If Cavour had not made this decision he would not have been able to succeed in gaining the sympathy of Britain and France in his bid to oust Austria. Consequently, Napoleon III would not have agreed to sign a secret treaty of alliance with Piedmont (at Plombieres in 1858), which allowed the French to intervene on the side of the Piedmontese once Cavour had provoked Austria into war. Acknowledging that Cavour was a pragmatist and willing to compromise by ceding Nice and Savoy to France in return for the states of Lombardy and Venetia, again prompt the notion that Cavour was merely at this point wanting to unite Italy under the leadership of Piedmont rather than as a whole.
What cannot be overlooked is the fact that Cavour understood that war was essential to drive away Austrian influence in Italy. His sharp diplomacy used to isolate Austria and receive help from France is paramount to the beginning of Italy’s unification.
Even though the war of 1859 was more expensive than first anticipated, resulting in Austria being able to recoup some of its losses, in particular the wealthy province of Venetia (in an armistice on the 24th June with Napoleon behind Cavour’s back). Cavour did indeed reclaim Lombardy and although Napoleon III betrayed him in the treaty of Villafranca, the War did establish a sense of hope and patriotism amongst the public. The war encouraged Italians to rise up against the Austrians in northern Italy and to achieve independence for many of the other northern states. Also, Cavour stirred uprisings in the Pope’s northernmost territories which infuriated France, nevertheless it meant great things for the unification cause. Partly because the states accepted potential unification under the government of Piedmont in retrospection of Cavour’s determination, combined with the help of the National Society, who were encouraging voters in the Central Duchies to request annexation by Piedmont.
With the resignation of Cavour’s post as prime minister in 1859 it can be argued that he was abandoning Italy’s chance of unification. However it has to be remembered that unification was at the time not his intention. Cavour’s stint as prime minister had generated tremendous support for the unification cause. His supporters not only demanded union with Piedmont they refused to accept the return of their old rulers as ordered by the Treaty of Villafranca. This shows that Cavour’s policies were respected, Britain showed support for Piedmont’s cause, thus encouraging Napoleon to show support for he did not wish Britain to have an established influence in Italy.
The fact that Victor Emmanuel reinstated Cavour as prime minister in 1860 reinforces the fact that Cavour was a successful leader who undeniably was contributing towards a form of unification.
Cavour, it would seem through Piedmont’s development had brought about the prestige and power Italy desperately needed after the Mazzinian failures in the late 1840s. However, despite the effects of his political and diplomatic tactics, his motives were far from the true nationalistic spirit of Italy.
Cavour’s main priority was his ambitions for a dominant Piedmont in Northern Italy. This suggests because of the south’s inherent social and economic inadequacies he only wanted to build half of the creation. Therefore another figure had to be present to complete the unification process, which signifies that Cavour to a certain extent, was a leader of unification.
Contrary to this, if it had not been for Garibaldi it is a huge possibility that the unification of Italy may not have even taken place when it did. Garibaldi, with help from his guerrilla training in South America, used and manipulated the naval forces to fight against the state rulers in Naples and Sicily. Garibaldi was a gifted leader, naturally he was far more competent than Cavour in knowing how to stir the masses, and he repeatedly hastened the pace of events. Garibaldi always insisted that the unification of Italy was essential, he was considered by Cavour as a radical revolutionary Mazzinian who would take unification at any cost. Ultimately it was his invasion of Sicily and recruitment of supporters named as ‘The Thousand,’ which accumulated to approximately twenty thousand men that forced Cavour to intervene. Cavour’s intervention was to prevent the possibility of a civil war. Cavour’s fear that if Garibaldi’s army interfered with the French garrison in Rome, Austria too might become involved if Garibaldi persisted in his determination to conquer Venetia. Also there was a sure risk that Italy would become divided between a monarchic north and a republican south, which would almost definitely result in disorder. With Napoleon sharing these fears, Cavour was able to invade the Papal States and successfully defeat Garibaldi and his army within Ten days of entry into the city of Naples. Cavour’s interception of Garibaldi’s ‘Thousand’ made the unification of Italy under the leadership of Piedmont and the government of Victor Emmanuel a reality. His organisation of votes to be carried out soon after in Naples and Sicily proved in favour of union with Piedmont. With the exception of Rome and Venetia everywhere was united.
Cavour and Garibaldi were both essential in helping to unify Italy, still, they can not solely claim the title leader of unification. Victor Emmanuel is another contributor to unification, he appointed the most skilled leaders. His decision to appoint Cavour as prime minister marked a turning point in the Italian unification process which has previously been discussed. Cavour ‘s internal reforms and obtaining foreign aid for example proves that Victor Emmanuel was successful at dealing with personal matters. He secretly encouraged Garibaldi in the conquest of Sicily and Naples and led the invasion of the Papal states. By 1860, most of Italy had come under his rule
Not forgetting the past, Mazzini can also be considered significant in the bid to be leader of unification. He built the ideas of nationalism and played an important role in propaganda, promoting the idea that through revolution unity can be achieved. Mazzini injected patriotism among the people of Italy, it is possible that these ideas of unity were so imprinted in the minds of the public that it motivated Italian nationalists to eventually turn to the monarchical leadership offered by Cavour and Victor Emmanuel.
In hindsight Cavour can be acclaimed with the title, leader of Italian unification partly because if he had not used his political diplomacy as prime minister he would not have secured foreign allegiances with Britain and more importantly France. This alliance with France was fundamental to the unification of Italy as without the help of Napoleon Piedmont would never have defeated Austria. It was this defeat that restored hope and initiated the possibility that one day Italy may be fully united. It becomes irrelevant that Cavour did not actually live to see the completion of Italy’s unity as he was the one who had learned from the revolutionary mistakes and began Italy’s road to independence. However the other three figures also contributed as leaders of the cause in one way and it can be said that without one of them, unification would have been far less likely. Mazzini inspired ideas of unity among the people, Victor Emmanuel appointed the right leaders, Garibaldi used his charismatic leadership and military competence to great effect by conquering the South. Therefore only to a certain extent Cavour can be considered leader of Italian unification.
.