I wish gratefully to acknowledge advice and assistance received at various stages in this project from Professor Duncan MacRae, Jr., Professor William I. Davisson, and Mr. William Dewey, while absolving all of these gentlemen of all responsibility for any deficiencies in the completed work.

1. Much of the literature on this subject is discussed in bibliographical essays: see Franz, Günther, “Die agrarische Bewegung im Jahre 1848,” Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, VII (1959), 176–93;Google ScholarMarquardt, Frederick L., “Pauperismus in Germany during the Vormärz,” Central European History, II (03. 1969), 77–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar a series of reports by Bleiber, Helmut, Kliem, Manfred, and Schmidt, Walter in Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, XVII, (1969), 270–330;Google ScholarDorpalen, Andreas, “Die Revolution von 1848 in der Geschichtsschreibung der DDR,” Historische Zeitschrift, CCX (04. 1970), 324–68. I will refer to individual works in the footnotes that follow.Google Scholar

2. Though there are some good regional studies, such as Repgen, Konrad, Märzbewegung und Maiwahlen des Revolutionsjahres 1848 im Rheinland (Bonn, 1955);Google ScholarSchulte, Wilhelm, Volk und Staat: Westfalen im Vormärz und in der Revolution 1848/49 (Münster, 1954);Google ScholarBurian, Peter, Die Nationalitāten in “Cisleithanien” und das Wahlrecht der Märzrevolution 1848/49 (Graz, 1962);Google Scholar and Ibler, Hermann, “Die Wahlen zur Frankfurter National-versammlung in Österreich 1848, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Steiermark,” Mitteilungen des Ōsterreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, XXXVIII (1934), 103–12; as well as a few longitudinal studies that touch on 1848, such asGoogle ScholarKaiser, Renate, Die politischen Strömungen in den Kreisen Bonn und Rheinbach 1848–78 (Bonn, 1963);Google Scholar and Hamerow's, Theodore survey of the elections, “The Elections to the Frankfurt Parliament,” Journal of Modern History, XXXIII (03. 1961), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. The records of both the Frankfurt and the Prussian elections vanished after the revolution: see Schilfert, Gerhard, Sieg und Niederlage des demokratischen Wahlrechts in der deutschen Revolution 1848/49 (East Berlin, 1952), p. III, n. 2.Google Scholar

4. A representative selection would include Aydelotte, William O., “Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840's,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, v (01. 1963), 134–63;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMacRae, Duncan Jr., Dimensions of Congressional Voting (Berkeley, 1958),Google Scholar and Parliament, Parties, and Society in France, 1946–1958 (New York, 1967);Google ScholarSilbey, Joel H., The Shrine of Party: Congressional Voting Behavior 1841–1852 (Pittsburgh, 1967);Google Scholar and Alexander, Thomas B., Sectional Stress and Party Strength: A Computer Analysis of Roll-Call Voting Patterns in the United States House of Representatives, 1836–1860 (Nashville, 1967).Google Scholar

5. All discussion of Guttman scaling derives from Louis Guttman and others, Measurement and Prediction (Princeton, 1950).Google Scholar A good description of its application to parliamentary roll-call voting is Belknap, G. M., “A Method for Analysing Legislative Behavior,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, II (11. 1958), 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The best of several handbooks now available are Anderson, Lee F. and others, Legislative Roll-Call Analysis (Evanston, 1966),Google Scholar and MacRae, Duncan Jr., Issues and Parties in Legislative Voting: Methods of Statistical Analysis (New York, 1970).Google Scholar

6. Whereas for the Frankfurt assembly the Prussian electoral districts cut across Kreis boundaries; and comparable statistical information for the other German states is in most cases not available. The electoral law for the Prussian assembly is in Bleich, Eduard, ed., Verhandlungen der Versammlung zur Vereinbarung der preussischen Staats-Verfassung (3 vols., Berlin, 1848–1849), III, 470–72.Google Scholar A rough estimate of the number of qualified voters and electors is given by Dieterici, F. W. C., “Statistische Betrachtungen über das Wahlgesetz für die Volksvertretung im preussischen Staat von 8. April 1848,” Mittheilungen des statistischen Bureaus in Berlin, I (1849), 1–16.Google Scholar I have used the population statistics published in Tabellen und amtliche Nachrichten über den preussischen Staat für das Jahr 1849 (6 vols., Berlin, 1851–1854). Statistical science was still rather primitive at this time and these records are not overly reliable, but I think that makes little difference for the rough calculations involved in this study.Google Scholar

7. See Reis, Karl, Agrarfrage und Agrarbewegung in Schlesien im Jahre 1848 (Breslau, 1910). The other area was in northern Baden:Google Scholar see Lautenschlager, Friedrich, Die Agrarunruhen in den badischen Standes-und Grundherrschaften im Jahre 1848 (Heidelberg, 1915).Google Scholar

8. Heffter, Heinrich, Die deutsche Selbstverwaltung im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1950), pp. 223–31.Google Scholar

9. The method used is Kendall's Tau: see Blalock, Hubert, Social Statistics (New York, 1960), pp. 319–24.Google Scholar

10. That conclusion is well established for the March Days in Berlin by the model study of Hoppe, Ruth and Kuczynski, Jürgen, “Eine Berufs- bzw. auch Klassen- und Schichtenanalyse der Märzgefallenen 1848 in Berlin,” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, IV (1964), 200–76.Google Scholar For Dresden see Weber, Rolf, “Die Beziehungen zwischen sozialer Struktur und politischer Ideologie des Kleinbürgertums in der Revolution von 1848/49,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, VIII (1968), 1192–93; for Prague,Google ScholarPech, Stanley Z., The Czech Revolution of 1848 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1968), p. 148.Google Scholar

11. The argument is perhaps most sharply formulated in Hamerow, Theodore, “The German Artisan Movement of 1848–49,” Journal of Central European Affairs, XXI (07 1961), 135–52,Google Scholar and Restoration, Revolution, Reaction: Economics and Politics in Germany, 1815–1871 (Princeton, 1958), pp. 137–55;Google Scholar but see also, in a similar vein, Noyes, Paul H., Organization and Revolution: Working-Class Associations in the German Revolutions of 1848–1849 (Princeton, 1966);CrossRefGoogle ScholarStadelmann, Rudolf, Soziale und politische Geschichte der Revolution von 1848 (Munich, 1948), p. 14Google Scholar; and Biermann, Wilhelm Eduard, Karl Georg Winkelblech (Karl Marlo): Sein Leben und sein Werk (2 vols., Leipzig, 1909).Google Scholar

12. See Krause, Hans, Die demokratische Partei von 1848 und die soziale Frage (Frankfurt a.M., 1923), pp. 135ff.,Google Scholar on the areas where the Central Committee of the German Democratic Congress had its best results in recruiting and organization; also Reis, Agrarfrage, pp. 64ff., on the Rustikal-Vereine.

13. Schaaf, Fritz, Der Kampf der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung um die Landarbeiter und werktätigen Bauern 1848–1890 (East Berlin, 1962), p. 36.Google Scholar East German historians generally have insisted on the importance of the agrarian movement in the democratic politics of 1848, and have unearthed an impressive amount of evidence in favor of their position. A representative sampling of their work on this subject would include Becker, Gerhard, “Antifeudale Petitionen preussischer Bauern vom März 1848,” Zeitschrft fürGeschichtswissenschaft, XVI (1968), 182–97;Google ScholarHübner, Hans, “Die mecklenburgischen Landarbeiter in der Revolution von 1848/49,” Beiträe zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, X (1968), 858–75, and “Die ostpreussischen Landarbeiter im Kampf gegen junkerliche Ausbeutung und Wilkür (1848–1914),”Google ScholarZeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, XI (1963), 552–69;Google ScholarSchmidt, Walter, “Die schlesischen Rustikalvereine als Ausdruck revolutionär-demokratischer bäuerlicher Organisationsbestrebungen in der Revolution von 1848/49,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Jena, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschafthiche Reihe, XIV (1965), 23950;Google ScholarZeise, Roland, “Die antifeudale Aktsionen der Landbevölkerung in Sachsen im Frühjahr 1848,” Geschichtsunterricht und Staatsbürgerkunde, VII (1965), 634–43,Google Scholar and “Zur Rolle der Bauern in der bürgerlich-demokratischen Revolution von 1848/49 in Deutschland,” Geschichtsunterricht und Staatsbürgerkunde, x (1968), 785–93.Google Scholar Most western accounts, by contrast, do not emphasize the political role of the rural population. The impression usually conveyed is that the peasants rose up in March and April, but then sank back into their traditional apathy after that. See for examples Stadelmann, Soziale und politische Geschichte, pp. 22–28; Hamerow, Restoration, Revolution, Reaction, pp. 156–72; and even more strongly in briefer accounts of the revolution such as Holborn, Hajo, A History of Modern Germany (New York, 1959–1969), II, 504.Google Scholar

14. One further piece of evidence for the existence of a radicalized rural population might be adduced, though it is a little ambiguous. Seventeen of the forty-four peasant deputies were members of the Left, or 38% as compared with 24% of all deputies; and every one of the six agricultural laborers who were deputies was also a radical. On the other hand, there were twelve peasant deputies who joined the Right. Most of the radical peasants came from Silesia, and most of the “conservative” ones from Brandenburg and province Prussia.

15. See Schrader, Richard, “Die Fraktionen der preussischen National-Versammiung von 1848” (unpub. diss., Leipzig, 1923), pp. 78–133.Google Scholar

16. Volume and page references are to Bleich, Edward, ed., Verhandlungen der Versammlung zur Vereinbarung der preussischen Staats-Verfassung (3 vols., Berlin, 1848–1849).Google Scholar