconvene, as in 1867, to draw up a new constitution. The new emperor, William II, saw no reason to begin his reign (1888-1918) with a potential bloodbath and asked for the 74-year-old chancellor's resignation. Thus, Bismarck, the architect of German unity, left the scene in a humiliating fashion, believing that his creation was fatally flawed. Indeed, his policy of supporting rapid social and economic modernization while avoiding any reform of the authoritarian political system did lead to an atmosphere of persistent crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Germany - Unification, Imperialism, WWI: The German Empire was founded on January 18, 1871, in the aftermath of three successful wars by the North German state of Prussia. Within a seven-year period Denmark, the Habsburg monarchy, and France were vanquished in short, decisive conflicts.