Prague Slavic Congress, 1848

Introduction

The Prague Slavic Congress of 1848 (also known as the Pan-Slav Congress of 1848) took place between June 2 and June 12, 1848. It was one of the few times that voices from all Slav populations of Europe were heard in one place. The meeting was meant to be a show of resistance to the German nationalism in the Slav lands.

Pan-Slavism

“Pan-Slavism” developed over time leading up to the Congress in 1848. The development of some sort of national identity helped to unite the Slavic lands against the increasing German nationalism. The identification of these lands as Slavic does not mean that they are all the same. Within the overarching Slavic category, there are many other groups such as Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovenes.

The intensity of “Slavism” varied among the different factions coming to Prague. Hungarians exhibited the greatest “cultural Pan-Slavism” due to Magyarization (Orton 6). The Slavism was less noticeable with the Czechs and Slovenes because of the already large German influence. Polish Slavism was also intense and was mostly exhibited through the literature of writers such as Jan Gawiński (Orton 6).

my additions

Table of Contributors Table of Contents Return to Encyclopedia Home Page

Congress of the Slavs in Prague (1848)

Congress of the Slavs in Prague (1848), organized June 2-12, meant as a manifestation of power, unity and vigilance of the Slavs, endangered in their existence by the plans of unification of Germany and nationalistic policy of the Hungarians. The idea of the Congress was put forward on April 20, 1848 by a Croat Ivan Kukuljevic Sakginski and a Slovak L'udovít Stúr; soon afterwards, a similar project was proposed by Jedrzej Moraczewski from the G reat Duchy of Poznan, alarmed by a startling development of German nationalism; for the same reasons the project was supported by the Czech politicians. On May 1 the preparatory committee of the congress issued an address inviting delegates; formally only representatives of the Slavs from the Habsburg monarchy were called, but other Slavs were welcomed too; altogether 340 delegates arrived representing Croats, Czechs, Dalmatians, Moravians, Poles, Ruthenians, Serbs, Silesians, Slovaks and Slovenes, a s well as 500 official guests.

The congress debated in three sections: Czechs and Slovaks, Poles and Ruthenians (joined also by some Silesians and by Russian revolutionary, Mikhail Bakunin), and South Slavs; each section elected its own officers (chairman, deputy chairman and secretaries) and designated sixteeen representatives who would join the plenary committee. The section of Czechs and Slovaks was headed by Pavel Safarík, the Poles and Ruthenians by Karol Libelt, and the South S lavs by Pavao Stamatovic. The congress was presided over by the Czech liberal, Frantisek Palacky, the moving force behind the congress; his deputies were: Jerzy Lubomirski from Galicia and Stanko Vraz from Slovenia. Vagueness of the agenda worked out by the preparatory committee was a major source of discontentment with the program in the early sessions; inaddition to that, national divisions revealed themselves from the beginning of the congress' deliberations. For the South Slavs, the danger of magy arization was the main concern and this led to an inevitable conflict with the Poles. The main purpose of Polish politicians during the Spring of the Peoples, despite political differences among them, was the regeneration of the independent Polish state within the boundaries of 1772; they wanted the congress to be a representation of Slavdom, which would approve the right of the Poles to a sovereign country. Polish aspirations were popular among the younger Czech democrats, but were in conflict with the political interests of most of the Czech politicians, alarmed by a vision of a united Germany in the boundaries including the Czech lands. In 1848-49 Palacky was the main advocate of an idea of Austroslavism, i.e. a transformation of the Habsburg monarchy into a federal state, in which Slav nations would give up the idea of full political independence in favor of cultural freedom within Austria; this idea also suited the Serbs and Croats, who were under Habsburg domination, and more and more enda ngered by Hungarian nationalism; it, however, clashed with the national aspirations of the Poles. Some Czech politicians (Václav Hanka) saw the best future for the Slav people in their gathering around Russia; such ideas found a certain approval among the southern Slavs, as well as among Ruthenians in Galicia, especially during weaker moments of the Viennese government; they were, however, stringly opposed by the Poles. The danger of the expansion and reinforcement of the tsarist Russia made P oles undertake attempts at mediation between the Slavs and the Hungarians. On the other hand, the Ruthenian delegates representing the Supreme Ruthenian Council [Holovna Rus'ka Rada] in Lvov viewed the congress as an opportunity to state their grievances against the Poles and came up with a demand to divide Galicia into eastern (Ruthenian) and western (Polish) parts; Polish delegates opposed this plan; the Czech delegates also warned against the division, as well as did Mikhail Bakunin who emph asized that either St.Petersburg or the reactionary Austrian bureaucracy would take advantage of it. Finally, thanks to the efforts of Leon Sapieha, who represented the Ruthenian Assembly [Rus'kyy Sobor], gathering Poles of Ruthenian origin, a Polish-Ruthenian compromise was signed on June 7, 1848: Galicia was to remain undivided, at least until appropriate decisions were taken by the local Diet; both nations were to have equal rights (this referred mainly to language matters); in regional off ices and schools an obligatory language was to be the one spoken by the majority of inhabitants of that region; and the Uniate clergy was to be given equal right with the Roman-Catholic (this, however, was approved neither by the Ruthenian Supreme Council, nor by the Polish National Council in Lvov). On the plenary committee meeting on June 5, Karol Libelt proposed to adopt a new agenda that would focus on three objectives: to issue a manifesto to all European nations stating the political orientatio n of the congress; to send a petition to the emperor including the demands of the Slavs; and to develop plans to promote cooperation and unity among the Slavs.

The "Manifesto to the European peoples" was an accomplishment of Polish democratic politicians: at the news of preparing an adulatory address to the Austrian emperor by the Czechs, a group of Polish delegates under the leadership of Karol Libelt and Jedrzej Moraczewski prepared a politically and socially radical counter-proposa l, which became the basis of the final version of the "Manifest," worked out by Libelt and Palacky, with the cooperation of Jedrzej Moraczewski, Lucjan Siemienski, Mikhail Bakunin and Frantisek Zach. Although under the pressure of moderate Czech delegates many radical fragments were removed, the "Manifesto" was an important document; it emphasized the superiority of national rights over international treaties; the delegates to the congress declared their readiness to acknowledge a nd support equal rights of all nations, regardless of their political power"; appealed to all Slavonic nations to call a general congress of European peoples so that they could "regulate their international relationships on a one-to-one equal basis... before the reactionary politics of some cabinets succeeded in stirring again hate and jealousy of one nation against the other."The Manifesto appealed to the Austrian emperor to transform the monarchy into a federation of equal nations; u nder Polish influence, initially strong anti-German tendencies were accommodated, and the German-speaking population living outside Germany, was acknowledged the right to cooperate with the inhabitants of Germany. From July 1848 political events were increasingly unfavorable to the liberation aspirations of suppressed nations, and the "Manifesto" did not affect the course of political events; however, it remained a document of a new concept of regulating international relations in Europe, de riving from the great tradition of the French Revolution.

The last meeting of the plenary committee on June 12 formally approved a draft of the manifesto and scheduled a final session on June 14. Street fighting that broke out shortly after noon and the week of fighting that followed interrupted the congress; most of its delegates left Prague; some were arrested and expelled. The congress clearly revealed political divisions among the Slavs and brought many disapointments to its participant s; it was the first attempt to negotiate the future relations among neighboring Slav nations of the Habsburg monarchy; and to regulate international, rather than interstate relationships. Jolanta Pekacz http://www.ohiou.edu/~chastain/ac/congslav.htm

Prague Upheavals of 1848

Prague Upheavals of 1848 in Prague arose from processes similar to those in other major Austrian and German cities. The Habsburg authorities faced diverse and growing opposition in the Bohemian capital in the 1840s, but no group initiated a revolution before news of other uprisings and the government's own weakness provided the opportunity. Earlier in the decade some of the aristocrats in the Bohemian Diet had begun to attack the centralization of authority in Vienna and the regime's failure to address provincial problems. In Prague, students, educated professionals, and some entrepreneurial elements also criticized the sclerotic bureaucracy, the lack of representative institutions and civil equality, and the persistence of the peasants' obligatory labor services. The nascent Czech nationalist movement, which was strongest among the petty bourgeoisie of Prague and the lesser Bohemian towns, called for liberal constitutional reforms and equal educational rights for Czech-speakers and Germans. These opposition groups became increasingly vocal in the mid-1840s, but none of them planned for the imminent seizure of power. Nonetheless, the hardships of the 1840s depression, the resulting popular unrest, and the growing paralysis of the Habsburg government created a crisis situation by the end of 1847.

At this time Prague had a population of over 115,000 that was increasing rapidly due to migration from the countryside and the beginnings of mechanized industry. In 1844 textile workers protested low wages, broke machines, and attacked Jewish factory owners and small businessmen. Again in 1847, laboring elements protested against unemployment, food shortages, and high food prices; and such protests recurred in 1848. The civil and military authorities evoked popular anger for enforcing the customs duties on food introduced in 1829 and for repressing the worker protests. In face of the laborers' misery, some of Prague's most radical students and intellectuals developed an interest in utopian socialism, but the middle-class liberals as well as the aristocratic opposition generally rejected any infringement of property rights. As the economic and social problems mounted, the highest authorities in Prague, like those in Vienna, increasingly showed themselves to be unsure and divided as to how to respond to the situation.

News of uprisings in Italy and then of the Parisian revolution in late February 1848 galvanized Prague's oppositional groups to call for immediate constitutional reforms. On March 2 a group of noblemen demanded that the provincial governor convene the Bohemian Diet with increased middle-class representation. Independently on March 6, radicals from the "Repeal" group issued a call in Czech and German for a public meeting at the St. Vaclav's (Wenceslas) Baths to draft a petition to the emperor for reform. That gathering, held on March 11, a second one on April 10, and the associated committee meetings became the principal venues for liberal political action in Prague during the spring of 1848. The participants in the first public meeting were mostly young and Czech-speaking, primarily middle and lower middle class with few workers, almost none of the upper bourgeoisie, and no noblemen. They approved a petition calling for full civil liberties, the abolition of the peasants' feudal obligations, creation of a citizens' militia, Czech-language instruction in the schools, and a constitutional government with elected representatives of the nobility, clergy, burghers, and peasants. Czech nationalists inserted the demand for a united annual Diet for Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia, but radicals found little support for any "organization of labor" along utopian socialist lines. Indeed, Prague's liberal constitutional reformers, both Czech and German, took a conservative stand on social questions throughout the spring.

In March and April, the mayor, the more conservative burghers, and even the provincial governor were willing to concede many to these demands, particularly after the imperial court dismissed Metternich and promised reforms. The governor, Rudolf Count Stadion, impaneled a commission on April 1 to consider governmental reform, but within two weeks he agreed to merge that body with the St. Vaclav Committee to form a "National Committee" to plan the election of a new Bohemian Diet. German nationalist sentiment had been slow to develop in Prague, but the Czech majority in the national committee and the growing demands in the Czech press for the political rights of the Czech majority in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia put the German-speaking middle-class elements on the defensive. In March and April, Czech and German-speaking liberals worked together for constitutional reform, but by mid-May all of the Germans had withdrawn from the National Committee, leaving it a major forum for Czech nationalist political activity. To advance the cause of civil and cultural rights for all Slavic peoples in the Habsburg Monarchy, the historian Frantisek Palacky and other Czech leaders began in late April to organize a Slavic congress to meet in Prague five weeks later.

Bloody repression by the Habsburg military in June ended the liberal efforts in Prague to win constitutional reform. Radical Czech students viewed as a provocation the return on May 20 of the reactionary military commander Alfred Prince Windischgrätz. They vainly demanded arms for their academic legion, and on Whit-Monday, June 12, during the Slavic congress, they organized an outdoor "Slavic" mass at the Horse Market, now Wenceslas Square. After the mass, students and workers soon began to fight with Windischgrätz's soldiers. After six days of street fighting, artillery bombardments, and more than a hundred casualties, Windischgrätz took control of the city under a state of siege. The provincial government dissolved the National Committee at the end of June and stopped plans to elect a new Diet. Some of the German-speaking patriciate openly welcomed the reimposition of governmental authority, and local middle-class support for constitutional reform rapidly diminished.

The last significant attempt at revolutionary activity in the Bohemian capital came in May 1849. Encouraged by Mikhail Bakunin, a group of Czech and German student radicals planned an uprising. The police uncovered the conspiracy and imposed a new state of siege which lasted until August 1853. http://www.ohiou.edu/~Chastain/ip/prague.htm

History > Revolution and counterrevolution, 1848–59 Find complete information about this country by visiting the country page.

1848 was a year of European-wide revolution. A general disgust with conservative domestic policies, an urge for more freedoms and greater popular participation in government, rising nationalism, social problems brought on by the Industrial Revolution, and increasing hunger caused by harvest failures in the mid-1840s all contributed to growing unrest, which the Habsburg monarchy did not escape. In February 1848, Paris, the archetype of revolution at that time, rose against its government, and within weeks many major cities in Europe did the same, including Vienna.

   1140 Link for the free trial item in the article

As in much of Europe, the Revolution of 1848 in the Habsburg monarchy may be divided into the three categories of social, democratic-liberal, and national, but outside Vienna the national aspect of the revolution fairly soon overshadowed the other two. On March 13, upon receiving news of the Paris rising, crowds of people, mostly students and members of liberal clubs, demonstrated in Vienna for basic freedoms and a liberalization of the regime. As happened in many cities in this fateful year, troops were called out to quell the crowds, shots were fired, and serious clashes occurred between the authorities and the people. The government had no wish to antagonize the crowds further and so dismissed Metternich, who was the symbol of repression, and promised to issue a constitution.

From that beginning to the end of October 1848, Vienna ebbed and flowed between revolution and counterrevolution, with one element or another gaining influence over the others. In mid-May the Habsburgs and their government became so concerned about the way matters were going that they fled Vienna, although they did return in August when it appeared that more conservative elements were asserting control. The emperor issued a constitution in April providing for an elected legislature, but when the legislature met in June it rejected this constitution in favour of one that promised to be more democratic. As the legislature debated various issues over the summer and autumn, the Habsburgs and their advisers regrouped both their confidence and their might, and on October 31 the army retook Vienna and executed a number of the city's radical leaders. By this time the legislature had removed itself to Kremsier in the province of Moravia, where it continued to work on a constitution. It finished its work there, issued its document, and was promptly overruled and then dismissed by the emperor.

Although the assembly in the end did not create a working constitution for Austria, it did issue one piece of legislation that had long-lasting influence: it fully emancipated the peasantry. The conservative regime that followed kept and implemented this law.

In other parts of the monarchy, the revolution of 1848 passed quickly through a liberal-democratic to a national phase, and in no place was this more evident or more serious than in Hungary. Joseph II's effort to incorporate Hungary more fully into the monarchy, along with the early 19th century's rising national awareness throughout Europe, had a profound impact upon the aristocratic Hungarians who held sway in the country. Modern nationalism made them even more intent on preserving their cultural traditions and on continuing their political domination of the land. Consequently, after 1815 the Hungarian nobility engaged in a number of activities to strengthen the Hungarian national spirit, demanding the use of Hungarian rather than Latin as the language of government and undertaking serious efforts to develop the country economically. The revolution in Paris and then the one in Vienna in March 1848 galvanized the Hungarian diet. Under the leadership of a young lawyer and journalist named Lajos Kossuth, the Hungarian diet demanded of the sovereign sweeping reforms, including civil liberties and far greater autonomy for the Hungarian government, which would from then on meet in Pest (Buda and Pest were separate cities until 1873, when they merged under the name Budapest). Under great pressure from liberal elements in Vienna, the emperor acceded to these wishes, and the Hungarian legislators immediately undertook creating a new constitution for their land.

This new constitution became known as the April Laws and was really the work of Kossuth. The April Laws provided for a popularly elected lower house of deputies, freedom for the “received religions” (i.e., excluding Jews), freedom of the press, peasant emancipation, and equality before the law. As the Hungarians set up their new national government based on these principles, they encountered from some of the minority nationalities living in their land the kind of resistance they had offered the Austrians. A characteristic of the new regime was an intense pride in being Hungarian, but the population in the Hungarian portion of the Habsburg monarchy was 60 percent non-Hungarian. And in 1848 all the talk about freedom and constitutions and protection of one's language and culture had inspired many of these people as well. But Kossuth and his colleagues had no intention of weakening the Hungarian nature of their new regime; indeed, they made knowledge of Hungarian a qualification for membership in parliament and for participation in government. In other words, the new government seemed as unsympathetic to the demands and hopes of its Serbian, Croatian, Slovak, and Romanian populations as Vienna had been to the demands of the Hungarians.

In March 1848 the Habsburgs made an appointment that would lead to war with the Hungarians: they selected as governor of Croatia Josip, Count Jelacic, well-known for his devotion to the monarchy, for his dislike of the “lawyers' clique” in Pest, and for his ability to hold the South Slavs in the southern portion of the monarchy loyal to the crown. Jelacic did not disappoint Vienna. One of his first acts was to reject all authority over Croatia by the new Hungarian government, to refuse all efforts by that government to introduce Hungarian as a language of administration, and to order his bureaucrats to return unopened all official mail from Pest. He also began negotiations with the leadership of the Serbs to resist Hungarian rule together.

From April to September 1848 the Hungarian government dealt with its minority nations and with the government in Austria on even terms, but then relations began to deteriorate. The return of the Habsburgs to Vienna in August, the more conservative turn in the government there that the return reflected, and Austrian military victories in Italy in July prompted the Habsburg government to demand greater concessions from the Hungarians. In September, military action against Hungary by Jelacic and his Croats prompted the Hungarian government to turn power over to Kossuth and a Committee of National Defense that immediately took measures to defend the country. What then emerged was open warfare between regular Habsburg forces and Jelacic on the one hand and the Hungarians on the other.

The war was a bloody affair, with each side dominating at one time or another. In April 1849 the Hungarian government proclaimed its total independence from the Habsburgs, and in that same month the Austrian government requested military aid from Russia, an act that was to haunt it for years to come. Finally, in August 1849, the Hungarian army surrendered, and the land was put firmly under Austrian rule. Kossuth fled to the Ottoman Empire, and from there for years he traveled the world denouncing Habsburg oppression. In Hungary itself many rebel officers were imprisoned, and a number were executed.

A second serious national rising occurred in Italy. Since 1815, many Italians had looked upon the Habsburgs as foreign occupiers or oppressors, so when news of revolution reached their lands the banner of revolt went up in many places, especially in Milan and Venice. Outside the Habsburg lands, liberal uprisings also swept Rome and Naples. In Habsburg Italy, however, war came swiftly. In late March, answering a plea from the Milanese, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the only Italian state with a native monarch, declared war on the emperor and marched into his lands.

The Habsburg government in Austria was initially willing to make concessions to Sardinia, but it was strongly discouraged from doing so by its military commander in Italy, the old but highly respected and talented Field Marshal Radetzky, who had been the Austrian chief of staff in the war against Napoleon in 1813–14. In July 1848 Radetzky proved the value of his advice by defeating the Sardinians at Custoza, a victory that helped restore confidence to the Habsburg government as it faced so many enemies. Radetzky reimposed Habsburg rule in Milan and in Venice, and in March 1849 he defeated the Sardinians once again when they invaded Austria's Italian possessions.

Besides the Hungarians and the Italians, the Slavic peoples of the monarchy also responded to the revolutionary surge, although with less violence than the other two. In June 1848 a Pan-Slav congress met in Prague to hammer out a set of principles that all Slavic peoples could endorse. The organizer of the conference was the great Czech historian František Palacký (most of the delegates were Czech), who had not only called for the cooperation of the Habsburg Slavs but who had also endorsed the Habsburg monarchy as the most reasonable political formation to protect the peoples of central Europe. Upon being asked by the Germans to declare himself favourably disposed to their desire for national unity, he responded that he could not do so because it would weaken the Habsburg state. And in that reply he wrote his famous words: “Truly, if it were not that Austria had long existed, it would be necessary, in the interest of Europe, in the interest of humanity itself, to create it.”

Unfortunately, the Pan-Slav congress met in a highly charged atmosphere, as young inhabitants of Prague likewise had been influenced by revolutions elsewhere and had taken to the streets. In the commotion, a stray bullet killed the wife of Field Marshal Alfred, Prince zu Windischgrätz, the commander of the forces in Prague. Enraged, Windischgrätz seized the city, dispersed the congress, and established martial law throughout the province of Bohemia.

The Germans themselves also experienced a certain degree of national fervour, but in their case it was part of a general German yearning for national unification. Responding to calls for a meeting of national unity, in May 1848 delegates from all the German states met at Frankfurt to discuss a constitution for a united Germany. Made up primarily of the commercial and professional classes, this body was indeed distinguished and was looked upon by the German princes as an important gathering. To prove its respect for tradition, the Frankfurt parliament selected the emperor's uncle, Archduke Johann, as head of a provisional executive power and in September selected another Austrian, Anton, Knight von Schmerling, as prime minister.

Despite this deference to Austria's prominent men, a major question the parliament addressed was whether or not to include Austria in the new Germany. Those who favoured doing so argued that a new Germany could accept the German-speaking provinces of the monarchy but not the non-German lands (the Grossdeutsch, or large German, position). Those against contended that the Austrian monarchy could never divide itself along ethnic lines and so favoured the exclusion of Austria altogether (the Kleindeutsch, or small German, position). Implicit in this position was that the new Germany would be greatly influenced if not dominated by Prussia, by far the most important German state next to Austria. In October 1848 the delegates agreed to invite the Austrian German lands to become part of the new Germany, but only if they were disconnected from non-German territory. This so-called compromise was really a victory for the Kleindeutsch supporters, who knew that the Austrian government would reject the invitation because it would never willfully break the monarchy apart.

In the end neither position prevailed, because the Frankfurt parliament was unable to unify Germany. All the German states in the end rejected its proposals, and in April 1849 it dissolved. Nonetheless, it had created the impression that, when the new Germany would emerge, it would do so under the aegis of Prussia and with the exclusion of Austria. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-33362/Austria

The Congress

The exact goal of the Congress was unclear even as it was beginning. In addition to lacking a goal, the conference planners also quarreled over the format and the agenda of the gathering (Orton 57). Perhaps this was an indication of how difficult the conference would be for the factions to come together.

Once underway, the conference met in three sections: Poles and Ukrainians; South Slavs; and Czecho-Slovaks. The Pole-Ukrainian section contained a combination of Ruthenes, Mazurians, Wielopolaks, and Lithuanians (Orton 62). Of the total 340 delegates at the Congress, the greatest number came from the Czecho-Slovak section. 237 Czecho-Slovaks participated along with 42 South Slavs and 61 Pole-Ukrainian (Orton 63).

During the Congress, there was debate about the role of Austria in the lives of the Slavs. Dr. Josef Fric argued that the “primary goal is the preservation of Austria,” adding that the Congress “only differs on the means.” (Orton 69) This point was disputed by L’udovit Stur who told the Congress, “our goal is self-preservation.” (Orton 69) Such a disconnect was typical of the environment of this conference.

One important statement did come out of the conference around June 10, when the Manifesto to the Nations of Europe was pronounced. The statement was a strongly worded proclamation that demanded an end to the oppression of the Slav people (Orton 87). It’s important to note that the Slavs did not look for any type of revenge (Orton 88). Rather they wanted to “extend a brotherly hand to all neighbouring nations who are prepared to recognize and effectively champion with us the full equality of all nations, irrespective of their political power or size.” (Orton 88). This was an important development because it indicated some sort of unity among all of the Slav people of Europe (Polišenský 147).

The Congress was unfortunately cut short on June 12, when fighting broke out on the streets (Orton 86). This later became known as the Whitsuntide events because of the timing during the Christian holiday of Pentecost. The delegates left in disgust and some were even arrested because of the revolutionary nature of the Congress (Orton 86).

Who’s who in the Prague Congress of 1848?

The four most important individuals of the Congress were František Palacký, Karol Libelt, Pavo Stamatović, and Pavel Šafárik (Orton 62-63).
- František Palacký oversaw the entire conference as president.
- Karol Libelt, from Prussian Poznan, was the chairman of the Poles and Ukrainians.
- Pavo Stamatović, from Serbia, was the chairman of the South Slavs.
- Pavel Šafárik, from Slovakia, was the chairman of the Czecho-Slovaks.

---

Sources:
Orton, Lawrence D., The Prague Slav Congress of 1848. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.

Polišenský, Josef, Aristocrats and the Crowd in the Revolutionary Year 1848. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1980.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Prague Slavic Congress, 1848  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Prague Slavic Congress, 1848"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.