In the mid-nineteenth century, some conservative statesmen stopped resisting nationalism outright and instead redirected it. They used national feeling to expand authority, defeat rivals, and make political change serve order.

Conservatism and the Appeal of the Nation

After the revolutions of 1848, many conservatives recognized that nationalism could not simply be suppressed. It had become one of the strongest political languages in Europe. Instead of leaving it to republicans and radicals, some conservative leaders began to use it themselves.

When conservatives used popular nationalism, they appealed to ordinary people by presenting the state as the true expression of the nation.

This strategy did not mean that conservatives became fully democratic. Most still distrusted mass politics, social revolution, and universal political participation. However, they learned that national pride could strengthen armies, legitimize governments, and weaken liberal or revolutionary opponents.

In practice, conservative nationalism often involved:

• linking monarchy and nation rather than treating them as opposites

• using plebiscites, elections, or public ceremonies to claim popular support

• directing public emotion toward war, diplomacy, and national prestige

• allowing limited reform while keeping real power in the hands of rulers, ministers, and bureaucracies

The careers of Napoleon III, Cavour, and Bismarck show how nationalism could be adapted from above.

Napoleon III and National Legitimacy

Authoritarian rule with popular approval

Napoleon III based his authority on the idea that he represented the French nation more directly than unstable parliamentary politics did. Drawing on the memory of Napoleon Bonaparte, he used the prestige of the Bonapartist name to connect national glory with strong executive rule.

He seized power in 1851 and then used plebiscites to give his regime the appearance of national consent.

By restoring the empire in 1852, he claimed that France needed unity, order, and greatness rather than partisan conflict. This was a conservative use of nationalism: the people were invited to approve the ruler, not to control him.

Napoleon III also tried to strengthen the state by associating it with:

• economic modernization

• public works and visible national progress

• an active foreign policy meant to restore French prestige

Even when he appealed to the people, power remained centralized. Nationalism under Napoleon III broadened support for the regime, but it did not create a fully liberal political system.

Cavour and the Italian National Cause

National unity under moderate leadership

Count Camillo di Cavour, prime minister of Piedmont-Sardinia, was not a democratic revolutionary. He was a moderate, conservative statesman who wanted national unification to occur under the leadership of a stable monarchy, not through mass upheaval.

Cavour used nationalism in a careful and controlled way.

Historical map of the Italian peninsula in 1859, showing the major pre-unification states and the geographic position of Piedmont-Sardinia (the Savoy monarchy’s base). The map helps explain why Cavour’s nationalism was state-centered: unification required coordination across multiple regimes and boundaries rather than a single revolutionary uprising. Seeing the peninsula’s political fragmentation clarifies what “national unity under moderate leadership” had to overcome. Source

He made Piedmont-Sardinia appear to be the most modern and credible center of Italian national hopes. By strengthening the state economically, militarily, and diplomatically, he turned it into the political core around which Italian unity could form.

Cavour’s nationalism was conservative because it:

• supported constitutional monarchy rather than republican revolution

• relied on diplomacy and alliances, not just popular insurrection

• sought to contain more radical nationalists whose movements might threaten order

He understood that national feeling was powerful, but he wanted it channeled through the House of Savoy and responsible elites. Even when popular enthusiasm helped the cause of unification, Cavour aimed to keep the process under state control. Nationalism, in his hands, became a way to enlarge and legitimize monarchy rather than destroy it.

Bismarck and Prussian Leadership

Nationalism in the service of power

Otto von Bismarck offers perhaps the clearest example of conservative nationalism. A deeply conservative Prussian statesman, he did not begin as a supporter of liberal national movements. Yet he saw that German nationalism could be used to expand Prussian power and marginalize domestic opponents.

Bismarck’s achievement was to make Prussia appear as the natural leader of the German nation. He used diplomacy, political calculation, and successful wars to build national unity around the Prussian monarchy and army.

Anton von Werner’s painting of the proclamation of Wilhelm I as German emperor in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles (a ceremony made possible by Prussia’s wartime victories). The scene visually emphasizes how unification was staged around monarchs, generals, and ministers—highlighting the conservative, top-down character of the new German nation-state. It reinforces the notes’ point that patriotic mobilization could strengthen executive authority rather than democratize it. Source

Each victory increased patriotic feeling and made resistance to Prussian leadership more difficult.

His use of nationalism strengthened the state in several ways:

• it rallied Germans behind Prussian-led unity

• it weakened liberals, who had long wanted national unification but could not control its outcome

• it preserved the authority of the king, military, and conservative elites

• it created a new empire in which elected institutions existed, but executive power remained dominant

Bismarck showed that conservatives could satisfy national aspirations without surrendering control to democratic forces. The nation was unified, but the political structure remained strongly monarchical and authoritarian.

What Conservative Nationalism Changed

A new relationship between ruler and people

The importance of these leaders lies in the way they reshaped politics. Before mid-century, nationalism often seemed tied to liberalism and revolution. Under Napoleon III, Cavour, and Bismarck, it became clear that conservative governments could also speak in the name of the nation.

This shift changed European politics by:

• making the state seem like the guardian of national destiny

• encouraging rulers to seek legitimacy from public opinion, even when they limited freedom

• combining mass loyalty with centralized authority

• showing that nationalism could strengthen order as well as challenge it

At the same time, this was a limited and selective nationalism. It invited popular support, but not equal political power. Conservative leaders used national feeling because it was useful, not because they believed in unlimited democracy. Their success demonstrated that nationalism was flexible: it could inspire revolution, but it could also build stronger, more centralized states.