Difference between revisions of "Prague Slavic Congress, 1848" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Claimed}}
+
{{Paid}}{{approved}}{{Submitted}}{{Copyedited}}{{Images OK}}
== Introduction ==
+
[[Image:Pan-Slavic flag.svg|thumb|right|Slavic flag proposed by the Pan-Slav convention in Prague in 1848.]]
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.
+
The '''Prague Slavic Congress of 1848''' was a major event in the Europe of upheavals of 1848. It was a time of revolution. Individual nations oppressed by the [[Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian]] Empire, inspired by the [[French Revolution]], gained confidence to fight back against the ruling class and secure individual freedom. In the case of the Slavic nations, this was not a spiritual battle for mere self-preservation but also for the preservation of Europe as a whole.
 +
 
 +
There were many dividing issues among the individual Slavic peoples, which had to do with what area of the Empire they were under, Austrian or Hungarian. [[tsar|Tsarist]] [[Russia]] shaped the events in [[Poland]], and the Poles were gripped by fears of the regime on their doorstep. The nations under [[Austria]]n rule dreaded growing [[Germany|German]] [[nationalism]], which is what drove some of them to embrace the doctrine of Austroslavism. Nevertheless, Slavs proved that they were able to overcome vindictive tendencies, as representatives of Czechs decided on the right to have both Czech and German languages in the Czech lands. Poles and Ruthenians also overcome their differences and agreed on a language compromise.
 +
{{toc}}
 +
The Slavs, dominated by the [[Hungary|Hungarians]], faced a greater predicament, because the Hungarians sought independence from the monarchy for themselves only. No rights would apply to the non-Hungarian Slavs. It was in this scenario that the delegates from individual Slavic nations met to state their grievances, gain understanding of the issues of their neighbors, and draw up a plan for further action, both on the national and the international levels. The goals of the Congress were vague at the outset, and it was not concluded properly due to armed unrest, but it created a petition of Slavic demands to the Emperor and provided a blueprint for international relations, where equal rights of all nations would be acknowledged.  
  
 
== Pan-Slavism ==
 
== 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).
+
Pan-Slavism was introduced as intended to promote the political or cultural unity of all Slavs; it helped unite the Slavic lands against the increasing [[German]] nationalism. Advocated by various individuals from the seventeenth century, it developed as an intellectual and cultural movement in the nineteenth century. Stimulated by the rise of [[Romanticism]] and [[nationalism]], it grew with the awakening of the Slavs within the [[Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian]] monarchy. Slavic historians, [[Philology|philologists]], and [[Anthrology|anthropologists]] helped spread a national consciousness among the Slavs, and some dreamed of a unified Slavic culture.  
  
==my additions==
+
The intensity of Slavism varied among the different factions that participated in the Congress.  Hungarians exhibited the greatest cultural Pan-Slavism due to Magyarization (Hungarization). [[Poland|Polish]] Slavism was also intense, mostly exhibited through the literature of writers such as Jan Gawiński. Czechs and Slovenes, on the other hand, were moderate because of the already large German influence.
  
Table of Contributors  Table of Contents  Return to Encyclopedia Home Page
+
==1848 upheavals in Europe==
 +
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 in the nations ruled by the [[Austro-Hungarian Empire]]. In February 1848, [[Paris]], the archetype of revolution at that time, rose against its government, and within weeks many major cities in Europe followed suit.
  
 +
The Revolution of 1848 in the Hapsburg monarchy came in three forms—social, democratic-liberal, and national—but outside [[Vienna]] the national aspect soon overshadowed the other two, which was most evident in Hungary. [[Emperor Joseph II]]'s effort to incorporate Hungary more fully into the monarchy escalated the Hungarians’ endeavors to preserve their cultural traditions and continue their political domination of the land. Under the leadership of the lawyer and journalist [[Lajos Kossuth]], the Hungarian diet demanded sweeping reforms, including civil liberties and far greater autonomy for the Hungarian government, and the emperor was forced to accede to those. A new constitution—the April Laws—was drafted; however, minority nationalities living in Hungary put up resistance due to the knowledge of the Hungarian language being a qualification for membership in parliament and participation in government. The new regime was mainly marked by an intense pride in being Hungarian, although 60 percent of the Hungarian portion of the Hapsburg monarchy was non-Hungarian. Kossuth’s government was as unsympathetic to the demands and hopes of its Serbian, Croatian, [[Slovakia|Slovak]], and [[Romanian]] populations as Vienna had been to the demands of the Hungarians.
  
Prague Upheavals of 1848
+
Besides the Hungarians and the [[Italy|Italians]], the Slavic peoples of the monarchy also responded to the revolutionary surge, although with less violence than the other two. The Hapsburg authorities faced diverse and growing opposition in Prague, 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. The Czech nationalist movement called for liberal constitutional reforms and equal educational rights for Czech and German speakers.
  
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.
+
To advance the cause of civil and cultural rights for all Slavic peoples in the monarchy, the historian František Palacký and other Czech leaders organized a Slavic congress to meet in Prague.
  
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 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.
+
== The Congress ==
 
 
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. 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. 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 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
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
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.
+
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 a manifestation of power and resistance, unity, and vigilance of the Slavs, endangered in their existence by the plans of [[German]] unification and the nationalistic policy of the Hungarians. Furthermore, it was the first attempt to negotiate the future relations among neighboring Slav nations of the [[Hapsburg]] monarchy, and to regulate international, rather than inter-state, relationships. It was one of the few times that voices from all Slav populations of Europe were heard in one place.  
  
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.
+
The idea of the Congress was first conceived on April 20, 1848, by Ivan Kukuljevic Sakginski, a Croat, and Ľudovít Štúr, a Slovak; this inspired similar projects by Jedrzej Moraczewski of Poznan, [[Poland]]. Since it was a response to a startling intensification of German nationalism, it was supported by the Czech politicians as well. On May 1, the preparatory committee of the Congress issued an address inviting delegates; officially only representatives of the Slavs living in the Habsburg monarchy were invited, although Slavs from other parts of Europe were welcomed too. Altogether 340 delegates arrived representing Croats, Czechs, Dalmatians, Moravians, Poles, Ruthenians, Serbs, Silesians, Slovaks, and Slovenes, as well as 500 official guests.  
  
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 Congress held debates in three sections:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-33362/Austria
+
# Czechs and Slovaks, who had the largest number of participants, with 237 in attendance;
 +
# Poles and Ruthenians, joined by Silesians, Mazurians, Wielopolaks, Lithuanians, and the Russian revolutionary and one of the founders of [[Anarchism]], [[Mikhail Bakunin]]; and  
 +
# South Slavs.  
  
== The Congress ==
+
Each section elected its officers and designated sixteen representatives for the plenary committee. The section of Czechs and Slovaks was headed by [[Pavel Josef Šafařík]], the Poles and Ruthenians by [[Karol Libelt]], and the South Slavs by Pavo Stamatović. Czech liberal Palacký was the president and moving force behind the Congress, aided by deputies Jerzy Lubomirski from Galicia and Stanko Vraz from Slovenia.  
The Congress (1848), aimed at the manifestation of power, unity and vigilance of the Slavs, endangered in their existence by the plans of unification of Germany and the nationalistic policy of the Hungarians, but the exact goal was unclear. The conference planners even quarreled over its format and the agenda (Orton 57), an indication of how difficult it would be for the Slavic factions to come together.. It was the first attempt to negotiate the future relations among neighboring Slav nations of the Habsburg monarchy; and to regulate international, rather than inter-state relationships. However, it also revealed political divisions among the Slavs and disappointed many participants.  
 
  
The idea of the Congress was first conceived on April 20, 1848, by Croat Ivan Kukuljevic Sakginski and Slovak L'udovít Stúr; this inspired similar projects by Jedrzej Moraczewski of Poznan, Poland. The reason was a startling intensification of German nationalism, which is why it was supported by the Czech politicians as well. On May 1, the preparatory committee of the congress issued an address inviting delegates; officially only representatives of the Slavs living in the Habsburg monarchy were invited, although Slavs from other parts of Europe were welcomed too. Altogether 340 delegates arrived representing Croats, Czechs, Dalmatians, Moravians, Poles, Ruthenians, Serbs, Silesians, Slovaks and Slovenes, as well as 500 official guests. The Czech and Slovak section sent 237 participants.  
+
===Issues of individual Slavic nations===
 +
The exact goal of the congress was unclear. The conference planners even quarreled over its format and the agenda, an indication of how difficult it would be for the Slavic factions to come together, revealing political divisions which disappointed many participants. Naturally, the early sessions were marked by discontentment with the vague agenda. Dr. Josef Frič of the Czech section argued that the “primary goal is the preservation of Austria,” whereas Ľudovít Štúr saw in it "self-preservation.
  
The congress held debates in three sections: Czechs and Slovaks, Poles and Ruthenians (joined also by some Silesians, Mazurians, Wielopolaks, Lithuanians, and the Russian revolutionary and one of the founders of Anarchism [[Mikhail Bakunin]]), and South Slavs. Each section elected its officers and designated 16 representatives for the plenary committee. The section of Czechs and Slovaks was headed by [[Pavel Josef Šafařík]], the Poles and Ruthenians by Karol Libelt, and the South Slavs by Pavao Stamatovic. Czech liberal František Palacký was the president and moving force behind the congress, aided by deputies Jerzy Lubomirski from Galicia and Stanko Vraz from Slovenia.  
+
For the South Slavs, the danger of Magyarization was the primary concern, which led to an inevitable conflict with the [[Poland|Poles]], who pursued regeneration of the independent Polish state within the boundaries of 1772 and the right to a sovereign country. Polish aspirations were favored by the younger Czech democrats but were in conflict with the political interests of most of the Czech politicians, who advocated [[Austroslavism]]—transformation of the Hapsburg monarchy into a federal state, where Slavic nations would forego full political independence in favor of cultural freedom within Austria. This idea also suited the Serbs and Croats, who were likewise under Hapsburg domination and threatened by Hungarian nationalism. In 1848 and 1849, Czechs, with Palacký at the head, were alarmed by the vision of a united [[Germany]] whose boundaries would include the Czech lands.
  
===Issues of Individual Slavic Nations===
+
On the other hand, some Czech politicians, such as Václav Hanka, saw the best future for the Slavic people in their gathering around [[Russia]]. This earned a partial approval among the southern Slavs and Ruthenians in [[Galicia]], but certainly not so with the Poles, who were threatened by the expansion and strengthening of the tsarist Russia, their neighbor to the eastThe Poles even tried to mediate between Slavs and Hungarians.
The early sessions were marked by discontentment with the vague agenda; moreover, fragmentation along national divisions were exposed right in the beginning of the congress deliberations. Dr. Josef Fric of the Czech section argued that the “primary goal is the preservation of Austria,” (Orton 69), whereas L’udovit Stur saw it in self-preservation.” (Orton 69)  
 
  
For the South Slavs, the danger of Magyarization (Hungarization) was the primary concern, which led to an inevitable conflict with the Poles. The Poles sought the regeneration of the independent Polish state within the boundaries of 1772 and expected the congress to condone their right to a sovereign country. Polish aspirations were popular with the younger Czech democrats but in conflict with the political interests of most of the Czech politicians, who advocated Austroslavism – transformation of the Habsburg monarchy into a federal state, where Slavic nations would forego full political independence in favor of cultural freedom within Austria. This idea also suited the Serbs and Croats, who were likewise under Habsburg domination and threatened by Hungarian nationalism. Czechs between 1848 and 1849, with Palacky at the head, were alarmed by the vision of a united Germany whose boundaries would include the Czech lands.
+
The Ruthenian delegates representing the Supreme Ruthenian Council ''(Holovna Rus'ka Rada)'' in Lvov stated their grievances against the Poles and publicly presented a demand to divide Galicia into eastern (Ruthenian) and western (Polish) parts. The Polish and Czech delegates were against this division, and so was Bakunin. Finally, thanks to the efforts of Leon Sapieha, representing the Ruthenian Assembly ''(Rus'kyy Sobor),'' comprised of Poles of Ruthenian origin, a Polish-Ruthenian compromise was signed on June 7, 1848. It stipulated that Galicia would remain undivided until appropriate decisions were taken by the local Diet, both nations having equal rights, especially language-wise; the official language in regional offices and schools would be one spoken by the majority of inhabitants of that region; and the Uniate clergy would enjoy the same rights as the Roman Catholic Church. The latter requirement was not approved.
 
 
On the other hand, some Czech politicians, such as Václav Hanka, saw the best future for the Slavic people in their gathering around Russia. This earned a partial approval among the southern Slavs and Ruthenians in Galicia, but certainly not so with the Poles, who were threatened by the expansion and strengthening of the tsarist Russia, their neighbor to the east.  The Poles even made attempts at mediation between Slavs and Hungarians.
 
 
 
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 publicly present a demand to divide Galicia into eastern (Ruthenian) and western (Polish) parts. The Polish and Czech delegates were against the division, and so was Mikhail Bakunin, who stated that neither St. Petersburg nor the reactionary Austrian bureaucracy would give it a go-ahead. Finally, thanks to the efforts of Leon Sapieha, who represented the Ruthenian Assembly [Rus'kyy Sobor], representing Poles of the Ruthenian origin, a Polish-Ruthenian compromise was signed on June 7, 1848. This document stipulated that Galicia would remain undivided until appropriate decisions were taken by the local Diet, both nations would have equal rights, especially language-wise); the official language in regional offices and schools would be one spoken by the majority of inhabitants of that region; and the Uniate clergy would enjoy equal rights as the Roman Catholic Church. The last requirement was not approved by the Ruthenian Supreme Council or by the Polish National Council in Lvov.  
 
  
 
===Objectives===
 
===Objectives===
On June 5, Karol Libelt proposed a new agenda of three objectives:  
+
On June 5, Libelt proposed a new agenda with three objectives:  
# To issue a manifesto to all European nations stating the political orientation of the congress
+
# To issue a manifesto to all European nations stating the political orientation of the Congress
# To send a petition containing the demands of the Slavs to the Emperor
+
# To send a petition containing the Slavic demands to the emperor
 
# To draw up plans of promotion of cooperation and unity among Slavs
 
# To draw up plans of promotion of cooperation and unity among Slavs
  
The "Manifesto to the European peoples" was a Polish accomplishment led by Karol Libelt and Jedrzej Moraczewski, who prepared a politically and socially radical counter-proposal to the adulatory address to the Austrian emperor proposed by the Czechs. worked out by Libelt and Palacky, assisted by Moraczewski, Lucjan Siemienski, Bakunin and Frantisek Zach, it became the basis of the final version of the "Manifest". Although many radical fragments were removed under the pressure of moderate Czech delegates, the "Manifesto" was important for its emphasis on the superiority of national rights over international treaties. The delegates even pledged readiness to acknowledge and support equal rights of all nations, regardless of their political power", and called on all Slavonic nations to organize 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 to the European peoples" was a Polish accomplishment led by Libelt and Moraczewski, who prepared a politically and socially radical counter-proposal to the adulatory address to the Austrian emperor proposed by the Czechs. It became the basis of the final version of the "Manifesto" worked out by Libelt and Palacký, assisted by Moraczewski, Lucjan Siemienski, Bakunin, and František Zach.  
 
 
The Manifesto sought transformation of the monarchy into a federation of equal nations. Under the Polish influence, the initially strong anti-German tendencies were accommodated, and the right of German-speaking population outside Germany to cooperate with the inhabitants of Germany was acknowledged.
 
 
 
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 indicated some sort of unity among all of the Slav people of Europe (Polišenský 147).
 
 
 
On June 12, the draft of the manifesto was approved, with the final session scheduled for June 14. Street fighting broke out shortly after noon, and the weeklong scuffles that followed disrupted the congress. Most of the delegates left Prague; some were arrested and expelled. This later became known as the Whitsuntide events because of the timing during the Christian holiday of Pentecost. 
 
 
 
From July 1848, political events were increasingly unfavorable to the liberation aspirations of suppressed Slavs, and so the "Manifesto" did not change the course of political events. Still, it charted a new concept of regulating international relations in Europe, influenced by the French Revolution.
 
  
Jolanta Pekacz
+
Although many radical fragments were removed under the pressure of moderate Czech delegates, the "Manifesto" was important because of its emphasis on the superiority of national rights over international treaties. The delegates pledged readiness to acknowledge and support equal rights of all nations, regardless of their political power, and called on all Slavonic nations to organize 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."'<ref>Jolanta Pekacz, "Congress of the Slavs in Prague (1848)," Ohio University.</ref>
http://www.ohiou.edu/~chastain/ac/congslav.htm
 
  
== Who’s who in the Prague Congress of 1848? ==
+
Regarding statehood requirements, the “Manifesto” sought transformation of the monarchy into a federation of equal nations. Under the Polish influence, the initially strong anti-German tendencies were accommodated, and the right of German-speaking peoples outside Germany to cooperate with the inhabitants of Germany was acknowledged. The Slavs did not look for any type of revenge.  Rather, they wanted to “extend a brotherly hand to all neighboring 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 1978, p. 88)
The four most important individuals of the Congress were František Palacký as the president, Karol Libelt as the chairman of the Poles and Ukrainians, Pavo Stamatović as the chairman of the South Slavs, and Pavel Šafárik as the chairman of the Czecho-Slovaks.  
 
  
Frantisek Palacky (1798 &ndash; 1876), a prominent personality in the Czech National Revival of the 19th century, is considered the Father of the Czech Nation. He was born in 1798 into the family of a teacher from a Protestant minority in Moravia, which was predominantly Catholic. He felt strongly connected to the Czech nation and wrote poetry, but when he realized that he was not very good at it, he switched to a historian to aid the process of Czech National Revival, a movement aimed to revive the Czech language, culture and history, even though he had little background in this field.
+
===Conclusion===
 +
[[Image:Windisch-Graetz.jpg|thumb|190px|Prince Windisch-Graetz (1852 lithograph), whose wife was killed in the skirmish.]]
 +
On June 12, the draft of the "Manifesto" was approved, with the final session scheduled for June 14. However, street fighting broke out shortly after noon of the 12th, and the week-long scuffles that followed disrupted the Congress. Most of the delegates left Prague; some were arrested and expelled. This later became known as the Whitsuntide events because of the timing during the [[Christian]] holiday of [[Pentecost]].  
  
The nobles in the Czech Lands approached Palacky with the post of historian of the Bohemian estates, which he held until his death in 1876. This was an important counter-measure embraced by the nobles in the Empire to the centralization efforts by the Austrian Habsburg Empire in 1820s. The nobles appointed their own historians to further their national interests. This plunged him into the mainstream of the Czech National Revival, but as the only Protestant surrounded by Catholics, he was mistrusted to an extent. Also, he was not a nobleman, yet he moved in aristocratic circles. With his wife they held a salon for patriots and national revivalists, and soon he became one of the organizers of the Prague cultural life. He headed the efforts to create the Czech encyclopedia and the National Theater in 1868.
+
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. The previous month, the reactionary military commander Alfred Prince Windischgrätz returned to Prague, which radical Czech students viewed as a provocation, and on June 12, while the Congress was underway, they organized an outdoor "Slavic" mass. After the mass, skirmishes with Windischgrätz's soldiers started, and in the commotion, a stray bullet killed his wife. Enraged, Windischgrätz seized the city, dispersed the Congress, and established martial law throughout the province of [[Bohemia]].
  
Politically he was conservative, against Bohemia’s secession from the Austrian Empire and its unification with the German Empire. He realized that being part of the Austrian Empire had its pros too, not only the cons, which is why he advocated Austroslavism &ndash; the autonomy of Slavic nationalities within the Habsburg Monarchy and the transformation of Austria into a federal state with equal political and national rights. This was affirmed in the Manifesto at the Slavic Congress in 1848.  He said, "...if it had not been for the Austrian state since long ago, we would have to… help create it as soon as possible.
+
Beginning in July 1848, political events were increasingly unfavorable to the liberation aspirations of suppressed Slavs, and so the "Manifesto" did not change the course of political events. Still, it charted a new concept of regulating international relations in Europe, with inspiration taken from the [[French Revolution]].
  
In 1832 he started working on his lifelong work History of the Czech Nation (Dějiny národu českého). Definitivní verzi dokončil v roce své smrti, 1876. Dějiny zahrnují dobu od počátků až do nástupu Habsburků 1526. Nešlo mu jen o objektivní skutečnost historických událostí, ale o národně povzbudivý záměr. Proto byly napsány jazykem přístupným široké veřejnosti. He insisted on the importance on maintaining a high moral level as a nation. His work proved that “whenever we were winning, it was always due to the prevalence of spirit rather than physical power, and whenever we were succumbing, it was always the lack of spiritual activity, moral brevity and courage that was at fault." Ač nepříliš vzdělaný, byl velmi bystrý a snažil se být dobrým vychovatelem mládeže.
+
== Who’s Who in the Prague Congress of 1848 ==
 +
[[Image:Pavel_Jozef_Safarik2.jpg|thumb|190px|Pavel Jozef Safarik]]
  
 +
The four most important individuals of the Congress were [[František Palacký]] as the president, [[Karol Libelt]] as the chairman of the Poles and Ukrainians, [[Pavao Stamatović]] as the chairman of the South Slavs, and [[Pavel Josef Šafařík]] as the chairman of the Czechs and Slovaks.
  
Po porážce revoluce a nástupu císaře Františka Josefa I. odešel Palacký do ústraní, ale v letech 1861 - 72 se opět stal poslancem českého sněmu a na krátkou dobu i poslancem panské sněmovny říšské rady. In 1860, when the political situation relaxed once more, Frantisek Palacky was offered a seat in the Upper House of Parliament in Vienna, and a title. He refused both, and preferred to remain in Prague, where his position was more of a spiritual one than a political one. Palackého odpověď na neochotu Rakouska zajistit národům v monarchii rovnoprávnost opět vyjadřuje jeho citát: Byli jsme před Rakouskem, budeme i po něm". Ke konci života svou původní myšlenku habsburského mocnářství opustil a byl přívržencem pasivního odporu vůči říšské radě i zemskému sněmu. he was constantly monitored by the Austrian secret police. He thus devoted to research. Vděčnost a úcta národa k jeho zásluhám se projevila přízviskem Palackého Otec národa či Otec vlasti, které mu bylo dáno ještě za jeho života. Jeho pohřeb byl významnější než pohřeb královský, národ ho chápal jako svého vůdce a cítil k němu velkou úctu.
+
'''František Palacký''' (1798 &ndash; 1876) is considered the "Father of the Czech Nation," an attribute he received during his life. He chose to be an historian to aid the process of the Czech National Revival, a movement aimed to revive the [[Czech]] [[language]], [[culture]], and [[history]]. He had not only called for the cooperation of the Hapsburg Slavs but had also endorsed the Hapsburg monarchy as the most reasonable political formation to protect the peoples of central Europe (Austroslavism). He would not endorse the desire of [[Germany|Germans]] for national unity on grounds that it would weaken the Hapsburg state. He believed that ''"…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.”''  However, in response to Austria’s reluctance to ensure equality for individual nations in the monarchy, he expressed confidence that the Czechs could prosper as a nation by themselves: “We were around before Austria and will continue to be so even when it is gone.”<ref>  [http://www.pis.cz/cz/dalsi_informace/info_a_z/palacky_frantisek/searchresult=palacky#searchres "Palacký František,"] Prague Information Bureau. Accessed February 23, 2008.</ref>
  
http://www.pis.cz/cz/dalsi_informace/info_a_z/palacky_frantisek/searchresult=palacky#searchres
+
Palacký's impact on the revival movement lies in his ''History of the Czech Nation'' ''(Dějiny národu českého).'' Besides outlining historical facts from the nation's origin until the start of the Hapsburg monarchy in 1526, he set out to stimulate national consciousness in his people. He stressed the importance of maintaining a high moral level as a nation. His work proved that “Whenever we were winning, it was always through the predominance of spirit rather than physical power; and whenever we were succumbing, it was always the lack of spiritual activity, moral brevity, and courage that was at fault." His funeral was described as greater than a royal one.
http://www.radio.cz/en/article/36682
+
[[Image:Karol Libelt.PNG|thumb|190px|right|Karol Libelt]]
 +
'''Pavel Josef Šafařík'''(1795 &ndash; 1861), a poet, scientist, literary historian, historian, ethnographer, and Slavic philologist of the European extent, was one of the major figures of the Czech and Slovak national revival movements. He was the founder of Slavic ethnography. While most of his fellow revivalists favored [[Russia]] as the head of Slavs, he defended the rights of individual Slavic nations in the formation of their national destinies and heritage; he took the side of [[Poland]] in their strife for an independent nation. In his scientific work he defended Slavs, who were downtrodden and considered inferior by the Austrian monarchs. He envisioned the Slovak language as a vernacular used by Slovak Lutherans, which was close to the Czech language. He is lauded as a man who loved the truth, and he went to great pains to discover and prove it.
  
----
+
'''Karol Libelt''' took part in Poland's failed "November Uprising" against Russia in 1830. He took part in various secret organizations supporting the independence of Poland (Polish National Committee and Revolutionary Committee) and later became a member of the Frankfurt Parliament. In 1849 he was elected a member of the Prussian parliament and became the director of the liberal ''Dziennik Polski'' ''(Polish Daily).'' The following year Libelt began organizing various scientific and social organizations in Greater Poland, including the Society of Friends of the Sciences in Poznań, which became a de facto university. Between 1868 and 1875 he headed the Society and gave lectures in [[aesthetics]]. In his [[Philosophy|philosophical]] works, Libelt described Polish [[Messianism]], a belief that the history of the world would be redeemed by the Polish people, who gained moral excellence because of the suffering of their motherland. Libelt believed in the existence of a super-rational cognitive power, visible through art.
  
 +
==Notes==
 +
<References/>
  
'''Sources:'''<br />
+
==References==
Orton, Lawrence D., ''The Prague Slav Congress of 1848''New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.<br />
+
* Orton, Lawrence D. 1978. ''The Prague Slav Congress of 1848.'' New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0914710397 OCLC: 4250978
 +
* Polišenský, Josef. 1980. ''Aristocrats and the Crowd in the Revolutionary Year 1848.'' Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0873953983 OCLC: 5029820
 +
* Haselsteiner, Horst. 2000. ''The Prague Slav Congress 1848: Slavic identities.'' New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0880334509 OCLC: 45095721
 +
* Kohn, Hans. 1953. ''Pan-Slavism, Its History and Ideology.'' Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. OCLC: 3124158
  
Polišenský, Josef, ''Aristocrats and the Crowd in the Revolutionary Year 1848''.  Albany: State University of New York Press, 1980.
 
  
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 +
[[category:history]]
  
{{credit|92454379}}
+
{{credit|Prague_Slavic_Congress,_1848|92454379|Pan-Slavism|93774802}}

Latest revision as of 00:31, 12 April 2023

Slavic flag proposed by the Pan-Slav convention in Prague in 1848.

The Prague Slavic Congress of 1848 was a major event in the Europe of upheavals of 1848. It was a time of revolution. Individual nations oppressed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, inspired by the French Revolution, gained confidence to fight back against the ruling class and secure individual freedom. In the case of the Slavic nations, this was not a spiritual battle for mere self-preservation but also for the preservation of Europe as a whole.

There were many dividing issues among the individual Slavic peoples, which had to do with what area of the Empire they were under, Austrian or Hungarian. Tsarist Russia shaped the events in Poland, and the Poles were gripped by fears of the regime on their doorstep. The nations under Austrian rule dreaded growing German nationalism, which is what drove some of them to embrace the doctrine of Austroslavism. Nevertheless, Slavs proved that they were able to overcome vindictive tendencies, as representatives of Czechs decided on the right to have both Czech and German languages in the Czech lands. Poles and Ruthenians also overcome their differences and agreed on a language compromise.

The Slavs, dominated by the Hungarians, faced a greater predicament, because the Hungarians sought independence from the monarchy for themselves only. No rights would apply to the non-Hungarian Slavs. It was in this scenario that the delegates from individual Slavic nations met to state their grievances, gain understanding of the issues of their neighbors, and draw up a plan for further action, both on the national and the international levels. The goals of the Congress were vague at the outset, and it was not concluded properly due to armed unrest, but it created a petition of Slavic demands to the Emperor and provided a blueprint for international relations, where equal rights of all nations would be acknowledged.

Pan-Slavism

Pan-Slavism was introduced as intended to promote the political or cultural unity of all Slavs; it helped unite the Slavic lands against the increasing German nationalism. Advocated by various individuals from the seventeenth century, it developed as an intellectual and cultural movement in the nineteenth century. Stimulated by the rise of Romanticism and nationalism, it grew with the awakening of the Slavs within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Slavic historians, philologists, and anthropologists helped spread a national consciousness among the Slavs, and some dreamed of a unified Slavic culture.

The intensity of Slavism varied among the different factions that participated in the Congress. Hungarians exhibited the greatest cultural Pan-Slavism due to Magyarization (Hungarization). Polish Slavism was also intense, mostly exhibited through the literature of writers such as Jan Gawiński. Czechs and Slovenes, on the other hand, were moderate because of the already large German influence.

1848 upheavals in Europe

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 in the nations ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In February 1848, Paris, the archetype of revolution at that time, rose against its government, and within weeks many major cities in Europe followed suit.

The Revolution of 1848 in the Hapsburg monarchy came in three forms—social, democratic-liberal, and national—but outside Vienna the national aspect soon overshadowed the other two, which was most evident in Hungary. Emperor Joseph II's effort to incorporate Hungary more fully into the monarchy escalated the Hungarians’ endeavors to preserve their cultural traditions and continue their political domination of the land. Under the leadership of the lawyer and journalist Lajos Kossuth, the Hungarian diet demanded sweeping reforms, including civil liberties and far greater autonomy for the Hungarian government, and the emperor was forced to accede to those. A new constitution—the April Laws—was drafted; however, minority nationalities living in Hungary put up resistance due to the knowledge of the Hungarian language being a qualification for membership in parliament and participation in government. The new regime was mainly marked by an intense pride in being Hungarian, although 60 percent of the Hungarian portion of the Hapsburg monarchy was non-Hungarian. Kossuth’s government was 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.

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. The Hapsburg authorities faced diverse and growing opposition in Prague, 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. The Czech nationalist movement called for liberal constitutional reforms and equal educational rights for Czech and German speakers.

To advance the cause of civil and cultural rights for all Slavic peoples in the monarchy, the historian František Palacký and other Czech leaders organized a Slavic congress to meet in Prague.

The Congress

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 a manifestation of power and resistance, unity, and vigilance of the Slavs, endangered in their existence by the plans of German unification and the nationalistic policy of the Hungarians. Furthermore, it was the first attempt to negotiate the future relations among neighboring Slav nations of the Hapsburg monarchy, and to regulate international, rather than inter-state, relationships. It was one of the few times that voices from all Slav populations of Europe were heard in one place.

The idea of the Congress was first conceived on April 20, 1848, by Ivan Kukuljevic Sakginski, a Croat, and Ľudovít Štúr, a Slovak; this inspired similar projects by Jedrzej Moraczewski of Poznan, Poland. Since it was a response to a startling intensification of German nationalism, it was supported by the Czech politicians as well. On May 1, the preparatory committee of the Congress issued an address inviting delegates; officially only representatives of the Slavs living in the Habsburg monarchy were invited, although Slavs from other parts of Europe were welcomed too. Altogether 340 delegates arrived representing Croats, Czechs, Dalmatians, Moravians, Poles, Ruthenians, Serbs, Silesians, Slovaks, and Slovenes, as well as 500 official guests.

The Congress held debates in three sections:

  1. Czechs and Slovaks, who had the largest number of participants, with 237 in attendance;
  2. Poles and Ruthenians, joined by Silesians, Mazurians, Wielopolaks, Lithuanians, and the Russian revolutionary and one of the founders of Anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin; and
  3. South Slavs.

Each section elected its officers and designated sixteen representatives for the plenary committee. The section of Czechs and Slovaks was headed by Pavel Josef Šafařík, the Poles and Ruthenians by Karol Libelt, and the South Slavs by Pavo Stamatović. Czech liberal Palacký was the president and moving force behind the Congress, aided by deputies Jerzy Lubomirski from Galicia and Stanko Vraz from Slovenia.

Issues of individual Slavic nations

The exact goal of the congress was unclear. The conference planners even quarreled over its format and the agenda, an indication of how difficult it would be for the Slavic factions to come together, revealing political divisions which disappointed many participants. Naturally, the early sessions were marked by discontentment with the vague agenda. Dr. Josef Frič of the Czech section argued that the “primary goal is the preservation of Austria,” whereas Ľudovít Štúr saw in it "self-preservation."

For the South Slavs, the danger of Magyarization was the primary concern, which led to an inevitable conflict with the Poles, who pursued regeneration of the independent Polish state within the boundaries of 1772 and the right to a sovereign country. Polish aspirations were favored by the younger Czech democrats but were in conflict with the political interests of most of the Czech politicians, who advocated Austroslavism—transformation of the Hapsburg monarchy into a federal state, where Slavic nations would forego full political independence in favor of cultural freedom within Austria. This idea also suited the Serbs and Croats, who were likewise under Hapsburg domination and threatened by Hungarian nationalism. In 1848 and 1849, Czechs, with Palacký at the head, were alarmed by the vision of a united Germany whose boundaries would include the Czech lands.

On the other hand, some Czech politicians, such as Václav Hanka, saw the best future for the Slavic people in their gathering around Russia. This earned a partial approval among the southern Slavs and Ruthenians in Galicia, but certainly not so with the Poles, who were threatened by the expansion and strengthening of the tsarist Russia, their neighbor to the east. The Poles even tried to mediate between Slavs and Hungarians.

The Ruthenian delegates representing the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna Rus'ka Rada) in Lvov stated their grievances against the Poles and publicly presented a demand to divide Galicia into eastern (Ruthenian) and western (Polish) parts. The Polish and Czech delegates were against this division, and so was Bakunin. Finally, thanks to the efforts of Leon Sapieha, representing the Ruthenian Assembly (Rus'kyy Sobor), comprised of Poles of Ruthenian origin, a Polish-Ruthenian compromise was signed on June 7, 1848. It stipulated that Galicia would remain undivided until appropriate decisions were taken by the local Diet, both nations having equal rights, especially language-wise; the official language in regional offices and schools would be one spoken by the majority of inhabitants of that region; and the Uniate clergy would enjoy the same rights as the Roman Catholic Church. The latter requirement was not approved.

Objectives

On June 5, Libelt proposed a new agenda with three objectives:

  1. To issue a manifesto to all European nations stating the political orientation of the Congress
  2. To send a petition containing the Slavic demands to the emperor
  3. To draw up plans of promotion of cooperation and unity among Slavs

The "Manifesto to the European peoples" was a Polish accomplishment led by Libelt and Moraczewski, who prepared a politically and socially radical counter-proposal to the adulatory address to the Austrian emperor proposed by the Czechs. It became the basis of the final version of the "Manifesto" worked out by Libelt and Palacký, assisted by Moraczewski, Lucjan Siemienski, Bakunin, and František Zach.

Although many radical fragments were removed under the pressure of moderate Czech delegates, the "Manifesto" was important because of its emphasis on the superiority of national rights over international treaties. The delegates pledged readiness to acknowledge and support equal rights of all nations, regardless of their political power, and called on all Slavonic nations to organize 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."'[1]

Regarding statehood requirements, the “Manifesto” sought transformation of the monarchy into a federation of equal nations. Under the Polish influence, the initially strong anti-German tendencies were accommodated, and the right of German-speaking peoples outside Germany to cooperate with the inhabitants of Germany was acknowledged. The Slavs did not look for any type of revenge. Rather, they wanted to “extend a brotherly hand to all neighboring 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 1978, p. 88)

Conclusion

Prince Windisch-Graetz (1852 lithograph), whose wife was killed in the skirmish.

On June 12, the draft of the "Manifesto" was approved, with the final session scheduled for June 14. However, street fighting broke out shortly after noon of the 12th, and the week-long scuffles that followed disrupted the Congress. Most of the delegates left Prague; some were arrested and expelled. This later became known as the Whitsuntide events because of the timing during the Christian holiday of Pentecost.

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. The previous month, the reactionary military commander Alfred Prince Windischgrätz returned to Prague, which radical Czech students viewed as a provocation, and on June 12, while the Congress was underway, they organized an outdoor "Slavic" mass. After the mass, skirmishes with Windischgrätz's soldiers started, and in the commotion, a stray bullet killed his wife. Enraged, Windischgrätz seized the city, dispersed the Congress, and established martial law throughout the province of Bohemia.

Beginning in July 1848, political events were increasingly unfavorable to the liberation aspirations of suppressed Slavs, and so the "Manifesto" did not change the course of political events. Still, it charted a new concept of regulating international relations in Europe, with inspiration taken from the French Revolution.

Who’s Who in the Prague Congress of 1848

Pavel Jozef Safarik

The four most important individuals of the Congress were František Palacký as the president, Karol Libelt as the chairman of the Poles and Ukrainians, Pavao Stamatović as the chairman of the South Slavs, and Pavel Josef Šafařík as the chairman of the Czechs and Slovaks.

František Palacký (1798 – 1876) is considered the "Father of the Czech Nation," an attribute he received during his life. He chose to be an historian to aid the process of the Czech National Revival, a movement aimed to revive the Czech language, culture, and history. He had not only called for the cooperation of the Hapsburg Slavs but had also endorsed the Hapsburg monarchy as the most reasonable political formation to protect the peoples of central Europe (Austroslavism). He would not endorse the desire of Germans for national unity on grounds that it would weaken the Hapsburg state. He believed that "…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.” However, in response to Austria’s reluctance to ensure equality for individual nations in the monarchy, he expressed confidence that the Czechs could prosper as a nation by themselves: “We were around before Austria and will continue to be so even when it is gone.”[2]

Palacký's impact on the revival movement lies in his History of the Czech Nation (Dějiny národu českého). Besides outlining historical facts from the nation's origin until the start of the Hapsburg monarchy in 1526, he set out to stimulate national consciousness in his people. He stressed the importance of maintaining a high moral level as a nation. His work proved that “Whenever we were winning, it was always through the predominance of spirit rather than physical power; and whenever we were succumbing, it was always the lack of spiritual activity, moral brevity, and courage that was at fault." His funeral was described as greater than a royal one.

Karol Libelt

Pavel Josef Šafařík(1795 – 1861), a poet, scientist, literary historian, historian, ethnographer, and Slavic philologist of the European extent, was one of the major figures of the Czech and Slovak national revival movements. He was the founder of Slavic ethnography. While most of his fellow revivalists favored Russia as the head of Slavs, he defended the rights of individual Slavic nations in the formation of their national destinies and heritage; he took the side of Poland in their strife for an independent nation. In his scientific work he defended Slavs, who were downtrodden and considered inferior by the Austrian monarchs. He envisioned the Slovak language as a vernacular used by Slovak Lutherans, which was close to the Czech language. He is lauded as a man who loved the truth, and he went to great pains to discover and prove it.

Karol Libelt took part in Poland's failed "November Uprising" against Russia in 1830. He took part in various secret organizations supporting the independence of Poland (Polish National Committee and Revolutionary Committee) and later became a member of the Frankfurt Parliament. In 1849 he was elected a member of the Prussian parliament and became the director of the liberal Dziennik Polski (Polish Daily). The following year Libelt began organizing various scientific and social organizations in Greater Poland, including the Society of Friends of the Sciences in Poznań, which became a de facto university. Between 1868 and 1875 he headed the Society and gave lectures in aesthetics. In his philosophical works, Libelt described Polish Messianism, a belief that the history of the world would be redeemed by the Polish people, who gained moral excellence because of the suffering of their motherland. Libelt believed in the existence of a super-rational cognitive power, visible through art.

Notes

  1. Jolanta Pekacz, "Congress of the Slavs in Prague (1848)," Ohio University.
  2. "Palacký František," Prague Information Bureau. Accessed February 23, 2008.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Orton, Lawrence D. 1978. The Prague Slav Congress of 1848. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0914710397 OCLC: 4250978
  • Polišenský, Josef. 1980. Aristocrats and the Crowd in the Revolutionary Year 1848. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0873953983 OCLC: 5029820
  • Haselsteiner, Horst. 2000. The Prague Slav Congress 1848: Slavic identities. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0880334509 OCLC: 45095721
  • Kohn, Hans. 1953. Pan-Slavism, Its History and Ideology. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. OCLC: 3124158

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:

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

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