Alexanderwohl 48

The previous post (here) first listed the owners of Alexanderwohl’s thirty Wirtschaften at three points in the village’s early history (1820–1826, 1935, and 1947), then identified and described as fully as possible any ownership changes between settlement and the 1835 census or 1847 voters list. This post builds upon the earlier work to draw conclusions based on the information previously presented.

The goal is to identify trends that will expand and enrich our understanding of Alexanderwohl’s early history, which may apply also to other Molotschna villages. 

1. As we have noted several times, we can identify with certainty the original settlers of twenty-seven of the village’s thirty Wirtschaften. The three unidentified (*W3, W13, W25) obviously had different owners at the time of the 1835 census; in addition, the owner of one farmstead (W12) passed away before the census. Thus, in 1835 twenty-six of the Wirstschaften were owned by the same individuals who had settled them a decade or more earlier.

2. By 1847, fifteen Wirtschaften (W1, W2, W5, W5, W6, W7, W14, W15, W17, W18, W20, W22, W23, W26, W27, W29) were still owned by their original settlers. After roughly a quarter century, half of the original settlers still owned their original farmsteads. This reveals, I think, a remarkable degree of stability within Alexanderwohl. Even though some people moved out and others moved in, the village enjoyed a stable core of citizens.

3. The thirteen transfers for which we have information on two owners (i.e., excluding *W3, W25) reveal some interesting patterns.

3.1. In one case (W8) the widow of the original settler retained the rights of ownership, including the right to vote.

3.2. In three instances (W4, W9, W28) a male from outside of Alexanderwohl married the original settler’s widow and assumed ownership of the Wirtschaft. (Note the correction for W28 in the prior post. The post originally said that the new owner was unidentified, but he actually married Eva Ratzlaff [30372], the widow of Peter Heinrich Voth, and thus is known to be Heinrich Schmidt [GM 13313].)

3.3. In three cases (W10, W12, W13) the farmstead transferred from father to son after the father’s death.

3.4. In three instances (W11, W21, W24) the property passed to the husband of a daughter of the original settler.

3.5. Once (W30) the Wirtschaft was acquired by the stepson of the original settler upon the latter’s passing.

3.6. In at least two (W16, W19) and probably three (W28) cases, the farmstead was sold to someone with no family connection to the original settler. 

The W16 transfer is of interest to Buller Time readers, since that is where Benjamin Heinrich Buller lived with his daughter Katharina and her husband Johann Peter Ratzlaff. The 1835 census notes that Benjamin died in 1830. Interestingly, both the 1820 emigration visa and the 1835 Molotschna census  list Johann and Katherina but no children. It seems likely that the couple died childless, which may explain why this property was transferred to an outside party.

The W19 is loosely related to the earlier W28 one. The original settler of W28, Peter Heinrich Voth (GM 13295), passed away in 1835, after which his widow married Heinrich Schmidt, and he became owner of the Wirtschaft. Even though the oldest son in the family, Heinrich Peter Voth (GM 13298) was twenty-three, he had not yet started a family and did not marry until probably 1838. He clearly stayed in the village, however, since we later read of him acquiring W19 when Peter Johann Reimer left Alexanderwohl in 1843. In other words, although Heinrich Peter Voth was unable to assume ownership of his father’s farmstead when his father passed away due to his mother remarrying, he remained in the village until another opportunity arose, at which time he acquired his own Wirtschaft.


The data collected here offers ample evidence of considerable stability. On the one hand, half of the village’s Wirtschaften were owned by the original settlers a quarter century after they first moved into and built the village. On the other hand, of the thirteen Wirtschaften for which we have record of two owners (i.e., a transfer), ten were passed within the immediately family, even when that involved the introduction of a new person into the family via marriage. In only three instances was a transfer made via sale to someone outside of the family.

That Alexanderwohl’s original settlers preferred to keep their property within the immediate family is unsurprising, of course. What is remarkable is the degree to which they succeeded over an extended period of time. After twenty-five years of hard work and hardship, 90 percent of the farmsteads still remained within the families of their original owners. Did other Molotschna villages enjoy the same level of continuity? Only further research will reveal the answer to that question.

***

Note: In this post the abbreviation W stands for Wirtschaft.

Alexanderwohl 47

While researching the identities of the authors of the 1848 Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht (here), I was reminded that the 1847 Molotschna is available online (here). As we have noted periodically, the only persons eligible to vote in Molotschna were the owners of Wirtschaften, or farmsteads. So, although the voters list does not provide a full census of the Alexanderwohl’s residents (a number of landless families and individuals also lived within the village), it does provide a substantial body of information about the core, so to speak, of the village.

This information, in turn, enables us to perform an interesting comparison across time. We know, of course, the names of Alexanderwohl’s original settlers, as well as the Wirtschaften in which twenty-seven of them resided. We also have the names of the farmstead owners as recorded in the 1835 census. When we place these two lists alongside the 1847 voters list, we gain a new window on the villages’s early history.

The following table lists the Alexanderwohl Wirstschaft number on the left, then the names for that Wirtschaft for each of the three periods: the time of the original settlement (1821–1826), the 1835 census, and the 1847 voters list. Following the table we will provide details about each Wirtschaft, so that the history of each one becomes clear.

	1821–1826	1835 census	1847 voters list
1	Martin Jacob Kornelsen	Martin Jacob Kornelsen	Martin Kornelius
2	Heinrich Peter Block	Heinrich Peter Block	Heinrich Block
3	??	Heinrich Franz Goerz	Heinrich Görtz
4	Peter Jacob Voth	Peter Jacob Voth	Peter Hiebert
5	Heinrich David Schmidt	Heinrich David Schmidt	Heinrich Schmidt
6	Peter Johann Unrau	Peter Johann Unrau	Peter Unruh
7	David Bernhard Voth	David Bernhard Voth	David Voth
8	Peter Franz Goerz	Peter Franz Goerz	Widow Görtz
9	Jacob Peter Buller	Jacob Peter Buller	Jakob Gäddert
10	David Johann Unrau	David Johann Unrau	Heinrich Unruh
11	Heinrich Isaak Schroeder	Heinrich Isaak Schroeder	Heinrich Balzer
12	Jacob Jacob Pankratz	Jacob Jacob Pankratz	Jakob Pankratz
13	??	Heinrich Heinrich Franz	Heinrich Franz
14	Heinrich Peter Unrau	Heinrich Peter Unrau	Heinrich Unruh
15	Jacob Jacob Buller	Jacob Jacob Buller	Jakob Buller
16	Johann Peter Ratzlaff	Johann Peter Ratzlaff	Gerhard Giesbrecht
17	Heinrich Jacob Schmidt	Heinrich Jacob Schmidt	Heinrich Schmidt
18	Jacob David Schmidt	Jacob David Schmidt	Jakob Schmidt
19	Peter Johann Reimer	Peter Johann Reimer	Heinrich Voth
20	Andreas David Schmidt	Andreas David Schmidt	Andreas Schmidt
21	Peter Christian Dalke	Peter Christian Dalke	Franz Banman
22	Peter Benjamin Frey	Peter Benjamin Frey	Peter Freÿ
23	Johann Peter Schroeder	Johann Peter Schroeder	Johann Schröder
24	Andreas Jacob Nachtigal	Andreas Jacob Nachtigal	Jakob Schmidt
25	??	David Andreas Richert	David Richert
26	Heinrich Jacob Buller	Heinrich Jacob Buller	Heinrich Buller
27	Peter Benjamin Wedel	Peter Benjamin Wedel	Peter Wedel
28	Peter Heinrich Voth	Peter Heinrich Voth	Heinrich Schmidt
29	Andreas Peter Schmidt	Andreas Peter Schmidt	Andreas Schmidt
30	David David Unrau	David David Unrau	Heinrich Buller

1. Martin Jacob Kornelsen (GM 33801) settled Wirtschaft 1 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

2. Heinrich Peter Block (GM 29475) settled Wirtschaft 2 in 1823 (he moved there from Franztal) and still lived there in 1847.

3. We do not know who first settled Wirtschaft 3. Heinrich Franz Goerz (GM 285981) moved from Grossweide to Alexanderwohl in 1833 and still lived there in 1847.

4. Peter Jacob Voth (GM 268847) settled Wirtschaft 4 in 1821 and still lived there in 1835. Voth died in 1839, after which Peter Hiebert (GM 36879) married his widow, Katharina Nachtigahl, assumed ownership of the farmstead, and cast the 1847 vote.

5. Heinrich David Schmidt (GM 32966) settled Wirtschaft 5 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

6. Peter Johann Unrau (GM 60318) settled Wirtschaft 6 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847. He died the following year.

7. David Bernhard Voth (GM 60325) settled Wirtschaft 7 in 1821 and presumably still lived there in 1847 (unless his son David had assumed ownership of the farmstead by then, if ever). 

8. Peter Franz Goerz (GM 819683), the brother of Heinrich Franz Goerz (see Wirtschaft 3 above), settled Wirtschaft 8 in 1826 (he moved there from Grossweide) and still lived there in 1835. He died sometime between 1835 and 1847, since the voter register lists the widow Goerz, otherwise known as Elisabeth Sommerfeld (GM 60334).

9. Jacob Peter Buller (GM 318737) settled Wirtschaft 9 in 1821 and was entered there in the 1835 census. However, he passed away in 1836, after which Jakob Gäddert (GM 35799) married his widow, Elisabeth Ratzlaff, assumed ownership of the farmstead, and cast the 1847 vote.

10. David Johann Unrau (GM 87011) settled Wirtschaft 10 in 1821 and still lived there in 1835. He died sometime between then and the 1847 voters list, since the latter lists his oldest son Heinrich Unruh (GM 32269) as owner of the farmstead.

11. Heinrich Isaak Schroeder (GM 14829) settled Wirtschaft 11 in 1821 and still lived there in 1835. He died sometime before 1847, since the voters list identifies Heinrich Balzer (GM 14828) as owner. Balzer was actually a member of the immediate family, since he married Helena Schroeder, daughter of original settler Heinrich Schroeder, in 1837. 

12. Jacob Jacob Pankratz (GM 43123) settled Wirtschaft 12 in 1821 and is listed on the 1835 census. However, the census notes that he passed away in 1830, so presumably the family was led by his widow Trincke Unrau (GM 32920) or his oldest son Jacob (GM 32880), who is most likely the Jacob listed on the 1847 voters list.

13. We do not know who settled this Wirtschaft, but Heinrich Heinrich Franz (GM 60378) assumed ownership, it seems, in 1832. He also died that year, according to the 1835 census. The Heinrich Franz listed in the 1847 voters list is presumably his son (GM 273755).

14. Heinrich Peter Unrau (GM 86839) settled Wirtschaft 14 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

15. Jacob Jacob Buller (GM 5587) settled Wirtschaft 15 in 1822 (he moved there from Franztal) and still lived there in 1847.

16. Johann Peter Ratzlaff (GM 60394), the son-in-law of our own ancestor Benjamin Heinrich Buller, settled Wirtschaft 16 in 1821 and still lived there in 1835. We do not know what happened to Ratzlaff, but in 1846 the farmstead was acquired by Gerhard Giesbrecht (GM 103150), who previously lived in Tiegenhagen.

17. Heinrich Jacob Schmidt (GM 50991) settled Wirtschaft 17 in 1822 and still lived there in 1847.

18. Jacob David Schmidt (GM 32895) settled Wirtschaft 18 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

19. Peter Johann Reimer (GM 46418) settled Wirtschaft 19 in 1822 (he moved there from Lichtenau) and still lived there in 1835. Apparently Reimer moved to Gnadenheim in 1843, at which time the farmstead was acquired by Heinrich Peter Voth (GM 13298), who was probably already a resident of the village, but not a landowner.

20. Andreas David Schmidt (GM 43155) settled Wirtschaft 20 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

21. Peter Christian Dalke (GM 3506) settled Wirtschaft 21 in 1821 and was still living there in 1835. We do not know what happened to Dalke after that, but Franz Banman (GM 30845) is listed as voter in 1847. As we saw with Wirtschaft 11, this was an inner-family transfer, since Banman was married to Dalke’s daughter Elisabeth (GM 30846).

22. Peter Benjamin Frey (GM 35807) settled Wirtschaft 22 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

23. Johann Peter Schroeder (GM 60432) settled Wirtschaft 23 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

24. Andreas Jacob Nachtigal (GM 42259) settled Wirtschaft 24 in 1821 and still lived there in 1835. Sometime later he presumably passed away (he was sixty in 1835), after which his farmstead was acquired by Jakob Schmidt (GM 58544). Once again this was an inner-family transfer, since Schmidt had married Nachtigal’s daughter Maria (GM 42266).

25. We do not know who settled this Wirtschaft, but David Andreas Richert (GM 48282) acquired it by 1835, and he still lived there in 1847.

26. Heinrich Jacob Buller (GM 32901), the Alexanderwohl teacher, settled Wirtschaft 26 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

27. Elder Peter Benjamin Wedel (GM 32275) settled Wirtschaft 27 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

28. Peter Heinrich Voth (GM 13295) settled Wirtschaft 28 in 1821 and lived there at the time of the 1835 census. He passed away later that year, after which the farmstead was acquired by Heinrich Schmidt, who has not yet been identified.
CORRECTION: In fact, we can identify this person, since Heinrich Schmidt (GM 13313) married Eva Ratzlaff (GM 30372), the widow of Peter Heinrich Voth. Heinrich Schmidt was the son of Andreas Peter Schmidt (see next Wirtschaft) and thus had been a resident of Alexanderwohl from the beginning.

29. Andreas Peter Schmidt (GM 13309) settled Wirtschaft 29 in 1821 and still lived there in 1847.

30. David David Unrau (GM 106787) settled Wirtschaft 30 in 1821 and still lived there in 1835. He passed away in 1844, after which the farmstead was taken over by his stepson Heinrich Peter Buller (GM 30740). 

Now that we have spelled out all the particulars as fully as possible, we are ready to draw conclusions about some trends of Wirtschaft ownership and transfer in Alexanderwohl’s first twenty-five years. That will be the task of the following post.

Mennonites in the Soviet Union

Although our immediate family left Russia (the Ukraine) in the latter part of the nineteenth century—1879, to be exact—more Mennonites remained in Molotschna, Chortitza, and their daughter colonies than emigrated to North America during the 1870s. Among those who remained, of course, were a number of Bullers. 

Buller Time will identify Bullers who remained in Russia when we are able, but beyond that we will also seek to learn more about the context in which these Bullers and other Mennonites lived long after our own family left Molotschna. A time of particular interest, due to its temporal proximity and its reputation for terror, is the period of the Soviet Union. We might narrow this down further to the years during which Joseph Stalin ruled with an iron will and a clenched fist. 

The Mennonite experience during Stalin’s reign was known to some extent, thanks to the letters that those living within the Soviet Union sent to loved ones in North America. Still, as valuable as these letters are for forming an accurate impression of that time and place, they are no substitute for the evidence and data on which historical reconstruction depends. Fortunately, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Mennonite and other historians began to enjoy greater access to documentary evidence of life—and death—in the Soviet Union. 

Recently I stumbled upon a work that draws extensively from that body of newly available evidence to reconstruct in significant detail the Mennonite experience in the early years of Stalin’s Soviet Union. The work is a PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Alberta: Colin Peter Neufeldt’s “The Fate of Mennonites in Ukraine and the Crimea during Soviet Collectivization and the Famine (1930–1933)” (Neufeldt 1999). The dissertation abstract offers a helpful summary of its content:

This study investigates the Soviet Mennonite experience in Ukraine and the Crimea during Soviet collectivization, dekulakization, and the famine between 1930 and 1933.

The first chapter of this dissertation provides a historical setting of Mennonite life in Tsarist Russia and during the first years of Soviet rule. It briefly examines the establishment of the Mennonite community in Ukraine and the Crimea and the Soviet regime’s initial attempts to collectivize the Mennonite community in 1928 and 1929. There is also an analysis of Mennonite responses to early Soviet policies as well as the last-ditch efforts of thousands of Mennonites to emigrate to the West in the late 1920s.

What happened to Mennonites who were dekulakized between 1930 and 1933 is the focus of Chapter 2. More specifically, this chapter examines how dekulakization programs were administered in Mennonite-populated regions, the plight of Mennonite households that were disenfranchised and dispossessed of their property, the experiences of Mennonites who were imprisoned or forcibly moved onto kulak settlements, and the living conditions of Mennonites who were banished to exile camps across the Soviet Union. This chapter also sheds a revealing light on Mennonite participation in the dekulakization of their communities—it investigates the extent to which Mennonites were recruited into Soviet agencies and the Community party, and what roles they played in the exile and imprisonment of their coreligionists. There is also a discussion of the cost of dekulakization for Soviet Mennonite communities and whether their ethnic identity played a role in determining how severely the dekulakization process affected them.

How the Mennonite countryside was collectivized between 1930 and 1933 is analysed in Chapter 3. There is an examination of how Mennonite farmers were coerced into joining collective farms, and a description of their living and working conditions. The dissertation also explores how collectivization destroyed political, economic, social, and religious institutions in Mennonite communities, how new Soviet institutions usurped control of Mennonite settlements, and how some Soviet Mennonites adapted quickly to the new political reality and obtained positions of influence within these new institutions. At the same time, this study proposes that Soviet collectivization had accomplished that which wars, revolutions, and government Russification programs had previously failed to do: it succeeded in forcing many Mennonites to abandon their traditional way of life, which had often isolated them from the surrounding Slavic countryside, and to integrate into the surrounding Ukrainian and Russian populations in an unprecedented manner.

What happened to Mennonites during the famine of 1932–1933 is addressed in Chapter 4. This section discusses the food shortages and grain expropriation campaigns experienced by collectivized Mennonites. It also examines the relief efforts of European and North American Mennonites, the work of B. H. Unruh, and the material aid provided by Hitler’s government and German relief agencies that prevented the deaths of thousands of Soviet Mennonites. This work also challenges the applicability of the “genocide” theory to many of the regions populated by Mennonites. The thesis proposes that substantial financial and material aid from North America and Europe, high dekulakization rates in some villages, and the absence of actual famine conditions in other settlements, proved to be significant factors in contributing to the lower tallies of Mennonite deaths due to starvation than those often cited for the Ukrainian population. In short, this study proposes that: 1) many of the conclusions of the genocide theory do not apply to the Mennonite experience in 1932 and 1933; and 2) there was no “famine” per se in some Mennonite communities.

The final chapter summarizes the conclusions of the dissertation and also provides a discussion of the long-term ramifications of collectivization, dekulakization, and the famine on the political, economic, social, and religious institutions of the Soviet Mennonite community.

As far as I can determine, the dissertation has never been published; fortunately, it is freely available online here, so that anyone who wishes can download and read it. I highly recommend that any Buller Time reader interested in the Soviet Mennonite experience read this work. It may be a dissertation, but it is clearly written and does not presume an expert’s knowledge of Mennonite or Soviet history. It is actually an enjoyable read.

I am roughly a quarter of the way through the work, and it has already challenged me to think about the Soviet Mennonite experience in new ways. During the dekulakization program, for example, Mennonites were both victims and victimizers; some Mennonites, whether out of self-preservation or ideological fervor, voted to dispossess and even exile their neighbors. Further, throughout the Soviet period some Mennonites joined the Communist Party and even served in leadership positions. We might be troubled by this reality, but it does no good to deny it; rather, we should seek to understand and appreciate the conditions that would lead many (including at least one Buller) to such a decision. Finally, anyone interested in Soviet Mennonite history would do well to read carefully the accounts of the “red wagons” that carried away so many Mennonite families under the most brutal conditions to live out their days, few though they often were, toiling in a work camp or gulag. If nothing else, reading of such horrors will engender gratitude toward our own ancestors for doing what they did to improve their, and their descendants’, lives.

In short, if you have any interest in understanding the Soviet Mennonite experience during the early 1930s, Neufeldt’s dissertation is an excellent place to start. 

Work Cited

Neufeldt, Colin Peter. 1999. The Fate of Mennonites in Ukraine and the Crimea during Soviet Collectivization and the Famine (1930–1933). PhD diss., University of Alberta.

Alexanderwohl 46

Although we have thoroughly explored the body of the 1848 Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht, we must not neglect the final part of the report: the names of the Alexanderwohl officials responsible for writing and submitting it. 

Like other Molotschna community reports, Alexanderwohl’s was signed by three officials, each of whom was named:

Schulz Heinrich Voth
Beisitzer Heinrich Görz, Jakob Schmidt
Schullehrer Heinrich Buller

The term Schulz (or Schulze) designates the mayor of the village. Molotschna mayors typically had at least one Beisitzer, or assistant, serving alongside; the Alexanderwohl mayor had two. The final party involved with the writing of the report was the Schullehrer, or school teacher. 

Identifying the four individuals named requires some investigation.

1. Heinrich Voth: The 1835 census lists two males named Heinrich Voth in Alexanderwohl. Since only one Heinrich Voth owned a Wirtschaft, and thus had the right to vote, in 1847, presumably the mayor was the Heinrich Voth who lived at Wirtschaft 19 in 1847 (see the voting list here). However, that does not help us clearly identify which Heinrich that was.

The first candidate, the firstborn son of Peter Jacob Voth of Wirtschaft 4, would have been twenty-eight in 1848. Of course, a young man such as this could have been mayor, but it seems doubtful. GRANDMA offers almost no information about this person (GM 60304), which presumably implies that he is not listed in the Alexanderwohl church book.

The second candidate was born in 1812 and was thus eight years older (GM 13298). He was the firstborn son of Eva Buller, who died just after her son’s first birthday, and Peter Heinrich Voth, who died in 1835. The family was living in Wirtschaft 28 in 1835; Heinrich Schmidt owned it in 1847. All that to say: although this second Heinrich Voth seems a more likely candidate for Alexanderwohl Schulz, we have insufficient information to form any sort of firm opinion.

2. Heinrich Görz: According to the 1847 voter list, this assistant no doubt lived at Wirtschaft 3 (i.e., this was the only male Görz landowner in Alexanderwohl at that time). This information helps us to identify the person with relative certainty: the son of Franz Görz, Heinrich had been born in 1809 and was thus thirty-nine when the community report was written. He had moved to Alexanderwohl from Grossweide in Molotschna in 1833. There being no other known candidates, we can conclude that this individual (GM ) was the first assistant listed.

3. Jakob Schmidt. According to the 1847 voter list, this assistant lived at Wirtschaft 18 or Wirtschaft 24. We cannot say which of the two was the assistant.

Jacob David Schmidt (GM 32895) was born in 1790 and thus was fifty-eight when the community report was written. This is the Jacob who lived at Wirtschaft 18, which is where he was listed in the 1835 census.

The second Jacob Schmidt (GM 58544) was the son of son of Andreas David Schmidt, who lived at Wirtschaft 20 in 1835, still resided there in 1847, and likely remained there until he passed away in 1869. Jacob was born in 1816, so he would have been thirty-two in 1848. He married in 1838, which would have been a likely time for him to purchase Wirtschaft 24, which is where we find him in 1847.

Although it is impossible to decide which of the two Jacob Schmidts was assistant in 1848, the second option seems the more likely, given the more advanced age of the first candidate.

4. Heinrich Buller: My impression is that, whereas the first two offices were by definition held by men who owned Wirtschaften, that was not always the case with the village school teacher. Nevertheless, the 1847 voting record lists two land-owning Heinrich Bullers, at Wirtschaften 26 and 30: Heinrich Jacob Buller and Heinrich Peter Buller.

We begin with the latter of the two. Heinrich Peter (GM 30740) apparently assumed ownership of Wirtschaft 30 upon his stepfather David Unrau’s death in 1844. Heinrich Peter was born sometime around 1812 to 1814 (sources give conflicting evidence), so he would have been in his mid-thirties in 1848. We know little else about Heinrich Peter, except that he passed away in 1857.

Heinrich Jacob (GM 32901) was one of Alexanderwohl’s original settlers (see here). More important, he was identified as a teacher on his travel visa:

Heinrich Buller, Teacher from Przechowko, his wife Anna 30 (b. ca. 1790), daughters Anna 4 (b. ca. 1816), Maria 3 (b. ca. 1817), Eva 1 (b. ca. 1819). Passport from Marienwerder issued on July 11, 1820. (Rempel 2007, 172)

Was this Heinrich Buller still the teacher twenty-eight years later?  Heinrich was born in 1788, so he was thirty-two at the time of emigration and sixty in 1848. He lived another seventeen years beyond that, dying at the age of seventy-seven. There is no reason to think that he was incapable of teaching in 1848, so the most probable explanation is that Heinrich Jacob Buller was the teacher who helped write and signed the 1848 Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht.

***

A final observation: of the four men named as responsible for the report, only the last one, Heinrich Buller, is known to have emigrated with the 1820 party as an adult. This may be significant for one detail in the report that we noted earlier: the first-person references in a key part of the report.

When this local community, which had existed as a church community in Prussia for over two hundred years, emigrated to Russia under the leadership of its church elder, Peter Wedel, and had pitched camp to rest for two days on the south side of the city of Warsaw, Emperor Alexander I, may he rest in peace, drove out of the city to maneuver a military unit in the field. But we, having been made aware by some passing generals, stood in eager anticipation when the emperor passed by, halted his coach, and waved us over with his right hand. Three of our church leaders went there, who were asked from where we came and where we wanted to go. To the answer that we wanted to go to the Molotschna in southern Russia, the emperor said, “I wish you luck on your journey; greet your brothers. I have been there.” This happened on 14 September 1820.

One wonders if this section was authored primarily by Heinrich Buller, who was not putting himself on the scene as a literary device but rather recounting an event that he had experienced firsthand. We cannot say that for certain, but knowing that one of the authors of the report was part of that travel party does explain, perhaps, the level of detail provided in this account.

Work Cited

Rempel. Peter. 2007. Mennonite Migration to Russia, 1788–1828. Edited by Alfred H. Redekopp and Richard D. Thiessen. Winnepeg: Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society.

Alexanderwohl 45

Now that we have worked our way through the entire 1848 Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht, we can take a step back and see the big picture, that is, the entire community report. The translation below is a slightly tweaked version of what was presented earlier, with several changes made to produce more idiomatic English, a spelling correction (the river name), and updating of several city names to their modern equivalents. Note especially the text that is set bold or red. (The German original is given at the end of the post.)

This colony was founded in 1821 under the administration of the chief judge in the Office for Foreign Settlers in Ekaterinoslav, Mr. Fadeev, and the leadership of the district mayor, Gerhard Ens of Altonau. It is located on the left bank of the Behemtschekrak, a distance of 47 wersts from Orikhiv and 90 wersts from Berdyansk. The gently rolling land, consisting of rich, black soil in the lowlands and a mixture of clay and loam on the higher ground, is suitable for agriculture, pasture, and cultivation of trees but not for production of abundant hay.

When this local community, which had existed as a church community in Prussia for over two hundred years, emigrated to Russia under the leadership of its church elder, Peter Wedel, and had pitched camp to rest for two days on the south side of the city of Warsaw, Emperor Alexander I, may he rest in peace, drove out of the city to maneuver a military unit in the field. But we, having been made aware by some passing generals, stood in eager anticipation when the emperor passed by, halted his coach, and waved us over with his right hand. Three of our church leaders went there, who were asked from where we came and where we wanted to go. To the answer that we wanted to go to the Molotschna in southern Russia, the emperor said, “I wish you luck on your journey; greet your brothers. I have been there.” This happened on 14 September 1820.

Upon arrival in the Molotschna, these greetings were relayed promptly by our church elder Peter Wedel in the prayer houses before the assembled communities. When the Office in Ekaterinoslav was also informed of this memorable event, Chief Judge Fadeev commemorated it by naming the colony Alexanderwohl, for he said, “Emperor Alexander has wished you well.”

In 1821 twenty-two families settled there, seven in 1823, and yet one more in 1824, from the Schwetz district office in the Prussian region of Marienwerder. Before the arrival of the Germans, the unsettled steppe was held in lease by Johann Cornies and used as a pasture by the Nogai and partially for agriculture by Russians.

Of the immigrants, twenty families received a crown advance of 4,104 rubles, 28 4/7 kopeks silver; their own funds amounted to about 8,570 rubles silver.

The year of settlement, 1821, was unfruitful and returned only the seed sown. 1822 was fruitful, but grasshoppers came and caused significant damage for seven years. 1823 and 1824 were years of crop failure. The persistent storm of the first months of 1825 also resulted in a great loss of livestock for this community, since there was no food for them. At that time the livestock was fed straw from the roofs. In 1828, a devastating cattle disease prevailed. The most difficult year, however, was the starvation year 1833. The improved cattle and sheep breeding and the four-field farming system introduced through the efforts of Acting State Counsellor Contenius and under the leadership of the Agricultural Society’s unforgettable Johann Cornies have brought the community to prosperity.

The phrases set in bold are claims in the report that our investigation determined to be mistaken; the phrase set in red font is a claim that was judged to be highly unlikely, although not demonstrably false. 

What is striking is how little bold and red the report contains. By and large, the report is historically accurate and reliable. The community report’s etiological explanation of the village name (set in red font) is historically suspect (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) but was no doubt the popular understanding of the village name; in other words, we might say that the report accurately recounts a widespread but mistaken belief.

This leaves the phrases set bold, which are all details related to the founding of the village. (1) As far as we can tell, Gerhard Ens was not district mayor in 1821; someone named Toews was. Enns did not become mayor until the following year. (2) The numbers of settlers listed for the settlement years are reasonably close but not accurate. (3) The amount of money loaned to the original settlers is terribly inaccurate. (4) The amount of money the settlers brought with them is closer to reality but still off by about 20 percent. 

It is not surprising that, nearly three decades after the founding of the village, some of the details of that time had been lost to memory. Apart from those details, however, the community report is found to be exceptionally accurate and highly informative. We are not yet done with Alexanderwohl, nor are we finished with the 1848 Gemeindeberichten; there is much more to discover and learn on both fronts.

Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht

Diese Kolonie wurde 1821 unter der Verwaltung des Oberrichters im Kontor für ausländische Ansiedler zu Jekaterinoslaw, Herrn Fadejew und der Leitung des Gebietsvorstehers Gerhard Ens aus Altona gegründet. Sie liegt am linken Ufer des Flußbettes Behemtschekrak, 47 Werst von Orechow und 90 Werst von Berdjansk entfernt. Der unebene Boden besteht in den Niederungen aus schwarzer Dammerde und auf den Anhöhen aus mit Lehm vermischter Schwarzerde, ist zum Ackerbau, zur Viehweide und Baumkultur ziemlich gut geeignet, gibt aber nurwenig Heu.

Als die hiesige Gemeinde, welche schon über 200 Jahre in Preußen als Kirchgemeinde existiert hatte, unter der Leitung ihres Kirchenältesten Peter Wedel in Rußland einwanderte, und an der Südseite der Stadt Warschau zu einer zweitägigen Rast Quartier aufgeschlagen hatte, fuhr der jetzt in Gott ruhende Kaiser Alexander I. aus der Stadt, um auf dem Felde eine Abteilung Militär manövrieren zu lassen. Wir aber, von einigen vorbeieilenden Generälen aufmerksam gemacht, standen in gespannter Erwartung, als der Kaiser bei uns vorbeikam, die Kutsche halten ließ und uns mit der rechten Hand winkte. Da liefen drei unserer Kirchenvorsteher hinzu, welche befragt wurden, von wo wir kämen und wohin wir wollten. Auf die Antwort, daß wir an die Molotschna ins südliche Rußland wandern wollten, sprach der Kaiser: “Ich wünsche euch Glück zu eurer Reise, grüßet eureBrüder; ich bin da gewesen.” Das geschah am 14. September 1820.

An der Molotschna angekommen, wurden diese Grüße von unserem Kirchenältesten Peter Wedel in den Bethäusern vor den versammelten Gemeinden aufs pünktlichste ausgerichtet. Da nun auch das Kontor zu Jekaterinoslaw von dieser denkwürdigen Begebenheit in Kenntnis gesetzt werden mußte, so verewigte sie der Herr Oberrichter Fadejew dadurch, daß er die Kolonie Alexanderwohl nannte, denn er sprach: “Der Kaiser Alexander hat euch Wohl gewünscht.”

Im Jahre 1821 wurden hier 22 Familien, 1823 7 Familien und 1824 noch eine Familie aus dem Landratsamte Schwetz im preußischen Regierungsbezirk Marienwerder angesiedelt. Die unbesiedelte Steppe wurde vor der Ankunft der Deutschen von Johann Kornies in Pacht gehalten und von Nogaiern zur Viehweide und von Russen teilweise zum Ackerbau benutzt.

Von den Eingewanderten haben 20 Familien einen Kronsvorschuß von 4104 R. 28-4/7 K. Silber erhalten; die eigenen mitgebrachten Mittel beliefen sich auf etwa 8570 R. Silber.

Das Ansiedlungsjahr 1821 war unfruchtbar und lieferte nur die Aussaat. 1822 war fruchtbar, aber es kamen die Heuschrecken und richteten 7 Jahre lang großen Schaden an. 1823 und 1824 waren zudem Mißwachsjahre. Der anhaltende Sturm in den ersten Monaten des Jahres 1825 verursachte auch dieser Gemeinde großen Verlust an Vieh, weil kein Futter für dasselbe vorhanden war. Damals wurde auch hier das Stroh von den Dächern gefüttert. 1828 herrschte eine verheerende Viehseuche. Das schwerste Jahr jedoch war das Hungerjahr 1833. Die veredelte Vieh- und Schafzucht und die Vierfelderwirtschaft beim Betrieb des Ackerbaues sind durch die Bemühungen des Wirklichen Staatsrats Kontenius und des unter der Leitung des unvergeßlichen Johann Kornies stehenden landwirtschaftlichen Vereins eingeführt worden und haben die Gemeinde zum Wohlstand gebracht.

Alexanderwohl 44

We ended the last post in the series on the Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht (here) at the low point of the village’s early years: after assorted crop failures, locust plagues, cattle diseases, and devastating winter storms, Alexanderwohl—and all of Molotschna—suffered from the das Hungerjahr 1833. The next sentence in the community report introduces a 180 degree turn in the village’s fortunes, so that the report ends with the word prosperity. This post will explore who and what led to that turn. We begin, as before, with the entire final paragraph of the 1848 community report.

The year of settlement, 1821, was unfruitful and returned only the seed sown. 1822 was fruitful, but grasshoppers came and caused significant damage for seven years. 1823 and 1824 were years of crop failure. The persistent storm of the first months of 1825 also resulted in a great loss of livestock for this community, since there was no food for them. At that time the livestock was fed straw from the roofs. In 1828, a devastating cattle disease prevailed. The most difficult year, however, was the starvation year 1833. The improved cattle and sheep breeding and the four-field farming system introduced through the efforts of Acting State Counsellor Contenius and under the leadership of the Agricultural Society’s unforgettable Johann Cornies have brought the community to prosperity.

improved cattle and sheep breeding. An earlier post (here) discussed the improvements made in cattle breeding in detail. To summarize, since the East Friesian cattle that the Mennonites had brought with them were nonnative and thus susceptible to local diseases, the Molotschna farmers cross-bred the East Friesian cattle they brought with them from West Prussia/Poland with the local Ukrainian gray cattle as well as Kalmuk cattle, producing what became known as a Molotschna cow or the German Red cow. This breed combined increased hardiness and disease resistance without sacrificing milk productivity.

Sheep breeding was the primary occupation in Molotschna’s early years, and it continued to play a central role during Alexanderwohl’s first few decades. Whether the Mennonite settlers brought sheep with them from West Prussia/Poland remains an open question for me. On the one hand, Peter J. Klassen reports that Mennonites along the Vistula River in Poland were known for raising sheep as early as the early seventeenth century (2009, 81). On the other hand, sheep are not listed among the livestock that the Mennonites brought to Molotschna; only horses and cattle are recorded on the Russian settlement reports. Further, Peter M. Friesen writes:

Privy Councillor Contenius, the well-known supervisor and benefactor of the colonies, raised the level of prosperity considerably in the colonies through the introduction of sheep-raising. The acquisition of breeding sheep of Spanish extraction (Merino sheep) soon made it possible for every farmer to possess a small flock: many as large as 150 animals. (1980, 182–83)

According to Friesen, Contenius introduced sheep raising to the Molotschna colony. Other evidence confirms the accuracy of Friesen’s statement, but a full account of Molotschna sheep raising must await another post (a third Molotschna Livestock post is in the works; for the first two, see here and here).

In the interim, we can say without fear of contradiction that Contenius (on whom see below) played a key role in the improvement of the quality of the Mennonite flocks. John R. Staples explains:

In 1826 … Contenius proposed that Cornies travel to Saxony on behalf of the Settlement to buy merino sheep as breeding stock for Mennonite flocks. Contenius had been promoting the introduction of high-quality merino sheep into New Russian colonist herds since he first came to the Guardianship Committee in 1800, and after his retirement as chairman of the Ekaterinoslav Office of the Committee in 1818, he made the improvement of sheep-breeding the main focus of his Office for Special Projects. (2015, xli)

To summarize, according to the Alexanderwohl community report, the village’s fortunes changed, in part, due to the breeding of hardier cattle and more profitable sheep. Another contributing factor to the village’s change in fortunes is named in the following clause.

four-field farming system. According to David Moon, traditional farming in the Russian steppe used a long-fallow system in which fields were farmed nonstop until they became nonproductive; peasant farmers would then move to a new field and let the nonproductive field lie fallow for fifteen years or more, until it was once again productive (Moon 2013, 252). Both a true and a modified three-field system of crop rotation was tried in the northern steppe, but the results were mixed. Then, in 1837 

[Johann] Cornies ordered the Mennonites of Molotschna to introduce a four-field crop rotation in place of long-fallow agriculture. … Under the new rotation, each field followed the sequence: 1. Barley; 2. Spring wheat (girka or arnautka); 3. Winter rye or oats; and in the fourth year, the field was left fallow. Peter Köppen, an official of the Ministry of State Domains who inspected Tauride province in 1837, reported: “Out of 43 Mennonite colonies [villages], 23 have already completed the introduction of four-field agriculture (vierfelder Wirtschaft).” He added that he had “invited” more Mennonites to follow suit in 1838. (Moon 2013, 253)

The change in farming practices had a dramatic effect on the local farm economy: within several years grain cultivation had replaced sheep raising as the central agricultural pursuit, and conditions were ripe for Molotschna to become the breadbasket of the Russian Empire.

Acting State Counsellor Contenius. The individual in view here is obvious: Samuel Contenius; his exact title as given in German, Wirklichen Staatsrats, is less clear. Samuel Contenius was

born in Westphalia in 1748 [and] came to Russia as a private tutor, then entered state service in 1785. … During his tenure of office, 1800–1818, he worked incessantly for the colonists, much to the detriment of his own health, and stayed on even after his final retirement, at the request of the Emperor himself, to help in a re-organization of the colonist administration then impending. … When in 1807 his health became too bad for him to continue running the Office, Richelieu [Armand Emmanuel du Plessis Duke de Richelieu, the governor of Odessa] recommended that he should be given instead the narrower task of supervising the economic development of the colonies, retaining his previous rank and salary. On this basis Contenius remained a valued member of the administration. (Bartlett 1979, 205–6)

The tenure of office in view here is Contenius’s chairmanship of the Guardianship Committee for Foreign Settlers in the Southern Regions of Russia; he was replaced in this position by Andrei M. Fadeev (see here). To be clear, Contenius was responsible for all foreign settlers throughout southern Russia, not just Molotschna colony. His rank as State Counsellor (or Councillor) was equivalent to brigadier in the army, and at that time it carried with it the right of hereditary nobility. In other words, Contenius was a high-ranking official.

The translation above has followed the lead of the translators of Cornies 2015 in rendering the term Wirklichen as “Acting.” If this is correct, then presumably the meaning of the label is that, although Contenius was no longer the chairman of the Guardianship Committee, he retained an honorary position with that body. In this case one might think of Acting as similar to Emeritus.

However, it is also possible that the German title Wirklichen Staatsrats seeks to represent the Russian действительный статский советник, which is typically rendered “Active State Councillor.” This title was applied to individuals one rank higher than a simple State Counsellor, which would not be an unexpected promotion for Contenius to have received, given the high esteem in which he was held even by the emperor. 

Uncertainty about the title notwithstanding, the Alexanderwohl community report correctly attributes much of the village’s prosperity to Contenius. As Staples notes, “Although Contenius officially retired in 1818, he retained an office and staff in Ekaterinoslav until his death in 1830, and continued to be a driving force in colonist affairs until almost his last days. Cornies modeled strategic aspects of his own economic agenda and administrative practices on Contenius’ example” (2015, xxxvii). 

the Agricultural Society. We have discussed the Agricultural Society previously (see here), so this section draws upon the earlier work. The Molotschna Agricultural Society was created in 1836 as heir to two earlier advisory boards: the Sheep Society and the Forestry Society. The purpose of each of these boards was to promote improvement in its respective area. The Sheep Society fostered the expansion and improvement of Molotschna’s flocks, the Forestry Society promoted and even mandated the planting of trees across the colony, and the Agricultural Society sought to advance and improve all aspects of Molotschna’s farming economy. (This and the following draw upon Staples 2003, 118–23; Urry 1989, 109–19, 126–37.) 

Johann Cornies. The Agricultural Society was established by the Russian governing authorities but was managed by Mennonites, especially in the person of its chairman for life: Johann Cornies. “With the establishment of the Agricultural Society,” Staples writes,

Cornies entered the most important phase of his campaign to transform Mennonite society. He focused his activities on three principal themes: (1) more efficient allocation of limited Mennonite resources, (2) more efficient exploitation of those resources, and (3) rural industrialization. … He confidently believed that if the Agricultural Society “steadfastly directed its own business and tended to the well-being of its brothers,” the end result could only be “morality, industry and love of orderliness … upon which prosperity must follow.” (Staples 2003, 119)

To that end, “with members of his Committee, Cornies inspected agricultural activities in the colony, recommending and advising the farmers on new crops, techniques, and ways to improve livestock” (Urry 1989, 112). Many of Cornies and the Agricultural Society’s policies led to remarkable increase in Molotschna productivity. Most notable of these was the introduction of the previously mentioned four-field rotation system, “with fields being sown in alternate years with barley, then wheat, then rye or oats, and finally being left fallow. The fallow was not left idle. The earth was deep-ploughed, thus exposing the soil to air and moisture” (Urry 1989, 115). Although Cornies had (and has) his critics, there is no disputing the fact that the change in fortunes that Alexanderwohl and other Molotschna villages experienced was due in great part to his leadership. 

have brought the community to prosperity. The result of the developments listed was a dramatic change in Alexanderwohl’s standing. The village founded in 1821 and stressed by all the challenges and obstacles of its early years had arrived, by 1848, to a condition of prosperity. Worth noting is the precise wording of this last clause: the positive developments did not bring prosperity to the village; rather, they brought the community to prosperity. The difference in perspective is significant.

Recent posts have had little cause to comment about the historical accuracy of the community report. Not surprisingly, as the report narrated events closer to 1848, it did so with greater accuracy. Still, it will be useful for us to revisit the report as a whole and identify all the places where the report fails to give a fully reliable account. We will do so in the following post in this series.

Works Cited

Bartlett, Roger P. 1979. Human Capital: The Settlement of Foreigners in Russia 1762–1804. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Friesen, Peter M. 1980. The Mennonite Brotherhood in Russia (1789–1910). 2nd ed. Translated by J. B. Toews et al. Fresno, CA: Board of Christian Literature, General Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches.

Klassen, Peter J. 2009. Mennonites in Early Modern Poland and Prussia. Young Center Books in Anabaptist and Pietist Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Staples, John R. 2003. Cross-Cultural Encounters on the Ukrainian Steppe: Settling the Molochna Basin, 1783–1861. Tsarist and Soviet Mennonite Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

———. 2015. Introduction to Johann Cornies, Transformation on the Southern Ukrainian Steppe: Letters and Papers of Johann Cornies. Volume 1: 1812–1835. Translated by Ingrid I. Epp. Edited by Harvey L. Dyck, Ingrid I. Epp, and John R. Staples. Tsarist and Soviet Mennonite Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Urry, James. 1989. None but Saints: The Transformation of Mennonite Life in Russia 1789–1889. Winnipeg: Hyperion.

David and Helena’s Children: Helena

The Buller Family Record offers only the most skeletal information about David and Helena Zielke Buller’s firstborn: Helena. Unlike all other entries in the BFR, this one lacks any specific dates, and some of the names are only partially supplied.

The reason for this scarcity of information is simple enough: Helena was the only one of David and Helena’s children who did not emigrate to the United States; consequently, when the BFR was first put together in 1959, its compilers had limited access to reliable information from the former Russian colony, which was then part of the Soviet Union.

Happily, we do not face the same constraints today, and we can fill in quite a number of the details of Helena’s life. GRANDMA offers one resource, to be sure, but Helena also receives passing mention in a 2016 James O. Harms article about her husband, a renowned clockmaker (available online here). The Harms article is well worth reading apart from our particular interest in Helena, and I encourage you to click over to it now or later.

1. Birth

The BFR, as already noted, has no information about Helena’s birth, but GRANDMA and the Harms article can fill that lacuna to some extent. Both of these latter sources indicate that Helena was born in 1842, although the exact date is unknown. GRANDMA cites as its source the Berlin Document Center A3342 EWZ50, page F026/2484. This source is new to me, but it appears to be a microfilm collection of records gathered by the NSDAP (i.e., the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or Nazi Party). The record in which Helena’s birth is likely referenced is in the Einwanderer-zentrale, or  Immigrant Center, collection. (If anyone more expert cares to educate me about this source, I will be grateful.)

The Harms article has a different source: “the family record in the Bible of Aganetha (Mandtler) Block (b. 22 June 1886). She was the oldest daughter of Jacob P. Mandtler and his second wife Maria Wiebe” (2016, 5 n. 9). This dual sourcing of the year of birth permits us confidently to date Helena’s birth to that year.

GRANDMA adds one other detail, presumably from the same Berlin source: Helena was born in the village of Waldheim. We know that to be true because we can confirm that David and Helena lived in Waldheim at least by 1839 and did not leave until 1848.

2. Baptism

There is no known record of Helena’s baptism.

3. Marriage and Children

According to the BFR, Helana married Jacob Mandtler and bore him six children: Jacob, Susana, Helena, Peter, David, and Elisabeth. GRANDMA supplies a number of corrections and additional details.

First, Helena and Jacob had ten children, not six, and GRANDMA records the following names and dates of birth:

Jacob, 11 February 1866
Katharina, 15 March 1867
Helena (or Helene), 1 November 1868
Peter, 27 January 1870
Elisabeth (Liese), 19 February 1872
Maria, 4 July 1873
Heinrich, 6 January 1875 (Harms 2016; GRANDMA has 1874, which is no doubt incorrect)
Johann, 18 December 1876
Sarah, 9 February 1881
David J., 13 April 1884

Second, all but Sarah, who died before reaching her second birthday, lived to adulthood. David emigrated to Canada in 1924, while Helena followed in 1925. We have no record of the other children leaving Russia, although that does not prove that they remained.

The Harms 2016 article linked above has a picture of Jacob Mandtler surrounded by his children. The photograph was taken in 1887, when he was married to his second wife. However, given the ages of the children shown and the fact that his first daughter by his second wife was only a year old at that time, we can conclude that all the children shown were those of Helena Buller and Jacob, thus Peter D’s nieces and nephews.

4. Residence

Harms summarizes well all that we know about where Helena and Jacob lived:

Jacob P. was still living in Muntau in 1876, and 1892 Alexanderwohl school records show his son Johann was born 18 December 1876 in Muntau. The 1883–1884 Alexanderwohl school records list three of his children—Peter (13), Maria (10), and Heinrich (9)—indicating that Jacob P. and his family had moved to Alexanderwohl by 1884. We have no record of when they moved. Family records suggest Johann may have been the last child born in Muntau. So Jacob P. and his family might have moved to Alexanderwohl as early as 1877. [Jacob’s father] Philip died in 1884 and Jacob P. inherited his father’s farm. (2016, 4)

Presumably, then, Helena and Jacob first lived in Muntau after they were married in the early 1860s. Muntau was one of the original (1804) villages founded in Molotschna, located in the extreme northwest of the colony. Muntau was where Jacob’s family lived when he was born, so it made sense for him to locate his new family there.

It appears that, when nearly the entire Alexanderwohl church emigrated to the United States in 1874, Jacob’s father Philip acquired a Wirtschaft associated with that village and moved there. As Harms notes, we know that Jacob and family had moved to Alexanderwohl before 1884, and they may have taken up residence there as early as 1877. Either way, Jacob acquired his father’s farm in 1884 and seemingly lived out the rest of his life there (d. 1915).

5. Death

We do not know the exact date of Helena’s death, but it was the same year as the birth of her tenth and last child: 1884. Whether there is any link between that birth and her death is unknown, although it would not be surprising if that were the case.

Whether the family moved to Alexanderwohl in 1877 or sometime in 1883, Helena no doubt died—and may be buried—there (see here for a post about the possible location of the Alexanderwohl cemetery). In any event, she did not live to a ripe old age, passing away in her early forties.

Work Cited

Harms, James O. 2016. Philip Mandtler and His Son Jacob, the Clockmaker from Alexanderwohl. Mennonite Historian 42.2:2, 4–5. Available online here.

Alexanderwohl 43

The last post in this series on the Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht (here) began our examination of the final paragraph of the 1848 report; this post will offer commentary on a crucial sentence in the history of Alexanderwohl and the rhetoric of the report. For the sake of convenience, the entire paragraph is repeated below, after which we begin where we left off.

The year of settlement, 1821, was unfruitful and returned only the seed sown. 1822 was fruitful, but grasshoppers came and caused significant damage for seven years. 1823 and 1824 were years of crop failure. The persistent storm of the first months of 1825 also resulted in a great loss of livestock for this community, since there was no food for them. At that time the livestock was fed straw from the roofs. In 1828, a devastating cattle disease prevailed. The most difficult year, however, was the starvation year 1833. The improved cattle and sheep breeding and the four-field farming system introduced through the efforts of Acting State Counsellor Contenius and under the leadership of the Agricultural Society’s unforgettable Johann Cornies have brought the community to prosperity.

the starvation year 1833. After reporting on a series of difficult years after the village’s founding, the report ends the string with what it describes as the most difficult year: das Hungerjahr 1833, the year of hunger, famine, starvation. 

According to David Moon, the disaster of 1833 had begun a year earlier: “In 1832 the whole of the southern part of Russia and the Ukraine had been hit by a serious harvest failure. The problem was exacerbated in many areas when the harvest failed for a second year in succession in 1833” (Moon 1993, 41). Other sources indicate that some localized areas, including several villages in Molotschna, were also plagued by cattle diseases.

As Moon notes, the problem was not a localized phenomenon. In fact, “all the southern, and some central, provinces, stretching from the Carpathian mountains in the west to the Caucasus in the south-east” suffered under extreme drought, hot winds, and widespread harvest failure. “Reports indicated that all hope had been lost of harvests of winter and spring grain in Ekaterinoslav, Kherson, Tauride, Caucasus, Poltava, Slobodsko-Ukraine (later Khar’kov), Voronezh, and Penza provinces, and some districts of Saratov province” (2013, 66). The Molotschna colony was located in Taruide guberniya (governorate or province) and thus was in the area hardest hit. 

The red arrow is pointing to the area of Molotschna colony. After Moon 1993, 27.

Alexanderwohl was not the only Molotschna village to single out 1833 as the worst year during the Mennonite sojourn in Molotschna. Other Gemeindeberichten gave a similar account. Halbstadt noted that 1833 was a year of complete crop failure (gänzlicher Mißwachs), and Muntau reported that “in the years 1833 and 1834 the distress exceeded all previous events.” Lindenau and Ladekopp also labeled 1833 as the Hungerjahr. Franztal listed both famine and a cattle epidemic (Hungersnot und Viehseuche) for 1833, while Mariental, Alexandertal, Wernersdorf, and Sparrau described 1833 as a terrible year of hardship (schreckliche Notjahr).

Several of the community reports also reference the relief efforts undertaken by the government and wealthy individuals in the community to secure food and fodder to keep Molotschna’s residents and livestock alive. The Muntau report states:

The authorities established a chief commission over all the colonies, which made a loan so that they could purchase grain from distant regions. The commissions set up for the individual colonies were responsible to distribute the purchased grain among the destitute, but in such a way that they were obliged to repay everything later. 

The Halbstadt report describes a parallel relief effort: “Bread grains for the needy were purchased in Poland with funds borrowed from wealthy residents.” Moon confirms the Russian government’s intervention across the affected area, which included making loans to landowners, postponing the collection of taxes, allowing duty-free importation of grain, and giving peasants permission to hunt and sell wild game (1993, 42). In spite of all these efforts, many Russian peasants fled their estates illegally in hopes of escaping the famine. 

Johann Cornies, not surprisingly, offers us a thorough description of the situation. In a letter penned 26 August 1833, he writes:

This year’s total crop failure, particularly in all local guberniias, is causing serious shortages. Some of our neighbours are starving. In our community, starvation has been avoided by communal efforts and arrangements we find beneficial. It is still impossible, however, for us to sustain our livestock through the winter. Because no hay and virtually no pasturage is available, thousands of animals will be destroyed. This fodder shortage extends over an area of approximately 300 verstas [200 miles]. Several thousand head of livestock have been accommodated for the winter in distant guberniias at the frightfully high price of four to five rubles per sheep. But where will people without means take their livestock? I have provided for the livestock on my sheep farm by buying winter fodder. To protect almost 4,000 sheep with the Nogais and on my breeding farm, I have today also sent someone out to buy feed and pasturage in the Black Sea region near Kinburn, about 250 to 300 verstas away. We look towards the future with sadness. … The price of grain is currently at twenty-two to twenty-five rubles per chetvert for rye, twenty-six to twenty-eight for wheat, and twelve to fourteen for oats. Almost nothing is available of these grains and there is no barley. We expect that when deputies sent out by the community to purchase 5,000 to 6,000 chetverts of grain return, grain will be more readily available, but not at a lower price. (Cornies 2015, 336)

With the year 1833 the community report reaches a nadir in its history of Alexanderwohl. From the founding in 1821 until the year of starvation, the village was on a steady progression downward.

1821: unfruitful
1822: grasshoppers
1823: crop failure
1824: crop failure
1825: livestock lost
1828: cattle disease
1833: the year of starvation

From this lowest point in Alexanderwohl’s history and community report, everything changes in the following, and last, sentence of the Gemeindebericht, which we will take up in the following post.

Works Cited

Cornies, Johann. 2015. Transformation on the Southern Ukrainian Steppe: Letters and Papers of Johann Cornies. Volume 1: 1812–1835. Translated by Ingrid I. Epp. Edited by Harvey L. Dyck, Ingrid I. Epp, and John R. Staples. Tsarist and Soviet Mennonite Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Moon, David. 1993. Russian Peasants and Tsarist Legislation on the Eve of Reform: Interaction between Peasants and Officialdom, 1825–1855. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2013. The Plough That Broke the Steppes: Agriculture and Environment on Russia’s Grasslands, 1700–1914. Oxford Studies in Modern European History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alexanderwohl 42

We continue our examination of the 1848 Alexanderwohl Gemeindebericht; for the earlier posts, see here, here, and here. Only one paragraph remains in the community report. This post will provide a translation of the entire paragraph and commentary on the first part; comments on the remainder will await a subsequent post. We begin with the translation:

The year of settlement, 1821, was unfruitful and returned only the seed sown. 1822 was fruitful, but grasshoppers came and caused significant damage for seven years. 1823 and 1824 were years of crop failure. The persistent storm of the first months of 1825 also resulted in a great loss of livestock for this community, since there was no food for them. At that time the livestock was fed straw from the roofs. In 1828, a devastating cattle disease prevailed. The most difficult year, however, was the starvation year 1833. The improved cattle and sheep breeding and the four-field farming system introduced through the efforts of Acting State Counsellor Contenius and under the leadership of the Agricultural Society’s unforgettable Johann Cornies have brought the community to prosperity.

year of settlement, 1821. As previously noted, the largest group from the Przechovka church arrived in the last months of 1820. This group along with others who had emigrated to Molotschna earlier, officially founded the village in 1821. Since the first founders were onsite at the beginning of the year, they were able to turn their attention immediately to earning their bread. 

unfruitful and returned only the seed sown. Interestingly, the report first focuses on field crops even though that was not the primary agricultural pursuit in Molotschna’s first decades. Cornelius Krahn (1955) explains, “Pioneer conditions made large-scale grain raising impossible and the distance to the market made it unprofitable. Thus stock farming, particularly the breeding of sheep, became the chief occupation” (see also Goerz 1993, 14). This is not to say that grain cultivation was nonexistent. Indeed, the founders of Alexanderwohl, like other Molotschna farmers, presumably sowed barley, rye, oats, and wheat, among other grains, from the very beginning. Some of these grains were intended primarily as fodder for livestock, but others were meant for human consumption. Note further that the community report says nothing about the large gardens that Mennonites planted, tended, and harvested from the beginning; the focus here is strictly on the field crops and their failure in 1821. We will return to the point of this negative emphasis later on.

1822 was fruitful. Unlike 1821, which was unfruitful (unfruchtbar), 1822 was fruitful (fruchtbar). The (initial) contrast between the two years could not be more striking. As we will see in the next clause, the 1822 report still has field crops in view.

grasshoppers came and caused significant damage for seven years. According to the community report, a plague of grasshoppers damaged 1822’s potentially fruitful harvest. To make matters worse, the grasshoppers continued to wreak havoc for seven years, thus presumably through 1829. Johann Cornies’s 1824 letter to a Mr. Koshani confirms the Alexanderwohl report:

When I arrived home on 11 August 1824, it was extremely hot and dry here. Grasshoppers had ravaged the area, consuming everything in sight, and no blade of grass, green or dry, could be found anywhere. … The summer of 1824 was dry and grasshoppers consumed everything still growing. Grain and fodder shortages soon followed. (2015, 42–43)

Two years later, in correspondence with State Counsellor Schubert, Cornies elaborates: 

Since 1822, swarms of grasshoppers have caused great devastation in our area. This has resulted in a serious shortage of food and fodder for man and beast. In 1823 and 1824, virtually nothing remained: no crops on the fields, no pastures for livestock, and very little hay. When I returned home from St. Petersburg in 1824, the livestock was so thin and wasted that I could not comprehend how it could still be alive. Swarms of grasshoppers darkened the sun, there arose dust clouds as dark as the darkest rain, and fierce winds kept anyone from walking along the street. Compare this to the first chapter of the Prophet Job. (2015, 92–93)

Heinrich Goerz adds that in 1826,

just when the settlers had recovered from this crop failure, grasshoppers destroyed a large portion of the crop in a number of villages. They came in swarms several versts in length and were so numerous that they darkened the sun. (1993, 13)

A verst is roughly 2/3 of a mile, so a single swarm is being estimated at a length of nearly 2 miles, as apocalyptic as the grasshopper swarms that have plagued the central United States from time to time.

1823 and 1824 were years of crop failure. Cornies confirms the report above, and David Moon adds that there were “two successive harvest failures, caused in part by drought, in 1824 and 1825” (2013, 253). Putting all the pieces of evidence together, it seems that there were at least three successive years of crop failure, 1823–1825, and that the causes were several: grasshoppers, drought, or both.

persistent storm of the first months of 1825. The problems continued to mount for the Molotschna residents. Cornies again provides a near-contemporary account of the situation. 

In February 1825, we had such a devastating snowstorm that all communications were cut and thousands of livestock died. … Such storms that varied in strength and duration continued from mid-February until late March. The temperature, at two to five degrees Reamur, was mild enough for the snow to stick so firmly to anything that it could be removed only with the greatest effort. The eyes of people and animals were glued shut almost immediately upon exposure to the storm. (2015, 93)

The community report’s description of the storm as persistent is borne out by Cornies’s statement that there were multiple storms between mid-February until late March. The Réaumur temperature scale sets the freezing point of water at 0 and the boiling point at 80, so temperatures of 2º and 5º Réaumur are 36.5º and 43.25º Fahrenheit. What Cornies describes is reminiscent of wet spring blizzards that long-time residents of Nebraska know all too well.

great loss of livestock…, since there was no food. Cornies continues:

Horses in the yard on my sheep farm were covered with such a layer of snow that one needed to look closely to distinguish the front of a horse from its rear. I too felt the rod and judgment of our loving Father, losing more than 200 horses of my breeding herd, about 1,000 Spanish sheep, and several head of cattle. The damage came to no less than 30,000 rubles. In our community, up to 10,000 Spanish sheep, about 1,800 head of cattle, and 1,200 horses were lost in the snowstorms. Now there is a great shortage of fodder. (2015, 93)

the livestock was fed straw from the roofs. Once again, Cornies offers contemporary confirmation:

The fodder shortage was so severe that many a villager removed the straw from his roof and fed it to his cattle. Because of the clouds of snow and dust, nothing could be bought at any price, even if it had been available at some distance from here. (2015, 93)

1828, a devastating cattle disease. The German term Vieh (in Viehseuche) generally refers to cattle; because later in the report cattle are distinguished from sheep in the phrase “Vieh- und Schafzucht” (cattle and sheep breeding), the reference here seems to be specifically to a cattle disease. Cornies’s letter to Johann Sukau back in Prussia supports this interpretation. Cornies writes as follows in July 1828:

Last year, grasshoppers attacked our settlement causing much damage at my sheep farm and elsewhere. I harvested nothing but rye. The grasshoppers devoured our pasture and my livestock had to be driven to grasslands twenty or thirty verstas away. They returned only in fall. The livestock plague infected another part of our settlement, killing all livestock in several villages. (2015, 152)

Later in the same letter Cornies hints at the possible origin of the plague: “With the arrival of spring, the livestock plague reappeared in Russian villages, in several German villages, and at the community sheep farm” (2015, 153). It seems that livestock diseases spread as freely and rapidly as human diseases such as cholera, which took up to 100,000 lives in Russia alone in 1830–1832.

the starvation year 1833.

We will pick up the account with 1833 in the following post. That year deserves special attention, as is evident in the Gemeindebericht’s labeling of it as the starvation year. We will also take a step back to ask why the report lists these years and narrates such a string of negative events. What, to ask the question differently, is the rhetorical point of the arrangement of this last paragraph of the community report?

Works Cited

Cornies, Johann. 2015. Transformation on the Southern Ukrainian Steppe: Letters and Papers of Johann Cornies. Volume 1: 1812–1835. Translated by Ingrid I. Epp. Edited by Harvey L. Dyck, Ingrid I. Epp, and John R. Staples. Tsarist and Soviet Mennonite Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Goerz, Heinrich. 1993. The Molotschna Settlement. Translated by Al Reimer and John B. Toews. Echo Historical Series. Winnipeg, MB: CMBC Publications and Manitoba Mennonite Historical Society.

Krahn, Cornelius. 1955. Agriculture among the Mennonites of Russia. Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Available online here.

Moon, David. 2013. The Plough That Broke the Steppes: Agriculture and Environment on Russia’s Grasslands, 1700–1914. Oxford Studies in Modern European History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.