We have spoken of the crimes of the “old authoritarians,” whether open or masked.  What of their achievements?  For these hold the key to understanding the “effective authoritarian.”  It can’t be just blood, toil, tears, and snot if the “authoritarian” regime is to last.  The years from 1850 to 1914 are a catalogue of “Dos” and “Don’ts” for “authoritarians” of our own day.[1] 

Who are the model “authoritarians” of the period?  The French Emperor Louis Napoleon III (r. 1850-1870).  The Russian Tsar Alexander II (r. 1855-1881).  The “German,” more accurately Prussian, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (g. 1863-1890).   These three men represent the highest plane of the modern pre-Great War “authoritarian.”  Other men of the time stand on a somewhat lower plane.  The Sardinian, then Italian, prime minister Camillo, Count Cavour (g. 1852-1861) is one.  The American President Abraham Lincoln (g. 1861-1865) is another.[2] 

There were many other “authoritarians” or “aspiring authoritarians.” As we will see, they were of the old type.  Some sought to rule without check on their power, but also without any larger purpose in mind.  Some sought to use modern methods to hold back necessary changes.  Their successes and failures need not detain us. 

What did “authoritarian” regimes achieve with their power? 

Peace, first of all.  Certainly not absolute or universal peace.  The 19^th Century was drenched in blood.  It was mostly the blood of Africans and Arabs and Asians and the Wild Indians of North America.  The Civil War among the Americans offers a striking exception to this rule.[3]  Comparatively little blood fell on European battle fields.

In comparison to the frequent and lengthy wars of the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the wars fought between 1815 and 1914 were few and of short duration.  In 1849, war pitted the Austrian and Russian Empires against the rebellious Hungarians; in 1855, France and Britain fought the Russians; in 1859, France and Sardinia attacked (and the French defeated) the Austrians; in 1863 Prussia and the Austrians defeated the Danes; in 1866, Prussia defeated the Austrians; and in 1870, Prussia and its German allies defeated France. 

Peace all the same.  War between the major European states halted. There was no general war, no prolonged war, no devastating war.  Particularly in the last third of the 19^th Century and the first decade of our own century, disputes were settled in diplomatic conferences.  No wrecked cities, no grieving widows and orphans, no mangled veterans cadging tips on street corners.  These “no”s are the invisible monuments raised in every farm village and factory town.   

[1] Often is the question posed: “Why don’t people learn from History?”  This is nonsensical.  People DO learn from History.  They learn from their own History—that is, experience subjected to consideration.  What man has hit his thumb with a hammer more than two or three times?  People of experience try to convey “lessons” to others (often their bored progeny) in the form of maxims: “Never try to fill an inside straight”; “You hold a woman around the waist and a bottle around the neck, not the other way around”; “Work hard and save your money, it’s going to be a hard winter” (said in any season); “A gun is always loaded until you know it isn’t, so always check in the breech”; “Without Love and a little fun, life isn’t worth living”; and “If you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares into you.”  Thus, harsh experience teaches lessons to Individuals.  However, there is no mechanism for determining agreed “Lessons of History” for an entire community, nor for transmitting them from one generation to the next.  Everyone derives his own lessons. 

[2] It is to be admitted that Lincoln’s government drew much of its character from the necessities of a great war.  It is impossible to know what might have been if he had continued his presidency into a full second term or even a third.  Nothing in the American Constitution bars a president from seeking more than a second term. 

[3] In light of our thesis on the attributes of “authoritarian” government, it is interesting that this great struggle took place between two democracies.