Vogt himself claims that his “purpose” in writing his “Magnum 
Opus” (p. 162) is to clarify “the development of his personal attitude to 
this clique” (Marx and Co.). Curiously enough, he only describes 
conflicts that he has never experienced and only experiences 
conflicts that he has never described. So it is necessary to confront 
his tall stories with a piece of real history. Anyone who leafs 
through the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (June 1, 1848-May 19, 1849) 
will discover that in 1848 Vogt’s name does not occur, apart from 
a single exception,” either in its leading articles or in_ its 
correspondence columns. It will be found only in the daily reports 
of the parliamentary debates and to Vogt’s immense satisfaction 
the Frankfurt reporter‘ never failed to record conscientiously the 
“applause” accorded to him for “the speeches delivered by 
himself”. We saw that whereas the Right wing in Frankfurt had at 
their disposal the united forces of a harlequin like Lichnowski and 
a clown like von Vincke, the Left was forced to rely entirely on the 
sporadic outbreaks of farce from its one and only Vogt. We 
realised that he stood in need of encouragement, 

“that important fellow, 
the children’s wonder — Signor Punchinello” ,4 

a “His griefs were manifold” —an adapted line from Der Edel Stein, a collection 
of fables by Ulrich Bonerius.— Ed. 

b This refers to the article “Ein Aktensttick des Ma4rzvereins” in the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung, No. 181, December 29, 1848.— Ed. 

© Gustav Adolph Schl6ffel.— Ed. 

d Marx gives these lines in English.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— VI. Vogt and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 103 

and so let the Frankfurt reporter have his head. After the middle 
of September 1848 his reports underwent a change of tone. 

In the debates on the Truce of Malmo, Vogt tried to stir up a 
rebellion with his revolutionary rantings.* At the decisive moment 
he did his utmost to prevent the acceptance of the resolutions 
which had been passed by the popular assembly on the Pfingst- 
weide and approved by a section of the extreme Left.” After the 
barricade fighting had been crushed, with Frankfurt openly 
transformed into an army camp and a state of siege proclaimed, 
this same Vogt declared on September 19 that he was in favour of 
urgently discussing Zacharia’s resolution endorsing the measures 
already taken by the - Imperial Ministry and expressing gratitude to 
the Imperial troops.” Before Vogt rose to speak even Venedey* had 
protested against the “urgency” of these resolutions, declaring that 
such a discussion at such a time was unworthy of the Assembly. 
But Vogt was inferior to Venedey. By way of punishment I 
inserted the word “windbag” into the parliamentary report‘ after 
the word “Vogt”, as a hint to the Frankfurt reporter. 

In the following October Vogt not only neglected his duty of 
waving his harlequin’s wooden sword above the heads of the then 
boisterous and fiercely reactionary majority. He did not even dare 
to sign the protest tabled by Zimmermann of Spandau on October 
10 in the name of some 40 deputies, opposing the law for the 
protection of the National Assembly.” The law, as Zimmermann 
correctly pointed out, signalled the most shameless interference 
with the popular rights that had been gained in the March 
revolution—right of assembly, freedom of speech and of the 
press. Even Eisenmann‘ handed in a similar protest. But Vogt was 
inferior to Eisenmann. When he did venture forth again at the 
founding of the “Central March Association” his name finally 
made its appearance in an article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 

a Vogt’s speech in the Frankfurt National Assembly on September 15, 1848, 
Stenographischer Bericht tiber die Verhandlungen der deutschen constituirenden National- 
versammlung zu Frankfurt am Main? Bd. 3, S. 2091-94.— Ed. 

b The speeches by Vogt and Zacharia in the Frankfurt National Assembly on 
September 19, 1848, ibid., S. 2188.— Ed. 

© Venedey’s speech in the Frankfurt National Assembly on September 19, 1848, 
ibid., S. 2187.— Ed. 

4d Report on the sitting of the Frankfurt National Assembly on September 20, 
1848, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 110, September 23, 1848.— Ed. 

¢ Zimmermann’s speech in the Frankfurt National Assembly on October 10, 
1848, Stenographischer Bericht.... Bd. 4, S. 2531.— Ed. 

f Eisenmann’s speech in the Frankfurt National Assembly, ibid., pp. 2531 et 
seq.— Ed. 

(December 29, 1848), in which the “March Association” was 
designated the “unconscious tool of the counter-revolution”, its 
programme was critically torn to shreds and Vogt was represented 
as one half of the two-headed figure whose other half was Vincke. 
More than a decade later both ‘Ministers of the Future” 
acknowledged their affinity and chose the partition of Germany as 
the motto of their unity. 

That our assessment of the “March Association” was Correct was 
not only confirmed by its later “development”. The Heidelberg 
‘People’s League”, the Breslau “Democratic Association”, the Jena 
“Democratic Association”, etc., all rejected its importunate offers 
of love with scorn, and those members of the extreme Left who 
had joined it confirmed our criticism of December 29, 1848, by 
announcing their resignation on April 20, 1849. Vogt, however, in 
the quiet grandeur of his soul, heaped coals of fire on our heads 
as can be seen from the following quotation: 

“Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 243, Cologne, March 10, 1849. 
‘The Frankfurt so-called March Association’ of the so-called 
‘Imperial Assembly’ has had the insolence to send us the following 
lithographed letter: 

““The March Association has decided to compile a list of all héwsbabers which 
have given us space in their columns and to distribute it to all associations with which 
we are connected in order that with the assistance of this association the 
newspapers indicated will be given preference in being supplied with any relevant 
announcements. In informing you herewith of this list, we believe it is unnecessary to 
draw your attention to the importance of the paid announcements of.a newspaper as the 

chief source of income for the whole -enterprise. [(...] Frankfurt, end of February 
1849. 

‘The Managing Committee 
of the Central March Association’ 

“In the enclosed list of newspapers which have given space in 
their columns to the March Association and to which the 
supporters of the March Association should give preference in 
supplying ‘relevant announcements’, one finds also the Neue . 
Rheinische Zeitung, which, in addition, is given the honour of an 
asterisk. We hereby announce [...] that our newspaper has never 
- given space in its columns to the so-called March Association.... If, 
therefore, the March Association in its lithographed report to 
those newspapers which have really given it space in their columns 
designates our newspaper as one of its organs, this is simply 
calumny against the Neue Rheinische Zeitung and absurd boasting 
on the part of the March Association... 

“To the dirty remark of the profit-greedy competition-goaded 

Herr Vogt.— VI Vogt and the Neue Rheimische Zeitung 105 

patriots about the mnportance of the paid announcements of a 
newspaper as a source uf meome for the whole enterprise, we, of 
course, do not reply The Neue Rheinische Zeitung has always 
differed from the patriots not only generally but also in that it has 
never regarded political movement as a territory for swindlers or a 
source of income.” * 

Shortly after this brusque rejection of the source of income 
proffered by Vogt and Co. the Neue Rheinische Zeitung was 
tearfully held up as a model of “true German disunity” at a 
meeting of the Central Commercial Association.” At the conclusion 
of our reply to this Jeremiad (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 248) 
Vogt is described as a “provincial academic beer-blusterer and an 
unsuccessful Imperial Barrot”.« True, at that time (March 15), he 
had not yet compromised himself on the question of the Emperor. 
But we had made our minds up once and for all about Herr Vogt 
and could therefore regard his future treason as a foregone 
conclusion, even before it was clear to Vogt himself. 

From then on, incidentally, we abandoned Vogt and Co. to the 
attentions of the young Schloffel, who was both brave and 
intelligent. He had arrived in Frankfurt from Hungary early in 
March after which he kept us informed of all the storms in the 
Imperial frog-pond. 

Vogt, meanwhile, had sunk so low—he himself had of course 
done more to bring this about than the Neue Rheinische Zeitung— 
that even Bassermann could venture to brand him an “apostate and 
renegade” in the session of April 25, 1849.¢ 

F. Engels, one of the editors of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, was 
forced au flee because of the part he played in the Elberfeld 
uprising,” and 1 myself was driven out of Prussia shortly 
afterwards, after repeated efforts to silence me through legal 
proceedings had failed thanks to the jury, and after the Neue 
Preussische Zeitung, the organ of the coup d’état Ministry,”* had 
repeatedly denounced the “Chimborazo insolence of the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung, compared to which the Moniteur of 1793 

a Karl Marx, “The March Association” (see present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 
36-37).— Ed. 

b Marx puns on Marz (March) and Kommerz (commerce).— Ed. 

¢ Karl Marx, “The Frankfurt March Association and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung” 
(see present edition, Vol. 9, p. 85). The italics were introduced by Marx in Herr 
Vogt.— Ed. 

d Stenographischer Bericht..., Bd. 8, S. 6303.— Ed. 

¢ The Chimborazo is a peak of the Andes. “Chimborazo insolence” means 
“monumental insolence”.— Ed. 

5* 

seemed rather pale” (see the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 299).* 
Such “Chimborazo insolence” was highly appropriate in a Prussian 
fortress-town and at a time when the victorious counter-revolution 
sought to intimidate people by means of unashamed brutality. 
On May 19, 1849 the last number of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 
(the Red Number) appeared. As long as the Neue Rheinische 
Zeitung existed, Vogt had endured in silence. If a parliamentarian 
did lodge a complaint, he did so in all modesty. For example: 

“Sir, the sharp criticism in your newspaper is valued by me no less because it 
observes all parties and all persons with equal strictness” (see No. 219 [supplement], 
February 11, 1849, Wesendonck’s complaint).> 

A week after the demise of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Vogt, 
operating under the mantle of parliamentary immunity, finally 
thought he could seize his long-awaited opportunity to convert the 
“matter” he had accumulated deep in his heart into “energy”.” 
The position was that one of the editors of the Neue Rheinische 
Zeitung, Wilhelm Wolff, had replaced a retired Silesian deputy“ in the 
Frankfurt Assembly, which was “in the process of dissolution” at the 
time.'”° 

In order to understand the following scene in the parliamentary 
session of May 26, 1849, it must be borne in mind that the 
uprising in Dresden and the local movements in the Rhine 
Province had already been crushed. The Empire was about to 
intervene in Baden and the Palatinate, the main Russian army was 
marching on Hungary and, finally, the Imperial Ministry had 
simply quashed resolutions approved by the Assembly. On the 
agenda were two “Proclamations to the German Nation”, the first 
edited by Uhland and emanating from the majority, the other 
stemming from the Committee of Thirty,'°' whose members 
belonged to the Centre. Presiding over the Assembly was Reh 
from Darmstadt who later turned into a rabbit* and “detached” 
himself from the Assembly, which was “in complete disarray”. I 
quote from the official stenographic report, Nos. 229, 228. Session 
in St. Paul’s Church. 

Wolff from Breslau: “Gentlemen, I have registered my opposition to the 
Proclamation to the Nation, the proclamation that was composed by the majority 

@ Karl Marx, “The Kreuz-Zeitung” (see present edition, Vol. 9, p. 437).— Ed. 

b Hugo Wesendonck, “Erklarung. Düsseldorf, 8. Februar 1849”.— Ed. 
© Gustav Adolf Stenzel.— Ed. 

d Marx plays on the surname Reh, a homonym of Reh (roe deer).— Ed. 
© Stenographischer Bericht..., Bd. 9, S. 6749.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—VI. Vogt and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung 107 

and that has been read aloud here, because I think it utterly inadequate to the 
needs of the present time. I find it altogether too feeble. It is good enough to 
appear as an article in the newspapers which represent the party that has devised 
it, but it is not good enough for a Proclamation to the German Nation. Since a 
second Proclamation has now been read out I may remark in passing that I would 
be even more strongly opposed to it than to the first one, for reasons that I do not 
need to enter into here.” (A voice from the Centre: ‘““Why not?”) “I am speaking 
solely of the majority Proclamation. It is true that it is couched in such moderate 
terms that even Herr Buss had little to say against it, and that is without doubt the 
worst recommendation for any proclamation. No, gentlemen, if you wish to 
have any influence on the people at all you should not address it in the manner 
adopted in this Proclamation. You must not speak about legality, the legal basis, 
etc., but of illegality just like the governments, like the Russians—and by Russians I 
understand the Prussians, Austrians, Bavarians and Hanoverians.” (Commotion 
and laughter.) “All these have been subsumed under the name Russians.” (Loud 
laughter.) “Yes, gentlemen, the Russians are represented in this Chamber too. You 
must tell them: ‘In the same way as you adopt the legal standpoint, so do we.’ This 
is the standpoint of force, and in parenthesis you ought to explain legality by 
saying that you will oppose the Russian cannon with force, with well-organised 
storming-parties. If any proclamation is to be issued, issue one which begins by 
outlawing the first traitor to the people, the Imperial Regent.”@ (Interruption: 
“Order!” — Lively applause from the gallery.) “All the Ministers likewise.”” (Renewed 
commotion.) “Oh, I shall not let myself be intimidated: he is the first traitor to the 
people.” 

President: “I think that Herr Wolff has ignored and offended against every 
propriety. He cannot describe the Archducal Imperial Regent as a traitor to the people 
in this House and I must therefore call him to order. I must also request the 
galleries for the last time not to intervene further in the debate.” 

Wolff: “For my part, I accept the call to order and declare that it was my 
intention to transgress the bounds of order and to state that he and his Ministers are 
traitors.” (From all sides of the House: ‘Order. This is scandalous.’’) 

President: “I must ask you to be seated.” 

Wolff: ‘Very well, I protest. I wanted to speak here in the name of the people and 
to say what the people is thinking. I protest against every proclamation framed in 
these terms.” (Great tumult.) 

President: “Gentlemen, will you please allow me to speak for a moment. 
Gentlemen, the incident that has just taken place is, I may say, the first there has 
been since Parliament has been in session here.” (It was indeed the first and the only 
incident to take place in that Debating Society.) “No speaker has ever before 
declared that it was his intention to disrupt the order, the very foundations of this 
House.” (Schléffel had replied to a similar call to order, in the session of April 25: 
“I accept the call to order, all the more as I hope that the time will soon come when 
this Assembly will be called to order in a very different way.”)> 

“Gentlemen, I deeply regret that Herr Wolff, who has only just become a 
member of this House, should have made his début in this manner” (Reh looks at 
the matter from a theatrical point of view). “Gentlemen, I have called him to order 
because he has permitted himself greatly to affront the respect and consideration that we 
owe to the person of the Imperial Regent.” 

a Archduke John.— Ed. 
b Stenographischer Bericht..., Bd. 8, S. 6751.— Ed. 

The debate then proceeded. Hagen and Zacharia made long 
speeches, the one for and the other against the proclamation of 
the. majority. Finally, 

Vogt from Giessen rose from his seat: “Gentlemen, allow me a few words, I shall 
not weary you. It is perfectly true that this Parliament is no longer what it was when 
it assembled last year, gentlemen, and we thank Heaven” (our Vogt of “blind faith” 2 
thanks Heaven) “that it is become so” (is become, indeed! >) “and that those who lost 
faith in the people and who betrayed the cause of the people at the decisive 
moment, have now left this Assembly! Gentlemen, I have asked permission to speak” 
(so the thanksgiving we have just heard was just humbug), “in order to defend the 
crystal-clear stream” (defence of a stream) “that flowed from the poet’s soul” (Vogt 
is becoming soulful) “into this proclamation against the unworthy filth that has been 
thrown into it or hurled at it” (but the stream had already been absorbed by the 
proclamation), “to defend these words” (as with everything that Vogt touches, the 
stream has been changed into words) “against the muck that has been heaped up in 
this latest movement and which threatens to engulf and besmirch everything. Yes, 
gentlemen! That” (namely the muck) “is muck and filth” (the muck is filth!) 
“which is being thrown in this way” (in what way?) “at everything pure that can be 
imagined, and I wish to express my deep indignation” (Vogt in deep indignation, 
quel tableau!<) “at the fact that this sort of thing” (what sort of thing?) “could have 
happened.” 4 

And his very speech is—muck.* 

Wolff had not said a single word about Uhland’s editing of the 
proclamation. As the President repeatedly declared, he had been 
called to order, he had conjured up the whole storm, because he 
had declared that the Imperial Regent and all his Ministers were 
traitors to the people and had called on Parliament to do likewise. 
But for Vogt the “Archducal Imperial Regent”, the “worn-out 
Habsburg” (Vogt’s Studien, p. 28) and “all his Ministers” represent 
“everything pure that can be imagined’. With Walther von der 
Vogelweide he sang: 

“des fiirsten milte iz Osterriche 
frdit dem stiezen régen geliche 
beidiu liute und ouch daz lant.” f 

a Vogt of “blind faith” (der “Kéhlergliubige” Vogt)—an ironical allusion to 
Vogt’s book Kohlerglaube und Wissenschaft..., Giessen, 1855.— Ed. 
b Marx ridicules the ungrammatical verb form used by Vogt: geworden 
wird.— Ed, 
¢ What a sight! — Ed. 
4 Stenographischer Bericht.... Bd. 9, S. 6751.— Ed. 
© Variation on a verse from Ludwig Uhland’s “Des Sangers Fluch”: “Und was er 
spricht, ist Geissel” (“His very speech is a whiplash”’).— Ed. 
“The Prince of Austria’s generosity, 
Like gentle rain, bestows felicity 
Both on the people and on the land.”— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—VI. Vogt and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung ~109 

Did Vogt already even at that time, enjoy the “scientific 
relationship” with Archduke John that he later confessed to? (See 
Documents in the “Magnum Opus”, p. 25.) 

Ten years later the same Vogt declared in the Studien (pp. 
27}-28)): 

“So much at Jeast is certain: the National Assembly in France and its leaders at 
the ume underestimated the abilities of Louis Napoleon just as the leaders of the 
Frankfurt National Assembly underestimated those of Archduke John, and both the 
old foxes made their respectiie detractors bay deariy for their mistake. We are far from 
wanting to equate the two men. The terrible ruthlessness, etc.. etc.” (of Louis 
Bonaparte).-— All this makes him cut a tat superior figure to the old and worn-out 
Habsburg.” + 

During the very same session Wolff challenged Vogt to a duel 
with pistols—a challenge which was transmitted by deputy Wirth 
from Sigmaringen—and when the aforesaid Vogt preferred to 
preserve his skin intact for the Empire,* he threatened to thrash 
him. On leaving St. Paul’s Church, however, Wolff discovered 
Charles the Bold flanked by two iadies, and bursting into laughter 
he left him to his fate. Although he is a wolf, with a wolf’s heart 
and teeth, Wolff is a lamb when he sees the fair sex. His only, 
really quite innocuous, revenge was an article in the Neue 
Rheinische Zeitung. Revue (April issue, 1850, p. 73) entitled 
“Nachtragliches aus dem Reich” in which he wrote about the 
Ex-Imperial Regent as follows: 

“In these critical days the Central March people have been extremely 
industrious. Before withdrawing from Frankfurt they had published an address to 
the various March associations and to the German people: ‘Fellow-citizens! The 
eleventh hour has struck!’ In order to assemble a people’s army they issued a new 
proclamation ‘to the German nation’ from Stuttgart, and lo and behold! the hand 
on the Central March clock had stood still, or like the clock on Freiburg Minster, 
had lost the number XII. However that might be, this proclamation too began with 
the words: ‘Fellow-citizens! The eleventh hour has struck!’ Oh if only it had struck 
earlier, and had pierced your heads, at least at the time when Karl Vogt, the 
Central March hero, was pacifying the Franconian revolution !°? in Nuremberg to 
his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the wailers who were féting him **.... 

* In the pamphlet by Jacobus Venedev already referred to, Kobes I tells the 
following story: “In the same session in which Gagern embraced Gabriel Riesser 
after the latter’s speech on the Emperor, ... Karl Vogt embraced Zimmermann in 
St. Paul’s Church with mock pathos and noisy exclamations, and so I called out to 
him: ‘Stop these roguish pranks.’ Vogt thought it expedient to reply in provocative 
and abusive terms and when | challenged him personally, he had the courage, after 
a friend had made a number of journeys between the two of us, to withdraw his 
insult” (loc. cit., pp. 21, 22). 

** Vogt later justified his valiant deeds in Nuremberg with the words: “He had 
been given no guarantees for his own personal safety.” 

a Carl Vogt, Studien zur gegenwartigen Lage Europas, S. 27-28. Marx’s italics.— Ed. 

The Regency set up its offices in the government building in Freiburg. The Regent 
Karl Vogt, who was also Foreign Minister and the incumbent of many other 
Ministries, once more took the well-being of the German people? very much to 
heart. Having studied their problems in long days and nights he came up with a 
very timely invention, that of ‘Imperial Regency passports’. These passports were 
simple, beautifully lithographed and could be obtained gratis by anyone whose 
heart desired one. They only had the one small defect of being recognised as valid 
only in Vogt's Chancellery. It is possible that later on one or other of them will find 

Wolff did not follow Greiner’s example. Instead of “departing 
at once for America” as soon as the Revue “had appeared”, he 
remained for a year in Switzerland, awaiting the revenge of the 
Land-Vogt. 

a Wolff has: “of the German Empire”.— Ed. 
> Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-dkonomische Revue, IV. Heft, April 1850, S. 
75, 76.— Ed. 

111 

VII 

THE AUGSBURG CAMPAIGN 
Shortly after the citizen of the Canton of Thurgau!” had 
concluded his Italian war, the citizen of the Canton of Berne? 
launched his Augsburg campaign. 
“There” (in London) “it was the Marx clique that had always supphed the 
greater part of the reports” (of the Allgemeine Zeitung), “and ever since 1849 its 

relations with the ‘Allgemeine Zeitung’ had been continuous” (“Magnum Opus”, 
b 
p. 194). 

Although Marx has only been living in London since the end of 
1849,° i.e. since he was expelled from France for the second time, 
the “Marx clique” appears to have lived in London always, and 
although the Marx clique has “always supplied the greater part of 
the reports of the Allgemeine Zeitung”, “its relations” with the 
Allgemeine Zeitung have only been “continuous ever since 1849”. 
At all events, Vogt’s chronology is divided—and this is not to be 
wondered at since before 1848 the man “had not yet contem- 
plated any political activity” (loc. cit., p. 225)—into two great 
periods, viz., the period “always” up to 1849, and the period from 
1849 up to “this” year. 

Between 1842 and 1843 I edited the old Rheinische Zeitung, 
which waged a life-and-death war with the Allgemeine Zeitung. 
From 1848 to 1849 the Neue Rheinische Zeitung revived the 
polemic. What remains, then, of the period “always up to 1849” 

a ie. Vogt. See his Studien zur gegenwdrtigen Lage Europas, S. 6.— Ed. 

6 Carl Vogt, Mein Prozess..., S. 194. The words “the Marx clique” were italicised 
by Vogt, the rest of the italics are Marx’s.— Ed. 

© Marx arrived in London about August 26, 1849.— Ed. 

apart from the fact that Marx had fought against the Allgemeine 
Zeitung “always”, while Vogt had been its “constant collaborator” 
from 1844 to 1847? (See “Magnum Opus”, p. 225.) 

Now for the second period of world history a la Vogt. 

The reason why I maintained “continuous relations with the 
Allgemeine Zeitung” from London, “continuous ever since 1849”’, is 
that “from 1852” a certain Ohly had been chief London 
correspondent of the Allgemeine Zeitung. It is true that Ohly had 
no relations whatever with me, either before or after 1852. I have 
never seen him in my life. Inasmuch as he played any part among 
the London refugees it was as a member of Kinkel’s Emigration 
Association. But this has no bearing on the case, for, 

“The former oracle of Altenhéfer, that old Bavarian who had learnt English, 
was my” (Vogt’s) “fellow-countryman, the blond Ohly, who having started out as a 
communist, strove to attain a loftier poetic standpoint in politics and literature. At first in 

Zurich, but from 1852 in London, he was the chief correspondent of the Allgemeine 
Zeitung until he ended his days in a madhouse.” (“Magnum Opus”, p. 195.) 

Edouard Simon, the police spy, has Frenchified this Vogtiad as 
follows: 

“En voici d’abord un qui de son point de départ communiste, avait cherché a 
s’élever aux plus hautes conceptions de la politique.” (“Loftier, poetic standpoint in 
politics” was beyond the genius even of an Edouard Simon.) “A en croire M. Vogt, 
cet adepte fut l’oracle de la Gazette d’Augsbourg jusqu’en 1852, époque ot il 

mourut dans une maison de fous’ (Revue contemporaine, Vol. XIII, Paris, 1860, 
p. 529). 

“Operam et oleum  perdidi, Vogt may well say of his 
“Magnum Opus” and his Ohly. Whereas he makes his “fellow- 
countryman” the London correspondent of the Allgemeine Zeitung 
from 1852, until he “ends his days in a madhouse”, Edouard 
Simon says that “if we may believe Vogt, Ohly had been the oracle 
of the Allgemeine Zeitung up to 1852 when he” (who, it will be 
noted, is still alive) “died in a madhouse’”. But Edouard Simon 
knows his Karl Vogt. Edouard knows that once one has resolved 
to “believe” Karl, it is quite irrelevant what one believes, whether 
it is what he says, or the opposite of what he says. 

2” b 

“Herr Liebknecht,” says Karl Vogt, “replaced him” (namely Ohly) “as correspond- 
ent of the Allgemeine Zeitung.” “Only after Liebknecht had been openly proclaimed 

a “This is a man who, having started out as a communist, strove to raise himself 
to the loftier conceptions of politics. If we may believe Herr Vogt, this adept was 
the oracle of the Augsburg Gazette up to 1852 when he died in a madhouse.”— Ed. 

5 “T have wasted oil and labour”, Plautus, Poenulus, Act I, Scene 2, where it is 

spoken by a whore whose efforts to repair the ravages of time have proved vain. 
Oleum is a pun on Ohly.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—VII. The Augsburg Campaign 113 

a member of the Marx party, was he accepted as a correspondent by the Allgemeine 
Zeitung” (loc. cit., p. 169). 

That proclamation was made during the Cologne communist 
trial, i.e. at the end of 1852. 

In fact in the spring of 1851 Liebknecht became a contributor to 
the Morgenblait where he reported on the Great Exhibition in 
London.'* Through the mediation of the Morgenblatt he was 
made correspondent of the Allgemeine Zeitung in September 1855. 

“His” (Marx’s) “comrades do not write a single line of which Marx has not been 
previously informed” (loc. cit., p. 194). 

The proof is simple: “He” (Marx) “has absolute control over his 
people” (p. 195) whereas Vogt is absolutely obedient to his Fazy 
and Co. We are confronted here by a peculiarity of Vogt’s 
myth-making. The pygmy standards of Giessen or Geneva, the 
small-town framework and the fug of Swiss taverns are 
everywhere. Naively translating the leisurely provincial cliquism of 
Geneva to one of the great cities of the world, London, he will 
not allow Liebknecht to write ‘“‘a single line” in the West End of 
which I “have not been previously informed” four miles away in 
Hampstead. And I perform the identical services of a La 
Guéronniére every day for a whole host of “comrades” scattered 
all over London and writing their reports to the four corners of 
the globe. A delightful profession—and a profitable one! 

With the unmistakable delicacy of the artist, Vogt’s mentor, 
Edouard Simon, who does not know London, but is at least 
familiar with conditions in Paris, provides the account of his 
uncouth “friend from the country” with the veneer of the big city: 

“Marx, comme chef de la société, ne tient pas lui-méme la plume, mais ses 
fidéles n’écrivent pas une ligne sans lavoir consulté: La Gazette d’Augsbourg sera 
d’autant mieux servie” (loc. cit., p. 529). That is to say, “Marx as head of the 
society does not write himself, but his trusted associates do not write a single line 
without first consulting him. In this way the Augsburger Zeitung is the better 
served.” 

Does Vogt appreciate all the subtlety of this correction? 

I had as much to do with Liebknecht’s reports to the Allgemeine 
Zeitung from London as I had with Vogt’s reports to the 
Allgemeine Zeitung from Paris. Moreover, Liebknecht’s reports 
were praiseworthy in every respect—a critical presentation of 
English politics, which he described in exactly the same way in the 

a Vogt has: “of Marx’s society” .— Ed. 
b La Guéronniére was Chief Censor during the Second Empire in France.— Ed. 

Allgemeine Zeitung as in his reports for the radical German- 
American newspapers written at the same time. Vogt himself, who 
has anxiously searched through whole years of the Allgemeine 
Zeitung in the hope of discovering something detrimental in 
Liebknecht’s letters, confines his critique of their contents to 
stating that the symbol used by Liebknecht to indicate his 
authorship consisted of “two thin slanting lines” (“Magnum Opus”, 
p. 196). 

The fact that the lines were on a slant showed of course that the 
reports themselves were not quite straight. But even worse, they 
were “thin”! If only Liebknecht had chosen instead of two “thin 
lines”, two round blobs of grease for his reports! But even if there 
is nothing reprehensible about his reports apart from these “two 
thin slanting lines”, there is still the objection that they were 
printed at all in the Allgemeine Zeitung. And why should they not? 
It is a known fact that the Allgemeine Zeitung allows the most 
widely divergent views to be expressed in its columns, at least on 
such neutral topics as that of English politics, and in addition it is 
the only German paper with a more than local significance in the 
eyes of the world. Liebknecht could without hesitation dispatch his 
London letters to the very newspaper for which Heine wrote his 
“Paris Letters” and Fallmerayer his “Oriental Letters”.!° Vogt 
reports that lewd persons also wrote for the Allgemeine Zeitung. It 
is well known that he himself was a contributor from 1844 to 
1847. 

As far as Frederick Engels and myself are concerned—I mention 
Engels because we work to a common plan and after prior 
agreement—it is true that in 1859 we did enter into a 
“relationship” of a sort with the Allgemeine Zeitung. That is to say 
during January, February and March 1859 I published a series of 
leading articles in the New-York Tribune in which inter alia the 
theory advanced by the Allgemeine Zeitung about a “Central 
European great power” and that paper’s claim that it was in the 
Germans’ interest to maintain Austria’s rule in Italy were subjected 
to searching criticism. Shortly before the outbreak of war, and 
with my agreement, Engels published Po and Rhine, Berlin, 1859,’ a 
pamphlet directed specifically against the Allgemeine Zeitung. To 
quote Engels’ own words (from his pamphlet Savoy, Nice and the 
Rhine, Berlin, 1860, p. 4) it provided scientific military proof that 
“Germany does not need any part of Italy for its defence and that 

@ Karl Marx, “The War Prospect in Prussia”, and Frederick Engels, Po and 
Rhine (see present edition, Vol. 16).— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—VII. The Augsburg Campaign 115 

France, if only military considerations counted, would certainly 
have much stronger claims to the Rhine than Germany to the 
Mincio”.* This polemic against the Allgemeine Zeitung and _ its 
theory of the necessity of Austrian despotic rule in Italy went 
hand in hand with a polemic directed against Bonapartist 
propaganda. For instance, I argued in detail in the Tribune (see 
e.g. February 1859) that the financial and internal political 
problems of the “bas empire” had reached a critical point and 
that only a foreign war could prolong the rule of the coup d’état 
in France and hence the counter-revolution in Europe.” I 
demonstrated that the Bonapartist liberation of Italy was a mere 
pretext to keep France in subjection, to subject Italy to the rule of 
the coup d’état, to shift France’s “natural frontiers” to Germany, 
to transform Austria into a tool of Russia and to force the nations 
into a war waged by the legitimate counter-revolution against the 
illegitimate counter-revolution. All this took place before the 
ex-Regent of the Empire, Karl Vogt, tssued his clarion call from 
Geneva. 

Ever since Wolff's article in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Revue 

(1850), I had completely forgotten the “well-rounded character” 
I was reminded of the merry fellow once more in the spring of 
1859, on an evening in April, when Freiligrath gave me a letter of 
Vogt’s to read together with an accompanying political “ Pro- 
gramme”’.'°’ This was no act of indiscretion since Vogt’s circular was 
intended “for communication” to the friends not of Vogt, but of 
the addressee. 

Asked what I found in the “Programme”, I replied: “Political 
hot air.” I could see at once that the old joker had not changed, 
from his request to Freiligrath to persuade Herr Bucher to become 
political correspondent for the propaganda sheet to be published 
in Geneva.* Vogt's letter was dated April 1, 1859. It was well 
known that in the reports he sent from London to the Berlin 
National-Zeitung since January 1859, Bucher advocated views 
directly antithetical to those in Vogt’s Programme. But all cats are 
grey to the man of “critical immediacy”. 

After this incident which I did not think of sufficient impor- 
tance to mention to anyone, I received a copy of Vogt’s Studien 

4 See present edition, Vol. 16, p. 572.— Ed. 

b See “The Money Panic in Europe”, New-York Daily Tribune, No. 5548, February 
1, 1859 (present edition, Vol. 16).— Ed. 

© Wilhelm Wolff, “Nachtragliches aus dem Reich...”, Neue Rheinische Zeitung. 
Politisch-okonomische Revue, Heft 4, April 1850.— Ed. 

4 Presumably Die Neue Schweiz— Ed. 

zur gegenwartigen Lage FEuropas, a woeful document which left 
me m no doubt abour his connection with Bonapartist propa- 
ganda. 

On the evening of May ©, 1859 1 found mvself on the platform 
at a public meeting arranged by David Uryuhart because of the 
Italian war. Betore the meeting had got under way I saw a solemn 
figure approaching me portentously. From the Hamlet-like 
expression on his countenance I realised at once that “something 
was rotten in the state of Denmark’™.' [i was the homme d’état, Karl 
Blind. After a few preliminaries he began to talk about Vogt’s 
“intrigues” and he assured me with much shaking of the head 
that Vogt was in receipt of Bonapartist subsidies for his 
propaganda, that a South German writer, whose name he could 
“unfortunately” not reveal, had been offered 30,000 guilders as a 
bribe by Vogt—I was in some doubt as to which South German 
writer could possibly be worth 30,000 guilders—that there had 
been attempts at bribery in London, that as early as 1858 there 
had been a meeting between Plon-Plon. Fazy & Co. in Geneva 
where the Italian war had been discussed and the Grand Duke 
Constanune of Russia had been named as the future King of 
Hungary, that Vogt had also tried to enlist him (Blind) for his 
propaganda, and that he had proofs of Vogt’s tr easonable intrigues 
against his country. Blind then withdrew to his seat at the other 
corner of the platform next sar his friend J. Frobel; the meeting 
began and in a detailed report? D. Urquhart tried to present the 
Italian war as the fruit of Franco-Russian intrigue.* 

* Vogt naturally connects the attacks on Lord Palmerston by the Marx clique with 
my hostility to this self-important personage and his “friends” (“Magnum Opus”, 
p. 212). It would appear, then, that this is a suitable place to comment briefly on 
my relations with D. Urquhart and his party. Urquhart’s writings on Russia and 
against Palmerston had interested but not convinced me. In order to arrive at a 
firm view I undertook the laborious analysis of Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates and 
the diplomatic Blue Books from 1807 to 1850. The first fruits of these studies were 
a series of leading articles in the New-York Tribune (end of 1853) in which I 
demonstrated Palmerston’s involvement with the St. Petersburg Cabinet on the 
basis of his transactions with Poland, Turkey, Circassia, etc. Shortly afterwards I 
had these articles reprinted in The People’s Paper, the organ of the Chartists edited 
by Ernest Jones, together with additional passages about Palmerston’s activities. 105 
In the meantime, The Glasgow Sentinel had also reprinted one of the articles 
(“Palmerston and Poland”). which attracted the attention of Mr. D. Urquhart. 
After a meeting with me he persuaded Mr. Tucker in London to bring out some of 

4 Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene 4.— Ed. 
> David Urquhart’s report was discussed in the article “Mr. Urquhart’s Address 
on Neutrality” in The Free Press, No. 5, May 27, 1859.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt—VII. The Augsburg Campaign 117 

Towards the end of the meeting Dr. Faucher, foreign-news 
editor of The Morning Star (the organ of the Manchester 
School '''), came up to me to tell me that a new London German 
weekly, Das Volk, had just appeared. Die Neue Zeit, a workers’ 
paper published by Herr A. Scherzer and edited by Edgar Bauer, 
had just folded up as the result of an intrigue by Kinkel, the 
publisher of the Hermann. Hearing this news, Biscamp, who had 
been a reporter for Die Neue Zeit up to that time, gave up his 
teaching post in the South of England in order to go to London 
and set up Das Volk in opposition to the Hermann. The German 
Workers’ Educational Society and other London societies sup- 
ported the newspaper, which like all such workers’ newspapers was 
naturally edited and written gratis. Although as a free-trader he, 
Faucher, did not agree with the general policy of Das Volk, he was 
opposed to there being a monopoly in the German press in 
London and therefore, together with some London acquaintances, 
he had set up a Finance Committee in support of the paper. 
Biscamp had already written to Liebknecht, whom he had not yet 
met, with a request for literary contributions, etc. Finally, Faucher 
asked me to join in the venture. 

Although Biscamp had been living in England since 1852, we 
had not yet made each other’s acquaintance. The day after the 
Urquhart meeting Liebknecht brought him to my home. From 
lack of time I could not accept the invitation to write for Das Volk 
for the moment, but I promised to ask my German friends in 

the articles in pamphlet form. These Palmerston pamphlets were later sold in 
various editions in numbers ranging from 15,000 to 20,000. Following my analysis 
of the Blue Book on the fall of Kars—it was published in the London organ of the 
Chartists in April 18562—I received a letter of thanks from the Sheffield Foreign 
Affairs Committee.!°9 (See Appendix 7.) While looking through the diplomatic 
manuscripts in the possession of the British Museum I came across a series of 
English documents, going back from the end of the eighteenth century to the time 
of Peter the Great, which reveal the continuous secret collaboration between the 
Cabinets of London and St. Petersburg, and seem to indicate that this relationship 
arose at the time of Peter the Great. Up to now, all I have published of a detailed 
investigation into the subject has been an introduction with the title Revelations of 
the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century. This appeared first in the Sheffield and 
subsequently in the London Free Press,}!9 both published by Urquhart. The 
last-named has received occasional contributions from me since its foundation. My 
interest in Palmerston and British-Russian diplomatic relations in gencral arose, as 
one can see, without my having had the slightest suspicion that the figure of Herr 
Karl Vogt was standing behind that of Lord Palmerston. 

a “The Fall of Kars”, The People’s Paper, Nos. 205-08, April 5, 12, 19 and 26 
(see present edition, Vol. 14).— 
b Marx uses the English term.— Ed. 

England for subscriptions, financial donations and literary con- 
tributions. In the course of the conversation we came to speak of 
the Urquhart meeting and this led on to Vogt, whose Studien 
Biscamp had already read and correctly evaluated. I told him and 
Liebknecht of the contents of Vogt’s “Programme” and also of 
Blind’s revelations, adding, however, with respect to the latter, that 
South Germans were inclined to paint in rather exaggerated 
colours. To my surprise, No. 2 of Das Volk (May 14) printed an 
article with the title “Der Reichsregent als Reichsverrather” [The 
Imperial Regent as Imperial Traitor]? (see “Magnum Opus”, 
Documents, pp. 17, 18) in which Biscamp mentioned two of the 
facts reported by Blind—the 30,000 guilders, which, however, he 
reduced to 4,000, and the Bonapartist sources of Vogt’s funds. For 
the rest his article consisted of witticisms in the manner of Dve 
Hornisse, which he had edited in Cassel with Heise in 1848-49. In 
the meantime, as I learned long after the appearance of the 
“Magnum Opus” (see Appendix 8), the London Workers’ 
Educational Society had commissioned Herr Scherzer, one of its 
leaders, to invite the workers’ educational associations in Switzer- 
land, Belgium and the United States to support Das Volk and to 
combat Bonapartist propaganda. Biscamp himself sent a copy of 
the above-mentioned article published in Das Volk on May 14, 
1859 to Vogt, who simultaneously received Herr A. Scherzer’s 
circular from his own Ranickel. 

With his familiar “critical immediacy” Vogt at once cast me in 
the role of the demiurge behind these attempts to ensnare him. 
Without hesitation he at once published an outline of his later 
travesty of history ° in the oft-quoted “special supplement to No. 150 of 
the ‘Schweizer Handels-Courier’”. This original gospel which first 
revealed the mysteries of the Brimstone Gang, the Bristlers, 
Cherval, etc., beneath the date Berne, May 23, 1859 (and hence 
more recently than the gospel according to the Mormons'"), bore 
the title Zur Warnung‘< and its content corresponds to that of a 
piece translated from a pamphlet'! by the notorious E. About.* 

* A word about the Biel Commis voyageur, the local Moniteur of the “fugitive 
Imperial Regent”. The publisher and editor of the Biel Handels-Courier is a 

a This refers to the anonymous article “Der Reichsregent”. One of the paragraphs 
in it begins with the words “Der Reichsregent als Reichsverrather!”— Ed. 

b See Johann Fischart, Affentheurliche, Naupengeheurliche Geschichtklitterung....— 
Ed. 

© Carl Vogt, “Zur Warnung”, Schweizer Handels-Courier, No. 150 (special 
supplement), June 2, 1859; see also Mein Prozess.... Dokumente, S. 31-33.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.— VII. The Augsburg Campaign 119 

Vogt’s anonymous original gospel Zur Warnung was reprinted, 
as I have already remarked, in Das Volk* at my request. 

In the beginning of June I left London to visit Engels in 
Manchester, where a subscription of about £25 was collected for 
Das Volk. This contribution, whose ‘‘nature” induced the “curi- 
ous” Vogt to cast his “eyes across the Channel” towards Augsburg 
and Vienna (“Magnum Opus”, p. 212), came from Frederick 
Engels, Wilhelm Wolff, myself and finally three German 
physicians resident in Manchester, whose names are recorded in 
one of the legal documents I sent to Berlin. As to the money 
collected in London by the original Finance Committee, Vogt 
should consult Dr. Faucher. 

Vogt informs us on p. 225 of the “Magnum Opus”: 

“But it has always been a device of the reactionaries to require the democrats to 

do everything for nothing while they” (that is the reactionaries, not the democrats) 
“claim the right to demand payment and to be paid.” 

What a reactionary device on the part of Das Volk, which is not 
only edited and written for nothing but even induces those who 
work on it to pay! If that is not proof of the connection between 
Das Volk and the reaction, then Karl Vogt is at his wit’s end. 

During my stay in Manchester an event of decisive importance 
took place in London. Liebknecht discovered in the compositor’s 
room of Hollinger (who printed “Das Volk”) the proof-sheet of the 
anonymous pamphlet against Vogt entitled Zur Warnung. He read 
it through cursorily, immediately recognised Blind’s revelations 
and to crown it all learnt from A. Voégele, the compositor, that 
Blind had given the manuscript, which was in his handwriting, to 
Hollinger for printing. The corrections on the proof-sheet were 
also in Blind’s handwriting. Two days later Hollinger sent 
Liebknecht the proof-sheet, which he in turn sent to the 
Allgemeine Zeitung. The type for the pamphlet survived and was 
used later for a reprint in Das Volk, No. 7 (June 18, 1859).‘ 

With the publication of the “warning” by the Allgemeine Zeitung“ 

certain Ernst Schiler, a political refugee of 1838, a postmaster, wine merchant, 
bankrupt and at present solvent once more thanks to the fact that his newspaper, 
which was subsidised by British, French and Swiss advertisements during the 
Crimean war, now numbers 1,200 subscribers. 

@ No. 6, June 1}, 1859.— Ed. 

» Louis Borchardt, Eduard Gumpert and Martin Heckscher.—- Fd. 

‘In the article “Warnung zur gefalligen Verbreitung”.—~ Fd. 

dK Vogt und die deutsche Emigration in London”, Allgemeine Zeitung, 
No. 173, June 22, 1859.— Fd. 

begins the Augsburg campaign of the ex-Vogt of the Empire. He 
sued the Allgemeine Zeitung for reprinting the pamphlet. 

In the “Magnum Opus” (pp. 227-28) Vogt travesties Mullner’s 
“*Tis me, ’tis me; I am the robber Jaromir’.''* He merely translates 
“to be” into “to have”. 

“I have sued because I knew all along that the shallowness, futility and baseness 
of the editorial board which parades as the ‘representative of High German 
culture’, would be forced into the open. I have sued because I knew all along that 
the connection of its esteemed editors and the Austrian policies they have been 
exalting to the heavens with the Brimstone Gang and the dregs of the revolution, 
could not remain hidden from the public.” 

And so on through another four “I have sueds”. The suing 
Vogt becomes quite sublime,* or Longinus is right when he says 
that there is nothing in the world that is drier than a man with 
dropsy.” 

“Personal considerations,” the “well-rounded character” declares, “were the 
least of my motives when I went for the law.” 

In reality matters stood quite differently. No calf could show 
greater reluctance to go to the slaughter than Karl Vogt to go to 
court. While his “close” friends, the Ranickel, Reinach (formerly a 
peripatetic chronique scandaleuse about Vogt) and the garrulous 
Mayer from Esslingen, a member of the Rump Parliament, 
confirmed him in his terror of the court, he was bombarded with 
urgent requests from Zurich to proceed with his “suit”. At the 
Workers’ Festival in Lausanne the fur-dealer Roos told him in 
front of witnesses that he could no longer have any respect for 
him if he did not take legal proceedings. Nevertheless, Vogt 
resisted: He did not give a rap for the Augsburg and London 
Brimstone Gang and would remain silent. Suddenly, however, he 
spoke. Various newspapers announced the forthcoming trial and 
the Ranickel declared: 

“The Stuttgart people would not leave him” (Vogt) “any peace. He” (Ranickel) “had 
not given his approval.” 

We may note in passing that since the “well-rounded one” 
found himself in a tight corner, an action against the Allgemeine 
Zeitung was undoubtedly the most promising stratagem. Vogt’s 
self-apologia in response to an attack on him by J. Venedey, who 
had accused him of Bonapartist intrigues,'! saw the light in the 

«4 A pun in the original: der geklagt habende (who has sued) and wird erhaben 
(becomes sublime).— Ed. 
> Cassius Longinus, On the Sublime.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—VII. The Augsburg Campaign 12] 

Biel “ Handels-Courier” of June 16, 1859, and hence arrived in 
London after the appearance of the anonymous pamphlet, which 
concluded with the threat: 

“If. however, Vogt attempts to deny these accusations, a thing he will hardly 
dare, this revelation will be tollowed by No. 2.” 

Vogt had now issued a denial and revelation No. 2 did not 
follow. Secure on this front, mischief could only come from his 
dear friends, whom he knew well enough to rely on _ their 
cowardice. The more he exposed himself in public by resorting to 
legal action, the more surely he could bank on their discretion, for 
in the person of the “fugitive Imperial Regent” it was in a way the 
entire Rump Parliament that was standing in the pillory. 

Parliamentarian Jacob Venedey tells tales out of school in his Pro 
dome und pro patria gegen Karl Vogt, Hanover, 1860, pp. 27-28: 

“Apart from the letters produced by Vogt in his own account of his lawsuit, I 
have read a further letter of Vogt’s which reveals, much more clearly than the 
letter to Dr. Loening.< Vogt'’s position as the accomplice of those who were making 
strenuous efforts to localise the war i» Italy. J have copied out a few passages from 
this letter for my own information, but unfortunately | cannot publish them 
because the man to whom the letter was addressed only showed them to me on 
conditon that I would not publish them. Attempts have been made from personal and 
party considerations to cover up Vogt’s part in this affair which in my view cannot be 
justified either from a party point of view or in terms of a man’s duty to his country. This 
restraint on the part of many people explains why Vogt can still have the temerity to 
present himself as a German party leader It appears to me, however, that the party to 
which Vogt belonged has by this means become in part responsible for his activities.” * 

If then his action against the Allgemeine Zeitung was not risking 
all that much, an offensive in that direction provided General 
Vogt with the most favourable base of operations. It was Austria 
that was denigrating the Imperial Vogt through the Allgemeine 
Zeitung, and moreover, Austria in league with the communists! 
Thus the Imperial Vogt appeared as the interesting victim of a 

* See also p. 4 of the same pamphlet where it is stated: “This practice of 
‘making allowances’ from party considerations, the want of moral principle implied 
in admitting among themselves that Vogt has been playing a disgraceful game with 
his own country [...] and then permitting Vogt to sue people for slander when they 
have only asserted what all know and think and of which they know and even 
possess the proofs—all this I find quite nauseating, etc.” 

a Carl Vogt, “Erklarung”, Schweizer Handels-Courter, No. 162 (special supple- 
ment). Vogt’s statement was dated Geneva, June 10, 1859. He also included it in his 
Mein Prozess.... Dokumente, S. 20-25.— Ed. 

b “Warnung zur gefalligen Verbreitung”, Das Volk, No. 7, June 18, 1859.— Ed. 

© Carl Vogt, Mein Prozess.... Dokumente, S. 36.— Ed. 

monstrous coalition of the enemies of bourgeois liberalism. And 
the “Little Germany” press, which was already prejudiced in the 
Imperial Vogt’s favour, as a diminisher of the Empire, would 
jubilantly bear him aloft on its shield! 

In the beginning of July 1859, shortly after my return from 
Manchester, Blind paid me a visit in consequence of an incident of 
no importance in this context. He was accompanied by Fidelio 
Hollinger and Liebknecht. During this meeting I gave it as my 
opinion that Blind was the author of the pamphlet Zur Warnung. 
He protested the opposite. I repeated what he had told me on 
May 9* point by point, for in fact his assertions then constituted 
the entire contents of the pamphlet. He admitted all that but 
nevertheless insisted that he was not the author of the pamphlet. 

About a month later, in August 1859, Liebknecht showed me a 
letter he had received from the editors of the Allgemeine Zeitung 
who urgently asked him for proof of the allegations made in the 
pamphlet Zur Warnung. At his request I agreed to go with him to 
Blind’s home in St. John’s Wood, for even if Blind was not the 
author, he at any rate had known as early as the beginning of May 
what the pamphlet did not reveal to the world until the beginning 
of June, and he could, moreover, “prove” what he knew. Blind 
was not there. He had gone to a seaside resort. Liebknecht, 
therefore, wrote to him explaining the purpose of our visit. No 
answer. Liebknecht wrote to him a second time.'!’ Finally, the 
following statesman-like document arrived: 

“Dear Herr Liebknecht, 

“Your two letters, which had been wrongly addressed, arrived almost 
simultaneously. As you will understand I have absolutely no wish to meddle in the 
affairs of a newspaper with which I am quite unconnected. All the less in the given 
case, since, as I have already stated, I had nothing whatever to do with the problem in 
question. As to the remarks you cite that were made in the course of a private 
conversation, it 1s obvious that these were completely misinterpreted. There is evidently a 
misunderstanding here which I shall discuss with you in due course. I am sorry 
that your visit to me with Marx was in vain and 

“I remain, respectfully yours, 
K. Blind 

“St. Leonard’s, September 8” 

This cool diplomatic note according to which Blind had 
“nothing whatever to do” with the denunciation of Vogt, 
reminded me of an article which had appeared anonymously in 

* See this volume, p. 116.— Ed. 

Herr Vogt.—VII. The Augsburg Campaign 123 

The Free Press in London on May 27, 1859 and which went as 
follows?: 

~* 
“The Grand Duke Constantine to be King of Hungary 

“A Correspondent, who encloses his card, writes as follows:— 

“Sir,— Having been present at the last meeting* in the Music Hall, I heard the 
statement made concerning the Grand Duke Constantine. I am able to give you 
another fact: So far back as last summer, Prince Jér6me-Napoléon detailed to some 
of his confidants at Geneva a plan of attack against Austria, and prospective 
rearrangement of the map of Europe. I know the name of a Swiss senator to whom 
he broached the subject. Prince Jérome, at that time, declared that, according to 
the plan made, Grand Duke Constantine was to become King of Hungary. 

“I know further of attempts made, in the beginning of the present year, to win 
over to the Russo-Napoleonic scheme some of the exiled German Democrats, as well as 
some influential Liberals in Germany. Large pecuniary advantages were held out to them as 
a bribe» I am glad to say that these offers were rejected with indignation.” (See 
Appendix 9.) 

This article—though it does not name Vogt but, as far as the 
German emigration in London was concerned, unmistakably 
points to him—does in effect contain the core of the pamphlet Zur 
Warnung that appeared later on. The author of the “future King of 
Hungary”, whom patriotic zeal drove to make an anonymous 
denunciation of Vogt, had of course to grasp the golden 
opportunity that the Augsburg trial had thrown into his lap, the 
opportunity to reveal the treachery in a court of law in full view of 
the whole of Europe. And who was the author of the “future King 
of Hungary”? Citizen Karl Blind. The form and content of the 
article had already made that obvious to me in May and this was 
now officially confirmed by Mr. Collet, the editor of The Free Press, 
after I had explained to him the importance of the dispute that 
was pending and after I had shown him Blind’s diplomatic note. 

On September 17, 1859, Herr A. Voégele, the compositor, gave 
me a written declaration (printed in the “Magnum Opus”, 
Documents, Nos. 30, 31), in which he testifies not that Blind was 
the author of the pamphlet Zur Warnung, but that he (A. Vogele) 
and his employer, Fidelio Hollinger, had set the type for it in the 
Hollinger print-shop, that the manuscript was in Blind’s hand and that 
Blind had occasionally been mentioned by Hollinger as the author of the 
pamphlet. 

* This was the meeting held by D. Urquhart on May 9, mentioned above. 

a In the German original the letter is given in Marx’s translation. In the present 
edition the original English text is given, which Marx supplies in Appendix 9.— Ed. 

b Marx quotes this sentence in English in brackets after the German translation. 
The italics in this paragraph are Marx’s.— Ed. 

Armed with Végele’s declaration and the “future King of 
Hungary”, Liebknecht again wrote to Blind asking for “proofs” of - 
the denunciations made by that statesman in The Free Press, 
pointing out at the same time that he had now a piece of evidence 
about his involvement in the publication of Zur Warnung. Instead 
of answering Liebknecht, Blind sent Mr. Collet to me. Mr. Collet 
was supposed to ask me in Blind’s name to make no public use of 
my knowledge of the authorship of the said article in The Free 
Press. 1 replied that I could give no such assurance. My discretion 
would keep pace with Blinds courage. 

In the meantime, the date set down for the hearing of the case 
in Augsburg was drawing nearer. Blind remained silent. Vogt had 
attempted in various public announcements to make me as the 
secret source of it all responsible both for the pamphlet and the 
proof of the facts given in it. To ward off this manoeuvre, to 
vindicate Liebknecht and to defend the Allgemeine Zeitung, which 
in my view had performed a good deed in denouncing Vogt, I » 
informed the editors of the Allgemeine Zeitung via Liebknecht that 
I was prepared to let them have a document regarding the origin 
of the pamphlet Zur Warnung, if I received a written request from 
them. That is how the “lively correspondence came about which is at 
present carried on by Marx and Herr Kolb” as Herr Vogt states on 
p-194 of the “Magnum Opus”.* My “lively correspondence with Herr 
Kolb” consisted in two letters from Herr Orges to me, both of the 
same date, in which he asked me for the document I had 
promised, which I then sent him together with a few lines from 
myself.** 

The two letters from Herr Orges, which were in reality just a 
double edition of the same letter, arrived in London on October 
18, 1859, while the court proceedings were due to begin in 
Augsburg on the 24th. I therefore wrote at once to Herr Vogele 
to arrange a meeting next day in the office at the Marlborough 
Street Police Court, where he should give his declaration about the 
pamphlet Zur Warnung the legal form of an affidavit.*** My letter 

* It is true that in No. 319 of the Allgemeine Zeitung, Herr Kolb mentions “a 
very detailed letter from Herr Marx which he has not printed”. But this “detailed 
letter” has been printed in the Hamburg Reform, No. 139, supplement of November 19, 
1859. The “detailed letter” was a declaration from me intended for publication, and I 
sent it also to the Berlin Volks-Zeitung. [See this volume, pp. 4-7.] 

** My covering note [see this volume, p. 3] and Vogele’s declaration can be found 
in the “ Magnum Opus”, Documents, pp. 30, 31. Herr Orges’ letters to me are contained 
in Appendix 10. 

*** An affidavit is a statutory declaration given before a court, which, if false, is 
liable to all the penalties incurred by perjury. 

Herr Vogt—VII. The Augsburg Campaign 125 

did not reach him in time. Hence, on October 19,* against my 
original intention, I was compelled to send the above-mentioned 
written declaration of September 17 instead of the affidavit.** 

The court proceedings in Augsburg, as is well known, turned 
into a true comedy of errors. The corpus delicti was the pamphlet 
Zur Warnung sent by W. Liebknecht to the Allgemeine Zeitung and 
reprinted by it. The publisher and the author of the pamphlet, 
however, were involved in a game of blind-man’s buff. Liebknecht 
could not compel his witnesses, who were in London, to appear