Content deleted Content added
→Urban workers: minor edit Tag: Reverted |
Reverting edit(s) by 67.131.75.36 (talk) to rev. 1233267885 by KConWiki: Reverting good faith edits: not a useful link (UV 0.1.5) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 35:
[[File:Galician slaughter in 1846.PNG|thumb|upright=1.15|''[[Galician slaughter]]'' (Polish: ''Rzeź galicyjska'') by Jan Lewicki (1795–1871), depicting the massacre of Polish nobles by Polish peasants in [[Galicia (Eastern Europe)|Galicia]] in 1846.]]
The population in French rural areas had [[Population explosion|risen rapidly]], causing many peasants to seek a living in the cities. Many in the [[bourgeoisie]] feared and
The liberalization of trade laws and the growth of factories had increased the gulf between master tradesmen, and journeymen and apprentices, whose numbers increased disproportionately by 93% from 1815 to 1848 in Germany. Significant proletarian unrest had occurred in [[Lyon]] in [[Canut revolts|1831 and 1834]], and [[Prague]] in 1844. [[Jonathan Sperber]] has suggested that in the period after 1825, poorer urban workers (particularly day laborers, factory workers and artisans) saw their purchasing power decline relatively steeply: urban meat consumption in Belgium, France and Germany stagnated or declined after 1830, despite growing populations.<ref>Siemann, Wolfram, ''The German Revolution of 1848–1849'' (London, 1998), p. 27; Lèvêque, Pierre in Dowe, p. 93; Pech, Stanley Z. ''The Czech Revolution of 1848'' (London, 1969), p. 14</ref> The economic [[Panic of 1847]] increased urban unemployment: 10,000 Viennese factory workers lost jobs, and 128 Hamburg firms went bankrupt over the course of 1847.<ref>Siemann (1998); Pech, p. 14</ref> With the exception of the Netherlands, there was a strong correlation among the countries that were most deeply affected by the industrial shock of 1847 and those that underwent a revolution in 1848.<ref>Berger, Helge, and Mark Spoerer. "Economic Crises and the European Revolutions of 1848." ''The Journal of Economic History'' 61.2 (2001), p. 305</ref>
| |||