Education policies were a critical tool for fostering national unity in post-unification Italy, but their impact by 1900 was limited and uneven. The new Liberal State made primary education compulsory in 1877 through the Coppino Law, aiming to reduce illiteracy and promote standard Italian. However, a lack of funding, poor teacher training, and resistance from rural families undermined these efforts. Many peasants needed children to work in the fields, so school attendance in rural areas, especially in the South, remained low. Schools also faced logistical problems like inadequate buildings and scarce supplies. Where education did reach, it slowly familiarised new generations with the Italian language and civic ideas, promoting a fragile sense of national identity. Yet, given that only a small proportion of children completed even basic schooling, regional dialects and local identities persisted strongly. By 1900, although the groundwork for a unified national culture had been laid, the education system had not yet succeeded in creating a cohesive Italian identity across all social classes and regions.

The Italian military played a significant role in both uniting and dividing the nation by 1900. Conscription laws meant that many young men from rural and isolated communities had their first exposure to the Italian language and the concept of national identity during military service. This helped spread a sense of ‘Italianness’ to some extent. However, conscription was deeply unpopular among the lower classes, especially the rural poor who lost vital labour when sons and husbands were drafted. The army was often used to maintain order, suppress strikes, and quell peasant revolts, which bred resentment among the population. In Southern Italy, the military was heavily deployed to fight widespread banditry, which some saw as a form of peasant resistance against unfair land systems and taxes. This repressive role tarnished the army’s image as a symbol of national unity. So, while the military served as a tool for integrating people linguistically and culturally, its coercive domestic role exacerbated social tensions and highlighted the divide between the Liberal State and ordinary Italians.

Emigration had a profound impact on Italian society around 1900, particularly in the impoverished South. Faced with economic hardship, poor harvests, and limited prospects, millions of Italians chose to seek better opportunities abroad. Between 1876 and 1900, over five million Italians emigrated, mostly to the United States, Argentina, and Brazil. This mass movement provided a crucial safety valve for social discontent, reducing immediate pressure on scarce local resources and easing unemployment. Families often relied on remittances sent home by emigrants, which slightly boosted local economies but did not solve underlying structural poverty. Communities were deeply affected by the loss of young, able-bodied workers, leading to demographic imbalances and slowing local development. Although emigration temporarily mitigated unrest, it did not drive significant reform or investment in the South. Instead, it reinforced a cycle where migration became an accepted escape from systemic issues. By 1900, Italy’s heavy reliance on emigration highlighted the State’s failure to provide sustainable economic solutions for its people.

Heavy taxation was a major grievance for Italian peasants and workers around 1900 and significantly shaped their attitudes towards the Liberal State. The government needed revenue to fund infrastructure projects, military expansion, and debt repayment inherited from the costly wars of unification. However, the tax burden fell disproportionately on the lower classes through indirect taxes on basic goods like salt, flour, and wine. These taxes made everyday life more expensive for the rural poor and urban working class, whose wages were already low. In contrast, wealthier landowners and industrialists often found ways to avoid taxes or benefited indirectly from State spending. This fiscal inequality fuelled widespread resentment and frequent protests, particularly during poor harvests or economic downturns. Peasants organised rent strikes and tax riots, seeing little benefit from the railways and public works that taxes funded. The unfair system deepened distrust in the political elite and contributed to the rising popularity of socialist and radical ideas among the working masses, undermining the legitimacy of the Liberal government.

Local elites, such as wealthy landowners and traditional notables, remained highly influential despite Italy’s transition to a unified constitutional monarchy. In many rural regions, especially in the South, the reach of the central government was weak. Local elites often acted as intermediaries between the State and the peasantry, using patronage networks to control votes and maintain social order. They secured loyalty by providing jobs, loans, and protection while ensuring their own economic interests were safeguarded. Many served in local government roles or the parliament, manipulating the electoral system to limit genuine political competition. This practice, known as ‘trasformismo’, involved forming flexible alliances to keep power concentrated among a few influential families and political figures. These elites resisted reforms that threatened their landholdings or local dominance, slowing social and economic change. As a result, traditional hierarchies endured, rural poverty persisted, and the promise of equality embedded in unification was largely unrealised. By 1900, their enduring power demonstrated how Italy’s liberal institutions coexisted with deeply rooted social conservatism and localism.