Kirchheimbolanden Citizens’ Association

Free Corps

Revolutionary Site: Political Associations and Assemblies

The political activation that triggered the 1848/49 revolution initially manifested in citizens’ assemblies [Location 56]. Just a few weeks later, a moderately revolutionary “Citizens’ Association” was founded. Initial steps were already taken on March 31, 1848. However, the association only gained a solid structure in July/August.

From then on, the “Kirchheimbolanden “Wochenblatt” repeatedly mentioned Dr. Friedrich Glaser [Location 53] in the association’s news, as well as the names H. Bechtelsheimer, R. Becker, L. Levi Jr., W. Ritterspach, G. Rupprecht, G. Seyler, and J. L. N. Stöckel.

While the Citizens’ Association initially operated completely informally, without any statutes or specific members, as part of the Palatinate People’s Association, in September 1848, it was announced that it now had a statute and committed itself to the task of:
Additionally, the statutes stipulated:

October and November 1848

In October and November 1848, the “Kirchheimbolanden Wochenblatt” then invited people to assemblies, sometimes weekly, for example, on October 26, to discuss the nature of democracy.

In December, a fundamental decision was made for the future. For with the “Märzverein,” a competitor had also become active in Kirchheimbolanden as a local branch of the “Zentralmärzverein,” founded on November 21 by deputies of the left-wing factions in the German National Assembly.

The new dynamic in political associations was triggered by two reasons: a return to the beginning of the revolutionary events of March 1848 with the “March demands” (popular sovereignty, parliamentary government, democratic suffrage, fundamental rights) and the direct connection of the “Märzverein” to parts of the Paulskirche Parliament, which promised a

constant flow of information about the work on the constitutional project. In Kirchheimbolanden, there was an additional appeal, as well-known local figures represented the “Märzverein,” including notary Karl Wilhelm Schmidt, notary clerk Jakob Müller, and district physician Dr. Ludwig Hitzfeld.

In parallel, a further turning point emerged in the Kirchheimbolanden “Citizens’ Association”: Dr. Friedrich Glaser fell seriously ill, but still invited, together with the other members of the association’s committee, to an “extraordinary meeting” on December 21.

The new association was now called the “März- und Volksverein” (March and People’s Association). Of its five board members, three came from the “Märzverein” roots (Schmidt, Hitzfeld, and Müller) and two from the old “Bürgerverein” (Bechtelsheimer and Rupprecht).

However, the “März- und Volksverein” had no major prospects from the outset due to the general political developments in Germany. The counter-revolution began to emerge, especially in Prussia, where the king had already dissolved the Prussian National Assembly on November 9, 1848, thus ending the work on a Prussian “state constitution.”

Therefore, the chances of realizing the fundamental rights proclaimed by the German National Assembly in Frankfurt on December 21, 1848, and the Imperial Constitution adopted on March 27, 1849, remained very slim—even with military means through volunteer corps.

Revolutionary Site: Parliament

To create a constitution for Germany, for the entire Reich—with this mandate, the German National Assembly began its work on May 18, 1848, in Frankfurt’s Paulskirche.

The Palatinate sent ten delegates. The electoral district of Kirchheimbolanden (cantons of Kirchheimbolanden, Göllheim, Rockenhausen, and Winnweiler) was represented by the notary Joseph Martin Reichard (1803-72), born in Gaugrehweiler and active in Speyer.

He was a member of the National Assembly until May 30, 1849, and within its political grouping, he belonged to the “Donnersberg” faction, named after the Frankfurt inn where the “Democrats” met. Their goal was a constitution based on universal, equal, and direct suffrage.

The eventual outcome, with its male suffrage, therefore by no means satisfied Reichard. However, it was consistent with the “radicalism” of the “Donnersberg” faction that he advocated for the violent enforcement of the constitution after its rejection by Prussia and Bavaria.

Reichard therefore also became one of the main exponents of the Palatinate Uprising, joining the National Defense Committee and also the subsequent Provisional Government of the Palatinate. In both cases, he formally held the chairmanship, “without, however, assuming the dominant leadership role in the revolutionary government.”

However, for the Bavarian state government and judiciary, he was one of the main culprits. He therefore fled to Switzerland and then on to the USA. The death sentence imposed on him could thus not be carried out.

The revolution brought a similar biographical rupture for Reichard’s successor in the National Assembly, Adolf Ernst Theodor Berkmann (1802-78), pastor in Einselthum. He took up his parliamentary mandate on June 1, 1849. However, the National Assembly was already dissolving at this point. To escape the grasp of Prussian troops, the remaining members of the plenum (rump parliament) moved their seat to Stuttgart, where on June 18, 1849, Württemberg military forcibly prevented the remaining few deputies from continuing their work.

Berkmann’s parliamentary activity thus ended after barely more than two weeks. This was followed by a one-year period of investigative detention. He had already been accused in 1832 of attending the Hambach Festival. When Berkmann was released in 1850 and an indictment was dropped, he, like Reichard, also emigrated to the USA.

Both political biographies thus show how the consistent commitment to “unity and freedom” could become a personal risk in 1849.

This also applied to many others accused of “high treason,” including Karl Wilhelm Schmidt and Jakob Müller.

Judicial Conclusions

The legal aftermath that began with the end of the revolution was extensive. It also affected the events of 1848/49 in Kirchheimbolanden.

However, many of the accused were now abroad. Numerous sentences could therefore not be carried out, such as the death sentences imposed on Ludwig Bamberger and Franz Zitz. For both, the court records noted: whereabouts unknown.

Likewise, two Kirchheimbolanden revolution exponents were no longer in the country, but had emigrated to the USA, just like Zitz: Karl Wilhelm Schmidt and Jakob Müller, against whom the death penalty was also pronounced.

Karl Wilhelm Schmidt (1803-87) was accused of three charges in the Zweibrücken treason trial, particularly his involvement in the National Defense Committee:
The court had sufficient evidence for this. The charges against Jakob Müller (1822-1905), formerly a clerk in Karl Wilhelm Schmidt’s Kirchheimbolanden notary office, detailed his role during the Provisional Government of the Palatinate, namely that he:
Müller was thus accused of an extremely wide range of offenses that arose from his function as civil commissioner for the Kirchheimbolanden district. However, the death sentence subsequently imposed could also not be carried out. For his file, like Schmidt’s, notes: whereabouts unknown. For both, emigration to the USA offered a new beginning. Müller even became Lieutenant Governor of Ohio and, in 1885—by then long amnestied in Germany—Consul General of the United States, based in Frankfurt am Main. Numerous other Kirchheimbolanden defendants even escaped punishment. They were active in the citizens’ or March association or had been involved in the local citizens’ militia or volunteer corps. Although investigations were initiated against them, the respective proceedings were dropped in December 1849. This affected, among others, Heinrich Bechtelsheimer, Reinhard Becker, Dr. Ludwig Hitzfeld, Leo Levi, and Georg Seyler. [Locations 57, 59] Thus, in 1849, what had already happened in 1832 after the Hambach Festival was repeated: the judiciary found itself in an open dilemma with the number of accused. “Leniency” now also remained the way out—also as a socially integrative factor. And death sentences—such as those against Bamberger and Zitz, Schmidt and Müller—could not be carried out due to circumstances. Legally, the revolution in the Palatinate was thus concluded, and the old order was reinstalled. No significant “oppositional sentiment” arose again. The Palatinate government president Gustav von Hohe could even report to Munich in 1853: The political questions are receding. The construction of the railway now interested people far more. In Kirchheimbolanden, efforts were also made in 1854 to connect to Alzey by rail. It came two decades later: to Alzey in 1873 and to Marnheim the following year. This made Mainz, Worms, and Kaiserslautern accessible. Mobility and economic development were now paramount [Locations 45], especially since the national idea of 1848/49 had been fulfilled in the now German Empire, and the constitution, despite its Prussian-authoritarian character, combined parliamentary-representative and federal elements with a contemporary catalog of fundamental rights. For the Kirchheimbolanden Citizens’ Association, essential goals of 1848/49 would thus have been fulfilled. And last but not least: universal, equal, and direct male suffrage was institutionalized earlier than in neighboring states, and the 1849 constitution had promised no more than that.

“Healthy Legal State”

Although the Palatinate Uprising was suppressed in June 1849, a politically viable relaxation did not automatically result from the military solution. The potential for conflict over “fundamental rights and the imperial constitution,” it was feared, would persist. However, the amnesty law proclaimed on December 24, 1849, regarding the political crimes and offenses committed during May and June of that year, at least served to calm the public. Nevertheless, the Bavarian occupation troops, referred to as “Strafbayern” (Punishment Bavarians), remained in the Palatinate, also quartered in Kirchheimbolanden. In the long term, however, this pacification based on external coercion could not be maintained.

The dilemma was thus obvious. Friedrich Julius Stahl (1802-61), the constitutional lawyer of Prussian conservatism, already stated in 1849: A revolution is not suppressed like an external enemy by mere force of arms, but by simultaneously establishing a healthy legal state.

However, this could only be discussed in 1871—with the German Empire now created “from above” and its constitution. Until then, the Bavarian government had to ensure that no major conflicts arose in the Palatinate.

This then offered the opportunity at the local level for those involved in the revolutionary events of 1848/49 to remain politically active.

In Kirchheimbolanden, an astonishing continuity in the office of mayor can therefore be observed: Reinhard Becker (mayor 1858-70), Conrad Reinheimer (acting 1858-70), and Wilhelm Ritterspach (in office 1870-99) were all three members of the Kirchheimbolanden Citizens’ Association [Location 60]. Becker and Ritterspach are also listed in the directory of individuals against whom investigations were already underway, but which were then dropped as a result of the amnesty law.

However, it is hardly conceivable that Becker and Ritterspach, like Reinheimer, would have completely abandoned their former political thinking as mayors.

This applies even more strongly to Ludwig Bamberger, who was sentenced to death in Kirchheimbolanden in 1851 for his role in May/June 1849 as one of the commanders of the Rhenish Hessian volunteer corps, but then amnestied, as he was a member of the German Reichstag from 1871-93.

So, was a healthy legal state now in place?

In 1832, the Bavarian government faced the same problem after the Hambach Festival. The “success” was not sustainable, however. Here are two more examples: Johann Theobald Ritter and Carl Thieme. Both were present at the Hambach Festival, were involved in the press association, and had also signed Knoebel’s protest. They also played a political role during the revolution: one as a member of the citizens’ association, the other as a newspaper editor.

However, the oppositionist thinking in Kirchheimbolanden leading up to 1848/49 did not only find local expression. For example, the merchant Jacob Anton Brogino (1779-1854) had been a delegate in the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th Bavarian Estates Assemblies (1831-36, 39-45) and had also been involved in his first legislative period with regard to Hambach, the press association, and by signing Knoebel’s “Protestation.”

The problem of the “healthy legal state” is thus, as it were, the long thread of liberal-democratic thought that received a striking knot in 1848/49.

And Today?

Today, the German Revolution of 1848/49, also in Kirchheimbolanden, appears in a completely different perspective than under the conservative state “reaction” of the 1850s and especially after the establishment of the Empire as a counter-model.

Now, the idea dominated—as Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had already formulated in the Prussian House of Representatives in 1862—that the great questions of the time would not be decided by speeches and majority resolutions, but by blood and iron. Was this also the imperial-era judgment on the Revolution of 1848/49?

Views became controversial during the Weimar Republic. While “parts of the left had a decidedly positive memory of the revolution, the coupling of 1918/19 and 1848/49 on the right rather gave cause to reject both revolutions equally.”

Assessments after 1949 were similarly divergent: “While in the GDR the heart of the revolution was located on the streets, in the barricade fights in Berlin in March 1848, in Hecker’s march in Baden, and in the violent clashes in Leipzig and Dresden in 1849, the focus of West German historiography was on the Frankfurt National Assembly and the constitutional traditions that led from the Imperial Constitution of March 28, 1849, to the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of 1949.”

And today? A key narrative is depicted in the volume on 30 “Pioneers of German Democracy 1780-1918” published by Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier in 2021. It includes eight “courageous men and women” rooted in the context of 1848/49, among them Mathilde Franziska Anneke, Robert Blum, Friedrich Hecker, and Karl Schurz.

The question is, therefore, whether Friedrich Glaser, Ludwig and Mathilde Hitzfeld, Colonel Seyler, Ludwig Bamberger and Franz Zitz, as well as the volunteer corps members of June 14, 1849, could also be included here.

Answers are provided by the Volunteer Corps City Tour Kirchheimbolanden.