Winter has finally come to Bratislava. The temps have swung from the teens (in C/ 40’s-low 50’sF) to 0C or colder. Slight furries and freezing mix threaten us, and it’s common for winter to come late. An insensate can understand that we are experiencing a change in the patterns of weather. Heavy rains, when there shouldn’t be any, have washed out much of Central Europe. The Danube flows high and fast along the walkways here in the Slovak capital. Fed by watersheds further North and West in Germany, Austria, and the Czech Republic there will water down here for quite some time through the winter. We can only hope that the freeze makes the ground stiffen and hold the water until Spring. Otherwise we will be looking at hard times for our farmers, and a tough planting season. This could filter down, leading to higher food prices, even at the farmer’s markets where I like to shop in season. I know too, after speaking to family and friends in the US, they experiencing a deep freeze in the Midwest. Weather can have a major influence in our lives. Although I rarely mention it, weather had a major impact on Europe in the 19th century. There were famines as a result of crop failures due to the weather. Weather also influenced the outcomes of many battles… and so we enter into the beginning of the 1850’s in the continued struggle for our Slovaks to be heard and ultimately recognized there are many forces influencing the outcome.
HISTORY CORNER
After the uprisings/revolutions of 1848/49, the powers-that-be in Europe were divided in their reaction to the demands of the disorganized attempts to change the various societies and cultures. Some populations were able to affect change (France, Germany) that were if not lasting, aided their goals. In Austria and Hungary however, things were much different. Hungary’s uprising/revolt was the the longest on the continent, and early on may have yielded concessions by the Habsburgs, but as they waged a war to secede from the Habsburgs, their defeat by the combined Austrian and Russian armies led to crushing martial law imposed by the Habsburgs, a reneging on earlier reforms, and in the end more pressure on the minorities in the Magyar-controlled lands of Hungary. Alexander Bach was now minister of the Interior under Franz Joseph and instituted a system of strong central control. Bach was unprincipled, and would would waffle a great deal, but he eventually garnered conservative opinions, and backing from such forces that would allow this behavior – especially the Austrian and Hungarian upper nobility. Bach was behind policies that limited freedom of the press and sought to deny public trials… not the ideals of the revolutionaries, who were hoping for change from the Habsburg monarchy. Like Bach, Franz Joseph, Ludovit Stur and others, there are a great many actors on the grand stage of 1848/49; in my opinion Lajos Kossuth would be both an indelible figure for the Hungarians, and a deterent to the energies of our Slovaks.
Initially, Kossuth praised Stur’s 6-point plan. Kossuth would make an abrupt turn as his Magyar nationalism became more fervent and deeply narrowed against the voices striving to heard. Kossuth challenged the Habsburgs for control of Hungary… all of Hungary – for Hungarians alone. The full scope of Magyarization, begun in the 1830’s, would come to bear on our Slovaks after the failed uprisings in 1848/49, and it affected the other Slav minorities. By July of 1849 with Alexander Bach centralizing power from Vienna, Tsar Nicholas I of Russia aiding Franz Joseph against the Hungarians, and Kossuth flip-flopping on promises for minority autonomy… the Slovaks were virtually back to square one.
Here, we must back-track for a moment regarding Lajos Kossuth. Kossuth was a man of shared heritage; born to a Slovak father – a Lutheran, and a mother who was not only Lutheran, but also primarily 75% “magyarized-German”. Both parents descended from houses of lesser nobility, and both houses originating in the Upper Kingdom (Slovakia). He was born in Northeast Hungary (near present-day Slovakia). Kossuth, early on before the revolts, as a brilliant and gifted speaker, championed the first minority rights in Europe. This gave the minorities in the Hungarian territiories the right to use their own language in their local administration/courts, schools/community life, and local councils as well. Kossuth would not support any sort of regional authority within Hungary based on nationality though. Even so, Kossuth accepted national demands from Romanians, Serbs, and Croats – but showed no favor to the Slovaks. It should be noted also that in September of 1848, Kossuth’s followers called for temporary dictatorial powers for him as the situation in Hungary became more desperate. Kossuth was invested with increased amounts of power, a definite lack of military experience, and a dearth of generals to lead his armies (he continually sacked them and rehired them), and this didn’t help against the Austrian (and eventually Russian) military might. In the end, despite the fact that Kossuth’s uncle, Gyorgy Kossuth, was main supporter of the Slovak national movement, it would seem the younger Kossuth feared that any autonomy for the ethnic groups would lead to Hungary becoming fragmented and tested on its territorial borders. This unwavering stance would cost him, and Hungary, dearly as he fled to exile and the Habsburgs established dominance over Hungarian affairs for another 25+ years, and affect it until WWI.
As I mentioned earlier, the Slovaks were nearly back to square-one, but not entirely on their back foot. For their activities in mid-1848, Magyar historians have called Stur and the Slovaks “counter-revolutionaries” due to their cooperation with the Court in Vienna, and the Imperial Army. The numbers simply don’t support this claim. The actual count of the Slovaks fighting for Hungary was between 20 and 30,00 (the highest claim here is 50,000 men)… while those that fought for the Austrian crown may have been around 2/3,000 (the highest claim is 10,000 men). These numbers are contended by both Slovak and Magyar historians. We do know that there was resistance by many Slovaks to be pressed into the Magyar army, and also there were many pro-Hungarian Slovaks (loyalists) that went to the aid of Kossuth’s cause. Again… a very complex history that is harder to unwrap than a bowl of spaghetti noodles.
Here at the end of the national uprising we have to take a “realpolitik” look at what the Slovaks are thinking and feeling heading into 1850. It is always my most basic approach to get a solid look at what was occuring at the time. In using an archaic historical/political/diplomatic approach, I get a better sense of what is happening on the common level. Asking “what is happening in terms of the practical, or material?”, as opposed to the existential or theoretical situations or outcomes. The Magyars were actually the minority in their own “kingdom”, from 1830 to to nearly the turn of the 20th century they comprised less than 50% of the population, and yet they still feared that any number of changes in Central Europe would put Hungary out of the standing of nationhood… making them a minority oddly enough. Here are my “worst-case” scenarios: 1) German unification engulfing the complete entirety of the Habsburg lands/realm; 2) a restructuring of the Austrian Empire based on ethnicity; and 3) any re-alignment in the power structure and geographic territories being transferred to nations other than those ruling at this time in history. While there are many other possible constructs, in the overall scheme of things as they stand in 1850, the changes that are afoot do not justify the complete suppression of the minorities (Slovaks included) in the Magyar kingdom. Hungary is still tied to Austria, Kossuth has fled to the Ottomans – eventually to the US (fascinating story), and the Slovaks remain undaunted in the face of challenges to their culture.
In a “realpolitik” look at the end of the 1848 uprisings, and heading into the 1850’s, we want to get a sense of what concerned most Slovaks. The lower classes were primarily concerned with the abolition of serfdom and the chance to increase their own welfare without the interference of the nobility. Also the Slovaks have to come to terms with the gulf in the the confessional divide which led to the apathy of the Slovak Catholicsduring the uprising – which was led by mostly Lutheran leadership. These are just two of the many pressing issues of the Slovaks in practical and material terms. There are too many to list.
Before I set us up for 1850 and beyond, I must say that I am deeply obliged to my dear cousin Pat for always asking…”what about women during this time?…etc”, I will put this humble promise forward: that I will look into the nature of woman’s historical struggle in the “ancien regimes” of both Austria, Hungary and Slovakia.
Our next post will have us forge on into the 1850’s and I want to touch on the ever-present emerging feminist political realities, as well as a few other factors that fell into place to make the uprisings happen. Here we must apply two of the “Five C’s” of historical thinking; causality and contingency are very important. Causality allows us to see many of the various factors coming into play in order for the uprisings/revolts of 1848 to occur. Contingency is one of the most difficult of the “5 C’s” to apply. This is a big leap-of-faith in that we (historians) are stating that any event depends on prior conditions. Without any one of a few factors, history would turn out differently. Thus the march of man’s deeds (or misdeeds) will effect change in the 50 years of the 19th century.
Thank you all for following and reading my posts. I am eternally grateful for your interest and curiosity. Until we meet again, please take care of yourselves, and take care of each other




















