Józef Herman Pawlikowski

Can Poles reclaim their independence

An English Translation

Tłumacz Saturnin Corax

© Józef Herman Pawlikowski, 2023

© Saturnin Corax, tłumaczenie, 2023

Translation: Saturnin, October 2022

Józef Pawlikowski (1767 near Piotrków — 1828 in Warsaw) was a Polish noble (from an impoverished noble family) and political activist. One of the Polish Jacobins; secretary of Tadeusz Kościuszko in 1795 in France. An independence activist in Congress Poland, he was arrested in 1826 and died in prison in 1828.

ISBN 978-83-8351-506-9

Książka powstała w inteligentnym systemie wydawniczym Ridero

Spis treści

1. Can Poles reclaim their independence

2. Józef Pawlikowski (1767—1829)

1. Preface

1. Weaknesses of the Poles that prevent them from gaining political independence

2. Does the Polish nation have the means and what kind of means for insurrection?

3. The moral state of the Poles

4. The state of Poland’s wealth

3. ANNOTATIONS

Dedicated to people enlightening the Polish nation despite Poles' unwieldiness.

Józef Pawlikowski (1767—1829)

True place of publication: Paris, publisher: Baudouin. Prykop on Don (fictional place of publication for the purpose of evading the French police), 1800.

Translated by Mateusz Zalewski-Grzelak, October 2022

Preface

Nowadays Poland has disappeared from the society of European powers. Whether this tragic fate lasts forever or is only a temporary defeat, similar to floods that destroy everything but do not consume it when their mad turmoil subsides, and the property is marked by great losses. What kind of political problem might this be, so that it can really be solved? What great interest the Poles have in predicting their future well. If only justice were due to nations, we could invoke it: so that a nation that did not invade others, that did not seek fraudulent gains, but wanted to improve the fate of its countrymen, a nation among which many righteous defenders lay on the altars of misfortune, devoured by death, and yet in the last struggle were the first to internalise the civic virtues of this century in Europe, while they were the last men standing.

Should such a nation not only endure, but also be counted among the powers and be highly respected? But alas, justice among nations is one nightmare! The iron of bandits surrounds everything with grim fury, takes, plunders, appoints governments, while millions of innocents live under the yoke of depraved scoundrels… Pole! Have you seen how futile your complaints are in Europe? Be sure that if you wish happiness, virtue and glory for yourself and your descendants, you should use the means and the power that nature has poured into the soul of men to preserve righteousness. It seems as if I am offering a sacrifice on the altar of the fatherland when I open my mind to the attainment of that independence, when I reveal to my countrymen the faults that have prevented them from rising to a level that instils respect in foreigners and confirms happiness; also, when I bestow righteousness on the qualities that can lead them to greatness.

Weaknesses of the Poles that prevent them from gaining political independence

A nation striving for independence must necessarily rely on its strengths. If it does not feel that it can maintain its existence by its own efforts, but depends on foreign support or grace, we can boldly admit that it will not attain happiness, virtue, or glory. We can see from history whether the country whose memory we admire has attained high glory under foreign patronage? Truly, we can observe sad effects of it. Leaving aside other examples, we should remember how the Romans respected the Greeks, from whom they learned wise laws, but when the latter began to interfere with the government of the former, they finally thrust the yoke into their backs. When the Poles trusted in their own strength, they extended their victorious arms from Vienna to Moscow. Due to the lack of self-respect and constant recourse to foreign help, they fell into dishonour and under a foreign yoke. The dishonourable opinion of themselves began when the Polish nobles did not have the good of the country in mind but supported the arrogance of the powerful families. Every party that did not have a king and tried to appoint a ruler for their countrymen reached out to foreign courts to provide them with military support and money and multiply their supporters. The longer the ranks of the powerful families were, the more surely, they won in the courts and made policies in the regional councils that were useful only to themselves, amassing powerful wealth that could not be found in other European countries.

The weaker had to seek shelter with the powerful, so that their possessions could not be snatched from them at the courts. Neighbouring kings who wanted to intrigue in Poland approached magnates and gave them money, and the latter commissioned their wretched clients or financed them with small sums to inspire disorder, needed by the monarch who paid them (1). For this reason, Polish nobles, who were clearly a lord in public affairs, had the habit not to sacrifice for the fatherland, but to enrich themselves through the disorder. It was in the interest of the magnates to persuade the nation to disgust and awkwardness, to convince it that it can achieve nothing on its own without an adjacent power, because they have already fallen under the stools of thrones that trade in the blood of the nation and rule with treacherous deals. It was in the interest of the magnates to weaken the spirit of their countrymen, to humiliate their properties, so that they would not feel compelled to discard dishonourable care, for without it all their influence and dignity would be nothing. A nation, of itself, without fear of anyone, not guided by favouritism, seeks to consolidate the virtue of its citizens by a wise policy and confirm their happiness, so that its general strength should be a permanent fortress; a law that restrains all passions equally, so that a gentleman cannot be violent or a cheat. Let us remember the opinion instilled in the Poles that they are incapable of industry, craft, and science, and what is worse, that they are incapable of defending themselves, and this sentence plunges us into misfortune. How should a nation of sixteen million, flourishing in the past, rivalling others in Europe in vivacity and manliness, and possessing the most fertile soil in the known world, not be free if it wished? He who knows the governments and the destinies of countries, should he not reflect? The Swiss, the Dutch near rocks and swamps, with a population ten times smaller, who have preserved their independence against equally powerful enemies. With much greater resources and treasures of nature, are we to be relegated to a dishonourable slavery? Superstitions and transgressions are far more harmful than skirmishes of war. With the greatest fertility of soil, these vices have almost starved the villagers; the Poles, who have an open understanding of the general sciences, have sunk into the thick darkness of ignorance. Rich in horses, iron, and all goods essential to war, they had no means of defence, such as are common even among savage peoples. (2). All drowned in misdemeanours, freedom without reins, nobles could be nothing but tyrants among the peasants; not only do hearts break when their cruelties are recalled, but the same imagination is horrified at their ways. Poles, you have recognised many of your weaknesses, you could take a different path, but know that you cannot be truly free unless you regain your independence by your own efforts. A nation that owes nothing to anyone except the friendship it offers, that deserves more respect, that unites only in a way that is conducive to its happiness; a nation that is not bound by any motives, that chooses in reasonable procedures what the intellect considers good and not what is more pleasing to the stronger.

Into its character flows all that is thought from afar, which is great, which kindles courage and preserves manliness, and which elevates these attributes to goodness, virtue, and high glory. On the contrary, if nothing can be done without someone’s permission, if every advice is for passion, for the interests of those who gave it identity, the soul will cringe, the thought that could elevate one to great and creative works will not rise, such a nation will remain despicable, nefarious, and slavish. I wish there were a law in Poland that would condemn to banishment or death those who seek the aid of even the kindest of powers to interfere with the government. The Dutch, the Swiss and the Americans would never become respected nations if they did not free themselves from violence by their own power. It must be admitted that the Poles hate the yoke, that they are enthusiastic about freedom and virtue, but their flaw is that they are as vividly inclined to boasting as they are fickle in success and weak in misfortune. There is not enough readiness for lawfulness and justice, but also manliness for their preservation. Unfortunately, I see the reason why Poles lack constancy of mind in misfortune is that they have not thought much, that they have thought little about the twists of fate and human activities. Misfortune can sometimes be considered like the head of a Cadmian, when it is decapitated, new armies arise. In time, accidents occur that human reason could not foresee.

The will to resist rape led to an oath of three Swiss. These good-hearted peasants made no plans, for their limited minds would not allow it. But a great response to the persecution, called with unity, inflamed others, so that they built a free, prosperous motherland, which for many centuries was considered the house of virtue. The American revolutionaries did not have the support of a quarter of their people (as Franklin’s life testifies), but they attracted the public with the constancy of their spirit. Never is a plan made for revolution or battle or military campaign. The elements shake nature, everything springs from the natural course, the passions move like air vortices that do not purify and stop until the present, until the lightnings, which opposes them last. When an opinion arises, it has never aimed at such a force, which grows with time. I avoid opinions about religion from history but let us take a recent example of freedom in France. A cloud of kings from Europe gathered to take over this nation and its rights. The French without officers, for the best of them emigrated, without preparation for war, inflamed with the righteousness of their cause, not only drive out the enemy, but grasp at a great power, overthrow thrones, or anoint them for continuance. The human mind clings to truth, the heart feels joy in righteousness, and when its flame lifts the soul, it gives it a peculiar vivacity in activities and causes extraordinary events that a cold and simple-minded attention could not notice. It could be said that Heaven has left for the consolation of men that never any tyranny or fraud will prevent the people (B) from using sustenance for their laws and opinions.

The art of war depends on so many events, on so many games of chance, that its rules are overturned by a blind event commonly known as luck. If the art of war were as infallible in its rules as mathematical calculations, the Dutch would not resist Spain, the Swiss would not resist Austria, and America would not resist England. New approaches, new weapons, a new kind of army would nullify all the approaches (des manoeuvres) to which soldiers are accustomed. The best Prussian cavalry was afraid and could not resist the polish spears. Whatever nation has a just cause, constancy in enterprise leads it to favourable effect. The fall of the Poles is not due to the situation of their country or their inability to resist the enemy, but to the instability of their spirit and energy. No one will contradict this obvious truth that if Ukraine were created like Greater Poland, the Moscow armies would have to retreat or divide into parts and thus weakened, it would be easy for us to liberate it. Not to mention the uprising in Galicia? Kościuszko’s misfortune slowed down the momentum of the revolution and stopped the uprisings in other provinces. I respect the affection for a great man, I am moved by the floods of tears shed over his loss. Perhaps it is the most beautiful and touching tribute to a high virtue that we know in the history of the world. An honourable sentiment of a moral nation, an honourable respect for Kościuszko. Nevertheless, it is a stain for the countrymen that with the fall of a man it seems as if the Poles swoon and wonder what their own end will be (4).

It is a correct remark that praise for the living should be used sparingly, for praise can put virtue itself in jeopardy. Wherever you are, Kościuszko, if a Pole boasts of your virtue, may he encourage you to preserve your spotlessness and beware of people’s weaknesses. The most honourable title of the human soul you have attained, if you carry it to the grave in greatness, as you have shown in your past term, you will become an honour to mankind, the glory of the age, and the pride of your countrymen. I separate Kościuszko’s military talents, but if all Poles, or even half of them, had this desire to save their nation from bondage, this unbroken spirit of enterprise, preferring to die rather than fail to achieve their goal or in any way deviate from the right demands, I wonder if they would not preserve their independence? But as men who have preserved justice and virtue are rewarded with fortunate events which they did not foresee, so, on the contrary, those who have not supported a deep feeling of the soul but follow a fleeting rapture or the play of fancy, beg for misfortune by abandoning the banners of humanity and badly seeking their personal safety, and they cheat for their own happiness. If the Poles held out all winter during the last uprising (which they could achieve), the King of Prussia would be forced to ask France for peace, as he declared in the German Diet at Regensburg, so he withdrew from the coalition for the Polish revolution. France would not agree to a peace treaty without forcing Frederick William to withdraw his armies from Poland and give reinforcements in the form of arms and other goods essential to the war effort.

The Prussian monarch would have to accept all conditions, because his country was exposed to great misfortune on the part of the French and the Poles, and his throne was in danger of falling. Let us remember that the French had won the most brilliant victories during that winter, obtaining the Dutch, and coming very close to the Prussian states. I will not mention any other real circumstances, but everyone will realize that the French had an interest in supporting the Poles, for only that one nation in Europe took up arms with them to leverage the laws of nations. Of what great benefit would it be for the French to draw Moscow away, and for Austria to have an opponent from the other side? We understand that other powers would have no interest in raising a country that would become dangerous to Petersburg barbarism. All has been lost to our senility, and about whom should we complain that we bear a foreign yoke?

The Poles have the stain of blind imitation, that is the result of petty thinking and weighing. Because we have a case with the French, we also desperately want to have the same resources, the same army, the same passions, and we seem to think that without them we will not achieve our goals. But we must remember that our country is different, it has a different location, a different wealth, a different national character, and therefore it needs a different defence and different methods of warfare. We should, without thoughtless imitation, look for means among ourselves which, if skilfully employed, will certainly have a favourable effect.

Does the Polish nation have the means and what kind of means for insurrection?

Not having the courage for bold and virtuous undertakings, they will stage insurmountable difficulties if they think of aiming at such deeds, and seeing inciting examples with their own eyes, they will find impenetrable difficulties for those circumstances which favour them and for themselves. They say that the Swiss are protected by the mountains, the Dutch by the marshes, the Americans by the separation of the ocean from England, the French by the forts. Let us see how their argument is defeated by the measure and false preparations. We could see how the mountains helped the Swiss against the intrusiveness of the French, though they had their arsenals and learned officers, when they rose to freedom four centuries before, they were defenceless and unschooled, and then they triumphed over these who are now the vanquished. Was it similarly to be expected that compatriots of William Tell in the past not more than a little more than a million, resisted the great Austrian power? Energy, love of liberty, zeal for justice won all. Holland today counts 1,400,000 inhabitants and is rich. When it fought for independence with the most powerful power in Europe in that century, it had no more than half its present population and was the poorest country. It had no war preparations because it was a Spanish province, no topographical position protected it, it was the manliness of its population that defended it.

The Americans, at the beginning of their revolution, had less than two million inhabitants, were disunited, had no resources, had no idea, no means, and no way to wage war, they invented new weapons, faced the enemy with manpower and demanded their independence. After several years of fighting, foreign reinforcements arrived (5). Instead of helping, the ocean weakened the Americans in relation to England. The latter, which had the strongest fleet, easily prevented the Americans from obtaining weapons, ammunition, and all the other necessities they lacked, so that they had to obtain them with difficulty either in Europe or in the islands. Did or could forts defend France? When the Prussian king invaded Champagne with 60,000 Prussian soldiers, was there a fortress that could stop him, or was it the number of French citizens? Were not some of the fortresses abandoned? From Champagne to Paris there is no fortress, the French army was not numerous, but the crowds of the gathered citizens encircled the Prussians so that they had to retreat from France (6). When the enemies took Toulon, Lyons and Bordeaux and raged, when banners hostile to the Republic were raised in the Vendee, what stopped the enemies so that they could not reach Paris if not the manliness of the Republicans? We know that of Toulon, of Vendee there is no fortress. The French lacked weapons, ammunition, they privately collected what they had in weapons, they gave it to the fighters and used all their iron craftsmen to make weapons.

Since they had no gunpowder, they dug out the cellars and made saltpetre. They lacked iron, so they tore out the grates and melted cannonballs from them. Officers emigrated, so more capable soldiers were promoted. The energy of freedom was a fortress, it created everything where there was a shortage and brought victories. But let us not gallop to other examples, let us think of the Poles. Who would have said ten years before 1794 that with an army of 18,000 men, with an enemy within and our own government against us, we would make war with three powers, fight virtuously, and reach for higher rungs of glory. It seems that if someone promised to move mountains, he would be believed rather than this prediction. Even if through errors and our mistakes the nation’s intentions were not crowned with success, a beautiful revolution in Europe taught respect to the Poles, showed their triumph, a peasant understood that he was newly minted when he heard that he was allowed to be free, that he was right and equal to other people. The enemies have shed our blood with relentless fierceness, but never have they respected a nation so much (I avoid the eulogies of Europe) as after the last uprising. Human reason has so much strength that even a brutal crime cannot reject respect for it (7).

We had before us the example that neither plurality nor old military ranks win, but the zeal for virtue, liberty, and an enduring mind. The defence of Warsaw, which in between told of military miracles, or was maintained due to the number or thanks to the skill of the soldiers, knowing that 16,000 Poles were there, among them peasant soldiers (kossyniers) (8) and more than 40,000 among the enemy in action. The same Frederick William who had besieged a fortress with the strongest force could not take Warsaw on a plain without a castle, open on all sides, after two months of offensive and encirclement. If the Poles did not slacken their efforts, they could prevail. Only cold souls and narrow minds reckon that we have petty methods. We had fewer resources in 1794 than in 1792, three times less army and three times smaller country. Can you compare the military deeds of 1794 and the glory of the nation with the deeds and glory of 1792? Those who worked for the revolution in 1794 know that when they gathered, the one who did not want to make a sacrifice of his own accord said that we should not start a rebellion, that the nation was idle and without courage, looked up to the enemies for fighting spirit and wisdom, and ended this thought that we should think of independence only in times of parliament… Similarly, now, who is not a friend of humanity, who does not want to serve the happiness of compatriots and freedom, will scare them with imagination and will not try to overcome difficulties, overcome them and facilitate advantages. Let us analyse our methods.

Koniec darmowego fragmentu książki.

Zachęcamy do zakupu pełnej wersji.