Another letter arrives, this one addressed to the Assembly, but especially Mr. Lerher.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A Request to all German Soldiers
With the wars over and the Revolution triumphant I beseech the soldiers and militiamen of our new nation. Protect the civilians of your cities, impose law and order once again within your communities. The rioting must end if there is to ever be peace. What is the good of a law such as the Fundamental Rights of the German People if anarchy reigns in your towns and cities. The dawn of a new age is at hand however the wanton destruction of lives and property threatens to continue in the streets as radicals call for the purging of so called reactionaries. While it cannot be disputed that some members of the old regimes do remain in our towns and cities free and fair trials such as those guaranteed by Article 4 of the Fundamental Rights of the German People should be held to judge their guilt. The rule of the mob just like the one unleashed by Robespierre not half a century ago did not breed justice but fear and hatred. The goal of this revolution must be to enlighten not to spread terror. Therefore I oblige you men, stand by your posts defend your streets against those who would see the innocents harmed in their recklessness and continue to fight for the rights of all men regardless of race, gender or creed.
-Friederich Kammler, Representative for Frankfurt
Last edited:
Klaus Gustaf Lehrer was not particularly pleased by the letter received from the reactionary Babenburg.
ON THE RIGHT TO WORK
Among the many issues presently deliberated by the Parliament at Frankfurt, and by the public at large, there is, by some curiosity, a matter of keen significance to a great many of the German people that has been entirely ignored by the leading figures of the Republic. While our new Fundamental Rights have enshrined many noble liberties and principles, and rightfully so, it has neglected to provide the foremost liberty desired and demanded by the German proletariat: the right to work.
It is concerning that among the national movements of Europe, few consider this to be the priority it truly is. The revolutionary governments founded in 1848 all greatly concerned themselves with establishing the inviolability of private property, the priority of the bourgeoisie; but they made no such concern for the priority of the worker. Unlike the bourgeoisie, who rest their power upon private poverty, the worker gains his power through his work. If work is deprived of him, if he is by the faults of society made unemployed, then the worker has been dis-empowered, disenfranchised. This would lead to a great imbalance in our Republic, in the domination of the bourgeoisie over the whole of society, a domination most inimical to the further progress of the Revolution.
Further consider, beyond the loss of political power, the great and unfortunate consequences of unemployment for the individual. He is left materially destitute, often forced onto the street to beg or to steal. Except by means of family relations, or by the few philanthropic organisations and peoples who care for these wrecked souls, there is little means of escape from unemployment, especially for those in specialised trades. Those who are unemployed are also particularly vulnerable to exploitation, by greedy industrialists as well as the forces of the counter-Revolution who preach falsely that unemployment has resulted from the anarchy of our Revolution, and that a restoration of the old order shall also entail a restoration of gainful employment for all.
This is why I believe the right to work should be as much a pillar of our Republic as the right to free speech and the freedom of association. I do not presently wish to expand upon the necessary schemes and public projects such a right would necessitate, but I must address a certain criticism that could be levied against the right to work. This example is the sole contemporary evidence of the working of this right, the National Workshops of Paris operated from February to July 1848. The workshops were by no means perfect, yet I believe much of the criticism laid upon them was unfair; moreover, many have used the failure of this one scheme for public employment to discredit the entire notion of a right to work. This is clearly a nonsensical argument: there is nothing inherent to this right that leads to slothfulness or to the undermining of the public interest. Indeed, as I explained above, schemes of public employment would in fact instil further loyalty to the Republic.
On the basis of these fair points, I call upon the Revolutionary Parliament to institute, either directly into their constitutional drafts, or by some other means of statute or legislation, the right to work for all German workingmen.
It is concerning that among the national movements of Europe, few consider this to be the priority it truly is. The revolutionary governments founded in 1848 all greatly concerned themselves with establishing the inviolability of private property, the priority of the bourgeoisie; but they made no such concern for the priority of the worker. Unlike the bourgeoisie, who rest their power upon private poverty, the worker gains his power through his work. If work is deprived of him, if he is by the faults of society made unemployed, then the worker has been dis-empowered, disenfranchised. This would lead to a great imbalance in our Republic, in the domination of the bourgeoisie over the whole of society, a domination most inimical to the further progress of the Revolution.
Further consider, beyond the loss of political power, the great and unfortunate consequences of unemployment for the individual. He is left materially destitute, often forced onto the street to beg or to steal. Except by means of family relations, or by the few philanthropic organisations and peoples who care for these wrecked souls, there is little means of escape from unemployment, especially for those in specialised trades. Those who are unemployed are also particularly vulnerable to exploitation, by greedy industrialists as well as the forces of the counter-Revolution who preach falsely that unemployment has resulted from the anarchy of our Revolution, and that a restoration of the old order shall also entail a restoration of gainful employment for all.
This is why I believe the right to work should be as much a pillar of our Republic as the right to free speech and the freedom of association. I do not presently wish to expand upon the necessary schemes and public projects such a right would necessitate, but I must address a certain criticism that could be levied against the right to work. This example is the sole contemporary evidence of the working of this right, the National Workshops of Paris operated from February to July 1848. The workshops were by no means perfect, yet I believe much of the criticism laid upon them was unfair; moreover, many have used the failure of this one scheme for public employment to discredit the entire notion of a right to work. This is clearly a nonsensical argument: there is nothing inherent to this right that leads to slothfulness or to the undermining of the public interest. Indeed, as I explained above, schemes of public employment would in fact instil further loyalty to the Republic.
On the basis of these fair points, I call upon the Revolutionary Parliament to institute, either directly into their constitutional drafts, or by some other means of statute or legislation, the right to work for all German workingmen.
T. P. Sheridan
(Pet Cause)
On the People’s Fundamental Rights
Liberty must be supported above all other things. We have a right to it, derived from God, and affirmed by the brave German people who earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. The Fundamental Rights, as they have been outlined at this point, must not be altered, so that they may protect all People from the excesses of government.
On the Matter of the Executive
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; the accumulation of all executive powers in the hands of one man, whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, must be considered the very definition of tyranny. Instead, the power must be split between a President, who will lead Germany as the symbol of the people’s will, and a Prime Minister, who will ensure that the the legislature maintains its influence and prevent the tyranny that comes from a single ruler.
On the Matter of the Legislature
We must, of course, institute a single, unicameral legislature. I feel little need to elaborate on this beyond the wise words of my peers. Instead I must remind the German people to remain vigilant. A single assembly is apt to grow ambitious, and after a time will not hesitate to vote itself perpetual. This was one fault of the Long Parliament; but more remarkably of Holland, whose assembly first voted themselves from annual to septennial, then for life, and after a course of years, that all vacancies happening by death or otherwise, should be filled by themselves, without any application to constituents at all. Ultimately, the German people must be ready to protect their rights should the need arise.
On the Matter of the Judiciary
The Judiciary is, by its nature, unable to be anything but dependent on the executive. Consider the matter of the Native peoples of the United States and decision made by their supreme court which was so readily ignored by the president. The judiciary may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments. What’s more, allowing the courts to be the final decider on the matter of laws takes power from the legislature, an instrument of the people, and places it in the hands of appointed officials, going against every ideal of this revolution.
On the Scope of Government
The balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. We have seen the results of a confederation of states many times, and they have always proved incapable of governing effectively. On the other hand, a unitary state would only serve to destroy the rights of the localities while investing too much power in a central authority. A federal state, meanwhile, forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other.
On Voting Rights
Universal Male Suffrage is the only option available to us if we hope to stay true to the values of the revolution. Women may perhaps be allowed to hold positions in local governments which hold influence over matters such as education or housing, but on a national level government must be prepared do address matters of peace and war, which women are ill equipped to deal with.
On the Status of the Nobility
If we wish to remain true to the values of the Fundamental Rights which have been established thus far, then we cannot restrict the rights of a person to identify themselves in a certain way. The right of a self-identified noble to express himself must be protected, even if we do not agree with him.
On the Status of the Church – (Pet Clause)
All men must be free to exercise their religion, no matter what it may be, so long as they do not bring harm to anyone else in doing so. At the same time, we must remember the good that the church does, providing aid and charity to those in need, and schooling to the children of our nation, all of which is of course secondary to providing spiritual guidance to those who seek it. We must be wary of the intentions of anyone who would support either extreme, whether it be establishing a state religion or banning religion in its entirety. We must create a barrier between church and state.
~ August Wilhelm von Erthal, Representative from Würzburg
Liberty must be supported above all other things. We have a right to it, derived from God, and affirmed by the brave German people who earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. The Fundamental Rights, as they have been outlined at this point, must not be altered, so that they may protect all People from the excesses of government.
On the Matter of the Executive
An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; the accumulation of all executive powers in the hands of one man, whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, must be considered the very definition of tyranny. Instead, the power must be split between a President, who will lead Germany as the symbol of the people’s will, and a Prime Minister, who will ensure that the the legislature maintains its influence and prevent the tyranny that comes from a single ruler.
On the Matter of the Legislature
We must, of course, institute a single, unicameral legislature. I feel little need to elaborate on this beyond the wise words of my peers. Instead I must remind the German people to remain vigilant. A single assembly is apt to grow ambitious, and after a time will not hesitate to vote itself perpetual. This was one fault of the Long Parliament; but more remarkably of Holland, whose assembly first voted themselves from annual to septennial, then for life, and after a course of years, that all vacancies happening by death or otherwise, should be filled by themselves, without any application to constituents at all. Ultimately, the German people must be ready to protect their rights should the need arise.
On the Matter of the Judiciary
The Judiciary is, by its nature, unable to be anything but dependent on the executive. Consider the matter of the Native peoples of the United States and decision made by their supreme court which was so readily ignored by the president. The judiciary may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments. What’s more, allowing the courts to be the final decider on the matter of laws takes power from the legislature, an instrument of the people, and places it in the hands of appointed officials, going against every ideal of this revolution.
On the Scope of Government
The balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. We have seen the results of a confederation of states many times, and they have always proved incapable of governing effectively. On the other hand, a unitary state would only serve to destroy the rights of the localities while investing too much power in a central authority. A federal state, meanwhile, forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other.
On Voting Rights
Universal Male Suffrage is the only option available to us if we hope to stay true to the values of the revolution. Women may perhaps be allowed to hold positions in local governments which hold influence over matters such as education or housing, but on a national level government must be prepared do address matters of peace and war, which women are ill equipped to deal with.
On the Status of the Nobility
If we wish to remain true to the values of the Fundamental Rights which have been established thus far, then we cannot restrict the rights of a person to identify themselves in a certain way. The right of a self-identified noble to express himself must be protected, even if we do not agree with him.
On the Status of the Church – (Pet Clause)
All men must be free to exercise their religion, no matter what it may be, so long as they do not bring harm to anyone else in doing so. At the same time, we must remember the good that the church does, providing aid and charity to those in need, and schooling to the children of our nation, all of which is of course secondary to providing spiritual guidance to those who seek it. We must be wary of the intentions of anyone who would support either extreme, whether it be establishing a state religion or banning religion in its entirety. We must create a barrier between church and state.
~ August Wilhelm von Erthal, Representative from Würzburg
Nikolaus Layman's Opinions of the Many Constitutional Matters Before Us
There are a number of important issues that have been brought up. Here are my opinions on them:
On the matter of Fundamental Rights: Expanding the Fundamental Rights of our citizens is of paramount importance. Rights that have so far been overlook in the Fundamental Rights of the German People include protections against double jeopardy, protections against enslavement, protections against forcible quartering of troops, and the right to bear arms unless found guilty of a major crime.
On the matter of The Executive: a Parliamentary system would be most fitting.
On the matter of The Legislature: it should be Unicameral in nature.
On the matter of The Judiciary: it should be Independent of both the Executive and Legislative branches to ensure that our Constitution is always adhered to. However, it should fall to the Legislature to appoint Justices to the highest court.
On the matter of Scope of Government: a Balanced Federal state would seem the best way to ensure a government that is strong enough to protect its citizens from outside powers, yet weak enough to guard against despotism.
On the matter of Voting Rights: we need a citizenry well informed about the functions of government. Restricted male suffrage would ensure that well informed votes are not drowned out by others.
On the matter of the future Status of the Nobility: the nobility should be Abolished from our Great Republic forevermore.
On the matter of the future Status of the Church: believe our state should be Secular. While we should not turn our backs on God, we should neither promote one view of God over another.
((Pet Cause – Term Lengths))
Yet there is one issue that should not seem to be discussed: term lengths of our future elected representatives. This is something that most certainly should be addressed in our Constitution. To keep our government reflective of the will of the people, the lenght of any term should last a single year.”
~Nikolaus Layman, member of the Frankfurt National Assembly
Last edited:
by Gustav Lentze
In recent weeks, the motive of this paper has been to adumbrate the coeval occurrences presently apprehending our national interest. The prepubescent nation that now claims right and cause of authority over the citizenry brims with fresh ideas, but lacks the pulchritude to arrest our loyalty. It is perhaps the deposition of those familiar faces: Prince Metternich, Count Brandenburg, and Emperor Ferdinand — that terrifies our consciousness and shrivels all grasps to the familiar. If we know not who rules, how can we observe the proper execution of law and order? The coltish National Assembly has made claim and cause to assert licit legitimacy over the German people, but their enforcement of this assertion must necessarily come into conflict with the militarized throngs that demonstrate de facto jurisdiction over the lawless localities. There is an emerging consensus that the sustained existence of this nation is an inconceivable possibility — a consensus that will enjoy general acclaim until the elected assemblymen prove themselves more matured than ‘elected officers’ and the ‘abolishment of self-identification.’ What first must be procured is a centrality of authority; an established class to operate as intellectual heralders of the revolutionary concept. Any further concession to unrestrained demagoguery, currently the preferred rhetoric of the Assembly, will demystify our nation and subvert any political order that seeks to enforce the brazen Fundamental Rights of Germans. For this reason, this paper will in the upcoming weeks proceed to give description and analysis of Germany’s new cast of characters, in the hope that intelligence and prudence will earn credible clout over plebian insurrectionists.
It is the disposition of revolution to foment domestic enmity and abrogate the conventional bonds of social reverence. At present, Germany is resolved before a crossroad; one footpath leads to Jacobin fury, and one bridle leads to cautious retention and liberal preservation. History is already accustomed to the former path — egregious violence and tyrannical repetition metamorphose a state from the pinnacle of revolutionary zeal to the ironical restoration of the former system. Germany’s revolutionaries must decide if they are prepared to concede their civil goals for a national purge, and endanger their progress, or apprehend the insurrectionist elements and assert an established government. The citizenry have already been offered their Committee of Public Safety — revolutionary firebrand Georg Wolf Segen has constructed his ‘Bergald Club’ for the public’s roused consumption. It is therefore high-time for an alternative. Revolutionary preservation will depend upon a moderated establishment that is willing to manufacture a societal coalition irrespective of former status. A political apathy to this aforementioned cause will enervate the revolution and forfeit necessary authority to a dangerous cabal; such a consolidation of power around rabble-rousers will invigorate counter-revolutionaries and fracture any international recognition that Germany could hope to garner. In essence, Germany’s revolution depends upon our willingness to show restraint in public and reverence to the past. The indestructible social hierarchy cannot be victimized; liberal reform must be enforced in statute, and not on the keen blade of the guillotine. Despite the squawks of execrable plebeians, the elite will not be muted or suppressed by any procession excusing the prosecution of illicit murder. An empty pursuit against their ancient titles will invigorate their opposition, and deter their loyalty.
There is cause for some restrained optimism, however, and German revolutionaries should be swift to embrace those vestiges of hope. Self-proclaimed ‘Mayor’ Karl Friedrich has demonstrated his proclivity to balanced government and cautious progress. Mr. Fredrich has righteously demonstrated an admiration for the Westminster System, which parades a system of constitutional restraint and democratic inclinations. Germans would be wise to give special cause to applaud an ennobled or appointed Upper House — a necessary diminution on overbearing public sentiment. Other gentlemen, such as the noted clergyman, Dean August Wilhelm von Erthal, flaunt a noble predilection for political federalism and the protection of self-identification. Although there is room for skepticism on his ironic secularized stance, Dean Erthal shall receive our fullest endorsement as a potential bulwark against the ideological atheists that now mingle among the Bergald ranks. It is our sincere hope that these gentlemen will approach the duties of political power with necessitated caution and skepticism, particularly regarding the advancement of the worrisome female suffrage proposal, the independence of the judiciary, and the petition to invoke martial elections. Inability to confine the boundaries of political ‘acceptability’ to the realm of rationalism and foresight will doom all projections for this nation’s sustenance. And in the event of such failure, the execrations of freedom will only be heard among those reactionary boots which stomp them out.
--
((I'll take contributions upon approval, for any interested souls.))
Excerpts from the ‘Constitutional Manifesto of the German Peasants’ Brotherhood’
Fundamental Rights: Retain
“The fundamental rights of man established by the revolution must be defended, and they may not be changed by a sudden chance of mood.”
The Executive: Parliamentary
“Propping up a new single figurehead to replace the corrupt kings and dukes is a horrendous idea. Only a politician elected by our assembly and enjoying its support can lead Germany with popular legitimacy. His powers should however be limited and the parliament should be able to easily overturn his decisions or to impeach him, if he is suspected of anti-revolutionary actions or aspirations of dictatorship.”
The Legislature: Unicameral
“All German men are equal, thus there is no need to divide their representatives to multiple ‘chambers’. If the people’s deputies agree on a matter of importance, there shouldn’t be a separate body with a tyrannic ability to overturn the people’s will as presented by the assembly. In general we must also avoid making our system of governance and decision-making too complicated, as it is simply meant to serve the people – not the other way round.”
The Judiciary: Independent
“To prevent the new government from turning into a tyranny, we need a powerful and independent judiciary that can oversee the work of the prime minister, the government and its subsidiaries as well as the parliament itself.”
Scope of Government: Confederation
“To protect the rights of the distinct clans that constitute the German Nation, the government of our nation should follow a confederal model. This will ensure that no region gains dominance over others, and that the central government doesn’t restore a tyranny akin to the monarchies. Local self-rule is what makes our revolution unique, and it should start from the very grassroots, from strong village assemblies and rural councils, inspired by the tribal democratic councils and Dorf societies of proud peasants of ancient Germania. Indeed, the geographic area of each of the ancient stem duchies should form the ground for regional administrative units, free states.”
Voting Rights: Restricted male suffrage
“Ownership of land and property is a sign of an ability to take care of oneself and his family. Only those who are able to manage their own affairs competently should be allowed to have a say in the matter of politics. Even proposing female suffrage is simply preposterous, as it is obvious that they lack the capability to comprehend such a complicated matter as politics. Instead women should focus their efforts on managing the household and raising children – as they always have done proudly in the German history.”
Status of the Nobility: Abolishment
“Retaining any signs or remnants of the feudal-monarchial tyranny is an insult to those who have perished to defend the German revolution. Thus to protect the rights of the peasant and the revolutionary, all remains of feudalism must be dismantled. All German men are equal brothers, claiming superiority over others is not something that is protected by the fundamental rights.”
Status of the Church: State religion
“Germany is a Christian nation and claiming otherwise is simply foolish. Religion should continue to play a part in our government and politics, but we should make sure that the German priests and bishops are independent of foreign influence. In addition, the Government should make sure that the Church’s property doesn’t exceed limits that are required to maintain their current status and services.”
GM Notice
All players not currently serving in the Frankfurt Assembly, please send me a PM with your character's current location ASAP. Any player with command of a military unit, a militia, or a mob should include their location as well. Use the profile submission conversation instead of starting a new one. Thank you.
I. A Cast of Characters (September 1849)
II. Outrage in Frankfurt (October 1849)
III. Button Up That Coat: Today's Style (January 1850)
IV. On the President and the Cabinent (March 1950)
Last edited:
On the Reactionary Words of the Frankfurter Telegraphen
"Gustav Lentze has written on my words, on my commitment to the German People, on my willingness to take all measures necessary to preserve the Revolution against Reaction; he names be firebrand, that my political agenda is to rouse the Public. He is most correct! For too long have our people been subject to Tyranny without so much as an ill word, we have been oppressed, beaten, and above all ENSLAVED due to apathy and the established order taking every step towards their own empowerment!
What Herr Lentze proposes is that the Revolution will only promote a return to the Old Order, that our zeal foments our doom, but I say to him quite the opposite: only the total implementation of Revolution will purge from our ranks the hidden conspirators of the Counter-Revolution! Like Karl Friedrich - who I have likewise proved as an advocate for Tyranny! - Herr Lentze lusts for a return of an archaic system, the appointment of aristocrats, the creation of a so-called moderated establishment! Do not drink these vile words of poison, because where he may say moderated, he truly means reactionary!
It is apparent that the Revolution is not complete, nor will it be complete if we are swayed by the words of weak-willed men incapable of doing what must be done to remove the Conspiracy of Tyranny from our Nation. There are some - even within the chambers of Frankfurt! - that still maintain servility to nobility, who refuse to touch them for reasons of tradition, or moderation, or inclusiveness. But I stand for a Nation unbound by the vestiges of Feudalism, wherein all People are equal, wherein no man holds dominion over another due to birth, wherein we stand united against the divisive forces of Reaction, not grovelling before customs that were invented to fulfill the whimsy ambitions of Tyrants!"
To T.P. Sheridan
As a worker foremost and a German second, I would like to express my upmost admiration at your handling of the latest issues, and declare that I wholly support the dismantlement of the social and economic problems challenged by your brave pen at the Rheinische Zeitung. In these vibrant times of upheaval, revolution and the whirlwind of social classes, the nation needs whatever righteous men it can find to steer its infant steps in the right direction. I have been a priest all my life until the revolution, but none of the enlightenments offered to me by the men of God came close to the enlightenment of the cause you are so vehemently spearheading.
I am not at all a politician, and do not get involved in the matters of the assembly, but even a man not interested in politics must allow himself to be carried by the prevailing currents of history. And I believe those currents, which swept me up from Vienna and carried me all the way to Germany, have now deposited me on your shores. As a man tied to the Bergwald Club of thinkers, idealists and reformers, I would like to offer to introduce you to the other fine ambitious minds, so that one day we can theorize on the future of this country together.
Already beset by reactionary papers and hounded by those too small minded to leave behind the old disastrous ways, we believe we march in the vanguard of the true revolution, and we would like to offer you all our means when it comes to furthering your cause. As a collective of men driven only by the betterment of society we can achieve so much more than as individual units, lost in the sea of conservatism and small-mindedness that will soon flood our young republic from all sides.
Please write back soon, the situation here is quite dire.
From the ever admiring,
Heinrich Glau
***
To the honourable Gustav Lentze,
It is my duty as a fan of your work and as a stickler for detail to inform you that in your latest article, the lair of snakes (I find myself proudly part of) you described as the "Bergald" is actually commonly known as the "Bergwald". I am sure this tiny mistake will be corrected post haste.
See you in the field or at the gallows,
Heinrich Glau
As a worker foremost and a German second, I would like to express my upmost admiration at your handling of the latest issues, and declare that I wholly support the dismantlement of the social and economic problems challenged by your brave pen at the Rheinische Zeitung. In these vibrant times of upheaval, revolution and the whirlwind of social classes, the nation needs whatever righteous men it can find to steer its infant steps in the right direction. I have been a priest all my life until the revolution, but none of the enlightenments offered to me by the men of God came close to the enlightenment of the cause you are so vehemently spearheading.
I am not at all a politician, and do not get involved in the matters of the assembly, but even a man not interested in politics must allow himself to be carried by the prevailing currents of history. And I believe those currents, which swept me up from Vienna and carried me all the way to Germany, have now deposited me on your shores. As a man tied to the Bergwald Club of thinkers, idealists and reformers, I would like to offer to introduce you to the other fine ambitious minds, so that one day we can theorize on the future of this country together.
Already beset by reactionary papers and hounded by those too small minded to leave behind the old disastrous ways, we believe we march in the vanguard of the true revolution, and we would like to offer you all our means when it comes to furthering your cause. As a collective of men driven only by the betterment of society we can achieve so much more than as individual units, lost in the sea of conservatism and small-mindedness that will soon flood our young republic from all sides.
Please write back soon, the situation here is quite dire.
From the ever admiring,
Heinrich Glau
***
To the honourable Gustav Lentze,
It is my duty as a fan of your work and as a stickler for detail to inform you that in your latest article, the lair of snakes (I find myself proudly part of) you described as the "Bergald" is actually commonly known as the "Bergwald". I am sure this tiny mistake will be corrected post haste.
See you in the field or at the gallows,
Heinrich Glau
A Letter to the Editor
at the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
Dear Sir: at the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
I read with keen interest the recent publication regarding the so-called "right to work". While your words are inspiring, and certainly not founded upon false intent or ill-justified frustration at the situation that many Germans presently find themselves in, I must inquire as to how such a proposed and fabricated right might be installed and upheld in this Republic. Are not employees made unemployed through the circumstances of their employer's fortune, and if the employer must lay off workers or find himself (and all other employees) woefully destitute? Is not the inability for all businesses to employ all potential workers, the reason that unemployment exists in the first place? I would be hard-pressed, sir, to defend a proposition that would, in the end, put every place of employment in this Republic out of business in a few short months.
Furthermore, you defend such a proposition as not only realistic, but with success in its practical application. The National Workshops, as you have mentioned, were failures in the long-term; and what of this Republic? Perhaps such an invention could work here in Germany, for a short period, before being consigned to the dust-bin of history; and the guarantee, by the state, of permanent employment, would create only a bigger burden on the Republic to furnish the funds needed to pay these employees. The expenses of the Republic would only inflate to gargantuan numbers. Where would the state then draw its receipts -- from further taxation upon the very people it employs? Or from the "wealthy" business owners, who are already unable to employ, in all other circumstances, those in the work of the government?
To treat such a proposition as a right equal to the freedom of expression is as foolish, in my belief, as the belief that humanity would be better served if there were no government at all.
Most respectfully yours,
Julius Philipp Kühn
Archive of the Comments and Views of Nikolaus Layman
Nikolaus Layman's Opinions of the Many Constitutional Matters Before Us
Defending the Freedom of Speech
Defending the Freedom of Speech, Part II
Talking to the Assembled Citizenry
To Build a Nation
Nikolaus Layman's Opinions of the Many Constitutional Matters Before Us
Defending the Freedom of Speech
Defending the Freedom of Speech, Part II
Talking to the Assembled Citizenry
To Build a Nation
Last edited:
The Kammler Anti-Radical Note
I beseech the Bergwald Club to detach itself from the radical course it has embarked upon. Our people's revolution has been won, the oppressors who held our freedoms down have been defeated and their legacies destroyed. The remaining enemies of the revolution lie in Berlin and Vienna not in Frankfurt. Threatening newspaper editors and going after war heroes is not the way to build a nation. It is the way however to polarize a people. Let us all come together as one nation to unify behind one message, let us work together constructively to build a constitution befitting of our glorious country and our glorious people. I worry for the stability of the Free German nation and for the sanctity of the laws this body has past. No man, regardless of his position rank or title should take away from any German the rights and guarantees given to them by the Fundamental Rights of the German people and should the Bergwald Club sponsor riots they should be held responsible for their actions by the German people.
-Friederich Kammler
I beseech the Bergwald Club to detach itself from the radical course it has embarked upon. Our people's revolution has been won, the oppressors who held our freedoms down have been defeated and their legacies destroyed. The remaining enemies of the revolution lie in Berlin and Vienna not in Frankfurt. Threatening newspaper editors and going after war heroes is not the way to build a nation. It is the way however to polarize a people. Let us all come together as one nation to unify behind one message, let us work together constructively to build a constitution befitting of our glorious country and our glorious people. I worry for the stability of the Free German nation and for the sanctity of the laws this body has past. No man, regardless of his position rank or title should take away from any German the rights and guarantees given to them by the Fundamental Rights of the German people and should the Bergwald Club sponsor riots they should be held responsible for their actions by the German people.
-Friederich Kammler
On the Kammler Weakness
"As is sadly unexpected, already the Revolution has come under assault, as has my person in the form of threats - threats against a man of the people! Whereas I point out the fallacies of emulating Foreign Tyrannies, the actions of counter-revolutionaries, and backwards thinking, Friederich Kammler would levy blame on myself. Let me ask the German People - shall it be a crime to defend our Nation against Destruction?
It was not long ago when I have heard similar pleas - do not question us, do not challenge the status-quo, do not speak your mind, but instead speak only what benefits those in power. I tell you, these are the very same words of Tyrants! They do not promote freedom, but instead promote subservience. Were I to listen to Kammler - King Kammler he sees himself! - I would forfeit my rights of free speech, my Revolutionary Ideals! Shall we live in a Nation where we cannot question a newspaper, where we cannot point our fingers at obvious sedition, where we mustn't question certain men?
Know that Kammler no doubt is yet another agent of the Counter-Revolution! Must I remind him that riots and uprising are the very reason for our Revolutionary Nation? He sets us upon an incline that will surely lead downward, into the dark abyss of Decadence that is the Feudal World; first he calls for my silence, then for the silence of others, and soon enough, the People will again be bound and gagged, while he and his Crowned allies rule without fear of reprisal for unjust Reigns!
To Kammler, I say this: your words do not frighten me, but your efforts to revert the Revolution disgust me, as it disgusts every proud German and every Revolutionary! You will no doubt follow through on your threats, and for every drop of blood spilt, you will blame myself and those others who are not blind to your schemes. But such ploys do not burden me, for my Spirit is made Enlightened by the Revolution, and no man, whether he wears a Crown, holds a Scepter, or thinks himself Superior, will chain Germania and Wolfsegen again!"
On Creating a Parliament in the National Interest
The Imperative of the Single-body Parliament, representing the Will of the People; and the weaknesses and folly of an Appointed Upper House
Sirs:The Imperative of the Single-body Parliament, representing the Will of the People; and the weaknesses and folly of an Appointed Upper House
It is obvious to us that there are many in this esteemed Chamber that have already set aside their other differences to declare their intent on supporting one type of parliamentary system or another in the constitution that is yet-to-be-written. While some proposals do indeed have merit, some are so anti-revolutionary in character -- or, perhaps to be more precise and less demagogic -- so against the intentions and wishes of the revolution, as to have been proposed from those that opposed it in the very first place.
The strengths of a unicameral house, which I have argued for so vehemently and which others have strongly opposed, are twofold.
First. -- the existence of only a single chamber in the Parliament, rather than two, would greatly speed up the responsiveness of the government to great crises to the existence of the national body; and would eliminate much bureaucratic cluttering that would otherwise impede the duties, progress, and carrying-out of the Parliament's constitutional duties (whatever they may be laid out to be in the coming days and weeks).
Second. -- a lack of a second House of appointed members will prevent any potential non-meritocratic regimes arising in the highest echelons of the national Government, and will ensure that only the general will of the people will be represented in the form of the various members of that unicameral body. A second, higher house will serve only to entrench the political elite, and will weaken or altogether disenfranchise the poor and disfortunate, and will snatch or destroy what political capital they have been given in such a broken system.
Such an upper house would be disastrous for a free Republic made of and for the people. Bureaucratic layering and appointed political offices -- not voted on by the people, nor by the Assembly -- will doom the downtrodden and prepare the nation for its being tossed into the bin of failed and forgotten experiments of the state.
Those supportive of such a Parliament that I have thus opposed may say in reply, But what of the rights of the upper-class? Should the Parliament fall to the vices of the vast lower classes, and disenfranchise the more fortunate? Such a simple and stupid question deserves an equally simple and obvious response: the Fundamental Rights will prevent a tyranny of the popular will against those demographics who would, in some way, find themselves at odds with so-and-so legislation and so-and-so government action. It is the Fundamental Rights that will protect all Germans, rich or poor, male or female, that will ensure the safety and longevity of this Republic.
Julius Philipp Kühn
----
The above was written as an open letter to the members of the Frankfurt Assembly.
Defending the Freedom of Speech
After Herr Wolfsegen finished his remarks, Nikolaus Layman rose to address Herr Wolfsegen on the floor of the Frankfurt National Assembly.
“Herr Wolfsegen:
It seems that you have forgotten points three and four of the Fundamental Rights of the German People in your attack against Herr Kammler. Since you are a member of the Frankfurt National Assembly – the very body that will shape the future Constitution of our Great Republic – this is most disturbing. Let me read them aloud to this August Body as a whole as a simple reminder to us all:
Apparently, according to Herr Wolfsegen, any man he disagrees with politically – such as Herr Kammler – does not have the right to freedom of expression, freedom of the press, nor shall have the opportunity to face a court of law, innocent until proven guilty.
I do not defend Herr Kammler simply because he represents the city of Frankfurt in this August Body, as do I.
I do not defend Herr Kammler simply because he assisted in the writing and passage of the Basic Rights of the German People, the very same document which Herr Wolfsegen has seemed to forgotten at least in part.
I defend Herr Kammler simply because he is a German man, a citizen of our new-born nation. As a citizen, he deserves the liberties and rights that we, this August Body, all fought for!
If Herr Kammler is an ‘agent of the Counter-Revolution’ as Herr Kammler claims, for simply daring to have the audacity to think for himself and speak his mind, then each and every member of this August Body is an agent of the Counter-Revolution! For when the Revolution began, did we not all have the audacity to think for ourselves and speak our own minds?
Now if Herr Wolfsegen is done trying to divide this constitutional committee, perhaps we can actually get to the work of drafting a constitution. A sacred task that people of Germany gave to us to ensure the protection of their liberties until the end of time itself.”
~Nikolaus Layman, member of the Frankfurt National Assembly
Last edited:
On the Layman Fallacy
"Nikolaus Layman has accused me of a crime most foul, the breach of our Fundamental Rights. But is he blind or merely ignorant - or even an agent of disorder? - for he condemns me for promoting my own right to speak. In my address to the Kammler Weakness, I explicity stated my support of free speech, and I oppose his attempt to silence discontent. It was Kammler who called for my silence and subordination; he sees it as advantegous to levy upon me crimes of chaos and false claims in an attempt to throw me away, as the Tyrants threw away dissenters before our Revolution!
Our Rights say we shall not curtail association - Kammler wishes the dissolution of the Bergwald Club; Our Rights say we shall not infringe on free press - Kammler wishes for his befriended presses to be unquestioned; Our Rights espouse expression - Kammler wishes suppression! I find it incredulous that in one breath Layman may accuse myself of contradicting Our Rights, while at the same time attacking my defense of Freedom as this same purported violation. How can it be that by defending myself, and voicing my dissent, I am likewise attacking the sanctity of free speech?
I ask you Layman, re-evaluate your claims if they are done in ignorance!"