IV. Techow's Letter

• • Introduction and preface
  • I. The Brimstone Gang
  • II. The Bristlers
  • III. Police Matters
  • IV. Techow's Letter
  • V. Imperial Regent and Count Palatine
  • VI. Vogt and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
  • VII. The Augsburg Campaign
  • VIII. Dâ-Dâ Vogt and his Studies "Sine Studio"
  • IX. Agency
  • X. Patrons and Accomplices
  • XI. A Lawsuit
  • XII. Appendices

Add another subpage

Read the help page for usage.

 

What else does our "well-rounded character" pull out of that

"tristo sacco

Che merda fa di quel, che si trangugia."

(Dante)

A letter from Techow dated London, August 26, 1850:

"I cannot characterise these activities better" (i. e. of the "Brimstone Gang") "than by imparting to you the contents of a letter from a man whom all who have ever known him will acknowledge as a man of honour, a letter which I may permit myself to publish because it " (the man of honour or the letter?) "was expressly intended for communication" (to whom?) "and the considerations" (whose?) "which earlier militated against publication no longer obtain" ("Magnum Opus", p. 141).

Techow arrived in London from Switzerland at the end of August 1850. His letter is addressed to Schimmelpfennig, formerly a lieutenant in the Prussian army, who lived in Berne at the time. Schimmelpfennig was supposed to "communicate the letter to our friends", i. e. the members of the Centralisation, a secret society now extinct for nearly a decade, set up by German refugees in Switzerland with a rather mixed membership and a strong leavening of parliamentarians. Techow was a member of the society, but Vogt and his friends were not. How then did Vogt come into possession of Techow's letter and who authorised him to publish it? Techow himself wrote to me on the subject from Australia on April 17, 1860:

"At any rate, I have never had occasion to give Herr Karl Vogt any authorisation in connection with this matter."

Of the "friends" of Techow to whom the letter was to be communicated only two are still living in Switzerland. Both may speak for themselves:

E. to Schily, April 29, 1860, Upper Engadine, Grisons Canton:

"When Vogt's pamphlet Mein Prozess gegen die Allgemeine Zeitung appeared, containing a letter from Techow to his friends in Switzerland dated August 26, 1850, we, the friends of Techow still living in Switzerland, resolved to write to Vogt to express our disapproval of his unauthorised publication of the letter. Techow's letter had been addressed to Schimmelpfennig in Berne and the intention was to distribute copies of it among friends.... I am glad that we were not mistaken in our belief that none of Techow's friends, none of those who had a right to see the letter of August 26, had used it after the manner of the man who has by accident come into possession of it. On January 22 a letter was dispatched to Vogt protesting against the unauthorised publication of Techow's letter, forbidding any further misuse of it and demanding the return of the letter. On January 27 Vogt replied: 'Techow's letter was intended to be shown to his friends; the friend who had it in his possession had handed it over with the express wish that it should be published ... and he would only return the letter to the man from whom he had received it.'"

B. to Schily, Zurich, May 1, 1860:

"The letter to Vogt was written by me after I had discussed the matter with E.... R. was not among the 'friends' for whom Techow's letter was intended. From the contents of the letter, however, it was perfectly clear to Vogt that it had been addressed to me among others, but he took good care not to ask me for permission to publish it."

The solution to the riddle is contained in a passage from Schily's letter quoted earlier and which I have saved up for this moment. He writes:

"I must say something here about Ranickel because it is through him that Techow's letter must have fallen into Vogt's hands, a point in your letter which I had almost overlooked. This letter was written by Techow to friends he had lived with in Zurich: Schimmelpfennig, B. and E. As their friend and Techow's, I was also able to read it later on. When I was brutally and summarily expelled from Switzerland (without any previous order of expulsion having been made I was simply arrested in the street in Geneva and immediately transported from there), I was not permitted to go back to my lodgings to arrange my affairs. From the prison in Berne I wrote to a reliable man in Geneva, a master shoemaker called Thum, asking him to find one or other of my friends who might be still in Geneva (for I did not know whether the same fate had not befallen any of them), who could pack up my belongings and send the most valuable of them to me in Berne, putting the remainder into safe keeping for the time being. I wanted that person to sort out my papers taking particular care to ensure that nothing should be forwarded to me which could not survive the transit through France. Thum did as I asked him and Techow's letter remained behind. My belongings included a number of papers relating to a rebellion of the parliamentarians against the Geneva local committee for the distribution of money for the refugees (the committee consisted of three Geneva citizens, among them Thum, and two refugees, Becker and myself).

Ranickel was familiar with these as he had taken the side of the committee against the parliamentarians. For this reason I had asked Thum as the treasurer and archivist of the committee to take out those papers with Ranickel's help. It may now be the case that, having a legitimate reason for being present while my papers were being sorted, Ranickel somehow got his hands on Techow's letter. Perhaps it was given him by one of the sorters. I do not by any means dispute the transfer of the letter into his possession, as distinct from the transfer of property rights from me to him. On the contrary, I claim the latter quite explicitly.

I soon wrote to Ranickel from London asking him to send me the letter. However, he did not do so and his culpa manifesta dates from that time. At the beginning it was probably only levis but it then mounted, depending on the extent of his complicity in the unauthorised publication of the letter, to magna or maxima culpa or even to dolus. I do not doubt for a single moment that his publication of the letter was unauthorised and that none of the addressees had given their permission, but I shall nevertheless write to E. for confirmation of this. Nor can it be doubted that Ranickel assisted in the publication, given his notorious intimacy with Vogt. And even though I do not wish in the least to criticise that intimacy, I cannot refrain from pointing out the contrast with their earlier relationship. For Ranickel had not only been one of the greatest enemies of the parliamentarians in general; he had also uttered the most blood-curdling threats in regard to the Imperial Regent in particular. 'I'll strangle the fellow,' he would shout, 'even if I have to go to Berne to do it', and we had to forcibly restrain him from carrying out his regicidal intention. But now that the scales seem to have fallen from his eyes, and Saul has turned into Paul . I am very curious to see how he will worm his way out of another obligation: that of becoming the avenger of Europe. I have fought a hard struggle, he would say in the days when he was hesitating between Europe and America, but now it is at an end. I shall remain and—avenge myself !! Let Byzantium tremble."

Thus far Schily's letter.

Ranickel, then, unearthed Techow's letter among the papers left behind by Schily. Notwithstanding Schily's request for it from London, he retained it. The letter misappropriated in this way was handed by "friend" Ranickel to "friend" Vogt, and "friend" Vogt, with his characteristic delicacy of conscience, declared himself authorised to publish the letter since Vogt and Ranickel are "friends". Anyone, therefore, who writes a letter to be "communicated" to "friends", necessarily writes for the benefit of "friends" Vogt and Ranickel—arcades ambo.

I must apologise if this peculiar sort of jurisprudence leads me back to long-past and half-forgotten events. But Ranickel has started it and I must follow.

The "Communist League" was founded in Paris in 1836, originally under another name. The organisation that gradually evolved was as follows: a certain number of members formed a "community", the different communities in the same town constituted a "district" [Kreis] and a varying number of districts. were joined together into "leading districts" [leitende Kreise]. At the head of the whole stood the "Central Authority" which was elected at a congress consisting of deputies from all the districts, but which had the right to add to its own numbers and, in emergencies, to nominate its successor on a provisional basis. The Central Authority was based first in Paris, and then, from 1840 to the beginning of 1848, in London. The chairmen of the communities and districts and the Central Authority itself were elected. This democratic constitution, utterly unsuitable for conspiratorial secret societies, was not incompatible, to say the least, with the tasks facing a propaganda association. The activities of the "League" consisted first of all in founding public German workers' educational associations, and the majority . of the associations of this sort, which still exist in Switzerland, England, Belgium and the United States, were founded either directly by the "League" or else by people who had at one time belonged to it. The constitution of these workers' associations is accordingly the same everywhere. One day per week was devoted to discussion, another to social activities (singing, recitations, etc.). Libraries were set up everywhere, and where possible classes in elementary education were started for the instruction of the workers. The "League" standing behind the public educational associations, and guiding them, found them both the most convenient forum for public propaganda and also a reservoir whose most useful members could replenish and swell its own ranks. In view of the itinerant life of German artisans it was only on rare occasions that the Central Authority had to send special emissaries.

As far as the secret doctrine of the "League" is concerned, it underwent all the transformations of French and English socialism and communism, as well as their German versions (e. g. Weitling's fantasies). After 1839, as is made clear in the Bluntschli report, the religious question came to play the most important role alongside the social problem. The various phases undergone by German philosophy from 1839 to 1846 were followed with the most lively interest in these workers' societies. The secret form of the society goes back to its Paris origins. The chief purpose of the League—propaganda among workers in Germany—dictated the retention of this form in later years. During my first stay in Paris I established personal contact with the leaders of the "League" living there as well as with the leaders of the majority of the secret French workers' associations, without however becoming a member of any of them. In Brussels, where Guizot's expulsion order had sent me, I, together with Engels, W. Wolff and others, founded the German Workers' Educational Society, which is still in existence. At the same time we published a series of pamphlets, partly printed, partly lithographed, in which we mercilessly criticised the hotchpotch of Franco-English socialism or communism and German philosophy, which formed the secret doctrine of the "League" at that time. In its place we proposed the scientific study of the economic structure of bourgeois society as the only tenable theoretical foundation. Furthermore, we argued in popular form that it was not a matter of putting some utopian system into effect, but of conscious participation in the historical process revolutionising society before our very eyes. In consequence of these activities the London Central Authority entered into correspondence with us and at the end of 1846 they sent one of their members, a watchmaker called Joseph Moll, who later fell as a soldier of the revolution on the field of battle in Baden, to Brussels to invite us to join the "League". Moll allayed our doubts and objections by revealing that the Central Authority intended to convoke a Congress of the League in London where the critical views we had expressed would be laid down in an open manifesto as the doctrine of the League. He argued, however,. that if backward and refractory elements were to be overcome, our participation in person was indispensable, but that this could only be arranged if we became members of the "League". Accordingly, we joined it. The Congress, at which members from Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany and England were represented, took place, and after heated debate over several weeks it adopted the Manifesto of the Communist Party written by Engels and myself, which appeared in print at the beginning of 1848 and was later translated into English, French, Danish and Italian. On the outbreak of the February revolution the London Central Authority entrusted me with the leadership of the "League". During the revolutionary period in Germany, its activities died down of themselves, since more effective avenues existed now for the realisation of its ends. When, in the late summer of 1849, I arrived in London after being expelled from France for a second time, I found that the Central Authority had been reconstructed from the ruins and that the links with the reconstituted districts of the League in Germany had been re-established. Willich arrived in London a few months later and was admitted to the Central Authority at my suggestion. He had been recommended to me by Engels, who acted as his adjutant in the campaign for the Imperial Constitution. To round off the history of the League I would only remark that there was a split in the Central Authority on September 15, 1850. Its majority, including Engels and myself, transferred the seat of the Central Authority to Cologne, which had long been the "leading district" for Central and Southern Germany and which, after London, was the most important centre of intellectual activity.

We resigned from the London Workers' Educational Society at the same time. The minority on the Central Authority, however, including Willich and Schapper, set up a separate League which maintained relations with the Workers' Educational Society and also resumed contact with Switzerland and France, which had been interrupted since 1848. On November 12, 1852 the accused in the Cologne communist trial were condemned. A few days later, at my suggestion, the League was declared dissolved. I included a document, relating to the dissolution, dated November 1852, in the dossier on my action against the National-Zeitung. The reason given there for the dissolution of the League is that with the arrests in Germany, i.e. from as early as the spring of 1851, all contact with the Continent had in any case ceased to exist and that moreover circumstances were no longer favourable for a propaganda society of this sort. A few months later, at the beginning of 1853, the Willich-Schapper separate League also died a natural death.

The issues of principle which underlay the split mentioned above are set out in my Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial, which contains an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Central Authority of September 15, 1850. The immediate practical cause of the split was Willich's efforts to involve the "League" in the revolutionary escapades of the German democratic emigration. The disagreement was exacerbated by wholly opposed interpretations of the political situation. I shall cite only one example. Willich had conceived the idea that the quarrel between Prussia and Austria on the question of the Electorate of Hesse and the German Confederation would lead to serious conflicts and create an opportunity for the practical intervention of the revolutionary party. On November 10, 1850, shortly after the split in the "League", he published a proclamation along these lines entitled Aux démocrates de toutes les nations over the signatures of the Central Authority of the "separate League" as well as those of French, Hungarian and Polish refugees. Engels and I, on the other hand, as can be seen in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Revue (double issue, May to October 1850, Hamburg, pp. 174, 175), maintained on the contrary that "None of this noise will lead to anything.... Without a drop of blood having been shed, the parties to the dispute", i. e. Austria and Prussia, "will come together on the benches of the Federal Diet" in Frankfurt "without there being the slightest diminution in their petty mutual jealousies, or in their dissensions with their subjects, or in their irritation at Russian supremacy".

Now it may be judged from the following document whether Willich's individuality (whose worth incidentally we do not intend to dispute) and the then (1850) still fresh memories of his experiences in Besançon enabled him "impartially" to consider conflicts which contradictory views had rendered inevitable and had constantly renewed:

"The German Brigade in Nancy

to

Citizen Joh. Philipp Becker in Biel,

President of the German military association 'Self-Help'

"Citizen

"We are writing to inform you, as the elected representative of all German republican refugees, that in Nancy a brigade of German refugees has been formed which bears the name: 'German Brigade in Nancy.'

"The refugees who make up the present Brigade are composed partly of former members of the Vesle Brigade and partly of units of the Besançon Brigade. Factors of a purely democratic nature are responsible for the removal of the latter from Besançon.

"The fact is that in everything that he did, Willich very rarely consulted the Brigade. Hence the principles governing the Besançon Brigade were not generally discussed and decided by all members, but were decreed a priori by Willich and put into effect without the approval of the Brigade.

Furthermore, Willich also provided evidence of his despotic nature a posteriori in the form of a number of orders worthy of a Jell a chich or a Windischgrätz , but not a republican.

"Willich ordered a man called Schön, who wished to resign from the Brigade, to take off his new shoes which had been purchased from the savings of the Brigade, disregarding the fact that Schön too had contributed his share to these savings, which consisted chiefly of the daily 10 sous per capita which the French paid by way of subsidy.... Schön wanted to take his shoes with him, but Willich forced him to leave them behind.

"Several valuable members of the Brigade were for trivial offences such as absence from roll-call, drill, lateness (in the evening), petty quarrels, etc., ordered by Willich, who did not consult the Brigade, to leave Besançon. They could go to Africa, he remarked, for they had no right to remain in France, and if they did not go to Africa he would see to it that they were extradited t o Germany. He claimed that the French Government had given him authority to do this, but upon subsequent inquiry the Prefecture in Besançon declared this to be untrue. Almost every day at roll-call, Willich announced: Whoever does not like it here can go, if he wishes, the sooner the better; he can go to Africa, etc. On one occasion he also uttered the general threat that anyone who refused to obey his orders could either go to Africa or he, Willich, would have him extradited to Germany. This led to our making the above-mentioned inquiry at the Prefecture. As a result of these daily threats many people were fed up with life in Besançon where, as they said, one was constantly provoked into chucking up the whole paltry business. If we wish to be slaves, they said, we can go to Russia and we need not have started the fight in Germany in the first place. In short, they declared that they could no longer endure it in Besançon at any price without coming into serious conflict with Willich. They therefore left Besançon, but as at that time there was no other brigade which they could join, and as they could not live on the 10 sous on their own, they had no other choice but to sign on for Africa, and this they did. In this way Willich reduced thirty worthy citizens to despair and he is to blame for their loss to the national cause.

"Furthermore, Willich was unwise enough always to praise his old colleagues at roll-call while denigrating the new ones, and this led to constant friction. On one occasion Willich even declared at roll-call that the Prussians were far superior to the South Germans in head, heart and body, or as he put it, in physical, moral and intellectual abilities. The South Germans, in contrast, were easy-going, or rather, stupid was what he wanted to say, but he did not quite dare. In this way Willich managed to infuriate the South Germans, who were in a great majority. We have left the worst to the end:

"Two weeks ago the 7th Company allowed a man called Baroggio whom Willich had arbitrarily expelled from the barracks to spend an extra night in their room. Despite Willich's refusal to permit this they kept him in their room and defended it against Willich's supporters, fanatical tailors. Willich then ordered ropes to be brought and the rebels to be bound. The ropes really were brought, but although Willich had the will to have his order carried through, he did not have the power.... It is for these reasons that they have left the Brigade.

"We have not written this letter in order to accuse Willich. For Willich's character and intentions are good, and many of us respect him. But we did not like the manner in which he attempts to achieve his ends nor all the means he uses. Willich means well. But he believes to be wisdom itself and the ultima ratio and thinks that everyone who opposes him, even on petty issues, is either a fool or a traitor. In short, Willich acknowledges no opinion other than his own. He is a spiritual aristocrat and despot; when he has resolved on a thing, he does not easily shrink from using the means necess ary to put i t into practice . But enough: we know Willich now. We know his strengths and his weaknesses; this is why we are no longer in Besançon. Incidentally, when we left Besançon we all declared that we were leaving Willich, but that we did not wish to resign from the German military association 'Self-Help'.

"This applies to the members of the Vesle Brigade also....

"Assuring you of our enduring respect, we conclude with fraternal greetings from the Brigade in Nancy.

"Approved in general assembly, November 13, 1848. "Nancy, November 14, 1848

"In the name and on the instructions of the Brigade, B..., Secretary"

Let us now return to Techow's letter. As with other reptiles, its poison is in the tail, namely in the postscript of September 3 (1850). It refers to a duel between Herr Willich and my friend, Konrad Schramm, who died a premature death. In the duel, which took place in Antwerp in the beginning of September 1850, Techow and Barthélemy, a Frenchman, acted as Willich's seconds. Techow wrote to Schimmelpfennig "for communication to our friends":

"They" (i. e. Marx and his followers) "have let their champion Schramm loose against Willich who had attacked him" (Techow means: whom he h ad attacked) "with invective of the most vulgar sort and finally challenged him to a duel." ("Magnum Opus", pp. 156, 157.)

My refutation of this stupid piece of gossip was published seven years ago in the pamphlet, cited earlier, The Knight of the Noble Consciousness, New York, 1853.

At the time Schramm was still alive. Like Willich he was living in the United States.

Willich's second, Barthelemy, had not yet been hanged; Schramm's second, the worthy Polish officer Miskowsky, had not yet been burnt to death, and Herr Techow could not yet have forgotten the letter he had written for "communication to our friends".

In the above-mentioned pamphlet there is a letter from my friend Frederick Engels, dated Manchester, November 23, 1853, at the end of which he writes:

"In the meeting of the Central Authority, when it came to a challenge to a duel between Schramm and Willich, I" (Engels) "am supposed" (according to Willich) "to have committed the crime of having 'left the room' together with Schramm shortly before the scene took place, and, therefore, of having prepared the whole scene in advance. Previously" (according to Willich) "it was Marx who was alleged to have 'egged on' Schramm, now for a change I am supposed to have done so. A duel between a Prussian lieutenant, an old hand at pistol shooting, and a commerçant, who perhaps had never had a pistol in his hand, was truly a remarkable means to 'get rid' of the lieutenant. Yet friend Willich maintained everywhere, orally and in writing, that we had wanted to get him shot.... Simply, Schramm was furious at Willich's shameless behaviour, and to the great astonishment of us all he challenged him to a duel. A few minutes before, Schramm himself had no inkling that it would come to this. Never was an action more spontaneous.... Schramm departed" (from the room) "only after being personally addressed by Marx, who wanted to avoid any further scandal.

Fr. Engels" (The Knight, etc., p. 7.)

How far I was from foreseeing that Techow would allow himself to become a vehicle for this stupid piece of gossip can be seen from the following passage of the same pamphlet:

"Originally, as Techow himself told Engels and me after his return to London, Willich was firmly convinced that through Schramm I aimed at his removal from this world, and he put this idea in writing everywhere. On closer reflection, however, he found it impossible that a diabolical tactician like myself could hit on the idea of getting rid of him by means of a duel with Schramm" (loc. cit., p. 9).

The gossip that Techow imparted to Herr Schimmelpfennig for "communication to our friends" was hearsay which he simply repeated. Karl Schapper, who took Willich's side when later the split in the League occurred and who witnessed the challenge, has written this letter to me about it:

"5 Percy Street, Bedford Square, September 27, 1860

"Dear Marx,

"Concerning the row between Schramm and Willich:

"It broke out during a meeting of the Central Authority as the result of a fierce argument between the two which arose by chance in the course of the discussion. I can still remember very well that you did everything possible to restore calm and to settle the affair and that you appeared to be as much taken by surprise by t his sudden explosion as I myself and everyone else present.

"Salute,

Your Karl Schapper"

Finally, it is worth mentioning that a few weeks after the duel, in a letter dated December 31, 1850, Schramm himself accused me of being partial to Willich. The disapproval which Engels and I had openly expressed, both before the duel and after it, had momentarily annoyed him. His letter and other papers of his and Miskowsky's concerning the duel, which have come into my hands, are available for perusal by his relatives. They should not be exposed to the gaze of the public.

When Konrad Schramm next visited me in London in mid-July 1857 after his return from the United States, his impetuous, tall, youthful frame had already collapsed under the impact of galloping consumption, which however had merely heightened the effect of his strikingly handsome features. With the sense of humour peculiar to him and which never left him, for a moment, the first thing he showed me, laughing as he did so, was the notice of his death which an indiscreet friend had already published in a German paper in New York on the basis of a rumour. On medical advice Schramm went to St. Hélier in Jersey, where Engels and I saw him for the last time. Schramm died on January 16, 1858. At his burial, which was attended by the entire liberal population of St. Hélier and the whole of the emigration resident there, the funeral oration was given by one of the best English popular orators, G. Julian Harney, who was known earlier as one of the Chartist leaders and who had been friendly with Schramm during his stay in London. Schramm's ardent, fiery and enterprising nature, which could never be curbed by mundane concerns, was combined with critical understanding, original intelligence, ironic humour and naive geniality. He was the Percy Hotspur of our party.

To return to Herr Techow's letter. A few days after his arrival in London, he had a long meeting with us late one evening in a tavern where Engels, Schramm and myself acted as hosts. He describes the meeting in his letter of August 26, 1850 to Schimmelpfennig, "for communication to our friends", I had never met him before and only saw him once or twice afterwards, and then only briefly. Nevertheless, he at once made a penetrating analysis of me and my friends, closely examining our minds, hearts and entrails, and hastened to send a letter containing a psychological description behind our backs to Switzerland, carefully advising his "friends" that it should be secretly reproduced and distributed.

Techow is much concerned with the state of my "heart". I will generously refrain from following him into this territory. "Ne parlons pas morale", as the Parisian grisette says when her friend starts to talk politics.

Let us dwell a while on the recipient of the letter of August 26, the former Prussian lieutenant Schimmelpfennig. I do not know the gentleman personally and have never seen him. I shall quote from two letters to convey his character. The first, which I give only in extract, was addressed to me by my friend W. Steffen, a former Prussian lieutenant and teacher in the Divisional School. It is dated Chester, November 23, 1853 and he writes:

"Willich once sent an adjutant called Schimmelpfennig over" (to Cologne). "He paid me the compliment of summoning me to him and he was firmly convinced that he could assess the whole situation right from the start better than anyone who was involved in it from day to day. He therefore formed a very low opinion of me when I told him that the officers of the Prussian army would be far from considering themselves fortunate to be able to fight under his banner and Willich's and that they were certainly not inclined to proclaim Willich's republic at once. He became even angrier when no one showed himself foolish enough to offer to duplicate the proclamation which he had brought with him in readiness and which exhorted the officers to declare themselves in favour of what he called democracy.

"In a fury, he departed from what he described to me as 'a Cologne enslaved by Marx'. He arranged for the duplication of his nonsense elsewhere and dispatched it to a large number of officers with the result that the chaste mystery of his cunning plan to convert Prussian officers to the republican cause was prostituted by the 'Spectator' of the Kreuz-Zeitung."

At the time of this adventure, Steffen, who only came to England in 1853, was completely unknown to me. Even more revealing is Schimmelpfennig's self-characterisation in the following letter to the same Hörfel who was later exposed as a French police agent. He was the heart and soul of the Revolutionary Committee founded in Paris at the end of 1850 by Schimmelpfennig, Schurz, Häfner and other friends of Kinkel in those days and he was on terms of intimacy with those .two matadors Schurz and Schimmelpfennig.

Schimmelpfennig to Hörfel (in Paris, 1851):

"Here" (in London) "the following events have taken place.... We have written to all our friends with any influence" (in America) "asking them to prepare the way for the loan" (the Kinkel Loan) "first of all by talking for some time about the power of conspiracy, both personally and in the press, and by emphasising that people worth their salt will never leave the field of battle— neither the Germans, the French nor the Italians." (History does not have no date?) "... Our work is now off to a good start . If you drop people who are too obstinate, they will soon think better of it and come to accept the conditions imposed. Since the work is now firm and secure, I shall tomorrow establish contact with Ruge and Haug.... My own social position, like yours, is very oppressive. It is vital that our affairs should get moving soon." (Namely the business of Kinkel's Revolutionary Loan.)

"Your Schimmelpfennig"

This letter of Schimmelpfennig's is to be found in the Enthüllungen which A. Ruge published in the Herold des Westens, Louisville, September 11, 1853. Schimmelpfennig, who was already living in the United States when they appeared, never impugned the authenticity of the letter. Ruge's Enthüllungen are reprinted from a document entitled "Aus den Akten des Berliner Polizeipräsidiums". It consists of marginal notes by Hinckeldey and of papers which were either found by the French police in the possession of Schimmelpfennig and Hörfel in Paris, or were unearthed at Pastor Dulon's in Bremen, or, lastly, were entrusted to the German-American press during the Frogs-and-Mice War between Ruge's Agitation Union and Kinkel's Émigré Society, by, the feuding brothers themselves. Typical is the irony with which Hinckeldey remarks that Schimmelpfennig abruptly cut short his journey through Prussia as missionary on behalf of Kinkel's Revolutionary Loan because "he imagined that he was being pursued by the police"! The same Enthüllungen contain a letter from Karl Schurz, "the representative of the Paris Committee" (i.e. that of Hörfel, Häfner, Schimmelpfennig, etc.) "in London", in which we find:

"It was decided yesterday that of the members of the emigration here Bucher, Dr. Frank, Redz from Vienna and Techow, who will soon be here, should be asked to join the discussions. N.B. Techow should not be informed of this decision for the time being, either verbally or in writing, before his arrival." (Karl Schurz to his "dear men" in Paris, London, April 16, 1851.)

It was to one of these "dear men", Herr Schimmelpfennig, that Techow addresses his letter of August 26, 1850 for "communication to our friends". He begins by informing the "dear man" of theories which I had been trying to keep a strict secret, but which he at once detected at our single encounter by means of the proverb "in vino veritas".

"I," Herr Techow recounts to Herr Schimmelpfennig, "for communication to our friends", "I ... declared finally that I had always imagined them" (i.e. Marx, Engels, etc.) " to be above all the nonsense about a communist paradisiacal barn à la Cabet, etc." ("Magnum Opus", p. 150.)

Imagined! So Techow did not even know the elementary facts about our views, but was nevertheless magnanimous and condescending enough to imagine that they were not exactly "nonsense".

Leaving scientific works to one side, even if he had read the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which he later calls my "Proletarian Catechism", he would have found in it a detailed chapter with the title "Socialist and Communist Literature", and at the end of this chapter a section entitled "Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism", in which it says:

"The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie.... The founders of these systems saw, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat offered to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement. Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a social science, after social laws, that are to create these conditions. Social action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual class organisation of the proletariat to an organisation of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.... The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development.... Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects [...] and [...] still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias, of founding isolated 'phalanstères', of establishing 'Home Colonies', of setting up a 'Little Icaria'—duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem..." (Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848, pp. 21, 22).

In the concluding words Cabet's Icaria, or "paradisiacal barn to use Techow's expression, is explicitly referred to as a "duodecimo edition of the New Jerusalem".

Techow's self-confessed total ignorance of the ideas that Engels and I had published in print years before our encounter with him is the factor that completely accounts for his misunderstanding. A few quotations will serve adequately to characterise him:

"He" (Marx) "laughs at the fools who blindly repeat his Proletarian Catechism after him, just as he laughs at communists like Willich and at the bourgeoisie. The only men he respects are aristocrats, those who are pure aristocrats, and are conscious of being so. To oust them from power he requires a force which he can find only in the proletariat. This is why his system is tailored to fit that force" ("Magnum Opus", p. 152).

Techow thus "imagines" that I have written a "Proletarian Catechism". He means the Manifesto which criticises and, if he likes, "ridicules" socialist and critical utopianism of every kind. Only, this "ridiculing" was not such a simple matter as Techow "imagines", but required a fair amount of work, as he could see from my book against Proudhon, Misère de la philosophie (1847). Techow further "imagines" that I have "tailored" a "system", whereas, on the contrary, even in the Manifesto which was intended directly for workers, I rejected systems of every kind and in their place I insisted on "a critical insight into the conditions, the line of march and the ultimate general results of the real movement of society". Such an "insight" cannot be blindly repeated, nor can it be "tailored" like a cartridge pouch. Of rare naivety is the view of the relations between aristocracy, bourgeoisie and proletariat, as Techow "imagines" them and imputes them to me.

I "respect" the aristocracy, "laugh" at the bourgeoisie, and I "tailor a system" to fit the proletariat, using them to "oust the aristocracy from power". In the first section of the Manifesto, entitled "Bourgeois and Proletarians" (see Manifesto, p. 11), it is argued in detail that the economic and, hence too, in one form or another, the political sway of the bourgeoisie is the essential precondition both of the existence of the modern proletariat and of the creation of the "material conditions for its emancipation". "The development of the modern proletariat" (see Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Revue, January 1850, p. 15) "is, in general, conditioned by the development of the industrial bourgeoisie. Only under its rule does the proletariat gain that extensive national existence which can raise its revolution to a national one, and does it itself create the modern means of production, which become just so many means of its revolutionary emancipation. Only its rule tears up the material roots of feudal society and levels the ground on which alone a proletarian revolution is possible." I declared accordingly in the same "Review" that any revolution in which England did not take part was no more than a "storm in a teacup". Engels had already advanced the same opinion in 1845 in The Condition of the Working-Class in England. Hence in countries where an aristocracy in the Continental sense of the term—and this is what Techow meant by "aristocracy"—has still to be "ousted from power", the very first prerequisite of a proletarian revolution is in my opinion missing, namely the existence of an industrial proletariat on a national scale.

Techow could have found my view of the attitude to the bourgeois movement adopted by the German workers in particular expressed very clearly in the Manifesto.

"In Germany they [the Communists] fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal landowners and philistinism [Kleinbürgerei]. But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, etc." (Manifesto, p. 23.)

When I stood before a bourgeois jury in Cologne charged with "rebellion", I argued along the same lines: "Modern bourgeois society still has classes, but no longer social estates. Its development lies in the struggle between these classes, but the latter stand united against the estates and their monarchy by the grace of God." ("Zwei politische Prozesse, verhandelt vor den Februar-Assisen zu Köln 1849", p. 59.)

What else did the liberal bourgeoisie do in its appeals to the proletariat between 1688 and 1848 but "tailor systems and phrases" in order to use the proletariat's strength to oust the aristocracy from power? So Herr Techow discovers that the core of the matter hidden in my secret theory is bourgeois liberalism of the crudest sort! Tant de bruit pour une omelette! Since, on the other hand, Techow knew perfectly well that "Marx" was no bourgeois liberal, he was left finally with no choice but "to go away with the impression that his personal supremacy was the goal of all his actions". "All my actions", what a temperate description of my single interview with Herr Techow!

Techow further confides to his Schimmelpfennig, "for communication to our friends", that I had expressed the following monstrous opinion:

"In the end it is a matter of complete indifference whether this miserable Europe were to be destroyed, a thing which must happen within a short space of time without a social revolution, and whether afterwards America would exploit the-old system at Europe's expense." ("Magnum Opus", p. 148.)

My conversation with Techow took place at the end of August 1850. In the February 1850 issue of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Revue, i.e. eight months before Techow culled this secret from my lips, I revealed the following views to the German public:

"Now we come to America. The most important thing to have occurred here, more important than the February revolution, is the discovery of the Californian gold-mines. Already now, after barely eighteen months, one may predict that this discovery will have much more impressive consequences than the discovery of America itself.... For the second time world trade is taking a new direction ... the Pacific Ocean will have the same role as the Atlantic has now and the Mediterranean had in antiquity and in the Middle Ages—that of the great water highway of world commerce; and the Atlantic will decline to the status of an inland sea, like the Mediterranean nowadays. The only chance the civilised nations of Europe will then have, not to fall into the same industrial, commercial and political dependence to which Italy, Spain and Portugal are now reduced, lies in a social revolution." (Revue, No. 2, February 1850, pp. [76,] 77.)

But the idea that old Europe will be "destroyed within a short space of time" and America will accede to the throne the following morning, belongs to Herr Techow. The clarity of my own view of America's immediate prospects at that time can be seen from another passage in the same "Review": "Over-speculation will develop very soon, and even if British capital becomes involved on a large scale [...] nevertheless this time New York will remain the centre of the whole swindle and, as in 1836, will be the first to suffer when it collapses." (Revue, double issue, May to October 1850, p. 149.) This prognosis for America, which I made in 1850, was fully borne out by the great trade crisis of 1857. As to "old Europe", on the other hand, having given an account of the revival of its economy, I go on to say: "With this general prosperity, in which the productive forces of bourgeois society develop so luxuriantly ... there can be no talk of a real revolution.... The various quarrels in which the representatives of the individual factions of the Continental party of Order now indulge and mutually compromise themselves, far from providing the occasion for revolution, are, on the contrary, possible only because the basis of the relationships is momentarily so secure and, what the reaction does not know, so bourgeois. All reactionary attempts to hold up bourgeois development will rebound off it just as certainly as all moral indignation and all enthusiastic proclamations of the democrats. A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a crisis" (loc. cit., p. 153).

And in fact European history has only re-entered an acute and, if one wishes, revolutionary phase since the crisis of 1857-58. In fact it was precisely during the reactionary period from 1849 to 1859 that industry and trade on the Continent, and along with them the material foundations for the political domination of the bourgeoisie, developed to an extent unheard of previously. In fact during this period "all moral indignation and all enthusiastic proclamations of the democrats" rebounded off the realities of economic conditions.

If Techow took the serious side of our discussions so humorously, he made up for it by the seriousness with which he responded to their humorous side. With a woebegone face he reports to his Schimmelpfennig "for communication to our friends":

"Furthermore, Marx stated: In revolutions officers are always the greatest threat; [...] from La Fayette to Napoleon, a series of traitors and treacheries. One ought always to have dagger and poison in readiness for them." ("Magnum Opus", p. 153.)

Even Techow will not wish to claim that the platitude about the treasonable activities of "the military" is an original opinion of mine. My originality is supposed rather to consist in the "dagger and poison" always to be held in readiness. Did Techow not know even then that really revolutionary governments, such as the Comité du salut public, kept antidotes in readiness for "the military" that were very drastic though less melodramatic? The dagger and poison really belong to the stock-in-trade of a Venetian oligarchy. If Techow were to scrutinise his letter once again, he would perhaps notice the irony in the "dagger and poison". Vogt's fellow-scoundrel, Edouard Simon, the notorious Bonapartist spy, translated the last part of Techow's letter in the Revue contemporaine (XIII, Paris, 1860, p. 528, in his "Le procès de M. Vogt, etc.") adding his own gloss:

"Marx n'aime pas beaucoup voir des officiers dans sa bande. Les officiers sont trop dangereux dans les révolutions."

Il faut toujours tenir prêts pour eux le poignard et le poison!

"Techow, qui est officier, se le tient pour dit; il se rembarque et retourne en Suisse."

According to Edouard Simon, poor Techow was in such a panic at the thought of the "dagger and poison" I was holding in readiness, that he immediately took to his heels, boarded ship and returned to Switzerland. The Imperial Vogt prints the passage about "dagger and poison" in bold type, to send a shiver down the spine of the German philistines. However, the same merry gentleman wrote in his so-called Studien:

"Today the knife and the poison of the Spaniard are shining in even greater glory —for it was the independence of the nation that was at stake" (loc. cit., p. 79).

Quite by the way: the Spanish and English historical sources dealing with the period 1807-14 have long since disproved the tales about poison invented by the French. But for the tub-thumping politicians, of course, they survive unscathed. I now come, lastly, to the "tittle-tattle" in Techow's letter and shall provide a few illustrations of his historical impartiality:

"The talk centred at first on the question of competition between them and us, Switzerland and London. [...] They had to maintain the rights of the old League, which because of its own specific party policy of course could not tolerate another league operating in the same area" (the proletariat) ("Magnum Opus", p. 143).

The rival organisation in Switzerland to which Techow refers here and as whose representative he, as it were, approached us, was the already-mentioned "Revolutionary Centralisation". Its Central Committee was located in Zurich and its President was a lawyer, a former Vice-President of one of the pocket parliaments of 1848 and a member of one of the provisional governments in Germany in 1849. In July 1850 Dronke went to Zurich where, as a member of the London "League", he was given a sort of legal. contract by that lawyer "for communication" to me. I quote from it verbatim:

"Considering the necessity for a union of all truly revolutionary elements, and since all members of the Revolutionary Central Committee have acknowledged the proletarian character of the next revolution, even though not all were able unreservedly to accept the programme adopted in London (the Manifesto of 1848), the Communist organisation and the Revolutionary Centralisation have agreed on the following points:

"1. Both parties agree to continue working side by side—the Revolutionary Centralisation will strive to prepare for the next revolution by attempting to unite all revolutionary elements, the London association will try to prepare for the rule of the proletariat by concentrating primarily on the organisation of proletarian elements;

"2. The Revolutionary Centralisation will instruct its agents and emissaries that, when forming branches in Germany, members who seem to be qualified to join the Communist organisation should have their attention drawn to the existence of an organisation devoted primarily towards the furtherance of proletarian interests;

"3. and 4. That the leadership in the 'Revolutionary Central Committee' for Switzerland will only be entrusted to genuine supporters of the London Manifesto, and that there should be a general exchange of information."

It is evident from this document, which is still in my possession, that there was no question of two secret societies "operating in the same area" (the proletariat), but of an alliance between two societies with different aims operating in different areas. It is equally evident that the "Revolutionary Centralisation" declared itself willing to act as a sort of branch organisation of the "Communist League", in addition to pursuing its own ends. The proposal was rejected because it was incompatible with the principles of the "League".

"Then it was Kinkel's turn.... To this they replied.... They had never striven for cheap popularity, on the contrary! [...] As far as Kinkel was concerned they would not have begrudged him his cheap popularity in the least, had he kept quiet. But once he had published that Rastatt speech in the Berlin Abend-Post, peace was no longer possible. They had known perfectly well that there would be a general outcry; they had clearly foreseen that the existence of their present paper" (Rheinische Zeitung. Revue) "was at stake. Moreover, their fears had been realised. They had been ruined by the whole affair, they had lost all their subscribers in the Rhine Province and had to close the paper down. But it would do them no harm" (loc. cit., pp. 146-48).

First a factual correction. It is not true that the Revue was closed down at this point, since one more, double issue came out three months afterwards. Nor had we lost a single subscriber in the Rhine Province, as my old friend J. Weydemeyer, a former Prussian lieutenant of artillery and, at that time, editor of the Neue Deutsche Zeitung in Frankfurt, can testify since it was he who was kind enough to collect the subscriptions for us. For the rest, Techow, who had only a hearsay acquaintance with the writings of Engels and myself, nevertheless must at least have read our critique—which he himself criticises—of Kinkel's speech. Why then send this confidential information to his "dear men" in Switzerland? Why "reveal" to them what we had ourselves revealed to the public five months previously? We wrote in the critique referred to:

"We know in advance that we shall provoke the general wrath of the sentimental swindlers and democratic spouters by denouncing this speech of the 'captured' Kinkel to our party. To this we are completely indifferent. Our task is that of ruthless criticism ... and in maintaining this our position we gladly forego cheap democratic popularity. Our attack will by no means worsen Herr Kinkel's position; we denounce his amnesty by confirming his confession that he is not the man people allege to hold him for, and by declaring that he is worthy, not only of being amnestied, but even of entering the service of the Prussian state! Moreover, his speech has been published'' (Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Revue, April 1850, pp. 70, 71).

Techow asserts that we "compromised" the petits grands hommes of the revolution. However, he does not use the word "compromise" in the police sense of Herr Vogt. On the contrary, he means the operation by means of which we stripped off the offensive covering of those sheep who had dressed up in revolutionary wolf's clothing, thus preserving them from the fate of the celebrated Provençal troubadour who was torn to pieces by the dogs because they took the wolf's pelt seriously which he wore to go hunting.

As an instance of our offensive attacks Techow singles out the incidental gloss on General Sigel to be found in Engels' account of the "campaign for the Imperial Constitution" (see Revue, March 1850, pp. 70-78).

Now Engels' critique, which is based on documentary evidence, should be compared with the following malicious and trite twaddle about that same General Sigel, published about a year after our meeting with Techow by the London "Emigration Association" run by Techow, Kinkel, Willich, Schimmelpfennig, Schurz, H. B. Oppenheim, Eduard Meyen, etc. Moreover, this was published solely because Sigel belonged to Ruge's "Agitation Union", instead of Kinkel's "Emigration Association".

On December 3, 1851 the Baltimore Correspondent, which was at the time a sort of Kinkel Moniteur, published the following description of Sigel beneath the title "The Agitation Union in London":

"Let us take another look at these worthy men who regard everyone else as an 'immature politician'. Sigel, the supreme commander . If anyone ever asks the muse of history how such an insipid nonentity was given the supreme command she will be even more at a loss for an explanation than in the case of that mooncalf Napoleon. The latter is at least 'his uncle's nephew'; Sigel, however, is only 'his brother's brother'. His brother became a popular officer as a result of his critical remarks about the government, remarks which had been provoked by his frequent arrests for disorderly behaviour. The young Sigel thought this reason enough in the early confusion prevailing at the outbreak of the revolution to proclaim himself supreme commander and Minister of War. The Baden artillery, which had often proved its worth, had plenty of older and more experienced officers who should have taken precedence over this young Lieutenant Sigel, and they were more than a little indignant when they had to obey a young, insignificant man whose inexperience was only matched by his incompetence. But there was Brentano, who was so mindless and treacherous as to permit anything that might ruin the revolution. It is a ridiculous fact, but a fact nevertheless, that Sigel promoted himself to the rank of commander-inchief and that Brentano approved his nomination in retrospect.... It is certainly noteworthy that Sigel left the bravest soldiers of the republican army in the lurch at the desperate and hopeless battles in Rastatt and the Black Forest without the reinforcements he had promised while he himself drove around Zurich with the epaulettes and in the carriage of Prince von Fürstenberg and paraded as an interesting unfortunate supreme commander. This is the well-known magnitude of this mature politician who, 'understandably proud' of his earlier heroic deeds, imposed himself as supreme commander for a second time, on this occasion in the Agitation Union. This is the great well-known man, the 'brother of his brother' ."

Impartiality requires us to lend an ear also to Ruge's "Agitation Union" in the person of its spokesman Tausenau. In an open letter addressed "To Citizen Seidensticker", London, November 14, 1851, Tausenau writes with reference to the "Emigration Association" led by Kinkel, Techow, etc.:

"...They affirm their conviction that the union of all in the interest of the revolution is an urgent patriotic duty. The German Agitation Union shares this conviction, and its members have proved this by their sustained efforts to achieve unity with Kinkel and his supporters. But as soon as a basis for political co-operation seemed to be established it vanished once again, and new disappointments followed the old ones. High-handed actions in violation of previous agreements, separate interests in the guise of conciliation, the systematic 'fixing' of majorities, the emergence of unknown quantities as party leaders, attempts to impose a secret finance committee are but a few of the devious tricks and chess moves that immature politicians always resort to in exile in the belief that they are guiding the fortunes of their .country, while in reality the very first glow of the revolution will dissipate all such vanities and scatter them to the winds.... We were denounced officially and in public by Kinkel's supporters; the reactionary German press, which was barred to us, is packed with reports favourable to Kinkel and hostile to us. Finally Kinkel made the journey to the United States in order to use his project of the so-called German Loan as a means of imposing a union on us, or rather a status of subordination and dependence which is the goal of everyone who proposes a financial merger between two parties. Kinkel's departure was kept so secret that we did not learn of it until we read in the American press about his arrival in New York.... All this, and other considerations of the same sort, were compelling motives to persuade serious revolutionaries who did not overestimate themselves, but who in the knowledge of their previous achievements could with self-confidence assert that at any rate clearly defined sections of the people stood behind them , to enter an association which seeks in its own way to further the interests of the revolution."

Further it is held against Kinkel that the funds he had collected were to be used for the benefit of "a clique", as "his entire behaviour here" (in London) "and in America makes plain", as do also "the majority of the guarantors nominated by Kinkel himself". Tausenau concludes by saying:

"We promise our friends neither interest on their money nor the repayment of their patriotic donations; but we know that we shall vindicate their confidence in us through our positive achievements" (fair services?) "and scrupulous accounting and that one day, when we come to publish their names, the gratitude of the nation will await them " (Baltimore Wecker of November 29, 1851).

This was the sort of "literary activity" maintained in the columns of the German-American press for three years by the democratic heroes of the "Agitation Union" and the "Emigration Association" who were later joined by the "Revolutionary League of Two Worlds" founded by Goegg. (See Appendix 6.)

The refugee row in the American press, incidentally, was inaugurated by a paper battle between the parliamentarians Zitz and Roesler of Oels.

One more fact by way of characterising Techow's "dear men".

Schimmelpfennig, to whom Techow's letter "for communication to our friends" was addressed, had set up a so-called Revolutionary Committee in Paris at the end of 1850 (as we have already mentioned) together with Hörfel, Häfner, Goegg and others (K. Schurz joined in at a later date).

A few years ago a document written by a former member of the Committee to a political refugee here was handed to me to use as I pleased. The document is still in my possession.

It says, among other things:

"Schurz and Schimmelpfennig were in effect the whole Committee. They also acquired some sort of associates but they were merely for show. These two gentlemen firmly believed at that time that they could soon put their Kinkel, whom they had virtually made their property, at the head of affairs in Germany. They particularly detested Ruge's sarcasms and the criticism and demonic activity of Marx. At a meeting of these gentlemen with their associates they gave us a really very interesting description of Marx and conveyed to us an exaggerated impression of the pandemonic dangers he represented.... Schurz-Schimmelpfennig proposed a motion to destroy Marx. The means they recommended were insinuations and intrigues , and the most shameless slanders. A vote in favour and a resolution, if one can use these words to describe their childish antics, then took place. The next step was the character sketch of Marx published in the literary section of the Hamburger Anzeiger at the beginning of 1851. It was written by L. Häfner on the basis of the above-mentioned description by Schurz and Schimmelpfennig."

In any event there is the most striking affinity between Häfner's essay and Techow's letter, although neither the one nor the other can equal Vogt's Lousiad. It is important not to confuse the Lousiad with the Lusiads of Camoens. The original Lousiad was rather a mock heroic epic by Peter Pindar.