Select Speeches of Kossuth - Kossuth
Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36
Sir, to the State of Indiana I am in many respects particularly obliged.
True, I have had invitations to visit many other States, but the
invitation from the State of Indiana was first received. Please to
accept my warmest thanks. I have seen in other States a harmony between
the people and the government, but nowhere has the Governor of a State
condescended to represent the people in a public welcome, nowhere
stepped out as the orator of the people's sympathy and its sentiment. I
most humbly thank you for this honour.
In Maryland, the Governor introduced me to the Legislature. In
Pennsylvania the chief Magistrate was the organ of a common welcome of
the Legislature and Citizens. In Massachusetts he took the lead as the
people's elect in recommending my principles to the Legislature--and in
Ohio the chief Magistrate, by accepting the Presidency of the
Association of the friends of Hungary, became generally the executive of
the people's practical sympathy, which so magnanimously responded to the
many political manifestations of its Representatives in the Legislature.
Let me hope, sir, that as you have been generously pleased to be the
interpreter of Indiana's welcome and sympathy, you will also not refuse
to become the Chief Executive Magistrate to the practical development of
the same.
I may cordially thank, in the name of my cause, the people of Indiana,
its Governor, and Representatives, for the high honour of the
Legislature's invitation, and of this public welcome.
* * * * *
XXXIV.--IMPORTANCE OF FOREIGN POLICY, AND OF STRENGTHENING ENGLAND.
[_Speech at Louisville, March 6th_.]
At the Court House, Louisville, Kossuth was addressed by Bland Ballard,
Esq., and replied as follows:
Whatever be the immediate issue of that discussion about foreign policy,
which now so eminently occupies public attention throughout the United
States, from the Capitol and White-house at Washington down to the
lonely farms of your remotest territories, one fact I have full reason
to take for sure, and that is: That when the trumpet-sound of national
resurrection is once borne over the waves of the Atlantic announcing to
you that nations have risen to assert those rights to which they are
called by nature and nature's God--when the roaring of the first
cannon-shot announces that the combat is begun which has to decide which
principle is to rule over the Christian world--absolutism or national
sovereignty--there is no power on earth which could induce the people of
the United States to remain inactive and indifferent spectators of that
great struggle, in which the future of the Christian world--yes, the
future of the United States themselves is to be decided. The people of
the United States will not remain indifferent and inactive spectators
and will not authorize, will not approve, any policy of indifference.
You yourself have told me so, sir.
In the position of every considerable country there is a necessity of a
certain course, to adopt which cannot be avoided, and may be almost
called destiny. The duty as well as the wisdom of statesmen consists in
the ability to steer, in time, the vessel into that course, which, if
they neglect to do in time, the price will be higher and the profit
less.
There is scarcely anything which has more astonished me than the
fact--that, for the last thirty-seven years, almost every Christian
nation has shared the great fault of not caring much about what are
called foreign matters, foreign policy. Precisely the great nations,
England, France, America, which might have regulated the course of their
governments for a very considerable period, abandoned almost entirely
that part of their public concerns, which with great nations is the most
important of all, because it regulates the position of the country in
its great national capacity. The slightest internal interest was
discussed publicly and regulated previously by the nation, before the
government had to execute it; but, as to the most important
interest--the national position of the country and its relations to the
world, Secret Diplomacy, a fatality of mankind, stepped in, and the
nations had to accept the consequences of what was already done, though
they subsequently reproved it. In England, I four months ago, avowed
that all the interior questions together cannot equal in importance the
exterior; _there_ is summed up the future of Britain: and if the
people of England do not cut short the secrecy of diplomacy--if it do
not in time take this all absorbing interest into its own hands, as it
is wont to do with every small home interest, it will have to meet
immense danger very soon, as this danger has already seriously
accumulated by former neglect. Here too, in the United States, there is
no possible question equal in importance to foreign policy, and
especially in regard to European matters. And I say that, if the United
States do not in due time adopt such a course, as will prevent the Czar
of Russia, and his despotic satellites, from believing that the United
States give them entirely free field to regulate the condition of
Europe, which cannot fail to react morally and materially on your
condition, then indeed embarrassments, sufferings, and danger will
accumulate in a very short time over you.
Great Britain, it is clear as matters now stand, can avoid a war with
the continental powers of Europe only by joining their alliance, or at
least by giving them security, that England will not only not support
the liberal movement on the Continent, but that it will submit to the
policy of the absolutist powers. It is not impossible that England will
yield. Do not forget, gentlemen, that an English ministry, be it Tory or
Whig, is always more or less aristocratic, and it is in the nature of
aristocracy that it may love its country well, but indeed aristocracy
more. There is therefore always some inclination to be on good terms
with whoever is an enemy to what aristocracy considers its own enemy,
that is, democracy. This consideration, together with the above
mentioned carelessness of the people about foreign policy, gives you the
key to many events which else it would be impossible to understand.
People against another people should never feel hatred, but brotherly
sympathy. The memory of oppression suffered from governments should
never be imparted to nations, and children should never be hated,
despised, or punished, because their fathers have sinned. We Hungarians
wrestled for centuries with Turkey, and now we are friends, true
friends, and natural allies against a common enemy. Several of my own
ancestors lost their lives in Turkish wars, or their property in ransom
out of Turkish captivity; yet to me it is a Turkish Sultan who saved my
life and gave bread to thousands of my countrymen, which no other power
did on earth. Such is the change of time. It is Russia which crushed my
bleeding fatherland, yet the inexorable hatred of my heart does not
extend to the people of Russia. I love that people--I pity its poor,
unfortunate instruments of despotism. Wherever there is a people, there
is my love. Therefore, let the passionate excitement of past times
subside before the prudent advice of present necessities. You are blood
from England's blood, bone from its bone, and flesh from its flesh. The
Anglo-Saxon race was the kernel around which gathered this glorious
fruit--your Republic. Every other nationality is oppressed. It is the
Anglo-Saxon alone which stands high and erect in its independence. You,
the younger brother, are entirely free, because Republican. They, the
elder brother, are monarchical, but they have a constitution, and they
have many institutions which even you retained, and, by retaining them,
have proved that they are institutions congenial to freedom, and dear to
freemen. The free press, the jury, free speech, the freedom of
association, the institution of municipalities, the share of the people
in the legislature, are English institutions; the inviolability of
person and the inviolability of property are English principles. England
is the last stronghold of these principles in Europe. Is this not enough
to make you stand side by side with those principles in behalf of
oppressed humanity?
If the United States and England unite in policy now and make by their
imposing attitude a breakwater to the ambitious league of despotism, the
Anglo-Saxon race, with all who gathered around that kernel, will not
only have the glorious pleasure of having saved the Christian world from
being absorbed by despotism, but you especially will have the noble
satisfaction of having contributed to the progress and to the
development of freedom in England, Scotland, and Ireland themselves: for
the principles of national sovereignty, independence, and
self-government, when restored on the continent of Europe, must in a
beneficent manner reach upon those islands themselves. They may remain
monarchical, if it be their will to do so, but the parliamentary
omnipotence, which absorbs all that _you_ call _State_ rights
and self-government, will yield to the influence of Europe's liberated
continent. England will govern its own domestic concerns by its own
parliament, and Scotland its own, and Ireland its own, just as the
states of your galaxy do; the three countries are destined to mutual
connection, by their geographical relations, by far more than New York
with Louisiana or Carolina with California. By conserving the
state-rights of self-government to all of them they will unite in a
common government for the common interest, as you have done. _Union,
and not unity, must be the guiding star of the future_ with every
power composed of several distinct bodies, and though I am a republican
more perhaps than thousands who are citizens of a republic, inasmuch as
I have known all the curse of having had a king--still such a
development of Great Britain's future, were it even connected with
monarchy, I, a true republican, would hail with fervent joy. To
contribute to such a future, I indeed should consider more practical
support to the cause of freedom, to the cause of Ireland itself, than,
out of passionate aversions either for past or present wrongs, to
discourage, nay, almost force Great Britain to submit to the threatening
attitude of despots or even to side with them against liberty. Out of
such a submission there can never result any good to any one in the
world, and certainly none to you--none to the nations of Europe--none to
Ireland--but increased oppression to Europe and Ireland, and danger to
you yourselves.
I therefore say that a war side by side with England against the leagued
despots, if war should become a necessity, is not an idea to look on in
advance with aversion. You have united with England on a far less
important occasion. And should England _not_ yield to the despots,
I most confidently ask whoever in the United States inclines to judge
matters according to the true interests of his country and not by
private passion, whether you _could_ remain indifferent in a
struggle, the issue of which either would make England omnipotent on
earth, or crush liberty down throughout the world, leave America exposed
to the pressure of victorious despotism, and before all, exclude
republican America from every political and commercial relation with all
Europe. Should England see that she will not stand alone in protesting
against interference, she will, she must protest against it, because it
is the condition of her own future. But if the United States should
again adhere to the policy of indifference (which is no policy at all),
then indeed England may perhaps yield to the threatening attitude of the
absolutist powers. The policy of the United States may now decide the
direction of the policy of England, and thus prevent immense mischief,
incalculable in its consequences, even for the future of the United
States themselves.
It is here I take the opportunity briefly to refer to an assertion of an
American statesman, who holds a high place in your affections and in my
respect. He advances the theory, that, should, you now take the course
which I humbly claim, the despots of Europe would be provoked by your
example to interfere with your institutions and turn upon you in the
hour of your weakness and exhaustion, because you have set an example of
interference.
I indeed am at a loss to understand that. Is it interference I claim?
No; precisely the contrary, if you now declare "that your very existence
being founded on that principle of the eternal laws of nature and of
nature's God--that every nation has the independent right to regulate
its domestic concerns, to fix its institutions and its government"--you
cannot contemplate with indifference that the absolutist powers form a
league of mutual support against this principle of mankind's common law.
You therefore protest against this principle of "foreign interference."
I indeed cannot understand by what logic such a protest could be taken
up by the despotic powers as a pretext for interference in your domestic
concerns. My logic is entirely different. It runs thus; If your country
remains an indifferent spectator of the violation of the laws of nations
by foreign interference, _then_ it has established a precedent--it
has consented that the principle of interference become interpolated
into the book of international law, and you will see the time when the
league of despots commanding the whole force of oppressed Europe will
remind you thus:
"Russia has interfered in Hungary, because it considered the example set
up by Hungary dangerous to Russia. America has silently recognized the
right of that interference. France has interfered in Rome, because the
example of the Roman democracy was dangerous to Prance. America has
silently agreed. The absolutist governments, in protection of their
divine right, have leagued in a saintly alliance, with the openly avowed
purpose to aid one another by mutual interference against the spirit of
revolution and the anarchy of republicanism. America has not protested
against it; therefore the principle of foreign interference against
every dangerous example has, by common consent of every power on
earth--contradicted by none, not even by America--become an established
international law."
And reminding you thus, they will speak to you in the very words of that
distinguished statesman to whom I respectfully allude.
"You have quitted the ground upon which your national existence is
founded. You have consented to the alteration of the laws of
nations--the existence of your republic is dangerous to us; _we
therefore, believing that your anarchical (that is, republican)
doctrines are destructive of, and that monarchical principles are
essential to, the peace and security and happiness of our subjects, will
obliterate the bed which has nourished such noxious weeds; we will crush
you down as the propagandists of doctrines too destructive to the peace
and good order of the world."_
I have quoted the very words, very unexpectedly given to
publicity,--words, which I out of respect and personal affection, did
not answer then, precisely because I took the interview for a private
one. Even now I refrain from entering into further discussion, out of
the same considerations of respect, though I am challenged by this
unlooked for publicity. I will say nothing more. But after having
quoted the very words, I leave to the public opinion to judge whether
their authority is against or for a national protest against the
principle of foreign interference.
Let once the principle become established with your silent consent and
you will soon see it brought home to you, and brought home in a moment
of domestic discord, which Russian secret diplomacy and Russian gold
will skilfully mix. You may be sure of it; and this mighty Union will
be shaken by that very principle of foreign interference which you
silently let be established as an uncontroverted rule for the despots of
the earth.
Great countries are under the necessity of holding the position of a
power on earth. If they do not thus, foreign powers dispose of their
most vital interests. Indifference to the condition of the foreign world
is a wilful abdication of their duty, and of their independence.
Neutrality, as a constant rule, is impossible to a great power. Only
small countries, as Switzerland and Belgium, can exist upon the basis of
neutrality.
Great powers may remain neutral in a particular case, but they cannot
take neutrality for a constant principle, and they chiefly cannot remain
neutral in respect to principles.
Great powers can never play with impunity the part of no power at all.
Neutrality when taken _as a principle_ means indifference to the
condition of the world.
Indifference of a great power to the condition of the world is a chance
given to foreign powers to regulate the interests of that indifferent
foreign power.
Look in what light you appear before the world with your policy of
indifference. Look at the instructions of your navy in the
Mediterranean, recently published, forbidding American officers even to
speak politics in Europe. Look at the correspondences of your commodores
and consuls, frightened to their very souls that a poor exile on board
an American ship is cheered by the people of Italy and France, and
charging him for the immense crime of having met sympathy without any
provocation on his part. Look at the cry of astonishment of European
writers, that Americans in Europe are so little republican. Look how
French Napoleonist papers frown indignantly at the idea that the
Congress of the United States dare to honour my humble self. Look how
they consider it almost an insult, that an American Minister, true to
his always professed principles, dares to speak about European politics.
Look how one of my aristocratical antagonists, who quietly keeps house
in France, where I was not permitted to pass, and who, a tool in other
hands, would wish to check my endeavours to benefit my country, because
he would like to get home in some other way than by a revolution and
into a republic--look how he, from Paris in London papers, dares to
scorn the idea that America could pretend to weigh anything in the scale
of European events.
Do you like this position, free republicans of America? And yet that is
your position in the world now, and that position is the consequence of
your adhering to your policy of indifference, at a time when you needed
to act like a power on earth.
Remember the Sibylline books. The first three were burned when you
silently let Russian interference be accomplished in Hungary, and did
not give us your recognition when we had achieved and declared our
independence.
Six books yet remain. The spirit of the age, the Sibylla of opportunity,
holds a second three books over the fire. Do not allow her to burn
them--else only the last three remain, and I fear you will have, without
profit, more to pay for them than would have bought all the nine, and
with them the glory and happiness of an _eternal, mighty Republic!_
Gentlemen, I humbly thank you for your kindness, and bid you an
affectionate farewell.
* * * * *
XXXV.--CATHOLICISM _VERSUS_ JESUITISM.
[_At St. Louis, (Missouri.)_]
Mr. Kasson addressed Kossuth in an ample speech; in which he said:--
Everywhere have the untrammelled masses of this people, as you passed,
lifted up their hands and voices, and supplicated the Almighty to give
to you blessing, and to your country redemption. Let this be some
recompense for the privations you have encountered, while, like Aeneas,
you have been wandering an exile from your native, captured, prostrate
Troy.
I should not do my whole duty without saying, in behalf of the thousands
assembled here, that we have an unshaken confidence in Hungary's chosen
leader. We are not so blind that we cannot observe how no envenomed
shaft was fixed to the bow-string against him, in England and America,
while he was yet a helpless and powerless refugee, within Turkish
hospitality. But when the people were gathering around him in free
countries, shoulder to shoulder--when even the hearts of statesmen began
to open to him, and hope dawned in the Hungarian sky once more, then it
was these arrows of detraction darkened the air, shot from the Court of
the French Usurper, or from the pensioners of autocratic bounty. Your
patient labours and forbearance in your country's cause, while thus
assailed, have won for you, sir, our sincere respect, and another wreath
at the hand of the Muse of History.
Kossuth replied:
Gentlemen,--During my brief sojourn in your hospitable city, I have
heard so much local pettiness and so much hypocritical tactics of men
imported from Austria to advocate the cause of Russo-Austrian despotism
in Republican America, and chiefly in your city here, that indeed I
began to long for the pure air where the merry sunshine, as well as the
melancholy drop of rain, the roaring of the thunder storm, equally as
the sigh of the breeze, tell to the oppressors and their tools, and not
only to the oppressed, that there is a God in heaven who rules the
universe by eternal laws; the Almighty Father of humanity, omnipotent in
wisdom, bountiful in His omnipotence, just in His judgment, and eternal
in His love; the Lord who gave strength to the boy David against
Goliath, who often makes out of humble individuals efficient instruments
to push forward the condition of mankind towards that destiny which His
merciful will has assigned to it--His will, against which neither the
proud ambition of despots, nor the skill of their obsequious tools can
prevail--in Him I put my trust and go cheerfully on in my duties. I am
in the right way to benefit the cause, noble and just and great, to
which I devoted my life; for if there were no success in what I am
engaged, the despots would neither fear, nor hate, nor persecute me.
Their persecution imparts more hope to my breast than all your kindness;
and I give you my word that if I have the consciousness of having well
merited in my past the hatred and the fear of tyrants and their
instruments, so may God bless me as I will do all a mortal man can do to
merit that hatred and that fear still more.
Why? Am I not standing on the banks of the Mississippi, cheered,
welcomed, and supported, as warmly and as heartily as when I stepped
first upon your glorious shores? Opposition, hostility, venomous
calumny, have exhausted all means to check the sympathy of the people.
And has that sympathy subsided? has it abated? is it checked? No, it
rolls on swelling as I advance--here I have again an imposing evidence
before my eyes, here in St. Louis, my namesake city, where so much, and
that so perseveringly, was done to prevent this evidence.
Yes, it rolls, and will roll on, swelling till it will finally submerge
all endeavours to mislead the instincts of freemen, to fetter the
energies of the nation, to stifle its spirit, and to check the growing
aspirations of the people's upright heart.
When the struggle is about principles, indifference is suicide. Nay,
indifference is impossible: for indifference about the fate of that
principle upon which your national existence and all your future
rests--is passive submission to the opposite principle--it is almost
equivalent to an alliance with the despots. _He who is not for freedom
is against freedom_. There is no third choice.
The people's instinct feels the danger of losing an irreparable
opportunity, and hence the fact, never yet met in history, that a
homeless exile becomes an object of such sympathy, rolling on like a
sea, in spite of all the passionate rage of my enemies, and all the
Christian tolerance of the Reverend Father Jesuits, which they in such
an evident manner show to me. It is time to advertise them by a few
remarks that I am aware of their hostility, and ready to meet it openly.
I make this advertisement by design here, because it is not my custom to
attack from behind or in the dark. Mine is not the famous doctrine,
_that the end sanctifies the means_. I like to meet the enemy face
to face--a fair field and fair arms.
And in one thing more I will not imitate my reverend opponents. I will
never indulge in any personalities, never act otherwise than becoming to
a gentleman. If they choose to pursue a different course, let them do
so, and let them earn the fruits of it.
My humble person I entirely submit to the good pleasure of their
passion. If they tell you, gentlemen, that I am no great man, they speak
the truth. Being on good terms with my conscience, I do not much care to
be on bad terms with Czars and Emperors, their obedient servants, and
the reverend father Jesuits. Nay, if I were on good terms with them, I
scarcely could remain on good terms with my conscience. So much for
myself--now a few words as to the question between us.
I am claiming moral and material aid against that Czar of Russia who is
the most bloody persecutor of Roman Catholics. The present Pope himself,
before the revolution, when he was yet more of a High Priest than of an
Italian Despot, and cared more about spiritual than temporal business,
openly and bitterly complained in the councils of the Cardinals against
that bloody persecution which the Roman Catholics have suffered from the
Czar of Russia. Now, considering that I plead for republican principles,
to which the Reverend Father Jesuits should be _here_ warmly
attached, if they are willing to have the reputation of good citizens,
and not to be traitors to your Republic, which affords to them not only
the protection of its laws, but also the full enjoyment of all the
privileges of your republican freedom;--it is indeed a strange, striking
fact, to see these reverend fathers here in a Republic so warmly
advocating the cause of despotism, and so passionately persecuting the
cause I humbly plead, which at the same time is the cause of political
freedom and religious liberty for numerous millions of Roman Catholics
throughout Europe.