Factors which led to collapase of congress system in Europe during their time in power.

 By 1830, the congress system had failed to achieve its noble objectives and 
was already languishing in the dustbin of history. The factors for the downfall 
of the congress system were too varied and complex. They range from the 
selfish and divergent interests of the powers to the absence of an agreed 
principle of political faith and the social developments of a new Europe 
against conservative forces leave alone the emergence of new and 
inexperienced leaders.
1. Self interest of the congress powers
The congress system was doomed from the onset due to conflicting aims of 
its participants. It was a combination of different states with different aims 
and objectives that became a source of mistrust, suspicion, jealousy and 
conflicts amongst the powers. This was because each power wanted to 
satisfy its national interest and refused to sacrifice it for the sake of common 
interest. Austria wanted to use the congress system to dominate the Italians 
and Germans and expand her empire, to central Europe.
Prussia wanted to annex Saxony and the Grand Dutchy of war-saw. Russia 
aimed at dominating the remains of the Ottoman Empire. Britain needed 
more colonies to promote her trade and France wanted fair treatment and 
a revival of her influence over Europe. These explains why there were 
disagreements and lack of consensus over sensitive issues like a joint army, 
pirates, slave trade, Spanish revolt and colonies and the Greek war of 
independence. Each power was motivated by selfish interest that dug a 
political grave for the congress system.
NB. Britain rejected the formation of an army to suppress revolutions 
because she was a liberal country and wanted to maintain her policy of 
isolation let alone wasting taxpayer's money and men in suppressing such 
movements. She also vetoed the proposal to deal with pirates because the 
pirates feared the union jack and British ships. Other powers reacted by 
throwing a way British proposals to deal with slave traders because it would 
give Britain that had the strongest navy excessive powers of interference. 
Britain again resisted the suppression of Spanish revolution and the
restoration of Ferdinand because it would undermine her booming trade in 
the area.
Russia assisted the Greeks because of the need to dominate the remains 
of the Ottoman Empire.
Britain saw that Russia's assistance would jeopardize her commercial and 
strategic interests in the region and decided to join Russia. France also 
realized that Russia's assistance would jeopardize her religious claims over 
Greek Christians and decided also to assist the Greeks. Austria and Prussia 
saw that Russia's intervention would increase her influence in the Balkans 
and threaten their survival and interest. These forced Prussia and Austria to 
oppose the Greek war of independence. Thus, self interest scattered the 
congress powers in different and opposite direction that became a 
countdown for its downfall.
2. Admission of France (1818)
The admission of France in the congress system was a blessing in disguise 
that contributed to the collapse of the system. The congress system was 
partly formed to safeguard against further French aggression and the return 
of Napoleon to power. The admission of France in 1818 destroyed the 
possibility of French aggression and the death of Napoleon in 1821 erased 
the fear of his return to power. These two events undermined the co-
operation and unity amongst the allies most especially Britain who decided 
to concentrate on her own internal problems. Castlereagh made this clear 
on May 5th 1820 in his "State paper" where he stated that Britain was only 
committed to preventing the return of Napoleon I or his dynasty to France. 
Furthermore, France was never fully trusted and was isolated within the 
congress powers. This robbed the powers of the unity, co-operation and 
harmony upon which the system was to survive.
3. Principle of intervention
The principle of intervention in the internal affairs of other states alienated 
Britain from the congress system and paved way for its demise. Britain 
opposed this right from 1818 up to the end of the system, inspite of British 
opposition, Austria, Prussia and Russia signed the Troppau protocol of 1820 
in which they pledged to intervene militarily against revolutions. This drifted 
Britain apart and Castlereagh branded the protocol "a destitute of 
common sense". Britain opposed French intervention in Spain and withdrew 
from the congress system at the congress of Verona. This was the last kick to down fall of the congress system.4. The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine was yet another blow to the existence of the congress 
system. In Dec 1823, president Monroe of U.S.A proclaimed the doctrine 
which threatened war against the planned move by the congress powers 
to restore Spanish colonies in South America. He was supported by George 
Canning of Britain who was afraid that such a move would undermine British 
trade with South American colonies. It defeated the principle of 
intervention and forced Austria, Prussia, France and Russia to back down. 
Henceforth, the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 created more antagonism 
between Britain against other congress powers, thus rolling the congress 
system to its grave.
5. The Vienna Settlement
The Vienna settlement laid a very weak foundation for the congress system 
that made its collapse a foregone conclusion. The congress system was to 
maintain the Vienna settlement, which unfortunately had enforced very 
unrealistic principles. These were for instance, the principles of legitimacy, 
balance of power and defensive arrangements against the principle of 
nationalism. It should be stressed that the principle of legitimacy made the 
Vienna peacemakers to restore some of the worst rulers Europe ever had. 
This created a viscous cycle of revolts like against Ferdinand I of Naples and 
Ferdinand VII of Spain. These revolts created more conflicts and 
antagonism amongst the congress powers. This is because other powers 
preferred intervention which was bitterly opposed by Britain. The end result 
was the end of the congress system.
6. Discrimination against small states
Discrimination against small states was a fundamental, weakness that led 
to the downfall of the congress system. It was dominated by the "big^ five" 
at the expense of smaller states yet they would have reduced the 
differences between the big powers. Consequently, the system failed to 
capture European public opinion and no wonder that it was branded "a 
league of despots" for the suppression of revolutions and nationalism in the 
smaller states. The congress system therefore became a narrow association 
of the big powers against smaller states which met stiff opposition from the 
smaller states hence its collapse.
7. Lack of Experience
Inexperience also accounts for the disintegration of the congress system. 
The system was the first international organization that was designed tomaintain peace. The congress powers therefore lacked experience from 
any previous attempts from which it could have learnt lessons and avoided 
various weaknesses that made the system to collapse. This partly explains 
why the congressmen tried to rewind Europe to the pre 1789 order that 
became a total disaster. It should be noted that the League of Nations and 
the U.N.O learnt lessons from previous organizations and this partly explains 
why they existed for so long. The congress system was experimental or on 
trial and error and no wonder that it collapsed within less than 10 years.
8. Lack of clear principles and protocol
The congress system failed partly because it was a disorganized 
organization with no clear principles and protocol. There was no 
memorandum on how meetings were to be called, where, when and the 
procedure to be followed in such meetings. There was even no fixed 
chairperson and this explains why anybody could call a congress anytime. 
Besides, there was no penalty for those who would wish to withdraw and 
this explains why Britain easily pulled out of the system in 1820.
9. Lack of a joint army and a resolution enforcing organ
The congress system was doomed by its failure to organize a governing 
body and "a congress peace keeping force" to implement its resolutions. 
Besides, there was no court of justice that could have punished those who 
violated the objectives of the system. For instance, France, Britain and 
Russia who diverted and supported liberal and nationalistic movements like 
in Greece would have been brought to book. If the court of justice was 
there, it could have saved the concert of Europe from disintegration 
through strict enforcement to the norms and principles of the congress 
system. Similarly, a joint force would have enforced the resolutions of the 
congress system where diplomacy could not be viable. The absence of a 
joint force undermined the strength of the congress system and made it 
more theoretical than practical which accounted for its collapse.
10. The Greek war of Independence.
The Greek war of independence was the last blow to the existence of the 
congress system. The Greeks revolted demanding for their independence 
against Turkey. The war became an event amongst others where the 
divergent interest of the major powers converged and hastened the 
collapse of the congress system. It divided the congress powers into two i.e. 
Britain, France and Russia who supported the Greeks and Prussia and 
Austria who sympathized and hence supported Turkey. In 1827, Russia,Britain and France signed the London treaty that recognized the 
independence of Greece amidst protest from Austria and Prussia. This gave 
the congress system that had died in 1825 unceremonial burial.
11. Death of founder members and the rise/role of new men.
The Death of some of the pioneers of the congress system and the rise of 
new men without parental care for the system was a serious setback for the 
survival of the system. Castlereagh died a suicidal death in 1822 and was 
replaced by George Canning. George Canning unlike Castlereagh was 
too aggressive and uncooperative to the ideas of collective action. He 
refused to neither attend nor send a representative to the 1823 congress 
over Spanish colonies and the 1825 congress over the Greek war of 
independence. This frustrated diplomatic solutions to the revolts and left it 
for a violent solution that divided the powers. It was the same Canning who 
withdrew Britain from the congress system in 1825 and embarked on a 
policy of "every nation for itself and God for us all". This individualistic 
tendency did not spare the congress system.
In Russia, Tsar Alexander I died inl825 and was replaced by Tsar Nicholas II. 
Tsar Nicholas II had a more aggressive and expansionist foreign policy over 
the Balkans. He was too confident in Russia's military might that he felt 
insulted to be restrained in foreign ventures. Nicholas' imperialistic ambitions
made Britain and France to turn round and support liberal movements such 
as the Greek revolt. This was against the norms and principles of the 
congress system and betrayed the system to doom.
In France, Charles X succeeded Louis XVHI in 1824, Unlike Louis XVIII, Charles 
X was pro-British and very often against Metternich. He consistently co-
operated with George Canning like in the Greek war that left Metternich 
isolated and annoyed.
All in all, George Canning, Tsar Nicholas I and Charles X carried the 
congress system to its final rest because unlike the founders, they had no 
parental fondness and love for it. They had not participated in its formation 
and its existence meant little to them. Unlike Metternich, the new leaders 
were inexperienced and had a narrow/limited knowledge of European 
affairs prior to and after the congress system.
12. The British policy of Isolationism and non Intervention
Britain was primarily responsible for the downfall of the congress system. She 
pursued a policy of Isolation (non-interventionist foreign policy). This was toavoid pocket touching matters (unnecessary expenses), loss of British 
citizens in areas of no interest and parliamentary outcry incase of failures.
These made Britain/Castlereagh to veto important congress revolutions like 
checking pirates on the Mediterranean Sea and the formation of a joint 
force right from Aix-Lachapalle in 1818. This was very unfortunate for the 
congress system because it was Britain who championed the defeat of 
Napoleon I.
Her role was therefore paramount in the reconstruction of post Napoleonic 
era and the survival of the congress system thereafter.
Secondly, Britain sympathized and offered moral and logistical support to 
liberal and nationalistic movements like in Spain, Naples, Greece, German 
and Italian states. This was against the principles and interest of the 
congress system. Indeed, the British official policy was made clear by 
Castlereagh in his lengthy State paper, thus;
……………Britain owed her present dynasty and constitution to an internal 
revolution. She could not therefore deny to other countries the same
right of changing their form of government (Grant and Temperleys pp/142 
- 143).
Britain therefore opposed the idea of suppressing revolutions right from Aix-
Lachapalle. This is why she rejected the Troppau protocol which 
Castlereagh called "a destitute of common sense". This drifted Britain a part
from Russia, Austria and Prussia hence the collapse of the congress system.
Thirdly, Britain allied with U.S.A. against Austria, Russia and Prussia over the 
issue of Spanish colonies.
She overwhelmingly supported the Monroe doctrine against other powers 
who wanted to intervene over the issue of Spanish colonies. This left the rest 
of the congress powers hopeless and defeated the principle of 
intervention.
Fourthly, it was Britain through Canning (the British foreign secretary from 
1822) who "killed" the congress system. Britain declined to send a 
representative to a congress that was called by the Spanish king over the 
Spanish colonies. She also refused to attend the congress of St. Petersburg 
that was called by Tsar Nicholas 1 to settle the Greek war of independence. 
This frustrated Russian's intentions to diplomatically settle the Greek question.Fifthly, it was Britain who officially withdrew from the congress system in 1823. 
George Canning was angered by the French intervention in Spain and 
withdrew British membership of the congress system at the congress of 
Verona. Thereafter, Britain under Canning resorted to the policy of every 
nation for itself and God for us all''. This was the actual disintegration of the 
congress system.
Lastly, Britain had profound hatred and dislike for Russia and Austria. She 
hated Russia for her imperialism over the Balkans and the Mediterranean 
Sea, which was a threat to her commercial interest.
She was against Austria because Austria and Metternich had centralized 
European affairs in their favour.
Canning wanted European affairs to be centralized and settled in London 
than Vienna or Austria. In other wards Britain wanted to hijack the balance 
of power to favour her. Therefore, one can safely conclude that Britain's 
hatred for Russia and Austria robbed the congress powers of any 
harmonious relationship or mutual co-existence and led to its collapse.Readmore