"The monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us"

Francesco Crispi’s assertion, “The monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us,” draws upon the dynamics of nation-building in late nineteenth-century Italy, a time fraught with regional divisions, competing ideologies, and fears of instability. Underlying the statement is a conviction: that the monarchy, with its centuries-old lineage and symbolic authority, provides a rallying point capable of transcending local loyalties, class antagonisms, and political rivalries. In a newly unified Italy, disparate populations from the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Piedmont could find common ground not merely in geography, but in allegiance to the crown, which exists above party politics and temporary interests.

The alternative, a republican form of government, conjured anxieties about fragmentation and chaos. The memory of revolutions and the frequent coups that punctuated Italian and European history underscored the risks inherent in republican experiments. Without the stabilizing influence of a monarch, regarded as impartial and enduring, political factions might redouble their competition for power, emboldening regional identities or fostering partisan zealotry. The lack of a unifying, non-partisan figure could thus jeopardize the fragile unity painstakingly achieved after the Risorgimento.

Crispi’s words reflect both a pragmatic calculation and a romantic attachment to monarchy’s perceived virtues. He appeals to the myths of continuity and stability that royalty embodies, suggesting that, in Italy’s context, these outweigh abstract ideals of popular sovereignty or democratic participation. Moreover, he implies that Italians are not yet ready to cement unity and national identity through institutions other than the monarchy, fearing that republicanism lacks the gravitas and historical depth necessary to maintain cohesion.

Implicitly, the statement is less about the inherent merits of monarchy versus republic, and more about the historical circumstances of Italy at that moment. It’s a plea for unity over division, for gradual progress over risky upheaval, and signals a belief that political forms must suit a nation’s particular context and collective memory.