The article is devoted to the analysis of two main documents of the Constitution of the German Confederation – the Federal Act of June 8, 1815 and the Vienna Final Act of May 15, 1820. It is noted that many articles of the first document had clearly temporary nature, only declaring future transformations, while the second act was a structurally more holistic and complete document. Comparing both texts in detail, the author comes to the conclusion that there was no conscious refusal in the 1820 document from the tasks and intentions that were proclaimed in 1815. The author emphasizes that the act of 1820 was developed in the context of public disillusionment with the work of federal institutions, as well as in a general anti-revolutionary political climate. Thus, the negative impression of the protective nature of the Federal Constitution made it difficult to evaluate its real possibilities correctly. Examining the strengths and weaknesses of both documents, the author focuses on the most problematic points that led to a discrepancy in assessing the role and significance of these documents in historiography.
The article is devoted to the analysis of two main documents of the Constitution of the German Confederation – the Federal Act of June 8, 1815 and the Vienna Final Act of May 15, 1820. It is noted that many articles of the first document had clearly temporary nature, only declaring future transformations, while the second act was a structurally more holistic and complete document. Comparing both texts in detail, the author comes to the conclusion that there was no conscious refusal in the 1820 document from the tasks and intentions that were proclaimed in 1815. The author emphasizes that the act of 1820 was developed in the context of public disillusionment with the work of federal institutions, as well as in a general anti-revolutionary political climate. Thus, the negative impression of the protective nature of the Federal Constitution made it difficult to evaluate its real possibilities correctly. Examining the strengths and weaknesses of both documents, the author focuses on the most problematic points that led to a discrepancy in assessing the role and significance of these documents in historiography.
The article was prepared within the framework of the state assignment of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (No. FZNF-2020-0001 "Historical and cultural traditions and values in the context of global history").