[London,] 1 July 1861 

Dear Frederic, 

I was delighted to see Lupus here, as was the whole family. 
Despite his gout, the old man had quite a youthful air. He 
immediately handed over your letter,”? and £2, which promptly 
went to the trax caruerer. I was expecting to get a supply from 
Germany this morning, but nothing has arrived yet. Since I am 
completely without revenue for the time being and yet in a continual 
COURSE OF consumption (this being how some economists account for 
‘profit’, which they see as deriving, not from the costs of 
production, but from the costs of consumption *”’), any supplies 
from Manchester would be most welcome. 

Please write and tell me at once what you think about the moves 
(military) in Virginia. The siunvers made by officers of the 
militia— Brigadier-General Pierce, by nature a ‘tailor’ from the State 
of Massachusetts—will, of course, recur often enough on’ both 
sides.*** Is Washington still threatened? Do you believe that the 
Southerners position at Manassas Junction is an offensive one? Or 
aren’t the fellows engaged rather in a withdrawal? In Missouri the 
defeat of the Souruerners seem certain,?? and who should now turn 
up there but the terrible ‘cocone, B6rnstein’? From a private letter 
to Weber it transpires that ‘coroner Willich’ is in command of a 
corps from Cincinnati. He would not appear to have gone into 
action yet. 

On studying these American affairs more closely, I have come to 
the conclusion that the conflict between South and North—for 50 
years the latter has been climbing down, making one concession 
after another—has at last been brought to a head (if we disregard 
the effrontery of ‘cavalry’s’ fresh demands) by the weight which 
the extraordinary development of the North Western States has 
thrown into the scales. The population there, with its rich 
admixture of newly-arrived Germans and Englishmen and, 
moreover, largely made up of sexr-workinc Farmers, did not, of 
course, lend itself so readily to intimidation as the Gentlemen of 
Wall Street and the Quakers of Boston. According to the last 
census (1860), it had grown by 67 p. c. between 1850 and 1860, in 

which year it numbered 7,870,869, whereas, according to the same 
census, the entire free population of the seceded slave states was 
about 5 million. These Norrn Western States furnished not only the 
Bulk of the ruling party, but also the President* in 1860.°°° It was 
also this self-same area in the North that first came out 
unequivocally against any recognition of the independence of a 
Southern Confederacy. They cannot, of course, allow the lower 
reaches and estuary of the Mississippi to pass into the hands of 
foreign states. Again, in the Kansas affair*’! (from which this war 
really dates), it was the population of these Norru Western [States] 
who came to blows with the Border Ruffians. 

A closer look at the history of the secession movement reveals 
that secession, constitution (Montgomery), Congress ibid., etc., are 
usurpations “© without exception. Nowhere did they allow the 
people en masse to vote. This ‘usurpation’-—which is concerned, not 
only with secession from the North, but also with consolidating 
and intensifying the oligarchy of the 300,000 slave corps in the 
South vis-a-vis the 5 million warres—has been the subject of highly 
characteristic articles which appeared in the Southern papers at the 
time.? 

And now let us turn to high politics—Kinkel and the National 
Association in London.© You will no doubt recall that, a week ago 
last Saturday, Heintzmann had adjourned the meeting (a fact he 
advertised in the Hermann“), because Juch had been sent to 
Coburg, THERE To Move a placitum patrumS At the same time, the 
creat Heintzmann had convened an extraordinary meeting for 
Tuesday‘ to commemorate the Battle of Waterloo, etc. 

Foxy Gottfried, however, together with Zerffi, sent out secret 
circulars to their people (see last Hermann) summoning them to a 
meeting on Saturday. Gottfried and his people, having now got 
the field to themselves, effectively held their meeting behind the 
backs of the others. Gottfried (as one of the vice-presidents of the 
National Association) took the chair, and Zerffi (as a member’ of 
the committee of the self-same National Association) acted as 
secretary. It goes without saying that the resolutions pertaining tc 
the MacDonald business,*” etc., that were adopted at this meeting 
were agreeable to Gottfried and Zerffi. Now, on the following 

4 Abraham Lincoln - © See this volume, pp. 305-09. - © ibid., pp. 297-98. - 4 Mara 
refers to the ‘Protokoll der Versammlung der Londoner Mitglieder des National- 
vereins am 1. Juni 1861’, Hermann, No. 128, 15 June 1861. - © senatorial 
decision - 18 June -% 15 June. The details are contained in an editorial on 
the National Association meeting of 15 June 1861 in the Hermann, No. 130, 29 June 
1861. 

12* 

Tuesday, Heintzmann called for a reading of the minutes of the 
last meeting at which he had taken the chair, and acted as though 
he knew nothing whatever about the interim meeting held by 
Gottfried and Co. Nor did Gottfried and Zerffi, who were present, 
call for the reading of the relevant minutes or, for that matter, 
say a single word about the meeting they themselves had 
arranged. What Gottfried did do, however, was to write to Juch 
the following day, requesting him to reproduce in the Hermann 
the minutes of his, Gottfried’s, meeting enclosed in his letter. He 
even ominously invoked an agreement which he had made with 
Juch on handing over the Hermann. The latter, however, said 
‘quod non’* (see last Hermann). The day before yesterday,” 
it would seem, the row was discussed at a meeting of the Natio- 
nal Association at Seyd’s Hotel. But I haven’t had a report on it 
yet. 

This will give you some idea of what the ‘Machiavellismus 
Gottofredi Magni’ is like. You will further see from the last 
Hermann’s account of the meeting of the National Association “ 
that Blind—who has as many little dodges up his sleeve as there 
are fleas on a dog—invited ‘Dralle’* to join, in order to secure for 
himself a vote of thanks as the saviour of Schleswig-Holstein.' This 
was, however, cappep sy Heintzmann, who didn’t even give Dralle’s 
Notion a chance to be put to the vote. This same summus Blind got 
a third party to ask Weber, etc., whether he should ‘appear as 
a speaker’ at the meetinc to be held by the German commu- 
nist association and the Frenchmen’s associations in honour 
of the June insurrection.** Reply: If he wanted a drubbing— 
yes. 

Ad vocem" Lassalle’s work: ' 

Lupus has made me a present of his copy, for disposal as 
follows: to be sent by you to my cousin, addressed to: ‘A. Philips, 
Advokaat,' Keizergracht bij de Westermarkt. L.L. 267, 
Amsterdam. 

You must, of course, erase Lassalle’s dedication to Lupus. My 
cousin is interested in the theory of jurisprudence. 

4 no go’ - > 29 June - © ‘Machiavellianism of the great Gottfried’ - 4 ‘Protokoll der 
außerordentlichen Sitzung der Londoner Mitglieder des Deutschen Nationalvereins, 
abgehalten den 18. Juni 1861, in Seyd’s Hotel, 39, Finsbury Sqre’, Hermann, No. 130, 
29 June 1861. - € A pun on the name Dralle which also means ‘buxom’. - £ See this 
volume, p. 264.- 8 sublime -5 As to-' F. Lassalle, Das System der erworbenen 
Rechte. - | Barrister