Wednesday, December 14, 2011

František Palacký: From the Pan-Slavic Congress of 1848 to his Death and Legacy

by G. Jack Urso

Continued from: František Palacký (1798-1876): Early Years

"Assuredly, if the Austrian State had not existed for ages, in the interests of Europe and indeed of humanity itself we would have to endeavor to create it as soon as possible."
                                                                                 František Palacký 1848

This quote is from a letter František Palacký wrote in April 1848 declining an invitation to join the Committee of Fifty, which was to participate in the All-German Constituent Assembly. This letter highlights Palacký's belief in a union of nation-states under the Austrian Empire's aegis with the very Romantic ideal of political equality and religious freedom (Zacek 25).

This was an ideal not based in reality. Austria was an authoritarian government and even within Bohemia's governing diet all was not equal. The diets were made up of representatives from all the estates: prelates, lords, knights, and cities. The voting process weighed against the cities so the aristocratic classes of prelates, lords, and knights were favored (Pech 9). Palacký's idealism and belief in a historic destiny for Austria would be, as we shall see, shaken by the reality of the compromises the Habsburgs would later make to preserve the integrity of their empire at the cost of the Czech aspirations.
At this time, the lands ruled over by the Austrian Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand I and his Chancellor Prince Metternich were organized along a highly centralized administration. To minimize local control of regional government a province would have a diet to represent the people. There were, however, no central governing groups at the larger state level. In the United States, this is akin to a local county (or province) retaining its legislature, but no longer having a senate or assembly at the state level. The counties therefore are directly beholden to the federal government with shorter reigns to control them. In reality, these provincial diets were largely ineffective, serving mainly to "rubber­stamp" the emperor's orders (Pech 9).
Prague, being something of a gathering point for many Slavs, was the natural choice for the Congress to take place. Palacký became president of the Congress and invitations were made in a variety of languages spoken by the Slavs; Czech, Slovak, Slovene, Croatian, Serbian, Polish, German and French (Pech 124). Notably, Russian Slavs were not invited. While it was contemplated, no invitation was ever issued. The irony of a pan-Slavic meeting without representatives from one of the largest Slavic populations apparently did not seem to bother many of the leaders. Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian Revolutionary and a cleric, Miloradov, from Bukovina did attend, but as one of the delegates representing the Polish-Ruthenian interests (Pech 129). This only managed to draw more criticism to the congress, and Palacký himself was not pleased with Bakunin's presence.
Although the Poles and Czechs had common ground regarding their feelings about Germany, they were at odds over the Magyars, who the Czechs resented, but the Poles counted as friends. The Poles regarded the Austrians with hostility as, along with Germany and Russia, they sought to control Poland. Meanwhile, the Czechs courted Austria with Palacký’s vision of a federation.
The Congress would deal with Slavic interests by sections, with each section choosing a leader. Pavel Safarik, Palacký’s old friend, headed the Czech and Slovak section. Karol Libelt led the Poles and Ruthenians and Pavao Starnatovic led the South Slavs. There were 340 delegates in all with 500 official guests (Orton).

Four issues dominated the agenda for the 1848 Congress:

I.             The relationship between Austrian Slavs, particularly as it
                applies to a Slavic association for mutual defense.

2.            The relationship of the Austrian Slavs to the other peoples
                of the monarchy.

3.            The relationship of the Austrian Slavs with other Slavs.

4.            The relationship of Austrian Slavs to other European
                                                                                             (Pech 125-126)

According to the agenda, the congress was not so much about the Slavic peoples in general as it was about Austrian Slavs in particular. Although other Slavic peoples would be discussed, in addition to other European nations, this particular Pan-Slavic Congress had a very narrow focus.

By referring to themselves as "Austrian Slavs" rather than Czechs, while technically correct, is an obvious sign the leaders of the congress were playing down nationalist element, particularly since the permission of the Austrian government was needed just to be able to assemble. Nevertheless, it is also indicative of Palacký’s vision to establish a federation of autonomous nation-states within the Austrian Empire, rather than apart from it.

This vision conflicted with the aspirations of other Slavic peoples attending the congress. The Poles, for example, knew what it was like to have their own nation and dreamed of getting it back again someday. Palacký, the middle-class son of a cleric who courted the patronage of the upper classes, was not particularly anti-authoritarian in his attitudes. His plan for federalized Austrian rule suggests that at this time he wished to work with the Austrians, not against them. Palacký at that time also saw the Germans as the main opponent to Czech nationalist aspirations, so it is not surprising that he would seek favor with the Austrians under these conditions.
Ethnic groups of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Palacký was now entering the height of his early influence as a national figure. Count Thun, the Governor of Bohemia, made Palacký a member of an eight-man provisional executive council and appointed him to draft a constitution for a constituent assembly to be held in July (Zacek 26). This was to counter the All-German Constituent Assembly in Frankfurt in 1848; however, the riots that erupted in other parts of Europe soon came to Prague by mid-June. With the country under martial law, Palacký went to the constituent assembly held in Vienna that July. His plan to federalize the multi-national empire around a strong central government was discarded (Zacek 26).

The idea of a central government is telling of the limits of Palacky's nationalist vision. Indeed, it gives insight into the statement he made in response to the invitation to the All-German Constituent Assembly earlier in the year.

"Assuredly, if the Austrian State had not existed for ages, in the interests of Europe and indeed of humanity itself we would have to endeavor to create it as soon as possible." (Zacek 25) 

The Aftermath of 1848

As soon as Palacký's entered the political arena his political fortunes began to change. Count Thun, who appointed Palacký to the provisional executive council, was relieved of his duties as governor, having incurred the disfavor of both the Czechs and the Austrians (Pech 165). Palacký himself would also feel the displeasure of both the Austrians and the Bohemian Estates. His proposal for the federalization of Austria decentralized the power of the crown and compromised the historical feudal rights to the land of the Estates (Perman 10).

In reaction to the upset caused by the revolutions of 1848, Austria responded with an assertion of absolutist rule. From 1851 to 1860, Palacký was "exiled from the press of national life" (Zacek 26). Watched by the police, in danger of being arrested and jailed, and abandoned by friends, Palacký withdrew from his family and continued writing his History of Bohemia. Harrison Thompson asserts in his 1953 book, Czechoslovakia in European History, that Palacký was not given permission to enter Prague to be with his wife on her deathbed (Thomson 212); however, Joseph F. Zacek, author of Palacký: The Historian as Scholar and Nationalist (1970), in a personal interview with myself, disagrees with Thomson on this point.

By 1860, Emperor Franz Josef decided that the course of absolutism taken over the past ten years had not been a great success. This was due in part to the great opposition to it voiced by his opponents. In response, the emperor issued a proclamation that the government would return to a "constitutional system" (Thomson 212). On the twentieth of October, 1860, the so-called October Diploma created a federal constitution, despite the opposition of the Hungarians (Burne 932). The February Patent of 1861 sought to assuage Magyar fears by granting a number of concessions. These, however, were rejected by the Hungarian Diet (Thomson 213). This set in motion the series of events that led to the creation of the Dual Monarchy and great disillusionment by Palacký.

In 1861, Palacký began to appear on the political scene again. In April of that year, he became a life member of the Lords of the Imperial Diet, but felt "isolated and ineffectual." He quit the Imperial Diet in September and soon joined the Bohemian Diet as leader of the National Party in the Bohemian Diet (with his son-in-law František Rieger) also known as the "Old Czechs" (Zacek 27). Events throughout the early to mid-1860s were unfavorable to Austra and would precipitate the Ausgleich of 1867. 

The Ausgleich of 1867

Austria's loss in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 put the Hungarian’s position to press their nationalist aspirations. The Ausgleich (Compromise) granted Hungarian autonomy on a theoretically equal level to Austria with the concept of the "Dual Monarchy" (Zacek 27).  Emperor Franz Josef, who suffered the loss of prestige by losing the war in 1866, followed by the "Compromise" granting Magyar autonomy in 1867, was in no mood to listen to Czech claims to restore the Bohemian Kingdom to the same level the Hungarians recently been given (Thomson 214).

While the debate over the Ausgleich continued, Palacký was forced to address his feeling towards Austria as a "political necessity" (Thomson 214). He set his feelings down in a number of articles that would be published in book form and title, The Idea of the Austrian State. In this volume, Palacký slowly began to change his view towards Austria as a venue for Czech nationalist aspirations, but he still had the dreams of an idealist:

"I have always hoped that Austria would have a government that was neither German nor Magyar nor Slav nor Romanian, but only Austrian . . . I mean a government which would be equally just for all under its jurisdiction." (Thomson 215)

Palacký reaches an inevitable conclusion; the dual-monarchy would exacerbate the worst elements of Habsburg rule. Not only was the idea of a federalized Austrian government rejected, but national rule was completely ruled out as well. Palacky responded with a resilient call at the end of The Idea of the Austrian State:

"The day of the declaration of dualism will . . . be the birthday of Pan-Slavism in its least desirable form . . . We were in existence before Austria and we will still be here after she is gone.” (Thomson 215)

For another generation, these words would be on the lips of Czech nationalists. They would also turn out to be very prophetic, for little could Palacký know that the Czechoslovak nation would rise from the ashes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

In response to the Ausgleich in May 1867, Palacký led a delegation to Moscow to the All-Slav Ethnographic Exhibition (Zacek 27). His intention had been to stir Pan-Slavic interest among the Russians, but he had no success and became disillusioned with them as well (Thomson 216). In 1869, Palacký‘s son-in-law, Rieger, tried to interest Napoleon III in the federalized version of the Austrian Empire to counter Prussia (soon to become part of a unified Germany). Unfortunately, this effort just invited more persecution from the Habsburg court as political imprisonment and a curtailment of civic liberties soon followed. In short order, Italy and Germany were unified, Hungary was elevated to an equal level with the Austrian crown, and the dreams of federalization were gone.

Palacký, who died in 1876, spent these remaining years contemplating his life's work and the future of his people. In the end, he acknowledged the mistake he made supporting the Habsburg Empire earlier in his life. He saw a "new Thirty Years' War" in the Czech future (Zacek 27); World War I would be that war and the result was Czech nationhood with their Slovak neighbors. 

"History in general is the final temporal judgment over those who distinguish  themselves by their activities on the world-stage, a human judgment, of course, and therefore neither infallible, nor sufficiently competent . . . "
                                                      František Palacký (Zacek 27)
Here, Palacký is voicing his awareness of the role he had played in recent nationalist history. He also seems to be "hedging his bets," so to speak, in case history had a less than favorable view of him. His life's great work, The History of Bohemia, was finally brought to a finish during these final years. Palacký‘s level of scholarship and dedication to his craft would have an impact on Czech historiography and his words would influence a new generation of Czechs who would live to see their national aspirations brought to fruition. These new Czech leaders, the "Young Czechs," saw their opportunities for power first manifest after the failure of the attempts by the "Old Czechs" to bring their plans for federalization into existence (Thomson 221).

Thomas Garrigue Masaryk (1850-1937), first President of the Czechoslovak nation, was a self-proclaimed "disciple" of Palacký who studied Palacký’s philosophy of history. Rather than study the significance of Czech history for the Czech, Masaryk also took it to the next level by exploring the implications of Czech history to the rest of the world (Zacek 105). Masaryk's marriage to an American woman brought a wider variety of English and American ideas on philosophy and politics to influence his thinking. Masaryk' synthesis of these ideas, as well as being able to see the larger implications of Czech history, made him an apt and formidable choice for first president of the Czechoslovak nation.

Palacký’s History of Bohemia, was more of a Czech history than a history of all the people who lived in Bohemia. The Sudeten Germans picked this up immediately. This lack of inclusiveness exposes a bias on Palacký’s part and left him open to criticism. By the last 1930s, the problem of the Sudentenland gave Adolf Hitler the opportunity for conquest. Palacký’s legacy was now in full flight; monuments to his memory were removed, streets and places named in his honor changed, and his books burned (Zacek 107).

Gradually, in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, Palacký began receiving more favorable attention. The Soviet’s, while not exactly appreciative of Palacký’s feelings about Russia, did endorse his view regarding the German threat. Masaryk helped the Czech see the larger implications of Palacký writings. True, Palacký’s life did experience numerous political failures: the failure of his repeated attempts to put forth his federalization plan for Austria, the failures of l848, his "internal exile" in the 1850's, his disillusionment with Austro-Hungarian Dualism, his experience with the Russians, the many years wasted courting Austrian favor that never manifested.

In many ways, Palacký’s failures were inevitable; the times he lived in were just not the right for the political manifestation of Czech independence. It was too soon, the leadership needed to run a modern nation-state was just not available. If Palacký had been more militant in 1848 and advocated open revolution, the Czech people would have suffered more and Palacký’s life much shorter.

Palacký’s legacy is that he embraced the knowledge of his ancestor's to lead his people into the birthright of nationhood. Like Moses, he never made it to the promise land, but by showing his people where they came from and by contributing to the advancement of their culture Palacký prepared his people for their future.

Related Content

Works Cited 

Burne, Jerome, ed. Chronicle of the World. Paris: Jacques LeGrand
         S.A. International Publishing, 1989. Print. 
Orton, Lawrence. “Congress of the Slavs in Prague (1848).” James
         Chastain, ed. Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions. Ohio
         University, 1999. Web. 5 Oct. 1999. <

Pech, Stanley Z. The Czech Revolution of 1848. Chapel Hill: The
        University of North Carolina Press, 1969. Print.
Perman, D. The Shaping of the Czechoslovak State. Leiden: E.J.
         Brill, 1962. Print.

Thomson, Harrison S. Czechoslovakia in European History.
        Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953. Print.

Zacek, Joseph F. Palacký: The Historian as Scholar and Nationalist.
        The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970. Print.

 ---. Personal interview. 2 Dec. 1999.



Sunday, December 11, 2011

František Palacký (1798-1876): Early Years

by G. Jack Urso 

"Czech history is the ground on which, from time immemorial, the antagonism of Germanism and Slavism have broken out in the sharpest form and have come to their clearest focus. The essential content of Czech history is a perpetual struggle between the German and Slav elements."
                                                                                                        František  Palacký
Fig. 1: František Palacký
In the pantheon of democratic heroes there surely must be a place for František Palacký. Palacký’s History of Bohemia (published in German 1836-67 and in Czech 1848-76) affected Czech nationalist feelings at a time when the questions of what was a nation, who had the right to rule, and how to rule were posed as a result of the successful American and French Revolutions.  His work put Czech history in the light of a continuous conflict between his people and the Germans. Influenced by the writings of lmmanuel Kant and Jean Jacques Rousseau, Palacký, with his writings and his vision of a democratic Czech state, greatly influenced Thomas Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia. 

Palacký’s life is worthy as a subject of study not just because his life embraced many of the ideals and traditions at the core of the Czech people, but because these same ideals are the aspirations of freedom-seeking peoples throughout history. Historian, writer, poet, and a nationalist with democratic ideals, Palacký was the right voice for a cultured, educated people seeking to take their place at the table of nations.  

Early Years  

Palacký was born June 14, 1798 in Hodslavice, Moravia. The second of twelve children by Jiri Palacký, the local schoolmaster, Palacký early on in life displayed his scholarly aptitudes. By age five he already had read the Bible. At nine his father enrolled him in a nearby school to learn German. The Countess Truchsessova, a follower of the Enlightenment, started the school and the students there received an excellent education. Palacký’s father, a devout Lutheran, thought that some of his son's Catholic teachers might have an undesirable effect on his son's education. To counter this perceived threat, Jiri Palacký moved his son to an Evangelical Christian school in Trencin, Hungary (now part of Slovakia); there the young Palacký found his budding academic skills put to the test.  

With classes taught entirely in Latin, Palacký was completely immersed in the ancient language. On his own initiative, he learned basic French and Greek and was influenced enough by Lutheran teachings to set his vocation as a missionary. Despite the religious bent we see in his life at this early stage, Palacký would attend the lyceum in Pressburg, Hungary. It is here, over the course of the next ten years, that Palacký spent the most important part of his formative years (Zacek 14). 

Pressburg teamed with native Magyar, German, and Slav populations. More metropolitan than the provincial towns he had been used to; Palacký received an education that was academic as well as social. A lyceum combined the education of a gymnasium, a college preparatory secondary school, with a theological component that served as a seminary for Evangelical ministers. Palacký's areas of study cover physics, metaphysics, law, logic, ethics, statistics, mathematics, Greek, Hebrew, Roman classical literature, and Latin composition.  

Palacký's private reading list included Enlightenment and Early Romantic writers, philosophers and poets. His platonic relationship with the Hungarian noblewoman Nina Zerdahelyi provided Palacký with an important social education by introducing him to the manners and traditions of upper class society, as well as members of the Hungarian nobility (Zacek 15). 

Palacký's education conflicted with the theological ideals he had been taught. During this period of questioning, the readings of lmmanuel Kant, among others, became influential in helping Palacký to resolve this philosophical conflict. While remaining a person with a deeply moral character, he no longer believed in any organized Christian beliefs other than a belief in God, Jesus as Christ, and the immortal soul (Zacek 16). 

Palacký completed his gymnasium education in 1818 and by 1822, in a letter to Nina Zerdahelyi, expressed his desire not to pursue a life in the ministry nor as a "dry academic" (Zacek 17). Instead, Palacký would forge his own path.  

Professional Life  

In the years following his graduation Palacký made his first forays into writing and publishing on subjects that were of interest to him the most at the time, poetry and philosophy. Along with his friend Pavel Josef Safarik (1795-1861), a Czech philologist and archaeologist, had published The Beginnings of Czech Poetry, anonymously in 1818. This work stressed the value of Slavic literary culture apart from German and older Czech literary traditions.  

The success of this work inspired Palacký to consider other poetic works involving Jan Hus or the Napoleonic era; however, he did not consider his skills up to the task. Instead, drawing upon his interests in philosophy and aesthetics, he began to write the first two volumes of a planned, yet never completed, five-volume work called Aesthetics. Although Palacký never finished the other three volumes of the set, and had dropped plans for completing it by 1823, it remains important as it is the first use of Czech to write a philosophical work since the Seventeenth Century writings of Comenius, Jan Amos Komensky (1592-1670), the last Moravian bishop (Zacek 17-18).

Palacký remained in Pressburg until 1823. Altogether, this period of Palacký's life completed his education, introduced him to aristocratic and upper-class circles, resolved conflicts between his religious and philosophical beliefs, and had him meet with early literary success and frustration. Having polished and practiced his ideals on Czech and Slavic culture, history and traditions Palacký moved to Prague in April 1823 (Zacek 18).  

Upon arriving in Prague Palacký encountered the bias against the Czech language and the struggling attempt at a cultural revival. In 1826 Palacký had turned his passion into practice after making an impassioned plea to the President of the Museum of the Bohemian Kingdom and Josef Dobrovsky  (1753-1829) a Hungarian philologist born of Bohemian parents who Palacký criticized for not having written much in Czech.  

Palacký was made editor of a journal published by the museum to drum up publicity for it as well as promoting Czech culture. Printed in both Czech and German, it is not surprising that the German publication went out of business by 1831 (Pech 31). The Czech publication continued with a strong and growing base of readership and Palacký turned it over to his old friend Pavel Safarik in 1838. A planned encyclopedia never materialized due to suspicions of revolutionary activity by the Austrian government. The encyclopedia, it was hoped, would also advance the developing Czech language expand into scientific areas. It was eventually published by his son-in-law in Prague from 1860-1874 (Zacek 22). 

In March 1831, Palacký was appointed by the Bohemian Estates to write a history of Bohemia. The first volume, History of Bohemia (published in German 1836-67; in Czech 1848-76) is among the works Palacký is most noted outside of his homeland. He traveled extensively tracking down important documentation, even to the Vatican itself. During this time, he demonstrated his dedication to his research, often working long days, every day. His effort led to the availability "of relevant archives-domestic and foreign, public and private, secular and religious-to Bohemian historiography" (Zacek 45).  

Palacký would continue his research even after his relationship with the Museum dissolved. The great wealth of documentation he unearthed and his analysis of it would have a tremendous effect on the Czech cultural revival.  Not only did it include important historical facts, but also was meant to serve as an example of what Palacký considered to be a grammatically correct expression of the Czech language for others to follow.  

This repeats a familiar theme in Palacký’s professional life - promoting native history in the native tongue for the purpose of promoting both. It is noteworthy to observe that his History of Bohemia was published first in German with the first Czech version coming twelve years later. Since the Czech audience would have been able to read German this would not necessarily have inhibited the influence of the book. Nevertheless, the fact that the Czech publication came over a decade later is indicative of the "second-class" position the Czech language was being relegated to within the Austrian Empire.  

1848 --The Old Order is Upset  

1848 was an important year for reign of monarchs that ruled over Europe. The revolutions in America and, especially, in France gave rise to hopes of many people if not for nationhood, than for political change or greater enfranchisement with their system of government. It was an era of absolutist rule by the European monarchs. While Napoleon might have inadvertently stirred up nationalist aspirations among the masses, to the aristocracy it meant that they needed a firmer grasp of power.  

The Congress of Vienna demonstrated that the aristocracy was inclined to ignore the national aspirations of the Germans and Italians and refuse them a seat at the table of nations. The wars that came from the so-called "liberal excesses" of the Napoleonic era convinced statesmen like Metternich that to give a home to the same ideas in a unified Germany and Italy (Strayer & Gatzke 847). No doubt, the threat a unified Italy or Germany might present to Austrian territorial interests in Europe were a consideration as well. 

New ideas on how to govern were breaking ground in 1848 as well. Karl Marx and Friedrick Engels had published The Communist Manifesto and John Stuart Mill's The Principles of Political Economy also saw print. Although they did not influence the rebels of 1848, they certainly tapped into the cutting edge of economic philosophic thought and presumably gave a voice to what some were already thinking at the time. 

To put the events of Palacký’s life at this time in context, let us review some of the major events related to nationalist uprisings in the busy year of 1848:  

France:  The French monarchy falls and a Republic is declared. This crisis is brought on by the French Prime Minister, Francois Guizot, ignoring calls for reform. Although fired by King Louis Phillipe this move comes too late to defuse the crisis.

Austria: Prince Mettemich, Chancellor of Austria for 27 years, is ousted from office. Having taken the credit for many of the decrees issued under the reign of the mentally retarded Emperor Ferdinand, he is also given the blame.
Emperor Ferdinand approves the" March Laws" passed by the Hungarian Diet. This eliminated the last vestiges of the feudal system and gave Hungary considerable autonomy.

Prussia: Fredrick William IV grants a constitution in the wake of a revolt in Berlin.

Italy: Milan revolts against Austrian control, forcing local Austrian Army garrison to retreat. Venice declares independence.

Italy: Sicily declares independence from Naples.

Austria: After promising freedom of the press, a constitution and forming a council of ministers Emperor Ferdinand is forced to abdicate. His nephew, Franz Josef, will rule through the First World War.

Prussia: Prussia puts down an uprising in Warsaw.  An all-German parliament in Frankfurt gathers to write a constitution for a united Germany.

France: Radicals of the revolution attempt to tum the social works projects of the national workshops into a recruiting ground for a revolutionary army. After the government disbands the workshops the radicals take to the streets and 13,000 die in the ensuing battle with in Paris as the army under General Cavaignac puts down the uprising.

Tipperary (Ireland): The Young Ireland movement, and its nationalist aspirations, come to an end when the second of two important leaders is arrested. In the midst of the potato famine, the population is more concerned with survival than revolutions. Popular support for the revolt is insufficient.

Austria: Austrian rule is reestablished in Italy after defeating the Sardinian Army of King Charles Albert.

Austria: The Austrian constituent assembly of Vienna abolished Serfdom.

Austria: Austria declares war on Hungary after the murder of an Imperial High Commissioner in September. The "March Laws" approved by former Emperor Ferdinand are repealed.

(Burne 898-901) 

As the nationalist spirit was enflamed all over Europe, the Slavic people naturally sought to make their aspirations known. Threatened by efforts at German unification and Hungarian nationalist policies Slavs in Central and Eastern Europe began to see the potential of cooperating amongst themselves to achieve the nationalist goals. In late April 1848 a Croat, Ivan Kukuljevic, first brought the suggestion for a Slavic Congress out in a Croat newspaper. Meanwhile, L'udovit Stur, a Slovak national leader, showed up in Prague spreading the same idea. Also, in late April, a Polish nationalist, Jedrzej Moraczewski from the Grand Dutchy of Pozan, set forth a similar concept.

During March and early April 1848 Slavs from across the Austrian Empire arrived in Vienna to submit petitions to the Habsburg Emperor in support of their individual nationalist claims. With so many Slavic leaders gathered together and the imperative for a Pan-Slavic Congress on everyone's minds. Soon, on April 20, Czech leaders had met to prepare and plan for a conference, originally set for May 3, coincidentally the opening of the Frankfurt Assembly (Pech 123-124).

Related Content

Works Cited

Briggs, Asa, ed. The Nineteenth Century; The Contradictions of
              Progress. London: Thames and Hudson, 1970. Print.

Burne, Jerome, ed. Chronicle of the World. Paris: Jacques LeGrand
              S.A. International Publishing, 1989. Print.

“Czech Republic.” CIA World Factbook. Central Intelligence
              Agency,  1999. Web. 5 Oct. 1999. <

 Moravec, Col. Emanuel. The Strategic Importance of
              Czechoslovakia for Western Europe. Prague: Orbis Printing and
              Publishing Co.,  1936. Print. 

Orton, Lawrence. “Congress of the Slavs in Prague (1848).” James
              Chastain, ed. Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions. Ohio
        University, 1999. Web. 5 Oct. 1999. <
Pech, Stanley Z. The Czech Revolution of 1848. Chapel Hill: The
              University of North Carolina Press, 1969. Print.

Strayer, Joseph R., Gatzke, Hans W. The Mainstream of Civilization.
              New York & London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers,
              1984. Print.

Thomson, Harrison S. Czechoslovakia in European History.
              Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953. Print.

Zacek, Joseph F. Palacký: The Historian as Scholar and
              Nationalist. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1970. Print.

●             ●             ●