[London,] 25 November [1864] 

Dear Frederick! 

Weydemeyer’s letter returned enclosed (how odd it should come 
at the same time as the one from the countess‘) °° with Schweitzer’s 
letter,“ which I forgot to enclose yesterday. 

* Danish name: Dybbdl. - » Louise Weydemeyer - © Sophie von Hatzfeldt - 4 See 
this volume, p. 29. 

I still need to hold on to the ‘clipping’ . 

The position is now as follows: 

1. It was not until after I wrote to you that I saw that Blind has 
sent an answer to the Swabian Beobachter via Dr Bronner 
(unsigned, of course, but dated Bradford; letter, naturally, written 
by Blind himself, in which he firstly proves that by his influence 
over ‘7’ million Germans he in fact shaped American politics; 
secondly, he has the impudence to say that the Vogt affair has 
been disposed of by statements from all sides.” So, I have grounds 
here for replying and referring to the ‘arriavirs’,” and, at the 
same time, an extract from Weydemeyer’s letter would kill two 
birds with one stone, firstly exposing Blind’s influence on America 
and secondly giving the old countess some kind of satisfaction as 
far as Lassalle is concerned. 

2. These ‘Republican Protests, which Blind has sent with the same 
date to St Louis, Frankfurt am Main and the London Hermann, 
are only identical in their general drift. In the shit in the Hermann 
and the Frankfurter Journal? which I shall try to send you later 
today, this Baden publican has simply put together the passages 
which were most damaging to ourselves, whilst across the ocean he 
is more insolent and resorts to bare-faced lies. 

But the real ‘porn?’ is this, a ‘pont’ typical of the way he 
manufactures his pamphlets: in the European edition he says that 
the protest comes from American and European republicans, whilst 
in the American edition he calls upon the American government to 
protest. Here we have caught the dog in flagranti“ 

3. Since Lassalle is dead and can do no more harm, we must of 
course—as far as possible, i.e. without compromising ourselves— 
defend him against these petty-bourgeois scoundrels. 

My plan is therefore this: to reply (briefly) in the Swabian 
Beobachter; 1. putting the record straight about the ‘statements from 
all sides’ in the Vogt affair; 2. giving an extract from 
Weydemeyer’s letter about Blind’s influence in America; 3. 
exposing the fellow afresh by comparing the European and 
American editions of his ‘Republican Protest’; finally 4. concluding 
that it is Nor worth woe defending Lassalle against such a comical 
character. 

If this seems all right to you, send me a wire and I will tie the 
whole business up tomorrow, amongst other things in order to 
have some peace with the ‘old girl’. I said in my letter to her, by 

« from Die Westliche Post with Blind’s article ‘Ein republikanischer Protest’ - > Neue 
Frankfurter Zeitung - © See this volume, p. 33. - 4 red-handed 

the way, that Lassalle only has himself to blame for being kicked 
by that jackass, because, although I strongly and repeatedly urged 
him to do so, he did not give all possible publicity in Germany to 
my denunciation of Blind in Herr Vogt? 

Salut. 
Your 
K. M.