August
84. The Kölnische Zeitungon the State of Affairs in England[189]
Cologne, July 31.
"Where is it possible in England to discover any trace of hatred against the class which in France is called the bourgeoisie? This hatred was at one time directed against the aristocracy, which by means of its corn monopoly imposed a heavy and unjust tax on industry. The bourgeois in England enjoys no privileges, he depends on his own diligence; in France under Louis Philippe he depended on monopolies, on privileges."
This great, this scholarly, this veracious proposition can be found in Herr Wolfers' leading article in the always well-informed Kölnische Zeitung.
It is indeed strange. England has the most numerous, the most concentrated, the most classic proletariat, a proletariat which every five or six years is decimated by the crushing misery of a commercial crisis, by hunger and typhus; a proletariat which for half its life is redundant to industry and unemployed. One man in every ten in England is a pauper, and one pauper in every three is an inmate in one of the Poor Law Bastilles. ^ The annual cost of poor-relief in England almost equals the entire expenditure of the Prussian state. Poverty and pauperism have been openly declared in England to be necessary elements of the present industrial system and the national wealth. Yet, despite this, where in England is there any trace of hatred against the bourgeoisie?
There is no other country in the world where, with the huge growth of the proletariat, the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie has reached such a high level as in England; no other country presents such glaring contrasts between extreme poverty and immense wealth — yet where is there any trace of hatred against the bourgeoisie?
Obviously, the associations of workers, set up secretly before 1825 and openly after 1825,[191] associations not for just one day against a single manufacturer, but permanent associations directed against entire groups of manufacturers, workers' associations of entire industries, entire towns, finally associations uniting large numbers of workers throughout England, all these associations and their numerous fights against the manufacturers, the strikes, which led to acts of violence, revengeful destructions, arson, armed attacks and assassinations — all these actions just prove the love of the proletariat for the bourgeoisie.
The entire struggle of the workers against the manufacturers over the last eighty years, a struggle which, beginning with machine wrecking, has developed through associations, through isolated attacks on the person and property of the manufacturers and on the few workers who were loyal to them, through bigger and smaller rebellions, through the insurrections of 1839 and 1842,[192] has become the most advanced class struggle the world has seen. The class war of the Chartists, the organised party of the proletariat, against the organised political power of the bourgeoisie, has not yet led to those terrible bloody clashes which took place during the June uprising in Paris, but it is waged by a far larger number of people with much greater tenacity and on a much larger territory — this social civil war is of course regarded by the Kölnische Zeitung and its Wolfers as nothing but a long demonstration of the love of the English proletariat for its bourgeois employers.
Not so long ago it was fashionable to present England as the classic land of social contradictions and struggles, and to declare that France, compared with England's so-called unnatural situation, was a happy land with her Citizen King, her bourgeois parliamentary warriors and her upright workers, who always fought so bravely for the bourgeoisie. It was not so long ago that the Kölnische Zeitung kept harping on this well-worn tune and saw in the English class struggles a reason for warning Germany against protectionism and the "unnatural" hothouse industry to which it gives rise. But the June days have changed everything. The horrors of the June battles have scared the Kölnische Zeitung, and the millions of Chartists in London, Manchester and Glasgow vanish into thin air in face of the forty thousand Paris insurgents.
France has become the classic country as regards hatred of the bourgeoisie and, according to the present assertions of the Kölnische Zeitung, this has been the case since 1830. How strange. For the last ten years English agitators, received with acclamation by the entire proletariat, have untiringly preached fervent hatred of the bourgeoisie at meetings and in pamphlets and journals, whereas the French working-class and socialist literature has always advocated reconciliation with the bourgeoisie on the grounds that the class antagonisms in France were far less developed than in England. The men at whose very name the Kölnische Zeitung makes the triple sign of the cross, men like Louis Blanc, Cabet, Caussidière and Ledru-Rollin, have, for many years before and after the February revolution, preached peace with the bourgeoisie, and they generally did it de la meilleure foi du monde* Let the Kölnische Zeitung look through any of the writings of these people, or through the Réforme, the Populaire, or even the working-class journals published during the last few years like the Union, the Ruche populaire and the Fraternité—though it should be sufficient to mention two works which everybody knows, Louis Blanc's entire Histoire de dix ans, especially the last part, and his Histoire de la révolution française in two volumes.
But the Kölnische Zeitung is not content with merely asserting as a fact that no hatred exists in England against "the class which in France is called the bourgeoisie" (in England too, our well-informed colleague, cf. the Northern Star for the last two years) — it also explains why this must be so.
Peel saved the English bourgeoisie from this hatred by repealing the monopolies and establishing Free Trade.
"The bourgeois in England enjoys no privileges, no monopolies; in France he depended on monopolies.... It was Peel's measures that saved England from the most appalling upheaval."
By doing away with the monopoly of the aristocracy, Peel saved the bourgeoisie from the threatening hatred of the proletariat, according to the amazing logic of the Kölnische Zeitung.
"The English people, we say: the English people day by day increasingly realise that only from Free Trade can they expect a solution of the vital problems bearing on all their present afflictions and apprehensions, a solution which was recently attempted amid streams of blood.... We must not forget that the first notions of Free Trade came from the English people."
The English people! But the "English people" have been fighting the Free Traders since 1839 at all their meetings and in the press,
In good faith.— Ed.
and compelled them, when the Anti-Corn Law League[193] was at the height of its fame, to hold their meetings in secret and to admit only persons who had a ticket. The people with bitter irony compared the practice of the Free Traders[3] with their fine words, and fully identified the bourgeois with the Free Trader. Sometimes the English people were even forced temporarily to seek the support of the aristocracy, the monopolists, against the bourgeoisie, e.g. in their fight for the ten-hour day.[194] And we are asked to believe that the people who were so well able to drive the Free Traders off the rostrum at public meetings, that it was these "English people" who originally conceived the ideas of Free Trade! The Kölnische Zeitung, in its artless simplicity, not only repeats mechanically the illusions of the big capitalists of Manchester and Leeds, but lends a gullible ear to their deliberate lies.
"The bourgeois in England enjoys no privileges, no monopolies." But in France things are different:
"The worker for a long time regarded the bourgeois as the monopolist who imposed a tax of 60 per cent on the poor farmer for the iron of his plough, who made extortionate profits on his coal, who exposed the vine-growers throughout France to death from starvation, who added 20, 40, 50 per cent to the price of everything he sold them...."
The only "monopoly" which the worthy Kölnische Zeitung knows is the customs monopoly, i.e. the monopoly which only appears to affect the workers, but actually falls on the bourgeoisie, on all industrialists, who do not profit from tariff-protection. The Kölnische Zeitung knows only a local, legally created monopoly, the monopoly which was attacked by the Free Traders from Adam Smith to Cobden.
But the monopoly of capital, which comes into being without the aid of legislation and often exists despite it, this monopoly is not recognised by the gentlemen of the Kölnische Zeitung. Yet it is this monopoly which directly and ruthlessly weighs upon the workers and causes the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Precisely this monopoly is the specifically modern monopoly, which produces the modern class contradictions, and the solution of just these contradictions is the specific task of the nineteenth century.
But this monopoly of capital becomes more powerful, more comprehensive, and more threatening in proportion as the other small and localised monopolies disappear.
The freer competition becomes as a result of the abolition of all "monopolies", the more rapidly is capital concentrated in the hands
Here and below these two words are given in English in the German original.— Ed, of the industrial barons, the more rapidly does the petty bourgeoisie become ruined and the faster does the industry of England, the country of capital's monopoly, subjugate the neighbouring countries. If the "monopolies" of the French, German and Italian bourgeoisie were abolished, Germany, France and Italy would be reduced to proletarians compared with the all-absorbing English bourgeoisie. The pressure which the individual English bourgeois exerts on the individual English proletarian would then be matched by the pressure exerted by the English bourgeoisie as a whole on Germany, France and Italy, and it is especially the petty bourgeoisie of these countries which would suffer.
These are such commonplace ideas that today they can no longer be expounded without causing offence — to anyone but the learned gentlemen of the Kölnische Zeitung.
These profound thinkers see in Free Trade the only means by which France can be saved from a devastating war between the workers and the bourgeois.
To reduce the bourgeoisie of a country to the level of the proletariat is indeed a means of solving class contradictions which is worthy of the Kölnische Zeitung.
Written by Engels on July 31, 1848
85. The Agreement Debate about the Valdenaire Affair
Cologne, August 1. Once again we have to catch up with a couple of agreement sessions.
During the session of July 18 the motion calling for the summoning of Deputy Valdenaire was discussed.(1) The central section called for its adoption. Three Rhenish jurists spoke against it.
First there was Herr Simons of Elberfeld, a former Public Prosecutor. Herr Simons was apparently under the impression that he was still in the Assizes or in the police court. He demeaned himself like a Public Prosecutor by making a formal plea against Herr Valdenaire and for the judicature. He said: The matter has been placed before the indictment board and will be quickly decided there. Valdenaire will either be freed or referred to the Assizes. If the latter should occur
"it would be exceedingly desirable that the whole case is not then pulled apart so that judgment is not delayed".
As far as Herr Simons is concerned, the interests of the judicature, i.e. the convenience of the indictment board, the Public Prosecutor and the Court of Assizes, carry much more weight than the interest of freedom and the immunity of the people's representatives.
Herr Simons then throws suspicion first upon Valdenaire's defence witnesses and afterwards upon Valdenaire himself. He declares that the Assembly "would not be deprived of any talent" by his absence. He then proceeds to pronounce him unfit to sit in the Assembly as long as he is not completely cleared of every suspicion of having plotted against the Government or rebelled against the armed forces. As far as talent is concerned, one could, according to Herr Simons' logic, arrest nine-tenths of the praiseworthy Assembly just as well as Herr Valdenaire and still not deprive it of any talent whatever. As far as the second argument is concerned, it does indeed redound to Herr Simons' honour that he has never hatched any "plots" against absolutism nor been guilty of "rebellion against the public authority" on the March barricades.
After Valdenaire's substitute, Herr Gräff, had irrefutably proved that neither was there the slightest suspicion against Valdenaire nor had the action in question been unlawful (since it consisted in having helped the legally constituted civic militia, which was occupying the barricades of Trier with the approval of the Municipal Council in the execution of its functions), Herr Bauerband rises to support the Public Prosecutor's office.
Herr Bauerband also has a very weighty scruple:
"Would not the summoning of Valdenaire prejudice the future judgment of the jury?"
Profoundly thoughtful doubts which are made still more insoluble by the simple remark of Herr Borchardt: Whether the non-summoning of Valdenaire would not likewise prejudice the jury? The dilemma is really so profound that a thinker of even greater mental force than Herr Bauerband might spend years trying in vain to resolve it. There is perhaps only one man in the entire Assembly who has enough strength to solve the riddle: Deputy Baumstark?
Herr Bauerband continues to plead for a while in an extremely verbose and confused manner. Herr Borchardt answers him briefly. After him, Herr Stupp gets up in order to say also so much against Valdenaire that he "had in every respect nothing (!) to add" to the speeches of Simons and Bauerband. All this is, of course, enough reason for him to continue speaking until he is interrupted by shouts calling for the closure of the debate. Herr Reichensperger II and
Herr Wencelius speak briefly in favour of Valdenaire and, as we know, the Assembly decides to summon him. Herr Valdenaire has played a trick on the Assembly by not obeying the summons.
Herr Borchardt puts the following motion: In order to prevent the impending executions of the death penalty before the Assembly has given its decision on Herr Lisiecki's motion which advocates the abolition of capital punishment, a decision should be made on this motion within a week.
Herr Ritz is of the opinion that such a precipitous procedure would not be parliamentary.
Herr Brill: If we shall in the near future, as I certainly hope, abolish the death penalty it would certainly be very unparliamentary to decapitate somebody in the meantime.
The President would like to terminate the discussion but the popular Herr Baumstark has already mounted the rostrum. Casting fiery glances and his face flushed with noble indignation, he exclaims:
"Gentlemen, permit me to say a serious wordl The subject here in question is not of the kind that should be treated lightly from this rostrum by referring to decapitation as an unparliamentary matter!" (The Right, which looks upon decapitation as the height of parliamentarism, bursts into tempestuous shouts of bravo.) "It is a subject of the greatest, most serious significance" (it is well known that Herr Baumstark says this of every topic he discusses). "Other parliaments ... the greatest men of legislation and science" (i.e. "all political philosophers, from Plato down to Dahlmann") "have occupied themselves with this problem for 200 to 300 years" (each of them?) "and if you want us to be blamed for having passed over such an important question with such levity...." (Bravo!) "Nothing but my conscience impels me ... but the question is too serious ... surely, one more week will not make any difference!"
Because the subject is of the greatest, most serious significance the serious words of the noble Deputy Baumstark become the rashest frivolity. Is there, indeed, greater frivolity than Herr Baumstark's apparent intention to discuss the abolition of capital punishment for the next 200 to 300 years and in the meantime to let decapitations continue at a smart pace? "Surely, one more week will not make any difference" and the heads which will roll during this time will not make any difference either!
Incidentally, the Prime Minister(2) declares that it is not intended to carry out death sentences for the time being.
After Herr Schulze from Delitzsch has expressed a few ingenious scruples concerning rules of procedure, Borchardt's motion is rejected. On the other hand, an amendment by Herr Nethe, which recommends greater dispatch to the central commission, is adopted.
Deputy Hildenhagen proposes the following motion: Until the relevant Bill has been submitted, the President should terminate every session with the following solemn pronouncement:
"We, however, are of the opinion that the Ministry should work most zealously on the submission of the new municipal laws."
This edifying proposal was unfortunately not designed for our bourgeois times.
We are not Romans, we smoke tobacco.
The attempt to carve from the raw material of President Grabow the classical figure of an Appius Claudius and to apply the solemn Ceterum censeo to the municipal legislation failed under "huge mirth".
After Deputy Bredt of Barmen has asked the Minister of Trade three fairly mildly-worded questions on the unification of all Germany into a customs union and into a maritime league with navigation duties, and finally on provisional protective tariffs, and after he has received similarly mild, but also rather unsatisfactory answers to his questions from Herr Milde, Herr Gladbach is the last speaker of the session. Herr Schütze of Lissac had intended to move that he be called to order because of his vigorous language during the debate over the disarming of the volunteers.*1 He decided, however, to withdraw his motion. Herr Gladbach, however, quite unceremoniously challenged the brave Schütze and the entire Right and to the great annoyance of the hidebound Prussians related the amusing anecdote of a Prussian lieutenant who, having fallen asleep on his horse, rode into the midst of the volunteers. These troops greeted the officer with the song "Sleep, Baby, Sleep" and for this offence they were to be court-martialled! Herr Schütze stammered a few words which were as indignant as incoherent and the session was terminated.
Written by Engels on August 1, 1848
86. The Milan Bulletin
In yesterday's issue of this newspaper we published the victory bulletin of the Provisional Government in Milan and then went on to mention the conflicting victory bulletins from Bolzano in the Augsburg newspaper[3] and from Trieste.[6]
We held the first of these to be the more credible because the information contained in the bulletin that reached us direct from Milan was simultaneously confirmed by reports from two different cities in Switzerland — Zurich and Basle — which have numerous commercial and close geographical links with Milan. But in evaluating the information we had to give special weight to the fact that the Austrian reports of victory were dated earlier and spoke of the battle on July 23, whereas the Milan bulletin dealt with the events of the 24th and the early hours of the 25th.[195] Because of this combination of circumstances we did not doubt that the Italian victory had actually taken place. The Austrians, moreover, had already previously published reports of victories, for example of a victory at Curtatone[196] which later turned out to have been an Austrian defeat, and furthermore it was none other than the Augsburg paper that had acclaimed this alleged victory.(1) A comparison of the reports of both sides shows that the Italians really did win a victory, but that this victory was wrenched from them by the advance of fresh Austrian troops. If anything could have led us
i.e. the Allgemeine Zeitung.—Ed. "Mailand, 25. Juli", "Mailand, 26. Juli", Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 62, August 1, 1848.—Ed.
astray, it would have been that ambitious but totally incompetent individual Charles Albert, about whom we have already repeatedly expressed our opinion. Despite all the bad qualities of this "sword of Italy", the possibility still existed that at least one of his generals, favoured by such uncommonly advantageous positions, might have possessed the military skill to claim the victory for the Italian colours. Reality shows that this has not happened. And therewith Charles Albert's fate is sealed. Even his present throne, not to mention the visionary one of the whole of Italy, must shortly collapse. As victor, he could have looked forward to gratifying his ambition for a while; vanquished, he will very soon be tossed to one side as a useless tool by the Italians themselves. After many bloody sacrifices, Italy will surely triumph and show that it has no need of that wretched individual the King of Sardinia to achieve its freedom and national independence.
Written by Engels on August 1, 1848
87. The Russian Note
Cologne, August 1. Russian diplomacy has invaded Germany for the time being not with an army, but with a Note in the form of a circular to all Russian Embassies. This Note found its first lodgings in the official organ of the German Imperial Administration at Frankfurt(1) and it was soon also well received at other official and unofficial newspapers. The more extraordinary it is that Mr. Nesselrode, the Russian Foreign Minister, should indulge in this sort of public statecraft, the more important it is to subject this action to a closer inspection.
During the happy period preceding 1848, German censorship saw to it that no word could be printed which might incur the displeasure of the Russian Government, not even under the heading of Greece or Turkey.
Since the evil March days, however, this convenient expedient is unfortunately no longer available. Nesselrode therefore becomes a journalist.
According to him it is the "German press, whose hatred for Russia seemed for a moment suspended", which with respect to the Russian "security measures" along the frontier had seen fit to make the "most unfounded assumptions and commentaries". After this restrained introduction there follow stronger words which read:
"The German press is daily spreading the most absurd rumours and the most malicious calumnies against us."
Soon, however, there is talk of "raving declamations", "madmen" and "perfidious malevolence".
At the next press trial, a German Public Prosecutor may well use the Russian Note in his evidence as an authenticated document.
And why is the German, especially the "democratic" press to be attacked, and if possible, to be destroyed? Because it misjudges the Russian Emperor's "benevolent as well as unselfish sentiments" and his "openly peaceful intentions"!
"Has Germany ever had to complain about us?" asks Nesselrode on behalf of his ruler.a "During the entire time when the Continent had to endure the oppressive rule of a conqueror, Russia shed her blood to help Germany preserve her integrity and independence. The Russian territory had long been liberated when Russia still continued to follow her German allies to all the battlefields of Europe, and to assist them."
In spite of her numerous and well-paid agents, Russia is labouring under the gravest delusion if she thinks that in the year 1848 she can arouse sympathies by evoking the memory of the so-called wars of liberation. And are we to believe that Russia shed her blood for us Germans?
Apart from the fact that before 1812 Russia "supported" Germany's "integrity and independence" by an open alliance and secret treaties with Napoleon, she was later sufficiendy indem-nified for her so-called aid by robbery and pillage. Her aid was for the princes who were allied to her, her assistance, in spite of the Proclamation of Kalisch,[198] for the representatives of absolutism, "by the grace of God", against a ruler who had emerged from the revolution. The Holy Alliance and its unholy works, the bandit congresses of Carlsbad, Laibach, Verona etc.,[199] the Russian-German persecutions of every enlightened word, as a matter of fact all politics since 1815 which were guided by Russia ought indeed to have impressed upon our memories a profound sense of gratitude. The House of Romanov, along with its diplomats, may rest assured; we will never forget this debt. As for Russia's aid during the years 1814 and 1815, we would sooner be susceptible to any other feeling than that of gratitude for that aid paid for with English subsidies.
The reasons are obvious for discerning minds. If Napoleon had remained victor in Germany, he would have removed at least three dozen beloved "fathers of their people" with his well-known energetic formula. French legislation and administration would have created a solid base for German unity and spared us 33 years of humiliation and the tyranny of the Federal Diet which is, of course, highly praised by Mr. Nesselrode. A few Napoleonic decrees would have completely destroyed the entire medieval chaos: the compulsory labour services and tithes, exemptions and privileges, the entire feudal and patriarchal systems which still torment us from end to end of our fatherlands. The rest of Germany would long since have reached the level which the left bank of the Rhine reached soon after the first French revolution; we would have neither Uckermark grandees nor a Pomeranian Vendée[200] and we would no longer have to inhale the stuffy air of the "historical" and "Christian-Germanic" swamps.
Russia, however, is magnanimous. Even if no gratitude is expressed, the Emperor retains as much as ever his old "benevolent as well as unselfish sentiments" towards us. Yes, "in spite of insults and challenges the attempt to change our" (Russia's) "sentiments has not been successful".
These sentiments manifest themselves for the time being in a "passive and watchful method", a method in which Russia has undeniably achieved great virtuosity. She knows how to wait until the appropriate moment seems to have arrived. Notwithstanding the colossal troop movements which have taken place in Russia since March, Mr. Nesselrode is so naive as to try to make us believe that the Russian troops "remained immobile within their cantonments". The Russian Government remains animated by sentiments of "peace and reconciliation" in spite of the classical: "Gentlemen, saddle your horses!",[3] in spite of the confidential outpouring of heart and bile against the German people by Abramowicz, Chief of Police in Warsaw, and in spite of or rather because of the threatening and successful Notes from Petersburg. Russia perseveres in her "openly peaceful and defensive attitude". In the Nesselrode circular, Russia is portrayed as patience personified and as a pious, much-maligned and insulted innocence.
We want to enumerate some of Germany's crimes against Russia which are listed in the Note: 1. "hostile mood", and 2. "fever of change in the whole of Germany". Such a "hostile" mood towards so much benevolence on the part of the Tsar! How grievous this must be for the paternal heart of our dear brother-in-law. And to top it all, this execrable disease called "fever of change"! This is actually the first, albeit in this case the second, dreadfulness. From time to time Russia bestows another kind of disease upon us: the cholera. Be that as it may! Not only is this "fever of change" contagious but it often reaches such a virulent intensification that highly-placed personages are easily compelled to make hasty departures for England![3] Was the "German fever of change" perhaps one of the reasons for dissuading Russia from an invasion in March and April? The third crime: The Preparliament of Frankfurt[201] has represented war against Russia as a necessity of the time. The same has happened in associations and newspapers and is all the more unpardonable since according to the clauses of the Holy Alliance and the later treaties between Russia, Austria and Prussia, we Germans are only supposed to shed our blood in the interest of the princes and not in our own interest. 4. There has been talk in Germany of reconstituting old Poland within her true borders of 1772.[202] The knout over you and then off to Siberia! But no, when Nesselrode wrote his circular, he had not yet heard of the Frankfurt Parliament's vote on the question of incorporating Posen. Parliament has atoned for our sins and a mild, forgiving smile now howers upon the lips of the Tsar. The 5th crime of Germany: "Her regrettable war against a Nordic monarchy." In view of the success of the menacing Note from Russia, the rapid retreat of the German army ordered by Potsdam and the declaration issued by the Prussian Ambassador in Copenhagen on the motives and purposes of the war,[203] Germany deserved a milder punishment for her impertinence than would have been admissible without these circumstances. 6. "Open advocacy of a defensive and offensive alliance between Germany and France." Lastly, 7. "The reception given to the Polish refugees, their free trips on the railways and the insurrection in the Posen region."
If the diplomats and similar persons had not received the gift of language "so as to conceal their thoughts"b both Nesselrode and brother-in-law Nicholas would have embraced us with shouts of joy and thanked us ardently for having lured so many Poles from France, England, Belgium etc. to the Posen region and for having made it easy for them to be transported there only to have them mowed down by grape-shot and shrapnel, branded with lunar caustic, slaughtered, sent off with shorn heads etc., and, on the other hand, to exterminate them in Cracow by a treacherous bombardment, if possible completely.
And Russia, faced with these seven mortal sins of Germany, has nevertheless remained on the defensive and not taken the offensive? Yes, that's how it is, and it is for this reason that the Russian diplomat is asking the world to admire the love of peace and the moderation of his Emperor.
The Russian Emperor's rule of procedure "from which he has so far not deviated for one moment", according to Mr. Nesselrode,
"is not to interfere in any way in the internal affairs of countries which want to change their organisation; on the contrary, to allow these nations complete freedom to effect the political and social experiments which they want to undertake without let or hindrance on his part, and not to attack any power which has not attacked him. On the other hand, he is determined to repel any encroachment upon his own internal security and to make sure that if the territorial balance of power is anywhere destroyed or altered, that will not be done at the expense of our own legitimate interests."
The Russian Note forgets to add the illustrative examples. After the July revolution the Emperor assembled an army along the western frontier so as, allied with his faithful followers in Germany, to give practical proof to the French how he would allow the nations "complete freedom to effect their political and social experiments". The fact that he was disturbed in his rule of procedure was not his fault but that of the Polish revolution of 1830 [4] which gave his plans a different direction. Soon thereafter, we saw the same procedure with respect to Spain and Portugal. The evidence is his open and secret support of Don Carlos and Dom Miguel. When at the end of 1842 the King of Prussia wanted to issue a sort of constitution according to the estates principle, on the most comfortable "historical" basis, which had played such an admirable role with respect to the Patents of 1847,[20] it was, of course, Nicholas who would not tolerate it and thus cheated us "Christian Germans" out of the joy of having these Patents for several years. He did all this, as
Nesselrode says, because Russia never interferes in the internal organisation of a country. We hardly need to mention Cracow.[206] Let us merely recall the most recent sample of the imperial "rule of procedure": the Wallachians overthrow the old Government and replace it provisionally by a new one. They want to transform the entire old system and create an organisation patterned after those of civilised nations. "So as now to let them effect their political and social experiments in complete freedom" a Russian army corps invades the country.[207]
After that anybody can guess the nature of the application of this "rule of procedure" to Germany. But the Russian Note makes our own deduction unnecessary. It reads:
The second passage which refers to the same subject reads still more clearly:
"If Germany should actually succeed in solving her organisational problem without detriment to her internal calm, and without the new forms impressed on her nationality being of a kind which endanger the tranquillity of other states, we shall sincerely congratulate ourselves on that for the same reasons which made us hope for her strength and unity under her previous political forms."
But the following passage sounds most clear and removes any possible doubt; here the circular speaks of Russia's incessant efforts to recommend and preserve harmony and unity in Germany:
"Of course, we are not referring to that material unity of which a democracy addicted to a levelling and aggrandising process is dreaming today, and which, if it could realise its ambitious theories as it interprets them, would inevitably sooner or later plunge Germany into a state of war with all adjacent states, but rather to the moral unity, that sincere conformity of views and intentions in all political questions which the German Confederation had to negotiate in external affairs.
"Our policy had only one aim: to preserve this unity and to strengthen the bonds which link the German governments with each other.
"That which we wanted in those days, we still desire today." As one can see from the preceding passage, the Russian Government most willingly allows us moral unity, only no material unity, no replacement of the present Federal Diet by a central authority, not the mere semblance of central authority, but a genuine and seriously effective central authority based on popular sovereignty. What magnanimity!
"That which we wanted in those days" (before February 1848), "we still desire today."
That is the only phrase of the Russian Note which nobody will call in question. But we should like to tell Mr. Nesselrode that desire and fulfilment are still two separate things.
The Germans now know exactly where they stand as far as Russia is concerned. As long as the old system, painted over with new, modern colours, persists, or if one obediently moves back again to the Russian and "historical" track after having strayed from it in a "moment of intoxication and exultation", Russia will remain "openly peaceful".
The internal conditions of Russia, the raging cholera, the partial insurrections in individual districts, the revolution plotted in Petersburg which was, however, prevented just in time, the conspiracy inside the citadel of Warsaw, the volcanic soil of the Kingdom of Poland,[208] all these are at any rate circumstances which have contributed to the Tsar's benevolent as well as "unselfish sentiments" towards Germany.
But of much greater influence upon the "passive and watchful method" of the Russian Government was undoubtedly the course of events in Germany proper up to the present.
Could Nicholas in person have taken better care of his affairs and carried out his intentions sooner than has up to now been done in Berlin-Potsdam, in Innsbruck, in Vienna and Prague, in Frankfurt and in Hanover and in almost every other cosy corner of our fatherland, now again filled with Russian moral unity? Have not (lunar caustic) Pfuel, Colomb and the shrapnel general(2) in Posen and Windischgrätz in Prague worked so well as to enrapture the Tsar's heart? Did not Windischgrätz receive a brilliant letter of commen-dation from Nicholas via Potsdam from the hands of young Mr. Meyendorf? And do the gentlemen Hansemann-Milde-Schreckenstein in Berlin and the Radowitzes, Schmerlings and Lichnowskis in Frankfurt leave anything to be desired as far as Russia is concerned? Must not the Bieder- and Basserdom(3) in the Frankfurt Parliament form a soothing balm for many a pain of the most recent past? In such circumstances Russian diplomacy did not need any armies to invade Germany. It is perfecdy right to be content with the "passive and watchful method", and the just discussed Note!
88. Miscellaneous[2]
Very shortly a Bill on defamation along entirely new lines will be laid before the Chamber. Our criticism of the article of the Code Napoléon in connection with Hecker's suit against the Neue Rheinische Zeitung was evidently only too well founded.(1)
Written by Marx on August 2, 1848
89. Bakunin[2]
In number 36, of this paper, we communicated a rumour circulating in Paris, according to which George Sand was stated to be possessed of papers which placed the Russian refugee, Bakunin, in the position of an agent of the Emperor Nicholas.[3] We gave publicity to this statement, because it was communicated to us simultaneously by two correspondents wholly unconnected with each other. By so doing, we only accomplished the duty of the public press, which has severely to watch public characters. And, at the same time we gave to Mr. Bakunin an opportunity of silencing suspicions thrown upon him in certain Paris circles. We reprinted also from the Allgemeine Oder Zeitung Mr. Bakunin's declaration, and his letter addressed to George Sand, without waiting for his request.(1) We publish now a literal translation of a letter addressed to the Editor of the New Rhenish Gazette, by George Sand, which perfectly settles this affair.(2)
To the editor Sir,
Under the date line Paris, July 3, you have published the following article (there follows a translation of the relevant item) in your newspaper. The facts conveyed by your correspondent are entirely false and do not have even the slightest semblance of truth. I have never had the smallest scrap of evidence in support of the imputations you seek to make against Mr. Bakunin, who was banished from France by the dethroned King. I have therefore never had any warrant for the slightest doubt about the sincerity of Mr. Bakunin's character and the honesty of his views.
Yours etc. George Sand P.S. I appeal to your honour and your conscience to publish this letter immediately in your newspaper.
La Châtre (Dept. Indre), July 20, 1848
Written by Marx on August 2, 1848
90. The Hansemann Government and the Old-Prussian Criminal Bill
Cologne, August 3. We have already often said that the Hansemann Government extols the Bodelschwingh Ministry in every possible way.(1) After the recognition of the revolution follows the recognition of the old-Prussian state of affairs. That's the way of the world.(2)
That Herr Hansemann, however, would achieve such virtuosity that he even praises those deeds of such gentlemen as Bodelschwingh, Savigny and consorts which he used to combat with the greatest vehemence in his days as Rhenish deputy to the Provincial Diet, that is a triumph with which the Potsdam camarilla had certainly not counted. And yet! Please read the following article of the latest Preussische Staats-Anzeige/::
Berlin, August 1. The most recent issue of the journal of the Ministry of Justice reported in its "unofficial part" statistical observations about the death penalty as well as a survey of death sentences passed and confirmed between the years 1826 and 1843 (inclusive) with the exception of sentences passed in the so-called demagogical investigations. This work was undertaken with the utilisation of documents of the Ministry of Justice and, because of the importance of the issue, should claim the special attention of the reader in this respect. According to the survey, in the aforementioned period of time:
1. In the Rhine Province 189 death sentences were passed, 6 confirmed 2. In the other provinces 237 " " " " 94 "
altogether 426 death sentences were passed, 100 confirmed,
of which, however, four were not carried out because of flight or death of the criminals.
If the Bill on the new Penal Code of 1847 had been in force during that period there would have been:
1. In the Rhine Province only 53 death sentences passed, 5 confirmed 2. In the other provinces only 134 " " " 76 altogether 187 death sentences passed, 81 confirmed,
provided that the same principles were applied to the confirmation as heretofore. Thus, the death penalty would not have been imposed on 237 criminals who were sentenced to death under the existing laws. Nor would the death penalty have been carried out on 19 executed criminals.
According to the survey, there were annually on the average:
1. In the Rhine Province 10[9]/is death sentences passed and /is confirmed 2. In the other provinces 13 " " " " 5[4]/ig "
If, however, the Bill had been in force at the time, there would have been annually on the average:
1. In the Rhine Province only 2[17]/i8 death sentences passed and /is confirmed 2. In the other provinces only 7 /is " " " " 4 /is And now admire the mildness, the excellence and the glory of the Royal Prussian Criminal Bill of 1847! Perhaps as much as one entire death sentence less would have been carried out in the Rhine Province in 18 years! What advantages!
But the innumerable defendants who would have been deprived of a jury and sentenced and jailed by royal justices, the disgraceful corporal punishments which here on the Rhine would have been carried out with old-Prussian rods, here, where we freed ourselves of the rod forty years ago; the dirty proceedings consequent upon the crimes against morals, unknown to the Code, which would have been conjured up again by the depraved haemorrhoidal imagination of the knights of the Prussian Law; the most inexorable confusion of juridical concepts, and finally the innumerable political trials consequent upon the despotic and insidious regulations of that contemptible patchwork, in a word, the Prussianising of the entire Rhine Province; do the Rhenish renegades in Berlin really believe that we would forget all this on the account of one fallen head?
It is clear: Herr Hansemann, through his agent in the judicial branch, Herr Märker, wants to carry through that which was beyond Bodelschwingh. He really wants now to bring into force the thoroughly hated old-Prussian criminal Bill.
At the same time we learn that the jury system will only be introduced in Berlin, and even there only on an experimental basis.
Thus: not the introduction of Rhenish law to the old-Prussians but the introduction of old-Prussian law to the Rhinelanders is the great result, the tremendous "achievement" of the March revolution! Rien que ça.[3]
91. The Kölnische Zeitung on the Compulsory Loan
Cologne, August 3. Number 215 of the Kölnische Zeitung carries the following appeal to Rhenish patriotism:
"As we have just been reliably informed, up to today, about 210,000 talers in contributions to the voluntary loan, partly in cash and partly by subscription, have been received here in the city of Cologne. It is to be expected that persons who up to now have not contributed to this government loan will recognise and fulfil their duty as citizens within the next ten days, the more so since their own advantage is bound to counsel them to lend their money at 5 per cent interest before August 10 — rather than at 3 /$ per cent after that date. It is particularly necessary that the rural inhabitants, who up to now have not yet contributed to the loan in the right proportion, should not miss this deadline. Otherwise compulsion would have to be used where patriotism and correct insight are lacking."
A total of l[2]/3 per cent premium has been placed upon the patriotism of the taxpayers and yet "for a' that and a' that"[3]
patriotism persists in its latent condition! C'est inconcevable.[13] A difference of l[2]/3 per cent! Can patriotism resist this ringing argument of l[2]/(1) per cent?
It is our duty to explain this wonderful phenomenon to our beloved fellow newspaper.
By what means does the Prussian state want to pay not 5, but only 3V3 per cent? By new taxes. And if the usual taxes are not enough, as is to be expected, by a new compulsory loan. And by what means compulsory loan No. II? By compulsory loan No. III. And by what means compulsory loan No. III? By bankruptcy. Thus patriotism commands that the road which the Prussian Government has entered upon must be barricaded in every possible way, not by talers but by protests.
Prussia, moreover, is already enjoying an extra debt of 10 million talers for the Hunnish war in Posen. Thus a voluntary loan of fifteen million talers would only be a bill of indemnity for the intrigues of the secret cabinet in Potsdam[211] which, against the orders of the weak cabinet at Berlin, conducted this war in the interests of the Russians and the reaction. The junker counter-revolution condescends sufficiently to appeal to the purse of the townsmen and peasants who afterwards must pay for its heroic deeds. And the hard-hearted "rural inhabitants" resist such condescension? The "Government of Action", moreover, demands money for the constabulary business and you do not possess the "correct insight" into the blessings of the constabulary which has been brought from England to Prussia? The "Government of Action" wants to gag you and you refuse to give it the money for the gags? What a strange lack of insight!
The Government of Action needs money to make the particular interests of the Uckermark prevail against German unity. And the rural inhabitants of the administrative district of Cologne are deluded enough not to want to bear the costs for the defence of Uckermark-Pomeranian nationality in spite of the premium of l[2]/[3] per cent? What has become of patriotism?
Finally, our patriotic fellow newspaper which threatens "execution" forgets in its ardour that the compulsory loan has not yet been voted by the Agreement Assembly[3] and the ministerial Bills have the same force of law as editorials of the Kölnische Zeitung.
92. Proudhon's Speech against Thiers
Paris, August 3. The day before yesterday we were able to render Proudhon's speech only piecemeal.[212] We will now enter upon a thorough discussion of it.(1) M. Proudhon starts with the explanation that the February revolution was nothing but the emergence of socialism which attempted to assert itself in all the following events and phases of this revolution.
"You want to finish with socialism. Oh well, just watch. I will lend you a helping hand. The success of socialism does not by any means depend upon a single man; the present battle is by no means a battle between myself and M. Thiers, but between labour and privilege."
M. Proudhon demonstrates instead that M. Thiers has only attacked and slandered his private life.
"If we proceed on that level, I would suggest to M. Thiers: let us both go to confession! You confess your sins, and I will confess mine!"
The point at issue was the revolution. The financial committee regarded the revolution as a fortuitous event, as a surprise, whereas he, Proudhon, had taken it seriously. In the year 93 property had paid its debt to the republic by paying a third of taxes. The revolution of 48 must remain in a "proportional relationship". In the year 93 the foes had been despotism and foreign countries. In the year 48, pauperism was the foe. "What is this droit au travail", this right to work?
"If the demand for labour were greater than the supply there would be no need for any promises on the part of the state. This, however, is not the case. Consumption is very low. The stores are full of goods and the poor are naked! And yet which country has a greater propensity to consume than France? If instead of 10 million, we were given 100, i.e. 75 francs per head and per day, we certainly would know how to consume it." (Hilarity in the Chamber.)
The rate of interest is supposed to be the basic cause of the people's ruin. The creation of a national bank of two milliards which would lend its money without interest and grant the free use of the land and of houses would bring immense advantages. (Vigorous interruptions.)
"If we stick to this (laughter), if the fetishism of money were supplanted by the realism of gratification (renewed laughter), then there would exist the guarantee of labour. Let the duties on the instruments of labour be abolished and you are saved. Those who maintain the opposite, may they be called Girondists or Montagnards, are no socialists and no republicans (Oh! Oh!).... Either property will smash the republic or the republic will smash property." (Calls of: enough!)
M. Proudhon now becomes enmeshed in a lengthy discourse about the significance of interest and how the rate of interest could be reduced to zero. M. Proudhon stands on weak grounds as long as he maintains this economic point of view even though he creates an immense scandal in this bourgeois Chamber. But whenever, excited by just this scandal, he adopts the proletarian point of view, the Chamber seems to go into nervous convulsions.
"Gentlemen, my ideas are different from yours. I represent a different point of view from yours! The liquidation of the old society began on February 24 with the fight between the bourgeoisie and the working class. This liquidation will be accomplished either by violent or by peaceful means. All will depend upon the discernment of the bourgeoisie and its greater or lesser resistance."
M. Proudhon now proceeds to elaborate his idea of "the abolition of property". He does not intend to abolish property all at once but only gradually. It is for this reason that he had stated in his journal[3]
that rent of land was a voluntary gift of the earth which the state must gradually abolish.
"I have thus on the one hand explained the meaning of the February revolution to the bourgeoisie; I have given notice to property so that it may hold itself ready for liquidation and so that the property owners may be held responsible for their refusal."
A thunderous roar arises from several sides: responsible in what way?
"By that I mean if the property owners will not liquidate voluntarily, we will carry through this liquidation."
Several voices: Who are we? Other voices: Send him to the lunatic asylum at Charenton. (Tremendous excitement; a proper storm accompanied by thunder and the roaring of wind.)
"If I say we, I identify myself with the proletariat and you with the bourgeoisie."
M. Proudhon then enters upon the specification of his tax system and he becomes once again "scientific". This "science" which has always been Proudhon's weakness becomes his strength in this narrow-minded Chamber by giving him the boldness to combat with his pure, genuine "science" the defiled financial science of M. Thiers. M. Thiers has proved his practical financial discernment. During his administration, the state treasury decreased while his personal fortune increased.
When the Chamber paid little attention to Proudhon's further arguments, he declared bluntly that he would continue speaking for at least [3]/4 of an hour. When the majority of the Chamber was thereupon getting ready to leave he proceeded once again to direct attacks upon property.
"By the February revolution alone you have abolished property!"
One could almost say that terror kept the people glued to their seats every time that Proudhon said anything against property.
"By recognising in the Constitution the right to work, you have proclaimed the recognition of the abolition of property."
Larochejaquelein asks whether one has the right to steal. Other deputies do not want to let M. Proudhon continue.
"You cannot destroy the consequences of the faits accomplis" (accomplished facts). "If debtors and tenants are still paying, they are doing so of their own free will." (Tremendous uproar. The President calls the speaker to order: Everybody is obliged to pay his debts.)
"I am not saying that the liabilities have been repealed but those who are trying to defend them here are destroying the revolution....
"What are we, representatives? Nothing. Nothing at all. The power which gave us power lacked principle and basis. Our entire authority is force, despotism and the might of the stronger. (New eruption of the storm.) Universal suffrage is an accident and in order that it may gain significance, it must be preceded by organisation. We are not ruled by law or justice. We are ruled by force, necessity, providence.... April 16th, May 15th, June 23rd, 24th and 25th are facts, nothing more than facts, which are legitimised by history. We can do today whatever we want to. We are the stronger ones. Let us not speak therefore of rebels. Rebels are those who have no other right than that of superior might but will not recognise this right for others. I know that my motion will not be accepted. But you are in a position where you can only escape death by accepting my motion. It is a question of credits and labour. Confidence will never return, nay, it is impossible for it to return...." (Horrible!) "For all that you might say that you are trying to create a respectable, moderate republic, capital does not dare to show itself under a republic which has to hold demonstrations in favour of the workers. While capital is thus waiting for us so as to liquidate us, we are waiting for capital so as to liquidate it. February 24 has proclaimed the right to work. If you eliminate this right from the Constitution, you proclaim the right to insurrection.
"Place yourselves for ever under the protection of bayonets, prolong the state of siege for ever: capital will still be afraid and socialism will keep its eyes on it."
The readers of the Kölnische Zeitung know M. Proudhon of yore. M. Proudhon, who, according to the reasoning of the agenda, has attacked morality, religion, family and property, was not so long ago still the acclaimed hero of the Kölnische Zeitung. Proudhon's "so-called social-economic system" was thoroughly glorified in articles from correspondents in Paris, in feuilletons and in lengthy treatises. All social reforms were to proceed from Proudhon's determination of value. The story of how the Kölnische Zeitung made this dangerous acquaintance does not belong here. But how strange! The very newspaper which in those days looked upon Proudhon as a saviour, now cannot find enough invective to label him and his "lying party" as corrupters of society. Is M. Proudhon no longer M. Proudhon?
What we were attacking in M. Proudhon's theory was the "utopian science" by which he wanted to settle the antagonism between capital and labour, between proletariat and bourgeoisie.(2) We shall come back to this point. His whole system of banking and his entire exchange of products is nothing but a petty-bourgeois illusion. Now, when to realise this pale illusion he is compelled to speak as a democrat in the face of the whole bourgeois Chamber and is expressing this antagonism in harsh terms, the Chamber cries of offence against morality and property.
93. Dr. Gottschalk
Cologne, August 4. Dr. Gottschalk had his three first interrogations published in the Zeitung des Arbeiter-Vereines zu Köln. As a punishment, the warders he has had up to now have been removed and a new gaoler appointed in the person of warder Schröder.[3]
"The latter was not willing to take over his duties without an exact inventory," writes the local workers' paper, "and so Dr. Gottschalk and his cell were searched again, customs-style. Although nothing suspicious was found, a much closer watch than before is being kept on him."
Public proceedings in the Rhine Province are a sheer illusion as long as they are supplemented by "Spanish Inquisition proceedings" ,[213]
In order to appreciate Gottschalk's arrest, one should read the Gervinus Zeitung? The forceful intervention of the Public Prosecutor, it says, has restored confidence once more. On the other hand, the approaching festivities(1) are diverting the attention of the frivolous citizens of Cologne from all thought of politics. And these same citizens of Cologne, to whom the Government has handed over Gottschalk and the Cathedral festivities, these same ungrateful citizens, the Gervinus Zeitung exclaims, forget all these good deeds of the Prussian Government as soon as it stammers the first word about a compulsory loan!
"Die Beiden Verhöre des Herren Dr. Gottschalk" and "Der dritte Verhör des Dr. Gottschalk" (Zeitung des Arbeiter-Vereines zu Köln Nos. 16 and 18, July 20 and 27, 1848).—Ed.
The arrest of Gottschalk and Anneke, the press trials, and so on, have restored confidence. In the city, confidence is the basis of public credit. Therefore lend the Prussian Government money, a great deal of money, and it will lock up even more people, stage even more press trials, manufacture even more confidence. More arrests, more press trials, more reaction from the Government. But in honest exchange — mark this well — more money, more and more money from the citizens!
We advise the Prussian Government in its financial difficulties to take refuge in a measure tried and tested under Louis XIV and Louis XV. Let it sell Lettres de cachet! Lettres de cachet! Lettres de cachet![214] as a means of restoring confidence and filling up the Prussian treasury!
94. Debate about the Existing Redemption Legislation
Cologne, August 4. The Berlin Assembly from time to time unearthes all sorts of old-Prussian dirt and just now when the black-white knighthood becomes daily more insolent, such revelations come in very handy.
The session of July 21st dealt again with the feudal obligations. Following a deputy's motion, the central section proposed that the pending negotiations or court hearings on redemptions and the division of common property be suspended either by the authorities or on application by one of the interested parties.
Deputy Dierschke examined the mode of redemption existing up to now. He explained, to begin with, how the method of redemption itself already takes advantage of the peasant:
"Compensation for corvée" (compulsory labour),[3] "for instance, has been fixed in a very partial manner. It has not been taken into account that the wages for corvée, which in former centuries were stipulated at 1 or 2 silver groschen, corresponded to the then prevailing prices of natural produce and the conditions of the times, and that they represented, therefore, an appropriate equivalent for work done, so that neither the lords of the manor nor the serfs should have a preponderant advantage. A free labourer, however, must now be paid 5 to 6 instead of 2 silver groschen per day. If now one of the interested partners of a service relationship requests redemption he will have to pay, after first converting corvée days into substitute days, a differential amount of at least 3 silver groschen per day, which will amount to a yearly rent (based upon 50 days) of 4 to 5 talers. The poor peasant cannot afford such payments since he often possesses barely a quarter of a morgen of land and cannot find sufficient opportunity for work elsewhere."
Dierschke used the word Robotdienste (corvée). Engels has inserted Frondienste (compulsory labour) in brackets.— Ed.
An old German land measure, varying in different localities between 0.25 and 1.23 hectares.—Ed.
This passage of Herr Dierschke's speech leads to all sorts of observations about the famous enlightened legislation of 1807-11,[215]
none of which made it appear in a very favourable light.
First of all, it is evident from this that the compulsory labour services (especially those in Silesia of which Herr Dierschke is speaking) are certainly not a rent or fee which is paid in kind, they are not a compensation for the use of the land; despite Herr Patow and Herr Gierke they are nothing but an "outcome of seigniory and serfdom" and hence ought to be abolished without compensation according to the very own principles of these great statesmen.
Wherein consisted the obligation of the peasant? In placing himself at the disposal of the lord of the manor during certain days of the year or for certain specified duties. But certainly not gratuitously. He received a wage for this which originally completely equalled the daily wage of free labour. Thus the advantage of the landlord consisted not in the gratuitous or merely cheaper labour of the peasant but in the fact that he had labourers at his disposal for the usual wage whenever he needed them without being obliged to employ them when he did not need them. The advantage to the landlord did not consist in the monetary value of the service in kind but rather in its compulsory nature. It did not consist in the economic disadvantage but rather in the constraint of the peasant. And this obligation is not supposed to be an "outcome of seigniory and serfdom"!
If Patow, Gierke and Co. want to be consistent, there is no doubt that in accordance with their original character, these labour services must be abolished without compensation.
But what is the situation if we take their present nature into account?
For centuries the compulsory services remained the same and so did the wages for these services. But the price of food increased and so did the wages for free labour. The compulsory service, which at the beginning brought equal economic advantage to both parties and often even resulted in well-paid work during the peasant's idle days, gradually became, to use the language of Herr Gierke, an "actual charge on his land" and a direct monetary gain for the gracious landlord. To the certainty that he will always have a sufficient number of labourers at his disposal, he could now add a hefty cut which he made in the wages of these workers. By means of a consistent, century-old trickery the peasants were cheated of a steadily growing part of their wage so that they finally received only a third or a quarter of it. Let us assume that a farmstead is obliged to supply only one worker for only 50 days a year and that the daily wage has increased on the average by only 2 silver groschen for the past 300 years. Then the gracious landlord will have earned a full 1,000 talers off this one worker. The interest on 500 talers over 300 years at 5 per cent will be 7,500 talers. Altogether he will have made 8,500 talers off one worker, and that according to an estimate which does not take into account half the actual position!
What deduction can be made from all this? A rent ought to be paid not by the peasant to the gracious lord but by the gracious lord to the peasant, that is not by the farmstead to the manor, but by the manor to the farmstead.
The Prussian liberals of 1848, however, do not judge like this. On the contrary, the Prussian judicial conscience declares that it is not the nobleman who must indemnify the peasant but the peasant who must pay compensation to the nobleman for the difference between statute wages and free wages. It is exactly because the peasant has been cheated out of the wage difference for so long by his gracious lord that he has now to indemnify his gracious lord for the cheating. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.(1)
The difference in wages is therefore calculated and the annual amount is regarded as rent of land. It flows in this form into the pockets of the gracious lords. If the peasant wants to redeem it, it will be capitalised at 4 per cent (not even at 5 per cent) and this capital, which is 25 times the amount of the rent, will have to be paid off. It is obvious that the peasant is being dealt with in a thoroughly businesslike fashion. Our foregoing estimate of the aristocracy's profits was thus entirely justified.
The upshot is that peasants often have to pay from 4 to 5 talers rent for a quarter of a morgen of bad land whereas one morgen of good land free from corvée can be had for three talers rent per annum!
The redemption can also be achieved by surrendering a piece of land of the same value as the capital sum that is outstanding. Only the more prosperous peasants, of course, can do this. In that case, the lord of the manor gets a piece of land as premium for the skill and persistence with which he and his ancestors have defrauded the peasants.
That is the theory of redemption. It corroborates entirely what has taken place in all other countries where feudalism has gradually been abolished, in particular in England and Scotland: the transformation- of feudal into bourgeois property and of seigniory into capital means in every case a new crass defrauding of the bondsman to the advantage of the feudal lord. The bondsman must purchase his freedom every time and he must buy it dearly. The bourgeois state acts according to the principle: only death is gratuitous.
The theory of redemption, however, proves even more. As Deputy Dane observes, the inevitable result of these enormous demands upon the peasants is that they fall into the hands of usurers. Usury is the inevitable companion of a class of free small peasants as has been demonstrated in France, the Palatinate and the Rhine Province. The Prussian science of redemption managed to let the small peasantry of the old provinces partake of the joys of being squeezed by usurers even before they were freed. The Prussian Government, in general, has always had a knack for subjecting the oppressed classes to the pressure of feudal and of modern bourgeois conditions at the same time, thus making the yoke twice as heavy.
One has to add to this another matter, to which Deputy Dane also calls attention: the tremendous costs which mount in proportion to the negligence and inaptness of the commissioner who is paid by the term.
"The town of Lichtenau in Westphalia paid 17,000 talers for 12,000 morgen and this has not yet covered the costs (!!)."
Even more telling proof is provided by the practice of redemption. The land commissioners, continues Herr Dierschke, i.e. the officials who prepare the redemption,
"appear in three capacities. First, they appear as examining officials. In this capacity they interrogate the parties, determine the factual basis of the redemption and calculate the amount of compensation. They often carry out their task in a very one-sided manner and often do not take into account the existing legal conditions for in part they lack legal knowledge. Furthermore, they appear in part as experts and witnesses by themselves autonomically appraising the value of the redeemable objects. In the end they give their testimony which almost amounts to a decision since the general commission must as a rule rely on their opinions which are derived from local conditions.
"Finally there is the fact that the land commissioners do not enjoy the confidence of the rural population because they often put the parties at a disadvantage by letting them wait for hours while they eat with relish at the table of the landlord" (who is himself a party) "whereby they particularly arouse the mistrust of the parties against themselves. When after a waiting period of three hours, the threshing gardeners[216] Deputy Moritz defends the land commissioners. Herr Dierschke answers: I can state that there are very many among them who disregard the interests of the peasants. I myself have even called for the investigation of some of them and I can give proof of this if demanded.
Minister Gierke, of course, appears again as defender of the old-Prussian system and the institutions which have emerged from it. The land commissioners must, of course, also be praised again:
"I must leave it to the judgment of the Assembly, however, to decide whether it is just to use this rostrum to make accusations which lack all proof and are entirely unsubstantiated] "
And Herr Dierschke is offering proofs! Since, however, his Excellency Gierke seems to be of the opinion that notorious facts can be knocked down by ministerial assertions, we shall shortly submit a few "proofs" which will show that Herr Dierschke, far from exaggerating, has not by a long way condemned . the conduct of the land commissioners sufficiently strongly.
So much for the debate. The amendments submitted were so numerous that the report accompanied by them had to be referred back to the central section. Thus the definitive decision of the Assembly has yet to be made.
Among these amendments, there is one by Herr Moritz which calls attention to a further edifying measure of the old Government. He proposes the cessation of all negotiations concerning mill dues.
For when in the year 1810 it was decided to abolish the feudal prerogatives and banalities,[217] a commission was appointed simultaneously to compensate the millers for the fact that they were now exposed to free competition. This was already a paradoxical decision. Were the guild masters compensated for the abolition of their privileges? But there are special circumstances in this case. The mills paid extraordinary dues for the enjoyment of feudal prerogatives and banalities. Instead of simply abolishing these, they were given a compensation and the dues were continued. The form is paradoxical but there remains at least a semblance of justice in this case.
It so happens, however, that in the provinces added since 1815, the mill dues have been kept, the feudal prerogatives and banalities have been abolished and yet no compensation has been given. This is old-Prussian equality before the law. The industrial law, to be sure, abolishes all business taxes but under the trade regulations of 1845 and the law on compensation all mill dues are in case of doubt to be regarded not as business taxes but as land taxes. Innumerable law cases have resulted from this jumble and these violations of the law. The law-courts have contradicted each other in their sentences and even the Supreme Court has pronounced the most contradictory judgments. Just what was formerly regarded by the ex-legislative power as "land tax" emerges from a case cited by Herr Moritz: a mill in Saxony to which belongs, except for the mill buildings, only the water power but not the land, is burdened with a "land tax" of four wispels* of grain!
Indeed, say what you like, Prussia has always been the most wisely, most justly and best administered state!
Written by Engels on August 4, 1848
Prior to 1872 a grain measure in Germany; in Prussia it was equal to 1,319 litres (approximately 36 bushels).— Ed.
95. The " Model State" of Belgium :
Cologne, August 6. Let us once again cast a glance upon Belgium, our constitutional "model state", the monarchical El Dorado with the broadest democratic basis, the university of the Berlin statesmen and the pride of the Kölnische Zeitung.
Let us look, to begin with, at the economic conditions of which the much-praised political constitution only forms the gilded frame.
The Belgian Moniteur—Belgium has her Moniteur—carries the following piece of news about Leopold's greatest vassal: pauperism.*
In the province of Luxembourg 1 inhabitant out of 69 receives support " " Namur 1 " " " 1 7 " Antwerp 1 " " " 1 6 Liege 1 " " " 7 " " Limburg 1 " " " 7 " " " " Hainaut 1 " " " 6 " " " " Eastern Flanders 1 " " " 5 Brabant 1 " " " 4 Western Flanders 1 " " " 3 This growth of pauperism will necessarily be followed by a further increase in pauperism. All individuals who maintain an independent existence lose their civil equilibrium as a result of the assistance tax with which these poor fellow citizens burden them and they too plunge into the abyss of public charity. Pauperism creates pauperism at an increasing rate. To the same extent, however, that pauperism increases, crime increases and the life source of the nation itself, the youth, is demoralised.
The years 1845, 1846 and 1847 offer sad documents on that score .a
The number of young boys and girls under 18 years of age who were in judicial confinement:
1845 1846 1847 Boys 2,146 4,607 7,283 Girls 429 1,279 2,069
Sum: 2,575 5,886 9,352
Sum total: 17,813
Thus starting with 1845 there is an approximately annual doubling of the number of juvenile delinquents under 18 years of age. According to this ratio, Belgium would have 74,816 juvenile delinquents in the year 1850 and 2,393,312 in the year 1855, i.e. more than the number of young people under 18 years of age she has and more than half her population. By 1856 all Belgium would be in gaol, the unborn children included. Could the monarchy hope for a broader democratic basis? Equality prevails in gaol.
Both types of Morison pill have been tried in vain on the national economy: on the one hand free trade and on the other hand protective tariffs. Pauperism in Flanders was born under the system of free trade, it grew and became stronger under the protective tariffs against foreign linen goods and linen yarn.
Thus while pauperism and crime grow among the proletariat, the bourgeoisie's sources of income are drying up as the recently published comparative tabulation of the Belgian foreign trade during the first six months of the years 1846, 1847 and 1848 proves.
With the exception of arms and nail factories, which have been exceptionally favoured by circumstances, the cloth factories which maintain their ancient renown and the zinc production which compared to overall production is insignificant, the whole of Belgian industry is in a condition of decay or stagnation.
With a few exceptions, there is a considerable decrease in the export of the products of the Belgian mines and metalworks.
We quote a few examples[3]:
First six months First six months 1847 1848 Coal (in metric tons) 869,000 549,000 Pig iron 56,000 35,000 Cast iron wares 463 172 Iron, rails 3,489 13 Wrought iron wares.... 556 434 Nails 3,210 3,618
Total: 932,718 588,237
Thus the total decrease of these three types of articles for the first six months of 1848 amounts to 344,481 tons which is somewhat more than Vs-
We come to the linen industry.
First six months First six months First six months 1846 1847 1848 Linen yarn [in kilograms] . . . . 1,017,000 623,000 306,000 Linen fabric . . . 1,483,000 1,230,000 681,000
Total: 2,500,000 1,853,000 987,000
The decrease of the first six months of 1847 compared with those of 1846 amounted to 657,000 kilograms, the decrease in 1848 compared with that in 1846 amounts to 1,613,000 kilograms or 64 per cent.
The export of books, crystal ware and window glass has decreased enormously. So has the export of raw and dressed flax, tow, tree bark and manufactured tobacco.
The spreading pauperism, the unprecedented hold that crime has over young people, and the systematic deterioration of Belgian industry form the material basis of the following constitutional gaieties: The pro-government journal Indépendance numbers over 4,000 subscribers as it never grows tired of proclaiming. The aged Mellinet, the only general who saved Belgian honour, is confined to quarters and in a few days will appear before the Assizes in Antwerp.b The lawyer Rolin from Ghent, who conspires against Leopold in the interest of the Orange family and conspires against his later allies, the Belgian liberals, in the interest of Leopold of Coburg, this Rolin, the double apostate, has obtained the portfolio of Public Works. The ex-pedlar Cha-a-azal, Fransquillon* Baron and Minister of War, swings his large sabre and saves the European equilibrium. The Observateur has augmented the programme of the September Day Celebrations[218] by a new amusement: a procession, an Ommeganck General, in honour of the Doudou of Mons, the Houplala of Antwerp and the Mannequin Pisse of Brussels. The Observateur, the journal of the great Verhaegen, is perfectly in earnest. Finally, what compensates for Belgium's suffering is the fact that it has risen to become the university of Berlin's Montesquieus — of a Stupp, a Grimm, a Hansemann and a Baumstark — and that it enjoys the admiration of the Kölnische Zeitung. Oh happy Belgium!
Written by Marx on August 6, 1848
96. The Frankfurt Assembly Debates the Polish Question[219]
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 70, August 9, 1848]
Cologne, August 7. The Frankfurt Assembly, whose debates even during the most excited moments were conducted in a truly German spirit of geniality, at last pulled itself together when the Posen question came up. On this question, the ground for which had been prepared by Prussian shrapnel and the docile resolutions of the Federal Diet, the Assembly had to pass a clear-cut resolution. No middle course was possible; it had either to save Germany's honour or to blot it once again. The Assembly acted as we had expected; it sanctioned the seven partitions of Poland, and shifted the disgrace of 1772, 1794 and 1815 from the shoulders of the German princes toits own shoulders.[220]
The Frankfurt Assembly, moreover, declared that the seven partitions of Poland were benefactions wasted on the Poles. Had not the forcible intrusion of the Jewish-German race lifted Poland to a level of culture and a stage of science which that country had previously never dreamed of? Deluded, ungrateful Poles! If your country had not been partitioned you would have had to ask this favour yourselves of the Frankfurt Assembly.
Pastor Bonavita Blank of the Paradise monastery near Schaff-hausen trained magpies and starlings to fly in and out. He had cut away the lower part of their bill so that they were unable to get their own food and could only receive it from his hands. The philistines who from a distance saw the birds alight on the Reverend's shoulders and seem to be friendly with him, admired his great culture and learning. His biographer says that the birds loved their benefactor* Yet the fettered, maimed, branded Poles refuse to love their Prussian benefactors!
We could not give a better description of the benefactions which Prussia bestowed on the Poles than that provided by the report which the learned historiographer Herr Stenzel submitted on behalf of the Committee for International Law, a report which forms the basis of the debate.
The report, entirely in the style of the conventional diplomatic documents, first recounts how the Grand Duchy of Posen was set up in 1815 by "incorporation" and "merging". Then follow the promises which at the same time Frederick William III made to the inhabitants of Posen, i.e. the safeguarding of their nationality, language and religion, the appointment of a native governor, and participation in the famous Prussian Constitution.[22]
The extent to which these promises were kept is well known. The freedom of communication between the three fragments of Poland, to which the Congress of Vienna could the more easily agree the less feasible it was, was of course never put into effect.
The make-up of the population is then examined. Herr Stenzel calculates that 790,000 Poles, 420,000 Germans and about 80,000 Jews lived in the Grand Duchy in 1843, making a total of almost 1,300,000.
Herr Stenzel's statement is challenged by the Poles, notably by Archbishop Przyluski,(1) according to whom there are considerably more than 800,000 Poles, and, if one deducts the Jews, officials and soldiers, hardly 250,000 Germans, living in Posen.
Let us, however, accept Herr Stenzel's figures. For our purposes it is quite sufficient. To avoid all further discussion, let us concede that there are 420,000 Germans living in Posen. Who are these Germans, who by the inclusion of the Jews have been brought up to half a million?
The Slavs are a predominantly agricultural people with little aptitude for urban trades in the form in which up to now they were feasible in the Slav countries. The first crude stage of commerce, when it was still mere hawking, was left to Jewish pedlars. With the growth of culture and population the need for urban trades and urban concentration made itself felt, and Germans moved into the Slav countries. The Germans, who after all had their heyday in the philistinism [Kleinbürgerei] of the imperial cities of the Middle Ages, in the sluggish inland trade conducted in caravan style, in a restricted maritime trade, and in the handicraft workshops of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries organised on guild lines — the Germans demonstrated their vocation as the philistines of world history by the very fact that they still to this day form the core of the petty bourgeoisie throughout Eastern and Northern Europe and even in America. Many, often most of the craftsmen, shopkeepers and small middlemen in Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw and Cracow, in Stockholm and Copenhagen, in Pest, Odessa and Jassy, in New York and Philadelphia are Germans or of German extraction. All these cities have districts where only German is spoken, and some of them, for example Pest, are almost entirely German.
This German immigration, particularly into the Slav countries, went on almost uninterruptedly since the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Moreover, from time to time since the Reformation, as a result of the persecution of various sects large groups of Germans were forced to migrate to Poland, where they received a friendly welcome. In other Slav countries, such as Bohemia and Moravia, the Slav population was decimated by German wars of conquest, whereas the German population increased as a result of invasion.
The position is clearest in Poland. The German philistines living there for centuries never regarded themselves as politically belonging to Germany any more than did the Germans in North America; just as the "French colony" in Berlin and the 15,000 Frenchmen in Montevideo do not regard themselves as belonging to France. As far as that was possible during the days of decentralisation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, they became Poles, German-speaking Poles, who had long since renounced all ties with the mother country.
But the Germans brought to Poland culture, education and science, commerce and trades.—True, they brought retail trade and guild crafts; by their consumption and the limited intercourse which they established they stimulated production to some extent. Up to 1772 Poland as a whole was not particularly well known for her high standard of education and science, and the same applies to Austrian and Russian Poland since then; of the Prussian part we shall speak later. On the other hand, the Germans in Poland prevented the formation of Polish towns with a Polish bourgeoisie. By their distinct language, their separateness from the Polish population, their numerous different privileges and urban judicial systems, they impeded centralisation, that most potent of political means by which a country achieves rapid development. Almost every town had its own law; indeed towns with a mixed population had, and often still have, different laws for Germans, Poles and Jews. The German Poles remained at the lowest stage of industrial development; they did not accumulate large capitals; they were neither able to establish large-scale industry nor control any extensive system of commerce. The Englishman Cockerill had to come to Warsaw for industry to strike root in Poland. The entire activity of the German Poles was restricted to retail trade, the handicrafts and at most the corn trade and manufacture (weaving etc.) on the smallest scale. In considering the merits of the German Poles it should not be forgotten also that they imported German philistinism and German petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness into Poland, and that they combined the worst qualities of both nations without acquiring their good ones.
Herr Stenzel seeks to enlist the sympathy of the Germans for the German Poles:
"When the kings ... especially in the seventeenth century, became increasingly powerless and were no longer able to protect the native Polish peasants against the severest oppression by the nobles, the German villages and towns, too, declined, and many of them became the property of the nobility. Only the larger royal cities kept some of their old liberties" (read: privileges).
Does Herr Stenzel perhaps demand that the Poles should have protected the "Germans" (i.e. German Poles, who are moreover also "natives") better than themselves? Surely it is obvious that foreigners who immigrate into any country must expect to share the good and bad with the indigenous inhabitants.
Let us pass now to the blessings for which the Poles are indebted to the Prussian Government in particular.
Frederick II seized the Netze district[3] in 1772, and in the following year the Bromberg canal was built, which made inland navigation between the Oder and Weichselb possible.
"The region, which for centuries was an object of dispute between Poland and Pomerania, and which was largely desolate as a result of countless devastations and because of vast swamps, was now brought under cultivation and populated by numerous colonists."
Thus, the first partition of Poland was no robbery. Frederick II merely seized an area which "for centuries was an object of dispute". But since when has there no longer existed an independent Pomerania which could have disputed this region? For how many centuries were in fact the rights of Poland to this region no longer challenged? And in general, what meaning has this rusted and rotten
After the name of the River Netze (the Polish name is Notée).— Ed. The Polish name is Vistula.—Ed.
theory of "disputes" and "claims", which, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, served the purpose of covering up the naked commercial interests and the policy of rounding off one's lands? What meaning can it have in 1848 when the bottom has been knocked out of all "historical justice" and "injustice"?
Incidentally, Herr Stenzel ought to bear in mind that according to this junk-heap doctrine the Rhine borders between France and Germany have been "an object of dispute for millennia", and that Poland could assert her claims to suzerainty over the province of Prussia and even over Pomerania.
In short, the Netze district became part of Prussia and hence ceased to be "an object of dispute". Frederick II had it colonised by Germans, and so the "Netze brethren", who received such praise in connection with the Posen affair, came into being. The state-promoted Germanisation began in 1773.
"According to all reliable information, all the Jews in the Grand Duchy are Germans and want to be Germans.... The religious toleration which used to prevail in Poland and the possession of certain qualities which were lacking in the Poles, enabled the Jews in the course of centuries to develop activities which penetrated deep into Polish life" (namely into Polish purses). "As a rule they have a thorough command of both languages, although they, and their children from the earliest years, speak German at home."
The unexpected sympathy and recognition which Polish Jews have lately received in Germany has found official expression in this passage. Maligned wherever the influence of the Leipzig fair extends as the very incarnation of haggling, avarice and sordidness, they have suddenly become German brethren; with tears of joy the honest German presses them to his bosom, and Herr Stenzel lays claim to them on behalf of the German nation as Germans who want to remain Germans.
Indeed, why should not Polish Jews be genuine Germans? Do not "they, and their children from the earliest years, speak German at home"? And what German at that!
Incidentally, we would point out to Herr Stenzel that he might just as well lay claim to the whole of Europe, one half of America, and even part of Asia. German, as everyone knows, is the universal language of the Jews. In New York and Constantinople, in St. Petersburg and Paris "the Jews, and their children from the earliest years, speak German at home", and some of them even a more classical German than the Posen Jews, the "kindred" allies of the
"Netze brethren."
The report goes on to present the national relations in terms that are as vague as possible and as favourable as possible to the alleged half a million Germans consisting of German Poles, "Netze brethren", and Jews. It says that German peasants own more land than the Polish peasants (we shall see how this has come to pass), and that since the first partition of Poland enmity between Poles and Germans, especially Prussians, reached its highest degree.
"By the introduction of its exceptionally rigidly regulated political and administrative orders" (what excellent style!) "and their strict enforcement, Prussia in particular seriously disturbed the old customs and traditional institutions of the Poles."
Not only the Poles but also the other Prussians, and especially we from the Rhine, can tell a tale about the "rigidly regulated" and "strictly enforced" measures of the worthy Prussian bureaucracy, measures which "disturbed" not only the old customs and traditional institutions, but also the entire social life, industrial and agricultural production, commerce, mining, in short all social relations without exception. It is, however, not to the bureaucracy of 1807-48 that Herr Stenzel refers here but to that of 1772-1806, to the officials of the most genuine, dyed-in-the-wool Prussianism, whose baseness, corruptibility, cupidity and brutality were clearly evident in the treacherous acts of 1806.[222] These officials are supposed to have protected the Polish peasants against the nobles and received in return nothing but ingratitude; of course the officials ought to have understood "that nothing, not even the good things granted or imposed, can compensate for the loss of national sovereignty".
We too know the way in which quite recently the Prussian officials used "to grant or impose everything". What Rhinelander, who had dealings with recently imported old-Prussian officials, did not have an opportunity to admire their inimitable, impertinent obtrusive-ness, their impudent meddlesomeness, their overriding insolence and combination of narrow-mindedness and infallibility. True, among us, in most cases, these old-Prussian gentry soon lost some of their roughness for they had at their disposal no "Netze brethren", no secret inquisition, no Prussian law and no floggings which last deficiency even brought some of them to an early grave. We do not have to be told what havoc they wrought in Poland, where they could indulge in floggings and secret inquisitions to their heart's content.
In short, the arbitrary Prussian rule won such popularity that "already after the battle of Jena, the hatred of the Poles found vent in a general uprising and the ejection of the Prussian officials". This, for the time being, put an end to the bureaucratic rule.
But in 1815 it returned in a somewhat modified form. The "best", "reformed", "educated", "incorruptible" officialdom tried its hand at dealing with these refractory Poles.
"The founding of the Grand Duchy of Posen, too, was not conducive to the establishment of cordial relations, since ... at that time the King of Prussia could not possibly agree to have any single province set up as an entirely independent unit, thus turning his state, as it were, into a federal state."
Thus according to Herr Stenzel, the King of Prussia could "not possibly agree" to keep his own promises and the treaties of Vienna![223]
"When, in 1830, the sympathies which the Polish nobility showed for the Warsaw uprising caused anxiety, and after systematic efforts were subsequently made by means of various arrangements (!)—notably by buying up the Polish landed estates, dividing them and handing them over to the Germans — gradually to eliminate the Polish nobility altogether, the latter's resentment against Prussia increased."
"By means of various arrangements"! By prohibiting Poles from buying land brought under the hammer, and similar measures, which Herr Stenzel covers with the cloak of charity.
What would Rhinelanders say if among us, too, the Prussian Government were to prohibit Rhinelanders from buying land put up for sale by order of the court. Sufficient pretexts could easily be found, namely: in order to amalgamate the population of the old and new provinces; in order that the natives of the old provinces could share in the blessings of parcellation and of the Rhenish laws; in order that Rhinelanders be induced to emigrate to the old provinces and implant their industries there as well, and so on. There are enough reasons to bestow Prussian "colonists" on us too. How would we look upon people who bought our land for next to nothing while competition was excluded, and who did it moreover with the support of the Government; people who were thrust upon us for the express purpose of accustoming us to the intoxicating motto "With God for King and Fatherland"a?
After all we are Germans, we speak the same language as the people in the old provinces. Yet in Posen those colonists were sent methodically, with relentless persistence, to the domains, the forests and the divided estates of the Polish nobility in order to oust the native Poles and their language from their own country and to set up a truly Prussian province, which would surpass even Pomerania in black-and-white fanaticism.
In order that the Prussian peasants in Poland should not be left without their natural masters, they were sent the flower of Prussian knighthood, men like Tresckow and Liittichau, who also bought landed estates for next to nothing, and with the aid of government
These words are taken from the decree on the establishment of an army reserve issued by Frederick William III on March 17, 1813.— Ed.
loans. In fact, after the Polish uprising of 1846, a joint-stock company was formed in Berlin, which enjoyed the gracious protection of the highest personages in the land, and whose purpose was to buy up Polish estates for German knights. The poor starvelings from among the Brandenburg and Pomeranian aristocracy foresaw that trials instituted against the Poles would ruin numerous big Polish landowners, whose estates would shortly be sold off dirt-cheap. This was a real godsend for many a debt-ridden Don Ranudo from the Uckermark. A fine estate for next to nothing, Polish peasants who could be thrashed, and what is more, a good service rendered to King and Fatherland — what brilliant prospects! Thus arose the third German immigration into Poland, Prussian peasants and Prussian noblemen settled throughout Posen with the declared intention, supported by the Government, not of Germanis-ing, but of Pomeranising Posen. The German Poles had the excuse of having contributed in some measure to the promotion of commerce, the "Netze brethren" could boast that they had reclaimed a few bogs, but this last Prussian invasion had no excuse whatever. Even parcellation was not consistently carried through, the Prussian aristocrats following hard on the heels of the Prussian peasants.
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 73, August 12, 1848]
Cologne, August 11. In the first article we have examined the "historical foundation" of Stenzel's report insofar as he deals with the situation in Posen before the revolution. Today we proceed to
Herr Stenzel's history of the revolution and counter-revolution in Posen.
"The German people, who at all times is filled with compassion for all the unfortunate" (so long as this compassion costs nothing), "always deeply felt how greatly its princes wronged the Poles."
Indeed, "deeply felt" within the calm German heart, where the feelings are so "deeply" embedded that they never manifest themselves in action. Indeed, there was "compassion", expressed by a few alms in 1831 and by dinners and balls in aid of the Poles, so long as it was a matter of dancing and drinking champagne for the benefit of the Poles, and of singing "Poland is not yet lost!"a But when were the Germans prone to do something really decisive, to make a real sacrifice!
The words are from the Polish national anthem.— Ed.
"The Germans honestly and fraternally proffered their hand to expiate the wrongs their princes had perpetrated."
Indeed, if it were possible to "expiate" anything with sentimental phrases and dull tub-thumping, then the Germans would emerge as. the purest people in the annals of history.
"Just at the moment, however, when the Poles shook hands" (that is, took the fraternally proffered hand) "the interests and aims of the two nations already diverged. The Poles' only thought was for the restoration of their old state at least within the boundaries that existed before the first partition of 1772."
Surely, only the unreasoning, confused, haphazard enthusiasm, which from time immemorial has been a principal adornment of the German national character, could have caused the Germans to be surprised by the Polish demands. The Germans wanted to "expiate" the injustice the Poles had suffered. What started this injustice? To say nothing of earlier treacheries, it certainly started with the first partition of Poland in 1772. How could this be "expiated"? Of course, only by restoration of the status quo existing before 1772, or at least by the Germans returning to the Poles what they had robbed them of since 1772. But this was against the interests of the Germans? Well, if we speak of interests, then it can no longer be a question of sentimentalities like "expiation" etc.; here the language of cold, unfeeling practice should be used, and we should be spared rhetorical flourishes and expressions of magnanimity.
Moreover, firstly, the Poles did not at all "only think" of the restoration of the Poland of 1772. In any case what the Poles did "think" is hardly our concern. For the time being they demanded only the reorganisation of the whole of Posen and mentioned other eventualities only in case of a German-Polish war against Russia.
Secondly, "the interests and aims of the two nations diverged" only insofar as the "interests and aims" of revolutionary Germany in the field of international relations remained exactly the same as those of the old, absolutist Germany. If Germany's "interest and aim" is an alliance with Russia, or at least peace with Russia at any price, then of course everything in Poland must remain as it was hitherto. We shall see later, however, to what extent the real interests of Germany are identical with those of Poland.
Then follows a lengthy, confused and muddled passage, in which Herr Stenzel expatiates on the fact that the German Poles were right when they wanted to do justice to Poland, but at the same time to remain Prussians and Germans. Of course it is of no concern to Herr Stenzel that the "when" excludes the "but" and the "but" the "when".
Next comes an equally lengthy and confused historical account, in which Herr Stenzel goes into detail in an attempt to prove that, owing to the "diverging interests and aims of the two nations" and the ensuing mutual enmity which was steadily growing, a bloody clash was unavoidable. The Germans adhered to the "national" interests, the Poles merely to the "territorial" interests. In other words, the Germans demanded that the Grand Duchy should be divided according to nationalities, the Poles wanted the whole of their old territory.
This is again not true. The Poles asked for reorganisation but at the same time stated that they were quite willing to relinquish the frontier districts with a mixed population where the majority are Germans and want to join Germany. The inhabitants, however, should not be declared German or Polish by the Prussian officials at will, but according to their own wishes.
Herr Stenzel goes on to assert that Willisen's mission was of course bound to fail because of the (alleged, but nowhere existing) resistance of the Poles to the cession of the predominantly German districts. Herr Stenzel was able to examine the statements of Willisen about the Poles and those of the Poles about Willisen. These published statements prove the opposite. But this happens if "one is a man who", as Herr Stenzel says, "has studied history for many years and deems it his duty never to utter an untruth and never to conceal what is true".
With the same truthfulness which never conceals what is true, Herr Stenzel easily passes over the cannibalism perpetrated in Posen, the base and perfidious violation of the Convention of Jaroslawiec,[225] the massacres of Trzemeszno, Miloslaw and Wreschen,[3] the destructive fury of a brutal soldiery worthy of the Thirty Years' War,[226] and does not say a word about it.
Now Herr Stenzel comes to the four partitions of Poland recently effected by the Prussian Government. First the Netze district and four other districts were torn away (April 14); to this were added certain parts of other districts. This territory with a total population of 593,390 was incorporated in the German Confederation on April 22. Then the city and fortress of Posen together with the remainder of the left bank of the Warta were also included, making an additional 273,500 persons and bringing the combined population of these lands to double the number of Germans living in the whole of Posen even according to Prussian estimates. This was effected by an Order in Council on April 26,b and already on May 2 they were
The Polish name is Wrzesnia.— Ed. The Neue Rheinische Zeitung has "April 29", evidently a misprint.— Ed.
admitted to the German Confederation. Now Herr Stenzel pleads with the Assembly that it is absolutely essential for Posen to remain in German hands, that Posen is an important, powerful fortress, with a population of over 20,000 Germans (most of them Polish Jews) who own two-thirds of all the landed property etc. That Posen is situated in the midst of a purely Polish territory, that it was forcibly Germanised, and that Polish Jews are not Germans, does not make the slightest difference to men who "never utter an untruth and never suppress what is true", to historians of Herr Stenzel's calibre.
In short, Posen, for military reasons, should not be relinquished. As though it were not possible to raze the fortress, which, according to Willisen, is one of the greatest strategic blunders, and to fortify Breslau(2) instead. But ten million (incidentally this is again not true — barely five million) have beert invested, and it is of course more advantageous to retain this precious work of art and 20 to 30 square miles of Polish land into the bargain.
With the "city and fortress" of Posen in one's hands, it will be all the easier to seize still more.
"But to keep the fortress it will be necessary to secure its approaches from Glogau, Küstrin and Thorn as well as a fortified area facing the east" (it need be only 1,000 to 2,000 paces wide, like that of Maestricht facing Belgium and Limburg). "This," continues Herr Stenzel with a smile of satisfaction, "will at the same time ensure undisturbed possession of the Bromberg canal; but numerous areas with a predominantly Polish population will have to be incorporated into the German Confederation."
It was for all these reasons that lunar caustic Pfuel, the well-known philanthropist, carried through two new partitions of Poland, thus meeting all the desires of Herr Stenzel and incorporating three-fourths of the Grand Duchy into Germany. Herr Stenzel is the more grateful for this procedure, since the revival of Louis XIV's chambers of reunion[227] with augmented powers must evidently have demonstrated to this historian that the Germans have learned to apply the lessons of history.
According to Herr Stenzel, the Poles ought to find consolation in the fact that their share of the land is more fertile than the incorporated territory, that there is considerably less landed property in their part than in that of the Germans and that "no unbiassed person will deny that the lot of the Polish peasant under a German Government will be far more tolerable than that of the German peasant under a Polish Government"! History provides some curious examples of this.
Finally, Herr Stenzel tells the Poles that even the small part left to them will enable them, by practising all the civic virtues,
"to befittingly prepare themselves for the moment, which at present is still shrouded in the mists of the future, and which, quite pardonably, they are trying — perhaps too impatiently — to precipitate. One of their most judicious fellow citizens exclaimed, very pertinently. 'There is a crown which is also worthy of your ambition, it is the civic crownV A German would perhaps add: It does not shine, but it is solid!"
"It is solid!" But even more "solid" are the real reasons for the last four partitions of Poland by the Prussian Government.
You worthy German — do you believe that the partitions were undertaken in order to deliver your German brothers from Polish rule; to ensure that the fortress of Posen serves as a bulwark protecting you from any attack; to safeguard the roads of Küstrin, Glogau and Bromberg,a and the Netze canal? What a delusion!
You have been shamefully deceived. The sole reason for the recent partitions of Poland was to replenish the Prussian treasury.
The earlier partitions of Poland b up to 1815 were annexations of territory by force of arms; the partitions of 1848 are robbery.
And now, worthy German, see how you have been deceived! After the third partition of Poland the estates of the Polish starosten0 and those of the Catholic clergy were confiscated by Frederick William II in favour of the state. As the Declaration of Appropriation issued on Julyd 28, 1796, says, the estates of the church in particular constituted "a very considerable part of landed property as a whole". The new domains were either managed on the King's account or leased, and they were so extensive that 34 crown-land offices and 21 forestry divisions had to be set up for their administration. Each of these crown-land offices was responsible for a large number of villages; for example, altogether 636 villages came under the ten offices of the Bromberg district, and 127 were administered by the Mogilno crown-land office.
In 1796, moreover, Frederick William II confiscated the estates and woodlands of the convent at Owinsk and sold them to the merchant von Tresckow (forefather of the brave Prussian troop leader in the last heroic ware). These estates comprised 24 villages with flour mills and 20,000 morgen[3] of forest land, worth at least 1,000,000 talers.
Furthermore, the crown-land offices of Krotoschin, Rozdrazewo, Orpiszewo and Adelnau,(3) worth at least two million talers, were in 1819 made over to the Prince of Thurn und Taxis to compensate him for the post-office privileges in several provinces which had become part of Prussia.
Frederick William II took over all these estates on the pretext that he could administer them better. Nevertheless, these estates, the property of the Polish nation, were given away, ceded or sold, and the proceeds flowed into the Prussian treasury.
The crown lands in Gnesen, Skorzencin and Trzemeszno were broken up and sold.
Thus 27 crown-land offices and forestry divisions, to a value of twenty million talers at the very least, still remain in the hands of the Prussian Government. We are prepared to prove, map in hand, that all these domains and forests — with very few exceptions, if any at all — are located in the incorporated part of Posen. To prevent this rich treasure from reverting to the Polish nation it had to be absorbed into the German Confederation, and since it could not go to the German Confederation, the German Confederation had to come to it, and three-fourths of Posen were incorporated.
That is the true reason for the four famous partitions of Poland within two months. Neither the protests of this or that nationality nor alleged strategic reasons were decisive — the frontier was determined solely by the position of the domains, and the rapacity of the Prussian Government.
While German citizens were shedding bitter tears over the invented sufferings of their poor brothers in Posen, while they were waxing enthusiastic about the safety of the Eastern Marches of Germany, and while they allowed themselves to be infuriated against the Poles by false reports about Polish barbarities, the Prussian Government acted on the quiet, and feathered its nest. This German enthusiasm without rhyme or reason merely served to disguise the dirtiest deed in modern history.
That, worthy German, is how you are treated by your responsible Ministers!
Actually however you ought to have known this beforehand. Whenever Herr Hansemann has a hand in something, it is never a matter of German nationality, military necessity or suchlike empty phrases, but always a matter of cash payment and of net profit.
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 81, August 20, 1848]
Cologne, August 19. We have examined in detail Herr Stenzel's report, which forms the basis of the debate. We have shown that he falsifies both the earlier and the more recent history of Poland and of the Germans in Poland, that he confuses the whole issue, and that Stenzel the historian is not only guilty of deliberate falsification but also of gross ignorance.
Before dealing with the debate itself we must take another look at the Polish question.
The problem of Posen taken by itself is quite meaningless and insoluble. It is a fragment of the Polish problem and can only be solved in connection with and as a part of it. Only when Poland exists again will it be possible to determine the borders between Germany and Poland.
But can and will Poland exist again? This was denied during the debate.
A French historian has said: Il y a des peuples nécessaires—there are necessary nations. The Polish nation is undoubtedly one of the necessary nations of the nineteenth century.
But for no one is Poland's national existence more necessary than for us Germans.
What is the main support of the reactionary forces in Europe since 1815, and to some extent even since the first French revolution? It is the Russian-Prussian-Austrian Holy Alliance. And what holds the Holy Alliance together? The partition of Poland, from which all the three allies have profited.
The tearing asunder of Poland by the three powers is the tie which links them together; the robbery they jointly committed makes them support one another.
From the moment the first robbery of Polish territory was committed Germany became dependent on Russia. Russia ordered Prussia and Austria to remain absolute monarchies, and Prussia and Austria had to obey. The efforts to gain control — efforts which were in any case feeble and timid, especially on the part of the Prussian bourgeoisie — failed entirely because of the impossibility of breaking away from Russia, and because of the support which Russia offered the feudalist-absolutist class in Prussia.
Moreover, as soon as the allies attempted to introduce the first oppressive measures the Poles not only rose to fight for their independence, but simultaneously came out in revolutionary action against their own internal social conditions.
The partition of Poland was effected through a pact between the big feudal aristocracy of Poland and the three partitioning powers. It was not an advance, as the ex-poet Herr Jordan maintains, it was the last means the big aristocracy had to protect itself against a revolution, it was thoroughly reactionary.
Already the first partition led quite naturally to an alliance of the other classes, i.e. the nobles, the townspeople and to some extent the peasants, both against the oppressors of Poland and against the big Polish aristocracy. The Constitution of 1791[228] shows that already then the Poles clearly understood that their independence in foreign affairs was inseparable from the overthrow of the aristocracy and from the agrarian reform within the country.
The big agrarian countries between the Baltic and the Black seas can free themselves from patriarchal feudal barbarism only by an agrarian revolution, which turns the peasants who are serfs or liable to compulsory labour into free landowners, a revolution which would be similar to the French revolution of 1789 in the countryside. It is to the credit of the Polish nation that it was the first of all its agricultural neighbours to proclaim this. The first attempted reform was the Constitution of 1791; during the uprising of 1830 Lelewel declared an agrarian revolution to be the only means of saving the country, but the Diet recognised this too late; during the insurrections of 1846 and 1848 the agrarian revolution was openly proclaimed.
From the day of their subjugation the Poles came out with revolutionary demands, thereby committing their oppressors still more strongly to a counter-revolutionary course. They compelled their oppressors to maintain the patriarchal feudal structure not only in Poland but in all their other countries as well. The struggle for the independence of Poland, particularly since the Cracow uprising of 1846, is at the same time a struggle of agrarian democracy—the only form of democracy possible in Eastern Europe — against patriarchal feudal absolutism.
So long, therefore, as we help to subjugate Poland, so long as we keep part of Poland fettered to Germany, we shall remain fettered to Russia and to the Russian policy, and shall be unable to eradicate patriarchal feudal absolutism in Germany. The creation of a democratic Poland is a primary condition for the creation of a democratic Germany.
But the restoration of Poland and the settlement of her frontiers with Germany is not only necessary, it is the most easily solvable of all the political problems which have arisen in Eastern Europe since the revolution. The struggle for independence of the diverse nationalities jumbled together south of the Carpathians is much more complicated and will lead to far more bloodshed, confusion and civil wars than the Polish struggle for independence and the establishment of the border line between Germany and Poland.
Needless to say, it is not a question of restoring a bogus Poland, but of restoring the state upon a viable foundation. Poland must have at least the dimensions of 1772, she must comprise not only the territories but also the estuaries of her big rivers and at least a large seaboard on the Baltic.
The Germans could have secured all this for Poland and at the same time protected their own interests and their honour, if after the revolution they had had the courage, for their own sake, arms in hand, to demand that Russia relinquish Poland. Owing to the commingling of Germans and Poles in the border regions and especially along the coast, it goes without saying that both parties would have had to make some concessions to one another, some Germans becoming Polish and some Poles German, and this would have created no difficulties.
After the indecisive German revolution, however, the courage for so resolute an action was lacking. It is all very well to make florid speeches about the liberation of Poland and to welcome passing Poles at railway stations, offering them the most ardent sympathies of the German people (to whom had these sympathies not been offered?); but to start a war with Russia, to endanger the European balance of power and, to cap all, hand over some scraps of the annexed territory — only one who does not know the Germans could expect that.
And what would a war with Russia have meant? A war with Russia would have meant a complete, open and effective break with the whole of our disgraceful past, the real liberation and unification of Germany, and the establishment of democracy on the ruins of feudalism and on the wreckage of the short-lived bourgeois dream of power. War with Russia would have been the only possible way of vindicating our honour and our interests with regard to our Slav neighbours, and especially the Poles.
But we were philistines and have remained philistines. We made several dozen small and big revolutions, at which we ourselves took fright even before they were accomplished. We talked big, but carried nothing through. The revolution narrowed our mental horizon instead of broadening it. All problems were approached from the standpoint of the most timid, most narrow-minded, most illiberal philistinism, to the detriment, of course, of our real interests. From the standpoint of this petty philistinism, the great question of Poland's liberation was therefore reduced to the paltry slogan calling for reorganisation of a part of the Province of Posen, while our enthusiasm for the Poles turned into shrapnel and lunar caustic.
War with Russia, we repeat, was the only possible means of upholding Germany's honour and Germany's interests. We shrank from it and the inevitable happened — the reactionary soldiery, beaten in Berlin, raised their head again in Posen; under the pretext of saving Germany's honour and national integrity they raised the banner of counter-revolution and crushed our allies, the revolutionary Poles — and for a moment the hoodwinked Germans exultantly applauded their victorious enemies. The new partition of Poland was accomplished, and only the sanction of the German National Assembly was still missing.
The Frankfurt Assembly still had a chance to mend matters: it should have excluded the whole of Posen from the German Confederation and left the border question open until it could be discussed with a restored Poland d'égal à égal.
But that would be asking too much of our professors, lawyers and pastors who sit in the Frankfurt National Assembly. The temptation was too great. These peaceful burghers, who had never fired a rifle, were, by simply rising or remaining seated, to conquer for Germany a country of 500 square miles and to incorporate 800,000 "Netze brethren", German Poles, Jews and Poles, even though this was to be done at the expense of the honour and of the real, lasting interests of Germany — what a temptation! They succumbed to it, they endorsed the partition of Poland.
What the motives were, we shall see tomorrow.
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 82, August 22, 1848]
Cologne, August 21. We shall leave aside the preliminary question as to whether the deputies from Posen should take part in the discussion and voting and proceed at once to the debate on the main question.
Herr Stenzel, the reporter, opened the debate with an appall-ingly confused and verbose speech. He poses as a historian and a conscientious man, he speaks of fortresses and field-works, of heaven and hell, of sympathies and German hearts. He goes back to the eleventh century to prove that the Polish nobility has always oppressed the peasants. He uses a few meagre facts from Polish history as an excuse for an unending stream of the most insipid commonplaces about nobility, peasants, towns, benefactions of the absolute monarchy etc. He defends the partition of Poland in a clumsy and self-conscious manner; he explains the provisions of the Constitution of May 3, 1791, in such a completely muddled way that those members not already familiar with it now know even less about it. He is just about to turn to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw when he is interrupted by the exclamation: "This is too much!" and by the President.
Thrown into complete confusion, the great historian continues with the following touching words:
"I shall be brief. The question is — what are we to do? This question is quite natural" (!literally). "The nobility wants to restore the Empire. It asserts that it is democratic. I do not doubt that this is meant in honesty. However, gentlemen, it is quite natural (!) for certain estates to cherish great illusions. I believe completely in their sincerity, but when princes and counts must join the people, I do not know how the merging is to come about" (why should that concern Herr Stenzel!). "In Poland it is impossible" etc.
Herr Stenzel speaks as if in Poland there were no difference at all between nobility and aristocracy. Lelewel's Histoire de Pologne, which he himself quotes, Mieroslawski's Débat entre la révolution et la contrer évolution en Pologne and a great many other recent publications could disabuse the "man who has studied history for many years". Most of the "princes and counts" mentioned by Herr Stenzel are precisely those against whom Polish democracy is fighting.
Therefore, Herr Stenzel thinks, the nobility with its illusions should be dropped and a Poland for the peasants set up (by incorporating one Polish district after another into Germany).
"You should, on the contrary, hold out your hands to the poor peasants so that these can rise up and perhaps (!) succeed in establishing a free Poland, and not only in establishing it but also in maintaining it. That, gentlemen, is the main thing!"
Elated with victory, the historian leaves the rostrum accompanied by exultant shouts of "Bravo!", "Excellent!" from the national twaddlers of the Centre groups.[229] To describe the new partition of Poland as a blessing for the Polish peasants, this astonishingly absurd turn of events was of course bound to bring tears of emotion to the eyes of the genial and philanthropic mass in the Centre of the Assembly!
Next comes Herr Goeden from Krotoszyn, a German Pole of the first water. He is followed by Herr Senff from Inowroclaw, a fine example of a "Netze brother", devoid of guile. He put his name down as a speaker against the motion tabled by the committee but spoke for the motion and, as a result of this trick, a speaker against the motion lost his turn.
The way the "Netze brethren" behave here is the most ludicrous comedy one can imagine and shows once again what a genuine Prussian is capable of. We all know that the profit-hungry Jewish-Prussian small fry from Posen, who fought against the Poles, acted in close unity with the bureaucracy, the royal Prussian officers and the Brandenburg and Pomeranian squirearchy, in short with all who were reactionary and old-Prussian. The betrayal of Poland was the first insurrection of the counter-revolution, and no one was more counter-revolutionary than the "Netze brethren".
Now let us here in Frankfurt take a look at these rabidly Prussophile schoolmasters and officials with their "God for King and Fatherland",[3] who call their counter-revolutionary betrayal of Polish democracy a revolution, a real and genuine revolution in the name of the sovereign "Netze brotherhood", who trample historical rights under foot and over the allegedly dead Poland exclaim: "Right is on the side of the living! "b
But that's how the Prussian behaves: on the Spree by "the grace of God", on the Warta the sovereign people; on the Spree mob riots, on the Warta the revolution; on the Spree "historical right which does not have no date",0 on the Warta the right of the living facts which date from yesterday — but for all that his faithful Prussian heart is devoid of guile, is honest and upright!
Let us hear Herr Goeden.
"This is the second time that we are having to defend a cause which is so important and so momentous for our country that, had it not of itself turned out (!) to be entirely right as far as we are concerned, it would have been necessary to make it so (! !). Our right is rooted not so much in the past as in the fast beating pulse" (and especially in beatings with the butt-end) "of the present."
"As a result of the" (Prussian) "occupation, the Polish peasants and townspeople found themselves in a state of security and well-being which they had never known previously." (Especially not since the time of the Polish-Prussian wars and the partitions of Poland.)
"The infringement of justice implied in the partition of Poland is completely expiated by the humane attitude of your" (the German) "people" (and in particular by the floggings ordered by Prussian officials), "by its diligent work" (on Polish land which has been stolen and given away), "and in April of this year also by its bloodV
The blood of Herr Goeden from Krotoszyn!
"The revolution is our right and we are here on the strength of it!" "The proof that we have been legally incorporated into Germany does not consist of parchment documents, turned yellow with age; we have not been acquired through
These words are taken from the decree on the establishment of an army reserve issued by Frederick William III on March 17, 1813.—Ed.
marriage, inheritance, purchase or exchange; we are Germans, and belong to our fatherland because a sovereign will which is rational and just impels us, a will which is based on our geographical position, our language and customs, our numbers.(!), our property, but above all on our German way of thinking and our love of our fatherland."
"Our rights are so secure and rest so firmly in the modern concept of the world, that one does not even need a German heart to be compelled to recognise this!"
Long live the "sovereign will" of the Prussian-Jewish "Netze brotherhood", a will which rests in the "modern concept of the world", relies on the shrapnel "revolution" and is rooted in the "fast beating pulse" of the present, with its martial law! Long live the German nationalism of the bureaucrats' salaries in Posen, of the plunder of church and state property and of loans à la Flottwell!
The oratorical knight of superior rights is followed by the impertinent "Netze brother". Even Stenzel's motion is still too polite towards the Poles for Herr Senff of Inowroclaw; he therefore proposes a somewhat ruder wording. With the same impudence with which he used this pretext to put his name down as a speaker against the motion, he now declares that to debar the Posen deputies from voting was a disgraceful injustice.
"I believe that the deputies from Posen are especially competent to take part in the voting, for it is the most important rights of those who have sent us here which are at issue."
Herr Senff then talks about Poland's history since the first partition, elaborating it with a series of deliberate falsifications and gross lies so that, in comparison, Herr Stenzel is a pitiable dabbler. Everything that is tolerable in Posen owes its inception to the Prussian Government and the "Netze brethren".
"The Grand Duchy of Warsaw was set up. The Prussian officials were replaced by Polish officials and, in 1814, hardly a trace remained of the benefits these provinces derived from Prussian rule."
Herr Senff is quite right. "No trace remained" of serfdom or of the cash contributions that Polish districts had to pay to Prussian educational institutions, e.g. the University of Halle, or of the extortions and brutalities perpetrated by Prussian officials who did not speak Polish. But Poland was not yet lost[3] for, thanks to Russia, Prussia began to thrive once more and Posen was again incorporated into Prussia.
Those who want to know more about this should read Flottwell's memorandum of 1841.(4) Up to 1830, the Government did nothing at all. Flottwell found only four miles of highway in the whole Grand Duchy! Shall we enumerate Flottwell's benefactions? Herr Flottwell, a cunning bureaucrat, sought to bribe the Poles by building roads, opening up rivers, draining marshes etc.; but he bribed them not with the money of the Prussian Government, but with their own money. All those improvements were, in the main, carried through with the aid of private and district resources and, though the Government occasionally contributed some money, this was only a small fraction of the amount it extracted from the province as taxes and revenues from the Polish state and church domains. The Poles, moreover, are indebted to Herr Flottwell not only for the continuing suspension (since 1826) of district council elections, but especially for the gradual expropriation of Polish landowners as a result of the Government buying up the auctioned estates of noblemen and reselling them only to loyal Germans (Order in Council of 1833). The last benefaction of FlottwelFs administration was the improvement of the educational system. But this too was a measure designed to further Prussianisation. Prussian teachers were to Prussianise the young noblemen and future Catholic priests in the secondary schools, and the peasants in the primary schools. In an unguarded outburst, Herr Wallach, the Regierungspräsident of the Bromberg administrative district, has divulged the purpose of these educational establishments. He writes to Herr Beurmann, the Oberpräsident, that the Polish language is one of the chief obstacles to the dissemination of education and well-being among the rural population. This is indeed quite true if the teacher does not speak Polish.
Incidentally, it was again the Poles themselves who paid for these schools. For, first of all, the majority, including the most important institutes, which did not, however, directly serve the goal of Prussianisation, were founded and endowed by private contributions or by the Provincial Estates and, secondly, even the schools designed to Prussianise the population were maintained out of the revenues of monasteries secularised on March 31, 1833, and only 21,000 talers a year, for ten years, were granted by the treasury.
Herr Flottwell admits, moreover, that all reforms were initiated by the Poles. The fact that the greatest benefactions of the Prussian Government consisted in the collection of large revenues and taxes and in enlisting young men into the Prussian military service, is passed over in silence by Herr Flottwell, just as it is by Herr Senf f.
In short, all the benefactions of the Prussian Government simply amount to the provision of posts for Prussian non-commissioned officers in Posen, be it as drill-master, schoolmaster, policeman or tax-collector.
We cannot discuss in detail the other unfounded accusations which Herr Senff levels against the Poles, nor his false statistical data. It is sufficient to say that the purpose of Herr Senff's speeches is simply to make the Assembly detest the Poles.
Herr Robert Blum follows. As usual, he delivers what is called a profound oration, i.e. an oration which contains more opinion than reason and more rhetoric than opinion, and which, incidentally, as a piece of rhetoric — as we have to admit — produces no greater effect than the "modern concept of the world" of Herr Goeden from Krotoszyn. Poland is the rampart against Nordic barbarism ... if the Poles have vices it is the fault of their oppressors ... old Gagern declares that the partition of Poland is the nightmare that weighs on our time ... the Poles warmly love their fatherland and, in this respect, we might take a leaf out of their book ... danger is imminent from Russia ... if the red republic were victorious in Paris and desired to liberate the Poles by force of arms, what then, gentlemen?... Let us not be prejudiced etc., etc.
We are sorry for Herr Blum, but when all these fine observations are divested of their rhetorical flourishes, nothing remains but the most vapid political hot air, be it political hot air on a grand scale and in high style — as we gladly admit. Even when Herr Blum asserts that, to be consistent, the National Assembly must act in Schleswig, Bohemia, the Italian Tyrol, the Russian Baltic provinces and Alsace according to the same principle as in Posen, the argument is justified only with regard to the stupid lies about nationality and the convenient inconsistency of the majority. When, again, he asserts that, if Germany wants to behave decently, she can conduct negotiations on Posen only with an already existing Poland, we shall not deny this, but merely observe that this argument — the only weighty one of his speech — had been advanced hundreds of times before by the Poles themselves and in a much more convincing way, whereas Herr Blum, with great "restraint and indulgent moderation", shoots it quite ineffectively, like a blunt rhetorical arrow, at the callous breast of the majority.
Herr Blum is right when he says that shrapnel is no argument, but he is wrong — and he knows it — when he tries impartially to take a "moderate" superior standpoint. Herr Blum may not clearly understand the Polish question, but that is his own fault. He is in a sorry plight however, first, when he hopes to prevail upon the majority to demand even a report from the Central Authority, and secondly, when he imagines he will gain anything by virtue of a report furnished by the Ministers of this Central Authority, who, on August 6, submitted so disgracefully to the Prussian desire for sovereignty.[280] To sit with the "extreme Left" one must first of all entirely discard indulgent moderation and refrain from attempts to secure anything, however small, from the majority.
Whenever the Polish question is debated, almost the entire Left indulges, as usual, in declamation or even in extravagant rhapsody, without discussing the facts and the actual content of the question. Yet, with regard to this question in particular, there is ample material available and the facts are extremely convincing. But this requires that one really studies the problem, and one can of course save oneself the trouble, since, having passed through the purgatory of the election, one is no longer accountable to anybody.
We shall return to the few exceptions to this rule in the course of the debate. Tomorrow we shall say a few words to Herr Wilhelm Jordan, who is no exception, but who this time, in the literal sense and for definite reasons, follows the multitude.
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 86, August 26, 1848]
Cologne, August 25. At last, thank God, we leave the low sandy plain of vapid political hot air and enter the more elevated Alpine regions of great debate. At last we mount the cloud-covered peak where eagles nest, where man finds himself face to face with the gods and looks down disdainfully on the diminutive rabble that far, far below grapples with the few arguments at the disposal of the ordinary human intellect. At last, after the skirmishes of a Blum with a Stenzel, a Goeden, a Senff of Inowroclaw, the great battle begins, during which Ariostian heroes scatter the splintered arrows of their mind all over the battlefield.
The ranks of the combatants open reverentially and Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin advances with drawn sword.
Who is Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin?
In the heyday of German men of letters, Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin was one such in Königsberg. Semi-legal meetings were held in the Böttchershöfchen. Herr Wilhelm Jordan went to one, read a poem of his—"Der Schiffer und sein Gott" [The Skipper and His God]—and was expelled.
Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin went to Berlin. Certain student meetings were held there. Herr Wilhelm Jordan recited a poem — "Der Schiffer und sein Gott"—and was expelled.
Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin went to Leipzig. There, too, some innocuous meetings were held. Herr Wilhelm Jordan recited a poem—"Der Schiffer und sein Gott"—and was expelled.
Herr Wilhelm Jordan, moreover, published several of his writings: a poem "Glocke und Kanone" [Bell and Cannon]; a collection of Lithuanian folk-songs, including some of his own manufacture, in particular songs of Poland written by himself; translations of George Sand's works; a periodical, the incomprehensible "comprehended world"[3] etc.—all this in the service of the renowned Herr Otto Wigand, who has not yet got on so far as his French original, M. Pagnerre; furthermore, he published a translation of Lelewel's
Histoire de Pologne, with an introduction full of enthusiasm for Poland etc.
The revolution came. En un lugar de la Mancha, cuyo nombre no quiero acordarmeh—in a locality in the German Mancha, in Brandenburg, where Don Quixotes still thrive, a locality the name of which I do not like to remember, Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin proposed himself as candidate for the German National Assembly. The peasants of the district were amiably constitutional men. Herr Wilhelm Jordan delivered several impressive speeches, full of the most constitutional amiability. The delighted peasants elected the great man as their deputy. As soon as he arrived in Frankfurt, the noble "irresponsible" man took his seat on the "extreme" Left and voted with the republicans. The peasants who, as electors, have produced this parliamentary Don Quixote, send him a vote of no confidence, reminding him of his promises and recalling him. But
Herr Wilhelm Jordan considers that his word is as little binding as that of a king and at every opportunity continues to sound his "bell and cannon" in the Assembly.
Each time Herr Wilhelm Jordan mounted the pulpit of St. Paul's Church,c he in fact recited only a poem—"Der Schiffer und sein Gott"—but this does not mean that he therefore deserves to be expelled.
Die begriffene Welt. Blätter für wissenschaftliche Unterhaltung.— Ed.
"At a certain village of La Mancha, which I shall not name" — the words with which Cervantes' Don Quixote begins.—Ed.
The meeting place of the German National Assembly in Frankfurt.— Ed Let us listen to the great Wilhelm Jordan's latest ringing of the bell and the most recent roar of his cannon about Poland.
"On the contrary I believe that we must raise ourselves to the world-historical standpoint, from which the Posen affair has to be examined in terms of its significance as an episode in the great Polish drama."
The powerful Herr Wilhelm Jordan has, with one move, raised us high above the clouds to the lofty, snow-capped Chimborazo of the "world-historical standpoint" and unfolds an infinite prospect before us.
But, to begin with, he remains for a moment in the commonplace sphere of "special" deliberation, and with much success at that. Here are a few examples:
"It" (the Netze district) "later, as a result of the Treaty of Warsaw" (i.e. the first partition), 'came under Prussian rule and has since remained in Prussia, if one leaves out of accout the short interlude of the Duchy of Warsaw."
Herr Jordan speaks here of the Netze district as distinct from the rest of Posen. What source does he use here, this knight of the world-historical standpoint, the expert in Polish history, the translator of Lelewel? None other than the speech of Herr Senff of Inowroclaw! He sticks so closely to this source, that he quite forgets that, in 1794, the other, Polish part of Posen "came under Prussian rule and, if one leaves out of account the short interlude of the Duchy of Warsaw, has since remained in Prussia". But the "Netze brother" Senff never mentioned this, and the "world-historical standpoint" consequently knows merely that the administrative district of Posen "came under Prussian rule" only in 1815.
"Furthermore, from time immemorial, the western districts of Birnbaum, Meseritz, Bomst and Fraustadt have been German as regards the overwhelming majority of their inhabitants — you can see this even from the names of these towns."
And the district of Micdzychöd, Herr Jordan, was "from time immemorial Polish", as regards the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants — you can see this even from the name, can't you, Herr Jordan?
The district of Micdzychöd is nothing but the district of Birnbaum. Micdzychöd is the Polish name of the town.
What backing will these etymological chambers of reunion of the "world-historical standpoint" of the "comprehended world" obtain from the Christian-German Herr Leol Not to mention the fact that Mailand, Lüttich, Genf, Kopenhagen(5) have been "German from time immemorial, as you can see even from their names". Does not the "world-historical standpoint" also deduce the immemorial Germanity of Haimons-Eichicht, Welsch-Leyden, Jenau and Kalten-felde "even from their names"? True, he will have trouble finding these primevally German names on the map and when he learns that they denote Le Quesnoi, Lyons, Genoa and Campo Freddo, he will only have Herr Leo, who manufactured them, to thank for his embarrassment.
What will the world-historical standpoint say, if presently the French claim Cologne, Coblence, Mayence and Francfort as primevally French territory? Woe then to the world-historical standpoint!
But let us dwell no longer on these petites misères de la vie humaine,[3]
they also befall greater men. Let us follow Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin, as he soars to higher spheres. He says of the Poles that one
"likes them more the further away one is from them and the less one knows about them, and one likes them less the closer one gets to them". Hence the reason for "this affection is not some superior quality of the Polish character but rather a certain cosmopolitan idealism".
But how does the world-historical standpoint explain that the peoples of the world do not "like" a certain nation, either when they are "at a great distance from it" or when they "get closer" to it, and that, with rare concurrence, they despise, exploit, deride and spurn this nation? This is the German nation.
The world-historical standpoint will say, this is due to "cosmopolitan materialism", thus extricating himself.
Quite untroubled by such petty objections, however, the world-historical eagle on his mighty pinions soars higher and higher, until he reaches the pure ether of the idea that exists in itself and for itself, and gives vent to the following heroic world-historical Hegelian hymn:
"Even if one vindicates history, which in the course of its necessary progress inexorably crushes with its iron heel a nation that is no longer strong enough to maintain its position among equal nations, it would nevertheless be inhuman and barbaric to feel no sympathy when one observes the long suffering of such a people, and I am far from harbouring such callous thoughts." (God will not fail to reward you for this, noble Jordan!) "But it is one thing to be moved by a tragedy, and quite another to attempt to undo this tragedy. It is precisely the fact that the hero succumbs to iron necessity that turns his fate into true tragedy and, trying to interfere with the course of destiny and out of human considerations attempting to stay the revolving wheels of history and turn them back once more, is to expose oneself to the danger of being crushed by them. The desire to restore Poland simply because her ruin justly fills us with sorrow, is, to my mind, imbecile sentimentality!"
What an abundance of ideas! What profound wisdom! What stirring language! Thus speaks the world-historical standpoint, once he has corrected the shorthand reports of his speeches.
The Poles have the choice; if they want to stage a "true tragedy" they have to submit humbly to being destroyed by the iron heel and the revolving wheels of history and say to Nicholas: Thy will be done! If, however, they want to rebel and, for a change, try to use the "iron heel of history" to crush their oppressors, then there is no "true tragedy", and Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin can no longer take any interest in them. Thus speaks the world-historical standpoint whose aesthetic knowledge stems from Professor Rosenkranz.
What was the inexorable, the iron necessity which has temporarily destroyed Poland? It was the decline of the noblemen's democracy based on serfdom, that is the development of a big aristocracy within the nobility. This was a step forward, as it was the only way out of the antiquated noblemen's democracy. What was the result? The iron heel of history, i.e. the three Eastern autocrats, crushed Poland. The aristocracy was compelled to enter into an alliance with foreign states, in order to cope with the noblemen's democracy. The Polish aristocracy until recently, and partially even up to the present, remained the faithful ally of Poland's oppressors.
What is the reason for the inexorable, the iron necessity for Poland's liberation? It is the fact that the rule of the aristocracy in Poland, which has continued, since 1815, at least in Posen and Galicia, and to some extent even in Russian Poland, is today just as antiquated and hollow as was the democracy of the lower nobility in 1772. It is the fact that the establishment of a form of agrarian democracy has become vital to Poland, not only politically but also socially; the fact that agriculture, the source of existence of the Polish people, will be ruined, if the peasants who are serfs or liable to labour services, do not become free landowners, and the fact that an agrarian revolution cannot possibly be carried through without simultaneously winning a national existence and taking possession of the Baltic coast and the estuaries of the Polish rivers.
And Herr Jordan of Berlin calls this attempting to stay the revolving wheels of history and trying to turn them back once more!
It is true that the old Poland of the noblemen's democracy died and was buried long since, and only Herr Jordan can expect that anyone wants to nullify the "true tragedy" of this Poland, but the "hero" of this tragedy has produced a strapping son, and many a foppish Berlin literary man may indeed shudder at the thought of making his closer acquaintance. This son, who is still only preparing to act out his drama and to put his shoulder to the "revolving wheels of history", but who is bound to achieve success, this son is the Poland of the peasant democracy.
Some stale literary flourishes, a little imitated contempt of the world — which in Hegel was a sign of audacity, but becomes a cheap and nonsensical platitude in Herr Jordan — in short a sample of the bell and cannon, "sound and fury"[3] expressed in inadequate sentences and, in addition, incredible confusion and ignorance of quite ordinary historical circumstances — this is what the world-historical standpoint amounts to.
Long live the world-historical standpoint and its comprehended world!
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 90, August 31, 1848]
Cologne, August 26. The second day of battle provides an even grander picture than the first. True, we miss Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin, whose lips captivated the hearts of all who heard him, but let us be modest, a Radowitz, Wartensleben, Kerst and Rodomont-Lichnowski are not to be despised.
Herr Radowitz mounts the rostrum first. The speech of the leader of the Right is short, firm and calculated. No more declamation than necessary. Wrong premises, but concise rapid conclusions based on these premises. An appeal to the fear of the Right. Cold-blooded certainty of success which banks on the cowardice of the majority. Profound contempt for the entire Assembly, for the Right as well as the Left. These are the outlines of the short speech delivered by
Herr Radowitz, and we understand very well the effect these few icy and unostentatious words were bound to produce in an assembly used to hearing the most pompous and shallow rhetorical exercises. Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin would have been delighted, if with his entire "comprehended" and not comprehended world of images he had produced a tenth of the effect Herr Radowitz produced with his short and, basically, also quite superficial speech.
Herr Radowitz is not a man of "character", not a steadfast worthy, but he is a person with clear-cut, distinct traits; one needs only to read one of his speeches to know him thoroughly.
Goethe, Faust, Erster Teil, "Marthens Garten".— Ed.
We have.never coveted the honour of being an organ of any particular group of the parliamentary Left. On the contrary, because of the various different elements from which the democratic party has been formed in Germany, we have considered it essential to keep an especially close watch on the democrats. In view of the lack of energy, of decision, of talent and of knowledge we have encountered among the leaders, with a few exceptions, of all parties, we are pleased that Herr Radowitz is at least a worthy opponent.
Herr Radowitz is followed by Herr Schuselka. In spite of all previous warnings, he nevertheless makes a touching appeal to the heart. An immensely long-winded discourse, interspersed with a few historical arguments and occasionally some Austrian common sense. On the whole, it has a wearisome effect.
Herr Schuselka has gone to Vienna, having been elected a member of the Imperial Diet which meets in that city. This is the right place for him. If in Frankfurt he sat on the Left, there he will find himself in the Centre. If in Frankfurt he had some influence, his first speech in Vienna will prove a failure. This is the fate of all literary and philosophical great pot-house politicians, who use the revolution only to improve their own position — if for a moment they are placed on really revolutionary ground, they disappear at once.
The ci-devant Count von Wartensleben follows. Herr Wartensleben steps forth as a portly, honest man overflowing with benevolence, who tells anecdotes about his march as a member of the army reserve to the Polish frontier in 1830, he then turns into Sancho Panza and speaks in proverbs to the Poles, e.g. a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and, at the same time, he quite innocently manages to slip in the following perfidious remark:
"What is the reason that even Polish officials were not prepared to take over the reorganisation of the part that was to be ceded? I fear they are themselves afraid, they feel that they are not yet advanced enough to be able to organise the population in an orderly manner, and consequently merely pretend that it is Polish patriotism which prevents them from making even the initial preparations for a happy resurrection!"
In other words, the Poles have, for eighty years, been continuously fighting and sacrificing their lives and property for a cause which they themselves regard as impossible and absurd.
In conclusion Herr Wartensleben is in agreement with Herr Radowitz.
Mr. Janiszewski from Posen, a member of the Posen National Committee, mounts the rostrum.
Mr. Janiszewski's speech is the first piece of truly parliamentary eloquence to be delivered from the rostrum of St. Paul's Church. At last we hear a speaker who does not simply try to win the approval of the hall, but whose language is marked by true dynamic passion, and who, for this reason, produces an effect quite different from that produced by any of the preceding speakers. Blum's appeal to the conscience of the Assembly, Jordan's cheap bombast, Radowitz's cold logic, Schuselka's genial prolixity, all, without exception, sink into insignificance by the side of this Pole who fights for the existence of his nation and demands the restoration of his legitimate rights. Janiszewski speaks in an impassioned and forceful way, but without declamation. He merely reports facts with the justified indignation, without which a correct description of such facts is impossible and which is doubly justified after the shameless misrepresentations made earlier in the debate. His speech, which in fact constitutes the core of the debate, refutes all earlier attacks against the Poles, makes amends for the mistakes of the supporters of the Poles, leads the debate back to the only real and just basis, and deprives speakers of the Right who are to follow of the most high-sounding arguments in advance.
[231] "You have swallowed the Poles, but, by God, you shall not digest them!"
This striking summary of Janiszewski's speech will endure, as will also the pride with which he replies to the begging speeches of the supporters of the Poles:
"I do not come to you as a beggar, I come relying on my legitimate right; I do not ask for sympathy but only for justice."
Mr. Janiszewski is followed by Herr Kerst, a head-master from Posen. The Pole fighting for the existence and the social and political freedom of his people is followed by a Prussian schoolmaster who has immigrated to Posen and is fighting for his salary. The fine passionate indignation of the oppressed is followed by the trite impudence of the bureaucrat who lives on oppression.
The partition of Poland "which today is called a disgrace" was at the time "a quite ordinary event".
"The right of peoples to separate according to nationality is a brand-new right recognised nowhere.... It is only actual possession which matters in politics."
These are a few of the pithy expressions on which Herr Kerst bases his arguments. They are followed by the most clumsy contradictions:
"As a result of the acquisition of Posen, a piece of land has been incorporated into Germany which is indeed predominantly Polish", and a little later: "As far as the Polish part of Posen is concerned, it has not asked to be joined to Germany and, as far as I know, you, gentlemen, do not intend to admit this part against its will!"
In this connection he gives statistical data about the population ratio, data which correspond to the famous survey of the "Netze brethren", according to which only those are regarded as Poles who do not speak any German, and all those are deemed Germans who speak a litde broken German. Finally comes a most artificial calculation, by which he proves that the minority that voted for joining Germany, when the vote was taken in the Posen Provincial Diet — a minority of 17 to 26 — was really a majority.;
"It is true that under the Provincial Law there must be a majority of /[3] to pass resolutions. Now, it is true that 17 is not quite /[3] of 26, but the missing fraction is so small that over such a serious question it cannot really be taken into consideration."!!
Thus, if the minority is [2]/[3] of the majority, then it is "under the Provincial Law" a majority! The old Prussians will greatly honour Herr Kerst for this discovery.— But in fact the position is this — in order to make an application, [2]/[3] must vote for it. Admission into the German Confederation was such an application. Application for admission was therefore only legal if [2]/[3] of the Assembly, i.e. [2]/[3] of the 43 who took part in the division, voted for it. But, instead, almost [2]/s voted against it. But what does it matter? For 17 is almost "[2]/[3] of 43"!
It is not surprising that the Poles are not so well "educated" as are the citizens of the " Staat der Intelligenz" (6) if this intelligent state sends them teachers who are such expert arithmeticians.
Herr Clemens from Bonn makes the correct observation that the Prussian Government was not interested in the Germanisation of Posen but in its Prussianisation, and compares the attempts to Prussianise Posen with similar attempts in the Rhineland.
Herr Ostendorf of Soest, the son of red soil,(7) reads from a compendium of political platitudes and twaddle, he indulges in possibilities, probabilities and conjectures, jumping from one subject to another, from Herr Jordan to the French, from the red republic to the redskins of North America, and puts the Poles on a par with them, and the "Netze brethren" on a par with the Yankees. An audacious comparison worthy of the red soil! Imagine Herr Kerst, Herr Senff and Herr Goeden as backwoodsmen in a log hut with shotgun and spade — what a priceless comedy!
Herr Franz Schmidt from Löwenberg mounts the rostrum. He speaks calmly and unostentatiously. This is all the more commendable since Herr Schmidt belongs to a profession which is usually excessively fond of declamation, i.e. the German Catholic priest-hood. Herr Schmidt's speech, after that of Janiszewski, is certainly the best of the whole debate, because it is the most convincing and best informed. Herr Schmidt demonstrates that the committee's display of learning (the content of which we have already examined*) hides abysmal ignorance of actual conditions. Herr Schmidt, who has lived for many years in the Grand Duchy of Posen, shows that even with regard to this small district, which he knows in great detail, the committee has made the crudest blunders. He shows that the committee has failed to give the Assembly adequate information about any of the decisive questions and has even called upon the Assembly to make decisions at random without any factual data or any knowledge of the matter. He demands in the first place information about the actual state of affairs. He proves that the proposals of the committee are incompatible with their premises. He quotes Flottwell's memorandum and calls upon Flottwell, who is also present as a deputy, to make a statement should the document not be genuine. He finally makes public the fact that the "Netze brethren" came to Gagern and, by false news about an alleged uprising in Posen, tried to persuade him to bring the debate to a rapid close. True, Gagern denied this, but Herr Kerst has loudly boasted of it.
The majority has taken revenge on Herr Schmidt for his bold speech by seeing to it that the speech was falsified in the stenographic reports. Herr Schmidt himself three times rectified the nonsense inserted in one passage, but it was nevertheless printed. Table-banging against Schlöffel,(8) crude violence against Brentano[232] and falsification against Schmidt — the gendemen of the Right are indeed subde critics!
Herr Lichnowski concludes the sitting, but we shall save this friend of ours for the next article; one should not act precipitately when dealing with a speaker of Herr Lichnowski's calibre!
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 91, September 1, 1848]
Cologne, August 31. The bel-homme of the Assembly, the German Bayard, the knight without fear and without reproach, the ex-Prince (Paragraph 6 of the Fundamental Rights[283]) von Lichnowski mounts the rostrum with chivalrously courteous propriety and a self-satisfied smile. With the pure accents of a Prussian lieutenant and with disdainful nonchalance, he divests himself of the few disconnected thoughts he has to communicate to the Assembly.
The handsome knight is definitely a necessary element in this debate. If there is anyone to whom Herr Goeden, Herr Senff and Herr Kerst have still not demonstrated the worth of the German Poles sufficiently clearly, the example of the knight Lichnowski will show him what a disgusting phenomenon — despite the comely figure — is the Prussianised Slav. Herr Lichnowski and the German Poles are kindred spirits; by his mere appearance on the rostrum, Herr Lichnowski makes the dossier more complete. The slachcic* from Upper Silesia who has been transformed into a Prussian squire from the backwoods provides a living example of what the loving Prussian Government intends to do with the nobility of Posen. Herr Lichnowski, despite all his protestations, is not a German, he is a "reorganised" Pole; he does not speak German, he speaks Prussian.
Herr Lichnowski begins with the assertion that he feels the most chivalrous sympathy for the Poles, he pays compliments to Mr. Janiszewski, he upholds the Poles' claim to "the great poetry of martyrdom", and then he suddenly makes an about turn and asks: Why has this sympathy waned? Because "the Poles fought in the first line at the barricades" in all insurrections and revolutions! This is indeed a crime that will no longer be committed once the Poles are "reorganised". Incidentally, we can give Herr Lichnowski the reassuring information that even among the "Polish emigrants" and even among the Polish nobility in exile who, according to Herr Lichnowski, have sunk so low, there are people who have remained entirely uncontaminated by any contact with the barricades.
Now follows an amusing scene.
Lichnowski: "The gentlemen of the Left, who trample under foot documents that have turned yellow with age, have, in a conspicuous way, evoked historical rights. There is no justification for stressing one date as against another in the interest of the Polish cause. With regard to historical right there does not exist no date." (Loud laughter on the Left.)
"With regard to historical right there does not exist no date." (Loud laughter on the Left.)
President: "Gentlemen, allow the speaker to finish the sentence, do not interrupt him."
Lichnowski: "Historical right does not have no date." (Laughter on the Left.) President: "Please do not interrupt the speaker, silence, please!" (Agitation.) Lichnowski: "As regards historical right, no date exists" (cheers and hilarity on the Left) "which could vindicate a greater degree of right than any earlier date!"
Were we not justified in saying that the noble knight speaks not German, but Prussian?
The historical right which "does not have no date" encounters a formidable adversary in our noble paladin.
"If we go further back into history, we find" (in Posen) "many districts which were Silesian and German; if we go back still further, we reach the time when Leipzig and Dresden were built by Slavs, and we then arrive at Tacitus, and God only knows, where the gentlemen would lead us if we were to broach this subject."
The world must be in a bad way. The estates of the Prussian knights must be mortgaged beyond redemption, the pressure of their Jewish creditors must have become formidable, their promis-sory notes must be coming due for payment in rapid succession, public auction, imprisonment, dismissal from service owing to thoughdessly incurred debts — all these horrors of extreme pecuniary distress must threaten the Prussian knights with inevitable ruin, for things to have come to such a pass that a Lichnowski attacks the same historical right in whose defence he won his spurs at Don Carlos' round table.[234]
True, only God knows whither the bailiffs would convey the lean knights[3] if we were to broach the subject of the historical right governing debts! Yet, are these debts not their best quality and the only one that can serve the Prussian paladins as an excuse?
The bel-homme then comes to his subject and observes that, when speaking to the German Poles, one should not "paint a vague picture of a remote and obscure future Poland" (!); he thinks the Poles would not be satisfied with Posen: '
"If I had the honour to be a Pole, I would every morning and every evening ponder on the re-establishment of the old Polish kingdom."
But since Herr Lichnowski does not "have the honour", since he is merely a reorganised Pole of Upper Silesia [Wasserpolack],[235] he ponders on quite different and less patriotic matters "every morning and every evening."
"To be frank, I must say that a few hundred thousand Poles must become Germans, which, to tell the truth, would not, under the present conditions, be a misfortune for them either."
On the contrary, how nice it would be if the Prussian Government laid out a new plantation to grow still more of the wood from which the Lichnowskis are made.
The moustache-twirling knight continues to talk for some time in the same pleasantly nonchalant manner, which is in the main intended for the ladies in the gallery, but is still good enough for the Assembly as well, and then concludes:
"I have nothing more to say. It is now up to you to decide whether to absorb five hundred thousand Germans or to turn them away ... but in that case, you will cross out the poem of our old national bard: 'As far as the German language rings, and God in Heaven his poem sings.'[3] Strike out this poem!"
It is indeed bad that, when old Arndt wrote his poem, he did not think of the Polish Jews and their German. But fortunately, we have our Upper Silesian paladin. Who is not aware of the nobility's old obligations to the Jews, obligations that have become respectable in the course of centuries? What the old plebeian omitted, Lichnowski, the knight, remembers.
As far as a Polish Jew jabbers of German a spate, Lends at high interest, falsifies money and weight
— that is the extent of Herr Lichnowski's fatherland!
[Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 93, September 3, 1848]
Cologne, September 2. The third day of the debate revealed a general weariness. The same arguments are repeated without any improvement and the stenographic report would have been dull enough to send one to sleep if the first honourable speaker, Citizen Arnold Ruge, had not produced his rich stock of new reasons.
Citizen Ruge moreover [knows] his merits better than anyone else. He promises:
"I will apply all the passion I possess and all my knowledge."
He tables a motion; this is, however, not an ordinary motion, not a motion in general, but the only correct motion, the true motion, the absolute motion:
(In this case therefore, Citizen Ruge sacrifices his "free will" to what is "right".)
Let us closer examine the passion, the knowledge and the only right thing of Citizen Ruge.
"The destruction of Poland is a shameful injustice because it has stifled the remarkable development of a nation that had rendered great services to the European family of nations and in a resplendent way had developed chivalry, one of the aspects of medieval life. The republic of nobles was prevented by despotism from bringing about its own internal (!) abolition, which would have been possible by means of the Constitution that had been prepared during the revolutionary period."
The people in Southern France were, in the Middle Ages, no closer to the people in Northern France than the Poles are now to the Russians. In the Middle Ages, the Southern French, commonly called Provencals, achieved not only a "remarkable development", they even led European development. They were the first modern nation to have a literary language. Their poetry was regarded by all Romance peoples, and even by the Germans and the English, as a model unequalled at the time. They vied with the Castilians, the Northern Frenchmen and the English Normans in the perfection of feudal chivalry and were equal to the Italians in industry and commerce. They did not only develop "one aspect of medieval life" "in a resplendent way", they even produced a flash of the ancient Hellenic culture in the darkest Middle Ages. The people from Southern France have, therefore, rendered not only great, but immeasurable "services to the European family of nations". Nevertheless, like the Poles, they were first partitioned between Northern France and England and later completely subjugated by the Northern French. From the wars against the Albigenses[236] to Louis XI, the Northern French — who were culturally just as inferior to their Southern neighbours as the Russians to the Poles — waged continuous wars of conquest against the Southern French and, finally, conquered the whole country. The Southern French "republic of nobles" (this designation is quite correct for its heyday) "was prevented by despotism" (Louis XI) "from bringing about its own internal abolition", which would have been certainly no less possible there, owing to the rise of the middle class in the towns, than it would have been in the Polish case by means of the Constitution of 1791.
The Southern French fought against their oppressors for centuries — but historical development was inexorable. After a struggle lasting three centuries, their beautiful language was reduced to a patois and they themselves were turned into Frenchmen. Northern French despotism ruled over Southern France for three hundred years and, only then, did the Northern French make amends for their oppressive rule — by destroying the last vestiges of Southern French independence. The Constituent Assembly divided up the independent provinces, and it was the iron fist of the Convention that first turned the inhabitants of Southern France into Frenchmen and, in reparation for their nationality, gave them democracy. What Citizen Ruge says about the Poles is, however, quite literally a fitting description of the three hundred years of oppression:
"Russia's despotism has not liberated the Poles; the annihilation of the Polish nobility and the exile of so many noble families from Poland has not established democracy or humane conditions of life in Russia."
But the subjugation of Southern France by the Northern French has never been called "shameful injustice". What is the reason, Citizen Ruge? Either the subjugation of Southern France is a shameful injustice, or the subjugation of Poland is not a shameful injustice. It is up to Citizen Ruge to decide.
What is the difference between the Poles and the people of Southern France? Why was Southern France like inert ballast taken in tow by the Frenchmen from the North, even as far as the total obliteration of its nationality, whereas the Poles have every prospect of finding themselves very soon in the van of all Slav nationalities?
As a result of social conditions which we cannot explain in detail here, Southern France became the reactionary section of France. Its opposition to Northern France very soon became opposition to the progressive classes in the whole of France. It became the principal support of feudalism and has remained the backbone of the French counter-revolution up to now.
Poland, on the other hand, became a revolutionary part of Russia, Austria and Prussia, as a result of social conditions which we examined earlier (No. 81).(9) Its opposition to its oppressors was, at the same time, opposition to the big aristocracy in Poland itself. Even the nobility, which was in part still feudal, supported the democratic-agrarian revolution with quite unprecedented selflessness. Poland had already become the focus of East-European democracy, when Germany was still floundering in the ideology of the most insipid constitutionalism and high-flown philosophy.
This, and not the resplendent development of chivalry which belongs to the past, guarantees the restoration of Poland and makes it inevitable.
But Herr Rüge has also a second reason for the necessity of an independent Poland within the "European family of nations".
"The violence which has been done to the Poles has scattered them throughout Europe and they are everywhere giving vent to their anger over the injustice they suffered ... the Polish spirit has been humanised and purified in France and in Germany (!?): the Polish emigration constitutes propagation of freedom" (No. 1). "The Slavs have become capable of entering the great European family of nations" (the "family" is unavoidable!) "for ... their emigration has become the true apostolate of freedom" (No. 2). "The entire Russian army (!!) has been infected with modern ideas by the Poles, these apostles of freedom" (No. 3.). "I respect the forthright conviction of the Poles, which they have demonstrated throughout Europe, to make propaganda for freedom with all their might" (No. 4). "Throughout the annais of history they will be honoured for being pioneers" (No. 5), "wherever they have acted as pioneers (!!!).... The Poles are the element of freedom" (No. 6), "which has been tossed into Slavdom; they have led the Slav Congress in Prague towards freedom" (No. 7), "they have been active in France, Russia and Germany. The Poles consequently constitute an effective element in present-day culture as well, they are effective, and because they are effective, because they are necessary, they are by no means dead."
Citizen Ruge has to prove that the Poles are, first, necessary, and second, not dead. He does this by saying: "Because they are necessary, they are by no means dead."
If one removes a few words — Poles, element, freedom, propaganda, culture, apostolate — from the above lengthy passage, in which one and the same idea is repeated seven times, one can see what remains of the whole bombastic statement.
Citizen Ruge has to prove that the restoration of Poland is necessary. He proves this in the following way: The Poles are not dead, on the contrary they are very much alive, they are effective, they are the apostles of freedom in the whole of Europe. What is the reason for this? The violence, the shameful injustice perpetrated on them, has scattered them all over Europe, where they gave vent to their anger over the injustice they suffered, to their just revolutionary anger. This anger has been "purified" during their exile, and this purified anger has enabled them to become apostles of freedom and has placed them "first at the barricades". What follows from this? Wipe out the shameful injustice, the violence done, restore Poland, and the "anger" ceases, in can no longer be purified, the Poles go home and cease to be "apostles of freedom". If it was only the "anger over the injustice they suffered" that turned the Poles into revolutionaries, then the removal of the injustice will turn them into reactionaries. If the only thing that keeps the Poles alive is reaction to oppression, then remove oppression and they will be dead.
Citizen Ruge therefore proves the exact opposite of what he wants to prove. His arguments show that, in the interest of freedom and of the European family of nations, Poland must not be re-established.
Incidentally, the fact that, when discussing Poland, Citizen Ruge mentions only the emigrants and sees only emigrants at the barricades, throws a strange light on his "knowledge". We certainly do not want to hurt the feelings of the Polish emigrants, who have proved their energy and courage on the battlefield and during eighteen years of conspiratorial activity in the interests of Poland. But we cannot deny that those who are well acquainted with the Polish emigrants know that they are far from being as apostolically freedom-loving and as keen on barricade fighting as they are depicted by Citizen Ruge who, in good faith, repeats ex-Prince Lichnowski's assertions. The Polish emigrants have steadfastly persevered, have endured much and have worked hard for the restoration of Poland. But have the Poles within Poland done less, have they not braved greater dangers, have they not risked incarceration in Moabit and Spielberg, the knout and Siberian mines, Galician butcheries[238] and Prussian shrapnel? But all this does not exist for Herr Ruge. He has not noticed either that the Poles who did not emigrate, have absorbed much more of the general European culture and have understood the needs of Poland, where they have lived all the time, much better than almost all the emigrants apart from Lelewel and Mieroslawski. All intelligent thinking which exists in Poland, or to use Ruge's expression, which "has come to the Poles and upon the Poles", is attributed by Citizen Ruge to their stay abroad. In No. [81](10) we have shown that the Poles did not have to go either to the French political dreamers — who failed in February, thanks to their own phrases — or to the profound German ideologists — who have not yet been able to find an opportunity to fail — in the quest for an understanding of their country's needs; and that Poland itself was the best school to gain an understanding of what Poland needs. It is the great merit of the Poles that they were the first to realise and to propagate the fact that, for all Slav nations, the only possible form of liberation is agrarian democracy and not, as Citizen Ruge imagines, that the Poles "introduced into Poland and Russia" general phrases, such as "the great idea of political freedom, which matured in France, and even (!) the philosophy which emerged in Germany" (and in which Herr Ruge was submerged).
After this speech by Citizen Ruge, the Poles can exclaim: God protect us from our friends and we will protect ourselves from our enemies! But it has always been the greatest misfortune of the Poles that their non-Polish friends defend them with the worst possible arguments.
It certainly speaks in favour of the Left in Frankfurt that, apart from a few exceptions, the deputies of the Left were perfectly delighted with Citizen Ruge's speech on Poland, a speech which contained the following passage:
"Whether we have in mind democratic monarchy, democratised monarchy (!) or pure democracy, let us not quarrel about this; on the whole we want the same thing—freedom, national freedom, and rule of the people!"
Are we expected to be enthusiastic about a Left that allows itself to be carried away when someone says that it wants "on the whole the same thing" as the Right, as Herr Radowitz, Herr Lichnowski, Herr Vincke and all the other fat or lean knights? A Left whose head has been turned with rapture and which forgets everything as soon as it hears a few empty slogans, such as "national freedom" and "rule of the people"?
But let us leave the Left and return to Citizen Ruge.
"So far, no revolution that swept the world was greater than the revolution of 1848."
"As regards its principles, it is the most humane revolution" for these principles have arisen as a result of the glossing over of the most contradictory interests.
"It is the most humane revolution as regards its decrees and proclamations", for they represent a compendium of philanthropi-cal fantasies and sentimental phrases about fraternity produced by all the feather-heads of Europe.
"It is the most humane revolution as regards its actuality", that is the massacres and barbarities in Posen, the murderous incendiarism of Radetzky, the ferocious cruelties committed in Paris by the victors of June, the butcheries in Cracow and Prague, the rule of brutal soldiery everywhere — in short, all the outrages which constitute the "actuality" of this revolution today, September 1, 1848, and which have spilled more blood in four months than was spilled in 1793 and 1794 taken together.
The "humane" Citizen Ruge!
the bad past, the period of despotism, he has edited the events of irrationalism; he comes now to the present, to the glorious year 1848, to the revolution, he is now on his home ground, he now edits the "rationale of events".[239]
"How can the emancipation of Poland be brought about? It can be brought about by agreements in which the two great civilised nations of Europe participate; they, together with Germany, a liberated Germany, are therefore bound to form a new Triple Alliance, for they think the same way and, on the whole, want the same thing."
Here, in one bold passage, we have the whole rationale of events in foreign policy — alliance between Germany, France and Britain, all three of whom "think the same way and, on the whole, want the same thing", a new Rütli Federation[240] concluded by the three modern Swiss — Cavaignac, Leiningen and John Russell! It is true that France and Germany, with God's help, have meanwhile again retrogressed so far that as regards general political principles their governments "think" more or less "the same way" as official circles in Britain, that stable counter-revolutionary rock surrounded by the sea.
But the countries do not only "think" the same way, they "also, on the whole, want the same thing". Germany wants Schleswig, and Britain does not want to cede it to her; Germany wants protective tariffs, and Britain wants free trade; Germany wants unity, and Britain wants to see her disunited; Germany wants to be independent, and Britain seeks to subjugate her industrially — but what does that matter? "On the whole" they nevertheless want "the same thing"! And as to France, France issues tariff laws directed against Germany and France's Minister Bastide sneers at schoolmaster Raumer, who represents Germany there — hence it is obvious that France "on the whole" wants "the same thing" as Germany! Indeed, Britain and France prove in the most striking manner that they want the same thing as Germany, by threatening her with war, Britain on account of Schleswig and France on account of Lombardy!
Citizen Ruge is ideologically naive enough to believe that nations which have certain political ideas in common, would, just for that reason, conclude an alliance. Altogether, Citizen Ruge's political palette has only two colours — black and white, slavery and freedom. The world for him is divided into two great camps — into civilised nations and barbarians, freemen and serfs. The boundary line of freedom, which six months ago was situated on the other side of the Rhine, now coincides with the Russian frontier, and this advance is called the revolution of 1848. It is in this confused manner that the present movement is reflected in Citizen Ruge's head. That is how he translates the battle-cry of those who fought at the barricades in February and March into Pomeranian.[3]
If we translate it from the Pomeranian back into German, we find that the three civilised nations, the three free peoples, are those where bourgeois rule exists in various forms and at various stages of development, whereas the "slaves and serfs" are peoples ruled by patriarchal and feudal absolutism. For Arnold Ruge, the faroucheh republican and democrat, freedom denotes the most ordinary "insipid" liberalism, the rule of the bourgeoisie, with perhaps some quasi-democratic forms — so that is the poodle's core!c
Citizen Ruge argues that France, Britain and Germany must of course be allies, because the bourgeoisie rules in these countries. And if the objective interests of the three countries are diametrically opposed to one another, if free trade with Germany and France is an indispensable condition for the existence of the British bourgeoisie, if protective tariffs against Britain are an indispensable condition for the existence of the French and German bourgeoisie, if, in many respects, similar relations obtain between Germany and France, and if this Triple Alliance amounted, in practice, to the industrial subjugation of France and Germany? — "Narrow-minded egoism, mean mercenary minds," mutters Ruge, the Pomeranian thinker, into his blond beard.
Herr Jordan spoke of the tragic irony of universal history. Citizen Ruge is a striking example of this. He, like the rest of the more or less ideological Left, sees his most cherished pet fantasies, his greatest mental efforts, wrecked by the class whom he represents. His philanthropically cosmopolitan project is wrecked by mean mercenary minds and he himself must, unknowingly and uninten-tionally, represent precisely these mercenary minds in a more or less ideologically distorted fashion. The ideologist proposes, the shop-keeper disposes. Tragic irony of universal history!
Citizen Ruge then says that France "has declared that, though the treaties of 1815 [241] have been torn up, she is nevertheless willing to recognise the territorial division as it exists at present". "This is quite right" for Citizen Ruge has found something in Lamartine's manifesto,[242] which so far nobody tried to find there — that is the
Paraphrase from Heinrich Heine who spoke about Ruge as a man who knew "how to translate Hegel into Pomeranian".— Ed.
basis of a new international right. He explains this in the following way:
"The new historical (!) right" (No. 1) "must proceed from this relationship with France. Historical right is the right of nations" (! No. 2). "In the case we are discussing (?), it is the new international right" (! No. 3). "This is the only correct interpretation of historical right" (!No. 4). "Any other interpretation of historical right" (!No. 5) "is absurd. There is no other international right" (!No. 6). "Historical right"(No. 7) "is the right" (at last!) "which is brought about by history and sanctioned by time, since it" (which?) "annuls and tears up hitherto existing treaties and replaces them by new ones."
In short, historical right — edits the rationale of events! Thus it is written, word for word, in the acts of the apostles of German unity, i.e. the stenographic reports of Frankfurt, page 1186, column one — and people complain that the Neue Rheinische Zeitung criticises Herr Rüge by means of exclamation marks! But this dizzy gyrating dance of historical right and international right was, of course, bound to stun the worthy members of the Left, as they were bound to be filled with admiration when the philosopher from Pomerania called out to them with unshakeable certainty: 'Historical right is the right which is brought about by history and. sanctioned by time" etc.
"History" has indeed always "brought about" the exact opposite of what had been "sanctioned by time", and the sanction of "time" has always consisted in overturning that which had been "brought about by history".
Citizen Ruge then tables the "only correct and admissible" motion:
"To instruct the Central Authority, in concert with Britain and France, to prepare a congress for the restoration of a free and independent Poland; all powers concerned are to be invited to send their envoys to this congress."
What upright, honest views! Lord John Russell and Eugène Cavaignac are to restore Poland. The English and French bourgeoisie are to threaten Russia with war so as to bring about the liberation of Poland, which at present is a matter of complete indifference to them! At this time of general confusion and disarray, when the effect of every piece of reassuring news causing shares to rise by 7[8] per cent is nullified by six disturbing blows, when industry is struggling against creeping bankruptcy, when commerce is stagnant, when the unemployed proletariat has to be supported by enormous sums of money to prevent it from taking a last desperate stand — at this moment, can the bourgeoisie of the three civilised nations be expected to create an additional difficulty? And what a difficulty! A war with Russia, which has been the closest ally of Britain since February! War with Russia, a war which, as everybody knows, would spell the downfall of the German and French bourgeoisie! To what advantage? None at all. This is indeed more than Pomeranian ingenuousness!
But Citizen Ruge is absolutely confident that a "peaceful solution" of the Polish question is possible. This is getting better and better! And why? Because the point now is:
"What the treaties of Vienna want must now be put into practice and really carried out.... The treaties of Vienna wanted to maintain the right of all nations against the great French nation ... they wanted the restoration of the German nation."
Now it becomes clear why Herr Ruge "on the whole wants the same thing" as the Right. The Right also wants the treaties of Vienna carried out.
The treaties of Vienna are the epitome of the great victory of reactionary Europe over revolutionary France. They are the classic form in which European reaction ruled for fifteen years during the Restoration period. They restore legitimacy, monarchy by divine right, feudal aristocracy, clerical rule, and patriarchal jurisdiction and administration. But since victory was won with the help of the English, German, Italian, Spanish and especially the French bourgeoisie, concessions had also to be made to the bourgeoisie. While the sovereigns, aristocrats, priests and bureaucrats divided the rich spoils among themselves, the bourgeoisie was put off with promis-sory notes drawn on the future, which were not honoured and which nobody had any intention of honouring. Instead of examining the real practical content of the treaties of Vienna, Herr Ruge assumes that these empty promises are their true content, and that reactionary practice is merely an improper misinterpretation!
One must indeed be an astonishingly good-natured person to believe, after 33 years, after the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, that these promissory notes will still be paid and to imagine that the sentimental phrases in which the illusory promises of Vienna are wrapped up have still any meaning in the year 1848.
Citizen Ruge appears as the Don Quixote of the treaties of Vienna.
Finally, Citizen Ruge reveals a great secret to the Assembly — it is only the fact that the treaties of 1815 were broken in Cracow in 1846 which caused the revolutions of 1848. Let this be a warning to all despots!
To sum up, Citizen Ruge has not changed in any way since we last met him in the field of literature. He still uses the same phrases which he had learned by heart and repeated ever since he worked as the door-keeper of German philosophy at the Hallischen and Deutschen Jahrbücher; there is still the same confusion, the same jumble of views, the same lack of ideas, the same gift of presenting the most banal and nonsensical ideas in a pompous manner, the same lack of "knowledge", and, in particular, the same pretensions to the approbation of the German philistine, who has never heard the like in his life.
Here we conclude our summary of the debate on Poland. To expect us to deal with Herr Low from Posen and the other great intellects that follow, is asking too much.
The debate as a whole leaves a sad impression. So many long speeches and so little content, so litde knowledge of the subject and so little talent! The worst debate in the previous or the present French Chamber or in the British House of Commons contains more intelligence, more expert knowledge and more real content than this discussion, which lasted for three days and dealt with one of the most interesting subjects of modern politics. Everything could have been made of it, and the National Assembly simply turned it into political twaddle.
There has indeed never and nowhere been an assembly like this! The results are well known.[243] Three-quarters of Posen has been conquered but it has been conquered not by force, or "German industry" or the "plough", but by political twaddle, false statistics and timorous decisions.
"You have swallowed the Poles, but, by God, you shall not digest them!"[3]
Written by Engels between August 7 and September 6, 1848
See this volume, p. 366.— Ed.
97. The Danish Armistice and Hansemann
Cologne, August 10. We draw our readers' attention to our article on Denmark.[3] The Danish newspapers have furnished us with some quite new disclosures about the behaviour of the "Government of Action" in the armistice affair.(1) So, in one way or another, Herr Hansemann's secret transgressions are coming to light after all.
Written by Engels on August 10, 1848
See "Kopenhagen, 5. August", Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 72, August 11, 1848.— Ed.
98. The German Citizenship and the Prussian Police
Cologne, August 11. It is well known how the Prussian army paid homage to German unity on August 6.[244] The Prussian police must not lag behind the Prussian army. Never have there been in its opinion more German foreigners or foreign Germans in Prussia than since an indivisible German National Assembly, a German Imperial Regent[3] and a German Imperial Government have been meeting in Frankfurt.
Herr Geiger, acting Police Superintendent, whose accession to the throne was greeted by us earlier(1) with misgivings, seems to have received the special order to purge Cologne of German foreigners and to tolerate only Prussian subjects within the walls of the old imperial city. If he is consistent, who will save a person's right of domicile except the police, the army, the bureaucracy and the natives? Herr Geiger himself will not be missing among these "last of the Mohicans".
We shall report at a later time about the conflicts the editor-in-chief of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Karl Marx, had with regard to the Prussian right of citizenship.(2) Today we are dealing with Herr Karl Schapper, a contributor and proof-reader of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.
Herr Schapper has received an invitation to visit the Police Inspector of his district this morning. The Police Inspector informed him that due to an order of Herr Geiger, he would have to leave Cologne and the Prussian state by tomorrow because he is a foreigner. The Inspector informed him at the same time that he would extend the period by a week out of courtesy.
Herr Schapper is not only a German but he is also a citizen of Nassau and he is equipped with a Nassau passport in optima forma.(3)
Herr Schapper resides at Cologne with his wife and three children. His crime consists of being a member of the Democratic Society and the Workers' Association[245] as well as being the proof-reader of the
Neue Rheinische Zeitung. These are, of course, three crimes all at once.
"Every German possesses the general German citizenship," reads the first paragraph of the German Fundamental Rights[246] which has already been approved. Herr Geiger seems to interpret this in such a way that every German has the right to be expelled from 37 German states. Besides the legislation of the National Assembly, there is now Geiger's legislation!
For Herr Hansemann, however, the Minister of action, we have a piece of advice: he may use police methods against deputies at his own discretion, but there is no playing around with the press. It can open the book of the bourgeois past and
If you are after a litde amusement, You may go dancing, but I'll play the tune — no matter how many Geigers may threaten with their violins.'
In all formality.— Ed. Mozart, The Marriage of Figaro, English version by Edward. J. Dent, Oxford University Press, London, 1937, Act I, Cavatina Figaro.— Ed.
99. The Italian Liberation Struggle and the Cause of Its Present Failure
With the same celerity with which they were expelled from Lombardy in March, the Austrians have now returned in triumph and have already entered Milan.
The Italian people spared no sacrifice. They were prepared at the cost of life and property to complete the work they had begun and win their national independence.
But this courage, enthusiasm and readiness to make sacrifices were nowhere matched by those who stood at the helm. Overtly or covertly, they did everything to use the means at their disposal, not for the liberation of the country from the harsh Austrian tyranny, but to paralyse the popular forces and, in effect, to restore the old conditions as soon as possible.
The Pope,[3] who was worked on more and more every day and won over by the Austrian and Jesuitical politicians, put all the obstacles in the way of the Mamiani Ministry which he, in conjunction with the "Blacks"(1) and the "Black-Yellows",(2) could find. The Ministry itself delivered highly patriotic speeches in both Chambers, but did not have the energy to carry out its good intentions.
The Government of Tuscany distinguished itself by fine words, but even fewer deeds. But the arch-enemy of Italian liberty among the native princes was and remains Charles Albert. The Italians should have repeated and borne in mind every hour of the day the saying: "Heaven protect us from our friends, we will protect ourselves from our enemies!" They hardly needed to fear Ferdinand of Bourbon, he was unmasked long ago. Charles Albert, on the other hand, let himself be acclaimed everywhere as "la spada d'ltalia" (the sword of Italy) and the hero whose rapier was Italy's best guarantee of freedom and independence.
His emissaries went to all parts of Northern Italy portraying him as the only man who could and would save the country. To enable him to do this, however, it was necessary to set up a North Italian kingdom. Only this could give him the power required not only to oppose the Austrians but to drive them out of Italy. The ambition which had previously made him join forces with the Carbonari,[248]
whom he afterwards betrayed, this ambition became more in-flamed than ever and made him dream of a plenitude of power and magnificence before which the splendour of all the other Italian princes would very soon pale. He thought that he could appropriate the entire popular movement of 1848 and use it in the interests of his own miserable self. Filled with hatred and distrust of all truly liberal men, he surrounded himself with people more or less loyal to absolutism and inclined to encourage his royal ambitions. He placed at the head of the army generals whose intellectual superiority and political views he did not have to fear, but who neither enjoyed the confidence of the soldiers nor possessed the talent required to wage a successful war. He pompously called himself the "liberator" of Italy while making it a condition that those who were to be liberated accept his yoke. Seldom was a man so favoured by circumstances as he was. His greed, his desire to possess a great deal and if possible everything led in the end to his losing all that he had gained. So long as there was no firm decision that Lombardy would join Piedmont, so long as the possibility of a republican form of government still existed, he remained in his entrenchments and djd not move against the Austrians, although they were relatively weak at the time. He let Radetzky, d'Aspre, Weiden, and others seize the towns and fortresses of the Venetian provinces one by one and did not stir a finger. Only when Venice sought the refuge of his crown did he deign to give his help. The same applies to Parma and Modena. Radetzky meanwhile had mustered strength and made all preparations for an attack which, in view of the incompetence and blindness of Charles Albert and his generals, led to a decisive victory. The outcome is well known. Henceforth Italians can and will no longer entrust their liberation to a prince or king. On the contrary, in order to save themselves they must completely discard this useless "spada d'ltalia" as quickly as possible. If they had done this earlier, and had superannuated the King with his system and all the hangers-on, and had formed a democratic union, it is likely that by now there would have been no more Austrians in Italy. Instead, the Italians not only bore all the hardships of a war waged with fury and barbarity by their enemies and suffered the heaviest sacrifices in vain, but were left defenceless to the thirst for vengeance of the Metternich-Austrian reactionaries and their soldiery. Anyone reading Radetzky's manifestos to the people of Lombardy and Weiden 's manifestos to the Roman legations will understand that to the Italians Attila and his Hun hordes would have appeared merciful angels. The reaction and restoration have triumphed. The Duke of Modena,[3] called "il carneficé" (the hangman), who loaned the Austrians 1,200,000 florins for war purposes, has returned as well. The people, in their magnanimity, have so often made a stick for their own back, that it is time they got wiser and learned something from their enemies. Although, during his previous reign, the Duke had imprisoned, hanged and shot thousands of people for their political convictions, the Modenese let him depart unmolested. Now he has returned to discharge his sanguinary princely office with redoubled zeal.
The reaction and restoration have triumphed, but only for a time. The people are so deeply imbued with the revolutionary spirit that they cannot be held in check for long. Milan, Brescia and other towns showed in March what this spirit is capable of. The excessive suffering inflicted upon them will lead to a new rising. By taking into account the bitter experience of the past months, Italy will be able to avoid new delusions and to secure her independence under a single democratic banner.
Written by Engels on August 11, 1848
Francis V.— Ed.
100. Charles Albert's Betrayal
The newspapers of Turin, Genoa etc. are loudly complaining that the cause of Italy's freedom and independence has been betrayed by him and by those who up to the very last moment were repeatedly swearing under oath that they would win or die for Italy. What was earlier uttered only by a small handful of men — that Charles Albert is a traitor — is now loudly repeated day after day by the mass of the people and by all those newspapers that have not completely sold out to the perfidious King of Sardinia. This insight will later bear its fruit; this time, however, it has come too late. Since the battles of Goito and Mozambano[249] it became more and more clear to many people as the days went by that the Sardinian was either plotting a betrayal or was totally incapable of carrying out the task that he has undertaken. He lapsed into complete inactivity and whatever was done was against all the rules of common sense, of politics and of the art of war. For a long time now many questions have been obtruding themselves on the public's attention. Some of the answers to these questions have in fact already been given, and others will shortly come to light. Who, for example, constandy obstructed the arrangements for the arming of the whole people? Who distributed and dispersed the Italian army over so many points and neglected to form a reserve-line, with the result that every defeat was bound to lead to ruin? Why did Charles Albert not advance on Vicenza? Why did the army in Valleggio lack bread? Why did the Modenese desert? How did it happen that the Lombardian volunteers did not find a single cannon on the banks of the Mincio? How was it that the cartridges distributed during the battle to several Piedmontese corps could not be used because the bullets were too big? And lastly: how could Charles Albert, who had long since decided to retreat, still order the destruction of a large number of houses in the suburbs of Milan, to the value of 30 million lire? There is only one answer to these questions, unless we are prepared to assume the most lamentable and incredible incompetence, and that is that Charles Albert behaved just as treacherously and perfidiously in the year 1848 as he did in the year 1821, when he shamelessly betrayed his fellow conspirators and helped to deliver them up to the hangman's rope, to the galleys and to banishment.[250]
Written by Engels on August 16, 1848
101. The Attempt to Expel Schapper
Cologne, August 18.
"We demand a universal German right of domicile and full freedom of movement throughout the German fatherland."
So said His Majesty Frederick William IV in his charter of March 18.[251]
But the King proposes and Herr Geiger disposes. Herr Geiger, acting Police Superintendent of Cologne, is insisting on the expulsion of Herr Karl Schapper on the pretext that Herr Schapper is a citizen of Nassau and moreover a German in partions infidelium.[3]
Yesterday a police-sergeant pushed his way into Frau Schapper's bedroom and deposited the following letter, which we reproduce exactly as it was written. What might appear to be incorrectness is perhaps nothing more than a Prussian protest against German grammar.
Herr Schapper,
I am instructed to inform you that the Police Superintendent still continues to insist that you should leave the city, should you however have any objection to raise against the laws then please lodge an appeal immediately with the Police Inspector, to be sent to him immediately. Cologne 17/8. 48
Quetting Police-Sergeant
Beyond the realm of reality (literally "in the country of infidels")—an addition to the title of Catholic bishops appointed to a purely nominal diocese in non-Christian countries.— Ed.
Thereupon, Herr Schapper addressed the following note to the Police Inspector:
Dear Sir,
Under the date of the 11th of this month you signified to me that I must leave the city of Cologne within a week, in accordance with the decision of Herr Geiger, Police Superintendent. I had already lodged a protest against the decision on that occasion. You have now communicated to me through a police-sergeant that the said expulsion order still stands but that I may appeal against it. This I am now doing and I base my case on the following reasons.
1) As early as March 18, 1848, the day before the March revolution, the King of Prussia issued a charter calling on all German states to observe a universal German right of domicile and admit the freedom of movement. No Prussian authority ought to refuse the citizens of another German state what the King of Prussia has demanded for citizens of the Prussian state. The charter of March 18 either has no meaning at all or it implies the abolition of all earlier provisions for the expulsion of non-Prussian German citizens.
2) On July 21 of this year the German National Assembly at Frankfurt adopted Paragraph 2, Article 1, of the German Fundamental Rights in a form which expressly forbids all expulsions of Germans from German cities or states. It says:
" Every German has the right to sojourn and make his domicile, acquire real estate etc., etc. ... pursue any type of employment in any part of the territory of the Empire.... "The conditions of sojourn and domicile will be laid down for the whole of Germany ... by a law of domicile issued by the imperial authority. Until such a time as these laws of the Empire are proclaimed, the exercise of the said rights is open to every German in every German state under the same conditions as apply to the citizens of the state in question.
"No German state may make any distinction in connection with civil, penal or adjective law between its own citizens and the citizens of any other German state whereby the latter, as foreigners, are treated at a disadvantage." According to this paragraph I have the right, until the proclamation of the relevant laws of the Empire, to sojourn or domicile in Cologne, a town situated on the territory of the German Empire, and gain my livelihood as a proof-reader under the same conditions as the citizens of the Prussian state. But citizens of the Prussian state can only be expelled from Cologne, under the existing laws, if they have no means of subsistence. I have not been accused of lacking these and if I were I could at any time prove the contrary, since my salary as proof-reader on the Neue Rheinische Zeitung is sufficient to guarantee myself and my family a decent standard of living.
It is not valid to object that the relevant paragraph of the Fundamental Rights has not yet been promulgated. It has all along been the practice of administrative authorities in all constitutional states to suspend the execution of regulations such as the right of expulsion and other restrictions on personal freedom when a resolution abolishing these regulations has been passed by the appropriate Legislative Assembly and only awaits formal promulgation.
We are here dealing, then, with a resolution of the National Assembly which abolishes the powers of expulsion and a royal charter which recognises this resolution in advance. Consequently I believe that I am fully within my rights when I declare
that I protest against the expulsion order, which was not even communicated to me in writing or accompanied by a statement of reasons, as an illegal act and that I will only yield to force.
Sir, I would ask you to be so kind as to lodge this protest with the appropriate authorities and to forward the decision to me as soon as possible, for if it is ignored I will appeal immediately to the royal Regierungspräsident or the Ministry of the Interior and in the last instance to the Berlin Constituent Assembly and the German National Assembly.
Cologne, August 17, 1848
(signed) Karl Schapper
The "cathedral of German unity", in which the solemn speeches that our great political architects made for three days running culminate, has, as its foundation stone the expulsion of a citizen of Nassau from Cologne on the Rhine.
102. Geiger and Schapper
Cologne, August 22. At the request of Police Superintendent Geiger (from Koblenz), Herr Schapper has been ordered to leave Cologne, since he is not a Prussian subject but a citizen of Nassau. The Workers' Association, of which Herr Schapper is an active member, feels compelled to make this cause its own and to protest against the arbitrary expulsion of Herr Schapper. Last Friday the protest was handed over to Herr Dolleschall in the absence of Herr Geiger. Since Herr Dolleschall declared that he knew nothing of the affair, the deputation appointed to deliver the protest was postponed to the following Tuesday, August 22, so as to be able to speak to Herr Geiger himself. Today Herr Geiger received the deputation with the declaration that the matter was no longer in his hands but that following an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung* the Ministry had asked him, Geiger, for a detailed report on the affair. The report had been sent off today; it was therefore no longer within his powers either to carry out or to countermand the expulsion of Schapper. One member of the deputation believed he understood Herr Geiger to say that Herr Schapper's expulsion order emanated from the Ministry, whereupon Herr Geiger vehemently assured the deputation on his most sacred word of honour that it was he who had taken the initiative in this measure. He referred first of all to his special knowledge of the law, since he had earlier been an examining magistrate; but that was not the only reason.
"I believe that I have acted not only as Police Superintendent, but also in accordance with the dictates of reason: J have acted as I myself."
He knew full well, he added, that everything he said would be reprinted in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung and given a special interpretation, but that did not worry him: " I have acted as I myself." Another member of the deputation pointed out to him that if Herr Geiger had acted as "I myself", then this "I" was surely none other than the "I" of the Police Superintendent and it was of course possible that this "/"was in accordance with the dictates of reason. But the Workers' Association also had an "I", the "I" of 6,000 workers, and this "I" probably carried just as much weight as Herr Geiger's "I" and was likewise in accordance with the dictates of reason. The Workers' Association, he added, protested against a measure that went against all existing laws and the Frankfurt National Assembly. The first member of the deputation demanded that Herr Geiger at least disavow the measure; Herr Geiger refused, and gave the deputation the assurance that for his part, until the Minister gave a reply, Herr Schapper could stay undisturbed in Cologne. Herr Geiger also refused to give an explanation as to how his report had been drawn up. Has Herr Geiger taken different decisions from Herr Gagern and is a citizen of Nassau not a German citizen, who is entitled to settle in any of the 34 German fatherlands?
103. The Kölnische Zeitung about Italy
Cologne, August 26. Yesterday we were condemned to having to listen to the political hot air of a writer of belles-lettres, Herr Wilhelm Jordan of Berlin, who lectured from the world-historical standpoint.[3] Fate is pursuing us relentlessly. A similar lot befalls us today: the main achievement of March consists in the belles-lettres writers having monopolised political life.
Herr Levin Schückingoi Münster, the fourthor fifth wheel on the advertising wagon of Herr Dumont, has published an article in the
Kölnische Zeitung on "our policy in Italy".(1)
And what does "my friend Levin with the eerie eyes"(2) have to say?
"There has never been a more propitious moment for Germany than the present one to place its policy vis-à-vis Italy upon a healthy basis which promises to endure for centuries. We have gloriously" (!by the betrayal of Charles Albert) "wiped off the disgrace with which our flags were besmirched by a people that in times of fortune easily becomes overweening. At the head of a matchless army, worthy of admiration not only in victory and battle but also for its patience and endurance, barba bianco, the White-Beard, planted Germany's glorious (!?) double-headed eagle on the battlements of the rebellious town where more than six hundred years ago the imperial Red-Beard hoisted the same banner as a symbol of Germany's sovereignty over Italy. This sovereignty still belongs to us today."
Thus speaks Herr Levin Schücking of the Kölnische Zeitung. In those days when Radetzky's Croats and Pandours were driven out of Milan by an unarmed people after a five-day battle, in those days when the "army worthy of admiration" which had been routed at Goito withdrew to Verona, in those days the political lyre of "my friend Levin with the eerie eyes" was silent! But ever since the reinforced Austrian army achieved an undeserved victory because of the equally cowardly and clumsy betrayal of Charles Albert, a betrayal which we predicted innumerable times, ever since then the neighbouring journalists have been reappearing on the scene, ever since then they have been trumpeting about the "wiped-off disgrace", risking parallels between Frederick Barbarossa and Radetzky Barbabianca and reducing heroic Milan, which made the most glorious revolution of 1848, to a mere "rebellious town". Ever since then "sovereignty over Italy" belongs to us Germans, to whom otherwise nothing ever belongs.
"Our flags"! The black-and-yellow rags of the Metternich reaction which are being trodden under foot in Vienna, those are the flags of Herr Schücking of the Kölnische Zeitung.
"Germany's glorious double-headed eagle"! That selfsame heral-dic monster which had its feathers plucked by the armed revolution at Jemappes, Fleurus, Millesimo, Rivoli, Neuwied, Marengo, Hohen-linden, Ulm, Austerlitz and Wagram [253] happens to be the "glorious" Cerberus of Herr Schücking of the Kölnische Zeitung.
When the Austrians were beaten, they were separatists [Sonderbun-dler][254] and practically traitors to their country. Ever since Charles Albert was caught in the trap and they have moved to the Ticino, they have become "Germans" and it is "we" who have accomplished all this. We have no objections to the Kölnische Zeitung having achieved the victories of Volta and Custozza and conquered Milan [255], but then it will also have to assume the responsibility for the — to it — very well known brutalities and infamies of that barbarian army "whose patience and endurance are worthy of admiration", just as it also assumed in former times the responsibility for the Galician slaughter.[256]
"This sovereignty still belongs to us today. Italy and Germany are nations around which nature and history have after all formed a bond. They belong together providentially, being related like science and art, thought and sentiment."
Just like Herr Brüggemann and Herr Schücking! And it is exactly for that reason that the Germans and Italians have constantly fought each other for 2,000 years. It is exactly for that reason that the Italians shook off German oppression again and again. It is exactly for that reason that German blood has so often reddened the streets of Milan. All this was done to prove that Germany and Italy "belong together providentially".
It is exactly because Italy and Germany "are related" that Radetzky and Weiden have allowed the burning and plundering of all Venetian towns!
My friend Levin with the eerie eyes now demands that we surrender Lombardy up to the River Etsch(3) because the people does not want us even if a few poor " cittadini,,h (the learned Herr Schücking thus refers to the contadini, peasants) received the Austrians jubilandy. But if we conduct ourselves as "a free people",
"then it [the Italian people] will gladly offer us its hand in order to let us guide it along a path which it cannot enter upon by itself, the path to freedom".
Indeed! Italy which won for herself freedom of the press, a jury system and a Constitution before Germany had awakened from the laziest slumber; Italy which at Palermo fought the first revolution of this year[257]; Italy which without weapons conquered the "matchless" Austrians at Milan, that Italy cannot enter upon the path to freedom without being guided by Germany, which means by a Radetzky! Of course, if it takes a Frankfurt Assembly, a meaningless central power, 39 separatist leagues [Sonderbünde] and the Kölnische Zeitung to walk the path of freedom....
Enough of that! So as to make sure that the Italians "will let themselves be guided towards freedom" by the Germans, Herr Schücking retains Italian Tyrol and Venetia for the enfeoffment of an Austrian archduke and he sends
"2,000 South German imperial troops to Rome so that Christ's vicar may restore order in his own domain".
But unfortunately
The French and Russians own the land, The English rule the sea; But we in dream's ethereal realm Hold sovereign mastery.
Our unity is perfect there, Our might beyond dispute. The other folk in solid earth Have meanwhile taken root.(4)
And up there in the ethereal realm of dreams we also possess "sovereignty over Italy". Nobody knows this better than Herr Schücking. After he has developed this worthy policy of sovereignty for the benefit of the German Empire, he closes with a sigh:
"A policy which is great, high-minded and worthy of a power like that of the German Empire has unfortunately always been regarded by us as fantastic and thus it will probably be for a long time to cornel "
We recommend Herr Schücking as door-keeper and frontier guard of German honour upon the summit of the Stilfser Ridge. From up there the vigorous literary supplement of the Kölnische Zeitung may survey Italy and make certain that not one iota of "Germany's sovereignty over Italy" will be lost. Only then can Germany sleep calmly.
Written by Engels on August 26, 1848
104. The Zeitungs-Halle on the Rhine Province[258]
Cologne, August 26. The Berliner Zeitungs-Halle contains the following article[3]:
"We recendy had occasion to mention that the time has come when the spirit which for so long has held together the old political entities is gradually vanishing. As regards Austria, hardly anyone will call this in question, but in Prussia, too, the signs of the times confirming oui* observation are becoming daily more manifest, and we cannot turn a blind eye to them. There is at present only one interest capahle of tying its various provinces to the Prussian state, namely that of developing liberal political institutions and jointly establishing and promoting a new and free mode of social relations. Silesia, which is making vigorous advances on the road to political and social progress, will hardly be happy in Prussia unless Prussia as a state is entirely adequate to these aspirations. As regards the Province of Saxony we know only too well that ever since its incorporation into the Prussian state it has resented it at heart. And as to the Rhine Province, surely everybody will still remember the threats which the Rhenish deputies made here prior to March 18, and thus helped to precipitate the turn of events. There is a growing spirit of alienation in this province. New evidence of this is provided in a now rather widely distributed leaflet which contains no mention of the publisher or place of publication."
The leaflet referred to by the Zeitungs-Halle is presumably known to all our readers.
What must please us is the view — which is at last advanced by at least one of the inhabitants of Berlin — that Berlin does not play the role of Paris as far as either Germany or the Rhineland in particular is concerned. Berlin is beginning to realise that it cannot govern us, cannot acquire the authority befitting a capital city. Berlin has amply proved its incompetence during the indecisive March revolution,
"Das Rheinlands Herz zu Preussen", Berliner Zeitungs-Halle No. 194, August 24, 1848.— Ed.
15-3447 during the storming of the arsenal and during the recent disturbances.[259] To the irresolution displayed by the people of Berlin is added a complete lack of talent in all parties. Since February the whole movement has not produced a single man in Berlin capable of leading his party. The spirit in this capital of the "spirit" is indeed very willing but just as weak as the flesh. The Berliners even had to import their Hansemann, their Camphausen and their Milde from the Rhine or Silesia. Far from being a German Paris, Berlin is not even a Prussian Vienna. It is not a metropolis, it is a "seat of the Court".
It is, however, noteworthy that even in Berlin people are coming to the conclusion, long widespread in the Rhineland, that German unity can come about only as a result of the disintegration of the German so-called great powers. We have never concealed our views on this point. We are not enraptured with either the past or present glory of Germany, with either the wars of independence [260] or the "glorious victories of German arms" in Lombardy and Schleswig. But if Germany is ever to achieve anything she must* unite, she must become one state not only in word but in deed. And to bring this about it is necessary above all that there should be "neither an Austria nor a Prussia".[3]
Incidentally, "the spirit" which "for so long held together" us and the old Prussian provinces was a very palpable, crude spirit; it was the spirit of 15,000 bayonets and a number of cannon. It was not for nothing that a military colony of Wasserpolacken[261] and Kashubians was set up here on the Rhine, and that our young men had to serve in guards regiments in Berlin. This was done not in order to reconcile us with the other provinces, but to stir up hatred between the provinces and to exploit the national enmity between the Germans and Slavs, and the regional hatred of every petty German province against all the neighbouring provinces, in the interests of patriarchal feudal despotism. Divide et impera!
It is indeed time to put an end to the fictitious role assigned to the Berliners by "the provinces", i.e. by the junkerdom of the Uckermark and Further Pomerania, in their panic-stricken declarations, a role which the Berliners promptly accepted. Berlin is not and will never become the seat of the revolution, the capital of democracy. Only the imagination of the knights of Brandenburg, terrified at the prospect of bankruptcy, the debtor's prison and the lamp-post, could ascribe to Berlin such a role, and only the coquettish vanity of the Berliners could believe that Berlin rep-
From Ernst Moritz Arndt's poem "Der Freudenklang".— Ed.
resented the provinces. We acknowledge the, March revolution, but only for what it really was. Its greatest shortcoming is that it has not revolutionised the Berliners.
The Zeitungs-Halle believes that the disintegrating Prussian state can be cemented by means of liberal institutions. On the contrary. The more liberal the institutions are, the more will the heterogene-ous elements be at liberty to separate, and the clearer will become the necessity of dissociation and the more evident the incompetence of the politicians of all parties in Berlin.
We repeat, the Rhine Province by no means objects to remaining within Germany, together with the old Prussian provinces, but trying to compel it to remain for ever within Prussia, whether it be an absolutist, a constitutional or a democratic Prussia, means making Germany's unity impossible, perhaps means even losing for Germany — we express the general attitude of the people — a large and beautiful territory by attempting to keep it for Prussia.
Written by Engels on August 26, 1848
Endnotes
[189] This article was first published in English in the magazine Labour Monthly, 1948, Vol. XXX, No. 8, and later in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung". 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972.
[191] In 1824, under mass pressure the English Parliament repealed the ban on trade unions. However, in 1825 it passed a Bill on workers' associations confirming the repeal of the ban on the trade unions but vigorously limiting their activities. Merely to urge workers to join a union and take part in a strike was considered, for example, as "coercion" and "violence" and was liable to criminal prosecution
[192] This refers to bloody clashes between workers and police in Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle and Sunderland in 1839. The most significant event was the Newport rising in November 1839, due to the deplorable conditions of the South-Wales miners and growing discontent after Parliament had turned down the Chartist petition and a number of popular Chartist agitators (Henry Vincent and others) were arrested. The leaders of the insurrection intended it to lead to a general armed struggle for the People's Charter. Three poorly armed insurgent detachments (numbering 3,000 men) entered Newport at dawn on November 4 but were dispersed by troops and police who had been brought in advance. On January 13, 1840, the leaders of the insurgents were sentenced to capital punishment which was commuted to transportation as a result of a protest campaign. When Parliament rejected the second Chartist petition in August 1842 in conditions of economic crisis and growing poverty, disturbances broke out in some of the industrial districts in England. In Lancashire and in a considerable part of Cheshire and Yorkshire strikes assumed a general nature and in some places (Stockport, Preston and others) they turned into spontaneous revolts. The Government responded with mass arrests and severe sentences for Chartist leaders.
[193] See Note 166.
[194] The fight for legislative restriction of the working day to ten hours began in England as early as the end of the eighteenth century, and from the 1830s on large sections of the workers became involved in it. In an attempt to use this popular slogan against the industrial bourgeoisie, representatives of the landed aristocracy supported the Ten Hours' Bill in Parliament. The Bill limiting working hours for women and young children was passed by Parliament on June 8, 1847.
[6] The German Workers' Club was founded in Paris on March 8 and 9, 1848, on the initiative of Communist League leaders. The club's aim was to unite German emigrant workers in Paris, to explain to them the tactics of the proletariat in a bourgeois-democratic revolution, and also to counter the attempts of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democrats to stir up the German workers by nationalist propaganda and enlist them into the adventurist invasion of Germany by volunteer legions. The club successfully arranged the return of German workers one by one to their home country to take part in the revolutionary struggle there.
[195] This refers to the battle of Custozza, near Verona, between the Austrian army, under the command of Radetzky, and Piedmont troops under the command of King Charles Albert. The fighting went on for three days, from July 23 to 25, without bringing decisive victory to either side. Eventually the Austrian command mustered superior forces and dealt a heavy blow at the Piedmont troops, who were scattered largely due to poor generalship which doomed them to inaction at the decisive moment.
[196] In the battle of Curtatone (five kilometres from Mantua) on May 29, 1848, the Austrian troops forced the Tuscany corps, which fought on the side of the Piedmont army, to retreat. The resistance offered by this corps, however, enabled the Piedmont troops to regroup their forces and on May 30, in the battle of Goito, to hurl back the Austrians to their former positions. Nevertheless, the Piedmont command failed to make use of this success.
[198] This refers to the "Appeal to the Germans" issued on March 25, 1813, in Kalisch after the defeat of Napoleon's Grand Army in Russia in 1812. The Russian Tsar and the King of Prussia called upon the Germans to fight Napoleon and demagogically promised them freedom and independence. It later transpired that the monarchs' intention was to use the national liberation movements to strengthen the feudal monarchies and privileges of the nobility.
[199] For the congresses of the Holy Alliance held in Laibach and Verona, see Note 128. The delegates of the states forming the German Confederation held a conference in Carlsbad in August 1819. On the initiative of the Austrian Chancellor Metternich and with the approval of the Russian Tsar, measures of struggle against the opposition movement were worked out. The decisions of the conference were approved by the Federal Diet (see Note 13) on September 20, 1819. The Carlsbad decisions envisaged the introduction of preliminary censorship in all German states, strict supervision ol universities, prohibition of students' societies, establishment of an investigation commission to suppress so-called demagogues.
[200] See Note 164.
[201] See Note 12.
[202] The first partition of Poland took place in 1772 between Prussia, Austria and Russia.
[203] See Note 146.
[20] On August 10, 1792, the monarchy in France was overthrown by a popular uprising in Paris. The sculpture of a dying lion by Thorwaldsen was installed in Lucerne some time later, to commemorate the Swiss guards who were killed defending the royal palace. On July 29, 1830, the Bourbons were overthrown in France. In July 1820, the Carbonari, aristocratic and bourgeois revolutionaries, rose in revolt against the absolutist regime in the Kingdom of Naples and succeeded in having a moderate liberal Constitution introduced. Intervention by the powers of the Holy Alliance, however, led to the restoration of the absolutist regime in Naples. On all these occasions Swiss mercenaries were used by the counter-revolutionary forces.
[206] An allusion to the suppression of the Cracow national liberation uprising in 1846 by Austrian troops and the abolition of the status of the free city of Cracow ("the Cracow Republic") by decision of the three powers — Austria, Prussia and Russia (see Notes 36 and 47).
[207] In the summer of 1848, the anti-feudal movement and the struggle for complete liberation from the yoke of the Turkish Sultan grew in intensity in the Danube principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia), which formally remained autonomous possessions of Turkey. The movement in Wallachia grew into a bourgeois revolution. In June 1848, a Constitution was promulgated, a liberal Provisional Government was formed and George Bibesco, the ruler of Wallachia, abdicated and fled from the country. On June 28, 1848, twelve-thousand Russian troops entered Moldavia and in July of the same year, Turkish troops also invaded the country. Intervention helped to restore the feudal system and the subsequent entry of Turkish troops into Wallachia, with the consent of the Tsarist Government, brought about the defeat of the bourgeois revolution.
[208] Grave economic difficulties (almost universal crop failure) and natural calamities (cholera epidemics and devastating fires) exacerbated the class contradictions in
[9] on one day in order to supply their readers with prompt information on all the most significant revolutionary developments in Germany and Europe; supple-ments were printed when there was too much material to be squeezed into the four pages of the number, while special supplements and special editions printed in the form of "leaflets carried the latest and most important news. The consistent revolutionary tendency of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, its militant internationalism and political accusations against the Government displeased its bourgeois shareholders in the very first months of the paper's existence; its editors were persecuted by the Government and attacked in the feudal-monarchist and liberal-bourgeois press. Following the appearance of the paper's first number, which carried Engels' article "The Assembly at Frankfurt" (see this volume, pp. 16-19), a large number of the shareholders withdrew their financial support, and articles in defence of the June uprising of the Paris proletariat frightened away most of the rest. The editors now had to rely on German and Polish revolutionary circles for funds. To make Marx's stay in the Rhine Province more difficult, the Cologne authorities, on instructions from Berlin, refused to reinstate him with the rights of Prussian citizenship (which Marx had renounced in 1845); on several occasions he and other editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung were summoned to court. On September 26, 1848, when a state of siege was introduced in Cologne, several democratic newspapers, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung among them, were suspended. To avoid arrest, Engels, Dronke and Ferdinand Wolff had to leave Germany for a time. Wilhelm Wolff stayed in Cologne but for several months lived illegally. When the state of siege was lifted, the paper resumed publication on October 12, thanks to the great efforts of Marx who sank all his ready money into the paper. Until January 1849, the whole burden of the work, including editorial articles, lay on Marx's shoulders since Engels had to stay out of Germany (in France and Switzerland). Persecution of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung editors by the legal authorities and the police was intensified, particularly after the counter-revolutionary coup in Prussia in November-December 1848. In May 1849, when the counter-revolution went into the offensive all over Germany, the Prussian Government issued an order for Marx's expulsion from Prussia on the grounds that he had not been granted Prussian citizenship. Marx's expulsion and repressions against other editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung caused publication of the paper to be ceased. Its last issue (No. 301), printed in red ink, came out on May 19, 1849. In their farewell address to the workers, the editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung said that "their last word will everywhere and always be: emancipation of the working class!" The September Laws, promulgated by the French Government in September 1835, restricted the rights of jury courts and introduced severe measures against the press. They provided for increased money deposits (caution money) for periodical publications and introduced imprisonment and large fines for publication of attacks on private property and the existing political system. The opening session of the all-German National Assembly, the purpose of which was to unite the country and draft a Constitution, took place on May 18, 1848, in Frankfurt am Main at St. Paul's Church. Among the deputies elected in various German states late in April and early in May, there were 122 government officials, 95 judges, 81 lawyers, 103 teachers, 17 manufacturers and wholesale dealers, 15 physicians and 40 landowners. The liberal deputies, who were in the majority, turned the Assembly into a mere debating club, incapable of taking any resolute decisions. In writing this and the following articles concerning the debates in the Frankfurt National Assembly, Marx and Engels made use of the stenographic reports which later appeared as a separate publication, Stenographischer Bericht über die Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden Nationalversammlung zu Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig, 1848-1849. Engels' article was first published in English in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung". 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972.
[17] Lazzaroni—a contemptuous nickname for declassed proletarians, primarily in the Kingdom of Naples. They were repeatedly used by the absolutist Government in the struggle against liberal and democratic movements.
[13] The seventeen "trusted men" who represented the German governments were summoned after the March revolution in Germany by the Federal Diet, the central body of the German Confederation (which was founded in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna). The "trusted men", among them Dahlmann, von Schmerling, Uhland and Bassermann, met in Frankfurt am Main from March 30 to May 8, 1848, and drafted an all-German Imperial Constitution based on constitutional-monarchical principles. The Federal Diet consisted of representatives of the German states. Though it had no real power, it was nevertheless a vehicle of feudal and monarchical reaction. After the March revolution of 1848, reactionary circles in the German states tried to revive the Federal Diet and use it to undermine the principle of popular sovereignty and prevent the democratic unification of Germany, p. 18
[211] An allusion to the closest entourage of Frederick William IV (the Gerlach brothers, Radowitz and other prominent figures with counter-revolutionary aspirations).
[212] Proudhon's speech is set forth and quoted in this article according to newspaper reports. The full text of Proudhon's speech at the session of the French National Assembly on July 31, 1848, was published in Compte rendu des séances de l'Assemblée nationale, Vol. II, Paris, 1849, pp. 770-82.
[213] M3 The Inquisition proceedings—a form of criminal proceedings under absolutism, which allowed extremely wide powers to judges, who combined the functions of prosecutor and examining magistrate, trial in camera, and the use of torture to obtain evidence. The Inquisition proceedings became particularly notorious in Catholic Church courts and especially those of the Holy Inquisition which examined crimes of heresy.
[214] M4 Lettres de cachet, i.e. warrants for arrest signed by the King of France at the time of the absolute monarchy. Any person could be imprisoned without investigation or court proceedings.
[215] See Note 92.
[216] The threshing gardeners (Dreschgärtner) — the name applied in some places in Germany, particularly in Silesia, to dependent peasants who rented a plot of land with a house from the landowner and, in return, had to work for him (mainly harvesting) for a small payment in cash or in kind.
[217] Banalities (the original has Zwangs- und Bannrechte) — feudal lords' right to impose taxes on peasants for the obligatory use of flour mills, wine presses etc. owned by feudal lords.
[218] Traditional holidays with carnivals in Belgium to celebrate its separation from Holland and its independence proclaimed at the time of the 1830 revolution,
[219] The debates on the Grand Duchy of Posen were held in the Frankfurt National Assembly on July 24-27, 1848.
[220] See Note 47.
[22] An article dealing with this subject was originally written by Heinrich Bürgers, but Marx editorially deleted half of it and rewrote the rest (see Marx's letter to Ferdinand Lassalle of September 15, 1860). An English translation of this article was first published in the collections: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung". 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972, and Karl Marx, The Revolutions of 1848. Political Writings, Vol. 1, London, Penguin Books, 1973.
[222] This refers to the cowardly and servile conduct of the Prussian bureaucracy after the defeat of Prussia by Napoleonic France in the battles of Jena and Auerstedt in October 1806 (see also Note 77).
[223] The treaties signed by Russia, Prussia and Austria in Vienna on May 3, 1815, and the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna signed on June 9, 1815, which legalised the abolition of the Duchy of Warsaw established in 1807 by Napoleon and a new partition of the Polish lands between Austria, Prussia and Russia, pledged that representative bodies and national political institutions would be set up in all endowed with advisory functions.
[225] The Convention of Jaroslawiec was concluded between the Posen Committee of Polish insurgents and the Prussian Commissioner General Willisen on April 11, 1848. It stipulated that the Polish insurgents were to lay down their arms and disband. In return, the Poles were promised the "national reorganisation" of Posen, i.e. the formation of a Polish army, the appointment of Poles to administrative and other posts and recognition of Polish as an official language. However, the Convention was treacherously violated by the Prussian administration, and the national liberation movement in Posen was brutally suppressed by Prussian troops. The border between the western ("German") part of the Duchy of Posen, which was not liable to reorganisation, and the eastern (Polish) one, was shifted further to the east. The promised "reorganisation" was never carried out.
[226] See Note 149.
[227] The chambers of reunion (chambres de réunion) were set up by Louis XIV in 1679-80 to justify and provide legal and historical grounds for France's claims to certain lands in neighbouring states, primarily in the territory of Germany; these lands were subsequently occupied by French troops.
[228] The Polish Constitution of 1791 expressed the aspirations of the progressive sections of the nobility and urban bourgeoisie. It abolished the liberum veto (the principle that resolutions of the Diet could only be passed unanimously) and the elective monarchy, provided for a Government responsible to the Diet and granted the urban bourgeoisie various political and economic rights. The Constitution was directed against feudal anarchy and aimed at strengthening the Central Authority; it also alleviated to some extent the position of peasant serfs by recognising the legal force of commutation agreements between landowners and peasants. As a result of the revolt of the nobility and the interference on the part of Catherine II of Russia and Frederick William II of Prussia, the Constitution was repealed in 1792-93 and a second partition of Poland between Russia and Prussia took place.
[229] The majority of deputies to the Frankfurt National Assembly were members of the liberal Centre which, in its turn, was split into two factions — the Right Centre (Dahlmann, Gagern, Bassermann, Mathy, Mevissen and others) and the Left Centre (including Mittermaier, Werner and Raveaux). The deputies of both centres were supporters of the constitutional monarchy.
[280] In his message of September 10, 1848, Frederick William IV agreed with the view of his Ministers that the resolution passed by the Prussian National Assembly on September 7, 1848 (see Note 273), was an infringement of the "principle of constitutional monarchy", and approved their decision to resign as a protest against the Assembly's action.
[231] Janiszewski apparently quoted the following words by Jean Jacques Rousseau addressed to the Poles: "If you cannot prevent the enemy from swallowing you up, try at least to prevent him from digesting you." See also his work Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne, et sur sa reformation projette.
[232] At a session of the Frankfurt National Assembly on August 7, 1848, Deputy Brentano spoke in favour of amnesty for the participants in the Baden republican uprising and for their leader Hecker. The Right-wing deputies kept interrupting Brentano and finally forced him to leave the rostrum.
[283] On September 13, 1848, a clash took place between the soldiers and officers of the 1st and 2nd Regiments of the Guards stationed in Potsdam. This was provoked by the Command detaining a letter written by the soldiers to Deputy Stein and the National Assembly thanking them for adopting the September 7 resolution on the resignation of reactionary officers. During these disturbances the lower ranks at one point resorted to building barricades. Cuirassiers of the Guards stationed in Nauen refused to obey their officers and attack the civil population.
[234] Don Carlos who, in 1833, appeared as a pretender to the Spanish throne against Isabella, daughter of King Ferdinand VII, referred to the 1713 law prohibiting succession to the throne along the female line. In 1838-40, Lichnowski took part in the civil war unleashed by Don Carlos and was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general.
[235] Wasserpolacken—original name of ferrymen on the Oder who were mainly natives of Upper Silesia; subsequently it became widespread in Germany as a nickname of Silesian Poles.
[236] The Albigensian ivars (1209-29) were waged by the feudal magnates of Northern France, together with the Pope, against the movement of townspeople and the lesser nobility, supported by peasants, in Languedoc, in the south, who were seeking independence from the north. This movement took the form of a "heresy", being directed against the power and doctrine of the Catholic Church as well as against the secular power of the feudal state. And its adherents were called "Albigenses" from the city of Albi, one of their main centres. The Albigensian heresy was wiped out after twenty years of war, and a considerable part of Languedoc annexed to the lands of the French kings. The whole of Languedoc was annexed to France in 1271, retaining, however, a measure of self-government which was finally abolished at the time of the absolute monarchy.
[238] During the Cracow national liberation uprising in 1846 (see Note 36) the Austrian authorities provoked clashes in Galicia between Ukrainian peasants and detachments of Polish insurgents. When the uprising was suppressed, the participants in the peasant movement in Galicia were severely persecuted.
[239] The Wahl-Manifest der radicalen Reformpartei für Deutschland written by Ruge and published in Die Reform No. 16, April 16, 1848, proclaimed "the editing of the rationale of events" as the main task of the National Assembly.
[240] The reference is to one of the legends woven round the foundation of the Swiss Confederation, the origin of which dates back to the agreement of the three mountain cantons of Schwyz, Uri and Unterwaiden in 1291. According to this legend, representatives of the three cantons met in 1307 in the Grütli (Rütli) meadow and took an oath of loyalty in the joint struggle against Austrian rule.
[241] This refers to a system of general treaties set up by the Vienna Congress (September 1814-June 1815) which embraced the whole of Europe, with the exception of that part then incorporated in Turkey. The decisions of the Congress helped to restore feudal order, perpetuated the political fragmentation of Germany and Italy, sanctioned the incorporation of Belgium into Holland and the partitions of Poland and outlined measures to combat the revolutionary movement.
[242] Lamartine's manifesto (of March 4, 1848) — a circular of the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the foreign policy principles and goals of the Provisional Government of the French Republic.
[243] On July 27, 1848, the Frankfurt National Assembly approved the decision passed earlier by the Federal Diet (see Note 13) to include a number of regions of the Grand Duchy of Posen into the German Confederation, sanctioned the powers vested in the twelve deputies elected from these regions (though the Polish population had refused to take part in elections to the Frankfurt Parliament), confirmed the demarcation line established by General Pfuel in Posen after the repeated transference of this line further east and obliged the Prussian Government "to guarantee the security of Germans residing in Posen". This decision aroused strong indignation in democratic circles in Germany. For example, on August 11, a general meeting of the Cologne Democratic Society, presided over by Marx, adopted a resolution of protest against the Frankfurt Assembly decisions on the Polish question and sent it to the Assembly (see this volume, pp. 564-65).
[244] See Note 230.
[245] ' For the Cologne Democratic Society, see Note 66. The Cologne Workers' Association—a workers' organisation founded by Andreas Gottschalk on April 13, 1848. Its 300 members had increased to 5,000, the majority of whom were workers and artisans, by the beginning of May. The Association was led by the President and the committee, which consisted of representatives of various trades. The newspaper Zeitung des Arbeiter-Vereines zu Köln was the organ of the Association, but from October 26 it was replaced by the Freiheit, Brüderlichkeit, Arbeit. There were a number of branches of the Association. After Gottschalk's arrest, Moll was elected President on July 6 and he held this post till the state of siege was proclaimed in Cologne in September 1848, when he had to emigrate under threat of arrest. On October 16, Marx agreed to assume this post temporarily at the request of Association members. In November Röser became acting President and on February 28, 1849, Schapper was elected President and remained in this post until the end of May 1849. The majority of the leading members (Gottschalk, Anneke, Schapper, Moll, Lessner, Jansen, Röser, Nothjung, Bedorf) were members of the Communist League. During the initial period of its existence, the Workers' Association was influenced by Gottschalk who, sharing many of the views of the "true socialists", ignored the historical tasks of the proletariat in the democratic revolution, carried on sectarian tactics of boycotting indirect elections to the Federal and Prussian National Assemblies and came out against support of democratic candidates in elections. He combined ultra-Left phrases with very legalistic methods of struggle (workers' petitions to the Government and the City Council etc.) and supported the demands of the workers affected by craft prejudices etc. From the very
[248] beginning, Gottschalk's tactics were resisted by the supporters of Marx and Engels. At the end of June a change-over took place under their influence in the activities of the Workers' Association, which became a centre of revolutionary agitation among the workers, and from the autumn of 1848 onwards, also among the peasants. Members of the Association organised democratic and workers' associations in the vicinity of Cologne, disseminated revolutionary literature, including the "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany", and carried on among themselves education in scientific communism through the study of Marx's writings. The Association maintained close contact with other workers' and democratic organisations. When, in the spring of 1849, Marx and Engels took steps to organise the advanced workers on a national scale and actually started preparing for the creation of a proletarian party, they relied to a considerable extent on the Cologne Workers' Association. The mounting counter-revolution and intensified police reprisals prevented further activities of the Cologne Workers' Association to unite and organise the working masses. After the Neue Rheinische Zeitung ceased publication and Marx, Schapper and other leaders of the Association left Cologne, it gradually turned into an ordinary workers' educational society.
[249] Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Fundamental Rights ofthe German People worked out by the Frankfurt National Assembly was adopted at its session of July 21, 1848, with the following wording: "Every German possesses the general German right of citizenship from which it accrues that a citizen of every separate state enjoys all rights of a naturalised citizen of another state." After the battle of Custozza (see Note 195) the Piedmont troops retreated. On August 4, 1848, they were defeated near Milan, into which the Austrian army of Radetzky entered on August 6. On August 9, 1848, an armistice was concluded under which Piedmont undertook to withdraw its armed forces from the cities and fortresses of Lombardy and Venice, thus surrendering them to the Austrians. This article was first published in English in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung". 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972. Carbonari—members of bourgeois and aristocratic revolutionary secret societies which appeared in Italy in the early nineteenth century. They fought for national independence and unification of Italy and at the same time demanded liberal-constitutional reforms. The Carbonari played an important role in the revolutionary developments in the kingdoms of Naples and Sardinia early in the 1820s and also during the revolutionary struggle in Italy against Austrian rule and local feudal monarchies in the 1830s. During the revolution of 1821 in Piedmont, Prince Charles Albert of Carignano made overtures to the Carbonari and they appointed him regent. However, afraid to lose his right to the Sardinian Crown if events took an unfavourable turn, he fled from Turin, abdicated his regency and helped to suppress the movement, The battle of Goito (May 30, 1848) was part of the hostilities between the allied Italian forces and Austrian vassals, which started with the battle of Curtatone (see Note 196). The battle of Mozambano (July 24, 1848) was an episode in the battle of Custozza (see Note 195) between the Piedmont and Austrian armies. In both cases, the Piedmont Command proved incapable of energetic action against the enemy and of taking advantage of successes achieved at separate sectors along the front.
[250] See Note 248.
[251] Quotations are taken from the rescript of Frederick William IV dated March 18, 1848, on the speeding up of the convocation of the United Diet (see Note 25).
[253] This is a list of the battles between the Austrians and the French during the French Revolution, the Directory, the Consulate and the Empire, in which the Austrian army was defeated at Jemappes (November 6, 1792), at Fleurus (June 26, 1794), at Miîlesimo (April 13-14, 1796), at Rivoli (January 14-15, 1797), at Neuwied (April 18, 1797), at Marengo (June 14, 1800), at Hohenlinden (December 3, 1800), at Ulm (October 17, 1805), at Austerlitz (December 2, 1805), at Wagram (July 5-6, 1809).
[254] Sonderbund—a separatist union formed by the seven economically backward Catholic cantons of Switzerland in 1843 to resist progressive bourgeois reforms and defend the privileges of the church and the Jesuits. The decree of the Swiss Diet of July 1847 on the dissolution of the Sonderbund served as a pretext for the latter to start hostilities against other cantons early in November. On November 23, 1847, the Sonderbund army was defeated by federal forces.
[255] On the defeat of the Piedmont army at Custozza on July 25, 1848, see Note 195. On July 26-27 the Austrians routed the Piedmont troops at Volta and on August 6, 1848, occupied Milan.
[256] See Note 238.
[257] The revolution of 1848 in Italy, followed by revolutionary events in other European countries, was started by the people's uprising of January 12 in Palermo and the successful armed struggle in Sicily against the absolute monarchy of the Neapolitan Bourbons.
[258] This article was first published in English in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung". 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972.
[259] For the storming of the arsenal, see Note 67. On August 21, 1848, meetings and demonstrations were held in Berlin against the assault, engineered by reactionary forces, on members of the Democratic Club in Charlottenburg (then a suburb of Berlin). The demonstrators demanded the resignation of the Auerswald-Hansemann Ministry and the punishment of those involved in the incidents in Charlottenburg; they also threw stones at the building in which Auerswald and other Ministers met. The Government retaliated with further repression.
[260] This refers to Prussia's participation in the wars of the anti-French coalition against Napoleon in 1813-14 and 1815 (see Note 76).
[261] See Note 235.
[3] At the end of 1848 or the beginning of 184-9 an abridged version of the "Demands" was published in pamphlet form by Weiler Publishers in Leipzig. The slogan at the beginning of the document, the second paragraph of point 9 and the last sentence of point 10 were omitted, and the words "The Committee" were not included among the signatories. In 1853, an abridged version of the "Demands" was printed, together with other documents of the Communist League, in the first part of the book Die Communisten-Ver schworungen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, published in Berlin for purposes of information by Wermuth and Stieber, two police officials, who staged a trial against the Communists in Cologne in 1852. Later Engels reproduced the main points of the "Demands" in his essay On the History of the Communist League, published in November 1885 in the newspaper Sozialdemokrat, and as an introduction to the pamphlet: K. Marx, Enthüllungen über den Kommunisten Prozess zu Köln, Hottingen-Zürich, 1885. English translations of the "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany" appeared in the collections: The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels with an introduction and explanatory notes by D. Ryazanoff, Martin Lawrence, London (1930); K. Marx, Selected Works, Vol. II, ed. V. Adoratsky, Moscow-Leningrad, Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR (1936); ibid., New York (1936); Birth of the Communist Manifesto, edited and annotated, with an Introduction by D. J. Struik, International Publishers, New York, 1971, and in other publications. The letter to the editor of the Populaire and the Declaration are in Engels' handwriting. Both documents were drawn up at the end of March 1848 after Engels' arrival in Paris and reflect the struggle which the leaders of the Communist League were waging against those German petty-bourgeois emigrant leaders in Paris, Herwegh and Bornstedt among others, who intended to speed up revolution in Germany by moving in a volunteer legion organised by using private donations and subsidies from the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Appeals to enlist were accompanied by demagogic appeals to the patriotic and revolutionary sentiments of German emigrants. Marx, Engels and other members of the Central Authority of the Communist League spoke out against the adventurist nature of such plans to "export revolution" and advised German workers instead to return to their home country individually in order to take part in the revolutionary events that were brewing there. "We opposed this playing with revolution in the most decisive fashion," Engels later wrote in his work On the History of the Communist League. "To carry out an invasion, which was to import the revolution forcibly from outside, into the midst of the ferment then going on in Germany, meant to undermine the revolution in Germany itself, to strengthen the governments and to deliver the legionaries ... defenceless into the hands of the German troops." The letter and the Declaration were first published in English in the journal Science and Society, 1940, Vol. IV, No. 2. The first publication in the language of the original appeared in the collection Der Bund der Kommunisten. Dokumente und Materialien, Bd. I, 1836-1849, Berlin, 1970. The Cerman Democratic Society (below it is called the Society of German Democrats) was formed in Paris after the February revolution of 1848. The society was headed by petty-bourgeois democrats, Herwegh, Bornstedt (the latter expelled from the Communist League) and others, who campaigned to raise a volunteer legion of German emigrants with the intention of marching into
[4]
[2]