Kiekemal, Fredersdorf, and Pfeiffer: The Wegfraß Take

[mildred_of_midgard]

mildred_of_midgard provided our salon with a copy from the story of Kiekemal by a local historian and descendant of the original settlers, Emmi Wegfraß, which turns out to be the source of the story selenak first came across in Fahlenkamp's book, which you can read discussed at length here.

To repeat the key charge as Fahlenkamp phrases it: On April 9th 1757, Fredersdorf gets dismissed from his office as Chamberlain for, as it is said, dishonesty together with the Kriegs and Domänenrat Johann Pfeiffer when buying Kiekemal near Mahlsdorf. Kiekemal was then an empty dispopulated era in the south east of Berlin. The King had provided money for the resettling of this era, which however ended up being pilfered by the director of the Ressettling Commmission of the Kürmärkische Kammer, Johann Friedrich Pfeiffer (1717 - 1787) into his own pockets, under the cooperation of Fredersdorf. That his closest confidant Fredersdorf took part in this must have been a heavy blow to Friedrich. The whole thing - an affair that dragged on for years - was discovered when several of the colonists complained, who had been lured from Würtemburg to Brandenburg with the promise of land and no taxes and had ended up being stuck in miserable huts for which they had to pay rent.

Selena then summarized Wegfraß's account for us.

Emmi Wegfraß goes into way more detail about this, to which I'll get in a moment. First, something that remains completely unresolved is the contradiction which I spotted when googling Johann Friedrich Pfeiffer after reading Fahlenkamp's book, which starts with the dates, and this is even more puzzling in Wegfraß' book, and ends with what's said about the conclusion. Every biographical entry online I found on Pfeiffer says he was commissioner until 1750, and that he then left Prussia after the "unjustified" (wiki) charge. This article mentions a short stint in prison while the trial was ongoing but also says his name was cleared and that the trial ended in his favour, that he was "freigesprochen" (declared innocent). Emmy Wegfraß, by contrast, says that the commission in charge of investigating the entire affair delivered their report to Fritz on March 31st 1756, declaring that Pfeiffer was guilty, which results in Fritz ordering Pfeiffer's possessions were to be liquidated to compensate for the damage. She also quotes a cabinet order from June 4th 1756 by Fritz in which it says "Pfeiffer has executed the commission entrusted to him badly and derelict of duty and brought everything in great confusion". She then claims that Pfeiffer spent four years under arrest while the commission was investigating, then in 1758 when the "Berliner Kriminal Senat" sent a confirming judgment he got condemned to a further two years imprisonment, and then banished from Prussia. This is at a time when all the online dictionaries say he had already left Prussia and was working elsewhere. This made me wonder for a while whether in fact there were two Pfeiffers and I had the wrong man all the while, but no, in a short "who died when" at the end of the opening section she grudgingly admits that after "the judgment was spoken about him in Prussia", Pfeiffer "occupied himself practically and as a writer with the Cameralwissenschaften" and died a professor in Mainz, so, it is indeed supposed to be the same guy from the dictionaries. (She does not, however, mention what he was writing about, or that his post Prussia CV was that of a liberal innovator; he's a 100% villain in her book.) Since she quotes dated documents from the archives like the cabinet order, I'm still at a loss as to where the date divergence from all the dictionaries comes from.

Now, Fredersdorf. Re: his particular involvement in the entire affair, I'll get to what she quotes from letters and documents from, and what conclusion she drwas. Where she gets speculative is concluding that the lack of Fritz letters to Fredersdorf after 1956 is because of Kiekemal, saying that Fritz dismissing him (as opposed to Fredersdorf retiring) on April 9th 1957, and saying Fredersdorf died of grief for his lost honor (in January 1758). (She seems to be the source for this bit in wiki.) I checked her bibliography, and on Fredersdorf, she solely has Fontane's Wanderungen, which contains nothing of the sort, it just has the story which she also has that supposedly Fredesdorf wanted to be buried with his cartridge bag from his Küstrin uniform (Fontane was a believer in the "they met at Küstrin" variant), and Voltaire's memoirs (she quotes some of his comments on Fredersdorf). Considering I've seen no other source for "died in grief for his lost honor", I'm now tempted to go with the idea that this was her original conclusion (because Fredersdorf's death followed relatively soon after his dismissal/retirement) which was subsequently accepted as fact. She does not mention his various illnesses and doesn't appear to know he got consulted by his successor re: Glasow when that affair went down in the spring and summer of 1757.

However, the woman really did solid research re: the whole settlement story. I don't necessarily always agree with her conclusions, but here's what she can document, and how the story went in her account:

- Johann Friedrich Pfeiffer from Köpenick appointed as Comissioner in 1748. In the same year, he clashes with the Bock family from which he has rented a dairy, as he denounces one of the Bocks for illegally keeping 100 sheep more than declared to the administration; thereafter, the Bock family hates on Pfeiffer and refers to him only as "Secretary Informer Pfeiffer"

- Pfeiffer, who is in charge of colonisation projects (that's what he's the commissioner for as of that year, fitting with his life long speciality), after viewing the ca. 32 hectar land around the Müggelsee decides they're fit for colonisation and asks Bock whether he'd sell to the sate

- Bock, hating on Pfeiffer for the sheep matter, see above, says "Hell no!"

- Pfeiffer ends his renting the dairy from Bock's brother, and in August 1750 suggests the area as suitable for 2 to 3 foreign colonists; he also approaches Fredersdorf with the idea

- in December 1750, Fritz invites Pfeiffer to make a personal report to him at Potsdam

- In a letter by Präsident von Gröben (a relation to the lieutenant of FRitz' youth?) from February 22 1751, Commissioner Pfeiffer gets instructed to officially assess the area in terms of whether it can be settled by 2 - 3 foreign farming families

- in the original plan, each farmer is supposed to get a certain amount of land, and can own up to 100 sheep plus 6 - 10 cows. After six tax free years (to attract settlers and to get the whole thing going) he's supposed to pay rent and tax thereafter

- however, since the commission doesn't have money to finance building farms and providing animals etc. for the farmers in the first place, there should be a private entrepeneur involved who will finance the entire business at first and gets a share from the profits from the farmers till his original investment is covered, plus interest

- as said entrepeneur, Commissioner Pfeiffer suggests Colonel Johann Ferdinand von Trachenberg, who in turn provides Pfeiffer with a document enabling Pfeiffer to negotiate a contract on his behalf; however, this document isn't signed by Trachenberg but by Fredersdorf; it gets accepted by the Köpenick city administration

- The Bocks are pissed off and still don't want to give up the land; however, they themselves have rented it from the state, and their contract is about to run out; they petition to have it prolonged

- in May 1751, the document empowering Pfeiffer on Trachenberg's behalf is questioned because Fredersdorf has signed it, not Trachenberg. Trachenberg himself then shows ups and personally delivers the declaration demanded to the commission

- on July 6th 1751, the ministry responsible for land says that the contract to the Bocks has run out, and the Kiekemal territory can now be used to colonisation; however, Trachenberg hasn't yet delivered the money

- Fredersdorf then provides 4 000 Reichstaler from his personal money; because of her later involvement, Emmi Wegfraß speculates the money may alternatively have come from Frau von Marschall, widow of the late Samuel von Marschall, and was loaned to Fredersdorf in turn, but if so, there aren't any document proving this

- after Fredersdorf has provided the money, the plans can now get signed off, and advertisement to potential settlers starts

- At the start of 1752, the Bocks sell their brewery to Trachenberg; they later will say they were pressured into it. This is the brewery the settlers will later get their beer from. As you might recall, Fredersdorf among other things was invested in breweries.

- on December 24 1751, Trachenberg via Pfeiffer makes the offer to provide money for the settlement of six more families if there is additional land; this gets greenlighted by Fritz

- on July 7th 1752, Colonel von Trachenberg transfers all his claims on the Bock property plus the Kiekenmal land to Fredersdorf; this contract is co-signed by the Köpenick administration

- in August 1752, the chamber for agriculture confirms the transfer

- on December 21st 1752, a cousin of Pfeiffer's buys additional land at the Müggelsee next to the colonisation land so far, which thus further expands

- on January 17th 1753, Fredersdorf writes to Frau von Marschall to offer her the Kiekemal land. He says there will three full time farmers to work on the land as leaseholders

- Frau von Marschall asks whether there will be tax and rent free years; Fredersdorf replies that since hte farmers will get cattle, houses, and land provided to them right from the beginning, there will not be tax and rent free years; this is of course a direct contrast to the original intention
(Wegfraß doesn't say this, but I do: since Fredersdorf at this point has provided the money for most of the aquisitions and the land, it could be argued he's entitled to change the rules, but it IS a significant change from how the whole project started)

- on March 27th, 1753, Fredersdorf signs a contract with Frau von Marschall, selling her the Kiekemal territory along with all the houses built so far as well as the cattle bought (6 oxes, 5 cows, one bull, 1600 sheep with ca. 60 lambs) and farming equipment, for 4 000 Reichstaler (i.e. his original investment)

- on June 24th 1753, the three colonist families from Würtemberg arrive; however, they don't have a written contract, and the news that a) the land they're supposed to settle on is owned by Frau von Marschall, and b) Frau von Marschall wants to charge interest immediately instead of waiting for 6 years, which means essentially they'll work for her, not themselves, is a big shock

- cue a year of clashes between the three farmer families and Frau von Marschall, ending in the farmers refusing to work

- on June 28th 1754 Commissioner Ockel is supposed to check out the situation and complaints, and seems to blame the settlers more than Frau von Marschall, since the settlers he says let horses starve despite Frau von Marschall having given each 10 Reichstaler to help them over the winter

- Frau von Marschall writes indignant letters to the commission, calling the settlers lazy; Emmi Wegfrass says this is unfair (since settlers are refusing to work for her is their only way to fight against being exploited, given they were promised tax and rent free years they now don't get), but speculates she might vent her personal misery on them, since of her seven children, all but two are dead, one son is in debt and shocks his mother by leaving the country and becoming a Catholic, the other also is into gambling and acquiring debts

- the mulberry trees and silk spinning houses which Pfeiffer was supposed to plant and build, respectively, haven't yet been done or finished

- on November 23rd, 1754, Colonel von Ingersleben (tea cup guy or a relation?) reports to the King that Pfeiffer has mishandled the situation and has personally enriched himself

- on November 25th, 1754, Pfeiffer gets arrested under this charge; a commission is supposed to investigate the actual state of things at Kiekemal

- Spring 1755: Fritz dismisses his valet Anderson without a pension and confiscates Anderson's correspondence with Pfeiffer; Anderson had been given the estate Philippsthal by Pfeiffer

- August 1755: Fredersdorf writes a letter to Frau von Marschall, saying he's heard the commission is supposed to investigate the following complaints:

1) The Colonists complain that they don't get the tax- and rent free years promised and that instead their rye harvest has been confiscated

2) The local administration hasn't received the 500 Reichstaler bail

3) The beer comes from Dahlwitz instead of Köpenick

4) The sheep farming is conducted in Dahlwitz and not by the colonists

5) the House for spinning hasn't been finished yet despite the wood having been provided

He advises her to come to terms with the Köpenick administration and the farmers, and says he won't interfere any further, he's done with the entire business.

On December 11th 1755, the commission talks to the three farmers without Frau von Marschall (whereas earlier, they'd talked to her but not them). It is noted down the colonists do not have a written contract to prove their entitlement to the tax- and rent free years, but they say they can't continue as it is and will leave again unless the rent is lowered, they get paid more for their work, and one of them gets ten Reichstaler for the cow which Frau von Marschall had confiscated when he didn't want to pay interest. Frau von Marschall gets a copy of the protocol on December 14th, and she's asked for a copy of her contract with Fredersdorf re: the sale of the property.

Emmy Wegfraß says that since the contract proves the changed conditions (no tax free years, higher interest) as opposed to the original plan, the guilt of Fredersdorf is proven, and clearly Fritz' letters stop because of this.

On March 31st, 1756, the investigating commission sends its concluding report to Fritz. Now here Emmy Wegfraß writes: "Johann Pfeiffer must admit he has taken 8061 Reichstaler 3 Groschen from the King's money" - which I found confusing since the money for the original investment into Kiekemal hadn't come from the state, as she herself said, but presumably this refers to Pfeiffer taking that much salary and writing off expenses - and broken broken his oath not to buy any of the colonist's stuff (when his cousin bought lands next to the Müggelsee) .

And that's it in terms of Fredersdorf's involvement. I already remarked on the inconsistency of her dates vs the dates of Pfeiffer's CV from the encyclopedias, and most of all the contradiction between the encyclopedias reporting that he was found innocent and Wegfraß saying the commission(s) found him guilty. Like I said, as opposed to all the actual Kiekemal matter, which she quotes documents for, her conclusion that Fredersdorf got dismissed a year later because of this and died then out of grief for his lost honor comes without quotes and is her own interpretation. (She also thinks that coming after Voltaire's financial shady dealings, it no doubt heightened Fritz' cynicism about humanity to find himself thus let down by yet another friend.)

So, what do we make out of all this? The whole Trachenberg - Fredersdorf - Marschall transfers do look pre arranged and shady, but if Fredersdorf sold the lands to Frau von Marschall for the same sum he originally provided, then it looks to me that the one personal profit he made out of this was via the brewery and making the colonists buy his beer. That he told Frau von Marschall she wouldn't have to give them rent- and tax-free years was dastardly towards the colonists, but not profitable to him personally, as he no longer owned the lands in question by the time the colonists started to work on them. There's also far more documented Fredersdorf than Pfeiffer stuff, so I'm surprised she makes Pfeiffer her main villain and speculates he did all of this because he wanted to build himself a manor at the Müggelsee (he didn't) to spite the Bock family originally.


mildred_of_midgard:
the lack of Fritz letters to Fredersdorf after 1956 is because of Kiekemal, saying that Fritz dismissing him (as opposed to Fredersdorf retiring) on April 9th 1757

If so, it took Fritz a full year to stop paying him and stop entrusting him with important stuff after he stopped speaking to him? I always assumed that the lack of letters from after 1756 was similar to the lack of letters before 1745, a survival accident based on the part where Fritz was asking Caroline for the letters back, and she sent these and promised the others had been destroyed.

It's kind of interesting to me that the periods we don't have letters from overlap with the wars so much: our letters start with Soor, at the end of the Second Silesian War, and stop shortly after the Diplomatic Revolution, when Fritz realized there was going to be a Third Silesian War. Maybe wartime letters really were more likely to get destroyed. But we do have those post-Soor letters, so it's not that we have no wartime letters. Nor do we have letters from the peacetime gap between the First and Second Silesian Wars.

Anyway, given that Caroline, as I recall, said that the rest of the letters had been destroyed, I would be very wary of making an argument from silence here.

(Wegfraß doesn't say this, but I do: since Fredersdorf at this point has provided the money for most of the aquisitions and the land, it could be argued he's entitled to change the rules, but it IS a significant change from how the whole project started)

It is, and if he had just changed the rules, I would say maybe he was entitled to do that, but the fact that it was still being advertised to the colonists with the original terms, I agree with you that this was very dastardly of him. If I were a colonist, I would be most upset! But I also agree that it doesn't seem like he personally profited.

Frau von Marschall writes indignant letters to the commission, calling the settlers lazy; Emmi Wegfrass says this is unfair (since settlers are refusing to work for her is their only way to fight against being exploited

I have to agree with this.

on November 23rd, 1754, Colonel von Ingersleben (tea cup guy or a relation?)

With the caveat that these noble families have multiple members with the same rank, Wikipedia says teacup guy was a colonel in 1754, and Chief of the Feldjägerkorps and Hofjägermeister. Also that, at least in the 1740s, As an officer of the Guard Battalion, Ingersleben was now a constant companion of the king, even on his travels. Occasionally Friedrich sent him to the Reich with special assignments.. So I'm guessing it's teacup guy.

cahn: Yeah, I agree the whole Trachenberg-Fredersdorf-Marschall thing looks a bit shady, but it sounds rather more like Fredersdorf was doing (trying to do) one or both of them a favor that kind of went sideways, rather than getting involved in underhanded deals-for-profit.

Personally, I consider Fredersdorf exonerated from the specific charge of embezzlement-that-made-Fritz-fire-him-and-him-die-in-dishonor and I am pleased about this :D

mildred_of_midgard: Emmy Wegfraß says that since the contract proves the changed conditions (no tax free years, higher interest) as opposed to the original plan, the guilt of Fredersdorf is proven, and clearly Fritz' letters stop because of this.

That's...that's not how criminal justice or historiography work.

I agree he shouldn't have changed the terms without also clearly changing the advertisement. Did he benefit personally? It appears not. Did he do it intentionally so someone else could benefit? Did he get an undocumented, under-the-table cut in the profits? Or did he think that he had advertised the change in terms clearly? In short, if I were sitting on a jury, I would have to ask, "What were his reasons for making this change?" and the answer is, "We don't know."

And as for Fredersdorf getting dismissed over this, she's presented no evidence, and we in salon have a good deal of counterevidence. So I think that claim can be conclusively refuted (although I still wish we had a source for April 9th, I doubt whatever it is is clear-cut enough to count as evidence).

mildred_of_midgard researched the discrepancy between the two accounts of Pfeiffer: found innocent in 1750, or found guilty in 1756.

All right, I can't be sure, but I *think* I know what's going on here. Courtesy of my now 45 open tabs on the subject:

[ETA: there's a TL;DR at the end, if you only care about the conclusions and not the excruciatingly detailed evidence.]

Reminder: the problem here is that various biographical dictionaries, articles, and sources to be found on the internet say that Pfeiffer was commissioner from 1747-1750, that he was charged with embezzlement in 1750, that he was found innocent, and that he then left Prussian service. Whereas Wegfraß, author of the Kiekemal volume I sent Selena, says that he was commissioner until 1756, when he was found guilty and sentenced to several years of imprisonment, then banished from Prussia.

I think our confusion can be traced back to two 1797 sources.

One is the source felis turned up: an article on page 151 of Allgemeiner litterarischer Anzeiger oder Annalen der gesammten Litteratur für die geschwinde Bekanntmachung verschiedener Nachrichten aus dem Gebiete der Gelehrsamkeit und Kunst, by J. D. A. Höck. Höck says, and a German speaker should check me, but my interpretation is that Höck says, "Pfeiffer is well known, but so far he has no biography, which I am going to try to remedy here! Unfortunately, when I got to know him in Hanau, I couldn't get him to talk about his life. So I've cobbled together some things I got from what he said, and what he wrote, and what other people who know him better than I do have said. Here goes!

Johann Friedrich Pfeiffer was born--where? I don't know--in 1717...He became royal Prussian war councillor and between 1747 and 1750, he founded 105 villages and settlements in the Brandenburg Mark. He ascended in Prussian service to the level of a secret councillor, but was accused of embezzlement in the timber trade, and sent to Spandau. Although he was found innocent and soon let go, he left Prussian service. He traveled to [long list of places], finally ending up in Mainz, where he died a professor in 1787."

Key points:
1. Höck is admitting he's not the most reliable source.
2. He doesn't even know where Pfeiffer was born, and as we'll see later, gets the year wrong.
3. He thinks it's the timber trade Pfeiffer was accused of embezzlement in.
4. He actually says nothing about the role as commissioner ending in 1750, nor about the trial taking place in that year. My reading is that he's mentioning 1747-1750 as the most productive period--"He founded 105 settlements in just 3 years!"--not necessarily as the whole period.

Then, also in 1797, we've got page 6 of volume 11 of the Hessisches Gelehrtenlexikon, by Friedrich Wilhelm Strieder. Strieder writes, and again a German speaker should check me, "Back in 1780, when Pfeiffer was in Hanau, he sent me this essay on his life. According to him:

Johann Friedrich von Pfeiffer was born in Berlin in 1718. [Became a soldier, present at Mollwitz, etc.] Entered the civil service, became a war and domain councillor...was entrusted with the direction of new settlements in the Brandenburg Mark. After leaving Prussian service, he went to various principalities..."

Key points:
1. Claims to be Pfeiffer's own words.
2. Contradicts Höck on really basic things like birth year. Also gives the place of birth, which Höck didn't know.
3. Mentions nothing about any embezzlement.
4. Mentions no dates for the service.

Further biographies that I've checked cobble together these two sources. Then, finally, in 1893, the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB) writes, "[Pfeiffer] was active from 1747 to 1750 Director of the Dispute Commission and New Settlements in the Brandenburg Mark...founded during this time 150 villages and settlements in the Mark, but was finally because of suspicion of embezzlement in the timber trade drawn into an investigation and brought to Spandau. Although pronounced innocent, P left Prussian service."

Key points:
1. This is the first source I can find that actually says he was *director* from 1747-1750, not that he founded X villages from 1747-1750.
2. The language is copied almost verbatim from Höck.
3. The number of villages and settlements is 150, not 105, which strikes me as the ADB author having a dyslexic moment.

Now, the ADB was *the* major source for the lives of obscure Germans (and a significant one for even less obscure Germans) until the revised version, the Neue Deutsche Biographie (NDB), came out in the twentieth century.

Here's the revised version from the Deutsche Biographie (online version incorporating material from both the ADB and NDB): "Between 1747 and 1750 he was responsible for the founding of more than 100 peasant settlements. Because of an alleged embezzlement he was accused and briefly imprisoned, whereupon P, despite being pronounced innocent, left Prussian service."

Key points:
1. We're back to him founding X settlements between 1747 and 1750, not to him being commissioner between those dates.
2. No mention of dates for the end of the stint as commissioner or the trial and imprisonment.
3. Incorporates material from the ADB's sources but is more faithful than the ADB to those sources.

Final note: none of these sources mention him being found guilty.

TL;DR: So here's what I think happened.

1. Pfeiffer was commissioner from 1748 to 1756.
2. Pfeiffer was found guilty and imprisoned.
3. Pfeiffer really didn't want to talk about this in the 1780s.
4. Pfeiffer omitted any discussion of any trial at all in his write-up.
5. Höck, who couldn't even get a write-up out of Pfeiffer, cobbled together what he could from sources of varying reliability. His unreliable sources are responsible for the claim that Pfeiffer, now famous and successful, was found innocent.
6. Höck was calling attention to the 1747-1750 period as the most productive, i.e. saying Pfeiffer really hit the ground running there.
7. Höck got the 1747 year wrong for 1748, just as he got 1717 wrong for 1718. (He may even have heard or read "when Pfeiffer was 30" and just done the math there.)
8. The ADB was sloppy about overapplying the 1747-1750 dates to include his whole stint as commissioner, just as it was sloppy about 105 vs. 150 villages and settlements.
9. The ADB has been repeatedly copied by later authors, for example by the Gutenberg Biographics that Fahlenkamp and Buwert pointed me to.
10. The NDB revised the ADB by removing some of its mistakes, but still used the same 1797 sources, so still believes in Pfeiffer's innocence. (Interestingly, no mention of the timber trade; I wonder if one of the NDB sources said it was Kiekemal, and the author decided to be agnostic about the specifics of the accusation.)
11. None of these people are aware of Wegfraß or her sources.

selenak: A footnote on the timber trade: actually, this sounds to me as if Höck at least heard some semi-founded rumors, because remember, one of the issues brought up in 1756 was that despite the necessary wood having been provided (and presumably paid for), the house for the spinners hadn't been built and the houses for the colonists were smaller than planned.

mildred_of_midgard: That's a definite possibility that did occur to me, but even if it did get to him via that route, we've clearly got a game of telephones at work here that shows how little info Höck has. Which is relevant to him being the apparent source for the claim that Pfeiffer was found innocent.