PALACKÝ AT THE SLAV CONGRESS OF 1848
heritage and the primacy of the concept of national sovereignty derived from the pre-March writings of the Slav awakening. In issuing the manifesto, the Slavs sought to clarify their position to an uninformed—if not misinformed—European opinion.
Although Palacký had several alternative drafts at his disposal, the manifesto was stylistically and in subject emphasis his own creation.27 Nevertheless, a German commentator for Die Grenzboten could not believe that this “liberal” manifesto was the work of Palacký: “[It] is completely foreign to the spirit of the Czech party. The manifesto aims at the bright plains of humanism, [while] the Czechs’ policy looks back to the past . . . The language of the manifesto preaches peace among nations, but the entire policy of the Czechs . . . has been maliciously to incite the Germans to anger and hatred.”28
On many issues Palacký’s views did not differ significantly from those of his collaborators. Libelt’s draft dwelled at length on the uniqueness of the pacific Slav character and the egalitarian basis of the primitive Slav communal life. He likewise projected a messianic role for the Slavs in a rejuvenated Europe. Libelt paid less attention to immediate political issues the dangers stemming from the Germans and Magyars—than appeared in Palacký’s final version. A teacher of philosophy by vocation, Libelt foresaw the triumph of a sort of Christian socialism wherein individual Christian love would guide the relations among nations as well.29 As a manifesto, however, Libelt’s draft was ill-conceived, bearing in the opinion of one observer “an uncomfortable resemblance to a political tract.”30 Moreover, Libelt’s draft contained none of the specific proposals for social and economic reform which he had outlined in the new agenda of June 5.
Zach’s suggestions covered many points raised by Libelt and anticipated Palacký’s text. The previously politically scattered Slav tribes were rightly following the lead of the Latins and Germans in striving to attain political liberty, national equality, and union. Zach echoed the theme of an inherent egalitarian spirit among the Slavs, but, unlike Libelt, he scrupulously applied his suggestions solely to the affairs of the Austrian Slavs.31
Bakunin’s proposal, on the other hand, was a messianic call for Slav unity. “The hour of deliverence has [at long last] sounded for the Slavs.” Past internecine strife, which had caused the Slavs to fall victim to the German yoke, would cease as the Slavs came to share a newly discovered faith in their common destiny. But to guarantee this brighter future, Bakunin stipulated a series of stringent measures to maintain Slav union. The Slav nations would have to submit to a potentially coercive central
