1865
My dear Jung,
I felt rather shocked at reading in the 'Beehive' and the 'Miner' of this week that at our last Committee-sitting
'It was unanimously agreed to invite Messrs Beesly, Grossmith, Beales and Harrison, to the soirée which is to be held on the 16th'.(1)
I do not mention the mere anachronism, that no such resolution was taken on last Tuesday's sitting.b
What I object to is the positive falsehood that Mr Grossmith was invited.
This Grossmith, although he seldom or never attends our sittings, figures as a member of the Committee under all our addresses.
How could our Committee invite a member of our Committee to a soirée given by our Committee? Shall this, perhaps, form a sort of premium to be gained by regular absence from our weekly séances?
Since I cannot return to London before the end of next week, you'll much oblige me
By asking at next Tuesday's sitting, who is the writer of the report in the 'Beehive' and the 'Miner?
Who empowered that writer to make our Committee the 'unconscious' instrument of exalting Mr Grossmith?
You will understand at once how important it is to nip in the bud any attempt at turning our Committee into the tool of local ambitions, or any sort of intrigues.
29. Engels to Rudolf Engels. 10 January
You will oblige me, by informing me, under the above address,—and supposing you to make the interpellation — what answer was given to you.[85]
Salut et fraternité.
K. Marx
29
ENGELS TO RUDOLF ENGELS[10]
IN BARMEN
[Manchester,] 10 January 1865
Dear Rudolf,
My view of the American war" is this: the South is gradually becoming exhausted and cannot replace its armies. The North has not yet mobilised the half of its resources. The South is limited to defence, so much so in fact that counter-attacks such as, e.g., Longstreet undertook in the Shenandoah Valley, are now a thing of the past. Hood attempted yet another one, but, in so doing, revealed his own impotence and decided the whole campaign at one stroke.[86] The North is superior to its Southern opponents at all points and, furthermore, has Sherman's 40,000 men at its disposal who can go wheresoever they please, everywhere destroying the South's forces, communications, resources and supplies deep in the South's own territory.[75] Charleston is certain to fall in 4-6 weeks at the latest, once Sherman has encircled it on land.[87]
The South has but one army left, that at Richmond.[30] That will assuredly be quite decisively beaten in the present year, and with that the defence of the South by armies will be at an end. A guerrilla war, brigandry, etc., may then ensue and will probably do so into next year.
If the South arms its Negroes, that will be so much the better for the North. However, they will take good care not to. At the last moment, if at all. The Negroes are not so stupid as to allow themselves to be massacred for the whip that flays their backs.
30. Marx to His Daughter Jenny. 11 January
There will certainly still be moments when things look better for the South than they do now, but we have seen that happen too often before, and I shall not be deceived by that. Such moments are merely a respite.
I do not believe we shall get cotton from America; but I do believe we shall see a temporary fall. Cotton is at present so subject to speculation that prices are affected by every vicissitude of public opinion. There are, moreover, 500,000 bales in Liverpool, and the people here do have a tendency to fly to extremes immediately and shout: the South is done for, is bound to surrender in 14 days, etc.—a rise is thereby inconceivable. We shall be at the mercy of whatever news we receive, though always with the proviso that we know the STOCK in Liverpool to be double what it was last year. I also believe we shall see the year 1865 close below present prices, as we must expect more cotton from all parts.
Your
Friedrich
30
MARX TO HIS DAUGHTER JENNY
IN LONDON
Manchester, 11 January 1865 58 Dover Street
My sweet child,
I wanted to leave Manchester tomorrow, but I'll be hardly able to do so before Sunday (15th Jan.) next.S4 Ernest Jones, whom I am anxious to speak, is busily engaged in the neighbouring towns and has invited me (and Engels) for next Friday evening when he'll be at home. I have not yet seen him, and could not see him before that day. This is one cause of delay. There are others, but at all events I shall not stay longer than until Sunday.
The German translation of the 'Address to the Working Classes'(1) has been reprinted in the Mainzer Zeitung, the 'Address to Lincoln'(2) in the Berliner Reform and the London Hermann. The latter honour is probably due to Mr Juch's anxiety lest his rival Bender might monopolize 'our protection'.
The weather here was abominable. Today 'the sun shines', as Müller has it, but its rays are reflected by the ice drops covering the dirty streets. Even the sunbeams must here always have something disagreeable to fall upon.
I have not yet seen a Borchardt, and as to the Gumperts, I had only a few minutes' conversation with the Dr yesterday evening.
On my arrival I did not find Frederick, but in his stead a letter informing me that he would be back from fox-hunting at 6 o'clock. Meanwhile he had taken all precautionary measures for making my 'entrée joyeuse"d (with your great historical knowledge you'll not be at a loss as to the 'entrée joyeuse'). Whether his change of domicile is an improvement, seems a rather debatable question. At all events, the people are less impudent.
Apropos. There is much 'chronique scandaleuse' just now in the Freiligrath world, as far as it is connected with the General Bank of Switzerland. There has appeared a pamphlet at Genève, disclosing the scandalous mismanagement of Fazy,e Freiligrath's 'natural superior'. He has been forced to resign his post as supreme director of the bank, and 'um zu retten, was zu retten ist'* (literally this) Jew Reinach has been put into his place, assisted by a Frenchman and—Karl Vogt who has the despicable meanness of betraying, and denouncing, and publicly declaring against Fazy, his old idol, the man in fact of whom he is a mere 'creature'.
I suppose you are aware that the first 'abonnement number'* of the 'Social-Democrat' has been confiscated by the police at Berlin.[88]
This is a rather favourable accident. Those fellows stand in need of some small political martyrdom.
I hope all is right at home. The cat being gone, the mice ought to dance. Pay my compliments to Ma, 'Success', 'Mine Own' and the 'Prophet'.f As to yourself, my dear Aaron, I dreamt of you last night, and saw you in your bloomer costume, performing the most wonderful jumps, almost flying through the air, after you had before done the Davenport trick in the most admirable manner.[89]
I felt quite proud and chuckled in my sleeves over the success of my old acquaintance, and had the most lively remembrance of the rather unplastic dance you had in bygone times executed before the golden calf, in the desert.[3]
Show Ma the inclosed. She will remember Bochum-Dolfs, from Paris. He is now the happy father of 10 children with whom he 'vagabonds' through the world.
31. Marx to Johann Baptist von Schweitzer. 16 January
IN BERLIN
[Draft]
To. J. B. v. Schweitzer ('Social-Demokrat')
London, 16 January 1865
Sir,
Despite its brief existence, your Social-Demokrat has already carried two attacks on the 'International Association'. I am only awaiting the 'third' before my friends and I publicly dissociate ourselves from any connection with your paper. In the event of such a dissociation, I should be compelled to deal 'critically' with certain things which, in deference to party interests, I have hitherto not aired, and this may not be at all to the liking of certain gentlemen. The first attack on the 'International Associa-
32. Marx to Engels. 25 January
tion' was contained in an inane passage in B. Becker's 'Message'.[90]
I did not hold you responsible for it for the very reason that it was a 'message' and you unfortunately have an official connection with the 'General Workers' Association'[2] (emphatically not to be confused with the working class).
The bare-faced, lying gossip of Mr Moses Hess(1) is another matter; if you had had the slightest consideration for me and my friends you would under no circumstances have accepted it, you could only have accepted it with the intention of provoking me.
With regard to Moses' fabrication itself, I shall be making a public statement about it after I have obtained certain information from Paris.[91] Regarding your acceptance of that abomination of an article, I should be obliged if you would inform me whether I am to consider same as a declaration of war by the 'Social-Demokrat'?
Your most obedient servant
K. Marx
32
MARX TO ENGELS[92]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 25 January 1865
DEAR FREDERICK, Letters enclosed
1. from Weydemeyer, 2. from Schily, 3. from Liebknecht. I must have all 3 back. 4. from Schweitzer and 5. a scrawl about Vogt, which I would also like back.
By way of explanation for letters 2, 3 and 4, the following: I do not know whether you get the Social-Demokrat (or have taken out a 25 1865
subscription to it). (If neither should be the case, Bender can always send you one from here, as he has ordered 6 copies on the off-chance.)
T h e r e was a contribution in the Social-Demokrat from that jackass Moses Hess," in which he related how we had approached
L'Association (paper of the Paris associations) asking them to print a translation of our address15 (on the contrary, Massol had made Schily an offer to that effect) and join o u r Association; they are said to have refused, however, because we had originally approached Tolain and others who were Plon-Plonists.[93] Tolain himself had admitted as much, etc.
I discovered this scrawl on the day after my return from Manchester.[84] Therefore wrote furious letters to Paris [9 4] and Berlin.0 From Schily 's and Schweitzer's letters it emerges that the whole thing can be blamed on Hess' asininity (mixed with a certain amount of MALICE, perhaps) and on Liebknecht's asininity toute pure.d
The affair created a great furore in the Comité here yesterday. Le Lubez, entirely on Tolain's side, declares the whole thing to be slanderous, since fellows like Horn (Einhorn, rabbi) and that gas-bag Jules Simon (of La Liberté*) are on the Comité of L'Association. However, at my suggestion, it was resolved not to send the 500 CARDS OF MEMBERSHIP to Paris until Schily had reported further from Paris.[93]
T h e Association is doing famously here. At its soirée/ which I did not attend, ABOUT 1,200 people (they would have had 3 x as many if the hall had been big enough) gathered, which brought approximately £15 into o u r exceedingly depleted EXCHEQUER.
Letter has come from Geneva about joining,[96] and from DIFFERENT PARTS OF ENGLAND.
T h e r e will be a MEETING for the Poles in the course of February (especially to collect money for the new émigrés, which also explains Lord Townshend as CHAIRMAN), organised by the (English) POLISH LEAGUE, the Polish society here and our Association.[97]
What d o you say to Lassalle's 'bequest', as described by Liebknecht? [9 8] Is it not exactly like his own Sickingen, who wants to compel Charles V to 'assume the leadership of the movement'? 8 25 1865
Yesterday, I sent Article on Proudhon[3] to Schweitzer, in response to his urgent request (and also to make u p to him for having bitten his head off instead of Liebknecht's for the BLUNDER in the Soc.-Dem.). You will see from it that several very savage blows, ostensibly aimed at Proudhon, strike home at our ' Achilles b and were intended to do so.
Apropos. Each secretary of our Association will receive a package of CARDS OF MEMBERSHIP next week (for the 'Association', not for the 'Comité', of course) for distribution (Is. for annual subscription, Id. for the CARD). YOU must get rid of a few in Manchester. It will not be many. But let me know about HOW MANY I can send for this purpose? It is IN FACH ONE OF THE WAYS AND MEANS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
MY COMPLIMENTS TO MRS BURNS. WILL SHE, PERHAPS, BECOME A MEMBER? LADIES ARE ADMITTED.
YOURS TRULY
K. M.
P.S. I left a pair of winter BOOTS (shoes) at your house in Dover Street, ditto new pair of knitted stockings, and probably the 2 silk handkerchiefs as well. I only mention it so that you can DROP a WORD to your landlords 'some time or other' so that they know that an eye is kept on them.
By means of a most ingenious experiment Prof. Tyndall has managed to separate out the rays of the sun into a heat-ray, which even melts platinum, and a cold light-ray which has no heat at all.
T h i s is ONE OF THE FINEST EXPERIMENTS OF OUR DAY'S.
P.S. II Liebknecht has also sent me a note from the editors, urgently asking for a contribution from you. For the moment they are thinking either of the YANKEE WAR or the Prussian Army Reform, as they say their paper is read by more people of standing than any other Berlin paper.
Now, as far as the YANKEE WAR is concerned, you explained to me before that it was not suitable for the Social-Demokrat. Regarding the Prussian Army Reform, the paper would be a very good place for it. Only QUESTION for me is this: would not an analysis of this topic involve you in a one-sided conflict with the men of Progress," which would be undesirable at this moment and on this topic, since the King (2) has declared he will not give way
33. Engels to Marx. 27 January
on any point, so has naturally turned the question into a burning constitutional issue? I0° Or can you treat the question, in accordance with your military view, in such a way as to kill both birds, which is what is wanted}
At all events, as I have already sent the paper an article DIRECTLY (signed by me), you can be published there, too. And you ought to do so, while there is still an organ in existence at all.
33
ENGELS TO MARX[10]'
IN LONDON
Manchester, 27 January 1865
Dear Moor,
I will send the letters back to you tomorrow or on Sunday, as I simply have to read this dreadful handwriting and these pale inks by daylight; yesterday evening I was only able to skim through them.
Moses" really has been extraordinarily tactless (no doubt the head of the partyb took a certain malicious pleasure in it), but Liebknecht even more so. But I am surprised the latter has not already committed more such gaffes, it always was his FORTE.
I am sending the fellows the little Danish folksong about Tidmann, who is struck dead by the old man at the Thing for imposing new taxes on the peasants.* It is revolutionary but not indictable, and above all it is directed against the feudal nobility, which the paperd absolutely must condemn. I am making a few remarks to that effect. I shall probably be able to do the article on the reorganisation of the armye as soon as I get the new military budget proposals, etc.; I am writing to ask them to send them to 27 1865
me and am telling them at the same time that I shall be coming out against the government — PAST AND PRESENT — just as much as against the men of Progress," and that the article must not be published if the first point is unacceptable to them.[102] As far as the American war is concerned, perhaps something can be made of it at a later date after all. The present phase is not yet complete, the calm, to use J. Grimm's term, is 'inorganic'.
Good old Lassalle is after all gradually being unmasked as a common or garden scoundrel. It has never been our practice to judge people by what they thought but rather by what they were, and I do not see why we should make an exception in the late Izzy's case. Subjectively, his vanity may have made the affair seem plausible to him, but objectively it was the act of a scoundrel, the betrayal of the whole workers' movement to the Prussians. Throughout, the stupid fop does not seem to have obtained from Bismarck anything at all in return, nothing specific at all, let alone guarantees[98]; he seems just to have taken it for granted he would definitely do Bismarck in the eye, in exacdy the same way as he could not fail to shoot Racowija dead. That's Baron Izzy all over for you.
Incidentally, it will not be very long now before it becomes not merely desirable but necessary to make this whole affair public. We can only gain from it, and, if the business with the Association" and the paper in Germany bears fruit, the fellow's heirs will have to be thrown out soon enough now. Meanwhile, the proletariat in Germany will soon see what it has got in Bismarck.
Kind regards to the LADIES.
Your
F. E.
I can only see my way to disposing of approx. V2 dozen cards; I will see Jones about it, I'm very busy just now.
34. Marx to Engels. 30 January
34
MARX TO ENGELS[103]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 30 January 1865
Dear Engels,
Tout d'accord.b As far as your anxiety about confiscation is concerned, what you must do is to announce quite briefly, as a foreword to the first article,d that you are firstly going to throw light on the subject from the military point of view, secondly you are going to criticise the bourgeoisie and, thirdly, the reaction, etc., and the attitude of the workers' party to the question, etc., whereby the drift can already be narrowly outlined or hinted at. This will, de prime abord*" make it more difficult for the government to confiscate. If it does so in spite of that, the Social-Demokrat will thereby be hurled into a new phase (for the fellows cannot at present confiscate without releasing the confiscated material, or taking it to court), and, at the same time, you must keep a copy of the manuscript of No. III. It is then the easiest thing in the world to publish it in the one of the 2 German papers heree and then send COPIES of it to Hamburg, etc., where one or other of the bourgeois papers is sure to print it.
It seems to me that Schily has allowed himself to be duped by M. Hess. This is quite evident from all Moses' epistles to the Social-Demokrat. (CF. K.I. No. 15 of the Social-Demokratf which has just arrived and is, on the whole, full of the most revolting 'Lassalleanism'. The gentlemen from Iserlohn speak of 'Lassalle-Lincoln'.') Moses is our adversary, has forgotten neither our 'expulsion from Brussels' nor our 'ejection from Cologne'[104] and always counts it to Lassalle's credit that he had the 'tact' so necessary for a 'leader of the people' to take M. Hess seriously.
By the way, being the 'organ of the General Association of German Workers', the Social-Demokrat finds it extremely difficult to extricate itself from the apotheosis-soup.
30 1865
Incidentally, since we now know that Izzy planned to trade off the workers' party to Bismarck[98] (we were previously quite unaware of how) so that he might become known as the 'Richelieu of the Proletariat', I shall not now have any scruples about making it sufficiently plain in the preface to my book that he is a parrot and plagiarist.[105]
I wonder whether the 'poems': 'To follow Lassalle is our every wish'a and other nonsense which the workers are sending to the Social-Demokrat, do not emanate directly or indirectly from the old lady.b At all events, I have already told the editors several times in writing that this nonsense has got to stop BY and BY.[106]
What sort of fellows the men of Progress" are is evident yet again from their conduct regarding the combination question.[107]
(En passant, the Prussian Anti-Combination Law, like all continental laws of this kind, has its origin in the decree of the Assemblée Constituante of 14 June 1791,10S by which the French bourgeois imposed the most severe penalties on ANYTHING OF THE SORT, in fact workers' associations of any kind,—e.g. loss of civil rights for a year — on the pretext that this constituted restoration of the guilds and is in contravention of liberté constitutionellec and the 'droits de l'homme'.[6] It is so characteristic of Robespierre that, at a time when it was a crime punishable by the guillotine to be 'constitutional', as defined by the Assemblée of 1789, all of its laws directed against the workers remained in force.)
Here in London Mr Bright has again spoiled his whole rapport with the workers by his SPEECH opposing the application of the Ten Hours' Bill[109] to the BIRMINGHAM TRADES.e A bourgeois of that kind really is INCORRIGIBLE. And the fellow does that at a moment when he wants to make use of the workers to beat the oligarchs!
Apropos. As I have now told the Social-Demokrat twice that they must purge their paper of this infantile 'apotheosis' as far and as quickly as possible, it will doubtless do no harm if you make similar remarks to the editors when you send your article/ If we allow them to use our names, then we can, at the same time, demand that now, when people are aware of Lassalle's intended treachery, they should not help to throw dust in the eyes of the
a Quoted from an anonymous poem published in the section 'Einsendungen von Arbeitern' in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 15, 29 January 1865. - b Sophie von Hatzfeldt - c constitutional liberty - d 'rights of man' - c J. Bright's speech in the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on 19 January 1865. In: The Times, No. 25087, 20 January 1865. - f The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party
35. Marx to Engels. 1 February
workers or turn themselves into a vehicle for just any kind of loutish rubbish.
Salut. Your
K. M.
35
MARX T O ENGELS [1 0 1]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 1 February 1865
Dear FREDERICK,
Enclosed letter from Strohn to be returned; write to me and let me know your thoughts about the publishing business at the same time.[110]
This 'Siebold' is the Siebold of champagne fame, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. I really am rather afraid that he did not merely find my reception of his bubbly enthusiasm very dry, but THAT HE CAUGHT SOME
QUEER WORDS AT GuMPERT'S DOOR, AS I TOLD YOU AT THE TIME. A t a l l e v e n t s , it is nice of the fellow and quite typical of wine-salesman politics to go straight from us to Karl Blind and run as his MESSENGER to Hamburg. Has Blind perhaps also placed an order for 'sparkling wines' a n d granted his most gracious protection to scum-scoundrelism as well? I hope for the sake of bubbly's good reputation that Siebold is no such VENAL scum, although there was no mistaking that while one of his eyes was sparkling with enthusiasm, the other HAD AN EYE TO BUSINESS. Regarding Freiligrath, I FEEL SURE that he is much TOO CAUTIOUS to agree publicly in any way to collaborate (in partibus? it goes without saying) with Blind. HOWEVER, I SHALL TRY TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT. At all events, it is very good that Strohn has so gratifyingly baulked Ruge and Blind. I sent off
a to all appearances (In partibus infidelium—literally: in parts inhabited by unbelievers. The words are added to the title of Roman Catholic bishops appointed to purely nominal dioceses in non-Christian countries).
1 1865
a few sarcastic marginalia to him earlier today,[111] intended specifically for Meissner, concerning the nobile par[3] of antagonistic brothers.
You must excuse the scraps of English in my epistle as there was a SITTING OF THE COUNCIL yesterday which lasted until ONE O'CLOCK. ( 'Liquor' and 'smoke' are banned from these 'SITTINGS'.) T h e first thing was the answering epistle from Lincoln, which you may find in tomorrow's Times[112] and certainly in The Daily News and The Star.b In the reply to the LONDON EMANCIPATION SOCIETY113 (which counts among its members such illustrious figures as Sir Charles Lyell a n d the 'Voice of World History', alias K. B.c), published in yesterday's Evening Star, the old man drily dismisses the fellows with two formal clichés, exactly as he had done in his earlier answer to the Manchester branch of the EMANCIPATION SOCIETY; whereas his letter to us is in fact everything we could have asked for, and, in particular, the naive assurance that the United States could not involve itself directly in 'PROPAGANDISM'. At any rate, it is the only answer so far ON THE PART OF THE OLD MAN that is more than a strictly formal one.
Secondly, a delegate was there from the Poles (aristocrats), who have links with the 'LITERARY SOCIETY',[114] through whom these gentlemen conveyed their solemn assurance, with an eye to the forthcoming MEETING on Poland, that they are democrats and that every Pole is now a democrat, since the aristocracy has dwindled away to such a degree that they would be mad not to recognise the impossibility of restoring Poland without a peasant rising. WHETHER or not these fellows believe what they say, at all events, the last lesson they had does not seem to have been entirely wasted on them. [2 4]
Thirdly, there were statements from various TRADES UNIONS about their joining. Ditto from an association in Brussels which is promising to organise branches throughout Belgium.[116]
I then handed over an issue of the Daily St. Louis Press which had arrived just yesterday containing leader about o u r 'ADDRESS TO THE WORKINGMEN"[1] and an excerpt from it which had obviously been arranged by Weydemeyer. e
But now the most remarkable thing of all. Cremer, OUR HONORARY GENERAL SECRETARY, had received a written invitation for the 'COUNCIL', as well as a private visit, from a PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE which is meeting privatim at the London
a noble pair (Horace, Satires, II, III, 243) - b The Morning Star - c Karl Blind -d K. Marx, 'Inaugural Address of the Working Men's International Association'. -e St.-Louis Daily Press, No. 22, 10 January 1865.
5-1196 1 1865
Tavern next Monday. Object: MONSTER MEETING for MANHOOD SUFFRAGE. Chairman:—Richard Cobden! T h e point is this: as E. Jones told us previously, these fellows have been a complete failure in Manchester. They have therefore adopted A BROADER PLATFORM, in which REGISTRATION FOR PAYING POOR-RATE' figured instead of MANHOOD SUFFRAGE, however. That is what is stated in the printed circular sent to us. However, since various indications made it clear to them that nothing less than MANHOOD SUFFRAGE can attract ANY CO-OPERATION WHATEVER ON THE PART OF THE WORKING CLASSES, they have announced they are prepared to accept the latter. A big demonstration in London would lead to similar ones in the provinces, write the provincials 'yet once again', having 'all ready' realised that they are not able TO SET THE BALL A-GOING.
The next question raised yesterday was this: should o u r SOCIETY, I.E. COUNCIL, agree to what these fellows want (they include all the old SHAM CITY AGITATORS such as Sam. Morley, etc.) and send a few delegates to attend the transactions of their provisional committee as 'watchmen'? Secondly, if these fellows pledge themselves directly to the slogan of MANHOOD SUFFRAGE and the PUBLIC MEETING is being called under this slogan, should we promise our support? The latter is, you see, just as crucial to these fellows as it was in the American business.[113] Without the TRADES UNIONS, no mass MEETING is possible, and without us, the TRADES UNIONS are not to be had. This is also the reason why these gentlemen have come to us.
Opinions were very divided, for which Bright's latest silly tricks in Birmingham were much to blame.[3]
On my motion, it was decided that: 1) the delegation should be sent (in my motion, I excluded FOREIGNERS from it; but Eccarius and Lubez were elected on to it as 'Englishmen' a n d silent witnesses) just as 'observers' [1 1 6]; 2) so FAR AS THE MEETING is CONCERNED, we should act with them firstly if MANHOOD SUFFRAGE is proclaimed directly and publicly in the programme, and secondly if people selected by us are included on the permanent committee, so that they can keep an eye on those fellows and compromise them in the event of fresh treachery, which, as I made plain to all of them, is at any rate intended. I am writing to E. Jones about the matter today.[117]
Your
K. M.
a See this volume, p. 71.
36. Marx to Engels. 3 February
36
MARX TO ENGELS"[8]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 3 February 1865
DEAR FREDERICK, Enclosed
1. Letter from Siebel[119] reporting on his meeting with Klings, with which I had 'charged' him.(1) My only comment on it is that I am not going to interfere in the affair any further. If Klings succeeds — without our help — in getting rid of B. Becker and his testamentary importance, together with the beastly old girl,b that suits me. There is nothing to be done with the Workers' Association[2] as bequeathed by Baron Izzy.c The sooner it is disbanded, the better.
2. Rheinische Zeitung with leading article,[120] probably by Red Becker.(2) It amounts to an APPEAL ad misericordiame from the 'men of Progress'.[99]
My opinion is now that the two of us must issue a statement, and that this crisis particularly gives us the opportunity to reoccupy our 'LEGITIMATE' position. ABOUT 10 days ago, I wrote to Schweitzer that he must stand up to Bismarck and the workers' party must drop even the appearance of flirting with Bismarck, etc.[121] By way of thanks, he has 'all ready' been philandering with Pissmarck more than ever.
'Yet again' Moses Hess is 'all ready' denouncing the 'International Association'[122] for the second time in No. 16 of the Social-Demokrat, which contains the letter I wrote about Proudhon,[1]
bristling with misprints. I wrote a furious letter to Liebknecht about it yesterday,[1]" telling him that this was the very last warning; that I do not give a FARTHING for 'good will' when its actions are those of ill-will; that I cannot make it clear to the members of the 'INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE' here that things like that occur in bonne foif out of pure stupidity; that while their gutter rag continues to eulogise Lassalle, even though they know what treachery he had up his sleeve,[98] and while it conducts this cowardly flirtation with Bismarck, it has the effrontery to let the Plonplonist[93] Hess accuse us here of Plonplonism, etc.
My opinion is now that we should take up Moses' denunciation or insinuation in order d'abord* to issue a brief declaration of war against Bonaparte Plon-Plon, at the same time making honourable mention of Moses' friend, the Rabbi Ein-Horn. Then we should use this to declare ourselves ditto against Bismarck, as well as against the rogues or fools who are dreaming or drivelling about an alliance with him for the sake of the working class. Then, of course, in conclusion the beastly men of Progress should be told that they have, on the one hand, run their cause into the ground by their political cowardice and helplessness, and that, on the other hand, if they are demanding an alliance with the working class against the government — which at the moment is, of course, the only correct line — then they would at least have to make the concessions to the workers that accord with their own principle of 'FREETRADE' and 'DEMOCRATISM', in other words, repeal of all the exceptional laws against the workers, which in addition to the combination laws quite specifically include the present Prussian legislation on the press. They would ditto have to proclaim, at least in principle, the restoration of universal suffrage, which was abolished by the coup d'état in Prussia.[123] This would be the minimum to be expected of them. Maybe something ought to be put in about the military question as well. At all events, the thing needs to be tied up quickly. And you must get your 'ideas' about the whole statement down on paper. I will then add mine to it and knead it all together, will send the whole thing back to you once again AND so FORTH. The moment seems to me to be favourable for this 'coup d'état'. We cannot miss this moment for our 'restitutio in integrum'" out of consideration for Liebknecht or for anyone else.
AT THE SAME TIME, you must not fail to let the Social-Demokrat have your article on the military questionc so SOON AS POSSIBLE.
I would of course write to them—quoadA statement — that, if they do not accept same immediately, same will 'all ready' appear in other papers.
If they do accept it, well and good, and it will not even matter if it blows them sky high. (Although Bismarck will take care not to resort to forcible measures at the present moment.) If they do not accept it, we have a decent excuse for getting rid of them.e At all
37. Engels to Marx. 5 February
events, the air must be cleared and the party purged of the stench left behind by Lassalle.
Your
K. M.
37
ENGELS TO MARX[101]
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 5 February 1865 Mornington St[reet]
Dear Moor,
I fully agree about the statement.[3] But you will have to do it yourself, or I shall never get the military article(1) done. I fear the thing is getting to be so long that it will only be feasible in pamphlet form. I and II are finished (except for revision), III not yet. I have had a lot of interruptions, Blank was here, etc., etc. So, you do the statement. The exceptional law also includes the restriction on the right of association and assembly, all the legislation concerning journeymen's road booksh'[24] and finally Article 100 of the penal code: Incitement of citizens to hatred and contempt (another Napoleonic legacy). Then, if you can work it in, some indication that in a predominantly agricultural country like Prussia it is despicable to attack only the bourgeoisie in the name of the industrial proletariat, without even mentioning the brutal patriarchal exploitation of the rural proletariat by the big feudal aristocracy. It is less important to say anything about the military question, but the budget question should be given prominence: what use is it to the workers to have a parliament elected by universal suffrage, if it is as powerless as Bismarck wants to make the 5 1865
present bourgeois parliament — whose successor it would after all be? And if it cannot even reject new taxation?
Those are my thoughts ad hoc? So, get going and sent the thing to me straightaway.
Meissner. So FAR SO GOOD. You should go there yourself, of course. Conto a metah has its advantages if you reserve the contractual right to inspect the books and documents and if Meissner is prepared to make you an interest-free advance equal to [2]/[3] of the fee you are claiming anyway. Strohn's letter seems to suggest that Meissner WOULD RATHER NOT FART WITH ANY MONEY IF HE COULD HELP IT.66 At all events, you must go there yourself with the manuscript' and settle it.
Moreover, get on with it quickly now. The time is really ripe for the book, and our names again command respect in the public eye. You know how fashionable it is to procrastinate in publishing in Germany. So, do not miss the moment — it may make an enormous difference to the impact it produces.
Siebold. I have told you before that lads like that are not to be trusted and I was sure from the beginning that he would call on Blind in London. The assumption that he had picked u p some odd remarks ad portant Gumpertid is quite unnecessary. The fellow has always done that and will always do so. But it is a good thing we have our eye on him 'all ready'.
I gather from Siebel's letter," [9] which I am keeping here, that the Lassalle Associationz will very soon be ruined, thanks to its officers' roguish tricks and embezzlement, and a very good thing too that it 'will have turned out thus'. The beastly old girl e and her cliques will do the rest. The less we concern ourselves about the whole filthy business, the better. LET IT ROT AND BE DAMD TO IT.
I find the Social-Demokrätchen[1] more repugnant with every passing day. That shitty Hess, who is, in relation to us, really acting like a secret employee of Lassalle, with his protectorial airs; Mr Schweitzer's bloody pretentious articles on the encyclical and Bismarck, flirting with every kind of trash and only scolding the bourgeoisie,g the complete lack of sparkle and talent, and the absence even of any common sense, with just a few exceptions, it is all a bit too much for me. Lassalle-worship three times a week,
38. Marx to Engels. 6 February
the devil can stomach that, and it is good that the crisis is coming. I shall tell these gentlemen so in my next letter as well, have had no opportunity to do so until now. Apropos, how are you addressing your letters to Liebknecht? I would like to give him a telling-off from time to time as well, or encourage him, s'il y a lieu:'
I must stop now. Best wishes and do send the statement straightaway. I shall have finished the article by Wednesday or Thursday.
Your
F. E.
I have tried to sound out my brother-in-lawb about Siebel, but I could discover nothing except that he is 'always drunk', runs around with actresses, and his wife wants to divorce him.
M Y BEST COMPLIMENTS TO THE LADIES.
38
MARX TO ENGELS [101]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 6 February [1865]
Dear Engels,
As good luck would have it, in the feuilleton section in the Social-Demokrat which arrived today your call for the crushing of the aristocracy comes right after my article0 condemning even a 'pseudo-compromise'.
In the first instance, I now believe it is better to send in the few lines below,[125] instead of the statement I had originally intended.d
They will inevitably provide the occasion for a further statement. But my 'aesthetic' sense tells me — on further reflection — that the latter would not be entirely appropriate, because it would come too soon after Becker's APPEAL.[120] These few lines, on the other hand, will quite certainly provoke a real tussle between Schweitzer and Red Becker etc., in which we can then intervene and declare our policy briefly, forcefully and without any beating about the bush.
I enclose letter from the unfortunate Liebknecht12fi and note sent him by the old Hatzfeldt woman; there is still not enough 'Lassalle' in the paper3 for her liking.
As TO Klings, I am not going to answer at all. Let the fellows manage by themselves.b
Letter from Schily just received (can only send it to you in a few days time), from which it emerges:
1. that Moses'L insinuations were pure invention, 2. that our plan will have a 'fantastic' effect in Paris, and the workers there are not taking any notice whatsoever of L'Association, which Mr A. Horn, Lob Sonnemann and other riff-raff use to indulge their self-importance.95
If the attached statement meets with your approval, make a copy of it and sign it. Then send it back. I will then put my name to it as well and post the thing to Berlin.
Apropos. Lincoln's answer to us is in today's Times.[112]
[Postscript]
Liebknecht's private address is: '13 Neuenburger Strasse, Berlin'. You can send to Mrs Liebknecht at that address whenever you want to write privately. Poor W. Liebknecht is obviously in an exceedingly embarrassing situation. He will have to be told that it is a case of either bending or breaking. In the latter case, I should think he could certainly earn an honest living as a schoolmaster in Manchester.
39. Engels to Marx. 7 February
39
ENGELS TO MARX[29]
IN LONDON
Manchester, 7 February 1865
Dear Moor,
Statement" enclosed. They will take exception to the fact that we refer to Mosesb by name, which, when published, could be regarded as a breach of editorial secrecy. Do not forget to give Liebknecht instructions about this, so that a justifiable technical objection of this kind does not delay the matter again.
Liebknecht is becoming more and more stupid. He calls it a compromise that we should not merely sanction in silence every stupid thing that appears in the paperc but also tolerate the paper casting aspersions on our own affairs and actions,[126] in defiance of every convention. But we always have a fine LOT of agents to act for us and will certainly not be such jackasses as Lassalle and 'bequeath' anything to them, s'il y avait de quoi.d If things go wrong in Berlin, Liebknecht would do best to come over, leaving his family behind, we will then see what can be done, he will be able to make acquaintances soon enough at the Schiller Institute[28]
here, and whatever else can be done, will be; I think he might very well manage to settle down here like that, and if not, nothing is lost, and if it works out all right, he can bring his family over later. If he brings his family along straightaway, he will certainly go to the dogs here, because the cost will then be so much greater that the attempt cannot possibly last long. It will not be easy to obtain work teaching children, as Lupus did; but he can, of course, explore the possibilities.
Bender has sent me a bill for 5s. per quarter for my subscription to the Social-Demokrätchen, which seems exorbitant to me.
The devil knows how one's work here is subject to all kinds of interruptions. Another committee meeting of the Schiller Institute yesterday, so this evening is the first time since Friday that I have managed to get down to the military question.' The attempt by Hatzfeldt and Klings to throw out Bernhard Becker has been a complete fiasco, and Klings has been thrown out. Whatever happens we must avoid soiling our hands in that dirty business; it is just as the worker said in the Gurzenich(1) in 1848: they may fall as they will, a rogue will always come out on top.
What mad German Schweitzer writes 'as who'! This second LEADER on Bismarck's ministry is once again as pretentiously abstruse as it could possibly be, even though there is no longer any direct flirtation with Bismarck, and it is good that he openly calls Prussia's policy anti-German}' But how naive of Liebknecht that he demands that we ought to make clear to them what their attitude to the government should be, whereas what he should do is to ask above all for a categorical statement from Mr Schweitzer as to what attitude he intends to adopt towards the government.
It looks to me as if a compromise is at hand in Prussia now, with the Prussian Chamber rescuing its prerogative regarding the budget, but giving way on everything else. Bismarck will certainly not think of seriously disputing the budget-prerogative in the long run, since, if he did so, he would get neither money nor credit and he is badly in need of both. Meanwhile, the affair can still founder on any number of trivial details.(2)
In America, the start of the Richmond campaign in March or April will probably be decisive for the whole year.[30] If Grant succeeds in driving Lee out, the CONFEDERACY is PLAYED OUT, their armies will break up, and only bandit-warfare, like that already rife in West Tennessee now and in general nearly everywhere, will remain to be overcome. In reality, the only army the SOUTHERNERS now have is Lee's; everything depends on its destruction. Now we can already assume that the area from which Lee procures his supplies is confined to South Virginia, the Carolinas and at most part of Georgia.
Salut.
Your
F. E.
40. Engels to Marx. 9 February :
40
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 9 February 1865
Dear Moor,
Manuscript enclosed, now swollen to the dimensions of a full-sized pamphlet" and no doubt now quite unsuitable for the little paper.6 So far, it has only been very cursorily revised and will have to be gone through again. Regarding the military question, some statistics about the population fit for military service have yet to be inserted, and some more about the petty bourgeoisie at the end, which I quite forgot in the 'heat of battle'. You will notice, by the way, that the piece has been thrown together straight out of my head, without any kind of literary sources, since it had to be finished quickly. I now await your comments on it.
But where next with it? To Liebknecht or to Siebel, to find a publisher? What do you think? Best outside Prussia, probably, or do you think there is nothing in it that might lead to confiscation? I have lost all my instinct for the publishing situation in Prussia. Let me know your opinion on this point, too — the possibility of publication in Prussia.
Another S. D. (Sow's Dirt)c has just arrived. What a lot of feeble whining about the position of the party. No cut or thrust at all. For ever keeping the little back-door open for Bismarck. Peaceful collaboration! And then Moses,d who has come round to the point of view that the bourgeoisie and the government in France are vying with each other to do the right thing by the workers. France these days is a real paradise for Moses. It is a bit too much even for Schweitzer to stomach, he has put a ? after it.
Should I leave that section in III in, about the present workers' movement?
It seems to me that Roon's speech really does imply compromise. The man is prepared to negotiate.[127] For that reason, the piece
41. Marx to Engels. 10 February
must come out fast. So, do let me know soon what you think with respect to publisher.
Your
F. E.
lime
41 MARX TO ENGELS[29]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 10 February 1865
Dear FREDERICK,
The thing(1) is good. Although the style is too slapdash in places, it would be NONSENSE to polish or elaborate it at all now, as the main thing is to get it out IN THE NICK OF TIME, as the conflict [10]° is 'all ready' on the point of being resolved.
My advice therefore is this: Send the pamphlet straight to Meissner in Hamburg and tell him that speed of publication is paramount; and he should let you know immediately whether he will take it (leaving him to decide the fee), because then you would attract attention to the thing in advance in the Berlin and Rhineland papers.
The thing is much too long and 'too cheeky' for the Social-Demokrat in present circumstances. But I would arrange for notices, short ones, in the Social-Demokrat (through Eccarius), in the Düsseldorfer Zeitung through Siebel, and maybe even send a notice to the Rheinische Zeitung, to the effect that a pamphlet by you is being published at such and such a place, in which you are simply setting out our position on this specific question, as opposed to that of the Reaction, men of Progress" and Lassalleans, along with treatment of the PURELY MILITARY QUESTION.
Even if there are still things you have got to add to it, send the manuscript IMMEDIATELY ad Meissnerem (Hamburg) all the same and tell him that a few additions are to follow relating to such-and-such page (you can mark the places). There should have been rather more mention of the country people, which your German lout is far too inclined to ignore as non-existent. To judge by Strohn's last letter, he himself is probably away from Hamburg again, so that the piece cannot be sent to him but will have to go direct to Meissner.
An evil wind of reconciliation is blowing in Berlin, fanned from the direction of Russia this time and further strengthened by the turn for the worse in the business with Austria. The Petersburger Zeitung advises unconditionally making concessions to the chamber in the matter of budget-approval and two-year military service. It says, amongst other things:
'The present time appears to us, if not an alarming one, then, nevertheless, a grave one, and if circumstances do not become especially advantageous, it is still to be feared that the future will be dismal. In times of distress and danger, however, as history has proved only too often, the strict enforcement of discipline in the army and the civil service is rarely enough on its own. The real power of the state is then based, as it always is in general, far more on the unity of government and people. Although we do not underestimate the conciliatory manner, in which the government approached the people's representation in this year's session, nevertheless, in view of what we have just said, we cannot suppress the desire that this conciliatory spirit may also spread to action.'a
It appears that the Muscovites need their Prussians for the wheeling-movement they are about to execute against Austro-Galicia, as announced in the Moscow Newspaper^ According to the same Moscow Newspaper, this final subjugation of Poland, which however necessarily means the ruthless continuation of Muraviov's policy, would 'open a hole into the heart of Germany'. Our good 'men of Progress' and equally good 'Lassalleans' are missing all that by sleeping.
Letter from Schily enclosed. To Moses" great distress, the 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION' is creating a great stir amongst the workers in Paris. As a result of Moses' gaffe, Tolain has stepped down. (We have not formally accepted his resignation.) H. Lefort (editor of the Avenir,A etc.), who is also on the editorial committee of L'Association, has at his request been appointed LITERARY DEFENDER (ATTORNEY GENERAL) of our Association in Paris. The latter is already under attack from Horn (a paragraph in the Rules [128]). This Jew Horn will soon notice that Moses Hess is not the only German around. Fribourg has opened a
42. Marx to Engels. 11 February
bureau de renseignement* for us; CARDS OF MEMBERSHIP were sent to him the day before yesterday.
At the preparatory session for the Polish meeting,[97] I also saw OLD Oborski again, who does not send his regards.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
Apropos. The fact that Lincoln answered us112 so courteously and the 'BOURGEOIS EMANCIPATION SOCIETY"(1) SO brusquely and purely formallyb made the The Daily News so indignant that they did not print the answer to us. However, since they saw, to their dismay, that The Times was doing so, they had to publish it later in The Express? Levy also had to eat humble pie. The difference between Lincoln's answer to us and to the bourgeoisie has created such a sensation here that the West End 'clubs' are shaking their heads at it. You can understand how gratifying that has been for our people.
42
MARX TO ENGELSc
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 11 February [1865]
DEAR FRED,
It being Saturday today, I am assuming you won't be sending off your thing(2) this very day, so there will still be time for these 'supplementary' suggestions for changes:
1. In the passage where you ask what the workers want? I would not answer as you do that the workers in Germany, France and England are demanding this and that. The answer sounds as though (at least, that's what it will be taken to mean) we have accepted IzzyV slogans. I would be inclined to say ratherb:
It would seem that the demands put forward at the present moment by the most advanced workers in Germany amount to the following, etc. This doesn't commit you at all, which is all to the good, as later on you yourself criticise universal suffrage if not accompanied by the requisite conditions. (Morever, in England e.g., etc., the word 'direct' would indeed be meaningless, it is after all only the opposite of the 'indirect' suffrage invented by the Prussians.) The form in which the louts in Germany conceive of state intervention à la Lassalle is such that one must ANYHOW take care not to identify oneself with 'same'. It would be a lot more dignified (and safer), if you took the louts at their word and let them say for themselves what they want. (I say the louts because they are the really argumentative section who have been infected by
Lassalle.)I29
2. I would not say that the 1848-49 movement failed because the bourgeois opposed direct universal suffrage. What happened was rather that this was proclaimed by the people of Frankfurt to be an ancient German right and proclaimed by the Imperial Regentc
with all due formality.[130] (In my opinion, too, as soon as the matter comes up for serious discussion in dear old Germany, this franchise must be treated as a rightfully existing law.) As that is no place for a lengthy exposition, I would make do with the following phrase: that the bourgeois at that time preferred peace and servitude to the mere prospect of struggle and freedom, or something of that sort.
Taken as a whole, it's a very good piece, and 'Oi' am particularly tickled by the passage which shows that the present louts' movement IN FACT only exists par la grâce de la police.
In great haste. Salut.
Your
K. M.
I have crossed out the bit where you console the reactionaries, I DONT KNOW WHY, by saying that a soldier does not turn reactionary in
43. Engels to Marx. 13 February
the 3rd year — or not for long — although you later say the opposite.
43
ENGELS TO MARX'[18]
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 13 February 1865
Dear Moor,
Your SUGGESTIONS came just in time yesterday and have both been used. How necessary the one about the demands of the louts in particular was,(1) was further brought home to me by Nos. 20 and 21 of the Sow's-Dirtb which arrived today.
By the by, our attitude seems to be bearing fruit in spite of everything. There is a certain revolutionary note in No. 21 which was entirely absent before. By the by, I've written to Liebknecht that there's no point in raising a storm, they must just drop their flirting with reaction and make sure the aristocracy and reaction get their SHARE, too, but for the rest abuse neither them nor the bourgeoisie, which is superfluous in quiet times.[131]
But one can see that Izzyc has given the movement a Tory-Chartist character,[132] which it will be difficult to get rid of and which has given rise to a tendency in Germany which was previously unheard of among the workers. This nauseating toadying to the reaction comes through everywhere. WE SHALL HAVE SOME TROUBLE WITH THAT. You wait and see, the louts will be saying, what's that Engels after, what has he been doing all the time, how can he speak in our name and tell us what to do, the fellow's up there in Manchester exploiting the workers, etc. To be sure, I
44. Marx to Engels. 13 February
don't give a damn about it now, but it's bound to come, and we shall have Baron Izzy to thank for it.
Your
F. E.
44
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
London, 13 February 1865 1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, Haverstock Hill
Dear Engels,
You'll see from the enclosed how things stand with regard to our statement3 about Moses.[133] At the same time, you will have read Moses' scrawl in the last Social-Demokrat.b
This time I believe Liebknecht is right: Mr von Schweitzer is pretending to see in our statement only a personal attack on Moses; he 'overlooks' the stand against Bonapartism, etc., probably knowing full well WHAT HE IS ABOUT. It might perhaps not come amiss to Schweitzer if a public break (who knows whether he has committed himself to something which will soon force one or not?) were occasioned by this Moses business, instead of ad vocem" Bismarck} I have therefore written him letter (copy retained[134]) in which I d'abordA give him a summary of our relations to date and ask him where in all this we for our part have gone 'beyond the bounds'? And I analyse the Moses CASE once more. I then say that because of Moses' latest silly outburst, our statement is to A CERTAIN DECREE out-of-date, and the matter can therefore be allowed to rest.
As far as the other point in the statement is concerned, the hint to the workers, we would be setting out our position at length elsewhere on the attitude of the workers towards the Prussian government. At the same time, I took the opportunity — apropos of the telegram in today's Times about the Prussian ministerial statement — to make our opinion quoad" Bismarck and LassalleI35
clear to Mr von Schweitzer once again.
(I would in fact not be at all surprised if Bismarck were to reject outright the repeal of the Combination Laws to the extent that some of the men of Progress " have now been obliged to demand. The right of combination, and all that it entails, interferes too much with police domination, the Rules Governing Servants,[136] the flog-'em and birch-'em rural aristocracy and bureaucratic tutelage in general. As soon as the bourgeoisie (or some of them) appear to turn serious, the government will certainly make a joke and do a volte-face.(1) The Prussian state can not tolerate COALITIONS and TRADES UNIONS. That much is certain. On the contrary, government support for a few lousy co-operative societies suited their dirty game to a tee. Officials becoming even more nosey, control of 'new' money, bribery of the most active of the workers, emasculation of the whole movement! However, since the Prussian government is so short of money just now, this plan is scarcely more to be feared than the Order of the Swan of old![137]
Nota bene, Lassalle was opposed to the campaign for the right of combination. Liebknecht improvised it among the Berlin printers against Lassalle's wishes. That was the starting-point of the whole affair that beau Beckerb has now taken over.c")
For the present we should — in my opinion — exercise 'restraint' quant aud the Social-Demokrat. I.e. write nothing (Eccarius excepted). Things will soon reach such a pass that we shall either have to break openly with it, or we shall be able to collaborate with it in a proper manner. Moses will have to receive his chastisement on some later occasion.
MEANWHILE, I am delighted that you have got into the swing again. You are by nature always able to get back to working at speed. I take it my letter came in time?e
As long as these abominable Lassalleans rule the roost in Germany, that country will be infertile ground for the 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION'. For the present, we must be patient. The 13 1865
Prussian government will put an end to this foul morass of Izzyness" soon enough.
Apropos. Cutting from the latest Hermann enclosed. You must make a few bad jokes about this notice from Messrs Blind-Wolffsohn, for m e to pass on to Eccarius for insertion in his London correspondence.vi9 I have been so put out by this lousy correspondence with Berlin (apart from the amount of time the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION inevitably takes up) that I absolutely must make u p the lost ground.
Tyndall has succeeded in using a simple mechanical technique to break down sunlight into heat-rays and pure light-rays. T h e latter are cold. You can light your cigar straight from the former, and through a burning-glass they can melt platinum, etc.
* My best compliments to Mrs Burns. I am indeed very glad to hear that the o was an inorganic intrusion upon her name, and that she is a namesake of the great poet.b If Mrs Gumpert declines becoming a member of a Workingmen's Association, I hope Mrs Burns will not follow that example, but will believe with her namesake that 'a m a n is a m a n for all that'.c*
Salut
Your
K. M.
HAVE AN EYE UPON JONES! H E IS A FELLOW 'TOO CLEVER BY HALF'! Apropos. I think I should be in a position to send you the cards by Tuesday. I SEND ABOUT 2 DOZEN, which you don't need to dispose of all at once. But give some of them to E. Jones.
T h e latter has written to me about the electoral agitation (whereupon I wrote him that he should write me a 2nd letter[117]
which I could read out at the Comité. Which he duly did).[140] But he didn't say anything in his letter about the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION. As h e is a fox a n d I want to pin him down, you should insist that he forms A BRANCH COMMITTEE immediately (the number of MEMBERS doesn't matter for the present) and that he and his friends take out CARDS OF MEMBERSHIP. They must realise that the 'INTERNATIONAL is the only means and method of establishing co-operation (political) between London and the provinces*.
Concerning the cards, o u r RULES are as follows: existing societies (UNIONS, etc.) who wish to affiliate in that capacity need only take out corporate membership. That doesn't cost them anything, or they can make a voluntary donation. On the other hand, every member of such a society who wishes to become an INDIVIDUAL MEMBER of the Association, must take out his annual membership card at Is. Id. In France and Belgium, because of the laws there, it has 'turned out' that they will all have to become 'INDIVIDUAL' MEMBERS of the English society, since they are not able to join as societies. Every branch society or affiliated society outside London and ENVIRONS elects a secretary to correspond with us. We can 'reject' people we disapprove of.
45. Marx to Victor Le Lubez. 15 February[1]
My dear Lubez,
The very success of our association warns us to be cautious. In my opinion, M. Beales joining our council would spoil the whole affair." I believe him an honest and sincere man; at the same time, he is nothing and can be nothing save a Bourgeois politician. He is weak, mediocre and ambitious. He wants to stand for Marylebone at the next Parliamentary election. By that single fact he ought to be excluded from entering our committee. We cannot become le piédestal for small parliamentary ambitions.
You may be sure that if Beales is admitted le ton cordial, sincère et francb that distinguishes now our Debates, will be gone, and make place to word-mongering. In the wake of Beales will follow Taylor, this unbearable nuisance and tufthunter.
In the eyes of the world, Beales' admission will change the whole character of our society, we will diminish into one of the numerous societies which he favours with patronage. Where he has driven in the wedge, others of his class will follow, and our
46. Marx to Engels. 16 February
efforts, till now successful at freeing the English working class movement from all middle class or aristocratic patronage, will have been in vain.
I know beforehand that if Beales be admitted, there will arise questions mainly of a social sort, which will force him to tender his demission. We will have to issue manifestos on the land question, etc., which he cannot sign. Is it not better not to let him instead of giving him afterwards an opportunity of denying us.b
I know that after the foolish step taken by Mr Dell,c there will be certain difficulties in ensuring this candidature.
I would think that by means of quiet talks with the chief English members, the whole question could be [settled]' before it is put before the committee again.
Yours fraternally
K. Marx
Apropos. For all his enthusiasm for Poland, Mr Beales has as yet done nothing other than follow the Duke ...(1) in throwing all the demonstrations for Poland into confusion. Yesterday, he attempted the same trick again, under similar instigation.
46
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London, 16 February 1865]
DEAR FREDERICK, Jones has written, asking me to send him ABOUT 1 DOZEN CARDS; I am sending you 1 DOZEN for him and 1 for yourself. What you can't
47. Marx to Engels. 18 February
dispose of WITHIN A REASONABLE period of time you can send back. Price Is. Id. PER CARD.
I remind you AGAIN that Pettier may, in my opinion, be very useful in this matter. For years now he has had many PERSONAL RELATIONS (as SINGMASTER and socialist) with the Manchester workers.
You must return enclosed letter (to Lessner) when you have read it. How do you think we should MANAGE this business? J shall keep my mouth shut, of course, but Lessner won't be able to do that.[141]
I am pleased to see in today's Times that the Prussian Chamber has accepted the motion against the Combination Laws. The government will now arrange for it to be rejected in the LORDS HOUSE. Red Becker"—no doubt spurred on by your literary contributionb—has brought in the amendment about the rural population.[142]
Salut
Your
K. M.
47
MARX TO ENGELS[101]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 18 February 1865
DEAR FRED,
Enclosed 2 letters from Liebknecht, 1 to you and 1 to me. Ditto an earlier one from Schweitzer.
My view is this: Once Liebknecht has given in his notice,[143] il faut en finir.c If he had put the matter off, we could have done so, too, since your pamphletd is on the stocks.
I consider Schweitzer to be incorrigible (probably has a secret arrangement with Bismarck).
What confirms me in that view is
1. the passage I have underlined in his letter of 15th enclosed [144];
2. the timing of the publication of his 'Bismarck III'.[145]
To do justice to both points, I shall now copy out for you word for word a passage from my letter to him[134] of 13 February:
'...since our statement(1) has become partially out-of-date, following the correspondence from M. Hess in No. 21 received today, we will allow the matter rest there.[125] Our statement did, of course, contain another point as well: praise of the anti-Bonapartist stance of the Parisian proletariat and hint to the German workers that they should follow this example. We regarded this as more important than our sally against Hess. Meanwhile, we shall set out our views in detail elsewhere on the relation of the workers towards the Prussian government.b
'In your letter of 4 February you say that I warned Liebknecht myself not to overstep the mark, so that he would not be sent to the devil. Quite right. But I wrote to him at the same time that one could say anything if one put it in the right way.c A form of polemic against the government which is "possible" even for the Berlin meridian is certainly very different from flirting with the government or even pretending to compromise with it! I wrote to you myself that the Social-Demokrat must eschew even the appearance of doing so.[121]
'I see from your paper that the ministry is making ambiguous and procrastinatory statements with regard to the repeal of the Combination Laws. On the other hand, a Times telegram reports that it was in favour of the proposed state aid for the co-operative societies.d It would not surprise me at all if The Times had for once telegraphed a correct report!
'Combinations and the TRADES UNIONS they would give rise to are of the utmost importance not merely as a means of organising the working class for the struggle against the bourgeoisie — just how important is shown among other things by the fact that even the workers of the United States cannot do without them, in spite of franchise and republic — but in Prussia and indeed in Germany as a whole the right of combination also means a breach in the domination of the police and the bureaucracy, it tears to shreds the Rules Governing Servants ,36 and the power of the aristocracy in rural areas, in short, it is a step towards the granting of full civil rights to the "subject population" which the Party of Progress," i.e. any bourgeois opposition party in Prussia, would be crazy not to be a hundred times more willing to permit than the Prussian government, to say nothing of the government of a Bismarck! As oppossed to that, however, the aid of the Royal Prussian government for co-operative societies — and anyone who is familiar with conditions in Prussia also knows in advance its necessarily minute dimensions — is worthless as an economic measure, whilst, at the same time, it serves to extend the system of tutelage, corrupt part of the working class and emasculate the movement. Just as the bourgeois party in Prussia discredited itself and brought about its present wretched situation by seriously believing that with the "New Era" the government[146] had fallen into its lap by the grace of the Prince Regent," so the workers' party will discredit itself even more if it imagines that the Bismarck era or any other Prussian era will make the golden apples just drop into its mouth, by grace of the king. It is beyond all question that Lassalle's ill-starred illusion that a Prussian government might intervene with socialist measures will be crowned with disappoint-ment. The logic of circumstances will tell. But the honour of the workers' party requires that it reject such illusions, even before their hollowness is punctured by experience. The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing.'
WELL! He replied to this letter of mine of 13th with his letter of 15th, in which he demands that in all 'practical' questions I should subordinate myself to his tactics; he replies with 'Bismarck IIP as a fresh specimen of these tactics!! And really it now seems to me that the impudent manner in which he raised the question of confidence apropos of the statement against Hess was not due to any tenderness for Moses but to the firm resolution not to give space in the Social-Demokrat under any circumstances to our hint to the German workers.
So, as a break must be made with the fellow after all, it had best be done at once. As far as the louts in Germany are concerned, they can scream as much as they like. Those of them who are any good will after all have to rally round us sooner or later. If the statement given below seems all right to you, make a copy of it, sign it and send it to me. As it was scrawled in great haste, alter anything that seems unsuitable to you, or re-write the whole thing, just as you wish.
Your
K. M.
To the Editor of the 'Social-Demokrat'
The undersigned promised to contribute to the Social-Demokrat and permitted their being named as contributors on the express condition that the paper would be edited in the spirit of the brief programme submitted to them. They did not for a moment fail to appreciate the difficult position of the Social-Demokrat and therefore made no demands that were inappropriate to the meridian of Berlin. But they repeatedly demanded that the language directed at the ministry and the feudal-absolutist party should be at least as bold as that aimed at the men of Progress." The tactics pursued by the Social-Demokrat preclude their further participation in it. The opinion of the undersigned as to the royal Prussian governmental socialism and the correct attitude of the workers' party to such deception has already been set out in detail in No. 73 of the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung of 12 September 1847, in reply to No. 206 of the Rheinischer Beobachter* (then appearing in Cologne), in which the alliance of the 'proletariat' with the 'government' against the 'liberal bourgeoisie' was proposed. We still subscribe today to every word of the statement we made then.
I'll send the Weydemeyer back to you tomorrow. What do you say to the 'Freiligrath-Blind' Eidgenossenschaft^[147]
For a couple of days now, I have had a carbuncle on my posterior and a furuncle on my left loin. All very nice.
48. Engels to Marx. 20[-21] February
49. Engels to Marx. 22 February
48
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 20[-21] February 1865
Dear Moor,
The letter from Matzeratt enclosed.(1)
Quant àb Petzler, so the photographer is an altogether different Petzler from the other one. I saw the photographer, you know, the day before yesterday, at a scientific soirée at the Schiller Institute,[28] and the fellow is at least 20 years younger and looks quite different. Heaven knows what has become of the musician.
Your
F.E.
[Pencilled note on the reverse of the letter]
Quite forgot to post the letter yesterday. No ANSWER VET FROM
HAMBURG.0
49
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 22 February 1865
Dear Moor,
In great haste, herewith the statement.c Schweitzer's letter is 'rotten to the core'.d The fellow has the job of compromising us,
50. Marx to Engels. Before 22 February
and the longer we have our dealings with him, the deeper we'll sink into the mire. So, the sooner the better! Liebknecht's and Schweitzer's letters likewise returned. You must have given Liebknecht a terrible dressing down if my letter appeared 'kind' to him!1S1
Enclosure from Meissner. This time it really is full steam ahead with the publication,3 and that's what really matters. I replied to his proposal to fix the number of copies himself as follows: suits me, but he must then tell me how many there are to be, he only gets the first impression for 2 louis-d'or. (N.B. In the meantime, he will have had to make up his mind and get things ready for printing.)
In haste.
Your
F. E.
50
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London, before 22 February 1865]
Dear FREDERICK.
Enclosed some secret contributions to the crème bonapartiste as a Sunday treat and pour la bonne bouche.bUa
You must keep these scraps of paper. MY COMPLIMENTS TO MRS LIZZIE.c
Your
K. M.
Works, Second Russian Edition, Vol. 31, Moscow, 1963
51. Engels to Otto Meissner. 22 February
Dear Sir,
Your kind letter of 17th inst. has only just been delivered to me, since postal communication via Ostende has been interrupted for three full days, and I am greatly obliged to you for your prompt agreement to publish, and more especially for your rapid prosecution of the printing.(1)
I accept your fee of 2 louis-d'or per sheet of print and likewise leave it to you to decide the number of copies to be printed, under the condition, however, that you inform me of it in your next letter; it goes without saying [that I] am only making [over the first impression]b for this fee.
Announcements in the nfewspapers shall be] attended to forthwith.
The apparent delay in [despatch] here, to which you justifiably allude, arose from the following: I finished on Saturday evening, 11 February, and wrote the accompanying letter late that night; the letter was taken to the post on Monday 13th at 10.00 a.m. and went by the mail-boat from Dover that Monday evening — no later than it would have done if I had posted it on Saturday evening. The pious English do not allow mail-steamers to leave on Sunday evening, at least not to Ostende.
Yours respectfully
Fr. Engels
I hope to receive 12 copies by post here on 27th or 28th inst.
52. Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht. 23 February[149]
In the few brief excerpts, which Eccarius gives from my speech at the workers' society, there are certain things that convey precisely the opposite of what I said.Ka I have written to him about it, leaving it to him whether to correct it or not in the next piece he contributes, as it is not very important in the present cir-
53. Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann. 23 February[65]
1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, Haverstock Hill
Dear Friend,
Yesterday I received your letter, which I found most interesting, and will now reply to the various points.
First of all, I shall briefly describe my attitude towards Lassalle. Whilst he was pursuing his agitation, our relations were suspended, 1. on account of his bombastic self-adulation, which he managed to combine with the most shameless plagiarism of writings by myself and others; 2. because I condemned his political tactics; 3. because, even before he began his agitation,B0 I had fully explained and 'proved' to him here in London that direct socialist intervention by a 'Prussian state' was an absurdity. In his letters to me (from 1848 to 1863), as well as when we met personally, he had always declared himself a supporter of the party I represent.
As soon as he had become convinced in London (at the end of 1862) that he could not play his game with me, he resolved to set himself up as 'workers' dictator' against me and the old party. In spite of all that, I acknowledged his merits as an agitator, although towards the end of his brief career even that agitation appeared to me in an increasingly dubious light. His sudden death, our friendship of old, the grief-stricken letters from Countess Hatzfeldt, my indignation at the cowardly impudence of the bourgeois papers towards the man they had feared so much while he was alive, all these things induced me to publish a short statement attacking that wretch Blind(1) but not dealing with the substance of Lassalle's doings (Hatzfeldt sent the statement to the Nordsternb). For the same reasons, and in the hope of being able to drive out those elements whom I thought dangerous, Engels and I promised to contribute to the Social-Demokrat (it has published a translation of the 'Address',c and, at its request, I wrote an article about Proudhond when the latter died) and allowed our names to be put out as contributors, after Schweitzer had sent us a satisfactory programme of its editorial board.[34] We had a further guarantee in W. Liebknecht being an unofficial member of the editorial board. In the meantime, it soon became clear — the proof of this came into our possession — that Lassalle had in fact betrayed the party. He had entered into a formal contract with Bismarck (with no guarantees of any kind in his hands, of course). At the end of September 1864, he was to go to Hamburg and there (together with the crazy Schramm and the Prussian police spy Marr) 'force' Bismarck to incorporate Schleswig-Holstein, i.e. to proclaim such in the name of the 'workers', etc., in return for which Bismarck promised universal suffrage and a few spurious socialist measures.[98] It is a pity that Lassalle was unable to play this farce through to its conclusion! It would have made him appear deuced foolish and an utter gull! And it would have put paid to all such attempts for ever!
Lassalle got on the wrong path because he was, like Mr Miquel,[151] a 'realistic politician', only on a larger scale and with grander aims! (BY THE BYE, I had long ago seen through Miquel sufficiently to explain his conduct to myselfe by the fact that the National Association[152] offered a splendid excuse for a petty Hanoverian lawyer to make himself heard beyond his own four walls, in Germany at large, and then to exploit the enhanced 'reality' of his own self retrospectively in his native Hanover, playing the 'Hanoverian' Mirabeau under 'Prussian' protection, furthermore.) Just as Miquel and his present friends eagerly seized hold of the 'New Era'l46 inaugurated by the Prussian Prince Regent in order to national-associate and to fasten on to the 'Prussian leadership',[153] just as in general they cultivated their 'pride of citizenship' under Prussian protection, so Lassalle wanted to play the Marquis Posa of the proletariat to the Philipp II of the Uckermark," with Bismarck as intermediary between himself and the Prussian monarchy. He was merely imitating the gentlemen of the National Association. But, if the latter were invoking Prussian 'reaction' in the interests of the middle class, he was shaking hands with Bismarck in the interests of the proletariat. Those gentlemen had more justification than Lassalle, inasmuch as the bourgeois is accustomed to regard the interest he perceives immediately in front of his nose as 'reality', and as this class has, in fact, compromised everywhere, even with feudalism, whereas the working class must in the nature of things be genuinely 'revolutionary'.
For a histrionically vain character like Lassalle (who was not, however, to be bribed with such paltry things as office, mayoral-ties, etc.), it was a most seductive thought that he, Ferdinand Lassalle, might perform a deed for the direct benefit of the proletariat! He was, in fact, too ignorant of the real economic conditions required for such a deed to be critically self-consistent! The German workers, on the other hand, had 'demoralised' too far in consequence of the despicable 'realistic politics' with which the German bourgeoisie had tolerated the reaction of 1849-1859 and watched the people's minds being stultified, for them not to hail such a mountebank of a saviour who was promising to help them reach the promised land with one bound!
So, to take up the thread where I left off above! Hardly had the Social-Demokrat been established when it became clear that the old Hatzfeldt woman was planning to execute Lassalle's 'testament' posthumously. She had contact with Bismarck through Wagener (of the Kreuz-Zeitung(2)). She placed the 'Workers' Association' (Gen. German),b the Social-Demokrat, etc., at Bismarck's disposal. The annexation of Schleswig-Holstein was to be proclaimed in the Social-Demokrat, Bismarck to be generally acknowledged as patron, etc. The whole of this fine plan was frustrated because we had Liebknecht in Berlin and on the editorial board of the Social-Demokrat. Although Engels and I disliked the editorial board of the paper, its lickspittling cult of Lassalle, its occasional flirting with Bismarck, etc., it was, of course, more important publicly to stay with the paper for the time being in order to thwart the intrigues of the old Hatzfeldt woman and prevent the workers' party from being totally compromised. We therefore put on bonne mine à mauvais jeu,(3) although privatim we were constantly writing to the Social-Demokrat telling them that they should stand up to Bismarck just as much as to the men of Progress." We even tolerated that affected fop, Bernhard Becker, who is taking the importance bequeathed to him in Lassalle's testament quite seriously, intriguing against the INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMENS ASSOCIATION.b'
In the meantime, Mr Schweitzer's articles in the Social-Demokrat were becoming more and more Bismarckian. I had earlier written to him to say that, although the men of Progress can be intimidated over the 'Combination question', the Prussian government would never under any circumstances concede the complete abolition of the Combination Laws because that would entail breaching the bureaucratic system, giving freedom of thought and expression to the workers, tearing up the Rules Governing Servants,[136] abolishing flogging and birching by the aristocracy in rural areas, etc., etc., which Bismarck could never allow, it being altogether incompatible with the Prussian bureaucratic state.c I added that, if the Chamber were to repudiate the Combination Laws, the government would resort to empty phrases (such as e.g. that the social question requires 'profounder' steps to be taken, etc.) in order to preserve them. All this has come to pass. And what did Mr von Schweitzer do? He wrote an article in support of Bismarck UD and is reserving all his heroism for such infiniment petits(4) as Schulze, Faucher, etc.
I believe that Schweitzer, etc., mean it sincerely, but they are 'realistic politicians'. They wish to take due account of the existing state of affairs and not leave this privilege of 'realistic politics' to Messrs Miquel et Comp, alone. (The latter seem to wish to reserve the right of INTERMIX IURE with the Prussian government.) They know that the workers' papers and the workers' movement in Prussia (and hence in the rest of Germany) only exist par la grâce de la police.[3] They thus want to take the circumstances as they are, not to irritate the government, etc., quite as our 'republican' realistic politicians want to 'put up with' a Hohenzollern emperor. As I am not a 'realistic politician', however, I found it necessary together with Engels to serve notice on the Social-Demokrat in a public statementb' (which you will probably soon see in one paper or other).
You will see at the same time why there is nothing I can do in Prussia at the moment. The government there has flatly refused to restore my Prussian citizenship.[154] I should only be permitted to agitate there in a manner agreeable to Mr von Bismarck.
I prefer my agitation here through the 'International Association' a 100 times. The effect on the English proletariat is direct and of the greatest importance. We are now STIRRING the GENERAL SUFFRAGE QUESTION here, which is, naturally, of quite different significance here than in Prussia.[165]
As a whole, the progress made by this 'Association' has exceeded all expectations here, in Paris, in Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. Only in Germany, of course, I am opposed by Lassalle's successors who 1. are stupidly afraid of forfeiting their own importance; 2. are aware of my avowed opposition to what the Germans call 'realistic polities'. (It is this sort of 'reality' that puts Germany so far behind all civilised countries.)
Since any person who takes out a card at 1 SHILLING can become a MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION; since the French have chosen this form of INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP (ditto the Belgians) because the law prohibits them from joining us as an 'association'; and since the situation is similar in Germany, I have now resolved to ask my friends here and in Germany to form small SOCIETIES, regardless of how many MEMBERS there may be in each locality, each member of which will acquire AN ENGLISH CARD OF MEMBERSHIP.[156] Since the English society is public, there is no obstacle to this procedure even in France. I should appreciate it if you, too, would get in touch with London in this way in your neighbourhood.
My thanks to you for your prescription. Oddly enough this vile disease had broken out once more 3 days before it arrived. So, the prescription was most timely.
In a few days I shall send you another 24 ADDRESSES.c I have just been interrupted in my writing by a friend, and, as I very
54. Engels to Marx. 24 February
much want to send off this letter, I shall take up the other points in your letter next time.
Yours
K. M.
54
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 24 February 1865
Dear Moor,
I'm a bit concerned at not having heard from you today, in view of the furuncles and carbuncles you mentioned, in the most interesting places (or rather most interested). I hope you are not
LAID UP.
I was particularly disappointed as I hoped to get the explanation — as well as the Weydemeyer — about the unspeakable mess the Social-Demokrat fellows made of your speech at the London Workers' Society festivity. They make you speak pure S.-D. Eccarius never reported that to them.[150] This piece of infamy and the reprint of the article from the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung in the following number, ostensibly about universal suffrage, about which it says not a word*[57] is proof enough for me that the fellow(1)
has simply been bought and has the job of compromising us. I hope the statementb is on its way. We must not delay a moment longer.
But quelle bête notre ami(2) Liebknecht, who is supposed to keep an eye on the newspaper and never reads it on principle!
Your
F. E.
55. Marx to Engels. 25 February
55
MARX TO ENGELS[33]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 25 February 1865
Dear FRED,
I quite forgot—*you must excuse me — to send back Weydemeyer's letter. I enclose it. Ditto a letter of Dr Kugelmann with enclosure of wiseacre Miquel's letter.[151] Ditto a prescription* from Kugelmann. Oddly enough the prescription arrived just after the disease had broken out afresh. (Nota bene, the passage in Kugelmann's LETTER, saying I wrote that I wanted to defend Lassalle, referred to Blind's attack.[62] I have now told him (Kugelmann) the plain truth.3 Return the letters from Kugelmann and Miquel.) I have had the prescription made up and have already taken the POWDER, but I would still like Gumpert's opinion of it. It's a most troublesome business. Unlike last year, however, my faculties are not affected and (to the extent that sitting down for a long time is not physically troublesome) I am perfectly able to work. Incidentally, I have the feeling in every part of my CADAVER that the stuff is about to burst out all over.
Strohn passed by here. He was still in Hamburg when your manuscriptb came in, in the nick of time to recommend to Meissner that he should accept it. Strohn was informed that a manuscript from Rüstow on the same topic was rejected. Apropos. Have you taken any steps yourself regarding your pamphlet in the newspapers, or AM I TO DO IT? On this occasion, Eccarius himself was responsible for the incomprehensible BLUNDER.[150] When his article arrived, I wrote to him at once (22 February) enquiring whether the thing had been falsified by Schweitzer?[111] Quod nonS
When I sent our statementd to that jackass Wilhelm' (23 February), I wrote this to him:
'In the few brief excerpts, which Eccarius gives from my speech at the workers' society/ there are certain things that convey precisely the opposite of what I said. I have written to him about it, leaving it 25 1865
to him whether to correct it or not in the next piece he contributes, as it is not very important in the present circumstances.' a
My letters to Eccarius and Liebknecht have been written so that, if Schweitzer (who from the private letter he had just previously received from m e b VERY WELL KNEW WHAT HE WAS ABOUT, of course) should try to use Eccarius' BLUNDER to defend himself, we could if necessary cut off this retraite.0 MEANWHILE, I HAVE TOLD ECCARIUS PRIVATELY not to make any BOTHER about the whole filthy business until such time as Schweitzer's own behaviour requires it. Eccarius was very unwell, and that is probably to blame for the NONSENSE. On the other hand, I imagine that Schweitzer, who already had Wilhelm's resignation 14S in his possession and was therefore prepared for a statement from us, was delighted to accept the report, 1. so as to show by means of the passage about Prussia what extravagant demands we were making of him, and 2. by means of the conclusion to the report that we did IN FACT share his views. T h e galantuomod is forgetting, by the way, that I have kept copies of my private letter to him?[34]
I have informed Liebknecht that, if Schweitzer should turn it down, he should put the thing in the Berliner Reform and tell Schweitzer about this at the same time, and also that I have simultaneously sent the statement to two Rhineland papers, so that Schweitzer cannot procrastinate this time. I have in fact sent 2 COPIES to Siebel, instructing him to insert the thing in the Rheinische Zeitung and the Düsseldorfer Zeitung (the latter being the workers' paper) two days after receipt of my letter, and to send us a report on any comments in the local press.[158] So, this time there is nothing Schweitzer can do about it any more. I would not be surprised if the Lassalleans, especially in the H a m b u r g Nordstern, declared we had sold ourselves to the bourgeoisie. BUT NEVER MIND! T h e 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION' has managed so to constitute the majority on the committee to set u p the new REFORM LEAGUE that the whole leadership is in our hands. [1 5 5] I have put the full details in a letter to E. Jones.[111]
Such a conflict has broken out in Paris between our own representatives that we have sent Lubez to Paris to clarify matters and effect conciliation.[95] His CREDENTIALS state that Schily has been attached to him as an adjunct, and I have given Schily private instructions.[159] We could have sold 20,000 cards in Paris, but since one group was accusing the other of having Plon-Plon behind 25 1865
them, etc., the distribution of cards has had to be suspended for the time being. Under this military despotism, people are naturally highly suspicious of each other (my impression is that this time both sides are doing each other an injustice), and they are not capable of sorting out their differences and reaching an understanding by MEETING or through the press. A further factor is this: the workers seem to want to take things to the point of excluding any LITERARY MAN, etc., which is absurd, as they need them in the press, but it is pardonable in view of the repeated treachery of the LITERARY MEN. Conversely, the latter are suspicious of any workers' movement, which displays hostility towards them.[160]
(Apropos these 'LITERARY MEN', I am reminded that the workers here (English) want to make me editor when The Bee-Hive* is transformed, which is to happen in 3 months time, and have already informed me of this. However, I shall mull over the matter in all its multifarious aspects, before making a move in one direction or another.)
So, what we have in Paris is, on the one hand, Lefort (a LITERARY MAN, well-to-do into the bargain, in other words 'bourgeois' but with an unsullied reputation, and, as far as La belle France(1) is concerned, the real founder of our Association), and, on the other, Tolain, Fribourg, Limousin, etc., who are workers. WELL, I shall let you know the outcome. At all events, Wolff, an acquaintance, who has just returned from Paris, tells me that there is growing interest in the 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION'. T h e Débats" has also intervened in the matter.
As far as the London UNIONS, etc., are concerned, every day brings about new ADHESION, so that BY AND BY we are becoming a force to be reckoned with.
But that is where the difficulty begins as well. Already MR BEAI.ES (THE REGISTERING BARRISTER of Middlesex, one of the most popular people in London at present, President of the POLISH LEAGUE,b co-founder of the NEW REFORM LEAGUE, IN FACT THE GO-BETWEEN between WORKING-MAN and MIDDLE CLASS, honest and well-meaning to boot) has got himself proposed as MEMBER for our COUNCIL. T h e opportunity arose because as a SUBCOMMITTEE together with him we were to prepare the Polish MEETING (Marquis Townshend in the chair) for next Wednesday. [1 6 1] This was most unfortunate for me. I could, of course, have prevented the matter by force, as all the CONTINENTALS would have voted with me. BUT I DID NOT LIKE ANY SUCH DIVISION. So, by 25 1865
means of private letters [3] to the PRINCIPAL ENGLISH MEMBERS, I have managed to persuade Beales' PROPOSERb not to bring forward his MOTION again. T h e 'official' reason given was: 1. that Beales WILL STAND FOR MARYLEBONE at the next parliamentary elections and that our Association must by all means avoid appearing TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF ANY PARLIAMENTARY AMBITION; 2. that Beales and we ourselves can be of greater assistance to each other, if we sail our separate ships. Thus, the danger has been temporarily averted. Incidentally, other parliamentarians, such as Taylor, etc. (fellows, who have close links with Mazzini), had taken it into their heads to tell us that the TIME was not OPPORTUNE for a Polish meeting. I answered t h r o u g h our COUNCIL that the WORKING CLASS has ITS OWN FOREIGN POLICY, which is most certainly not determined by what the MIDDLE CLASS considers OPPORTUNE. They always considered it OPPORTUNE TO GOAD ON
THE POLES AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW OUTBREAK, TO BETRAY THEM DURING ITS PROGRESS BY THEIR DIPLOMACY, AND TO DESERT THEM WHEN RUSSIA HAD THROWN THEM DOWN. In fact, the chief purpose of the MEETING is to raise money to support them. Are the poor émigrés (this time mostly WORKINGMEN and PEASANTS and thus not in the least PROTECTED BY PRINCE ZAMOYSKI et Co.) to starve because it appears to the ENGLISH MIDDLE CLASS JUST NOW INOPPORTUNE TO MENTION EVEN THE NAME OF POLAND?
Cutting enclosed by Mr Blind from The Morning Star.[162]
Mazzini, who did tell Fontana that Blind was a liar, was absolutely furious that his Italian Workers' Association[20] here sent out the Italian version of my 'Address' c into the world without the omissions Mr Mazzini had expressly demanded, e.g. the passages attacking the MIDDLE CLASS.
Your
K. M.
Apropos. Some port wine and claret would do me a world of
g O O d UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
56
ENGELS TO CARL SIEBEL
IN ELBERFELD
Manchester, 27 February 1865 Dear Siebel,
Marx has sent you our statement denouncing the Social-Demokrat in Berlin.[3] In the meantime, to do something positive to prevent the people from lumping us together with Bismarckery, I have written a pamphlet,(2) and O. Meissner in Hamburg has accepted it. I should be grateful if you would arrange for a notice concerning it to be placed in the Düsseldorfer Zeitung and other papers to which you have access, with something like the following content:
A pamphlet by Fr. Engels entitled The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party will shortly be published by Otto Meissner in Hamburg. It originated at the request of a so-called 'social-democratic' paperb to the author to express his views on the subject in that paper.c Detailed treatment of the subject, however, required more space than a newspaper could command; the pro-Bismarck direction adopted by the latest 'Social-Democracy' furthermore made it impossible for the people at the Neue Rheinische Zeitung to collaborate with the organs of this particular 'Social-Democracy'. In these circumstances, the above-mentioned work is being published independently in pamphlet-form...(3)
You will need to act quickly as Meissner has written that the pamphlet was already going to be distributed on 24 February. It will vex the Lassallean clique most dreadfully, the men of Progress" no less so, and not least Monsieur Bismarck. There are some most impudent things in it which have previously, for the most part, been passed over with tactful timidity. As long as the press does not again totally ignore the thing[164] with its fulmina-tions against all and sundry, the story will have some effect.
So, be quick now! This is all important. For the Rheinische Zeitung I shall supply the necessary material through Dr Klein in Cologne.
Best wishes to your wife. Your
F. E.
56. Engels to Carl Siebel. 27 February Ill 57. Engels to Marx. 27 February
N.B. You can further add: and sets out the views of the 'Social-Democrats' of 1848 with regard to both the government and the Party of Progress.
57
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 27 February 1865
Dear Moor,
As you had positively promised to take the necessary steps regarding the newspapers[3] immediately Meissner sent a positive reply, I counted on it that this had been done. Meanwhile, today I dispatched the necessary to Siebel,b Liebknecht and Klein in Cologne (for the Rheinische Zeitung),[163] as there is no time to lose. If you have anyone else who can do anything, please write to them — PERHAPS Kugelmann? His letter returned enclosed, ditto Miquel whose high-faluting refashioning of the theory into a platform for mayoral dignity and bourgeois benevolence greatly amused me.[151] It is more or less how Heinrich Bürgers will view the world if he should ever become mayor of Nippes or Kalscheuren.
Jones has got SESSIONS again, I have not been able to see him yet. More tomorrow, 7 o'clock has just struck and I must post this letter.
Your
F. E.
58. Engels to Marx. 3 March
I have no port wine in the WAREHOUSE and will have to get hold of some first, but will do so immediately.
58
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 3 March 1865
Dear Moor,
You must excuse me for neglecting my correspondence this week. Borkheim was here and took up a lot of my time; he left this evening; then there is COTTON-PANIC following Sherman's advance,7ä with endless letter-writing and vain attempts to dispose of our STOCK. I think Richmond will be abandoned within a fortnight, and, unless by some miracle Lee manages to get a fresh respite of 2-3 months, the final, decisive battle will be fought within 4 weeks.[30]
I must go home now and write to Meissner and Siebel, who is putting himself to a lot of trouble — he says he has sent you the statement.3 I am glad the thing is finally published; still nothing in the damned Social-Demokrat of 1 March — presumably, they tried to go back on it? [165] It's a load off my mind that we have at last made the break with that gang. So, now we have the grand concluding article on Bismarck which was supposed to patch everything up. O, jerum, jerum, jerum!c
Your
F. E.
59. Marx to Engels. 4 March
I have in my hurry not managed to find any decent port, but sent claret yesterday. Will keep looking for some port.
59
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 4 MARCH 1865
DEAR FRED,
Our statement3 is in today's Social-Demokrat. Although claiming that the statement from these 'gentlemen' requires no further î comment, Mr Schweitzer has, nevertheless, 'anonymously' devoted one of his 'bloody pretentious' LEADERS [166] to us. Lassalle and B. Becker, 'President of Mankind', FOR EVER! At all events, I have Mr Schweitzer's exceedingly humble letter of invitation, etc. in my possession. Siebel has sent 5 newspapers (the Barmer, the Elberfelder, the Düsseldorfer, the Rheinische and the Neue Frankfurter) carrying the statement.[158] The enclosed cutting is from the Elberfelder. I am glad, firstly, that we are 'out' and, secondly, that we were 'in'. If we had not been, we would never have penetrated the 'mystères of Lassalle'.
I have written to Kugelmann (please send his prescription back to me) about your pamphletb (it looks very good in print; if there is a 2nd impression, only a sentence here and there would need to be altered). Can you send me another 2 COPIES? I would like to use Eccarius' good offices to put two short notices in Bender's ragc
(London) and in the Hermann, but that will hardly be possible unless I let them have 2 copies.[167]
The 'Polish Meeting' (WEDNESDAY) went off very well, and full, although the BOURGEOIS had done everything they could to wreck it by declaring it 'iN0PP0RTUNE'.d 168 Affairs in France are very complicated?[5] I will tell you about it and send you Schily's REPORT (I have to translate extracts from it this very day and accordingly inform the SUBCOMMITTEE of it) in my next letter. For the moment, I shall just mention that there is A FIGHT between our original workers' representatives and the politico-social gentlemen (including the boss of the Association[3] so admired by Moses'[5]) as to who is to be in contact with us. The [French],' particularly the Parisian workers (although already links with 25 other French cities, too) literally regard the London COUNCIL as a workers' government 'abroad'.
Major Wolff has returned after serving his sentence in Alessandria.
Apropos: did I tell you that Mazzini later secretly communicated his 'displeasure' to Fontana after all (and his predilection for K. Blind, whom he had himself branded as a 'liar'b)?
Your wine came yesterday; received with THANKS. For the past week my brother-in-lawc from the Caped has been here again; he leaves next Tuesday. My niecee from Maastricht came with him (daughter of my sister, widow Schmalhausen); I shall have to take her back IN ABOUT A WEEK LATER.
My old trouble is plaguing me in various sensitive and 'aggravating' places, so that sitting down is difficult.
Apropos: is the Lupus affairf still not quite wound up? Ditto I never heard a word from Mr Borchardt about the outstanding money he was going to collect in. You will see from the enclosed scrawl, which is just one example, how I am being sent claims of every conceivable kind, things I had totally forgotten about. This is the most recent to have raised its head from the days of the
Neue Rheinische Zeitung. It is something I have to take into account in every possible way because otherwise the fellows will make a public scandal.'h
It seems all up with CONFEDERACY.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
60. Engels to Marx. 6 March
I wonder if you could send me the papers from the Manchester press relating to the COTTON-CRISIS?40
60
ENGELS T O MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 6 March 1865
Dear Moor,
Yours of the day before yesterday received, as was the Social-Demokrat today containing that droll article excommunicat-ing us.[166] It really makes one laugh.
I have been at home with 'flu most of today, but I shall go and see the lawyer about the Lupus affair[8] as soon as possible. Everything will be straight as soon as the fellow completes; Borchardt has been paid his £ 1 0 0 (i. e. less the money he has already had), and the Schiller Institute a 8 its £100, too; furthermore, I gave the lawyer approx. £ 1 5 0 to cover tax and am only waiting for his account now before remitting the rest to you directly. I shall put together a provisional balance sheet for you in a day or two so that you can see how things stand.
Things from Siebel and a certain Lange enclosed." Qu'en penses-tu?b Send the stuff back, as well as the letter from Meissner, which I must have for my correspondence with him. I am sending him the cuttings for him to see that we have also got people to push things along.
T h e Kölnische Zeitung has also printed o u r statement,[1] but only u p to the words that the Social-Demokrat's tactics preclude o u r further participation in it.
Bruhn returned enclosed. How THE HELL CAME YOU TO OWE THAT FELLOW ANY BRASS? d However much it is, I shall send it to-you at once.
61. Marx to Engels. 7 March
2 of the pamphlet[3] despatched herewith. They are the last ones. But I have ordered some more. There is an announcement about the pamphlet in the Kölner Zeitung}
What kind of 'PAPERS from the Manchester press relating to the COTTON-CRISIS' are you talking about? Surely you mean from the RELIEF COMMITTEE32? I have not seen Maclure for some time; as soon as I encounter him, I shall have a word with him about it.
Gumpert does not think much of Kugelmann's phosphate of lime. At all events, it is not a specific remedy. He says you ought to take arsenic. Returned enclosed.
I must now go to the Schiller Institute to chair the Comité. By the by, one of the fellows there, a chemist,c has recently explained Tyndall's experiment with sunlightd to me. It is really capital.
Your
F. E.
61
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 7 Marche 1865
DEAR FRED,
My brother-in-lawf is leaving today to return to the Cape. I've got to accompany him onto the ship. So, I'm very short of time — hence just the following in the utmost brevity:
1. Ad vocem* Bruhn. A worker in Paris received a letter from a worker in Hamburg saying that Bruhn is slandering us in every way he can. Firstly, he says I owe him 60 talers which I never repaid. Secondly, you and I are said to have sold the Prussian government, or rather 'Police-Chief Stieber', a manuscript about the refugees.[169] The Parisian sent the letter to Lessner, who passed it on to me. I replied to Lessner by return of post, for communication to the Parisian, that I had never had any financial dealings with Bruhn (which I believed at that time to be the case), and in general considered that for Bruhn to ever have 60 talers to his name was like something out of Munchausen. Furthermore, I explained the affair of Bangya and the manuscript, in which connection our declaration of April 1853(1) in the New-Yorker Criminal-Zeitungb and references to it in Herr Vogt page such and suchc were to be consulted. WELL! Then Bruhn's letter arrived. So, I racked my brains and think I remember the following: in the spring of 1849 I came to Hamburg to collect money for the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. I had just enough in my POCKET to get to Hamburg. However, stayed 14 days in a FIRST-RATE hotel. I explained to Baron Frisch, who later intended to send us donations, that I needed money to pay the hotel bill and my return fare. I now have a dim recollection that since I didn't want to take the money as a 'PRESENT' from him and he for his part didn't want it back, it was agreed that Bruhn, who was just as much a scoundrel then as now, should receive it. I had forgotten the whole bloody business; however, I now wrote to Bruhn[111] that I couldn't remember any financial transaction with him. Since the
Neue Rheinische Zeitung was banned when I got back to Cologne from Hamburg and I myself was kicked out of Prussia, it was possible that in the whirl of events at the time / had forgotten.[170]
It is still striking that he waited from 1849 to 1865 to remind me. But it was a simple matter. He should let me know by letter how much he thought he had on me and send me Griibel's address. I would then write to Grübel myself. If the latter confirmed what he said, his demand would be satisfied. This procedure is absolutely essential, as I am still uncertain about the matter even at this moment, and the way I have been fleeced by claims of this kind is really scandalous.
2. From the enclosed from Schily you will see what transpired in Paris whither we sent Le Lubez to settle the disputes that had broken out there. (We had given Schily ditto FILL POWER to negotiate,d as we were aware of Le Lubez's bias towards Lefort.[95]
Here I should just mention in passing that Béluze, President of the People's Bank,[171] who controls the few Paris Associations and their organ L'Association, is with Lefort.) What else happens—which will only be concluded this evening, as far as our intervention is concerned — in the next letter."
3. The things from Siebel returned. It strikes me as most unfortunate that he gives London as the origin of the notice put in the Düsseldorfer Zeitung? thus exposing me as the presumed author.
4. Letter from Liebknecht enclosed. 5. One copy of the circular from the Geneva BRANCH-ASSOCIATION0 enclosed.
6. The letter from Meissner enclosed. 7. Lange: not to be directly rebuffed.1* Write and tell him that he would do best to post the thing to you, 2 COPIES, and you would send one to me each time. As he rightly realises himself, after our recent experience we would have to hold back for the present from making contributions to any German paper. He would, of course, have the same right as any other EDITOR of a journal to reprint whatever extracts he liked from your pamphlet.'
Salut.
Your
K. M.
The first numbers (2 sheets) of Blind's Eidgenosse have come, with the only contributions by Blind, Struve and Rasch.[172] Trivia. Emblem consisting of hand with dagger, to kill the 'tyrants'.
62. Marx to Engels. 10 March
62
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 10 MARCH [1865]
DEAR FRED,
I can only write these few lines today, as I have much else to do. The statement from Herwegh and Rustow(1) is good. The impudence of Mr Schweitzer, who knows perfecdy well that all I need to do is publish his own letters, is fantastic. Though what else can the wretched cur do?
As you will already have guessed, the scrawl he quotes from the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung is from student 'Blind'.[173] I'm sending you the first No. of this ' lackey'b of the deposed Kings of Democracy and Holloway-type 'SELFADVERTISERS' and 'PUFFERS'. YOU must arrange for a few jokes about the fellow to reach Siebel, for him to hawk around to the various papers.
By the by, if there should be a 2nd impression of your pamphlet,(2) we can, in a short preface, make a brief official statement on our position with regard to the Lassalle shit and the Social-DemokraU It would be, of course, beneath our dignity to take up the cudgels directly with that gang of riff-raff in minor journals.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
63. Engels to Joseph Weydemeyer. 10 March[57]
Dear Weydemeyer,
At last I have got down to answering your letter of 20 January. I had sent it to Marx who — partly because he was indisposed— kept it a very long while, IN FACT did not return it until a week ago today,[3] so that my letter could no longer catch the STEAMER; I was too occupied with business on that day.
My best thanks for your detailed answers to my questions.[15] With the negligent reporting on militaria(1) in the papers here, I had lost the thread of all the 'combined' operations; I found the Red River expedition b quite puzzling and I was not much wiser about Sherman's move eastward from Vicksburg,[75] as there was no mention here of the Southern corps advancing from New Orleans. These combined operations with a point of meeting up not merely in the enemy's territory but even behind his very lines show precisely how crude are the ideas of strategy of a nation that has no experience of war whatever. And yet if the noble Wrangel and Prince Frederick Charles had not been 2 to 1 in the Danish war[9]
they would have got up to much the same tricks. The battle at Missunde,75 and the 2 inexplicable 'demonstrations' (to give a nameless thing some kind of name, nevertheless) against Düppel[27]
before the assault were, if anything, even more childish.
As to Grant's conduct at Richmond,c" I am trying to explain it in another way. I am completely of the same opinion as you that strategically the only correct thing was to attack Richmond from the west However, it seems to me — insofar as one can form a judgement from such a distance and from such vague reports— that Grant preferred the eastern side for 2 reasons:
1. because he could provision himself more easily there. Whilst on the western side he commanded only the roads to Fredericks-burg and to Tennessee (both crossing areas that had been exhausted), on the eastern side he had the Fredericksburg line, and the York and James RIVERS as well. Since the difficulty of supplying large armies with provisions has played an important part throughout the war, I would not like to condemn Grant out of hand until I am clear on that score. You reproach him with having turned his back to the sea But if one controls the sea and has secure points of embarkation (Monroe and Norfolk), then that is an advantage. Compare Wellington's campaigns in Spain and the Crimean campaign, where the Allies, who had been victorious on the Alma, positively ran away from the enemy in order to ensure their rear the protective cover of the sea south of Sevastopol.[176]
That the possession of the Shenandoah valley was the best way to secure Washington is clear. But? The question arises
2. did Grant (and Lincoln) want to have Washington completely secure? On the contrary, it seems to me that with the loose constitution of the Federation and the great indifference to the war in some parts of the North, Lincoln never seriously wanted to drive the Confederates out of Richmond, that, on the contrary, he just wanted to pin them down in a position where they represented something of a threat to Washington, Pennsylvania and even New York. I believe that without that he would have got neither the recruits nor the money to finish the war. I certainly believe that Grant would have very much liked to have taken Richmond in the last 3-4 months, but he has not sufficient forces to do so. I see them estimated at from 70-90,000 men and Lee at 50-70,000. If this ratio is approximately correct, then, with his attack acknowledged to be strategically wrong, he has done everything possible to frustrate any offensive defence by Lee, and to encircle Richmond on at least 3 sides out of 4. For, after distinguishing himself amongst all the other generals of North and South in the last 2 years just by his brilliant use of counter-attacks, I cannot believe that Lee would now abandon this tactic unless forced to. It was, however, a stupendous gain for the North if it succeeded in pinning down the South's best army at Richmond, in one corner of the southern territory, because of a childish point d'honneur," until the whole hinterland was cut off and militarily disrupted for the South, firstly by conquest of the Mississippi valley and then again by Sherman's campaign, until finally, and this seems to be the case now, all the Union's available troops are marching on Richmond and one decisive blow can put an end to the whole business.
The latest news we have is from New York, dated 25 February, i.e. it includes the taking of Charleston and Wilmington, and Sherman's advance from Columbia to Winnsborough. This Sherman appears to be the only fellow in the North who knows how to use his men's legs to win battles. But he must, incidentally, have splendid lads under him. I can't wait to see what will happen. If Lee assesses his desperate situation aright, he has no choice but to pack up and go south. But where to? The only way open to him is to Lynchburg and Tennessee; but that would be exceedingly hazardous to march into such a narrow mountain valley with just one railway, and Knoxville and Chattanooga fortified ahead of him. Besides, that would probably mean sacrificing Beauregard, Hardee and all other Confederate troops positioned in North Carolina, and exposing his flank to Sherman. Or he could advance from Petersburg, turn Grant's left flank and march directly south against Sherman? Daring, but better; the only way to draw to himself the remnants of the fleeing armies, delay Grant by destroying the railways and bridges, and fall on Sherman with superior strength. If the latter offers battle to this combined force, he will certainly be beaten; if he falls back toward the coast, he will open up the road toward Augusta for Lee who will there be able to make his first respite. But Sherman and Grant would then surely join forces and Lee would then again be faced by a superior force, this time as good as in open country; for I do not believe the Confederates can again concentrate so many heavy guns in any one place inland as to organise another Richmond there. And even if they were to do so, they would only be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. Or else — invasion of the North? Jefferson Davis would no doubt be capable of this, but that would also spell the end within a fortnight.
Now, however, Lee can only send some of his forces southwards as well to join with Beauregard and company and stop Sherman, and this seems to me the most probable course. In this case, Sherman will probably give them a proper 'drubbing', as they say in South Germany, and then Lee will really be stuck. But even if Sherman were to be defeated, Lee would only have gained one month's respite, and the troops advancing from every part of the coast — not to mention Grant's successes in the meantime against the weakened Richmond army — would soon make his position as bad as it had been before. One way or another, the game is up, and I look forward to the arrival of each STEAMER with expectancy; there is a positive deluge of exciting news just now. The strategic speculations of the numerous SOUTHERN SYMPATHISERS here are most comical to listen to, they are all epitomised by the remark made by the Polish general Sznayde in the Palatinate who said after every rout, 'We are doing exactly what Kossuth did.' Incidentally, I am most grateful to you for your explanations about military organisation in America, it was only as a result of them that I obtained a clear picture of many aspects of the war there. I have been familiar with the canons Napoléon for many a long year, the English had already replaced them (light, smooth-bore 12-pounders with a charge weighing (2)/[4] of the ball) when Louis Bonaparte re-invented them. You may have any number of Prussian howitzers, as they have all been withdrawn now and replaced by rifled 6-pounders and 4-pounders (which fire 13-pound and 9-pound heavy shells). I am not surprised that the ELEVATION of your howitzers is only 5°, it was no higher with the old long howitzers the French had (until 1856), and, if I am not mistaken, the English ones were only a little more. In general, the high-angle fire from howitzers has been used for a long time only by the Germans; its great unreliability in range-finding in particular had brought it into disrepute.
Now to other matters. A Frankfurt lawyer 'von Schweitzer' had indeed established himself in Berlin with a little paper called Der Social-Demokrat and asked us to write for it. As Liebknecht, who is in Berlin, was to join the editorial board, we accepted." But then, firstly, the little paper embarked on an insufferable cult of Lassalle, whilst we meanwhile received positive proof (the old Hatzfeldt woman told Liebknecht about it and urged him to work for the same ends) that Lassalle was much more deeply implicated with Bismarck than we had ever realised. There was an actual alliance between the two which had gone so far that Lassalle was to go to Schleswig-Holstein and there to advocate the annexation of the duchies by Prussia, while Bismarck had rather less definitely consented to the introduction of a sort of universal suffrage and more definitely to the right of combination and concessions regarding social policy, state support for workers' associations, etc.[98] The foolish Lassalle had no guarantee whatever from Bismarck, au contraireb he would have been put in prison sans façonc as soon as he became troublesome. The gentlemen on the Social-Demokrat knew this, but, for all that, they continued to intensify their cult of Lassalle. In addition to that, the fellows allowed themselves to be intimidated by threats from Wagener (of the Kreuz-Zeitung) into paying court to Bismarck, flirting with him, etc., etc. That was the last straw. We published the enclosed statement(3) and made our exit, with Liebknecht doing likewise. The Social-Demokrat then declared that we did not belong to the Social-Democratic Party,[166] which excommunication naturally did not bother us. The whole Lassallean General Association of German Workers[2] has taken such a wrong road that nothing can be done with it; however, it will not last long.
I was asked to write about the military question, which I did, but, in the meantime, relations between us became more strained, and the article turned into a pamphlet,[3] which I have now had published separately; I am now sending you a copy of it by the same STEAMER. T O judge by the newspapers I receive, the thing appears to be creating quite a furore, especially on the Rhine, and it will, at any rate, make it very difficult for the workers to ally themselves with reaction just now.
The INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION in London is going from strength to strength. In Paris especially, in London no less so. It is also going well in Switzerland and Italy. Only the German Lassalleans are refusing to bite, and in present circumstances least of all. However, we are again receiving letters and offers from all sides in Germany, a decisive change has taken place, and the rest will turn out right.
The only reply I can make to your wife's(4) question is that I have not yet entered into a state of holy matrimony.
Photographs enclosed, of Lupus and myself, I have come out a little too dark; but it is the only one I have left.
Schimmelpfennig has taken Charleston — Hurrah! Write soon.
Your
F. Engels
64. Engels to Marx. 11 March
64
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 11 March(1) 1865
Dear Moor,
Schweitzer's brazenness really is ludicrous. But it does show how hard he has been hit by our withdrawalb and how well he knows that very much depends on it for his petty paper. After Herwegh and Rüstow have come out in support of our statement/ anything can happen. Schweitzer will soon become aware of the effect his big talk has had, especially on the Rhine. Siebel has done a capital job in circulating the pamphlet.c The Bonner Zeitung has twice published long extracts already and is intending to produce still more. The Rheinische" has also got a long extract as well. Our standing with the Rhineland workers being what it is, this agitation-by-clique against us won't get very far.
Siebel had already sent me the little piece from the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung.[173] Student Blind as always. He is having to make a couple of phrases of Lassalle's last a whole year. I haven't received the lackeyd yet.
The legacy business is complete, the LAWYER will send the statement of account next week, he has still got approx. 10s. to collect in or pay out, he wasn't sure which. So, I can send you the money on Monday then.e Meanwhile, my statement of account enclosed, according to which another £ f approx. are due to you.
The ideas Liebknecht has about Manchester! He has got nothing to gobble and asks me what a house 'with garden' costs here! The fellow is simply soft in the head. Schweitzer, he said, could not sell himself to Bismarck because he would have been obliged to use the good offices of the beastly old woman.h
I'm finding the new movement a terrible fag, by the way. It's the devil's own job letter-writing in the evening as well for the party and publisher, etc., until 1 or 2 o'clock, after letter-writing all day at work.
Siebel has sent me Lange's pamphlet." Confused, Malthusian with some Darwinian ingredients, flirting with all and sundry, but several good passages against Lassalle and the bourgeois consumers' co-op fellows. I'll send it to you in the next few days.
Schily's letter also returned enclosed which I found most entertaining. Our old comrade is turning himself into a very useful diplomat.[159] How did the two of you settle the dispute?
It's impossible to get anywhere with Jones. Hardly are the SESSIONS over when the Assizes begin. THE TRADE IN CRIME SEEMS HIGHLY
FLOURISHING.
Adios, and my kindest regards to the LADIES.
EXECUTION of Will W. Wolff
Debit
Your
F. E.
Payment from Steinthal & Co. incl. interest " " " Heywood BROTHERS incl. interest Debts collected by Dr Borchardt
£1,083-9-3 " 234-14-9 " 66-13-0
£1,384-17-0
Credit
To payment to Marx £234-14-9 " " " do " 350-0-0 " " do " 200-0-0 " " " do " 40-0-0 " do
£824-14-9
„ to Borchardt £ 100-0-0
• i Schiller Institute[28] " 100-0-0 " Engels " 100-0-0 " " Wood, Solicitor " 150-0-0 fPayment to LANDLORD " 13-4-9
Paid , " funeral expenses .... " 57-11-0 by Borchardt
M of 2 bills 1-2-4 by Borchardt »* of PROBATE DUTY . " 30-0-0 1,376-12-10 »* of PROBATE DUTY .
Balance 8-4-2
65. Marx to Engels. 13 March
There is also a certain amount in interest I have got to make over to you for the period from 9 November (when I received the balance of approx. £633 from Steinthal but only sent you £200 in the first place and also held back other payments). I can't attend to it today as the cashier has already left and locked away the relevant book; you will receive it along with Wood's statement of account; but it won't be much. Most of the interest due arose from the fact that the £633 remained with Steinthal from May until November, which produced approx. £16 extra for you.
65
MARX TO ENGELS[33]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 13 March 1865
Dear Engels,
There are mistakes in your financial statement, viz. you sent me £235 on 8 June, £350 at the beginning of July (the letter enclosing the money isn't dated, but I can tell from a letter of 5 July which said it was about to be sent) and £200 on 9 November 1864; on the other hand, the last £40 itemised on the statement you said would eventually follow (in the enclosed letter dated 9 November) but you never sent it I hope that you will be able to convince yourself of this on checking your books again, and if so, that you will send me the money by return of post, before I leave for the continent (with my NIECE[3]), which will probably be at the end of this week.[177]
With regard to Schweitzer's brazenness, I have decided on a different course. There are some things about which one would be glad to enlighten the public but can only do so in response to direct provocation, and then one must not miss the OPPORTUNE TIME OF A REPLY. And such is the case with Schweitzer's comments connected with the garbage from Blind.[173] I intend to reply in the Düsseldorfer Zeitung actually on behalf of both of us, but I shall sign in my name alone, as it would be ludicrous to imply you shared responsibility for 'Achilles',[178] and as I shall be quoting mainly (exclusively, if my plan works out) from Schweitzer's letters to me anyway.
My plan therefore is this: Schweitzer is reproducing, in print, the lies put out by the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung, knowing them to be lies. (Is the article in the form of an editorial in the paper, or what?) Viz.: 1. neither Lassalle's name nor any mention of Lassalle appeared in the prospectus we received 'printed as manuscript'. (Liebknecht had prevented that.) 2. In note of 30 December Schweitzer most humbly asks my pardon for so brazenly using passage from private letter of condolence, as both introduction and conclusion to his hymn of adulation. 3. By means of short extracts from Schweitzer's letters from 30 December 1864 to 15 February 1865 (his last letter), I shall show that the conflict over 'tactics' was a lasting one from the first, trial number(1) right up until we announced our withdrawal,b
and was by no means a quarrel suddenly picked, as man-of-honour Schweitzer pretends, with his support for Blind's shit. At the same time, this little mosaic of excerpts from Schweitzer's letters will show with what servility this selfsame brute behaved towards us, until he suddenly turned vicious on being kicked. This will make salutory reading for bourgeois and workers alike (and for Rüstow). All in all, good introduction for the break with 'Lassalleanism', which is in any case inevitable. (Of course, as far as student Blind is concerned, if that water-newt should ever COME OUT again, I shall always treat Lassalle as a dead lion set beside a live ass. It is indecent that such an 'uneducated' Baden publican should even presume to put himself on a level with a man who has studied Heraclitus and the Roman law of inheritance.)
Let me know by return if you approve of my plan, as I can't afford to lose any time.[179] (And don't forget to tell me in what form Blind's twaddle appeared in the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung.) In my opinion, it's necessary.
Although, unlike you, I don't have the pleasure of corresponding with the Too-Clever-By-Half,c nor of being able to foul his nest for him, nevertheless I've been infernally HARASSED just recently, quite apart from the furuncles, which won't go away; e.g., last night I didn't get to bed until 4 o'clock in the morning.
13 1865
Besides my work on the book,(2) the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION takes u p an enormous amount of time, as I am IN FACT the HEAD of it. And what a waste of time! (And it would come just now, with the French business [9 5] and the election business [1 5 5] here, etc., all at the same time.) E.g. the French shit:
28 February. Tolain and Fribourg here from Paris. Meeting of the CENTRAL COUNCIL, where they state their case and bicker with Le Lubez until 12 o'clock at night. Then reconvene in Bolleter's tavern, where I had another 200 odd cards to sign. (I have now got them to change this stupid practice by having our handwriting engraved on the plate, and only the GENERAL SECRETARYb signs by hand. Meanwhile, the remaining 1,000 cards OF THE OLD EDITION had to be signed IN THE OLD STYLE.)
1 March. Polish MEETING.[168]
4 March. SUBCOMMITTEE[21] meeting about the French question until 1 o'clock in the morning.
6 March. SUBCOMMITTEE meeting about ditto until 1 o'clock in the morning.
7 March. SITTING OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL until 12 o'clock at night. Resolutions passed (I enclose resolutions, along with the private instructions which the CENTRAL COUNCIL is sending to Schily, who, as you can see from resolution V, has been appointed CENTRAL COUNCIL DELEGATE (AMBASSADOR) AT PaHs.) [1 8]° (This meeting of 7 March, in which Le Lubez was utterly culbuté," was very embarrassing and stormy, and left the English in particular with the impression THAT THE FRENCHMEN STAND REALLY IN NEED OF A BONAPARTE!) In between times, people dashing this way and that to see me in connection with the conference with Bright which was held last Saturday (11 March), etc. Reported briefly on same to Jones (he had enquired beforehand about it on Friday), instructed him to convey the letter to you.d'
WELL, mon cher, que faire?e H e who says 'A' must also say 'B'. You will see from the enclosed Nordstern (SEE THE 2 FIRST LEADERS) that, despite his hatred for us, Bruhn immediately seized the opportunity to attack Schweitzer, out of sheer professional jealousy.[182] This is most important since Bruhn's paper is of longer standing, and this has at least sowed dissension in the camp of these fellows themselves. A short notice about your pamphlet will appear in Bender's Anzeiger" this week. I sent one to the Hermann (Juch), saying he should form his own opinion of it, etc.a This he will do. I chose this approach because with Juch I'd always poked fun at the notices sent to the Hermann by Blind, for Blind and about Blind, and the two of us here are generally regarded as one person.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
66. Marx to Hermann Jung. 13 March
My dear Jung,
Mr Cremer has quite misunderstood me (and I shall write him immediately upon that point). I was so far from any intention of moving new amendments on Tuesday evening[6] to the old resolutions[183] that, before the arrival of your letter, I had to-day posted to Schily a letter containing the very same resolutions. I wrote him at the same time to wait with their communication until Thursday next, so as to give Mr Le Lubez the time to fulfil his functions, viz. to communicate himself the resolutions.
What I said to Cremer, and to Fox ditto, was, that if Le Lubez and Mr Wolff, by their foolish behaviour, had not excited the feelings, and killed the time, the resolutions would and might have been rédigées in a way more polite on the one, and more logical, on the other hand; [so that] f.i. Resolution II (concerning Lefort's [defensive ways]) might, by a short phrase, have lost its aspect, while Resolution IV concedes too much to Lefort etc. All this might have been mended, and I expressed to Mr Cremer my regret that it had, after the vote on the contents of the resolutions, not been left to the subcommittee[21] to give it the convenient stylistic form.
67. Engels to Marx. 14 March
Yet, I should consider it the greatest folly to reopen the questions once settled, and which, as far as the substance of the resolutions goes, have been settled in the most fair spirit. I should consider it, particularly, quite unworthy of the Central Council to rescind one single word after the exhibitions Le Lubez and Wolff have made of themselves. Moreover, by my letter to Schily such a course has become impossible.
You will, of course, oblige me by communicating to me your résumé historique—but I beg you to understand me well. I shall like to read it, as the thing itself interests me, but not in order to control your writing.[184] I am convinced beforehand that you will not embitter the spirits. I fear Mr Le Lubez has already sent to his friends private despatches in that childish spirit.
Yours fraternally
K. Marx
67
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 14 March 1865
Dear Moor,
The business of the £40 is based solely on a statement of the business I made out in November, in which this £40 figures as 'CASH' to you, but undated. I had the impression myself that I had not yet sent you this £40, but as I had no opportunity to check, I could only go by the memorandum. Today I checked my account in the ledger, but I couldn't deduce anything relevant from that either. But if you've not had the £40 and, at the same time, I too have the vague feeling that that is the position, that's good enough, and I've already given the cashier instructions to have the money ready tomorrow.
68. Marx to Engels. 18 March
On the question of the statement in the Düsseldorfer Zeitung,(1) I'm in complete agreement. Though on the whole it doesn't matter at all if Mr Schweitzer occasionally takes it into his head to indulge in such barefaced effrontery, I did, nevertheless, find it galling that this vulgar upstart rogue should be allowed to get away with such behaviour towards us. Furthermore, if his smarmy letters aren't published now, they won't be any use at all later. It's always nice when someone like that gets the scolding he deserves for once. So, do il straightaway, and please ask Dresemann to send 2 COPIES, so that I can have one.
In haste.
Your
F. E.
68
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London] 18 March 1865
DEAR FRED, There are a lot of things, some of them important, that I want to write to you about. But as there's A VERY GREAT DEAL OF BUSINESS to do in connection with my departure tomorrow,[177] just the following bare facts:
The remaining HALVES of the notes received. You can send the POST OFFICE order to my wife. I've sent off a note from Bender asking for 50 copies, etc., of your pamphlet,b etc., to O. Meissner direct, as I had to write to him today. It is possible that Meissner's answer may arrive too late for the next Londoner Anzeiger. Since Bender does at present without doubt know best how to disseminate things of this kind in England, you should send him a note about the price of the pamphlet by return if you can (i.e. if you know it yourself). He will then advertise it straightaway in the next number. His address is 8 Little Newport St., Leicester Square.
I did a short, highly condensed little article for Bender, such as I thought would be suitable for his paper,3 a kind of prospectus of contents, and sent Juch conversely, contrariwise and notwithstanding, just your pamphlet itself, asking him to do a critique of it in his own way and according to his own point of view.b Then I received enclosed note from Juch (to be kept). There certainly wasn't the time for a critical review. So, I sent the notice originally intended for Bender (in today's Hermann) to Juchc (and the enclosed message to Bender instead d). At the same time, I wrote to Juch — diplomacy becoming increasingly important — that I couldn't meet his request because I was going away, that he should print copious extracts in a later number; I would discuss his difficulty in finding contributors with him when I returned to London. (I am thinking of placing Eccarius there, instead of with the Social-Demokrat) I sent him ditto a copy of my statement against Schweitzer, although the Hermann won't be able to print it until next Saturday's edition (copies sent at the same time to Reform in Berlin and to the Düsseldorfer Zeitung"); no amendments in the version for the Hermann except a stab at Blind inserted at the beginning.
Bender has written to me ditto:
'Most obliged and grateful for notice you sent; but we now need a review as well.'
I've passed this on to Eccarius. Also enclosed a number of the Rheinische Zeitung sent to me by Liebknecht with HIS SPEECH.[185] His wife' has written to mine; they are really down on their luck. He still owed the Social-Demokrat £5, etc. I can't send him anything at the present moment. Nordstern enclosed. You must keep this document. You can see these gentlemen are now trying to make out that that wretch Schweitzer completely falsified Lassalle.[186] So, my statement against Schweitzer, which also repudiates Lassalle, even though very indirectly, comes at a most opportune moment. It will all come out in the wash by and by.
It appears from the enclosed letter from Bruhn that I was right about Frisch." I've sent him the 6 talers (not 60!), although I'm not convinced by it, at the same time saying that I would 'make further enquiries' regarding the 50, etc.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
Apropos. Klings called in on his way to America. He had all kinds of interesting things to report to me. A real 'Rhineland' worker.
On 5 March the Cologne branch of the General Workers' Association(2) decided to issue a protest (along the lines of our statementb) against the Social-Demokrat, and against B. Becker as well, who is a kind of Biscamp Secundus. They have STOPPED THE MONEY SUPPLIES. And this refusal to pay taxes is catching.
69. Engels to Friedrich Albert Lange. 29 March[101]
Dear Sir,
I must offer you my profound apologies for allowing your kind letter of the 2nd-4th inst. to remain unanswered for so long. I only hope you will not condemn me unheard. My excuse is that for the first few days I was greatly preoccupied in part with an accumulation of current business, but in part also with the large amount of urgent correspondence, which one always faces when one suddenly appears before the public again after long otium cum (vel sine) dignitate* and at the same time has such merry adventures as we have had with the Social-Demokratchen.[34] In addition to all that, I moved house, and that momentarily threw my papers into some disarray, in which your letter was mislaid; I only found it again the day before yesterday and I now hasten to reply to you.
I am most grateful to you for so kindly offering to send your Sphinx and other publicationsI87 to Marx and myself. My bookseller here is Mr Franz Thimm, Manchester, through whom you may send everything to me. Sending things via the bookseller requires 3-4 weeks as a rule; if you would send me at least the first few Nos. in a simple open wrapper by post (it does not cost much), I should be obliged to you and will gladly reimburse you. Communications for Marx should be sent to me here, and he will receive them within 12 hours of arrival. As you yourself rightly realise, I could not commit myself at all at this stage regarding possible future contributions; let us leave the question open for the time being, although, in your case, we are at least not running the risk of incurring the suspicion of wishing to rule over any section of the proletariat in Germany from England.
Meanwhile, the involuntary delay in my reply has given me the opportunity to obtain your publication on the working-class question6; I read it with great interest. I, too, was immediately struck on first reading Darwinc by the remarkable similarity between his description of the vegetable and animal life and the Malthusian theory. Only my conclusion was different from yours, viz.: that it is to the everlasting disgrace of modern bourgeois development that it has not yet progressed beyond the economic forms of the animal kingdom. The so-called 'economic laws' are not eternal laws of nature but historical laws that appear and disappear, and the code of modern political economy, insofar as the economists have drawn it up correctly and objectively, is for us merely a summary of the laws and conditions in which modern bourgeois society can exist, in a word: its conditions of production and exchange expressed and summed up abstractly. For us, therefore, none of these laws, insofar as it is an expression of purely bourgeois relations, is older than modern bourgeois society; those which have been more or less valid for all previous history, are thus only an expression of such relations as are common to all forms of society based upon class rule and class exploitation. Amongst the former we may count the so-called Ricardian law,[188]
which is valid neither for serfdom nor for the slavery of antiquity; amongst the latter, whatever part of the so-called Malthusian theory can be sustained.
The parson Malthus filched this theory, like all his other ideas, directly from his predecessors; the only part of it which is truly his is the purely arbitrary application of the two progressions.[189] The theory itself has long since been reduced by the economists in England to rational dimensions; the population exerts pressure on the means — not of subsistence, but of employment; mankind could multiply more rapidly than modern bourgeois society can stand. For us yet another reason to proclaim this bourgeois society to be a barrier to development which must fall.
You yourself raise the question of how the increase in the means of subsistence can be made to keep pace with the increase in population; but excepting one sentence in the preface, I find no attempt at an answer. We start from the premise that the same forces which have created modern bourgeois society — the steam engine, modern machinery, mass colonisation, railways and steamships, world trade — and which through the unending commercial crises are already now working towards its ruin and ultimate destruction — that these means of production and exchange will also be sufficient to reverse the relationship in a short while and to raise the productive power of every individual to such an extent that he will produce enough for the consumption of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 persons, that enough people will become superfluous to urban industry to devote far more manpower than before to agriculture, that science will at last be applied to agriculture on a large scale as well and as systematically as in industry, that those areas of South Eastern Europe and Western America which have been inexhaustibly fertilised for us by nature itself will be exploited on a far mightier scale than before. Not until all these areas have been turned by the plough and there is then dearth, will it be time to say caveant consules.,9n
Not enough is being produced, that is the root of the whole matter. But why is not enough being produced? Not because the limits of production have been reached — even for today and by present-day means. No, but because the limits of production are determined not by the number of hungry bellies, but rather by the number of purchasers with full purses. Bourgeois society has no desire, and can have no desire, to produce more. Those impecunious bellies, the labour which cannot be utilised with profit and is thus incapable of purchasing, fall prey to the mortality figures. Let us assume that there is a sudden boom in industry, such as is constantly occurring, to enable this labour to be employed with profit, then the labour will acquire the money with which to purchase, and the means of subsistence have as yet always been found. It is the endless circulus vitiosus" in which the whole political economy revolves. One takes bourgeois conditions in their entirety as one's premise, and then proves that each separate part is a necessary part thereof — ergo, an 'eternal law'.
I was greatly amused by your description of the Schulzian co-operatives.[191] We have been through all that here in a different form, although it is now more or less a thing of the past. People in Germany have yet to develop their proletarian pride.
There is a remark about old Hegel which I cannot let pass without comment: you deny him any deeper knowledge of the mathematical sciences. Hegel knew so much mathematics that none of his disciples was capable of editing the numerous mathematical manuscripts he left behind. The only man who, to my knowledge, has enough understanding of mathematics and philosophy to be able to do so is Marx. That the detail of the philosophy of nature is full of nonsense I will of course gladly grant you, but his real philosophy of nature is to be found in the second part of the Logic, in the theory of Essence, the true core of the whole doctrine.13 The modern scientific theory of the interac-tion of natural forces (Grove's Correlation of Forces, which I think first appeared in 1838) is, however, only another expression or rather the positive proof of Hegel's argument about cause, effect, interaction, force, etc. I am no longer a Hegelian, of course, but I still retain a deep feeling of piety and devotion for the titanic old fellow.
Yours very respectfully
Friedrich Engels
71. Marx to Engels. 11 April
70. Marx to Sophie von Hatzfeldt. 10 April
My dear Countess,
I shall be obliged if you would hand the copy of the '18th Brumaire' with my marginal amendments, i.e., corrections, to Mr Wilhelm Liebknecht.[79]
I have read Becker's(1) attacks on you with the greatest indignation, and, to judge from letters I have received from people of the most divergent views, the scoundrel has thereby generally done harm not to you, but only to himself. I am in entire agreement with Mr Rüstow that it is incomprehensible that any section of the Association of German Workers could calmly listen to such scandalous talk. The most elementary sense of decency should make such infamy impossible.[192]
Yours most respectfully
Karl Marx
71
MARX TO ENGELS[33]
IN MANCHESTER
London, 11 April [1865]
Dear FRED,
Returned home some twenty-four hours ago.[177] So, for the moment just a few lines to let you know.
72. Engels to Marx. 12 April
Letter from Wilhelmchen b enclosed. I sent him the STAMPS he asked for.
Quoadc B. Becker, I didn't get to see his dirty work until I got here. But thought reply really was needed. d (Rüstow and Herwegh have replied in the Nordstern on behalf of Hatzfeldt. Rüstow calls B. Becker a 'police-spy'.[192]) Sent it to Rheinische and Düsseldorfer^ As soon as copies arrive, 1 for you.
I shall attend a SITTING of the 'INTERNATIONAL' this evening for the first time for 3 weeks. In the interval, revolution. Le Lubez and Dénouai gone, Dupont APPOINTED FRENCH SECRETARY. As a result of Le
Lubez's intrigues, and more particularly those of Major Wolff who is A TOOL in Mazzini's hand, the Italian delegates Lama and Fontana have left. Pretext: Lefort (who has meanwhile announced his departure in the journal L'Association[193]) must keep his post as DEFENDER GENERAL IN THE PARIS PRESS. T h e Italian WORKING MENS CLUB [2 0] has not withdrawn from the Association, but no longer has a REPRESENTATIVE on the COUNCIL. Meanwhile, I shall get Bakunin to lay some counter-mines for Mr Mazzini in Florence. T h e English SHOEMAKERS-UNION — 5,000 strong — has joined the Association during my ABSENCE.194
How's the COTTON-CRISIS? I WANT INFORMATION ON THAT POINT. In great haste.
Your
K. M.
72
ENGELS T O MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 12 April 1865 Dear Moor,
It's good to have you back again, and I certainly hope this lousy squabble will soon be over. Letters from Dronke and Borkheim enclosed. I had told the latter how it was possible to work with Kolatschek's great-German organ supporting Austrian rule in Hungary, Poland and Italy, as we would immediately have all our friends in the other countries down on us, hence the vague reply.[195]
I had always half expected that the naive fraternité in the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION would not last long. If there were an active political movement among the workers here, just the same SPLITS would occur. It will pass through a lot more such phases and will take up a great deal of your time. But it does still remain something quite different from Lassalle's Association.[2]
I couldn't resist a hearty laugh when I read in Wilhelmchen's(1)
letter that the official Berlin community of that Association consists of 5 people, as there was recently a perfectly serious report in the Social-Demokrat of their transactions, in which they congratulated each other on such a large turn-out.b
Ad vocem(2) coiTON-crisis, things are looking quite cheerful here. Cotton (MIDDLING Orleans) stood at 31[3]/[4]d in July, was quoted at 14[3]/[4]d last Thursday, and today, if one is selling, it hardly fetches 14d. So, it has depreciated by more than half. It was still worth 27d on 30 December, which is a fall of 12 7[2]-13d in 3 months! On top of that, there's been a fall in flax, wool, sugar and all IMPORTS GENERALLY, which makes a loss of at least £40-50 mill. stg. You will readily understand that all the philistines are in a cold sweat. In Liverpool, bankruptcy has altogether gone out of fashion now. Anyone who becomes insolvent goes to his creditors (generally people there have only a couple), notifies them and offers them such and such an amount, which is always accepted at once as they are glad to get anything at all and have got to avoid any scandal so that the whole rotten edifice doesn't collapse. Hundreds of such settle-ments are said to have been reached on the quiet, and today rumour even has it here that one of the biggest Stockport manufacturers, who owns 3 big factories and is reputed to have made £200,000 over the last few years in COTTON-SPECULATION alone, has just come to a similar understanding on the quiet. But what we've seen so far is nothing. The bills, which were drawn from India against the white cotton, run out in the next 6 weeks, and there will be many more besides Joyce who will come to grief. A lot of people in Scotland are finished as well, and one fine day it's bound to be the turn of the banks, and that'd be the end of the matter. The spinners and manufacturers are becoming bankrupt by the dozen in Austria, too — in the whole of Bohemia only 'the great Liebig' is still on his feet, all the others have gone bust — and in Poland it's all just starting as well.
Industry itself is not much affected. The small fry mostly went bust ages ago or quietly melted away, and the big ones can operate reasonably profitably once more, if they can get any orders at all. Among them, the only ones who are going bust are those who have bad machinery or who couldn't keep their fingers out of COTTON. Everyone is making a loss on their stocks of cotton yarns and fabrics. We too could sing you a woeful song about that, twice as woeful for me in particular as it would have been if droned out last year. That's what comes of being an associé.(3)
Glorious is also the ethics of trade, as at present. You buy something today, and by the time it's delivered, it is worth 3, 4, or 5d a pound less. This leads to all kinds of dirty tricks and repudiations, as people try to get out of these unprofitable contracts at any cost, and that lands you in interminable altercations and squabbling correspondence. I'm sick to the teeth with it. You can have no idea how much letter-writing and aggravation this entails.
I hope your wife got the £3? Final statement of account enclosed, I'll send the £12 in a few days, it's too late for a POST OFFICE order today.
Best wishes.
Your
F. E.
1865
73. Marx to Hermann Jung. 13 April .'.
1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, Haverstock Hill, N. W.
Dear Jung!
* In No. 30 of Der weisse Adler, 223 Münstergasse, Zürich there is a report of our Polish Meeting of 1 March. This report must have been translated from the Daily News or some other English middleclass paper which, intentionally, suppressed the Resolution, proposed in the name of the 'International Association', and unanimously adopted by the St Martin's Hall Meeting.
As you are the Swiss Secretary, it belongs to you to rectify the report, and to request the Editor of the paper to print the notice19b which I translate literally from the Report in The Bee-Hive.(1)
Yours fraternally*
K. Marx
It goes without saying, dear Jung, that you can change the concluding words at your discretion. Since you are plus ou moinsb
a Frenchman, I simply wanted to draft the scheme for you in German.
74. Marx to Léon Fontaine. 15 April
74
MARX TO LÉON FONTAINE[197]
IN BRUSSELS
[Draft]
London, 15 April 1865
Dear Citizen,
At its last sitting (see enclosure) the Central Council appointed me pro interim(1) to be secretary for Belgium in place of Citizen Le Lubez, whose resignation as Council Member was unanimously accepted. Citizen Dupont has taken his place as secretary for France.
I will, if you wish, later give you a brief account of the disagreeable incidents which occurred within the Central Council. In my opinion, they were really instigated by a person alien to our Council, well known as an Italian patriotb but an inveterate enemy of the interests of the proletariat, without which republicanism could be no more than a new form of bourgeois despotism. Did he not, as one of his most blindly faithful followersc confessed to me, go so far as to demand that all the passages hostile to the bourgeoisie should be deleted from the Italian translation of our 'Address'.d
Despite these regrettable incidents and the more or less voluntary resignation of several individuals, our Association is making glorious headway. Founded only a few months ago, today it already numbers almost 12,000 members in England alone.
The Central Council will be much obliged to you if you send me an official report on the present state of our society in Belgium.
In your correspondence please be so kind as to keep the official letters, which are destined for the Central Council's archives, separate from such private communications as you may be good enough to send me.
f 2£ *** S»-f
fei. teaJ-JL^î^V
1 "' » -«4-**- • • * » . «•*•» ,
, î,-, tvo ^ ^ - O - * * H^* -******
" 4>'-u*~l r*[1]«* «-,<*y* t *^*J*"-V
• *3f«^Ji . »iA-_0 . i i li l H »Il
cV; ^X
ts^,\ri ;VL,UV\ ^ ^ O ^ r**^ \v\tf'
tVUnU.
*^' *** p^itf' I ' I N I . J . IV\*^ **<*vuMX-.
< % r J t M ^ t V-4
ta»
75. Engels to Marx. 16 April
My address is: A. Williams,(1) Esq., 1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, Haverstock Hill, N. W. London.
Greetings and fraternity.
Karl Marx
75
ENGELS TO MARX[29]
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 16 April 1865
Dear Moor,
The Nordsterns returned enclosed. Herwegh and Rüstow have certainly acquired a funny Didob dog in Reusche. The fellow is a real comic turn with his solemn declarations. The inevitable oath beside Lassalle's dead body makes a precious counterpart to Willich's apple-tree.[198] It's a real blessing that these people live so far away and that they still show a certain reserve in their attempts to approach us.
I haven't received No. 43 of the Social-Demokrat, so let me have it some time if there's anything particular in it.
Your
F. E.
What do you say about Richmond?[30] I had expected that Lee would act like a soldier and surrender, instead of taking to his heels, at least so as to secure better terms for the army. But it's better the way it is. He has ended like a scoundrel, and the tragedy closes on a comic note.
76. Marx to Engels. 22 April
76
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] SATURDAY, 22 April 1865
DEAR FRED,
The scribble from the Rheinische Zeitung enclosed. I'll write a detailed letter to you tomorrow. I'm as limp as a wet rag today, partly from working late at night (nothing practical), partly from the diabolical muck I've been taking.
Dronke would be ALL RIGHT, if I could turn copper into gold like he does. As IT IS, we must utilise the moment when the bourgeois papers are competing to print denials of SLANDER which tomorrow, if the struggle is being fought in earnest, they perhaps wish to have endorsed.
Salut. MY COMPLIMENTS TO MRS LIZZY.(1) , . Your
Moor
77. Marx to Hermann Jung. 25 April[1]
Dear Jung,
I hope I may have the pleasure of your company at my house on Monday evening (ABOUT 8 O'CLOCK or LATER, if that hour is too early for you) for a MEETING with Ernest Jones and a small SUPPER. Apart from yourself, only Odger, Cremer and P. Fox. Had I
78. Marx to Engels. 1 May
wished to invite more guests, I should have had to ask too many for the purpose of the evening. This entre nous!"
I have just written to Cremer[111] that he should issue the letter of authority for P. Vinçard immediately, which Dupont must then deliver to Vinçard forthwith. It would be best if Dupont could despatch the thing to Vinçard direct without it having to go by way of Fribourg.
Vinçard had already written to Lubez that he would not accept if he did not receive the POWERS direct from London.'[99] In a letter to Fribourg Lubez promised to inform the 'CENTRAL COUNCIL' of this, but did not do so. I have reason to believe that Fribourg subsequently 'forgot' the matter, not unintentionally.
I shall give you a verbal account of what further occurred in Paris (which was for the most part good); but in the meantime you should tell Dupont.
Salut et fraternité.
K. Marx
78
MARX TO ENGELS[29]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 1 MAY 1865
DEAR FRED,
You must excuse me for not writing until today and thus breaking my LAST PROMISE. It happened not because it is 'sheer delight to break one's word',b but because I really am OVERWORKED, as completing my book,c on the one hand, and the 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION', on the other, are making very heavy demands on my time.
Today is little Jenny's birthday, and this evening I shall be having Ernest Jones to my house along with Odger, Cremer, Fox 1
and Jung, so it will be a political birthday party. Laura HAD 'THE QUESTION POPPED' by one Charles Manning, born in South America, English father, Spanish mother. He's rich and generally a nice fellow, BUT LAURA 'DOES NOT CARE A PIN EOR HIM'. 'SHE HAS ALREADY KNOWN HOW TO DAMP' the passionate southern temperament. However, as my girl is a friend of his sisters, and he is frightfully IN LOVE, it is A
DISAGREEABLE CASE.
I enclose a 'curiosity'. The Nordstern's correction makes it a worthy organ of the German louts.
I am also enclosing for you THE LATTER END of a letter from Schily, whose report on the Moses woman a will amuse you.
The great achievement of the 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION' is this: The REFORM LEACUE is OUR WORK. On the inner committee of 12 (6 MIDDLECLASSMEN and 6 WORKINGMEN), the woRKiNGMF.N are ALL MEMBERS OF OUR COUNCIL (including Eccarius).'[55] WE HAVE BAFFLED all attempts by the middle class TO MISLEAD THE WORKING CLASS. This time the movement in the provinces is completely dependent on that in London. Ernest Jones, e.g., had DESPAIRED TILL WE SET THE BALL AGOING. If we succeed in re-electrifying the POLITICAL MOVEMENT of the ENGLISH WORKING CLASS, our ASSOCIATION will already have done more for the European working class, WITHOUT MAKING ANY FUSS, than was possible IN ANY OTHER WAY. And there is every prospect of success.
You know that the Italian society[20] has not withdrawn from the ASSOCIATION, but its DELEGATES have from the CouNciL.b We now have Spaniards on it instead. ONE ROMAN NATION FOR THE OTHER. If those fellows don't appoint new delegates soon, as we have asked them to, Bakunin will have to arrange FOR SOME LIFE ITALIANS.
Weber junior' has been thrown out of the workers' society here for making false reports to the Social-Demokrat and for stirring up trouble in the branch society 'Teutonia', which is run by two fanatical Prussians by the name of Klinker.[200]
Our joint statementd really was successful beyond all expecta-tion. Not merely have we blown apart the 'General Association of German Workers'[2] as an organ of the Prussian government and in six WORDS generally cleared the heads of the German workers of their intoxication with royalty. The present split in the Party of Progress" was also the direct result of our stand.
The CHIVALRY OF THE SOUTH has ended worthily. In addition, Lincoln's ASSASSINATION was the most stupid act they could have committed. Johnson is STERN, INFLEXIBLE, REVENGEFUL and as a former
a Sibylle Hess - b See this volume, p. 140. - c Louis Weber - d K. Marx and F. Engels, 'To the Editor of the Social-Demokrat'.
79. Engels to Marx. 3 May
POOR WHITE has a deadly hatred of the oligarchy. H e will make less fuss about these fellows, and, because of the treachery, he will find the TEMPER of the North commensurate with his INTENTIONS.
Did you see how Blind HEADS the letter of condolence from the 'influential' Germans? [2 0 1] Blind is a genius in his way. IN THE VERY NICK OF TIME he does not merely go r u n n i n g to Freiligrath, etc., but has enough presence of mind to realise that, of the other signatories, ALPHABETICALLY 'Berndes' would open the list. So, he runs first to Freiligrath, etc., and gets him first of all to form a g r o u p and, after that worthy (who is now at one with Ruge as well), certain other INFLUENTIALS, I almost said INFINITESIMALS, such as Heintzmann and Kinkel, and puts himself 'alphabetically' at the top. T h e n he goes running to Berndes and gets him to start a second column next to himself, so that another lot of names, Trübner, etc., follows on. That is how the matter appears in The Times. In the same day's Morning Star the second column is added to the bottom of the first, with Blind AT THE TOP OF THE WHOLE, AND HIS FOOTMAN Freiligrath after him, etc. And not content with that, at his instigation, the Star of the same number also carries a notice on the front page THAT 'KARL BLIND HEADS, ETC.'. Isn't that genius for you? Salut. Y o u r
K. M.
79
ENGELS T O MARX [2 9]
IN LONDON
Manchester, 3 May 1865
Dear Moor,
A belated many happy returns to little Jenny on her — 20th?— birthday. THE OTHER AFFAIR LOOKS JUST LIKE LAURA ALL OVER.'[1] But what else
a See this volume, p. 150.
can one say except repeat the verdict of the Stalybridge jury: SERVES
HIM RIGHT.
I'll be sending all the things back to you in a few days time. I was very pleased to see in the Nordstern that something has at last been started against Becker" and Schweitzer in Solingen, too.[202] As all I have seen concerning this business since your departure has been the Social-Demokrat and two letters from Liebknecht, I am not at all clear as to what has come to pass on the Rhine in this connection; from the miserable silence maintained by the Social-Demokrat about developments in the General Association of German Workers, I could only deduce that things must be looking bad for these gentlemen. But it is understandable that I really do need to know how things stand on the Rhine, especially since in the beginning the scoundrels had some momentary success there. If you've got any material on it, please let me have it, I'll send everything back to you, and in general I will as a rule send all the documents back in future because now you need to have this stuff together.
Have you taken out a subscription to the Nordstern? It would be a good thing if you did, because we've got to know what's happening.
It is vital for us to have some contacts with the workers on the Rhine so that in future we can counter intrigues of that kind from the outset. Apropos, peculiar things seem to have been happening to Klings. Some jackass gave him my address as 58 Dover Street Klings goes there, does not find me, of course, and goes to see Rode in Liverpool, and the latter tells Eichhoff I'd pretended to be out when Klings called, did not wish to see him, what is this supposed to mean, etc., to a man like Klings who was after all going to 'organise everything' in America with Weydemeyer and the others (which others?), etc., etc. Monsieur Rode, whom I've never met, did thereby express his surprise that I had 'not yet' sent him a copy of my pamphlet.b Can you understand that?
The statement attacking the President of Mankind is very good.c
Just what was needed and no more.
The worst of it is that the people in Germany will now demand that someone assumes the leadership over them, and who can do it? Eccarius would be the man, but he won't want to leave London.
The International Association really has gained an enormous amount of ground in such a short time and with so little to-do. But it is a good thing it is at present occupied in England, instead of eternally having to deal with the disorders in France. So, you have something to compensate you for the time it's cost you.
How's the book(1) going? As far as the strategic situation is concerned, at Richmond Grant has achieved a precise replica of the battle of Jena,[203] and with the same result: the whole of the enemy army is trapped.[30] Only he didn't have so far to march to gather the fruits.
Johnston has now surrendered, too, so I've won my wager of 2 months ago: that by 1 May the SOUTHERNERS would have no army left. Whoever still offers resistance will be taken in as a BRIGAND, and rightly so. At any rate, Johnson will insist on confiscation of the great estates, which will make the pacification and reorganisation of the South rather more acute. Lincoln would scarcely have insisted on it.
The SOUTHERN SYMPATHISERS here are consoling themselves for the hypocritical wailing they were obliged to put on over the assassination,b by prophesying that it'll be Grant I, Emperor of America, within 4 weeks. What jackasses they have made of themselves!
Incidentally, their 'Majesties'c must be absolutely furious that Lincoln's assassination has made such a colossal impact throughout the world. None of them has yet had such an honour.
Best wishes to your wife and the girls.
Your
F. E.
80. Marx to Engels. 9 May
80
MARX T O ENGELS [2 9]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 9 MAY 1865 DEAR FRED,
You need not send anything back (except Schily's letter b). Just keep the things safely. I enclose ONE Free Press (the QUEER ARTICLE on the 'RECONSTRUCTION OF ITALY' is from the pen of the HIGH PRIEST himself, from Urquhart c), also two Nordsterns (one of them somewhat out of date). I've got a subscription to the latter, but no longer to the Social-Demokrat. T h e latest Nordstern will give you some idea of the situation on the Rhine.[204] Incidentally, the total number of the faithful whom B. Becker still commands is barely 1,000.
Before I forget: there were several allusions to your pamphlet d
in the debate in the Prussian Chamber. Gneist, for instance, said the Minister of W a r e would not persuade them, even if his statistics spoke with the tongue of 'Engels'. (Laughter.) (That is how the affair appeared in the Berliner Reform.") As everywhere, the London workers, of course, also include A KNOT OF ASSES, FOOLS AND ROGUES, RALLYING r o u n d a scoundrel. T h e scoundrel in this case is 'George Potter', A RAT OF A MAN, SUPPORTED by a VENAL but witty Irishman by the name of Connolly, who is a dangerous STUMP-ORATOR. Although the bourgeoisie hate the said Potter as chief STRIKE-MANAGER, they do, nevertheless, support him against o u r people because they smell VENALITY in him, whereas they know that our people are TRUE MEN. This Potter DERIVES HIS POWER particularly from the fact that he is PRESENTLY the MANAGER of The Bee-Hive, the official organ of the TRADES UNIONS, although he uses it against the OFFICIAL COUNCIL of these UNIONS which is in our hands. [1 8]
Since the paper is based on shares, the idea is now to distribute as many SHARES as possible (5SH. PER SHARE) amongst our workers. For my part I have undertaken to collect the MONEY for ABOUT 30 SHARES. For this, I'm counting on you (SINGLE HANDED or with friends) for £ 5 , I WRITE TO Dronke for £1 and I will pay the rest myself. (Although my FUNCTION with the CENTRAL COUNCIL costs me a lot of money, compared with what I can afford.) T h e money must already be AT HAND this week, as the General Meeting of the SHAREHOLDERS is next week. If we are only strong enough (and Odger, for instance, has guaranteed 50 SHARES) to elect the DIRECTORS, we shall have that rogue Potter (who is only the MANAGER) UNDER OUR THUMBS. This matter is of decisive importance for the whole movement. [2 0 5]
E. Jones was here, very charming SOCIALLY SPEAKING. But between ourselves, he is only trying to use our Association for electoral agitation. Of the 12 cards I sent him, he returned 11, he had not sold a single one, whereas POOR Schily, for instance, paid for 24 for himself alone. I told him he should just put them back in his pocket again, I would dispose of them later, but I could not appear in front of the English workers and tell them that. BY AND BY HE WILL FIND OUT that if only for speculative reasons he should not have treated the business so lightly and RATHER CONTEMPTIBLY. I will write to him and tell him to hand over the 'ADDRESSES'[3] to you. You can give them to whomsoever you please. They are just dead weight with him. Incidentally, I don't take kindly to the fact that he was here to wangle a job as RECORDER out of Sir G. Grey either.
Today I am to submit an 'ADDRESS TO PRESIDENT JOHNSON.'206 Mr Le Lubez wants to return to the COUNCIL as — DELEGATE FOR DEPTFORD, the same fellow as resigned as DELEGATE FOR FRANCE,h BUT HIS ADMITTANCE
(WE HAVE T O CONFIRM THE DELEGATES) WILL NOT RUN QUITE SO SMOOTHLY AS HE SEEMS TO FANCY. I would be pleased if you could form even just A BRANCH OF 6 MEN in Manchester, and could get yourself elected as their CORRESPONDENT FOR LONDON. For THE CORRESPONDING people are eo ipsoc
MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL, and have a seat and a vote on it, WHEN AT LONDON.
New BRANCHES have been formed in Lyon, Neufchâteau (départe-ment des Vosges) and St Denis. T h e French BRANCHES (apart from Paris) are not linked with Paris, in view of the existing laws, but directly with London.
I'm hoping to put the finishing touches to my book d by 1 September (despite numerous interruptions). It's going ahead well, although I am still not quite well.
Your
K. M.
81. Engels to Marx. 12 May
81
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 12 May 1865
Dear Moor,
Schily's letter returned enclosed. That passing glimpse of the family life of Moses and the Moses woman(1) was most entertaining. Many thanks for the Nordsterns. The reports in them provide a check on the negative evidence of the Social-Demokrat, which I am keeping on until June (and if it is not being taken anywhere in London accessible to you, I am willing to continue taking it, one never knows what may happen).
By the by, the rag in question — i.e., the Social-Demokrat—has now gone into such decline that one really feels sorry for it. Poor Schweitzer's heroic soul is at its last gasp, every shred of an idea and all the fruits of his reading have already been used up and he hasn't even a fart left in him to serve up to his readers. Nor is Mausesb producing anything any more, Mauses, the last hope of the new 'party'.[207] 'News of the Association' is a complete blank, too — literary section re-printed from the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung.[208] After four months editorship during one of the most turbulent periods we have known since 1848, that milksop has been pumped dry, right down to the dregs, and those are the fellows who wanted to annex the whole German proletariat by one trick.
Ad vocemc Potter: five pounds end., you can take some, i.e., five of the SHARES in my name and five in Samuel Moore's, whom I've admittedly not yet seen, but he's sure to take some; we'll send you PROXY for the general meeting.d If Gumpert also wants 5 SHARES, you can pass some of those 20 on to him — so: 5 for me, 5 for Moore, the remaining 10 to be distributed to other people, but make sure that, if the people are not quite reliable, you reserve the right to take them back again.
As for the suggestion that I should form a BRANCH of the International Association here, it's quite out of the question. Apart
82. Marx to Engels. 13 May
from Moore and Gumpert, I see no one here,as I can't broach that kind of thing with the Kyllmanns or we would have a squabble at once. Besides, my position as its correspondent for London would impose all kinds of obligations on me, which I would be unable to fulfil as soon as real contacts with the workers were found or arose here. Et à quoi bon?'[1] I wouldn't be able to take any of the burden off your shoulders anyway.
Apropos. Moses is still up to his tricks against the International Association in the Social-Demokrat[209]; if you haven't read the piece, I'll send it to you.
The number of the banknote is: B/C 48498, Manchester, 4 January 1864. The tongues of Engels, etc., are not a reference to me, as I thought myself at first, but to the statistician Privy Councillor
Engel in Berlin who sorted out the things for Roon which I criticised .b
Jones must be allowed to go his own way. He doesn't seem to me to have any real confidence in the proletarian movement any more. I can never find him here anyway, he's always away.
Your
F. E.
82
MARX TO ENGELS[33]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 13 MAY 1865 DEAR FRED,
The £5 received with THANKS. Will be invested as suggested. You are right about the COMMITTEE IN MANCHESTER/ Quoadc E. Jones, it is necessary to march with him for the time being. He and his people will be figuring at the next Manchester CONFERENCE (NEXT TUESDAY) together with our DELEGATES (Odger and Cremer ON THE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION), Howell as secretary of the REFORM LEAGUE (BRICKLAYER, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR COUNCIL) and Beales and Mason Jones as bourgeois representatives of the same LEAGUE.210
Without us this REFORM LEAGUE would never have come into existence, or else it would have fallen into the hands of the MIDDLECLASS. The glorious failure of BAINESS BILL (which will result in a CHANGE OF MINISTRY and the COMING IN of the Tories), originally SUPPORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH WANTED SOME SUCH SMALL MEASURE FOR THE HUSTINGS, occurred in the Lower House itself with direct reference to the 'extravagant' demands recently put u p by the WORKING CLASS
(I.E. OUR MEN).211
As Dronke wrote me, Reinach I, who is now MANAGING DIRECTOR of the BANK OF SWITZERLAND, will be ruthlessly putting an end to the OFFICE in London, which is causing nothing but expenses. Reinach I is, of course, not bound by the same political and personal considerations as Fazy[212] and Klapka were.
A ghastly carbuncle has broken out again on my left hip, NEAR the INEXPRESSIBLE PART OF THE BODY.
Regards to MRS Lizzy.[3]
Salut. Your
K. M.
Apropos. Monsieur Le Lubez, who had miscalculated about how important and dangerous he is, WANTS NOW TO RETURN TO THE CENTRAL COUNCIL IN THE CAPACITY OF A REPRESENTATIVE 'FOR GREENWICH'! We replied that d'abordb we had to wait for certain letters to come, which he had written to France at the time of the CONFLICT.[213]
I hardly think the Social-Demokrat will see out another quarter. Moses c believed himself safely ensconced and didn't want to give u p his prestigious position as Lassalle's really secret agent at any price.[207] Le pauvre diable!d
Lassalle's will is now proven. H e has left nothing to B. Becker apart from his 'NOMINATION', accompanied by rules of conduct dictated 'with all severity and authority'.
83. Marx to Engels. 20 May
83
MARX T O ENGELS [1 0 1]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 20 MAY 1865
DEAR FRED,
Cutting ENCLOSED which includes my address to Johnson. b
Edgar's c reappearance did, of course, surprise us greatly. QUITE
THE FELLOW I THOUGHT HIM, and his career quite as I expected it. IT IS A PITY that he could not always have been right-hand to Garibaldi. He would have suited him to a tee. But the poor devil is still very weak. H e will be staying here for some time, apropos of which you could be doing A GOOD WORK by contributing to the replenishment of my wine-cellar. I am working like a horse at the moment, as I must make use of the time when I am fit for work, and the carbuncles are still with me, though they only trouble m e locally and d o not disturb the brain-pan.
In between times, since one cannot always be writing, I am
doing some DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS . I have n o patience to read dy anything else at all. Any other kind of reading always drives me back to my writing-desk.
Special meeting of the 'INTERNATIONAL' this evening. A good old codger, an OLD OWENIST, Weston (CARPENTER), has put u p the following two propositions that he is constantly defending in The Bee-Hive:
1. that A GENERAL RATE IN THE RISE OF THE RATE OF WAGES would be of no benefit to the workers;
2. that the TRADES-UNIONS for that reason, etc., are harmful If these two propositions, in which he alone in our SOCIETY believes, were to be accepted, we should be in a terrible mess, both in respect of the TRADES-UNIONS here and the INFECTION OF STRIKES now prevailing on the Continent.
H e will be supported in the matter by a native Englishman— since non-members are also admitted to this meeting — who has written a pamphlet to the same effects I am, of course, expected to produce a refutation. I ought therefore really to have worked out my réplique for this evening, but I thought it more important to get on with writing my book,[3] and so I shall have to rely on improvisation.
I know in advance, of course, what the two main POINTS will be:
1. that wages determine the value of commodities; 2. that if the capitalists pay 5s. today instead of 4, tomorrow they will sell their commodities for 5s. instead of 4 (being ENABLED to do so by the increased demand).
Trite though that is, and however little it penetrates the topmost surface of things, it is, nevertheless, not easy to explain to the ignorant all the competing economic questions involved. You CANT
COMPRESS A COURSE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY INTO 1 HOUR. BuT WE SHALL DO OUR
214 BEST.
Edgar regards it as a GOOD OMEN that he met you first in England. He liked Lizzyb very much.
Salut. Y o u r
K. M.
It is a most strange irony of fate that this Edgar, who never exploited anyone other than himself and was always a WORKMAN in the strictest sense of the word, went through A WAR OF and WITH STARVATION for the slave-owners. Ditto that both brothers-in-law have for the moment been ruined by the American war.
84. Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht. About 25 May
I should prefer it if the translation of the Addressc could appear in the Reform[6] and the Rheinische Zeitung. It will, of course,
85. Marx to Engels. 24 June
be necessary to say that the original is in English, and it will do no harm if I am named as the author.[215] The bourgeois papers are still holding it against us that of A. Lincoln's replies to the various messages of congratulations on his RE-ELECTION, only the reply to ours(1) was more than a formal ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of RECEIPT.[112]
Salut.
Your
K. M.
85
MARX TO ENGELS[29]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 24 June 1865
DEAR FRED,
You must excuse my long silence. The whole time I have been suffering throughout from bilious nausea (probably on account of the heat), had all kinds of other TROUBLES as well, and apart from that I have used the time, when fit to write, for official work on my book.(2) You know how, when one is in such a condition, one is always resolving to send letters but never manages to.
Not much new to report. The valiant Nordstern did not appear since my last despatch to you, probably for lack of money. I received it again today, and it does not mention the interval at all. As you will see, the rag is nothing but a dungheap of loutism. In their denunciation of B. Becker, these fellows are now declaring everyone a 'traitor' who dares to lay a finger on even one syllable of the truth as revealed by Lassalle.[216] Meanwhile, Mr B. Becker has provisionally ceded his chairmanship to that lout Fritzsche (of Leipzig) and set up his residence in Berlin in order to do business with Mr Bismarck directly.
A pretty shambles Baron Izzy's whole movement has degener-ated into! But the fellow obviously had the right instinct for how to make himself Saviour of the German louts! Meanwhile, the 'unfaithful one'(3) is living in blissful happiness as a boyar lady with her Wallachianb in Bucharest.
I have had no letters from Liebknecht for some while. But that is no doubt because for a long time, while my correspondence was suspended, I did not answer the notes that used to come in almost daily from him, none of them having anything to say, and each successive one invariably confirming the nullity of its precursor.
In respect of the 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION', I will just mention the following here:
The Italian gentlemen have come back and indicated to us last Tuesdayc that they have yet once again nominated Major Wolff as their delegate. Mr Mazzini appears to have convinced himself that he may need us, whereas we care not a FARTHING for him.
A YANKEE by the name of Leon Lewis (in Paris at the moment) has become the American secretary. In my opinion, he is worthless, although he has plenty of money and even more ambition. The fellow imagined that by founding a paper, The Commoner, he could revolutionise England in 24 hours or in 6 months at the very least. He offered this paper-to-be to us as our organ, but found that we are setting very business-like and by no means enthusiastic conditions, and so he has 'temporarily' left for France with his wife, who is also a great politician, I suspect to see if he can apply his 'LEVER' there with any more success.
I should like your advice on the following point: I read a PAPER (which would perhaps cover two printed sheets) at the CENTRAL COUNCIL about the question raised by Mr Weston d as to the effect of A GENERAL RISE OF WAGES, etc.[214] The first part of it is a reply to Weston's nonsense; the second A THEORETICAL exposition, insofar as it was appropriate for the occasion.'
Now they want to have it printed. On the one hand, that could perhaps be useful to me, since they are in contact with J. St. Mill, Professor Beesly, Harrison, etc. On the other hand, I have my doubts:
1. to have 'Mr Weston' as adversary is not exactly vairy-flettering';
2. the second part of the paper contains, in an extraordinarily condensed BUT RELATIVELY POPULAR FORM, many new ideas which are anticipated from my book,(4) whilst at the same time it does, of necessity, have to skate over a lot of problems. The question is, whether it is advisable to anticipate things of that kind in such a way? I think you can decide on this better than I can because you can look at the matter with more detachment from a distance.
I also had a lot of trouble TO PUT OFF the CONGRESS announced for this year, in the face of pressure from Schily, J. Ph. Becker, and some of the Paris COMMITTEE. I did, however, succeed — and that was decisive — in persuading the COUNCIL here that in view of the electoral agitation, etc., there should only be a preliminary (private) conference in London this year, to which the CENTRAL FOREIGN COMMITTEES would each send one delegate (not the AFFILIATED SOCIETIES BUT THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES). I am certain that the Brussels Congress would come to nought. The time was not yet ripe for it.[217]
Our Eccarius has become one of the main London electoral agitators and would have accepted the invitation to agitate in the country (on £2 per week), if this were not the height of the tailoring SEASON. He has a peculiarly dry, humorous manner of speaking which particularly appeals to the English.
Edgarb is already much recovered. An odd fish for whom fodder and fancy clothes really are the only things of account; as egotistical as a dog or a cat, BUT A KIND-NATURED ONE. His brain has also begun to display certain activity.
Johnson's policy likes me not. A ludicrous AFFECTATION of severity towards individuals; hitherto excessively VACILLATING and weak when it comes down to it. The reaction has already set in in America and will soon be much fortified if the present lackadaisical attitude is not ended immediately.
What do you say to the debates in the Prussian Chamber? At any rate, the revelations about the judicial system, etc., following in rapid succession were splendid. Ditto the obvious blow which the National Association Great-Prussia men[152] received, as was shown particularly in the Polish debates.
Ad vocemc Poland, I was most interested to read the work by Elias Regnault (the same who wrote the 'histoire des principautés danubiennes'), 'La Question Européenne, faussement nommée La Question Polonaise'. I see from it that Lapinski's dogma that the Great Russians are not Slavs has been advocated on linguistic, historical and ethnographical grounds in all seriousness by Monsieur Duchiriski (from Kiev, Professor in Paris); he maintains that the real Muscovites, i.e., inhabitants of the former GRAND DUCHY OF Moscow, were for the most part Mongols or Finns, etc., as was the case in the parts of Russia situated further east and in its south-eastern parts. I see from it at all events that the affair has seriously worried the St Petersburg cabinet (since it would put an end to Panslavism in no uncertain manner). All Russian scholars were called on to give responses and refutations, and these in the event turned out to be terribly weak. The purity of the Great Russian dialect and its connection with Church Slavonic appear to lend more support to the Polish than to the Muscovite view in this debate. During the last Polish insurrection [2 4] Duchinski was awarded a prize by the National Government for his 'discoveries'. It has ditto been shown geologically and hydrographically that a great 'Asiatic' difference occurs east of the Dnieper, compared with what lies to the west of it, and that (as Murchison a has already maintained) the Urals by no means constitute a dividing line. Result as obtained by Duchinski: Russia is a name usurped by the Muscovites. They are not Slavs; they do not belong to the Indo-Germanic RACE at all, they are
des intrus* who must be chased back across the Dnieper, etc. Panslavism in the Russian sense is a cabinet invention, etc.
I wish that Duchinski were right and AT ALL EVENTS that this view would prevail among the Slavs. On the other hand, he states that some of the peoples in Turkey, such as Bulgars, e.g., who had previously been regarded as Slavs, are non-Slav.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
Philistine Freiligrath descended on us with wife and daughter c 2 weeks ago! H e now has his immediate superior Reinach on his back who is here 'to investigate' and is giving him a proper roasting.
a R. I. Murchison, E. de Verneuil, Count Alexander von Keyserling, The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains. - b intruders - c Ida and Käthe Freiligrath 24 1865
86. Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht. 24 June
Dear Liebknecht,
You must explain to yourself my long silence by continuing indisposition and much work in intervals when I have been capable of it. Your letters, moreover, contained nothing which would have required urgent reply.
T h e Nordstern has most likely been suspended for a while owing to lack of money? At least, it has not arrived here for a couple of weeks. A fine gutter rag, to be sure! T h e declaration by various associations" that anyone who so much as lays a finger on the articles of faith as revealed by Lassalle is guilty of high treason, is priceless. Haut-goût,[1]' INDEED! What is Mr B. Becker doing in Berlin, and how is the Social-Demokrat 'surviving'? You have quite the wrong notion of Dr Kugelmann. I have been in correspondence with him for years past. He was a socialist back in 1848, in Düsseldorf. As TO Pieper, the VERY NAME OF Kugelmann was not known to him when he was here.[218]
I have not yet written to Stumpf because I have not been writing any letters over this period. As regards the letter he entrusted to Bruhn, I have not, of course, ever set eyes upon it.[219]
T h e INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION is making great strides despite the 'ENORMOUS SUPPORT' it is receiving from Germany. [2 2 0]
As regards the 'Louis Bonaparte', 0 I could see from your DROPPING OF THE SUBJECT that the matter has come to nothing. [7 9] I am RATHER glad of this, as I shall later be having it re-printed in the essay-collection all the same.
What is old Hatzfeldt doing? A n d the fracas over the will?[221]
Salut.
Your
K. M.
11 A reference to the various branches of the General Association of German Workers (see this volume, p. 161). - b strong meat - c K. Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
87. Marx to Eleanor Marx. 3 July
What are Messrs E. Bauer, Bucher et Co. up to? Edgar(1) will probably be staying here a while longer yet.b
87
MARX TO ELEANOR MARX
IN LONDON
[London,] 3 July 1865 Maiden Tower
Dear Miss Lilliput!
You must excuse the 'belated' character of my answer. I belong to that sort of people who always look twice at things before they decide one way or the other. Thus I was rather startled on receiving an invitation on the part of a female minx, quite unknown to me. However, having ascertained your respectability, and the high tone of your transactions with your tradespeople, I shall feel happy to seize this rather strange opportunity of getting at your eatables and drinkables. But, pray, don't neglect the latter, as spinsters usually have bad taste of doing. Suffering somewhat under an attack of rheumatism, I hope you keep your reception room clear of anything like draught. As to the ventilation required, I shall provide for it myself. Being somewhat deaf in the right ear, please put a dull fellow, of whom, I dare say, your company will not be in want, at my right side. For the left, I hope you will reserve your female beauty; I mean the best-looking female amongst your guests.
I am somewhat given to tobacco-chewing, so have the stuff ready. Having from former intercourse with Yankees taken to the habitude of spitting, I hope spittoons will not be missing. Being rather easy in my manners, and disgusted at this hot and close English atmosphere, you must prepare for seeing me in a dress
88. Engels to Marx. 15 July
rather adonistic. I hope your female guests are somewhat in the same line.
Adieu, my dear unknown little minx.
Yours for ever
Doctor Crankey
No British wines, I hope!
88
ENGELS TO MARX[29]
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 15 July 1865
Dear Moor,
Liebknecht has been expelled from Prussia; has he written to you since and given you his address? The poor devil will probably need money, and a few pounds will be more valuable to him at this moment than otherwise. But where should they be sent to?
MR Johnson's policy is less and less to my liking, too. NIGGER "-hatred is coming out more and more violently, and he is relinquishing all his power vis-à-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old secessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without COLOURED SUFFRAGE nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd. Nevertheless, one must still reckon on things turning out differently from what these barons imagined. After all, the majority of them have been completely ruined and will be glad to sell land to immigrants and speculators from the North. The latter will arrive soon enough and make a good number of changes. I think the MEAN WHITES will gradually die out. Nothing more will become of this RACE; those who are left after 2 generations will merge with the immigrants to make a completely different RACE.
The NIGGERS will probably turn into small SQUATTERS as in Jamaica. Thus ultimately the oligarchy will go to pot after all, but the process could be accomplished immediately at one fell swoop, whereas it is now being drawn out.
I don't think that you would win many laurels by a disputation with MR Weston, and it would certainly not make a good début in English economic literature.(1) Otherwise, I cannot see it would do much harm to anticipate a few odd points from your bookb— N. B. if the latter is really almost finished now — how does it stand? The ultimate and final date for completion was 1 September, and the price, you remember, is 12 bottles of wine.
In the elections here Jones has been working BODY AND SOUL for Heywood, but as a TEETOTALLER and PERMISSIVE BILLS man[222] he won't pull much with the workers. Moore has been working hard, too. The Manchester SNOBS will be gladdened by James, the fellow wants to become a JUDGE and nothing more. The election is costing him a pretty penny, just for the champagne his committee and cronies have swigged. TALK ABOUT BRIBERY, CORRUFHON AND TREATING, fellows like that fat Knowles came in droves to the Queen's Hotel, where the headquarters was, gorged their fill and swigged rivers of champagne, and everything was settled with a slip of paper on which a committee-member wrote: valid for 2 LUNCHEONS and 3 BOTTLES CHAMPAIGN. In Lancaster, the 3 candidates together disbursed £20,000, and there was free booze for a whole week in every pub. I was here in the Queen's Hotel at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the elegant SMOKING ROOM looked like the old den in Windmill Street,[223]
and customers were served by CELLAR BOYS in white shirt-sleeves and aprons, instead of BARMAIDS in satin dresses. The whole company was drunk, and at half past six the landlord had to have the hotel cleared by a police patrol. My task consisted in getting James' committee people to tipple until they were incapable of doing their job, and in several cases I was successful beyond expecta-tion.
I've had a very hard time at the office, Charlesc was away, Franz Ermen ditto, and a colossal amount of work to boot. Things are better now. I am now on Grimm's Fairy Tales, German heroic epic, ancient Frisian law, etc. As soon as I have got through that somewhat, I'll have a serious go at Old Norse. The poetry in it is a tough nut because of its deliberate obscurity and all the many names in the mythology, and I can see it's NO USE doing this just as
89. Engels to Marx. 25 July
a side line; I need to spend 4 weeks all at once on it and nothing else, when I have little to do. Many regards to the LADIES.
Your
F. E.
Moore has been asking me about the SHARES for The Bee-Hive;
h o w d o t h i n g s S t a n d ? A N D HOW DID YOU GET ON WITH P O T T E R ? 2 0 5
89
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 25 July 1865
Dear Moor,
How do you like our Prussian Mirabeaus in — the Zoological Gardens} Harkort and Co. as wild animals, Bismarck himself could not have thought that up.[224]
By the by, it seems certain to me that Mr Bismarck decidedly wants to have a collision. For me the most convincing evidence of this is the behaviour of Schweitzer's shit-rag,a which is being confiscated every day now. The workers are now suddenly expected to take the part of the Deputies, after being called on for 6 months not to get excited; there are to be mass meetings, etc., and every effort is to be put into agitating against the government. Further corroboration is provided by the unanimous refrain from the reactionary press, which is comparing the banquet with the February banquets in Paris,[225] and finally the government's whole proceeding, the pointless provocations, etc. Meanwhile, it was to be expected that Bismarck would come a cropper. Wasn't cleverly enough organised anyway.
a Der Social-Demokrat
90. Marx to Léon Fontaine. 25 July
On the other hand, Schweitzer-Becker seem to want to take the opportunity to make a decent EXIT. The Social-Demokrat and the Association(1) are to be suppressed so that those gentlemen can be whitewashed. I've stopped reading that rag as of 1st inst., incidentally. Bismarck seems to have had his fill of paying for it, and so have I. So, if anything should happen, I shall have to rely on you for information.
32° Reaumur in the shade in Germany! They say people are still only living in the cellars. It's as sultry as the tropics here, too.
Kindest regards.
Your
F. E.
90
MARX TO LEON FONTAINE[226]
IN BRUSSELS
[Draft]
[London,] 25 July 1865
Dear Citizen,
Some considerable time ago I sent a letter to you by an Englishman, who was to visit Germany and travel through Brussels. Since then I have had no news, either from you or from my Englishman. I shall not refer back to my reply to your letter, but will deal solely with current matters.
Mr Le Lubez has rejoined the Central Council as delegate from an English branch,c and the Italian society in London[20] has reinstated Mr Wolff as its representative on the Council/
Mr Charles Limousin, one of our correspondents in Paris and editor of the Tribune ouvrière..., following the seizure of the Tribune ouvrière, and being unable to find another printer in Paris, went to Brussels in an attempt to bring out the paper there. Whilst there, he investigated the state of our affairs. He was told that, after it had unanimously approved your proposal that it should amalgamate with our Association, the Société Federative had withdrawn:
1. because it insisted on the right to choose its own correspondents and not have them imposed on it by the Central Council;
2. because it refused to pay for the membership cards, although it remitted If. 50 just as before.
According to Mr Limousin's letter, you had then approached the Société typographique, but with the same result owing to the same difficulties.
With regard to the election of correspondents, the Central-Council has acknowledged the right of affiliated societies to choose their own representatives. It has only retained the power to confirm them. Things were different in Brussels because no society had yet been constituted there. Would it not be possible to reach a compromise, whereby the societies would accept you as their correspondent, but they would, for their part, choose an administrative committee, as was done in Paris and Geneva?
With regard to the dues, the societies will readily realise that the Central Council would be prevented from any general action if all the affiliated societies claimed the right not to pay dues. It appears that the objection is to paying dues twice. Would it not be possible to find an amicable solution to these matters? The Central Council will make any concession compatible with its responsibilities.
For my part, I am convinced that your actions were dictated solely by your zeal for the common cause, and I am appealing to this same zeal in asking you to work for reconciliation and restoration of relations. You would oblige me greatly by replying immediately, firstly because I have to give the Central Council a report on this affair, and secondly because a preliminary conference of members of the various administrative committees will be taking place in London on 25 September.[217]
The Central Council is persuaded that the congress cannot take place this year, but the preliminary conference in London will make preparations for it.a
With fraternal greetings
Ch. Marx
91. Marx to Engels. 31 July
91
MARX TO ENGELS[101]
IN MANCHESTER(1)
[London,] 31 July 1865
Dear Engels,
As you may have suspected, the reasons for my prolonged silence are not the most pleasant.
For two months I have been living solely on the pawnshop, which means that a queue of creditors has been hammering on my door, becoming more and more unendurable every day. This FACT won't come as any surprise to you when you consider: 1. that I have been unable to earn a FARTHING the whole time and 2. that merely paying off the debts and furnishing the house cost me something like £500. I have kept accounts (AS TO THIS ITEM) PENCE for PENCE, as I myself found it unbelievable how the money disappeared. To top that, I have been sent every conceivable, antediluvian IOU from Germany where God knows what rumours had been circulated.
To begin with, I wanted to come up to you to discuss the matter with you in person. But, at the present moment, any time lost cannot be made up as it is not good to interrupt my work. Last Saturday I told the Sub-Committee of the 'INTERNATIONAL'[21] that I was going away, so as at least to have a fortnight for once completely free of disturbance for PUSHING ON with my work.
I assure you that I would rather have had my thumb cut off than write this letter to you. It is truly soul-destroying to be dependent for half one's life. The only thought that sustains me in all this is that the two of us form a partnership together, in which I spend my time on the theoretical and party side of the BUSINESS. It is true my house is beyond my means, and we have, moreover, lived better this year than was the case before. But it is the only way for the children to establish themselves socially with a view to securing their future, quite apart from everything they have suffered and for which they have at least been compensated for a brief while. I believe you yourself will be of the opinion that, even from a merely commercial point of view, to run a purely proletarian household would not be appropriate in the cir-
31 1865
cumstances, although that would be quite all right, if my wife and I were by ourselves or if the girls were boys.
Now, regarding my work, I will tell you the plain truth about it. There are 3 more chapters to be written to complete the theoretical part (the first 3 books). Then there is still the 4th book, the historical-literary one,[227] to be written, which will, comparative-ly speaking, be the easiest part for me, since all the problems have been resolved in the first 3 books, so that this last one is more by way of repetition in historical form. But I cannot bring myself to send anything off until I have the whole thing in front of me. WHATEVER SHORTCOMINGS THEY MAY HAVE, the advantage of my writings is that they are an artistic whole, and this can only be achieved through my practice of never having things printed until I have them in front of me in their entirety. This is impossible with Jacob Grimm's method which is in general better with writings that have no dialectical structure.[228]
The English version will be dealt with differently on the other hand. Fox has no doubt that he can find me a publisher as soon as I get the first sheets of print back. I would then arrange with Meissner that, in addition to the proofs for correcting, he would also send me the clean proof of each sheet, so that the German could be corrected at the same time as it is being translated into English. Regarding the latter, I shall of course need your assistance. I am expecting my real earnings from this work to come from the English edition.[229]
As far as the 'INTERNATIONAL' is concerned, the position is as follows:
I made over the £5 to Cremer to buy shares in The Bee-Hive. But since Cremer, Odger, etc., were going up to Manchester at that time, nothing came of it, and Potter HAD THE BETTER OF IT.[205] They decided to postpone the matter until the next meeting of shareholders (actually, the annual one). But I don't think that anything will come of it. Firstly, because the squabble between Odger and Potter has become a public scandal. Secondly, because The Miner and Workman's Advocate has offered its columns to us.[230]
(Apropos. At a recent meeting with the Miner we undertook to let it have contributions gratis. So, if you have time to write a little article on FOREIGN POLITICS (Prussian, etc.), now and then, send it to me to be passed on to the paper.)
According to our Rules a public congress ought to be held in Brussels this year. The Parisians, Swiss and some of the people here, too, are going for it hammer and tongs. In the present circumstances — especially since I have so little time to write the
92. Marx to Engels. 5 August
necessary documents for the CENTRAL COUNCIL as well — I can only foresee a disgrace. Despite considerable opposition from the other side, I have succeeded in turning the public congress in Brussels into A PRIVATE PRÉALABLE CONFERENCE in London (25 September) which only DELEGATES OK THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEES will attend and at which the future congress is to be prepared. Official reasons given for postponing the congress were:
1. T h e need for PRÉALABLE UNDERSTANDING between the EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEES.
2. T h e obstacles to the Association's propaganda arising from the STRIKES IN FRANCE, the elections, REFORM MOVEMENT and WORKWOMEN'S
E 2S1 NGLAND. 3. T h e ALIEN BILL REI.ENTLY PRESSED in Belgium [2 3 2] which rules out Brussels as a RENDEZVOUS for an INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMENS CONGRESS.21
I do not see the Social-Demokrat any more, as the Workers' Society[3] has also stopped it.[200] Nor am I taking the Nordstern any more, but I do see it occasionally at the Society. It said the Rhineland branches had on the main question deserted Bernhard. b
Edgar c is a very expensive guest for us, especially in the present circumstances, and he does not seem in the least inclined TO DECAMP.
In consequence of the hot weather and related biliousness, I have again been vomitting nearly every day for the past 3 months, as I did previously in Brussels.
Salut. Y o u r
K. M.
92
MARX T O ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
Dear Engels, London, 5 August 1865
MY BEST THANKS FOR THE £ 5 0 AND the speed with which the help came. I was greatly amused by the part of your letter1S1 which deals with the 'work of art' TO BE.d But you misunderstood me. T h e only
a German Workers' Educational Society in London - b Bernhard Becker (see this volume, p. 152) - c Edgar von Westphalen - d Capital POINT IN QIESTION is whether to do a fair copy of part of the manuscript and send it to the publisher,3 or finish writing the whole thing first? I have decided in favour of the latter for many reasons. No time is lost by it, AS FAR as the work itself is concerned, although some time is lost in printing; however, on the other hand, once begun, that cannot then be interrupted in any way either. Furthermore, in view of the level of the thermometer, progress with it has been as fast as anyone could have managed, even having no artistic considerations at all. BESIDES, as I have a MAXIMUM LIMIT of 60 printed sheets, it is absolutely essential for me to have the whole thing in front of me, to know how much has to be condensed and crossed out, so that the individual sections shall be evenly balanced and in proportion within the prescribed limits.[233] In any case, you can be sure that I shall spare no effort to complete as soon as possible, as the thing is a nightmarish burden to me. Not only does it prevent me from doing anything else, but it is also DAMNEDLY irksome to have the public kept entertained with the expectation of laurels to come (not by me, to be sure, but by Liebknecht and others). And furthermore, I know that time will not stand still for ever just as it is now.
Eichhoff has written a few lines to me, but couldn't call on me owing to pressure of business. In his letter he said Dronke would visit (he was here yesterday) but in such a confused way there was no making sense of the scriptum.b That 'treatise' is sticking to POOR Eichhoff like his own skin, and no operation will detach it from him.
What do you make of Siebel's productions as a patriotic-liberal poet? The thing appears to have been written during extremely depressing hangover. It is utter nonsense and surpasses EVERYTHING our friend has previously produced.
The Social-Demokrat's attempt to commit itself in support of the bourgeoisie is a sign of complete and utter fiasco, although I share your view that the first calls in Berlin did not occur without some ministerial prompting.c However, the other Lassallean faction, which executed a volte faced against the Social-Demokrat as a result of our statement,* are also quite a pitiful rabble. These fellows are not merely at loggerheads with B. Becker and Co. as to whose faith in Lassalle is the true one, but several of their branches have published that phrase inspired by OLD Hatzfeldt and coined specifically with us in mind, that anyone who tried to overturn or change even one syllable of the truths as revealed by Lassalle, was declared a traitor to the 'people'.[216]
It is ages since I last answered Liebknecht, despite various notes he sent me; however I am going to do so now. He is in Hanover for the time being now, but his wife3 is still in Berlin. The reason why I did not write was partly that I was very busy, and also I had enough on my hands with my own TROUBLES. On the other hand, I was furious with him for the nonsense which he had been retailing about me at the Berlin Lassalle-Association and which is there for all to read in the scrap of a pamphlet about B. Becker's expulsion from that association which the old sow got someone called Schilling to publish (Farthing would have been a more appropriate name).[234] With his usual talent for being too lazy to acquaint himself with the facts, he drivels the greatest nonsense abour the Bangya-manuscript[169] and my intercession for Becker quoadh
Vienna Botschafter^ etc. And, moreover, the whole way in which he plays the part of my 'PATRON' and 'apologises' for me to the louts of Berlin for them not knowing my works; and generally behaves as though so far I had done nothing in affairs of action. So, I allowed some time to elapse, so as not to say anything rude to him and to pacify myself with the thought that Liebknecht will be Liebknecht and that his intentions are 'good'. The 30,000 members of the old Berlin Journeymen's Association, and ditto the Association of Printers there organised a kind of ovation for him when he was expelled. With his usual optimism, Wilhelmchen sees 'the proletariat of Berlin at my (that is, his) and our (yours and mine) feet'.[235] At the same time, he has not managed even to form a single BRANCH of 6 members for the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION in Germany, although the sanguine fellow must surely realise that I cannot serve up his DELUSIONS to the English as true coin. He also kept on writing to me about my 'book'. But however often I sent him 'books' (first the whole remainder of ' Vogt,,c then the whole remainder of the 'Communist Trials'*) at his most sanguine request, from the moment he received them, I never heard a dying word more about them.
Mr Groote, Party of Progress " deputy for Düsseldorf, has written to him saying that what he did in Berlin has had more effect than the actions of 100 Party of Progress deputies.
1865
Edgar(1) has just recently caught a cold which has gone to his nose, which, as a result of this ACCIDENT, looks positively Bardol-phian.b
During the warm weather I have been regularly working day and night by the open window. Outcome: an attack of rheumatism in my right arm, particularly the shoulder blade, which is very painful and makes writing, especially any lifting-movement, difficult. I instinctively cry out if I unintentionally raise my arm in bed at night, which tells you how nasty the thing is. Does Gumpert know of any kind of NOSTRUM for it?
You probably know that at the Gymnastic Festival in Paris, the worthy Gottfried Kinkel refused the laurel crown he was offered by a Jew who was presiding, with the words: 'I want no crown, not even a crown of laurel', but at once added in fairly unvarnished words that he had by no means yet given up his claims to the Presidency of the German Republic, the 'office' that was his due. The Nordstern ridiculed him rather effectively as much for this bit of melodrama, and for his whole SPEECH, which was disgusting? The Festival opened with a toast to Badinguet.c
Where is Stroh n? As soon as you have time and inclination, do not forget to send me something 'continental' for the Miner?
Kindest regards to you from the whole family, and from me to MRS Lizzy/
Your
K. Marx
Abt. Ill, Bd. 3, Berlin, 1930
93. Engels to Marx. 7 August
93
ENGELS TO MARX[26]
IN LONDON
Manchester, 7 August 1865 Dear Moor,
I have got a remedy for your rheumatism that Gumpert once used to cure me with within 24 hours, and from a much more severe attack, too. Get yourself 2 big bags of flannel made, big enough to cover the affected part completely and a bit over; have these bags filled with BRAN and heated each in turn in the oven, just as hot as you can bear it; you put each in turn on the place, changing them as often as ever you can. All the while keep yourself warm and quiet in bed, and you will soon feel very considerable relief, but you mustn't discontinue the treatment on that account until all the pain has gone (say 24-36 hours).
Eichhoff has just called; he has got himself made DIRECTOR of a LIMITED COMPANY in London; it is crystal clear to me from the whole affair that the idea is for him to be duped of a substantial sum again, but there's absolutely no helping the fellow, with his mania for seeing everything couleur de rose.(1) He has now gone so far as believing that the silk-trade here in England absolutely could not go on without him.
I'm so pleased the bookb is making rapid progress, for I had really begun to suspect from one or two phrases in your last letter that you had again reached an unexpected turning-point which might prolong everything indefinitely. The day that manuscript is sent off, I shall drink myself to kingdom come, that is, unless you come up here the next day so that we can seal it together.
Many thanks for the Free Presses. Our worthy Liebknecht simply cannot help putting his foot in it, or writing off to people just whenever the mood takes him. We shall always be annoyed with him for 10 months out of 12, as soon as he is by himself and has to act on his own initiative. In the meantime que veux-tu?c" Liebknecht does as Liebknecht is, and all the exasperation and all the grumbling will not help matters. And after all, when all's said and done, at the moment he is the only reliable link we have in Germany.
A woRKiNGMEN's CONGRESS in Brussels would certainly be the greatest stupidity in present circumstances.[217] Just remember our own experiences in that little country.[236] That sort of thing can only be done in England, the FRENCHMEN ought to know that. It would just be throwing away money and time and trouble to attempt anything of that kind in Belgium.
Have you got Schilling's pamphlet on B. Becker?" You might let me have it for a couple of days.
I don't know whether Strohn is in Hamburg or Bradford, I haven't heard anything from him for quite a long time now.
The Rhineland philistines are supposed to be frightfully angry with Bismarck; it is splendid that those jackasses are having their 'historical development on a legal basis' so nicely demonstrated. Have you seen Bismarck's latest dodge to raise money? The Cologne-Minden Railway had granted the state the right to buy up its shares at par in return for an interest-guarantee from the state (100-taler shares are now standing at over 200 talers); he has bartered away this right to the Railway for 13 million talers, and the Kölner Zeitung calculates that in this way he got hold of 30 million talers, including sale of the shares already owned by the state, etc. The question is, will the Cologne-Minden Railway pay up without the Chamber's approval for the deal. If it does so, Bismarck will again have a clear road for years ahead, and the philistines will have been atrociously shitted upon. We shall soon see.[237]
Lizzy b says Edgarc can't have been wearing his Texan hat, or he couldn't possibly have caught a cold in the nose.
Your
F. E.
94. Marx to Engels. 9 August
94
MARX TO ENGELS[238]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 9 August 1865
DEAR FRED, Letter from Mr Siebold enclosed.[239] You need not send it back. Secondly, I am sending you the Hatzfeldt rubbish.(1) Do not send it back, but store it. Don't show it to anyone either. Fortunately, this rubbish has left no trace in the German press. The only thing relating to it which appeared publicly in the press was a statement by Metzner (ex-authorised representative of the Berlin branchb) and Vogtc (STILL its treasurer), countersigned W. Liebknecht, in which they stated:
1. that Schilling had falsified the report, suppressed some resolutions and made others their direct opposite;
2. that that old girl Hatzfeldt could have spared her comments SINCE the Association had forbidden her to interfere in any way.
That appeared in Reformd and Volks-ZeitungPe
I have been medicating myself for a couple of days now and am feeling utterly rotten, quite incapable of working. But Allen tells me that I shall be up and about again in a few days. It's the bilious trouble and a consequence of the 'bitter' labour of thinking in the HOT WEATHER. Officially I'm now away from home on account of the
' INTERNATIONAL' . Edgar(2) is vegetating. In his hermit-like existence he has become accustomed to the narrowest kind of egotism, pondering the needs of his stomach from morn till night. But as he is a good-natured sort, his egotism is that of a KIND-NATUREDCAT or a friendly dog. To the devil with hermit-life. He has even lost all interest in women, and his sex-urge has gone to his belly, too. At the same time, he is constantly anxious about his precious health, that same lad who was, on the other hand, used to feeling 'safe' amongst snakes, tigers, wolves, and leopards.
He now wishes he was back in Texas again. But there is no escape from the confrontation with his cher frère.'
95. Engels to Marx. 16 August
You can tell what his back-to-nature thinking is like from the fact that his present ideal is to set u p a STORE — a cigar or wine STORE — obviously secretly hoping that this will be the surest way to apply oneself to the cigars and wine.
H e likes to pretend to be an OLD GENTLEMAN who has settled his accounts with life, has nothing more to do and is only living 'for his health's sake'.
Besides, he is preoccupied with his attire as well, and the 'OLD GENTLEMEN' in Rotten Row [2 4 0] make him very sad because he cannot keep u p with them. Queer cove! Laura, who HAS a small CARBUNCLE o n h e r left c h e e k JUST NOW, SAYS THAT HER MOTHERS BROTHER IS AN
EXCEEDINGLY BRIGHT FELLAH ! ' T u S S y a 'THAT SHE LIKES HIM, BECAUSE HE IS SO FUNNY' and little Jenny that Lina Schöler and he can congratulate each other 'TO HAVE SAFELY GOT RID OF EACH OTHER'. WELL, THEY ARE A BAD LOT. T h e girls have also SEVERELY CROSS-EXAMINED me AS TO THE 'MRS Burns'.
Salut.
Your
K. M.
Abt. III, Bd. 3, Berlin, 1930 " r s t t i m e
95
ENGELS T O MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 16 August 1865
Dear Moor,
T h a t unctuous trash from the Hatzfeldt w o m a n b really is unctuous trash with all that is in it about Lassalle the only saviour, Liebknecht, etc. Dear old LIBRARY0 has really surpassed himself this time in his - customary spinelessness, lack of imagination and forgetfulness, that is, unless the whole report is a fabrication. The devil take such an advocatus.
Ditto our sparkling-wine enthusiast Siebold. With what self-assured naivety the fellow tried to 'reconcile' you to Blind! [239] And then those interesting 'old Swedes' whom nobody has ever heard of and whom we're supposed to write to, to make 'contact'. Quite à
la Harro Harring. I'm increasingly coming round to think that from the most southerly latitude of North Friesland onwards everything beyond urban bourgeois and peasant politics is pure Harro Harring." But no doubt you will be having that dolt on your back every year.
Next week (about Friday 25th inst.) Moore and I are going to Germany and Switzerland for a fortnight, and maybe we shall also 'cast a casual glance' over Italy.[241] If I can so arrange it, I shall call in briefly at Modena Villas6 on my way back.
The 28th of this month, i.e. Monday week, is the date of the General Meeting of the Cologne-Minden shareholders, which will decide Prussia's politics for the next few years. I can't imagine that those fellows will be such jackasses as to pay out 13 mill, talers in cash to Bismarck without having the approval of the Chambers.[237]
But your liberal Rhineland burgher is capable of a good many tricks the moment he has a chance of swindling the state, and thinks that in his capacity as Deputy he can obtain indemnity for himself afterwards. But if the deal were to fall through, or if it were made conditional on authorisation by the Chambers, that would be more or less the end for Monsieur Bismarck; even that adventurer would not survive such a defeat in financialibus" and after such a desperate attempt. But the fact that he is momentarily coming to terms with Austria again, shows that intellectually and morally he is au bout de son latin.à He knows only too well that he can't start a war without being brought down immediately, so he goes on lashing out with big talk, chalking up little gains and turning Germany into the laughing stock of the world. But the philistine is almost as much impressed by him as by Boustrapa.76
The philistine now no longer requires even ephemeral victories from his idols, but only that they can brag. This is how Classen-Kappelmann became the idol of Cologne as well, because he took to his heels at the crucial moment.[224]
96. Marx to Engels. 19 August
It was also a nice thought of Siebold's to put in a good word for C. V. Rimestad in Copenhagen, who is one of the Dagbladet people! T h e so-called Workers' Association is a propaganda organisation of the Scandinavian Eider-Danes and the Hall ministry.[242]
What will Father Urquhart be saying next month about the legal advisers to the Prussian throne? What splendid lads they are!
Kindest regards to the LADIES and Edgar. [3]
Your
F. E.
sei zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 3, _ ... , . . „ .. , b , b. c. .. . i m 9 A • t u -tst-s* A Published in English tor the first Stuttgart, 1913 and in lull in MEGA, ° time
96
MARX T O ENGELS [2 4 3]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 19 August 1865
DEAR FRED,
Since you are setting off on your travels,[241] I must tell you that I have to pay a BILL for £ 1 0 to BUTCHER on 28 August, and the LANDLORD is also becoming very TROUBLESOME. BY THE BY, the English state appears HARDPRESSED FOR MONEY. At all events, the TAXGATHERERS were more pressing this MONTH than ever before and have unexpectedly 'relieved' me.
I am still SICK, although Allen is getting rid of the LIVER troubles. But now I have caught a kind of INFLUENZA, which, he says, will last 5-6 days and which really is the biggest nuisance of all, AS FAR AS MENTAL ACTIVITY IS CONCERNED. I hope that with that I shall have settled I HOPE IT is NOTHING SERIOUS. Little Jenny and Tussy(1) are very well. (Ditto Edgar's b STATE OF HEALTH much improved.) My wife had bitten out the 2 front teeth in the middle of her lower jaw, and yesterday had 4 teeth fitted by way of replacement. These are more or less the only 'events' that have occurred here.
Being unwell, I am unable to write much, and then only BY FITS AND STARTS. In between, I am just dabbling in irrelevancies, although with the INFLUENZA I cannot even read properly. I 'took the opportunity' to 'take up' a little astronomy again, amongst other things. And one thing I would like to mention that was new to me at least, but perhaps you have known about it for some time. You know Laplace's theory of the formation of the CELESTIAL SYSTEMS and how he explains the rotation of the various BODIES about their own axis, etc. Proceeding from there, a YANKEE, Kirkwood, has discovered a kind of law concerning the differences in the rotation of the planets, which had previously appeared quite abnormal. The law is as follows:
* 'The square of the number of times that each planet rotates during one revolution in its orbit, is proportioned to the cube of the breadth of a diameter of its sphere of
attraction.' *
This means that between two planets there must be a point at which their power of attraction is equally strong; so that a body at this point would remain stationary between them. On the other hand, the body would fall towards one planet or another on either side of that point. This point thus forms the LIMIT of the SPHERE OF ATTRACTION of the planet. This SPHERE OF ATTRACTION is, in turn, the measure of the breadth of the GAZEOUS RINC from which, according to Laplace, the planet was formed when it first became separated from the GENERAL GAZEOUS MASS. Kirkwood concluded from this that, if Laplace's hypothesis is correct, a specific relationship must exist between the VELOCITY OF THE PLANETS ROTATION and the BREADTH OF THE RING from which it was formed or its SPHERE OF ATTRACTION. And he has expressed this in the above law, and proved it by analytical calculations.
Old Hegel made some very good jokes about the 'sudden reversal' of centripetal to centrifugal force, right at the moment when one has attained 'preponderance' over the other; e.g., centripetal force is greatest near the sun; therefore, says Hegel, centrifugal force is greatest, since it overcomes this maximum of centripetal force and vice versa. Moreover, the forces are in 19 1865
equilibrium when half way between the apsides.[244] Therefore they can never depart from this equilibrium, etc. Incidentally, taken as a whole, Hegel's polemic amounts to saying that Newton's 'proofs' added nothing to Kepler, who already possessed the 'concept' of movement, which I think is fairly generally accepted now.3
You know that the President of the BANK OF SWITZERLAND is now Mr Karl Vogt, who betrayed his friend Fazy as soon as the latter left Geneva, and cheated together with Reinach (the real ACTING DIRECTOR). I asked Freiligrath how Mr Vogt, who is otherwise of ill repute as a FINANCIER in Switzerland, had come by this honourable post. Answer: the Swiss have hardly a share left in the 'BANK OF SWITZERLAND'. The Jews in Berlin and Frankfurt a. M. take the decisions. And they support Vogt. Meanwhile, Reinach has been teasing our POOR Freiligrath so much that the latter wrote him the right-thinking rejoinder that even the Prussian police never persecuted him quite so much. They say Fazy swindled the bank out of IV2 mill. frs.
A few weeks ago, Professor Beesly had an article about Catiline in The Fortnightly Review, vindicating the latter as a man of revolution.b Much of it is uncritical (as one would expect from an Englishman, e.g. wrong information on Caesar's position at that time), but his intense rage at the oligarchy and 'respectable people' is very nice. Likewise his sallies against the professional English 'DULL littérateur'. Mr Harrison had an article in the same Review expounding why 'political economy' can adduce 'nothing' in refutation of communism.0 It seems to me that now there is more MOVEMENT amongst English thinkers than amongst the Germans. The latter are sufficiently preoccupied with celebrating Classen-Kappelmann.[224]
Regards to MRS Lizzy.d The children are depending on you not to pass through London without stopping on your way home.
Your
K. M.
You cannot have the remotest conception of the utter nonsense contained in the PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS of 1857 and 1858 on banking, etc., which I recently had to refer back to.e As in the monetary
97. Engels to Marx. 21 August
system, capital=gold. In the midst, shame-faced recollections of A. Smith and excruciating attempts to reconcile the chaos of the MONEY MARKET with his 'enlightened' ideas. MacCulloch, who has at last now gone the way of all flesh, distinguishes himself most of all. The fellow was obviously in receipt of a substantial douceur(1)
from Lord Overstone, who is consequently 'facile maximus argen-tariorum'b and has to be cleared, come what may. I shall have to reserve my critique of this whole unsavoury stew for a later paper.[245]
97
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 21 August 1865
Dear Moor,
End. £20, first half, B/G 56794, Manchester, 9 January 1864, second to follow as soon as you acknowledge receipt. I cannot send more until I know how the final accounts work out, and I shall not know that until my return or even later.
That business of Kirkwood's law was new to me, as it was to Moore. But is it really proven, or is it not perhaps just a hypothesis?c Surely it ought to be possible to verify a thing like that.
I hope you are all restored to health now. That trouble with Laura is probably of no more consequence than with little Jenny that time, but it really is absurd of you to allow yourself to continue in such a way. In such circumstances, you should put your foot down as master of the house. I expect you have shaken off your INFLUENZA now, with the warm weather, that kind of thing really takes it out of you, but at least it is easily cured now.
98. Marx to Engels. 22 August
The old women are just coming to sweep out the office and drive me from my post; so I must quickly finish. Kindest regards.
Your
F. E.
98
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 22 August 1865
DEAR FRED,
BEST THANKS FOR THE £20, FIRST HALF of which received. I most certainly would not BOTHER you, but the end of the quarter, whose bills have been put off, is a very difficult time.
Regarding Kirkwood's law, there is no doubt that it explains the difference in the ROTATORY MOVEMENTS, e.g., between those of Jupiter and those of Venus, which hitherto appeared entirely fortuitous.[3]
But how he finds out and proves the law itself, I do not know, but on my next visit to the British Museum I will try to get to the bottom of the original work and will tell you more about it then. The only 'problem' attached to the matter, as far as I can see, consists in mathematically determining the SPHERE OF ATTRACTION of each planet. The only hypothetical thing about it is probably the assumption of Laplace's theory as a premise.
My INFLUENZA has invaded my nose to such an extent that the TEXAN Bovsb 'nozzle' has reproduced itself in me, accompanied by a frightful cold and a muzziness in the head such as must have filled the whole of Laplace's universe of incandescent gas.
The fellows and friends of the 'INTERNATIONAL' have now discovered after all that I am not away, and I have therefore 22 1865
received a SUMMONS TO ATTEND a meeting of the SUBCOMMITTEE today. The 4 weeks of my disappearance have been totally SPOILT for me by the DOCTORS prescriptions.
Amongst the books from Lupus' legacy I have in my possession there is a copy of Egli's Neue Handelsgeographie. This Swiss says in the preface that into the 'biographies of commercial geography' he has now and again
'woven a view from life, a view in contemplation of which the soul may lose itself for a moment, in comfortable repose ... genre miniatures woven in ... a piece of life shall here unfold before our eyes. Life evolves from life alone'.
The following shows you what this naive Swiss means by 'views from life':
'Markgräfler wine grows on the sunny hills of Mühlheim and Badenweiler. It was not for nothing that our dearly beloved Hebel sang:
"At t'Mill by t'Post Tally ho, mine host! Drink up lads: a grand wine flows, Smooth as olive oil it goes! At t'Mill by t'Post."'(1)
To prove 'that I have not taken the easy path', this same naive Swiss refers to the list of works he has used. This list numbers precisely 20 items, where along with naive 'children's literature' as the Buch der Erfindungen, etc., there are two works by the self-same Mr Egli.b
Kindest regards from the WHOLE FAMILY.
Your
K. M.
99. Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht. 11 September
100. Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht. 20 September
Dear Liebknecht,
As soon as I know whether you are still in Hanover, I shall report to you the reasons for the interruption in correspondence, and indeed write at greater length.
On 25 September, a (PRIVATE) conference between the COUNCIL of the International here and the DELEGATES of the ADMINISTRATIONS in Switzerland, France, and Belgium will take place here. Can you not send yourself over here as DELEGATE from Germany?[246]
Salut.
Your
K. M.
100
MARX TO WILHELM LIEBKNECHT
IN LEIPZIG
[London,] 20 September 1865
Dear Miller,(1)
I received yours yesterday afternoon, too late to post a letter here. Illness had much to do with my protracted silence. There were other reasons which I think useless now to dwell upon. Much business pressing upon my time just now, I can only return these few lines.
A Report[247] (English, of course) on your part is very important. It must be here on Monday next (25 September). It cannot arrive timely unless you send me the letter directly by the Leipzig post.
The Swiss have chosen two delegates, Mons Dupleix, a Frenchman, and Mr Philipp Becker, a German.
Old Hatzfeldt dwells at Paris, where the old hag is intriguing with the 'horn-bearing' father of 'Socialism', Moses," her most cringing slave. It was at her instigation, that he inserted his 'warning' in the Nordstern and his slander into the Social-Demokrat.2iS She is now concocting with him the 'Apotheosis' of her own belated 'Oedipus'.b The London correspondent of the Social-Demokrat seems to be cracked Weber.c All these things have been reported to me from Paris. As to myself, I carefully abstain from taking any notice whatever of what is going on in the Berlin and Hamburg 'organs' of the movement.0 This so-called movement is so disgusting a thing that the less you hear of it the better.
We have founded here a weekly paper of our own The Workman's Advocate. You will oblige by sending correspondence (English) for it to my address.
Yours truly
A. Williamse
101. Engels to Wilhelm Liebknecht. 21 September
Dear Liebknecht,
It was bad luck that you chose to write to me just as I was leaving for 3 weeks on the Continent,[241] so that I only found your 30 1865
letter" waiting for me on my return. The £5 banknote B/V 68754, Manchester, 16 January 1865, encl. as requested.
I cannot write much today, as I want to get the banknote sent off as well; but I will just say that Marx has, of course, every reason to be angry with you. The manner in which you rebutted Becker'sb absurd allegations against Marx in your Berlin defence-speech was exceedingly weak and incompetent, and in respect of both the Bangya-affairI69 and several others you twisted the facts as much as did Mr Becker, although you could easily have gained better knowledge by referring to Herr Vogt2i4 These are extremely disagreeable matters, which Madame Hatzfeldt will now purvey to the world in this distorted form, and with your seal of approvals and you demand that Moor should take all that so calmly?
Your
F. E.
102. Marx to Hermann Jung. 30 September
I am expecting you tomorrow (Sunday) for DINNER <A VERY FRUGAL ONE»; I have also asked De Paepe and Becker/ Please be so kind and invite Kaub in my name. This morning I am so PRESSED BY BUSINESS
OF ALL KIND THAT I CANNOT AFFORD TO WRITE TWO LETTERS.
YOURS FRATERNALLY
K. Marx
103. Engels to Marx. 4 October
103
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Dear Moor [Manchester,] 4 October 1865
I always strike unlucky with my plans for coming to London. I met my mother" just 3 days before my return here, in Ostende, to be exact, and I couldn't make it an hour shorter, of course. Nor could I have met her any earlier, as neither of us knew where she would be 2-3 days before. But I was DUE here on 15 September,[241]
as Charles(1) had to leave on that day, as he in fact did. Since then, as always when I come back from a journey, the very devil has got into the cotton market, I have had to look after Charles' work as well as my own, and that is no trifle when cotton goes up in a fortnight from 18 to 24 b/[2]d. per pound, yarns on the other hand by 8-9d. per pound, and telegrams of every description pour in. I hope that is all over now, and besides Charles will come back at the beginning of next week, so that I can gather my wits again at last. This horrible rush has made it positively impossible for me to write even 2 lines to you, in fact, since I've been back, I've not been able to write a line of private correspondence at all. As soon as ever I can, I will write at greater length; meanwhile do let me know how you all are and how the 'book'c is getting on. I think I should manage to come over some time for 3 X 24 hours, as soon as we have got things in order here. But our office is looking like a pigsty, Gottfried d has taken on 3 fellows for me who are absolutely hopeless, and is holding me to the contract which says I am to make something of them. So, you can see the way things are here. I shall have to sack one or two of them.
Your
F. E. Kindest regards to all. I was also 'all ready' among the Swabians; however, they are not creating any School of Poetry but are cotton-spinning, or emigrating.
105. Marx to Engels. 8 November
104. Marx to Engels. 19 October
DEAR FRED,
I shall arrive in Manchester ABOUT 4.40 tomorrow afternoon and will make my way to your official dwelling.[249]
Your
K. M.
105
MARX TO ENGELS6
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 8 November 1865 1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, Haverstock Hill Dear FREDERICK,
I arrived here on Friday" evening. Strohn had pressed me very strongly to spend some days with him, but I had too much on my mind. I knew things were awry in London and thus wanted to be on the spot.
The DISAPPOINTMENTS MRS Lizzyb prophesied for me came true with a vengeance. D'abord," on arrival at King's Cross,d my case had gone, and I still have not got it back even now, which is particularly annoying because of the 'papers' it contained, for which I am responsible. Then I found my childc was still very unwell. Finally, the LANDLORD had been round, had made threats, and my wife had only calmed him down with promises of my return. The man talked of putting the 'BROKER' into the house and also of terminating the LEASE, which the contract admittedly entitles him to do. All the other riff-raff appeared in the LANDLORDS wake, some of them in person, and some in the form of threatening letters. I found my wife so DESOLATE that I had not the COURAGE to explain the TRUE STATE OF THINGS to her. And I really do not know what to dol And we also have to get coals in, etc.
As well as these DISAPPOINTMENTS ONE GOOD NEWS. One of the two aunts in Frankfurt (the one who is 73,a the otherb is two years younger) has passed on, but ab intestatoc (being afraid of dying if she should make a will). I shall therefore have to share with the other heirs, which would not have been so if there had been a will, as she cared nothing for the others. And then another pleasant circumstance — we have to wait for the power of attorney from Mr Juta from the CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
All these pleasant circumstances have rather gone to my stomach, so that I at once had myself made up some more of Gumpert's medicine.
Salut (to MRS Lizzy, too). Your
K. M.
106. Marx to Salomon Fuld. 9 November[250]
As I have lost my aunt's private address, I am taking the liberty of sending you the enclosed letter[1]" for forwarding to Madame Babette Blum. ,, „r n Yours respectfully
Dr K. Marx First published in: Marx/Engels, Werke, Printed according to the original Bd. 31, Berlin, 1965
107. Engels to Marx. 13 November
108. Marx to Engels. 15 November
107
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
[Manchester,] 13 November 1865 Dear Moor,
You should receive herewith at the same time a registered letter with £15, which I made out on Friday and gave to our errand-boy to attend to. I received no answer from you on Sunday, which I found somewhat surprising, and it occurred to me that the boy did not give me the ticket for the letter on Saturday morning. When I looked into it today, it turned out that the wretch had messed up the whole business with his procrastinating and still had the letter in his pocket. That was the last straw as far as his slovenliness was concerned, and he was sacked. I am extremely annoyed about this, as you must meanwhile have been thinking I had quietly put your last letter in my pocket and left things to take their course, without writing a single word to you.
Your
F. E. Has Edgar" gone?
108
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 15 November 1865
DEAR FRED,
You must excuse me for not most gratefully acknowledging receipt of the £15 until today and for not writing to you until tomorrow. I am so pressed that I cannot manage it today.
Little Jenny has diphtheria, but I hope it will soon be over. As soon as you have read the enclosed letter — whose manner and style do, incidentally, stand out most favourably from those of the Rhineland workers — please be so good as to send it back. Courtesy requires that it should be answered.[23] '
Salut
Your
K. Marx
109. Marx to Hermann Jung. 15 November
My dear Jung,
On my return from Manchester,[249] I find your letter from which I am deeply concerned to see that you are still suffering. I fear very much that you have been always interrupting your cure by a premature application to work.
I shall call upon at your house on Sunday afternoon. I should like to find Dupont there since I must communicate to him different things.
My whole family takes the most earnest interest in everything concerning you and sends you the best wishes for your reconvales-cence.
My compliments to Mrs Jung.
Yours fraternally
K. Marx
110. Engels to Marx. 17 November
110
ENGELS TO MARX
IN LONDON
Manchester, 17 November 1865 Dear Moor,
Your letter was only passed on to me yesterday evening, and I shall be making enquiries as to how it was left lying around for so long.
I hope little Jenny is ALL RIGHT again and at least has got over the acute stage of the illness and the danger therewith. I'm sending her a case of port, sherry and claret this evening, to restore her strength. It gave me a real fright when I read the word diphtheria; it is not something to be made light of.
The letter from the Berliners really took me aback.25' It has obviously been written by someone with a lot more to him than Wilhelmchena and his references to the latter do not appear to be without a certain irony. Now the letter has certainly not been written by a worker, the mere fact that Grimm's rules of orthography are impeccably observed shows that, and I am just a mite suspicious as to how genuine the thing is. At any rate, we ought to obtain more information about the 3 signatories, Wilhelmchen should know them at least, if the business is bona fide. It is rather the form of the document that makes me suspicious, the content most definitely implies the contrary. But as you won't in any case be going to Berlin to found a new organisation there, it will not signify if you write to these people. Letter returned encl.
What do you say to the NiccER-rebellion in Jamaica and the atrocities perpetrated by the English?[252] The Telegraph says today:
111. Marx to Engels. 20 November
111
MARX TO ENGELS[253]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 20 Novemberc 1865 Dear Engels,
Little Jenny is on the mend again now and thanks you very much for the wine.
Regarding the financial questions, it would be futile to approach Dronke about it. To have some peace with the LANDLORD, and that is at the root of it all, I have persuaded him to take a bill of exchange up till the middle of February for the current quarter, for which I owe him -=-. As for the other creditors, I have satisfied
(1) the most pressing with the £15 and am considering ways and means of putting together at least an instalment for the others. Your offer is very generous, and as soon as my workb is finished and out, the remainder will have to be made up through other commitments, or if that should not succeed, although I fully expect it will, we shall have to move somewhere cheaper, perhaps to Switzerland.
The Berlin letter is genuine.c Some days after it arrived, I received a letter about it from Liebknecht, who is in continuous contact with the Berliners. It also emerges from Liebknecht's letter that those curs from the Social-Demokrat would oh so dearly love to resume their ties with us. The kind of illusions Liebknecht is for ever indulging in can be seen from the following passage:
*'The people that have applied to you from Berlin, are our friends. If you could come, show yourself but once — the gain would be immense. Come if it is possible.'(2)
Surely Liebknecht ought to know that even if I could go to Berlin AT PRESENT, just as a VISITOR, I would have to be completely quiet and keep myself to myself and not address workers' clubs![254]
Liebknecht also writes:
20 1865
again for the first time tomorrow. T h e Parisians have published a report on the conference together with the programme we drew u p for the next congress. It appeared in all the liberal, quasi-liberal and republican papers in Paris.[255] You will see what a friendly reception it had from the following report by Fox on the last meeting of our COUNCIL which I am cutting out of The Workman's Advocate for you. O u r Parisians are somewhat taken aback that the para, on Russia and Poland which they did not wish to have, is the very one to create the biggest stir.[256] I hope that you will now use some of your leisure time to write the occasional article on one subject or another for the Advocate.
The Paris publication absolves m e from the trouble of writing a report on France.
The Jamaican business is typical of the utter turpitude of the 'TRUE ENGLISHMAN'.252 These fellows are as bad as the Russians in every respect. But, says the good old Times, these DAMNED ROGUES
ENJOYED 'ALL THE LIBERTIES OF AN A N G L O - S A X O N CONSTITUTION'.3 I . e . t h e y ENJOYED THE LIBERTY, amongst others, of having their hides taxed to raise money for the PLANTERS to import COOLIES and thus depress their own labour market below the minimum. And these English curs with their sensibilities sent u p an outcry about 'BEAST Butler' for hanging one man! and refusing to allow the former planters' diamond-spangled yellow womenfolk to spit in the faces of the FEDERAL SOLDIERS! The Irish affair[257] and the Jamaica BUTCHERIES were all that was needed after the American war ' ' to complete the unmasking of English hypocrisy!
Please do not forget to obtain the necessary data from Knowles for m e (and as soon as possible). AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGES, either for a MULE SPINNER, or for a female THROSTLE spinner; how much yarn (or cotton, that is, including the décheth that is lost in spinning) is spun per week ON AVERAGE by an AVERAGE NUMBER (or, for that matter, any number) by each individual; and then, of course, an arbitrary (corresponding to the labour-wage) price for the cotton and the price of yarn. I cannot write out the second chapter c [258] until I have these details.
Ernest Jones' address is now 47 Princess Street. Salut Your
K. M.
112. Marx to Hermann Jung. 20 November[259]
IN LONDON
[London,] 20 November 1865 * My dear Jung, The following are the questions:
I. Questions relating to the Association
1) Questions relating to its organisation.* 2) The establishment of friendly societies for the members of the Association.— Moral and material support to be given to the Association's orphans.
II. * Social Questions*
1) Co-operative labour. 2) Reduction of the hours of labour. 3) Female and children's labour. 4) * Trades Unions* Their past, their present, and their future. 5) Combination of efforts, by means of the International Association, in the struggle between capital and labour.
6) International Credit, foundation of international credit institu-tions, their form and their mode of operation.
7) Direct and Indirect Taxation. 8) Standing armies and their effects upon production. III. * International Politics* The need to eliminate Muscovite influence in Europe by applying the right of self-determination of nations, and the re-establishment of Poland upon a democratic and social basis.
IV. A Question of Philosophy The religious idea and its relation to social, political, and intellectual development.
*The other resolutions as to the Congress etc. you find in the number of The Workman's Advocate which contains the report on the three days' sittings of the Conference.[260]
Don't forget to ask for an official report on Vésinier. Send me the address of Kaub which I have mislaid.
Yours fraternally*
K. Marx
113. Marx to Wilhelm Liebknecht. 21 November(1)
My dear Miller,b
Since the conference[246] held at this place I fell again very sick. Afterwards I had to leave London for family affairs.[249] Hence my protracted silence. As to your report, I could not lay it before the conference, because I was too personally introduced in it.[261] As to your Berlin speech, there were some very disagreeable blunders in it which could only emanate from yourself, because they alluded to facts only known to you, but half forgotten and wrongly reproduced by you.c But this is a thing of the past.
I have received the Berlin letter, and I shall answer to it.d I have at present neither the time nor the means to go to Berlin. Even if I could, you know very well that all and every sort of agitation would be out of the question. The Prussian government has not in vain declared that the amnesty, as far as I was concerned, still excluded me from Prussia, and only gave me leave to travel as a Foreigner through the Bismarckian world.[154]
The Workman's Advocate I shall send you one of these days some numbers of. You can write to it on every subject you please, social or political. Till now it is a paper of good will, but very mediocre still. Of course, myself had and have not yet the time to contribute to it, although I am one of its Directors.[230] (By my continual relapse into damned ill health I was forced to interrupt the finishing of my booke and must now apply to it all my time, part of which is, with all that, absorbed by the International Association.) Engels has promised to contributef but not yet done so. And the same is the case with other people.
The Conference has resolved that a Public Congress is to take place at the end of May, at Geneva. A programme of questions to be there debated, has been resolved upon/ But nobody can assist who does not belong to a society connected with us, and being sent as a delegate of such society. I now call upon you very seriously (I shall do the same at Mayence through Stumpf, and shall write to the Berliners3 on it) to enter the Association with some men, few or many, we do not care. I shall send you cards which I have prepaid, so that you can give them away. But now work! Every society (whatever its number) can enbody itself by paying 5 shilling in the block. The cards, on the contrary, which cost each 1 shilling, give the right of individual membership, which is important for all workingmen going to Foreign countries. But treat this money matter as quite secondary. The principal thing is to get up members, individual or societies, in Germany. On the congress, Solingen was the only place represented (they had given power of delegation to our old friend Becker,b whom you are very mistaken in if you consider him as a tool of Megära Hatzfeldt).
The programme (of questions to be lead before Congress) I shall send you in my next letter. All the Paris liberal and republican papers have made great fuss about our Association. Henri Martin, the well known historian, had a most enthusiastic leader about it in the Siècle][256] I have heard nothing of Quenstedt[262]
A thing which will rather surprise you, is this: Shortly before the arrival of workingmen's letter from Berlin, I received from that very same place—'centre et foyer des lumières',0 of course — a letter on the part of— Lothar Bucher, inviting me to become the London money article writer of the Preussische Staatsanzeiger, and giving me to understand that everybody, der noch bei Lebzeiten im Staat wirken will, 'sich an die Regierung ralliiren' muss.d I have answered him by a few lines which he is not likely to exhibit.[263] Of course, you must not publish in the papers this affair, but you can communicate it, under the seal of discretion, to your friends.
Freiligrath's London shop — viz. the London branch of the Bank of Switzerland — will be shut up, never to be opened again, before 1866.e
Give my best compliments to Madame and Alice.'
Yours truly
A. Williams« Some curious letters, written long time since, during his stay at London, by Bernhard Becker to Dr Rode have fallen into my hands.
I have opened this letter again, and by that operation somewhat torn it, in order to add that, during the past spring I had sent a letter to Dr Kugelmann, together with cards of membership for our Association.(2) I have received no answer on his part.[264] The letter of which you speak has never arrived at my hands. Please, write him on this affair. If he writes to me, let him do so under the address of 'A. Williams, Esq.', and not the other one.
Briefwechsel mit Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, The Hague, 1963
114. Marx to César De Paepe. About 25 November[265]
I. Questions relating to the Association
1) Question of organisation. 2) System of friendly societies for the members of the Association. Moral and material support for the Association's orphans.
II. Social questions 1) Co-operative labour. 2) Reduction of the hours of labour. 3) Children's labour. 4) [Trades' Unions,] their past, their present, and their future. 5) [Combination] of efforts, by means of the International Association, in the struggle between capital and labour.
6) International credit, banking institution, mode of operation. 7) Direct and indirect taxation. 8) Standing armies and their effects upon production.b
115. Engels to Marx. 1 December
III. Questions of International Politics The need to reduce Muscovite influence in Europe by applying the rights of self-determination of nations, and the re-establishment of Poland upon a democratic and social basis.
IV. Question of Philosophy The religious idea and its relation to social, political and intellectual development.
115
ENGELS TO MARX[263]
IN LONDON
Manchester, 1 December 1865 Dear Moor,
Enclosed on the new month's account a further two five-pound notes, please to confirm receipt to me at 86 Mornington Street or if possible telegraph tomorrow early in the morning to 7 Southgate, as I'm not registering the letter this time because of the fuss.
As far as I can tell from the German newspapers, Prof. Eckardt(1)
is a South German democrat, one of the Swabians and Bavarians who seceded from the National Association.[152] It is not clear to me how we are supposed to collaborate with him, it's something like Kolatschek.
That the gentlemen from the Social-Demokrat would like to resume their ties with us is typical of that riff-raff. They think everyone is as much of a swine as they are. Bismarck seems to have realised how powerless they are and therefore to have thrown them out, so at last there's a trial and Schweitzer has been
116. Marx to Engels. 2 December
sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment.[266] B. Becker has now also detached himself from Schweitzer and given up his post as President of Mankind, so that everything is now falling apart just splendidly. So that it was not our intervention, but our non-intervention that put paid to the whole caboodle. This no doubt means that 'Lassalleanism' in its official form will soon come to the end of the line.
Every post brings news of worse atrocities in Jamaica.[252] The letters from the English officers about their heroic deeds against unarmed NIGGERS are beyond words. Here the spirit of the English army is at last expressing itself quite uninhibitedly. 'THE SOLDIERS ENJOY IT.' Even The Manchester Guardian has had to come out against the authorities in Jamaica this time.
Regarding The Workman's Advocate, I will see what can be done, meanwhile perhaps you could send the paper to me. You have no notion at all of the TROUBLE and chasing around involved here in obtaining these PENNY WEEKLY PAPERS which are not worth the bother to the NEWSAGENTS. You still do not get them even if you order and pay for them in advance. Or put MRS Burns down for a subscription with an order for the PAPER to be sent here by post.
Every good wish to MRS and MISSES.
Your
F. E. G/P 62563. London, 4 August 1865—£5 E/M 35757. Liverpool, 15 May "—" 5 How much is the bill for that you accepted, and when is it due?
116
MARX TO ENGELS
IN MANCHESTER
_, „ [London, 2 December 1865] Dear 1*RED,
I found your letter just as I arrived home (I was at the Museum[3] where I had some things to look up). I've just TIME to
117. Marx to Engels. 26 December
acknowledge the £ 1 0 with best thanks. I shall write more tomorrow.
Salut and COMPLIMENTS to MRS Lizzy.[3]
Your
K. M.
117
MARX T O ENGELS [3 3]
IN MANCHESTER
[London,] 26 December 1865
DEAR FRED,
Please forgive me for not thanking you on behalf of the FAMILY for the CHRISTMAS present until today, and indeed for not writing at all for so long. I have been so very BOTHERED ALL THAT TIME OVER and have wasted so much time dashing this way and that, transactions right and left to satisfy A, and thereby falling into the clutches of B, etc., that my work has been chiefly confined to the night, and the good intention to deal with correspondence the next day comes to grief every day.
With regard to the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION and all that that entails, it has consequently been weighing down on me like an INCUBUS, and I would be glad to be able to get rid of it. But that is impossible, least of all at the present time. O n the one hand, sundry bourgeois — Mr. Hughes, M.P., at their head — have conceived the idea of turning The Workman's Advocate into a proper funded paper, and as one of the DIRECTORS I MUST WATCH THE TRANSACTIONS, to prevent FOUL PLAY.230 O n the other hand, the Reform League, one of the organisations we founded, has had a trium-phant success at the St Martin's Hall MEETING, the largest and most purely working-class MEETING that has taken place since I have been living in London. T h e people from our COMMITTEE were at the head of it and put forward our ideas.[267] If I resigned tomorrow, the bourgeois element, which looks at us with displeasure in the wings (FOREIGN INFIDELS), would have the upper hand. With the complete failure of the workers' movement in Germany, the workers' elements in Switzerland have grouped themselves all the more around the sections of the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION there. In the middle of this month first number of the Journal de l'Association
Internationale des Travailleurs. Section de la Suisse Romande appeared in Geneva, and a German organ[268] will shortly appear under the editorship of Becker,(1) which has a chance on account of the Nordstern's demise and the discrediting of the Social-Demokrat. (Old Becker is desperate for articles and has asked me to write urgently to you about it, as pro nuncb he has no contributors.) Finally, in France the Association is making great progress, in the absence of any other centres of movement. So, if I were to resign in these circumstances, I should be doing very serious damage to the cause; but, on the other hand, since I have so little time just now, it is no trifle for me: ABOUT 3 MEETINGS in the West End or the City, EVERY WEEK first a session of the INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL, then of the STANDING COMMITTEE,[21] then of the DIRECTORS or SHAREHOLDERS of The Workman's Advocate] And in addition all manner of writing to do.
I have had a few lines from Liebknecht. He is living at 2 Gerichtsweg, Leipzig, to be addressed as J. Miller,c Esq. Things seem to be going badly with him as usual, but he seems to have some prospect of getting a position as a lexicographer, as well as of being granted civic rights in Leipzig, and becoming one of Beust's subjects.
Dr Kugelmann has also written to me.[264] Justus Möser's successor, the present mayor of Osnabrück, Mr Miquel, has now openly turned renegade; for the moment with bourgeois leanings, but 'already' veering in the aristocratic direction. A certain Wedekind, formerly consul SOMEWHERE, rolling in money and an enthusiastic National-Association member,[152] has rewarded him for his merits by making him his son-in-law. Kugelmann has seen 'gentle Heinrich"d in Cologne. He is now cosily installed as editor of the Rheinische Zeitung. He complained that I had not visited him in Cologne and was treating him as a 'turncoat', etc. He claimed always to have 'kept faith with the "cause"' and only to be working with the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy now 'to promote the evolution and clarification of the class contradictions'
118. Marx to Engels. End of 1865-beginning of 1866
(which in a speech in Cologne scarcely a year ago he declared
NON-EXISTENT), etc. Bonaparte appears to me shakier than ever. The business with the students[269] is symptomatic of ominous signs of conflict in the army itself, but above all the Mexico affair[270] and that original sin of the LOWER EMPIRE," debts ! Nor has the fellow managed to pull off a single coup in the past year. Indeed things have reached such a pass with him that Bismarck figures as a rival to him!
Palmerston's death has obviously been a blow here. If he were still alive, Governor Eyre would have been awarded the ordre pour le mérite !
Freiligrath is also ending the year with tremendous bad luck. Jew Reinach has closed down the business here, with a great brouhaha, coming to London expressly for the purpose.b Freiligrath, who owed the bank money anyway, suffered the further misfortune that 3 days before the ARRIVAL of the mighty Reinach one of his clerks absconded with £150. But still the old boy" has got powerful protection TO FALL BACK UPON. His Plonplonist[93] friends in Paris (e.g. EX-COLONEL Kiss, who married the daughter of the former French minister Thouvenel, a millionaire, and is now at the head of an enormous company) will find a new position for him soon enough.
Happy New Year! To MRS Lizzy,c too.
Your
K. M.
118
MARX TO ENGELS[271]
IN MANCHESTER
[London, end of 1865-beginning of 1866]
Appendix
While I was last staying in Manchester[249] you once asked me to explain differential calculus. The thing will be quite clear to you from the following example. The whole of differential calculus arose originally from the task of drawing tangents through any point on any curve. So, that is the example I am going to use for you.
Assume that the line nAo is any curve whose nature (whether it's a parabola, ellipse, etc.) is unknown to us and on which a tangent is to be drawn at point m.
Ax is the axis. We drop the perpendicular mP (the ordinate) onto the abscissa Ax. Now assume that point n is the infinitely closest point on the curve beside TO. If I drop a perpendicular np onto the axis, p must be the infinitely closest point to P and np the infinitely closest parallel line to mP. Now drop an infinitely small perpendicular mR onto np. If you now take the abscissa AP...X and the ordinate mP...y, then np = mP (or Rp), increased by an infinitely small increment [nR], or [nR] = dy (differential of y) and mR (=Pp)=dx. Since the part of the tangent mn is infinitely small, it coincides with the corresponding part of the curve itself. I can therefore regard mnR as a A(triangle), and the AmnR and mTP are similar triangles. Therefore: dy (=nR):dx(=mR) = = y(mP):PT (which is the subtangent of the tangent Tn). Thus, the
dx subtangent PT=y ——• We now have a general differential equation
for drawing the tangent at any points on any curves. If I am now to operate with this equation and to determine through it the length of the subtangent PT (once I have found this, I merely need to connect the points T and m by a straight line in order to have the tangent), so I need to know the specific character of the curve. According to its character (parabola, ellipse, cissoid, etc.), it will have a distinct form of general equation for its ordinate and abscissa at any point, which one can find in algebraic geometry. Thus, if the curve mAo, e.g., is a parabola, I know that y[2] (;y=the ordinate at any given point) = ax, where a is the parameter of the parabola and x is the abscissa corresponding to the ordinate y.
y^ If I put this value for y into the equation PT= , I must dy then work out dy, i.e. to find the differential of y (which represents an infinitely small increment of y). If yi=ax, I know from the differential calculus that from d(y[2])=d(ax) (I have to differentiate both sides of the equation, of course), it follows that
2y dy 2ydy=adx (d always means differential). Thus dx = . If I put ydx this value of dx into the formula PT=—~, I get
2y[2]dy 2y[2] 2ax y PT= = = (since y —ax) = = 2x. Or the subtangent of ady a a ° any point m on the parabola=twice the abscissa of the same point. The differential values are cancelled in the operation.
1 8 6 6
119
Endnotes
[83] The English original of this letter is published here for the first time. The letter was first published in a German translation in Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 31, Berlin, 1965, and in an English retranslation in Karl Marx, On the First International. Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1973.—60
[85] At its meeting of 29 December 1864, the Central Council decided to invite the bourgeois radicals Beesly, Beales and Harrison to a soirée to be held on 16 January 1865 to celebrate the founding of the International Working Men's Association. This decision was recorded in the Minutes of that meeting. The report of the meeting was not published, and Cremer, when sending the report of the next meeting, of 3 January 1865, to the newspapers, included the above-mentioned decision in it and recorded it for a second time in the Minute Book. Moreover, on his own initiative, Cremer inserted in the decision Grossmith's name who, as a Central Council member, did not have to be specially invited. As is evident from Jung's reply letter to Marx of 11 January, Marx's protest against the inclusion of Grossmith's name was read out at the Central Council meeting of 10 January; Cremer admitted his mistake, and Grossmith's name was deleted from the Minutes of the meeting of 3 January.— 61
[86] Engels is probably referring to the operations by the Confederate army under General Lee in northern Virginia in the spring and summer of 1863. One of its corps was commanded by Longstreet. Successful counter-attacks on the part of the Confederates led to their victory at Chancellorsville on 2-4 May 1863. Lee's troops began to invade the territory beyond the Potomac and marched to Washington. But in the Battle of Gettysburg on 1-3 July, Lee's army sustained heavy losses and was compelled to retreat beyond the Potomac. General Hood, who succeeded Johnston as commander of the Confederate troops, undertook two major counter-attacks on 20 and 22 July 1864 against General Sherman's army, concentrated at die time to the north and east of Adanta (see Note 75). The attempt to throw back Sherman's troops failed and Hood's army retreated, taking cover in Atlanta.—61
[87] Military operations confirmed Engels' prognosis. The city of Charleston (South Carolina) on the Atlantic coast of the USA was captured by the Northerners on 17 February 1865.—61
[88] The first three issues of Der Social-Demokrat were specimens. On 4 January 1865, No. 4 appeared, the first regular issue for the subscribers. When it was confiscated by the police, Marx congratulated Schweitzer, the editor, on the occasion and emphasised that an open break with Bismarck's ministry was necessary (see K. Marx, 'Statement Regarding the Causes of the Breach with the Social-Demokrat', present edition, Vol. 20).—63
[89] Bloomer costume or Bloomer—female costume of short skirt and trousers introduced in the 1850s by the American dress reformer, Amelia Jenks Bloomer (1818-1894). Davenport tricks were practised by the Davenport brothers, two American circus artists, in the 1860s.—64
[90] Marx is referring to 'Botschaft des Präsidenten', a message by Bernhard Becker, President of the General Association of German Workers, to the delegates of the general assembly of the Association that opened on 27 December 1864 in Düsseldorf (see notes 16 and 82). It was published in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 3, 30 December 1864 and contained a hint that the Association could not establish close ties with the International because that would allegedly damage its organisation and did not promise to be of any practical value.—65
[91] In his report from Paris, dated 10 January 1865 and published in Der Social-Demokrat on 13 January, Moses Hess misrepresented the efforts of the Central Council of the International Association to draw French workers into its ranks. He alleged that the Council was essentially unscrupulous in selecting its representatives in Paris and accused Tolain and certain other French members of the International of having ties with the Bonapartists (see Marx's letter to Engels of 25 January 1865). Hess repeated this accusation in his report from Paris printed in the newspaper on 1 February, following which Marx and Engels wrote a statement to Der Social-Demokrat refuting this false accusation (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 36).—65
[92] The letter was published in English for the first time (without the postscripts) in Karl Marx, On the First International Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1973.—65
[94] Marx's letter to Paris, presumably addressed to Victor Schily, has not been found.—66
[96] Sections of the International Associations began to be set up in Switzerland immediately after the press reports about the inaugural meeting at St Martin's Hall. On 11 October 1864, a group of Geneva workers headed by François Dupleix, a bookbinder, formed a provisional committee to establish contacts with the workers of other countries. At the Central Council meeting on 24 January 1865 the news about the Geneva workers' intention to affiliate to the International was met with approval. Hermann Jung, the Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland, sent Dupleix the Rules of the International Working Men's Association; he also advised the Swiss workers, in the name of the Central Council, to set up a Central Committee for the whole of Switzerland. The above-mentioned soirée to celebrate the founding of the International Working Men's Association was arranged on 16 January 1865 at Cambridge Hall, London.—66
[102] Engels' letter to the editors of Der Social-Demokrat in which he asked them to send him projects for the reorganisation of the Prussian army has not been found.—69
[103] p a r t 0f thj s ] e t t e r w a s published in English for the first time in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1955.— 70, 281
[104] By Hess' 'expulsion from Brussels' Marx means his departure from Belgium's capital in March 1846 due to the aggravated ideological struggle between the Brussels Communist Correspondence Committee, headed by Marx and Engels, and the representatives of petty-bourgeois 'true socialism' of which Hess was one of the spokesmen. By the 'ejection from Cologne' Marx means Hess' forced departure from Rhenish Prussia in the spring of 1848, when Marx and Engels thwarted the attempt of Hess and his followers to take over from the proletarian revolutionaries the initiative in starting a revolutionary democratic newspaper in Cologne.—70
[105] Marx realised this intention in a footnote to the Preface to the first German edition (1867) of Volume One of Capital (see present edition, Vol. 35).—71, 329
[106] Neither letters nor written statements by Marx to the editor of Der Social-Demokrat have been found.—71
[107] A reference to the workers' right to organise trade unions and to go on strike. In January 1865 the Prussian Provincial Diet debated the right of association in connection with the workers' opposition to the trade regulations then in force. Two members of the Party of Progress, Schulze-Delitzsch and Faucher, used the occasion to have the articles restraining capitalism repealed. They proposed to revoke Article 181, which forbade employers to resort to lockouts, and also demagogically demanded the cancellation of Article 182 concerning the punishment of workers for incitement to strike. The workers in turn wanted the repeal of Article 183 which made them obtain police permission to form associations, and of Article 184 banning strikes. On 14 February 1865 the Prussian Provincial Diet annulled Articles 181 and 182 and left the workers' demand for freedom of association unsatisfied.— 71
[109] Yhe Ten Hours' Bill the struggle for which had been waged for many years, was passed by Parliament in 1847, against a background of sharply intensified contradictions between the landed aristocracy and the industrial bourgeoisie, generated by the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. In revenge on the industrial bourgeoisie, some Tory MPs supported the Bill. Its provisions applied only to women and children. Nevertheless, many manufacturers evaded it in practice.— 71
[110] In his letter to Marx of 30 January 1865, Wilhelm Strohn wrote that he had seen the Hamburg publisher Otto Meissner who agreed to publish Marx's Capital on share principles. Meissner wanted to have the manuscript for study (see also Note 66). Strohn also wrote that Meissner had received, through a certain Siebold, offers from Arnold Ruge and Karl Blind concerning the publication of periodicals, and that Ferdinand Freiligrath had promised to contribute to Blind's republican newspaper.—72
[114] The Literary Society of the Friends of Poland was founded in Paris in April 1832 by the aristocratic-monarchist Polish emigres under Adam Czartoryski. Its London branch was set up in the same year with the help of English aristocrats from among the Whig Party.— 73
[113] The Emancipation Society was founded in London in November 1862 by English bourgeois radicals. It supported the London Trades Council (see Note 18) in its campaign against Britain's interference in the US Civil War (1861-65) on the side of the South (see Note 11). Among its leading figures were Edmond Beales, Edward Beesly and John Stuart Mill.—73, 74, 86
[119] On 1 February 1865 Carl Siebel wrote to Marx that he had met Carl Klings after the general assembly of the Lassallean General Association of German Workers in Düsseldorf at the end of December 1864. Therefore Marx's recommendation to Klings, sent through Siebel, that the general assembly should propose the Association's affiliation to the International, reached him too late (see Note 82).—75, 78
[122] Der Social-Demokrat, No. 16 for 1 February 1865, published an item 'Paris, 28.Januar. Internationale Arbeiter-Association.—Geldkrisis' (signed H). It repeated the libel that the French members of the International (Henri Tolain and Charles Limousin) were in contact with the Bonapartists (see Note 91).— 75
[123] The coup d'état in Prussia in November-December 1848 resulted in the dissolution of the National Assembly (convened in Berlin in May 1848 to draw up a constitution). The constitution imposed ('granted') by the King introduced a two-chamber system; the First Chamber was transformed by age and property qualifications into a privileged 'chamber of the nobility'. According to the electoral law of 6 December 1848, the right to vote in the two-stage elections to the Second Chamber was granted only to the so-called independent Prussians. In April 1849 Frederick William IV dissolved this Chamber and promulgated a new electoral law on 30 May which established a three-class election system based on high property qualifications and unequal representation of the various strata of the population.— 76
[126] Marx forwarded to Engels Wilhelm Liebknecht's letter of 4 February 1865 in which Liebknecht treated collaboration on Der Social-Demokrat as a compromise with the Lassalleans. He also described his material hardships and asked Marx to find a place for him as a schoolmaster in northern England or Scotland. Marx's postscript to this letter to Engels (originally written at the end of Liebknecht's letter) was published in previous editions as a separate letter.—80, 81
[127] On 8 February 1865, War Minister Roon spoke in the Chamber of Deputies about his Bill on changes in and addenda to the Prussian law on military service. These changes signified minor concessions to the opposition bourgeois majority in the Chamber and did not resolve the constitutional conflict (see Note 100).—83
[128] Marx supported Lefort's appointment as the International's literary defender in Paris because he had gathered from Schily's letter of 5 February 1865 that the conflict in the Paris Section (see Note 95) had been resolved. He hoped this would help to draw French workers active in the co-operative movement into the International and also to utilise the journal L'Association for propagating the International's ideas. When translating the Provisional Rules of the Association into French, at the end of 1864, the Proudhonist leaders of the Paris Section distorted the text in some places. In particular, in the third paragraph of the Preamble to the Rules ('That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means'), the words 'as a means' were omitted.—85
[130] On 27 March 1849 the Frankfurt National Assembly, elected in April-May 1848 to draw up an all-German Constitution, adopted a law introducing direct universal suffrage. The law was published by the Imperial Regent, Archduke John, in an official government edition on 12 April 1849. Since, however, the King of Prussia and other German princes had rejected the Imperial Constitution drawn by the National Assembly, the law was not put into effect.—87
[131] This letter by Engels has not been found.—88, 99, 174, 445, 448, 467, 475, 481, 513, 534, 566
[132] The Tory Chartists or Tory philanthropists—representatives of a trend among England's conservative politicians and writers in the 1830s-50s, including the Young England group, whose members (Disraeli and Ferrand among them) founded a separate group in the House of Commons in 1841. Voicing the discontent of the landed aristocracy at the growing economic and political power of the bourgeoisie, the Tory philanthropists criticised the capitalist system and supported the half-hearted measures for improving the condition of the workers. However, they adopted a hostile attitude to the independent revolutionary working-class movement.— 88
[133] Marx forwarded Engels a letter from Johann Baptist Schweitzer of 11 February 1865. It was written in reply to the statement by Marx and Engels concerning Hess' insinuations against the French members of the International. In his letter Schweitzer promised to publish immediately an item by Hess admitting his assertions to be erroneous (see Note 125). Below Marx drew Engels' attention to this item.— 89
[137] The Order of the Swan, a German mediaeval religious order of knights, was founded in Brandenburg in 1443 and disintegrated during the Reformation. In 1843 Frederick William IV of Prussia made an abortive attempt to restore this Order, hoping that its philanthropic activity would enhance the prestige of the Prussian monarchy which, he claimed, had a social mission.— 90
[140] At a meeting of the Central Council of the International held on 14 February 1865, Marx read out Ernest Jones' letter to him of 10 February, which was a reply to Marx's letter of 1 February (Marx's letter is not extant) and written with a view to being read at the Council. Jones agreed with Marx's plan for drawing the broad mass of British workers into the electoral reform movement.— 91
[141] Marx forwarded to Engels a letter from a Cologne worker, G. Matzeratt, to Friedrich Lessner dated 8 January 1865. Matzeratt wrote about the disagreements between Bernhard Becker and Carl Klings in the General Association of German Workers. On behalf of a group of the Association's members, he asked Lessner to inquire about Marx's opinion and help them to clarify the matter. As can be seen from Engels' letter to Marx of 7 February 1865, Becker gained the upper hand over Klings (see this volume, p. 82).—94
[142] During the debate on the right of combination in the Prussian Chamber of Deputies (see Note 107), Hermann Heinrich Becker, a deputy from Dortmund, moved a proposal, on 11 February 1865, that the right of combination be extended to the agricultural labourers as well. He also proposed to abolish the law of 24 April 1854 on the punishment of servants and day labourers for the violation of their duties.—94
[143] Thi s refers to Liebknecht's withdrawal from the editorial board of Der Social-Demokrat, of which Liebknecht informed Marx in a letter dated 16-17 February 1865.—94, 108
[144] -phe passage in Schweitzer's letter of 15 February 1865 to Marx, written in reply to Marx's letter of 13 February, reads as follows: 'If you wish to enlighten me, as in your last letter, on theoretical questions, I would gratefully accept such instruction on your part. But as regards the practical questions of immediate tactics I beg you to consider that in order to assess these things one must be in the centre of the movement. You are therefore doing us an injustice if you express your dissatisfaction with our tactics anywhere and anyhow. You should only do this if you were absolutely familiar with conditions.'—95
[145] Marx is referring to the third article in Schweitzer's series Das Ministerium Bismarck. It was published in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 23, 17 February 1865, i.e. after Marx's demand for a stop to the flirtation with Bismarck. In these articles Schweitzer supported Bismarck's policy of unifying Germany under the supremacy of Prussia and approved of the Prussian government's demagogical attempts to show that it favoured a solution to the labour question.—95, 104
[146] A reference to the 'liberal' course announced by Prince William of Prussia (King of Prussia from 1861) when he became Regent in October 1858. He made the Manteuffel Ministry resign and called the moderate liberals to power. The bourgeois press dubbed this the policy of the 'New Era'. It was, in fact, solely intended to strengthen the position of the Prussian monarchy and the Junkers. This soon became clear to the representatives of the liberal opposition whose hopes had been deceived and who refused to approve the government project of a military reform. The constitutional conflict (see Note 100) that ensued and Bismarck's advance to power in September 1862 put an end to the 'New Era'.—96, 103
[147] Marx refers to the journal of German petty-bourgeois democrats, Der deutsche Eidgenosse, published in London and Hamburg from 1865 to 1867. Among its editors were Karl Blind, Ludwig Büchner, Ferdinand Freiligrath, Ludwig Feuerbach and Ernst Haug.— 97
[149] -phe full text of the letter has not been found. This excerpt has been preserved in Marx's Notebook for 1865; it is also quoted by Marx in a letter to Engels of 25 February 1865 (see this volume, pp. 107-08).—101
[65] This letter was published in English for the first time in Karl Marx, Letters to Dr. Kugelmann, Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad, 1934.—45, 101, 220, 262, 311, 325, 327, 329, 346, 379, 395, 440, 449, 489, 496, 521, 528, 543, 551
[153] On 20 March 1848, King Frederick William IV of Prussia declared that he was ready, for the salvation of Germany's unity and freedom, to 'assume the leadership of the whole nation'. Hence the phrase 'Prussian leadership' ("preussische Spitze'), which won currency as a euphemism for Prussia's efforts to unite the country under its supremacy.—103
[156] The Combination Law of 11 March 1850 in force in Prussia banned all societies that established contacts with other organisations abroad. Hence, this law prevented the setting up of societies in Germany connected with the International Association and the affiliation to it of those already existing. Therefore, as far back as February 1865 Marx proposed to accept the form of individual membership in Germany that would allow to evade the existing laws, and that proved to be a rather flexible means of drawing the advanced German workers into the ranks of the International.—105
[62] Der Beobachter, No. 268, 17 November 1864 carried an anonymous report from Bradford, which was a reply to the criticism of Blind in the newspaper's leading article 'Bescheidenheit — ein Ehrenkleid' published on 21 October 1864 (see Note 38). The anonymous writer exaggerated Blind's role in the political life of the USA. He also attempted to dispute the reference of the leader's author to the description of Blind by Marx in his Herr VogJ,and to refute the pamphlet's revelations concerning Blind's cowardly attitude towards Vogt's slanderous campaign against proletarian revolutionaries (see Note 48). All this prompted Marx to write a letter to the editor of Der Beobachter on 28 November 1864 (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 23-25). At the request of Sophie von Hatzfeldt, a friend of Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx also came out in this letter against Blind's attacks on Lassalle.—41, 42, 44, 51, 107
[160] T h e 'Resolutions of the Central Council on the Conflict in the Paris Section', adopted on 7 March 1865 (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 82-83), acknowledged as erroneous the view typical of the Proudhonists, in particular the Administration of the Paris Section of the International, that only a worker can be an official in a workers' organisation. This Proudhonist view was ultimately rejected by the Geneva Congress of the International held in September 1866 (see Noie 380).—109
[161] Participation in the solidarity meeting with the Polish national liberation movement, called to mark the first anniversary of the Polish insurrection of 1863-64, was discussed by the Central Council on 21 February 1865. The following resolution was adopted unanimously: 'That the Central Council of the International Working Men's Association lend their unreserved support to the commemorative meeting for Poland on March 1st at St Martin's Hall, and they invite the attendance thereat of their friends.'—109
[162] On 24 February 1865, The Morning Star printed a notice, 'German Democracy', obviously written by Karl Blind, about the forthcoming publication of the journal Der deutsche Eidgenosse (see Note 147).— 110
[164] Engels is referring to the silence of the German press over his anonymously published pamphlets Po and Rhine (1859) and Savoy, Nice and the Rhine (1860) (see present edition, Vol. 16).— 111
[163] Engels' notice announcing the publication of his pamphlet The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 81) was printed anonymously in a number of German papers with the help of Carl Siebel, Johann Klein and Wilhelm Liebknecht (Engels' letters to Klein and Liebknecht requesting to publish the notice have not been found). The notice was published anonymously in Berliner Reform (No. 53), Düsseldorfer Zeitung (No. 62), Elberfelder Zeitung (No. 62) and Rheinische Zeitung (No. 62) on 3 March 1865; Oberrheinische Courier (No. 56) on 7 March, and others. Moreover, on 9 March the Rheinische Zeitung carried a special article 'Für die Arbeiterpartei' about Engels' pamphlet containing long passages from it.— 111, 112
[167] Marx succeeded in having items about Engels' The Prussian Military Question and the German Workers' Party published in the German-language newspapers in London. On 17 March 1865 such an item appeared in the Londoner Anzeiger, and on 18 March the Hermann published, also anonymously, Marx's review of the pamphlet (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 85-86). Marx's letter to Ludwig Kugelmann, mentioned above, concerning the popularisation of Engels' pamphlet has not been found.—114
[170] The Prussian authorities managed to suppress the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, published by Marx and Engels during the 1848-49 revolution in Germany, by means of repressive measures against its editors. On 16 May 1849, its editor-in-chief Marx, who had just returned from his trip to Northern Germany, was ordered to leave Prussia within 24 hours on the pretext that he was a foreigner who had no Prussian citizenship and had violated the rights of hospitality. Ernst Dronke and Georg Weerth, members of the editorial board, were deported for the same reasons, while Engels was prosecuted for participating in an uprising in Elberfeld, Rhine Province. The last issue of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, printed in red ink, appeared on 19 May 1849.—118
[171] The People's Bank (Credit au travail) was founded in Paris in 1863 by the petty-bourgeois socialist Jean Pierre Béluze to grant credits to producer and consumer co-operative societies and draw workers' savings to promote the co-operative movement. It existed until 1868.—119
[172] The first issue of Der deutsche Eidgenosse, of 15 March 1865, published Karl Blind's address to all friends inviting them to contribute to the journal, as well as Gustav Struve's article, 'Die "Teig-Gesichter" in Deutschland', and Gustav Rasch's 'Ein Immortellenkranz auf das Grab eines Märtyrers (Max Dortu)'. On the title page of the journal an emblem consisting of a hand with dagger was printed with the inscription in Latin: 'Manus haec inimica tyrannies' ('This hand is the Enemy of Tyrants').—119
[15] Lassalle spoke before the Düsseldorf assizes on 27 June 1864. His speech was first published in the Düsseldorfer Zeitung Nos. 176-78 for 1864, and appeared separately under the title Prozeß gegen den Schriftsteller Herrn Ferdinand Lassalle, verhandelt zu Düsseldorf vor der korrektioneilen Appelkammer am 27. Juni 1864, Düsseldorf, 1864.—12, 38
[27] The original has 'inneren Düppel', an expression first used in the meaning of 'enemy within' in a political survey published in the Bismarckian Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on 30 September 1864. It became widely current later. Düppel (Dybböl)—Danish fortification in Schleswig which the Prussians captured by storm on 18 April 1864, during the war of Prussia and Austria against Denmark (see Note 9).—19, 121, 254, 256, 263
[176] This refers to the military operations between the allied Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese troops under Wellington and those of Napoleonic France on the Peninsula in 1808-14, and to the Crimean war, 1853-56, between Britain, France, Turkey and later Piedmont, on the one hand, and Tsarist Russia, on the other. The battle of Alma took place during the Crimean war, on 20 September 1854. It was the first battle after the Allies' landing at Eupatoria in the Crimea on 14 September. The defeat and withdrawal of the Russian troops opened up the way to Sevastopol for the Allies.—122
[178] In his comments on the statement of Herwegh and Rüstow, Schweitzer quoted Blind's article (see Note 173) mentioning the following passage from Marx's private letter of condolence to Sophie von Hatzfeldt, written on 12 September 1864 on the occasion of Lassalle's death: 'He died young, at a time of triumph, as an Achilles' (see present edition, Vol. 41, p. 563). These words taken from the letter, without Marx's knowledge and consent, were published in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 1, 15 December 1864, over his signature and were used to extol Lassalle. In due time Marx lodged a protest against this breach of ethics on Schweitzer's part.—129
[179] Marx realised his intention by writing, on 15 March 1865, the 'Statement Regarding the Causes of the Breach with the Social-Demokrat'. It was published in the Berliner Reform (No. 67) on 19 March 1865 (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 87-90).—129
[168] The meeting to mark the anniversary of the Polish insurrection of 1863-64 was held in St Martin's Hall, London, on 1 March 1865. It was initiated by the British National League for the Independence of Poland (see Note 97), and the Central Council of the International contributed much to preparing and conducting it (see Note 161). The British bourgeois press, the London liberal Daily News included, covered the speeches Beales, Leverson and other bourgeois radicals made at the meeting, but passed over in silence a resolution submitted on behalf of the International and the speeches of Peter Fox and Georg Eccarius, the Central Council members. A full report of the meeting appeared in The Bee-Hive Newspaper (No. 177) on 4 March 1865, and Marx used it when writing his notice entitled 'A Correction' and intended for the Zurich Der weiße Adler, which reproduced a garbled report from the British newspapers (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 97-98).—114, 130, 143
[182] In its issue No. 299 of 4 March 1865, the Nordstern, published by Karl Bruhn, carried two leading articles in which the editors came out against any compromise with the government and described people of Schweitzer's type as intriguers.—130
[183] This refers to the resolutions on the conflict in the Paris Section (see Note 95) adopted by the Central Council of the International on 7 March 1865. No letter from Marx to Cremer has been found, nor has the letter to Schily of 13 March 1865, which he wanted to send.—131
[184] On 12 March 1865 Jung wrote to tell Marx that the Central Council had instructed him to draw up a summary of the conflict in the Paris Section for the information of the International's members in France, and asked Marx to help him in the matter. On 18 March Marx met Jung and handed him his written remarks on the latter's document. (For Marx's comments, entitled 'Memorandum to Hermann Jung about the Conflict in the Paris Section', see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 331-36.)—132
[185] The Berliner Reform of 3 March, the Rheinische Zeitung of 4 March 1865 and other German papers published a report on Marx's and Engels' break with Der Sociat-Demokrat which Wilhelm Liebknecht made on 28 February in the Berlin Printers' Association that declared its adhesion to the International. The printers approved of Marx and Engels' statement of 23 February and Liebknecht's refusal to contribute to Der Social-Demokrat.—134
[186] On 11 March 1865, the Nordstern (No. 300) published a protest by Georg Herwegh, Friedrich Wilhelm Rüstow and Friedrich Reusche. It was against a report in Der Social-Demokrat, of 26 February 1865, which said that Lassalle was flirting with the Prussian monarchy. The authors of the protest asserted that Lassalle did not show any special respect for the King of Prussia and that the report's allegations were unfounded.—134
[188] Marx criticised the Ricardian 'law of population' in the first volume of Capital (see the English edition published in 1887 under Engels' editorship: Part VII, Chapter XXV, Section 3, and the present edition, Vol. 35).—137
[189] Malthus' plagiarisms in his An Essay on the Principle of Population, as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and other Writers are mentioned by Marx in the first volume of Capital (see the English edition published in 1887 under Engels' editorship: Part VII, Chapter XXV, Section 1, and the present edition, Vol. 35).—137
[191] Schulze-Delitzsch, a German bourgeois economist and a leader of the Party of Progress, supported small savings banks and loan offices, and consumer and producer co-operatives based on the workers' own means, with the aim of diverting workers from the revolutionary struggle against capital. Schulze-Delitzsch advocated harmony of capitalists' and workers' interests, asserting that co-operatives could help improve workers' conditions under capitalism and save small producers and artisans from ruin.—138
[193] Lefort's statement about his withdrawal from the International was published in L'Association, No. 6, April 1865.—140
[195] In his letters to Engels, dated 10 January and 1 April 1865, Sigismund Borkheim wrote that Adolph Kolatschek, an Austrian journalist, intended to resume publication of the Stimmen der Zeit and invited Marx and Engels to contribute to it. Kolatschek's intention did not materialise.—141
[197] This letter has reached us as a draft in Marx's notebook for 1865. The notebook also reproduced the text attached to the letter of the Central Council official resolution of 11 April 1865, signed by Odger, the President, and Cremer, the General Secretary of the Council, appointing Marx Corresponding Secretary for Belgium pro tern instead of Le Lubez who abandoned this post. The following postscript was entered in the notebook: 'Letter sent on Monday, 17 April 1865.'—144
[198] In his article 'Falsche Freunde und offene Feinde', published in the Nordstern, No. 304, on 8 April 1865, Friedrich Reusche defended Georg Herwegh, Friedrich Rüstow and Johann Philipp Becker whom Bernhard Becker called 'false friends' for their refusal to co-operate on Der Social-Demokrat (see Note 173). Written in a melodramatic tone, the article refers to the oath given by the above-mentioned men to the dying Lassalle to bring his cause to a finish, and calls Bernhard Becker, Schweitzer and their followers 'venal mercenaries and tools of reaction'. By mentioning Willich 's apple-tree Engels means the oath which Willich and his volunteer corps gave under an apple-tree during the Baden-Palatinate uprising in 1849; better die on German soil than go back into exile. However, as a result of the insurgents' defeat, Willich's corps was compelled to cross the Swiss frontier. Engels described this episode in his letter to Marx of 23 November 1853 which Marx included in his pamphlet The Knight of the Noble Consciousness (see present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 489-93).—147
[55] The Low Church—a trend in the Anglican Church which laid special emphasis on Christian morality; its following originally consisted predominantly of the bourgeoisie and the lower clergy. Pietism—a trend in the Lutheran Church that emerged in Germany in the seventeenth century. Distinguished by extreme mysticism, it rejected rites and attached special importance to personal religious experience.— 36, 426
[201] This refers to the 'Address of Germans to the American Nation' written on the occasion of the assassination of US President, Abraham Lincoln, on 14 April 1865 and published in The Times, No. 25171, 28 April 1865.—151
[202] Engels is referring to the report from Solingen, published in the Nordstern, No. 307, 29 April 1865, on the meeting of the Solingen section of the General Association of German Workers. The section was in opposition to Bernhard Becker, President of the Association. Its members formed a community of their own and dissociated themselves from those sections which continued to recognise Becker's leadership. In opposition to Der Social-Demokrat edited by Schweitzer, they declared the Nordstern the official organ of the Association. In September 1865 the Solingen community constituted itself as a section of the International in Germany.— 152
[203] At the battle of Jena (14 October 1806) the French army, commanded by Napoleon, routed the Prussian army, thus forcing Prussia to surrender.—153, 256, 277
[204] According to a report from Cologne published in the Nordstern, No. 308, 6 May 1865, the growing opposition to Bernhard Becker, President of the General Association of German Workers, compelled him to raise the question of confidence at the meeting of the Association's local branches in Cologne. The majority of the meeting walked out, and of the remaining 24 members only 15 voted for Becker.—154
[208] In its issue No. 58 (the literary section) of 10 May 1865, Der Social-Demokrat reprinted from the Allgemeine Zeitung (of 29 April 1865, supplement) a commentary on Wuttke's Städtebuch des Landes Posen. In this book Wuttke tried to prove that the Germans had an inherent right to the Polish lands.—156
[209] In his report from Paris published in the supplement to issue No. 57 of Der Social-Demokrat of 7 May 1865, Moses Hess again slandered the French members of the International (see notes 95 and 122).—157
[212] At the elections to the Geneva Cantonal Council in August 1864 the radical James Fazy, who headed the canton's government in 1846-53 and 1855-61, suffered a crushing defeat because of the exposure of his financial machina-tions as President of the Banque Générale Suisse. After the elections Fazy's followers made an armed attack on some of those who voted against him. When Swiss government troops arrived in Geneva, Fazy had to flee to France.—158, 185, 237
[213] A reference to the correspondence between Le Lubez, the Corresponding Secretary of the Central Council of the International for France, and Henri Lefort, the International's correspondent in Neufchâteau, during the conflict in the Paris Section of the International (see Note 95). Le Lubez tried to set Lefort against the Central Council and the Paris Administration.—158
[215] A German translation of Marx's 'Address from the Working Men's International Association to President Johnson' (see Note 206) was published in Chicago, Sonntags-Zeitung, 4 June 1865.—161
[214] From May to August 1865 the Central Council of the International discussed economic questions raised by John Weston. Apart from the speech made at the special Council meeting of 20 May 1865 whose minutes have not survived, Marx delivered a report on the subject at the Council meetings on 20 and 27 June, known as 'Wages, Price and Profit'. This report was not printed in the lifetimes of Marx and Engels. It was first prepared for the press by Marx's daughter, Eleanor, and published with Edward Aveling's preface, as a pamphlet in London in 1898 under the title Value, Price and Profit. In the present edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels it is printed under this title (see Vol. 20, pp. 101-49).—160, 162
[218] In a letter written at the end of May-early June 1865, Liebknecht asked Marx whether he knew Dr Kugelmann from Hanover and supposed that Kugelmann was a friend of Pieper's and adhered to 'communism'. In the 1850s, while in exile in London, Pieper was a friend of Marx and Engels. From 1859 he lived in Bremen and late in February 1864 he visited Marx in London.—165
[219] Liebknecht's letter to Marx of 13 May 1865 contained a postscript from Paul Stumpf from Mainz who visited Berlin at the time. Stumpf wrote to Marx that he had sent him a letter ten days ago through Bruhn from Hamburg, in which he asked Marx for his opinion on the disagreements between the Nordstern and Der Social-Demokrat, on the situation in the General Association of German Workers and the position of its President, Bernhard Becker. Stumpf also asked Marx about his latest works and those of Engels and whether he had received the letter.—165
[220] Marx here speaks ironically about the assertions in Liebknecht's letters that the International was widely supported in Germany.—165
[221] This refers to Countess Sophie von Hatzfeldt's lawsuit and to Ferdinand Lassalle's mother who challenged Lassalle's will.—165
[222] The Permissive Bill empowered parishes to grant licences for the sale of alcoholic beverages. From 1864 to 1877 it was repeatedly introduced in the British Parliament.—168
[223] In the 1850s Windmill Street, Soho, was the seat of the German Workers' Educational Society in London (see Note 150).—168
[225] The reference is to a series of banquets in favour of electoral reform that took place in France from July 1847 to January 1848 and became a prelude to the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1848.—169
[226] Marx wrote this letter to Léon Fontaine after he had become acquainted with the state of affairs in Belgium from the letter of Charles Limousin, a French member of the International who visited Belgium, to Eugène Dupont, the Central Council's Corresponding Secretary for France, the letter being dated 6 July 1865. In the summer of 1865, a group of Brussels workers discontent with Fontaine's inertness decided to set up a section of the International in Belgium. However, they met with Fontaine's resistance: he demanded that he should be acknowledged as the only representative of the Central Council of the International. On 17 July a Belgian Section was organised with the active participation of César De Paepe. It elected a provisional committee which established direct contacts with Marx and the Central Council. Marx's letter to Léon Fontaine has been preserved as a draft in Marx's notebook for 1865. The letter was first published in English in Karl Marx, On the First International. Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1973.—170
[227] After the publication of Part One of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy in 1859, Marx wrote a voluminous economic manuscript in 1861-63 which is a second, after the manuscript of 1857-58, detailed rough version of his future Capital. By 1863, Marx had finally decided to publish his work in 22« four books: the first three books — theoretical, and the fourth — historical-literary. Having completed the 1861-63 manuscript, in August 1863 Marx began preparing his Capital for the press. In the course of this work he wrote a third preparatory version of Capital—the Economic Manuscript of 1863-65 consisting of three theoretical books (the outline of the fourth book, Theories of Surplus Value, was in the 1861-63 manuscript). Subsequendy, having finished them, Marx again returned to the first book. On Engels' advice he decided to publish it before the others were ready. Marx gave the finishing touches to it in 1866 and most of 1867. The first German edition of the first book — Volume One of Capital—appeared in September 1867. As agreed with Otto Meissner, a Hamburg publisher, the second and third books, devoted to the analysis of the process of circulation of capital and the forms of capitalist production as a whole, were to be published as Volume Two of Capital, and the fourth book, on the 'history of economic theories', as the concluding volume, Volume Three, of Capital. However, during his lifetime Marx did not manage to prepare the last books of Capital for the press. It was Engels who after Marx's death did this and published his manuscripts of the second and third books, as Volume Two (1885) and Volume Three (1894) of Capital. Engels also intended to publish the above-mentioned manuscript of the fourth book, as Volume Four of Capital, but did not materialise this intention during his lifetime. In the present edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, this book is included in the Economic Manuscript of 1861-63 (vols 30-34), while the first three volumes of Capital published in vols 35-37.—173, 227, 312
[228] By Jacob Grimm's method Marx means the method Jacob and his brother Wilhelm used in compiling their German Dictionary. It was published in instalments, beginning in 1832; each was prepared independently from one another.—173
[229] The English translation of Volume One of Capital by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, edited by Engels, was published after Marx's death, in 1887. Eleanor Marx-Aveling took an active part in preparing this edition.—173, 394, 436, 499
[232] An aliens act was passed in Belgium as early as 1835 and was renewed every three years. Despite widespread protests by the Belgian press and the public, this law was renewed for the tenth time at the end of June 1865.—174
[233] Thg reference is to the terms of the 1865 agreement between Marx and the Hamburg publisher Otto Meissner on which Marx's Capital was to be printed. The text of the agreement was sent to Marx by Meissner in his letter of 21 March 1865 (see Note 66). The date of the agreement was not indicated. As preliminarily agreed, the whole of Capital was to be printed simultaneously in two volumes, each not exceeding the agreed number of printed sheets (about 50). In 1867 Meissner agreed to change the terms: to print the entire work in three volumes, publishing them at different time and enlarging the size of each volume (see Marx's letter to Engels of 13 April 1865, this volume, p. 357). Meissner left it to Marx's discretion to decide how the manuscript was to be delivered to him: by instalments or as a whole. Marx could avail himself of the agreement only in two years, when he finished his work on Volume One of Capitals 175, 219, 226, 343, 351
[234] Influenced by Sophie von Hatzfeldt, Carl Schilling published the pamphlet Die Ausstossung des Präsidenten Bernhard Becker aus dem Allgemeinen Deutschen Arbeiter-Verein und der 'Social-Demokrat' (Berlin, 1865). It was a report of the meeting of the Berlin branch of the General Association of German Workers held on 27 and 30 March 1865. Liebknecht spoke at the meeting in defence of Marx against Becker's slanders. The report contained distortions which Wilhelm Liebknecht and other followers of Marx, Theodor Metzner and August Vogt, refuted in a statement of 22 June 1865 published in the Volks-Zeitung, No. 145, 24 June 1865 and in other newspapers.—176, 180, 191
[235] In a letter to Marx, dated 15 July 1865, Liebknecht wrote that the local Printers' Association and the Berlin Journeymen's Association had organised a demonstration in his honour. The latter had invited him as an honorary guest to its annual celebration in the countryside. In connection with this, Liebknecht wrote to Marx that he thought all local worthwhile elements from among the working class were ready to follow him, as well as Marx himself and Engels.—176
[26] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Selected Letters. The Personal Correspondence, 1844-1877, Boston, Toronto, 1981.—19, 178, 225, 269, 309, 343, 348, 352, 370, 445, 450, 527, 538
[236] During their stay in Brussels Marx, Engels and other members of the Communist League were persecuted by the Belgian government. Early in March 1848 Marx received a royal order deporting him from Belgium; he and his wife were immediately arrested by the Brussels police. Engels, too, was detained and evicted across the French frontier in early October 1848 (he had come to Belgium in order to hide from the Prussian authorities).—179, 448
[238] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in K. Marx, On History and People, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1977.—180, 542
[240] Rotten Row—a broad pathway in Hyde Park, London, fashionable for riding.—181
[242] Returning to Siebold's letter to Marx, Engels criticises his proposal to establish contacts with the Copenhagen Workers' Association (see Note 239). This Association was under the influence of the Danish liberal party (Eider-Danes) which advanced the slogan 'Denmark up to the Eider'. The Eider-Danes demanded that the Duchy of Schleswig, populated mainly by Germans and separated from other German regions by the Eider river, should be united with Denmark. Schleswig and Holstein were at the time when the letter was written under the joint rule of Prussia and Austria (see Note 9).—183
[243] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in The Letters of Karl Marx, selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction by Saul K. Padover, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.—183, 321, 452
[244] Apsides—the points in the orbit of a planet or comet at which it is nearest to (perihelion) or farthest from (aphelion) the sun.—185
[245] In the third book of Capital Marx analysed the parliamentary reports on banking for 1857-58 and criticised the theories of money and capital contained in them.—186
[247] On 15 September 1865 Liebknecht wrote to Marx that he could not go to the London Conference of the International because of urgent matters and the removal of his family to Leipzig, but promised him to send a report on the working-class movement in Germany. This report was sent to Marx on 23 September but Marx did not read it out at the conference because, he believed, it said too much about his personal services (see Marx's letter to Liebknecht of 21 November 1865, this volume, pp. 201-03).—190
[250] On 16 July 1865 Marx's aunt Esther Kosel, who lived in Frankfurt am Main, died intestate. Along with other close relatives Marx was entitled to receive part of her legacy. Dr Salomon Fuld, a Frankfurt lawyer, was in charge of this matter.—194
[23] Marx is referring to the Associazione di Mutuo Progresso founded at the end of
[253] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in K. Marx and F. Engels, On Colonialism, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1955.—198, 204
[254] Marx alludes to the Prussian authorities' refusal to have his Prussian citizenship restored despite the amnesty granted to political refugees on 12 January 1861 (see Note 154).—198
[255] T}je French delegates' report on the London Conference of the International Working Men's Association held in 1865 (see Note 246) was published in L'Opinion national, 8 October, L'Avenir national 12 October, Le Siècle, 14 October 1865 and in other French newspapers.—199
[257] The mass eviction of the Irish from land and their emigration, caused by the transfer from small peasant renting to large-scale pasturing, led to the growing national liberation struggle in Ireland. As a result, the Fenian movement developed there in the 1850s and 1860s. The Fenians were Irish revolutionaries who named themselves after the 'Féne'—a name of the ancient population of Ireland. Their first organisations appeared in the 1850s in the USA among the Irish immigrants and later in Ireland itself. The secret Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, as the organisation was known in the early 1860s, aimed at establishing an independent Irish republic by means of an armed uprising. The Fenians, who expressed the interests of the Irish peasantry (see Marx's letter to Engels of 30 November 1867), came chiefly from the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia and believed in conspiracy tactics. The British government attempted to suppress the Fenian movement by severe police reprisals. In September 1865 it arrested a number of Fenian leaders, among them Thomas Clarke Luby, John O'Leary, Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa and other editors of the banned newspaper The Irish People. They were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment (O'Donovan Rossa for life). The Central Council of the International organised a campaign in defence of the condemned prisoners.—199, 468, 516, 523
[258] -r n e data mentioned in the letter were given by Marx in Chapter III of the first edition of Volume One of Capital, He specified these data in the second German edition of the volume.—199
[259] Included in this letter, the text of the programme of the Geneva Congress was drawn up by Marx and approved by the London Conference of the International (see Note 246). It was first published in G. Jaeck, Die Internationale, Leipzig, 1904. This letter was first published in English in full in Karl Marx, On the First International Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1973.—200
[260] A detailed report on the London Conference of the International Working Men's Association, entided 'Great International Conference of Working Men', was published in The Workman's Advocate, No. 134, 30 September 1865.-200
[261] Marx is referring to Liebknecht's 'Report on the Working-Class Movement in Germany' drawn up for the London Conference of the International (see Note 247). The manuscript of the report preserved among Marx's papers was published in English for the first time in The General Council of the First International. 1864-1866. The London Conference 1865. Minutes, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1961, pp. 251-60.—201
[262] In a letter to Marx written in mid-November 1865 Liebknecht told him that a certain Quenstedt from Berlin intended to write to Marx and help him publish reviews of Capital in scientific journals.— 202
[265] On 25 November 1865 César De Paepe read a letter from Marx at a meeting of the Brussels Section of the International Association. (The Institute of Marxism-Leninism does not have the original of this letter at its disposal.) The Minutes of this meeting recorded only that part of the letter which enumerated the points of the programme of the Geneva Congress drawn up by Marx and approved by the London Conference of the International (see Note 246). The differences from the similar text cited by Marx in his letter to Jung of 20 November (see this volume, p. 200) are possibly due to the inaccuracies in the record of the above-mentioned Minutes.— 203
[266] On 24 November 1865 Schweitzer was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for the political articles in Der Social-Demokrat. However, in May 1866 he was temporarily released for health reasons and amnestied after the Austro-Prussian war of 1866.—205
[267] The mass meeting was held by the Reform League (see Note 155) in London, in St Martin's Hall, on 12 December 1865. The committee for preparing the meeting consisted of the following members of the Central Council of the International: George Odger, John B. Leno, John Longmaid, William Dell, William Stainsby, George Howell and Robert Hartwell. The majority of those present at the meeting were workers and trade union members. The meeting adopted a resolution demanding manhood suffrage.—207, 215, 221, 253
[268] D^ Vorbote—an official monthly of the German sections of the International Working Men's Association — began to appear in Geneva from January 1866 under the editorship of Johann Philipp Becker. On the whole, this monthly pursued the policy of the Central (General) Council of the International. It published documents of the International, reports on its congresses and information about the activities of its sections in different countries. Der Vorbote was widely circulated in Switzerland and Germany, while in Austria and Hungary it was distributed illegally. Also among its readers were German workers living in London, Paris, New York, Chicago and other cities. The journal ceased publication in December 1871.— 207
[269] In December 1865 and January 1866 France was the scene of student disorders. They were caused by the decision of the Paris Academy Council to expel students who took part in the International Students' Congress held in Liège (Belgium) at the end of October 1865. The congress was attended by students from many European countries, the most numerous delegation being from France (Paul Lafargue, Charles Longuet, Charles Victor Jaclard, and others). Most speakers at the congress expressed the revolutionary students' protest against the regime of the Second Empire.—208, 211, 215, 304, 308
[270] In December 1861 France started an armed intervention in Mexico, joindy with Britain and Spain, to overthrow the progressive government of Benito Juarez and turn the Mexican republic into a colony of European powers. The invaders also intended to use Mexican territory as a spring-board for intervening in the US Civil War on the side of the slaveholding Southern States. In the summer of 1863 the French occupied the city of Mexico (Britain and Spain recalled their troops in April 1862 because of contradictions with France) and declared Mexico an empire with Napoleon Ill's henchman, the Archduke of Austria Maximilian, at its head. However, the Mexican people put up a stubborn resistance to the French colonialists and inflicted a heavy defeat on them. In March 1867 they were compelled to withdraw.—208, 211, 215, 338, 438
[271] This is presumably an extract appended to one of Marx's letters to Engels written at the end of 1865 or beginning of 1866.— 208
[84] Marx stayed with Engels in Manchester approximately from 7 to 14 January 1865.—60, 62, 66
[10] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in Marx and Engels, On the United States, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1979.—9, 61, 418, 451
[75] Marx means the famous 'march to the sea' undertaken by General Sherman's troops on 7 May 1864 through Georgia as part of the Union's new strategic plan for crushing the Confederacy. Despite heavy losses, the offensive was a success: on 2 December Sherman seized Atlanta and on 10 December he reached the sea. By cutting the Confederate territory in two, Sherman's march ensured the rout of the main Confederate forces in Virginia in the spring of 1865 and the final victory of the North in the US Civil War.—53, 61, 113, 121
[30] Engels is referring to the operations of the Northerners at the final stage of the Civil War in America (see Note 11) when, during the general offensive started in May 1864, they besieged Richmond (Virginia), the capital of the Southern Confederacy and its main stronghold. The Southerners entrenched in Richmond resisted until April 1865, when the city was seized by the army of General Grant.—21, 39, 61, 82, 113, 121, 147, 153
[3] The proposal to accept the presidency of the General Association of German Workers was made to Marx by Wilhelm Liebknecht in his letters, written at the 21* beginning of September and early October 1864. Liebknecht also wrote that Bernhard Becker and Johann Baptist Schweitzer, its leaders, backed him in this request.— 3
[2] In his letter to Marx of 28 September 1864, Carl Klings, a former member of the Communist League (see Note 17), wrote about the situation in the General Association of German Workers after the death of its President, Ferdinand Lassalle, and about the forthcoming election of a new president. Bernhard Becker and Moses Hess were nominated candidates, and Klings asked Marx for advice. The General Association of German Workers, which was founded at the congress of workers' associations in Leipzig on 23 May 1863 and included a number of former members of the Communist League, promoted the development of the German working-class movement and helped its members to overcome the ideological influence of the liberal bourgeoisie. However, Lassalle and his followers channelled the Association's activity along reformist lines limiting it to the campaign for universal suffrage; their programme contained a Utopian demand for the establishment of state-subsidised produc-ers' co-operatives, which they regarded as the basic means for solving social contradictions. The leaders of the Association supported the Prussian government in its drive for the unification of Germany 'from above', through dynastic wars. The sectarian, nationalistic policy of the Lassallean leaders of the General Association made it difficult to draw the German proletariat into the International Working Men's Association (the First International) (see Note 5). By the beginning of the 1870s, however, the progressive-minded German workers had split away from Lassalleanism thanks to the consistent efforts of Marx, Engels and their associates. At a congress in Gotha in May 1875, the General Association of German Workers merged with the German Social-Democratic Workers' Party (Eisenachers) founded in 1869 and headed by August Bebel and Karl Liebknecht. The united party assumed the name of the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany.—3, 15, 58, 65, 75, 78, 103, 125, 135, 141, 150
[93] The name Plon-Plonists is derived from Plon-Plon, the nickname of Prince Napoleon Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon Ill's cousin, whose residence was the Palais Royal while Napoleon III resided in the Tuiliers. Joseph Bonaparte headed a group of Bonapartists who sought to divert the people's attention from the struggle against the regime of the Second Empire by means of social demagogy and sham opposition to the government's policy.—66, 76, 208, 300, 567
[97] This reference is to the British National League for the Independence of Poland founded in London on 28 July 1863. Its establishment was preceded by a meeting at St James's Hall on 22 July arranged to express solidarity with the participants in the Polish insurrection (see Note 24). The meeting, which was one of the harbingers in the founding of the International, was attended by British trade unionists and representatives of the international democratic movement, as well as by a French workers' delegation from Paris. The meeting resolved to send a delegation to the Foreign Secretary, John Russell, to hand in a protest against the British government's double-faced policy towards the Polish insurgents. Russell refused to receive the delegation, and a second meeting was called on 28 July 1863, this time at the premises of The Bee-Hive Newspaper, at which the League was founded. Radical Edmond Beales was elected president and John R. Taylor — honorary secretary. By the Polish society here Marx means the revolutionary democrats from among the Polish émigrés in London grouped round the representative of the National Central Committee of Poland that stood at the head of the 1863-64 uprising. At the Central Council's meeting on 10 January 1865, also attended by representatives of the National League and the National Central Committee of Poland, a resolution was passed which emphasised that 'this Association pledges itself to assist by all means in its power the commemoration of the glorious, though unsuccessful, Revolution of 1863'. The 'meeting for the Poles' mentioned by Marx took place on 1 March 1865 (see Note 168).—66, 86, 109
[98] Wilhelm Liebknecht wrote to Marx before 20 January 1865 that he had learned of Ferdinand Lassalle's agreement with Bismarck's government: he promised support from the General Association of German Workers over the annexation of Schleswig-Holstein by Prussia if it introduced universal suffrage. Marx and Engels regarded this political 'bequest' by Lassalle as betrayal of the proletariat's interests. The Lassalle-Bismarck correspondence published in 1928 fully confirmed Liebknecht's information.—66, 69, 71, 75, 102, 124, 566
[6] This letter was published in English for the first time in The Letters of Karl Marx, selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction by Saul K. Padover, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.—5, 193, 231, 330, 356, 397, 493, 553
[101] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Correspondence. 1846-1895. A Selection with Commentary and Notes, Martin Lawrence Ltd., London [1934].—68, 72, 77, 79, 94, 135, 159, 172, 227, 266, 289, 297, 299, 359, 362, 381, 383, 407, 423, 458, 519, 557
[111] This letter by Marx has not been found.—73, 75, 101, 107, 108, 118, 149, 194, 246, 343, 370, 391, 447, 448, 464, 487, 516, 538, 542
[112] On 28 January 1865, on Lincoln's instructions the American Envoy Adams handed over the President's reply to the address of the Central Council of the International (see Note 70). This reply, in the form of Adams' letter, was published in The Times, No. 25101, on 6 February 1865, under the title 'Mr. Lincoln and the International Working Men's Association'.— 73, 80, 86, 161
[24] June 1864 by the Italian workers resident in London. Initially the Society numbered about 300 members and was influenced by Mazzini. Garibaldi was elected its Honorary President. In January 1865 the Society became affiliated to the International Association.—16, 110, 140, 150, 170, 250 The Sub-Committee or Standing Committee was the executive body of the Central (General) Council of the International. It usually assembled once a week and drafted many of the decisions which were later adopted by the Council. The Sub-Committee evolved from a commission, elected when the International Working Men's Association was set up, to draft its programme documents. The Sub-Committee included the President of the General Council (until this office was abolished in September 1867), its General Secretary and the corresponding secretaries for the different countries. Marx took an active part in the work of the Standing Committee as Corresponding Secretary for Germany.—16, 54, 130, 131, 172, 207, 214, 486 The Statutes submitted by Luigi Wolff at a meeting of the Sub-Committee on 8 October 1864 were an English translation of TAtto di fratellanza délie Società operaie italiane' (Fraternal Bond Between the Italian Workmen's Associations) published in // Giornale delle Associazioni Operaie on 31 July 1864 and adopted at the eleventh congress of Italian pro-Mazzini working men's associations in Naples on 27 October 1864. Attended by delegates from 57 organisations, the congress set up an association of Italian workers' societies which joined the International Working Men's Association. By submitting to the International these Statutes, written from bourgeois-democratic positions, Mazzini and his followers sought to take over the leadership of the international working-class movement.—16, 44, 47 A reference to the following passage in the Provisional Rules of the Association: '...This International Association and all societies and individuals adhering to it, will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality, as the basis of their conduct towards each other, and towards all men, without regard to colour, creed, or nationality; 'They hold it the duty of a man to claim the rights of a man and a citizen, not only for himself, but for every man who does his duty. No rights without duties, no duties without rights' (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 15).—18, 47 In January 1863 an uprising against Tsarist oppression flared up in the Kingdom of Poland, the territory annexed to Russia by decision of the Vienna Congress of 1815. The uprising of 1863-64 was caused by the Poles' striving for national independence and the crisis of feudal relations within the Kingdom. The National Central Committee, which headed the uprising, put forward a programme of struggle for Poland's independence and a number of democratic agrarian demands. However, the inconsistency and indecision of the insurgent government, in particular its failure to abolish the privileges of the big landowners, drove the majority of the peasants away from the uprising. This was one of the main causes of its defeat. In addition, serious damage to the uprising was done by the policy of its Right-wing leaders. They pinned great hopes on help from the ruling circles of Bonapartist France and bourgeois-aristocratic England who were pursuing their own selfish interests in the Polish question. The national liberation uprising was, by and large, crushed by the Tsarist government in the autumn of 1863, though some units of the insurgents continued the struggle until the end of 1864.—19, 38, 73, 164
[116] This refers to the participation of Central Council members in a preliminary conference of electoral reform supporters scheduled for 6 February 1865. At this conference, a group of bourgeois radicals set up a provisional committee to convoke a meeting in support of manhood suffrage in London on 23 February. Marx attached great importance to the campaign for the démocratisation of Britain's political system. He therefore thought it possible to co-operate with the bourgeois radicals but on conditions that would ensure a genuinely democratic reform as well as an independent and leading role for the International Working Men's Association in the reform campaign. At its meeting on 31 January 1865, the Central Council elected a deputation to the reform conference. Besides Eccarius and Le Lubez, it included Carter, Odger, Whitlock, Cremer, Wheeler and Dell.— 74
[1] This letter was published in English for the first time in Karl Marx, On the First International. Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1973.—3, 64, 92, 148, 191, 218, 314
[117] Marx's letter to Jones has not been found. As can be seen from Jones' reply of 10 February 1865, Marx outlined a plan for drawing the masses of English workers into a reform campaign under the leadership of the Central Council of the International, and substantiated its platform (the demand for manhood suffrage, etc.). In his letter Jones expressed his agreement with the platform, emphasising, in particular, the need to oppose the moderate position of the Manchester liberal bourgeoisie on this question.— 74, 91
[8] Wilhelm Wolff (nicknamed Lupus), a friend and associate of Marx and Engels, died on 9 May 1864. In his will he named Marx and his family as principal beneficiaries of his small legacy. The legal procedure for receiving this legacy cost much trouble and energy, and Engels offered Marx his help.—6, 20, 21, 23, 29, 115, 116, 126
[120] -phe cutting from the Rheinische Zeitung enclosed in Siebel's letter to Marx of 1 February 1865 has not been found. Siebel assumed that the leading article-was written by Hermann Becker (Red Becker). Judging by Liebknecht's letter to Marx of 16 February, the author contrasted the revolutionary position of Marx and Engels who supported the democrats against the government with that of the Lassalleans who supported the government against the democrats.— 75, 80
[99] A reference to the members of the Party of Progress formed in June 1861 (the most eminent figures were Waldeck, Virchow, Schulze-Delitzsch, Forchenbeck and Hoverbeck). The party's slogans were the unification of Germany under the aegis of Prussia, the convocation of an all-German Parliament, and the formation of a strong liberal Ministry responsible to the Chamber of Deputies. Fearing a popular revolution, the Party of Progress gave no support to the basic democratic demands — universal suffrage and freedoms of the press, association and assembly. In 1866 the party split, and its Right wing founded the National Liberal Party, which capitulated to the Bismarck government.—67, 69, 71, 75, 84, 90, 96, 97, 104, 111, 150, 176, 288, 421, 430, 456
[121] Marx's letter to Schweitzer with a proposal that the latter should stand up to Bismarck in Der Social-Demokrat has not been found. It is quite possible that Marx wrote about this in the final version of his letter to Schweitzer of 16 January 1865. The draft of this undiscovered letter is published on pp. 64-65 of this volume.— 75, 95
[9] Engels is referring to the fact that the Bismarck government used the national contradictions between the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein and Denmark to promote Germany's unification under the aegis of Prussia. On 13 November 1863 the Danish Parliament adopted a new constitution which proclaimed the annexation of Schleswig to Denmark in violation of the London Protocol of 1852 (the latter stipulated that Denmark and the duchies could be linked only by personal union). This served as a pretext for Bismarck to declare war on Denmark. Austria joined Prussia for she did not want Prussia, her main rival in Germany, to enjoy the fruits of victory alone. As a result of the Danish war (1 February-16 July 1864), a treaty was concluded in Vienna on 30 October 1864 which declared Schleswig and Holstein to be co-possessions of Austria and Prussia. After the 1866 Austro-Prussian war the two duchies were annexed to Prussia.— 7, 34, 121, 350
[125] Marx attached to this letter his rough copy of a statement to the editor of Der Social-Demokrat (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 36) with a protest against the publication of the report by Hess, who libellously accused the French members of the International (see Note 91). The criticism by Marx and Engels compelled the editors to change the newspaper's tone to some extent. Issue No. 21 of 12 February 1865 carried an item by Hess in which he withdrew his accusations. For that reason Marx and Engels did not insist on the publication of their statement. However, they decided to stop contributing to the newspaper for the time being. Marx and Engels announced their final break with Der Social-Demokrat on 23 February 1865 (see this volume, p. 97).— 79, 95
[29] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in K. Marx and F. Engels, The Civil War in the United States, International Publishers, New York, [1937].—21, 49, 81, 84, 147, 149, 151, 154, 161, 167
[28] The Schiller Institute, founded in Manchester in November 1859 in connection with the centenary of Friedrich Schiller's birth, strove to be a German emigre cultural and social centre. Engels was critical of the Institute, noted for its tendency to formalism and pedantry, and he initially kept aloof from it. But when certain changes were introduced into its Rules, he became a member of its Directorate in 1864. Later, as the President of the Institute, Engels devoted much time to it and exercised a considerable influence on its activities. In September 1868, while Engels was away from Manchester, the Institute invited Karl Vogt, who was connected with the Bonapartists and was slandering the proletarian revolutionaries, to deliver a lecture. Engels felt that his political reputation would be compromised if he remained President and so he left the Directorate. In April 1870 he was again elected a member of the Directorate of the Schiller Institute, but did not take an active part in it.— 20, 49, 81, 98, 116, 127, 235, 498, 503, 533, 555, 560
[18] reorganisation of the League of the Just (a secret association of workers and
[134] Neither the original of Marx's letter to Johann Baptist Schweitzer of 13 February 1865 nor the copy of it which Marx retained has survived. However, a large fragment from it is quoted in Marx's letter to Engels of 18 February (see this volume, pp. 95-96). In this volume, this fragment is not published separately but within the above-mentioned letter to Engels.— 89, 95, 108
[136] The Rules Governing Servants (Gesindeordnung)—the feudal rules and regulations that existed in Prussian provinces in the 18th and early 19th centuries and sanctioned the big landowners' arbitrary treatment of servants and agricultural labourers, including corporal punishment.— 90, 96, 104
[34] In their letters of 11 November 1864, Schweitzer and Liebknecht invited Marx to contribute to Der Social-Demokrat, the prospective newspaper of the General Association of German Workers (see Note 2). In the same month, Schweitzer sent Marx and Engels the prospectus, which did not contain Lassalle's slogans. Since they had no other press organ to influence the workers' movement in Germany, they agreed to collaborate with Der Social-Demokrat. They also took into account the fact that Wilhelm Liebknecht was an unofficial member of its editorial board. Marx's 'Inaugural Address of the Working Men's International Association' and 'On Proudhon', and Engels' translation of the old Danish folk song 'Herr Tidmann' were printed in the newspaper. However, fully convinced that Schweitzer, the editor of the newspaper, was continuing the Lassallean policy of flirting with the government and the Junkers and trying to spread the cult of Lassalle, Marx and Engels on 23 February 1865 announced their break with the newspaper (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 80). Wilhelm Liebknecht followed suit and refused to collaborate with the paper.— 22, 102, 136
[151] In his letter to Marx of 19 February 1865, Ludwig Kugelmann enclosed a letter from Miquel, a former member of the Communist League, dated 22 December 1864. Miquel alleged in it that Marx's work A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy 'contains little of what is actually new' and that its conclusions were not applicable to Germany's social and political conditions. At the same time, Miquel tried to justify his desertion to the liberal camp.—102, 107, 112
[152] The National Association (Deutscher National-Verein) was a party of the German liberal bourgeoisie which advocated the unification of Germany (without Austria) in a centralised state under the supremacy of the Prussian monarchy. Its inaugural meeting was held in Frankfurt am Main in September 1859. The National Association was dissolved in November 1867, after the Austro-Prussian war of 1866 and the establishment of the North German Confederation.—102, 163, 204, 207, 266, 280, 340, 361, 365, 372
[154] In connection with the enthronement of King William I of Prussia an amnesty was granted in Prussia on 12 January 1861 guaranteeing, in words, all political refugees unimpeded return to the country. In the spring of 1861, during his stay in Berlin, Marx submitted an application to the Prussian government requesting the restoration of his Prussian citizenship. His request was rejected by the Prussian authorities on the grounds that in 1845 Marx had surrendered his status as a Prussian of his 'own free will' and 'therefore' could be regarded 'as a foreigner' (see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 339-58).—105, 201
[165] Since Marx and Engels' statement was published in many German newspapers (see Note 158), Schweitzer was compelled to print it in Der Social-Demokrat too (it appeared there only on 3 March 1865 in issue No. 29).—113
[150] At the beginning of February 1865 Marx made a speech at the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the German Workers' Educational Society in London (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 360). He criticised the views of the Lassalleans, in particular their dogma about the assistance by the existing state to workers' co-operative societies. The report on the celebration meeting was drawn up by Eccarius and published in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 24, 19 February 1865. The content of Marx's speech was presented by Eccarius inaccurately. He ascribed to Marx the idea that joint action by the proletariat and the bourgeoisie against the feudal monarchy was impossible. The German Workers' Educational Society in London was founded in February 1840 by Karl Schapper, Joseph Moll and other members of the League of the Just. After the foundation of the Communist League (see Note 17), the latter's local communities played the leading role in the Society. In 1847 and 1849-50, Marx and Engels took an active part in its work, but on 17 September 1850 Marx, Engels and a number of their followers withdrew because the Willich-Schapper sectarian-adventurist group had increased their influence in the Society. In the late 1850s, Marx and Engels resumed their work in the Educational Society. During the activity of the International Working Men's Association the Society (Lessner was one of its leaders) was its German Section in London. The Educational Society in London existed until 1918, when it was closed down by the British government.—101, 106, 107, 507
[57] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in K. Marx and F. Engels, Letters to Americans. 1848-1895, International Publishers, New York, 1953.—37, 43, 121
[33] Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in Karl Marx, On the First International. Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1973.—22, 53, 107, 128, 139, 157, 206, 212, 213, 216, 223, 237, 249, 252, 258, 277, 282, 317, 341, 350,416,419,427, 432, 437
[158] Thanks to Liebknecht and Siebel, Marx and Engels' statement about their break with Der Social-Demokrat (see this volume, p. 97) was published in many German newspapers, among them Barmer Zeitung and Elberfelder Zeitung (No. 60) on 26 February 1865; Düsseldorfer Zeitung (No. 59) on 28 February; Rheinische Zeitung (No. 60), Berliner Reform (No. 51), Neue Frankfurter Zeitung (No. 60), Breslauer Zeitung (No. 102), Staatsbürger-Zeitung (No. 60) on 1 March, and later in several other papers. The above-mentioned letters of Marx to Schweitzer and Liebknecht about the said statement have not been found.— 108
[155] On 23 February 1865 a public meeting was held in St Martin's Hall, London. On the initiative and with the direct participation of the Central Council of the International Association, the meeting passed a decision to found a Reform League as a centre of the mass electoral reform movement. The League's leading bodies — the Council and the Executive Committee — included the Central Council members of the International, mainly British trade union leaders. The programme of the movement was drafted under the influence of Marx who was advocating the independent position of the British working class in the reform campaign. Unlike the bourgeois parties, which confined their demand to household suffrage, the Reform League, on Marx's insistence, advanced the demand for manhood suffrage. The League had branches in all big industrial cities and in provinces. However, the vacillations of the bourgeois radical leaders, who became afraid of the movement's mass character, and the conciliation of the trade union leaders prevented the League from following the line charted by the Central Council of the International. The British bourgeoisie succeeded in splitting the movement, and a moderate reform was carried out in 1867 which granted franchise only to the petty bourgeoisie and the upper layers of the working class.—105, 108, 130, 150, 243, 251, 327, 574
[95] Marx is referring to the discussion of the conflict in the Paris Section by the Central Council on 24 January 1865. The Paris Section of the International Association was founded at the end of 1864 by the Proudhonistically-minded workers, Henri Tolain and Charles Limousin who took part in the inaugural meeting of 28 September 1864 at St Martin's Hall. Besides Tolain's group, a French lawyer and bourgeois republican, Henri Lefort, who also participated in organising the 28 September meeting, likewise claimed to be representative of French workers. Soon it became evident that Lefort was in touch with the Council's Corresponding Secretary for France, Le Lubez, and with the French petty-bourgeois refugees in England who strove to bring their influence on the International Working Men's Association. The bourgeois republicans accused Tolain of being in contact with the Bonapartists (in particular with Prince Joseph Bonaparte). The accusation was published by Moses Hess in Der Social-Demokrat. In reply to Marx's enquiry sent to Schily and Schweitzer, the former answered on 19 January 1865 that Tolain's libellous accusation had originated with the people close to L'Association, the journal of co-operative societies, of which Lefort was an editor. Schily also promised to send additional information. The conflict in the Paris Section was repeatedly discussed in the Sub-Committee and the Central Council in February and March 1865. Marx sought to protect the section from attacks by bourgeois republicans and, at the same time, to find ways of overcoming the influence of Proudhonist Utopian ideas on the French workers — 66, 80, 108, 115, 118, 130
[159] It is clear from Schily's letter to Marx of 25 February 1865, and the 'Private Instruction to Schily' extant in Marx's notebook (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 83), that Marx's instructions were aimed at finding such a way of settling the conflict in the Paris organisation of the International Association that would strengthen the position of the Paris Section's Administration and help draw into the International those workers who were still under the influence of bourgeois republicans (participants in the co-operative movement, and so on).—108, 127
[20] and his speeches in support of the Polish insurgents angered the British ruling
[166] This refers to Schweitzer's article published in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 29, 3 March 1865, in the section 'Politische Theil'. It said that the German Social-Democrats who were not members of the General Association of German Workers did not belong to the Social-Democratic Party. By this attack on Marx, Engels and their close associates in Germany, the editors of Der Social-Demokrat sought to weaken the impression of Marx and Engels' statement on their breach with the newspaper. See also Engels' letter to Joseph Weydemeyer of 10 March 1865 (this volume, pp. 124-25).—114, 116, 125
[5] The inaugural meeting of the International Working Men's Association held in London on 28 September 1864 planned to call an international workers' congress in Belgium in a year's time to solve questions relating to the Rules and leadership of the entire organisation. At its meeting on 1 November 1864, the Central Council of the Association, elected on 28 September (known as the General Council from 1866), approved the Provisional Rules which made it incumbent upon the Council to convene the congress in Belgium. However, taking into account the ideological and organisational weakness of the national sections of the International, Marx proposed to convene a preliminary conference in London in September 1865 to discuss the programme of the future congress. The conference took place in London between 25 and 29 September 1865 (see Note 246).— 4
[169] The reference is to the manuscript of The Great Men of the Exile written by Marx and Engels (see present edition, Vol. 11, pp. 227-326). At the end of June 1852, Marx passed on the manuscript to the Hungarian émigré Bangya who offered to have it published in Germany. Later, it turned out that Bangya was a police spy and had handed over the manuscript to the Prussian police. The actions of Bangya, who managed to win Marx's confidence for a time, were unmasked by Marx in his article 'Hirsch's Confessions', written in April 1853 and published in American newspapers (see present edition, Vol. 12, pp. 40-43). Marx also exposed Bangya as a spy and an agent provocateur in Herr Vogt, published in 1860 (see present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 219 — 20).—118, 176, 191
[173] In its issue No. 31 of 8 March 1865, Der Social-Demokrat published the statement by Georg Herwegh and Friedrich Wilhelm Rüstow of their refusal, following Marx and Engels, to contribute to this newspaper. Commenting on the statement, Schweitzer distorted Marx's and Engels' attitude to Lassalle and falsified the reasons for their withdrawal from the editorial board of Der Social-Demokrat. To prove that Marx and Engels were allegedly inconsistent and their actions unjustified, Schweitzer quoted Karl Blind's article published in the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung, No. 64, 5 March 1865.—120, 126, 129
[4] At the additional elections to the Corps législatif in March 1864 the Parisian workers put up their own candidate, the engraver Henri Tolain, whereas previously they voted for moderate bourgeois republicans. In the 'Manifesto of the Sixty' printed in February 1864 they explained this move by the need of the working class to have its own representatives in legislative bodies. The Corps législatif was established, alongside the State Council and the Senate, under the Constitution of 4 February 1852, following the Bonaparte coup d'état of 1851. The members of the State Council and the Senate were appointed by the head of state, while the Corps législatif was an elected body, the elections being supervised by state officials and the police, so that a docile majority was always ensured. As its powers were confined to endorsing bills drawn up by the State Council, the Corps législatif was, in effect, a screen for Napoleon Ill's unlimited rule.—4, 15, 47, 274, 318
[177] Marx stayed with his relatives, the Philipses, at Zalt-Bommel (Holland) from 19 March to 8 April 1865.—128, 133, 139, 566
[21] circles.
[79] This refers to Sophie von Hatzfeldt's intention to republish Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It was to be printed in Switzerland. Liebknecht informed Marx of this on 2 December 1864 and asked him to send two copies of the book for the purpose. Marx objected because he was obviously afraid that the Lassalleans might use his works to propagate Lassalle's cult. Subsequently, Liebknecht, independently of Hatzfeldt, attempted to come to terms with the Swiss publisher, but in vain. The second edition of The Eighteenth Brumaire appeared only in 1869, in Germany.— 57, 139, 165
[192] Bernhard Becker, President of the General Association of German Workers, made a speech at a meeting of the Association's Hamburg Section on 22 March 1865 in which he slandered the International Working Men's Association and also Marx, Engels and Liebknecht. Marx rebuffed Becker in an article 'The "President of Mankind'", published in the Rheinische Zeitung, No. 102 (second supplement), 12 April and the Berliner Reform, No. 88 (supplement), 13 April 1865 (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 92-96). On 27 March, Becker was denounced by Liebknecht at a meeting of the Association's Berlin Section when it discussed the question of the presidency. On 1 April 1865 the Nordstern (No. 303) printed statements by Riistow and Herwegh against the attacks made by Becker on Countess Hatzfeldt. In view of the growing discontent among the rank-and-file members of the General Association with Becker as President, the Berlin Section resolved to expel him. Many other sections followed suit. In June 1865 Becker was compelled provisionally to delegate his presidential powers to his deputy Fritzsche and completely renounced them in November.—139, 140, 566
[200] On Friedrich Lessner's proposition, the German Workers' Educational Society in London (see Note 150) at its meeting on 22 March 1865 broke with the Lassallcans. At the general meeting of the Society and its branches, Teutonia and Eintracht, called on 5 April 1865 to discuss the behaviour of Bernhard Becker, President of the General Association of German Workers, and the editorial board of Der Social-Demokrat, Louis Weber tried to defend the Lassallean leaders. He wanted to pass a resolution declaring the political position of some Party officials to be their personal affair that should not be discussed by members of the Society. Weber's proposition was turned down by the meeting. The report of this meeting was given in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 50, 21 April 1865, in a distorted way. Teutonia—an educational society of German workers who lived in the southern districts of London, a branch of the German Workers' Educational Society. Together with the latter, it joined the International Working Men's Association in January 1865. The leaders of the Teutonia were A. Klinker and Klinke.—150, 174
[205] The Central Council of the International failed to acquire most of The Bee-Hive Newspaper shares through lack of funds and because at the decisive moment, in May 1865, its members were distracted by the campaign for electoral reform in England. On the eve of the shareholders' general meeting, Council members Odger, Cremer, and Howell left for Manchester to attend a conference of reformers, which allowed Potter to retain the majority of votes in his favour.—155, 169, 173
[207] After Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, Herwegh, Rüstow and Johann Philipp Becker refused to collaborate with Der Social-Demokrat, Moses Hess continued to work on it, and when the Rheinische Zeitung printed a notice about Hess' refusal to contribute to the newspaper, he denied it.—156, 158
[216] A reference to the statements made by a number of branches of the General Association of German Workers against Bernhard Becker and published in the Nordstern, No. 313, 24 June 1865 (see Note 192).—161, 176
[217] The first Congress of the International Working Men's Association scheduled for 1865 in Brussels was held between 3 and 8 September 1866 in Geneva. The decision to postpone the Congress was taken by the Central Council on 25 July 1865 on Marx's insistence. He considered that the local organisations of the International were not yet strong enough in ideological and organisational terms and suggested that a preliminary conference be held in London in September 1865. Official reasons for postponing the congress were set out in the 'Report of the Sub-Committee on the Questions of a Congress and Conference' drawn up by the Central Council's decision of 13 June 1865 and approved by the Council on 25 July (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 375-77).—163, 171, 174, 179
[224] A banquet of the opposition liberal majority of the Chamber of Deputies, organised by the Rhineland men of Progress (see Note 99) headed by the Town Councillor Classen-Kappelmann, was scheduled for 22-23 July 1865, in Cologne. On 17 July the Bismarck government forbade the banquet. Despite numerous protests on the part of the workers in the various towns of Germany against this arbitrary measure, most opposition members did not dare to show open resistance. Only some 80 delegates out of the 250 invited arrived in Cologne. The banquet's organiser, Classen-Kappelmann, fearing arrest, left for Belgium. Since the hall where the banquet was to take place had been closed by the police, the deputies tried to hold the banquet in the Zoological Gardens, but were driven out of it by soldiers and policemen.—169, 182, 185, 229
[230] At the end of July 1865 John Bredford Leno, the proprietor of The Miner and Workman's Advocate published in London from 1863, proposed placing this weekly at the service of the Central Council of the International. The proposal met with approval by the Council members. They discussed the matter at the meetings of 8 and 15 August 1865, in the absence of Marx who was busy with his Capital. However, Eccarius informed him in detail about this in a letter dated 16 August 1865. On 22 August an inaugural meeting was held of shareholders of the joint-stock company for financing the workers' paper, which was called the Industrial Newspaper Company. The meeting, which Marx attended, approved the address to the working men of Great Britain and Ireland and the Company's Prospectus (both published in the present edition, Vol. 20). On 25 September 1865 the London Conference of the International declared the newspaper, which in September assumed the name of The Workman's Advocate, an official organ of the International. At the beginning of November 1865 the paper became the full property of the Industrial Newspaper Company. Marx was a member of the Company's Board and remained on it until June 1866. However, the growing influence of reformist elements in the paper's Editorial Board and the vacillation and conciliatory policy of the trade union leaders on the Company's Board did not allow Marx and his followers to prevent the transformation of this working-class paper into an organ supporting the bourgeoisie.—173, 201, 206, 571
[237] On 18 July 1865 an agreement was concluded between the Bismarck government and the Board of the Cologne-Minden Railway Joint-Stock Company. It granted the Company's Board the right to buy up its shares which until then belonged to the government alone. This deal placed a considerable sum of money at the disposal of the Bismarck government. The agreement was to be ratified by the Prussian Provincial Diet, but on 28 August the shareholders' general meeting unanimously approved it without the Diet's ratification.—179, 182, 211, 285
[239] On 4 August 1865 Siebold wrote to tell Marx that there was a Workers' Association in Copenhagen led by an MP, C. V. Rimestad. He advised him to establish ties with the association but warned that Rimestad was a Bonapartist. At the same time Siebold made it clear that he regretted Marx's quarrel with Karl Blind.—180, 182
[241] Engels made a trip to Germany, Switzerland and Italy at the end of August and mid-September 1865.—182, 183, 190, 192
[246] The London Conference of the International Working Men's Association was held from 25 to 29 September 1865. It was convened on Marx's insistence, for he considered that the Association's sections were not yet strong enough to succeed in holding a general congress in 1865 as stipulated by the Provisional Rules. The conference was attended by Central Council members and by delegates from the principal branches in France, Switzerland and Belgium. Wilhelm Liebknecht could not come to the conference, and Germany was represented by Karl Marx as the Corresponding Secretary of the Central Council for the country and Johann Philipp Becker who had credentials from the Solingen branch of the General Association of German Workers which was in opposition to the latter's Lassallean leadership. The conference heard the Central Council's report, its financial statement, and also delegates' reports on the situation in individual sections. The main point discussed was the agenda and the procedure for convening the forthcoming congress. It was decided to hold it in Geneva in May 1866 (later the Central Council postponed it until early September 1866). Though the Proudhonists demanded that the Polish question should be struck off the agenda of the Congress and that the right of any member of the Association to participate in it be recognised, the conference retained in the agenda the point of the restoration of Poland's independence and recognised only elected delegates as competent members of the Congress. Other proposals of the Council concerning the programme of the Congress were also approved. The London Conference of 1865 which was prepared and conducted under Marx's guidance played an important part in the formation and organisational shaping of the International.—189, 201, 214
[249] Marx stayed with Engels in Manchester from 20 October to early November 1865.—193, 196, 201, 208, 214
[252] The mass Negro uprising in Jamaica, the British colony in the West Indies, took place in October 1865. It was caused by the severe exploitation of the Negroes by the colonists, though slavery had been abolished on the island in 1833. The uprising was brutally suppressed by the Governor of Jamaica, General Eyre. The atrocities perpetrated by Eyre caused public outrage in Britain, and the British government was compelled to dismiss him from his post.—197, 199, 205, 300
[256] The Workman's Advocate, No. 141, of 18 November 1865 printed Peter Fox's report of the Central Council meeting of 14 November 1865 (see The General Council of the First International. 1864-1866. The London Conference 1865. Minutes, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1961, pp. 138-41). At this meeting the Corresponding Secretary for France, Eugène Dupont, read out the preface to the French delegates' report of the London Conference published in Le Siècle on 14 October 1865. The author of the preface was Henri Martin, a French historian and member of the International. He highly appreciated the activities of the International, its first conference and the programme of the future congress, in particular its Point 9 demanding the 'reconstruction of Poland upon a democratic and socialist basis'. The French Proudhonists Henri Tolain and Ernest Fribourg opposed this point at the conference and after it, for they advocated the proletariat's abstention from political activity.—199, 202
[263] In a letter to Marx of 8 October 1865 Lothar Bucher invited him to contribute to the official organ of the Prussian government. Marx's reply letter to Bücher has not been discovered. Later, in 1878, Marx wrote a special item, 'Herr Bucher', concerning this offer, and gave a rebuff to this agent of Bismarck's in another article, 'Reply to Bucher's "Declaration" ' (see present edition, Vol. 24).— 202
[264] Kugelmann could not answer Marx's letter of 23 February 1865 (see this volume, pp. 101-05) until 20 December (see Marx's reply of 15 January 1866 in this volume, pp. 220-21).—203, 207