[The Northern Star No. 415, October 25, 1845] 

Dear Sir,—In compliance with your wish, I commence by this 
letter a series of articles on the present state of my native country. In 
order to make my opinions on the subject plainly understood, and to 
justify the same as being well founded, I shall have to trace with a few 
words the history of Germany from the event which shook modern 
society to its very foundation—I mean to say, from the French 
Revolution. 

Old Germany was at that time known by the name of The Holy 
Roman Empire,’ and consisted of God knows how many little states, 
kingdoms, electorates, dukedoms, arch and grand dukedoms, 
principalities, counties, baronies, and free Imperial cities — every 
one independent of the other, and only subjected to the power (if 
there was any, which however, for hundreds of years, had not been 
the case) of the Emperor and Diet. The independence of these little 
states went so far, that in every war with “the arch-enemy” (France, 
of course), there was a part of them allied to the French king, and in 
open war with their own Emperor. The Diet, consisting of the 
deputations from all these little states, under the presidency of the 
Imperial one, being intended to check the power of the Emperor, 
was always assembled without ever coming to any, even the most 
insignificant, results. They killed their time with the most futile 
questions of ceremony, whether the embassy of Baron so-and-so 
(consisting, perhaps, of the tutor of his son and an old livery-servant, 
or worn-out game-keeper) ought to have precedency before the 
embassy of Baron so-and-so—or whether the deputy from one 
Imperial city ought to salute the deputy of another without waiting 
for his salute, etc. Then there were so many hundreds of thousands 
of little privileges, mostly burthensome to the privileged themselves, 
but which were considered as points of honour, and, therefore, 

quarrelled about with the utmost obstinacy. This and similar 
important things took up so much of the time of the wise Diet, that 
this honourable assembly had not a minute to spare for discussing 
the weal of the empire. In consequence of this, the greatest possible 
disorder and confusion was the order of the day. The empire, 
divided within itself in time of war as well as peace, passed through a 
series of internal wars from the time of the Reformation down to 
1789, in every one of which France was allied to the party opposed to 
the weak and easily vanquished party of the Emperor, and took, of 
course, its lion’s share in the plunder—first, Burgundy; then the 
three bishoprics, Metz, Toul, and Verdun; then the rest of Lorraine; 
then parts of Flanders and Alsace — were in this manner separated 
from the Holy Roman Empire and united to France. Thus 
Switzerland was allowed to become independent from the empire; 
thus Belgium was made over to the Spaniards by legacy of Charles V; 
and all these countries fared better after their separation from 
Germany. To this progressive external ruin of the empire, was 
joined the greatest possible internal confusion. Every little prince 
was a blood-sucking, arbitrary despot to his subjects. The empire 
never cared about the internal concerns of any states except by 
forming a court of law (Imperial Court Chamber at Wetzlar '*) for 
attending to suits of subjects against their superiors, but that 
precious court attended so well to these actions, that not one of them 
has ever been heard of as having been settled. It is almost incredible 
what cruelties and arbitrary acts were committed by the haughty 
princes towards their subjects. These princes, living for pleasure and 
debauchery only, allowed every despotic power to their ministers 
and government officers, who were thus permitted, without any risk 
of punishment, to trample into the dust the unfortunate people, on 
this condition only, that they filled their master’s treasury and 
procured him an inexhaustible supply of female beauty for his 
harem. The nobility, too, such as were not independent but under 
the dominion of some king, bishop, or prince, used to treat the 
people with greater contempt than they bestowed upon dogs, and 
squeezed as much money as they possibly could out of the labour of 
their serfs—for servitude was quite a common thing, then, in 
Germany. Nor was there any sign of liberty in those emphatically, 
so-called, free Imperial cities; for here a burgomaster and self- 
elected senate, offices which, in the course of centuries, had become 
as hereditary as the Imperial crown, ruled with greater tyranny still. 
Nothing can equal the infamous conduct of these petty-bourgeois 
aristocrats of the towns, and, indeed, it would not be believed that 
such was the state of Germany fifty years ago, if it was not in the 

The State of Germany 17 

memory still of many who remember that time, and if it was not 
confirmed by a hundred authorities. And the people! What did they 
say to this state of things? What did they do? Why, the middle classes, 
the money-loving bourgeois, found, in this continued confusion, a 
source of wealth; they knew that they could catch the most fish in the 
troubled waters; they suffered themselves to be oppressed and 
insulted because they could take a revenge upon their enemies 
worthy of themselves; they avenged their wrongs by cheating their 
oppressors. United to the people, they might have overthrown the old 
dominions and refounded the empire, just as the English middle 
classes had partly done from 1640 to 1688, and as the French 
bourgeois were then about to do. But, no, the German middle classes 
had not that energy, never pretended to that courage; they knew 
Germany to be nothing but a dunghill, but they were comfortable in 
the dung because they were dung themselves, and were kept warm 
by the dung about them. And the working people were not worse off 
than they are now, except the peasantry, who were mostly serfs, and 
could do nothing without the assistance of the towns, hired armies 
being always quartered on them, who threatened to stifle in blood 
every attempt at revolt. 

Such was the state of Germany towards the end of the last century. 
It was all over one living mass of putrefaction and repulsive decay. 
Nobody felt himself at ease. The trade, commerce, industry, and 
agriculture of the country were reduced to almost nothing; 
peasantry, tradesmen and manufacturers felt the double pressure of 
a blood-sucking government and bad trade; the nobility and princes 
found that their incomes, in spite of the squeezing of their inferiors, 
could not be made to keep pace with their increasing expenditure; 
everything was wrong, and a general uneasiness prevailed through- 
out the country. No education, no means of operating upon the 
minds of the masses, no free press, no public spirit, not even an 
extended commerce with other countries— nothing but meanness 
and selfishness—a mean, sneaking, miserable shopkeeping spirit 
pervading the whole people. Everything worn out, crumbling down, 
going fast to ruin, and not even the slightest hope of a beneficial 
change, not even so much strength in the nation as might have 
sufficed for carrying away the putrid corpses of dead institutions. 

The only hope for the better was seen in the country’s literature. 
This shameful political and social age was at the same time the great 
age of German literature. About 1750 all the master-spirits of 
Germany were born, the poets Goethe and Schiller, the philosophers 
Kant and Fichte, and, hardly twenty years later, the last great 
German metaphysician,'’ Hegel. Every remarkable work of this time 

breathes a spirit of defiance, and rebellion against the whole of 
German society as it then existed. Goethe wrote Goetz von 
Berlichingen, a dramatic homage to the memory of a rebel. Schiller, 
the Robbers, celebrating a generous young man, who declares open 
war against all society. But these were their juvenile productions; 
when they grew older they lost all hope; Goethe restrained himself to 
satire of the keenest order, and Schiller would have despaired if it 
had not been for the refuge which science, and particularly the great 
history of ancient Greece and Rome, afforded to him. These, too, 
may be taken as examples of the rest. Even the best and strongest 
minds of the nation gave up all hope as to the future of their country. 

All at once, like a thunderbolt, the French Revolution struck into 
this chaos, called Germany. The effect was tremendous. The people, 
too little instructed, too much absorbed in the ancient habit of being 
tyrannised over, remained unmoved. But all the middle classes, and 
the better part of the nobility, gave one shout of joyful assent to the 
national assembly and the people of France. Not one of all the 
hundreds of thousands of existing German poets failed to sing the 
glory of the French people. But this enthusiasm was of the German 
sort, it was merely metaphysical, it was only meant to apply to the 
theories of the French revolutionists. As soon as theories were 
shuffled into the background by the weight and bulk of facts; as soon 
as the French court and the French people could in practice no 
longer agree, notwithstanding their theoretical union, by the 
theoretical constitution of 1791; as soon as the people asserted their 
sovereignty practically by the “10th of August”: and when, moreover, 
theory was entirely made silent on the 3lst of May, 1793, by the 
putting down of the Girondists— then this enthusiasm of Germany 
was converted into a fanatic hatred against the revolution. Of course 
this enthusiasm was meant to apply to such actions only as the night 
of the 4th of August, 1789, when the nobility resigned their 
privileges,'? but the good Germans never thought of such actions 
having consequences in practice widely differing from those 
inferences which benevolent theorists might draw. The Germans 
never meant to approve of these consequences, which were rather 
serious and unpleasant to many parties, as we all know well. So the 
whole mass, who in the beginning had been enthusiastic friends to 
the revolution, now became its greatest opponents, and getting, of 
course, the most distorted news from Paris by the servile German 
press, preferred their old quiet holy Roman dunghill to the 
tremendous activity of a people who threw off vigorously the chains 
of slavery, and flung defiance to the faces of all despots, aristocrats, 
and priests. 

The State of Germany 19 

But the days of the Holy Roman Empire were numbered. The 
French revolutionary armies walked straight into the very heart of 
Germany, made the Rhine the frontier of France, and preached 
liberty and equality everywhere. They drove away by shoals 
noblemen, bishops, and abbots, and all those little princes that for so 
long a time had played in history the part of dolls. They effected a 
clearing, as if they were settlers advancing in the backwoods of the 
American Far West; the antediluvian forest of “Christian-Germanic”’ 
society disappeared before their victorious course, like clouds before 
the rising sun. And when the energetic Napoleon took the 
revolutionary work into his own hands, when he identified the 
revolution with himself; that same revolution which after the ninth 
Thermidor 1794” had been stifled by the money-loving middle 
classes, when he, the democracy with “a single head”, as a French 
author termed him, poured his armies again and again over 
Germany, “Christian-Germanic” society was finally destroyed. 
Napoleon was not that arbitrary despot to Germany which he is said 
to have been by his enemies; Napoleon was in Germany the 
representative of the revolution, the propagator of its principles, the 
destroyer of old feudal society. Of course he proceeded despotically, 
but not even half as despotically as the deputies from the Convention 
would have done, and really did, wherever they came; not half so 
much so as the princes and nobles used to do whom he sent 
a-begging. Napoleon applied the reign of terror, which had done its 
work in France, to other countries, in the shape of war—and this “reign 
of terror” was sadly wanted in Germany. Napoleon dissolved the 
Holy Roman Empire, and reduced the number of little states in 
Germany by forming large ones. He brought his code of laws with 
himself into the conquered countries, a code infinitely superior to all 
existing ones, and recognising equality in principle. He forced the 
Germans, who had lived hitherto for private interests only, to work at 
the carrying out of a great idea of some overwhelming public 
interest. But that was just what aroused the Germans against him. He 
offended the peasantry by the very same measures that relieved 
them from the oppression of feudalism, because he struck at the 
roots of their prejudices and ancient habits. He offended the middle 
classes by the very means that laid the foundation of German 
manufacturing industry: the prohibition of all English goods and the 
war with England”! was the cause of their beginning to manufacture 
for themselves, but, at the same time, it made coffee and sugar, 
tobacco and snuff, very dear; and this, of course, was sufficient to 
arouse the indignation of the German patriotic shopkeepers. 
Besides, they were not the people to understand any of the great 

plans of Napoleon. They cursed him because he led their children 
away into wars, got up by the money of the English aristocracy and 
middle classes; and hailed as friends those same classes of 
Englishmen who were the real cause of the wars, who profited by 
those wars, and who duped their German instruments not only 
during, but also after the war. They cursed him, because they 
desired to remain confined to their old, miserable sort of life, where 
they had nothing but their own little interest to attend to, because 
they desired to have nothing to do with great ideas and public 
interest. And at last, when Napoleon’s army had been destroyed in 
Russia, they took that opportunity of shaking off the iron yoke of the 
great conqueror. 

The “glorious liberation war” of 1813-14 and 15, the “most 
glorious period of German history”, etc., as it has been called, was a 
piece of insanity such as will drive the blood into the cheeks of every 
honest and intelligent German for some time to come.” True, there 
was great enthusiasm then, but who were these enthusiasts? Firstly, 
the peasantry, the most stupid set of people in existence, who, 
clinging to feudal prejudices, burst forth in masses, ready to die 
rather than cease to obey those whom they, their fathers and 
grandfathers, had called their masters; and submitted to be trampled 
on and horse-whipped by. Then the students and young men 
generally, who considered this war as a war of principle, nay, as a war 
of religion; because not only they believed themselves called upon to 
fight for the principle of legitimacy, called their nationality, but also 
for the Holy Trinity and existence of God; in all poems, pamphlets, 
and addresses of that time, the French are held up as the 
representatives of atheism, infidelity, and wickedness, and the 
Germans as those of religion, piety, and righteousness. Thirdly, 
some more enlightened men, who mixed up with these ideas some 
notions about “liberty”, “constitutions”, and a “free press”; but 
these were by far the minority. And fourthly, the sons of tradesmen, 
merchants, speculators, etc., who fought for the right of buying in 
the cheapest market, and of drinking coffee without the admixture 
of chicory; of course, disguising their aims under the expressions of 
the enthusiasm of the day, “liberty”, “great German people’, 
“national independence’, and so forth. These were the men, who, 
with the assistance of the Russians, English and Spaniards, beat 
Napoleon. 

In my next letter I shall proceed to the history of Germany since 
the fall of Napoleon. Let me only add, in qualification of the opinion 
above given of this extraordinary man, that the longer he reigned, 
the more he deserved his ultimate fate. His ascending the throne I 

The State of Germany 21 

will not reproach him with; the power of the middle classes in 
France, who never cared about public interests, provided their pri- 
vate ones went on favourably, and the apathy of the people, who saw 
no ultimate benefit [for] themselves from the revolution, and were 
only to be roused to the enthusiasm of war, permitted no other 
course; but that he associated with the old anti-revolutionary 
dynasties by marrying the Austrian Emperor’s daughter,’ that he, 
instead of destroying every vestige of Old Europe, rather sought to 
compromise with it—that he aimed at the honour of being the first 
among the European monarchs, and therefore assimilated his court 
as much as possible to theirs — that was his great fault. He descended 
to the level of other monarchs — he sought the honour of being their 
equal — he bowed to the principle of legitimacy — and it was a matter 
of course, then, that the legitimists kicked the usurper out of their 
company. 

I am, sir, yours respectfully, 
Your German Correspondent 
October 15th, 1845 

LETTER II 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN STAR 

[The Northern Star No. 417, November 8, 1845] 

Dear Sir,—Having in my first letter described the state of 
Germany before and during the French Revolution, as well as during 
the reign of Napoleon; having related how the great conqueror was 
overthrown, and by what parties, I now resume the thread of my 
narrative to show what Germany made of herself after this “glorious 
restoration” of national independence. 

The view I took of all these events was diametrically opposed to 
that in which they generally are represented; but my view is, to a 
letter, confirmed by the events of the following period of German 
history. Had the war against Napoleon really been a war of liberty 
against despotism, the consequence would have been, that all those 
nations which Napoleon had subdued, would, after his downfall, 
have proclaimed the principles and enjoyed the blessings of equality. 
But quite the contrary was the case. With England, the war had been 
commenced by the frightened aristocracy, and supported by the 

a Marie Louise.— Ed. 

moneyocracy, who found a source of immense profit in the repeated 
loans, and the swelling of the National Debt; in the opportunity 
afforded them to enter into the South American markets, to cram 
them with their own manufactures, and to conquer such French, 
Spanish and Dutch colonies as they thought proper, for the better 
filling of their purses; to make “Britannia rule the waves” * despotic, 
that they might harass to their heart’s pleasure the trade of any other 
nation, whose competition threatened to endanger the progress of 
their own enrichment; and lastly, to assert their right of making 
enormous profits, by providing the European markets, in opposition 
to Napoleon’s continental system. Such were the real causes of the 
long war on the part of those classes in whose hands the Government 
of England was then deposited; and as to the pretext, that the 
fundamental principles of the English Constitution were en- 
dangered by the French Revolution, it only shows what a precious 
piece of workmanship this “perfection of human reason” must have 
been. As to Spain, the war had commenced in defence of the 
principle of legitimate succession, and of the inquisitorial despotism 
of the priesthood. The principles of the constitution of 1812” were 
introduced later, in order to give the people some inducement to 
continue the struggle, being themselves of French origin. Italy never 
was opposed to Napoleon, having received nothing but benefits from 
his hands, and having to thank him for her very existence as a nation. 
The same was the case with Poland. What Germany was indebted for 
to Napoleon I have related in my first letter. 

By all and each of the victorious powers the downfall of Napoleon 
was considered as the destruction of the French Revolution, and the 
triumph of legitimacy. The consequences were, of course, the 
restoration of this principle at home, first under the disguise of such 
sentimentalities as “Holy Alliance” ,* “eternal peace”, “public weal”, 
“confidence between prince and subject”, etc., etc., afterwards 
undisguised by the bayonet and the dungeon. The impotency of the 
conquerors was sufficiently shown by this one fact, that, after all, the 
vanquished French people, with a hated dynasty forced upon them, 
and maintained by 150,000 foreign muskets, yet inspired such awe in 
the breasts of their victorious enemies, that they got a tolerably 
liberal constitution, while the other nations, with all their exertions, 
and all their boasting of liberty, got nothing but fine words first, and 
hard bullets afterwards. The putting down of the French Revolution 
was celebrated by the massacres of Republicans in the south of 
France; by the blaze of the inquisitorial pile and the restoration of 

* Engels quotes “Rule, Britannia”, a song by J. Thomson.— Ed. 

The State of Germany 23 

native despotism in Spain and Italy, and by the gagging-bills and 
“Peterloo” in England.” We shall now see that in Germany things 
took a similar course. 

The Kingdom of Prussia was the first of all German states to 
declare war against Napoleon. It was then governed by Frederick 
William III, nicknamed “The Just”, one of the greatest blockheads 
that ever graced a throne. Born to be a corporal and to inspect the 
buttons of an army; dissolute, without passion, and a morality- 
monger at the same time, unable to speak otherwise but in the 
infinite tense, surpassed only by his son? as a writer of proclama- 
tions; he knew only two feelings — fear and corporal-like imperious- 
ness. During the first half of his reign his predominating state of 
mind was the fear of Napoleon, who treated him with the generosity 
of contempt in giving him back half his kingdom, which he did not 
think worth the keeping. It was this fear which led him to allow a 
party of half-and-half reformers to govern in his stead, Hardenberg, 
Stein, Schon, Scharnhorst, etc., who introduced a more liberal 
organisation of municipalities, abolition of servitude, commutation 
of feudal services into rent, or a fixed sum of twenty-five years 
purchase, and above all, the military organisation, which gives the 
people a tremendous power, and which some time or other will be 
used against the Government. They also “prepared” a constitution 
which, however, has not yet made its appearance. We shall soon see 
what turn the affairs of Prussia took after the putting down of the 
French Revolution. 

The “Corsican monster” being got into safe custody, there was 
immediately a great congress of great and petty despots held at 
Vienna, in order to divide the booty and the prize-money, and to see 
how far the ante-revolutionary state of things could be restored. 
Nations were bought and sold, divided and united, just as it best 
suited the interests and purposes of their rulers. There were only 
three states present who knew what they were about— England, 
intending to keep up and extend her commercial supremacy, to 
retain the lion’s share out of the colonial plunder, and to weaken all 
the remainder — France, not to suffer too much, and weaken all 
others — Russia, to get increase of strength and territory, and to 
weaken all others; the remainder were directed by sentimentalities, 
petty egotism, and some of them even by a sort of ridiculous 
disinterestedness. The consequence was, that France spoiled the job 
for the great German states; that Russia got the best part of Poland; 
and England extended her maritime power more by the peace than 

4 Frederick William IV.—Ed. 

by the war, and obtained the superiority in all continental 
markets — of no use for the English people, but means of enormous 
enrichment to the English middle classes. The German states, who 
thought of nothing but of their darling principle of legitimacy, were 
cheated once more, and lost by the peace everything they had won by 
the war. Germany remained split up into thirty-eight states, whose 
division hinders all internal progress, and makes France more than a 
match for her; and who, continuing [to be] the best market for 
English manufactures, served only to enrich the English middle 
classes. It is all well for this section of the English people to boast of 
the generosity which prompted them to send enormous sums of 
money to keep up the war against Napoleon; but, if we even suppose 
that it was them, and not the working people, who in reality had to 
pay these subsidies—they only intended, by their generosity, to 
re-open the continental markets, and in this they succeeded so well 
that the profits they have drawn since the peace, from Germany 
alone, would repay those sums at least six times over. It is really 
middle-class generosity which first makes you a present in the shape 
of subsidies, and afterwards makes you repay it six-fold in the shape 
of profits. Would they have been so eager to pay those subsidies, if at 
the end of the war, the reverse had been likely to be the case, and 
England been inundated with German manufactures, instead of 
Germany being kept in manufacturing bondage by a few English 
capitalists? 

However, Germany was cheated on all hands, and mostly by her 
own so-called friends and allies. This I should not much care for 
myself, as I know very well that we are approaching to a 
reorganisation of European society, which will prevent such tricks on 
the one hand, and such imbecilities on the other; what I want to show 
is, first, that neither the English people, nor any other people 
profited by cheating the German despots, but that it all was for the 
benefit of other despots; or of one particular class, whose interest is 
opposed to the people; and second, that the very first act of the 
German restored despots showed their thorough incapacity. We now 
turn to the home affairs of Germany. 

We have seen who were the parties that, with the aid of English 
money and Russian barbarism, put down the French Revolution. 
They were divided into two sections; first, the violent partisans of old 
“Christian-Germanic” society, the peasantry and the enthusiastic 
youth, who were impelled by the fanaticism of servitude, of 
nationality, of legitimacy and religion; and second, the more sober 
middle-class men, who wished “to be let alone”, to make money and 
to spend it without being bothered with the impudent interference 

The State of Germany 25 

of great historical events. The latter party were satisfied as soon as 
they had obtained the peace, the right to buy in the cheapest market, 
to drink coffee without admixture of chicory, and to be excluded 
from all political affairs. The “Christian Germanics”, however, now 
became the active supporters of the restored governments, and did 
everything in their power to screw history back to 1789. As to those 
who wished to see the people enjoy some of the fruits of their 
exertions, they had been strong enough to make their watchwords 
the battle-cry of 1813, but not the practice of 1815. They got some 
fine promises of constitutions, free press, etc., and that was all; in 
practice everything was carefully left as it had been previously. The 
Frenchified parts of Germany were purged, as far as possible, from 
the traces of “foreign despotism”, and those provinces only which 
were situated on the left of the Rhine retained their French 
institutions. The Elector of Hesse* went so far as to restore even the 
pig-tails of his soldiers, which had been cut off by the impious hands of 
the French. In short, Germany, as well as every other country, 
offered the picture of a shameless reaction which was only 
distinguished by a character of timidity and weakness; it did not even 
elevate itself to that degree of energy with which revolutionary 
principles were combated in Italy, Spain, France and England. 
The cheating system to which Germany had been subjected at the 
Congress of Vienna, now commenced to be practised between the 
different German states themselves. Prussia and Austria, in order to 
weaken the power of the different states, forced them to give some 
sort of mongrel constitutions, which weakened the governments, 
without imparting any power to the people, or even the middle 
classes. Germany being constituted a confederacy of states, whose 
embassies, sent by the governments alone, formed the diet, there was 
no risk that the people might become too strong, as every state was 
bound by the resolutions of the diet, which were law for all Germany, 
without being subject to the approval of any representative assembly. 
In this diet it was a matter of course that Prussia and Austria ruled 
absolutely; they only had to threaten the lesser princes to abandon 
them in their struggle with their representative assemblies, in order 
to frighten them into implicit obedience. By these means, by their 
overwhelming power, and by their being the true representatives of 
that principle from which every German prince derives his power, 
they have made themselves the absolute rulers of Germany. 
Whatever may be done in the small states is without any effect in 
practice. The struggles of the Liberal middle classes of Germany 

* Ludwig I.— Ed. 

remained fruitless as long as they were confined to the smaller 
southern states; they became important as soon as the middle classes 
of Prussia were aroused from their lethargy. And as the Austrian 
people can hardly be said to belong to the civilised world, and, in 
consequence, submit quietly to their paternal despotism, the state 
which may be taken as the centre of German modern history, as the 
barometer of the movements of public opinion, is Prussia. 

After the downfall of Napoleon, the King of Prussia spent some of 
his happiest years. He was cheated, it is true, on every hand. England 
cheated him; France cheated him; his own dear friends, the 
Emperors of Austria and Russia,* cheated him over and over again; 
but he, in the fulness of his heart, did not even find it out; he could 
not think of the possibility of there being any such scoundrels in the 
world who could cheat Frederick William III, “The Just”. He was 
happy. Napoleon was overthrown. He had no fear. He pressed 
Article 13 of the Fundamental Federative Act of Germany, which 
promised a constitution for every state. He pressed the other article 
about the liberty of the press.” Nay, on the 22nd of May, 1815, he 
issued a proclamation commencing with these words— words in 
which his benevolent happiness was beautifully blended with his 
corporal-like imperiousness— “There shall be a representation of the 
people!” He went on to order that a commission should be named to 
prepare a constitution for his people; and even in 1819, when there 
had been revolutionary symptoms in Prussia, when reaction was 
rifest all over Europe, and when the glorious fruit of the Congresses 
was in its full blossom, even then he declared that, in future, no 
public loan should be contracted without the assent of the future 
representative assemblies of the kingdom. 

Alas! this happy time did not last. The fear of Napoleon was but 
too soon replaced in the king’s mind by the fear of the revolution. But 
of that in my next. 

I have only one word to add. Whenever in English democratic 
meetings the “patriots of all countries” are toasted, Andreas Hofer is 
sure to be amongst them. Now, after what I have said on the enemies 
of Napoleon in Germany, is Hofer’s name worthy to be cheered by 
democrats? Hofer was a stupid, ignorant, bigoted, fanatical peasant, 
whose enthusiasm was that of La Vendée,”’ that of “Church and 
Emperor”. He fought bravely — but so did the Vendéans against the 
Republicans. He fought for the paternal despotism of Vienna and 
Rome. Democrats of England, for the sake of the honour of the 
German people, leave that bigot out of the question in future. 

* Ferdinand I and Alexander I.—Ed. 

The State of Germany 97 

Germany has better patriots than him. Why not mention Thomas 
Munzer, the glorious chief of the peasant insurrection of 1525, who 
was a real democrat, as far as possible, at that time? Why not glorify 
George Forster, the German Thomas Paine, who supported the 
French Revolution in Paris up to the last, in opposition to all his 
countrymen, and died on the scaffold? Why not a host of others, who 
fought for realities, and not for delusions? 

I am, dear Sir, yours respectfully, 
Your German Correspondent 

LETTER III 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN STAR 

[The Northern Star No. 438, April 4, 1846] 

Dear Sir,— I really must beg of you and your readers to excuse my 
apparent negligence in not continuing sooner the series of letters on 
the above subject which I commenced writing for this paper. You 
may, however, rest assured that nothing but the necessity of devoting 
some weeks to the German movement exclusively could detain me 
from the pleasant task I have undertaken, of informing the English 
democracy of the state of things in my native country. 

Your readers will, perhaps, have some recollection of the 
statements made in my first and second letters. I there related how 
the old, rotten state of Germany was rooted up by the French armies 
from 1792 to 1813; how Napoleon was overthrown by the union of 
the feudalists, or aristocrats, and the bourgeois, or trading middle 
classes of Europe; how, in the subsequent peace arrangements the 
German princes were cheated by their allies, and even by vanquished 
France; how the German Federative Act, and the present political 
state of Germany was brought about; and how Prussia and Austria, 
by inducing the lesser states to give constitutions, made themselves 
the exclusive masters of Germany. Leaving Austria, as a half- 
barbarian country, out of the question, we come to the result that 
Prussia is the battle-field on which the future fate of Germany is to be 
decided. 

We said in our last, that Frederick William III, King of Prussia, 
after being delivered from the fear of Napoleon, and spending a few 
happy, because fearless years, acquired another bugbear to frighten 
him — ‘“‘the revolution”. The way in which “the revolution” was 
introduced into Germany we shall now see. 

After the downfall of Napoleon, which I must repeat again, by the 
kings and aristocrats of the time, was totally identified with the 
putting down of the French Revolution, or, as they called it, the 
revolution, after 1815, in all countries, the anti-revolutionary party 
held the reins of government. The feudalist aristocrats ruled in all 
cabinets from London to Naples, from Lisbon to St. Petersburg. 
However, the middle classes, who had paid for the job and assisted in 
doing it, wanted to have their share of the power. It was by no means 
their interest which was placed in the ascendant by the restored 
governments. On the contrary, middle-class interests were neglected 
everywhere, and even openly set at nought. The passing of the 
English Corn Law of 18158 is the most striking example of a fact 
which was common to all Europe; and yet the middle classes were 
more powerful then than ever they had been. Commerce and 
manufactures had been extending everywhere, and had swelled the 
fortunes of the fat bourgeois; their increased well-being was 
manifested in their increased spirit of speculation, their growing 
demand for comforts and luxuries. It was impossible, then, that they 
should quietly submit to be governed by a class whose decay had 
been going on for centuries — whose interests were opposed to those 
of the middle classes —whose momentary return to power was the 
very work of the bourgeois. The struggle between the middle classes 
and the aristocracy was inevitable; it commenced almost immediately 
after the peace. 

The middle classes being powerful by money only, cannot acquire 
political power but by making money the only qualification for the 
legislative capacity of an individual. They must merge all feudalistic 
privileges, all political monopolies of past ages, in the one great 
privilege and monopoly of money. The political dominion of the 
middle classes is, therefore, of an essentially liberal appearance. They 
destroy all the old differences of several estates co-existing in a 
country, all arbitrary privileges and exemptions; they are obliged to 
make the elective principle the foundation of government—to 
recognise equality in principle, to free the press from the shackles of 
monarchical censorship, to introduce the jury, in order to get rid of a 
separate class of judges, forming a state in the state. So far they 
appear thorough democrats. But they introduce all the improve- 
ments so far only, as thereby all former individual and hereditary 
privileges are replaced by the privilege of money. Thus the principle 
of election is, by property qualifications for the right of electing and 
being elected, retained for their own class. Equality is set aside again 
by restraining it to a mere “equality before the law”, which means 
equality in spite of the inequality of rich and poor — equality within 

The State of Germany 29 

the limits of the chief inequality existing — which means, in short, 
nothing else but giving inequality the name of equality. Thus the 
liberty of the press is, of itself, a middle-class privilege, because 
printing requires money, and buyers for the printed productions, 
which buyers must have money again. Thus the jury is a middle-class 
privilege, as proper care is taken to bring none but “respectables” 
into the jury-box. 

I have thought it necessary to make these few remarks upon the 
subject of middle-class government in order to explain two facts. 
The first is, that in all countries, during the time from 1815 to 1830, 
the essentially democratic movement of the working classes was 
more or less made subservient to the liberal movement of the 
bourgeois. The working people, though more advanced than the 
middle classes, could not yet see the total difference between 
liberalism and democracy — emancipation of the middle classes and 
emancipation of the working classes; they could not see the 
difference between liberty of money and liberty of man, until money 
had been made politically free, until the middle class had been made 
the exclusively ruling class. Therefore the democrats of Peterloo 
were going to petition, not only for Universal Suffrage, but for Corn 
Law repeal at the same time; therefore, the proletarians fought in 
1830 in Paris, and threatened to fight in 1831 in England, for the 
political interest of the bourgeoisie. In all countries the middle 
classes were, from 1815 to 1830, the most powerful component, and, 
therefore, the leaders of the revolutionary party. The working 
classes are necessarily the instruments in the hands of the middle 
classes, as long as the middle classes are themselves revolutionary or 
progressive. The distinct movement of the working classes is, 
therefore, in this case always of a secondary importance. But from 
that very day when the middle classes obtain full political 
power — from the day on which all feudal and aristocratic interests 
are annihilated by the power of money— from the day on which the 
middle classes cease to be progressive and revolutionary, and become 
stationary themselves, from that very day the working-class move- 
ment takes the lead and becomes the national movement. Let the 
Corn Laws be repealed today, and tomorrow the Charter is the leading 
question in England—tomorrow the Chartist movement will exhibit that 
strength, that energy, that enthusiasm and perseverance which ensures 
Success. 

The second fact, for the explanation of which I ventured to make 
some few remarks on middle-class government, refers to Germany 
exclusively. The Germans being a nation of theorists, and little 
experienced in practice, took the common fallacies brought forward 

by the French and English middle classes to be sacred truths. The 
middle classes of Germany were glad to be left alone to their little 
private business, which was all in the “small way”; wherever they had 
obtained a constitution, they boasted of their liberty, but interfered 
little in the political business of the state; wherever they had none, 
they were glad to be saved the trouble of electing deputies and 
reading their speeches. The working people wanted that great lever 
which in France and England aroused them— extensive manufac- 
tures—and the consequence of it, middle-class rule. They, there- 
fore, remained quiet. The peasantry in those parts of Germany 
where the modern French institutions had been again replaced by 
the old feudal regime, felt oppressed, but this discontent wanted 
another stimulus to break out in open rebellion. Thus, the 
revolutionary party in Germany, from 1815 to 1830, consisted of 
theorists only. Its recruits were drawn from the universities; it was 
made up of none but students. 

It had been found impossible in Germany to re-introduce the old 
system of 1789. The altered circumstances of the time forced the 
governments to invent a new system, which has been peculiar to 
Germany. The aristocracy was willing to govern, but too weak; the 
middle classes were neither willing to govern nor strong 
enough—both, however, were strong enough to induce the 
government to some concessions. The form of government, 
therefore, was a sort of mongrel monarchy. A constitution, in some 
states, gave an appearance of guarantee to the aristocracy and 
middle classes; for the remainder there was everywhere a bureaucra- 
tu government—that is, a monarchy which pretends to take care 
of the interests of the middle class by a good administration, 
which administration is, however, directed by aristocrats, and 
whose proceedings are shut out as much as possible from the 
eyes of the public. The consequence is the formation of a sepa- 
rate class of administrative government officers, in whose hands 
the chief power is concentrated, and which stands in opposition 
against all other classes. It is the barbarian form of middle-class 
rule. 

But this form of government satisfied neither the “Aristocrats”, 
“Christian Germanics”, “Romantics”, ‘Reactionaries’”, nor the 
“Liberals”. They, therefore, united against the governments, and 
formed the secret societies of the students. From the union of those 
two sects—for parties they cannot be called—arose that sect of 
mongrel Liberals, who in their secret societies dreamt of a German 
Emperor wearing crown, purple, sceptre, and all the remainder of 
that sort of apparatus, not to forget a long grey or red beard, 

The State of Germany 31 

surrounded by an assembly of estates in which clergy, nobility, 
burgesses, and peasants should be duly separated. It was the most 
ridiculous mixing up of feudal brutality with modern middle-class 
fallacies that could be imagined. But that was just the thing for the 
students, who wanted enthusiasm, no matter for what, nor at what 
price. Yet these ridiculous idiosyncrasies, together with the revolu- 
tions in Spain, Portugal and Italy, the movements of the Carbonari in 
France, and the Reformation in England,” frightened the monarchs 
almost out of their wits. Frederick William III got his bugbear, “the 
revolution” —under which name all these different and partly 
discordant movements were comprised. 

A number of incarcerations and wholesale prosecutions quashed 
this “revolution” in Germany; the French bayonets in Spain, and the 
Austrian in Italy, secured for a while the ascendancy of legitimate 
kings and rights divine. Even the right divine of the Grand Turk to 
hang and quarter his Grecian subjects was for a while maintained by 
the Holy Alliance; but this case was too flagrant, and the Greeks were 
allowed to slip from under the Turkish yoke.” 

At last, the three days of Paris*' gave the signal for a general 
outbreak of middle-class, aristocratic, and popular discontent 
throughout Europe. The aristocratic Polish revolution was put 
down; the middle classes of France and Belgium succeeded in 
securing to themselves political power **; the English middle classes 
likewise obtained this end by the Reform Bill; the partly popular, 
partly middle-class, partly national insurrections of Italy, were 
suppressed; and in Germany numerous insurrections and move- 
ments betokened a new era of popular and middle-class agita- 
tion. 

The new and violent character of liberal agitation in Germany, 
from 1830 to 1834, showed that the middle classes had now taken up 
the question for themselves. But Germany being divided into many 
states, almost each of which had a separate line of customs and 
separate rates of duty, there was no community of interest in these 
movements. The middle classes of Germany wanted to become 
politically free, not for the purpose of arranging public matters in 
accordance with their interest, but because they were ashamed of 
their servile position in comparison to Frenchmen and Englishmen. 
Their movement wanted the substantial basis which had ensured the 
success of Liberalism in France and England; their interest in the 
question was far more theoretical than practical; they were, upon an 
average, what is called disinterested. The French bourgeois of 1830 
were not. Laffitte said, the day after the revolution: “Now we, the 
bankers, will govern”; and they do up to this hour. The English 

middle classes, too, knew very well what they were about when they 
fixed the ten-pound qualification *; but the German middle classes 
being, as aforesaid, men in a small way of business, were mere 
enthusiasts— admirers of “liberty of the press”, “trial by jury”, 
“constitutional guarantees for the people”, “rights of the people”, 
“popular representation”, and such like, which they thought not 
means, but ends; they took the shadow for the substance, and 
therefore got nothing. However, this middle-class movement was 
sufficient to bring about several dozens of revolutions, of which two 
or three contrived somehow to succeed; a great number of popular 
meetings, a deal of talk and newspaper-boasting, and a very slight 
beginning of a democratic movement among students, working men, 
and peasants. 

I shall not enter into the rather tedious details of this blustering 
and unsuccessful movement. Wherever somewhat important had 
been won, as liberty of the press in Baden, the German Diet stepped 
in and put a stop to it. The whole farce was concluded by a repetition 
of the wholesale imprisonments of 1819 and 1823, and, by a secret 
league of all German princes, concluded in 1834, at a Conference 
of delegates at Vienna, to resist all further progress of Liberal- 
ism.** The resolutions of this Conference were published some 
years ago.’ 

From 1834 to 1840, every public movement in Germany died out. 
The agitators of 1830 and 1834 were either imprisoned or scattered 
in foreign countries, where they had fled. Those who had kept much 
of their middle-class timidity during the times of agitation, continued 
to struggle against the growing rigour of the censor, and the growing 
neglect and indifference of the middle classes. The leaders of 
Parliamentary opposition went on speechifying in the Chambers, but 
the governments found means to secure the votes of the majorities. 
There appeared no further chance of bringing about any public 
movement whatsoever in Germany; the governments had it all their 
own way. 

In all these movements the middle classes of Prussia took almost no 
part. The working people uttered their discontent throughout that 
country in numerous riots, having, however, no defined purpose, 
and therefore no result. The apathy of the Prussians was the 
principal strength of the German confederacy. It showed that the 
time for a general middle-class movement in Germany was not yet 
come. 

* C. Th. Welcker, Wichtige Urkunden für den Rechtszustand der deuischen Nation, 
Mannheim, 1844.— Ed. 

The State of Germany 33 

In my next,’ I shall pass to the movement of the last six years, 
unless I can bring together the necessary materials for characterising 
the spirit of the German governments by some of their own doings, 
in comparison to which t! ose of your precious Home Secretary” are 
pure and innocent.” 

I am, in the meantime, dear Sir, 
respectfully, 
Your German Correspondent 

Febr. 20th, 1846 

Written between October 15, 1845 and Reprinted from the newspaper 
February 20, 1846 

Nos. 415, 417, 438, October 25, Novem- 
ber 8, 1845 and April 4, 1846