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
One principle, which should be universal in States as among individual
men is, that each should use his own in such a way as not to injure that
which belongs to another. _Russia violated this principle when she
interfered in the affairs of Hungary_, and thus weakened the
obligations of other States to respect the sovereignty of the Russian
Empire.
The independent existence of the continental States of Europe, is of
twofold importance to America. Important politically, important
commercially.
As independent States they deprive Russia, the central and absorbing
power of Europe, of the opportunity on the Mediterranean to interfere in
the politics and civilities of this Continent. Russia and the United
States are as unlike as any two nations which ever existed. If Russia
obtains control of Europe by the power of arms, and the United States
shall retain this Continent by the power of its principles, war will be
inevitable. As inevitable as it was in former days that war should arise
between Carthage and Rome,--Carthage, which sought to extend her power
by commerce, and Rome, which sought to govern the world by the sword.
The independence of the States of Europe is then the best security for
the peace of the world. If these States exist, it must be upon one
condition only--that each State is permitted to regulate its own
affairs. If the voice of the United States and Great Britain is silent,
will Russia allow these States to exist upon this principle?--Has she
not already partitioned Poland--menaced Turkey--divided with the Sultan
the sovereignty of Wallachia--infused new energy into the despotic
councils of Austria--and finally aided her in an unholy crusade against
the liberties of Hungary? Have we not then an interest in the affairs of
Europe? And if we have an interest, ought we not to use the rights of an
independent State for its protection?
The second consideration is commercial.
Centralization, absolutism, destroys commerce. The policy of Russia
diminishes production and limits markets. Whenever she adds a new State
to her dominions the commerce of the world is diminished. Great Britain
and the United States, which possess three-fourths of the commercial
marine of the globe, are interested to prevent it. Our commerce at this
moment with despotic States is of very little importance, and its
history shows that in every age it has flourished in proportion to the
freedom of the people.
These, gentlemen, are poor words and barren thoughts upon the great
European question of the time. A question which America in her own name,
and for herself, must meet at some future day, if now she shall fail to
meet it firmly, upon well settled principles of national law, for the
protection and assistance of other States.
I have done. The exiled patriot shall speak for himself. Not for
himself only, nor for the land and people of Hungary he loves so well,
but for Europe, and America even, he speaks. Before you he pleads your
own cause. It is to a just tribunal I present a noble advocate. And to
him it shall be a bright spot in the dreary waste of the exile's life,
that to-night he pleads the cause of Hungary and humanity, where once
Otis and Adams, and Hancock and Quincy, pleaded the cause of America and
liberty.
I present to you Governor Kossuth of Hungary.
In reply to Governor Boutwell, when the tumultuous applause had
subsided, Kossuth spoke, in substance as follows:--
He apologized for profaning Shakespeare's language in Faneuil Hall, the
cradle of American liberty. Yet he ventured to criticize that very
phrase; for liberty ought not to be _American_, but _human_;
else it is no longer a right, but a privilege; and privilege can nowhere
be permanent. The nature of a privilege (said he) is exclusiveness, that
of a principle is communicative. Liberty is a principle: its community
is its security; exclusiveness is its doom.
What is aristocracy? It is exclusive liberty; it is privilege; and
aristocracy is doomed, because it is contrary to the destiny of men. As
aristocracy should vanish within each nation, so should no nation be an
aristocrat among nations. Until that ceases, liberty will nowhere be
lasting on earth. It is equally fatal to individuals as to nations, to
believe themselves beyond the reach of vicissitudes. By this proud
reliance, and the isolation resulting therefrom, more victims have
fallen than by immediate adversities. You have grown prodigiously by
your freedom of seventy-five years; but what is seventy-five years as a
charter of immortality? No, no, my humble tongue tells the records of
eternal truth. A _privilege_ never can be lasting. Liberty
restricted to one nation never can be sure. You may say, "We are the
prophets of God;" but you shall not say, "God is only our God." The Jews
said so, and their pride, old Jerusalem, lies in the dust. Our Saviour
taught all humanity to say, "Our Father in heaven," and his Jerusalem is
lasting to the end of days.
"There is a community in mankind's destiny"--that was the greeting which
I read on the arch of welcome on the Capitol Hill of Massachusetts. I
pray to God, the Republic of America would weigh the eternal truth of
those words, and act accordingly; liberty in America would then be sure
to the end of time; but if you say, "American Liberty," and take that
grammar for your policy, I dare to say the time will yet come when
humanity will have to mourn a new proof of the ancient truth, that
without community national freedom is never sure.
However, the cradle of American Liberty is not only famous from the
reputation of having been always on the lists of the most powerful
eloquence; it is still more conspicuous for having seen that eloquence
attended by practical success. To understand the mystery of this rare
circumstance one must see the people of New England, and especially the
people of Massachusetts.
In what I have seen of New England there are two things, the evidence of
which strikes the observer at every step--prosperity and intelligence. I
have seen thousands assembled, following the noble impulses of a
generous heart: almost the entire population of every town, of every
village where I passed, gathered around me, throwing flowers of
consolation on my path. I have seen not a single man bearing that mark
of poverty upon himself which in old Europe strikes the eye sadly at
every step. I have seen no ragged poor--have seen not a single house
bearing the appearance of desolated poverty. The cheerfulness of a
comfortable condition, the result of industry, spreads over the land.
One sees at a glance that the people work assiduously, not with the
depressing thought just to get through the cares of a miserable life
from day to day by hard toil, but they work with the cheerful
consciousness of substantial happiness. And the second thing which I
could not fail to remark, is the stamp of intelligence impressed upon
the very eyes and outward appearance of the people at large. I and my
companions have seen them in the factories, in the workshops, in their
houses, and in the streets, and could not fail a thousand times to think
"how intelligent this people looks." It is to such a people that the
orators of Faneuil Hall had to speak, and therein is the mystery of
success. They were not wiser than the public spirit of their audience,
but they were the eloquent interpreters of the people's enlightened
instinct.
No man can force the harp of his own individuality into the people's
heart, but every man may play upon the chords of his people's heart, who
draws his inspiration from the people's instinct. Well, I thank God for
having seen the public spirit of the people of Massachusetts, bestowing
its attention on the cause I plead, and pronouncing its verdict. In
respect to the question of national intervention, his Excellency the
high-minded Governor of Massachusetts wrote a memorable address to the
Legislature; the Joint Committee of the Legislative Assembly, after a
careful and candid consideration of the subject, not only concurred in
the views of the Executive government, but elucidated them in a report,
the irrefutable logic and elevated statesmanship of which will for ever
endear the name of Hazewell to oppressed nations; and the Senate of
Massachusetts adopted the resolutions proposed by the Legislative
Committee. After such remarkable and unsolicited manifestations of
conviction, there cannot be the slightest doubt that all these Executive
and Legislative proceedings not only met the full approbation of the
people of Massachusetts, but were the solemn interpretation of public
opinion. A spontaneous outburst of popular sentiment tells often more
in a single word than all the skill of elaborate eloquence could; as
when, amidst the thundering cheers of a countless multitude, a man in
Worcester greeted me with the shout: "_We worship not the man, but we
worship the principle_." It was a word, like those words of flame
spoken in Faneuil Hall, out of which liberty in America was born. That
word reveals the spirit, which, applying eternal truth to present
exigencies, moves through the people's heart--that word is teeming with
the destinies of America.
Give me leave to mention, that having had an opportunity to converse
with leading men of the great parties, which are on the eve of an
animated contest for the Presidency--I availed myself of that
opportunity, to be informed of the principal issues, in case the one or
the other party carries the prize; and having got the information
thereof, I could not forbear to exclaim--"All these questions together
cannot outweigh the all-overruling importance of _foreign policy_."
It is there, in the question of foreign policy, that the heart of the
immediate future throbs. Security and danger, prosperity and stagnation,
peace and war, tranquillity and embarrassment--yes, life and death, will
be weighed in the scale of Foreign Policy. It is evident things are come
to the point where they were in ancient Rome, when old Cato never spoke
privately or publicly about whatever topic, without closing his speech
with these words: "_However, my opinion is that Carthage must be
destroyed_"--thus advertising his countrymen, that there was one
question outweighing in importance all other questions, from which
public attention should never for a moment be withdrawn.
Such, in my opinion, is the condition of the world now. Carthage and
Rome had no place on earth together. Republican America and
all-overwhelming Russian absolutism cannot much longer subsist together
on earth. Russia active--America passive--there is an immense danger in
that fact; it is like the avalanche in the Alps, which the noise of a
bird's wing may move and thrust down with irresistible force, growing
every moment. I cannot but believe it were highly time to do as old Cato
did, and finish every speech with these words--"_However, the law of
nations should be maintained, and absolutism not permitted to become
omnipotent._"
It is however a consolation to me to know, that the _chief_
difficulty with which I have to contend,--viz. the overpowering
influence of domestic questions with you,--is neither lasting, nor in
any way an argument against the justice of our cause.
Another difficulty which I encounter is rather curious. Many a man has
told me that if I had only not fallen into the hands of
_abolitionists_ and _free soilers_, they would have supported
me; and had I landed somewhere in the South, instead of at New York, I
should have met quite different things from that quarter; but being
supported by the free-soilers, of course I must be opposed by the South.
On the other side, I received a letter, from which I beg leave to quote
a few lines:--
"You are silent on the subject of slavery. Surrounded as you have been
by slaveholders ever since you put your foot on English soil, if not
during your whole voyage from Constantinople, and ever since you have
been in this country surrounded by them, whose threats, promises, and
flattery made the stoutest hearts succumb, your position has put me in
mind of a scene described by the apostle of Jesus Christ, when the devil
took him up into a high mountain," &c.
Now, gentlemen, thus being charged from one side with being in the hands
of abolitionists, and from the other side with being in the hands of
slaveholders, I indeed am at a loss what course to take, if these very
contradictory charges were not giving me the satisfaction to feel that I
stand just where it is my duty to stand--on a truly American ground.
And oh, have I not enough upon these poor shoulders, that I am desired
yet to take up additional cares? If the cause I plead be just, if it is
worthy of your sympathy, and at the same time consistent with the
impartial consideration of your own moral and material interests, (which
a patriot never should disregard, not even out of philanthropy,) then
why not weigh that cause in the scale of its own value, and not in a
foreign one? Have I not difficulties enough before me here, that I am
desired to increase them with my own hands?--Father Mathew goes on
preaching temperance, and he may be opposed or supported on his own
ground; but who ever thought of opposing him because he takes not into
his hands to preach fortitude or charity? And indeed, to oppose or to
abandon the cause I plead, only because I mix not with the agitation of
an interior question, is a greater injustice yet, because to discuss the
question of foreign policy I have a right,--my nation is an object of
that policy; we are interested in it;--but to mix with interior party
movements I have no right, not being a citizen of the United States.
[After this Kossuth proceeded to urge, as in former speeches, that the
interests of American commerce were not opposed to, but were identified
with, the cause of Hungary and of European Liberty. He also adduced new
considerations, which are afterwards treated more fully in his speech at
Buffalo.]
* * * * *
XLIII.--SELF-GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY.
[_Banquet in Faneuil Hall_.]
On April 30th, Kossuth was entertained at a Grand Banquet, by the
Governor and Council, and the Members of the two Houses. Eight hundred
and seventy tickets besides were issued, and were all taken up. The
Honourable Henry Wilson, President of the Senate, was President for the
evening. It is not possible here to print all the speeches, but it may
be noted that Governor Boutwell, in reply to a toast, elicited
affirmative replies from the guests to many questions directed to show
the necessity of American armed interference on the side of Hungary.
Also, the venerable Josiah Quincy, aged eighty, in reply to a toast,
declared that liberty remained only in the United States and Great
Britain, and that in Great Britain herself the spirit of freedom is
weakened. "Let Great Britain fail and be beaten down, and all the navies
of Europe will be bristling against the United States." Finally,
President Wilson, introducing the guest of the evening, said:--
"Gentlemen, allow me to present to you the illustrious guest of
Massachusetts, Governor Kossuth. He has won our admiration as a man by
the advocacy of the cause of his country, and he has won all our hearts
by the purity of his principles."
Kossuth, in reply, noticed that the toast with which he had been
honoured was almost entirely personal; and while disclaiming merit, he
was nevertheless induced to advert to personal incidents, (now generally
known,) as,--how he published in MS. the Hungarian debates,--was
unlawfully imprisoned for it, and learned English in prison by means of
Shakespeare; how when he was necessarily released, the government
imposed an unlawful censorship on his journal, which journal
nevertheless became the basis of the great and extensive reforms which
received their completion in the laws of March and April, 1848. After
this he proceeded as follows:--
Gentlemen, allow me to say a few words on the ancient institutions of
Hungary. I have often heard it said that the people of Europe are
incapable of self-government. Let me speak of the people of Hungary, to
show whether they are capable of self-government or not. In thirty-six
years, with God's help, and through your generous aid, the free people
of Hungary will celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the establishment of
their home--the millennium of Hungary in Europe. Yes, gentlemen, may I
hope that celebration will take place under the blessings of liberty in
the year 1889?
It is a long period--one thousand years--and Oh! how it has teemed with
adversities to my countrymen! and yet through this long time, amid all
adversities there was no period when the people of Hungary did not
resist despotism. Our boast is, that through the vicissitudes of a
thousand years there was not a moment when the popular will and the
legal authorities had sanctioned the rule of absolutism. And, gentlemen,
what other people, for 1000 years, has not consented to be ruled by
despotism? Even in the nineteenth century I am glad to look back to the
wisdom of our fathers through a thousand years--who laid down for
Hungarian institutions a basis which for all eternity must remain true.
This basis was upon that Latin proverb _nil de nobis, sine
nobis_--"nothing about us without us." That was, to claim that every
man should have a full share in the sovereignty of the people and a full
share in the rights belonging to his nation. In other times a theory was
got up to convince the people that they might have a share in
_legislation_ just so far as to control that legislation, but
denying the right of the people to control the _executive_ power.
The Hungarian people never adopted that theory. They ever claimed a full
share in the _executive_ as well as in the legislative and judicial
power. Out of this idea of government rose the municipal system of
Hungary. In respect to Hungarian aristocracy, you must not consider it
in the same light as the aristocracy of England. The word
_nobleman_ in Hungary originally was equivalent to _soldier_.
Every man who defended his country was a nobleman, and every man who had
a vote was called to defend his country. I believe the duty of
defending a man's country, and also political right, should be common.
After our people had conquered a home, the leaders took the lion's
share, of course. But it should be considered that those who had the
largest share of the property, were compelled to furnish soldiers
according to the extent of their possessions. Therefore such men gave a
part of their land to people to cultivate, and desired aid of them
whenever the necessity for war came. So all who defended their country
were considered noblemen. Hungary was divided into fifty-two counties,
but not counties like yours--some of them were so populous as to be
comparable to your States, containing perhaps half a million or more of
people, and those who became the aristocracy in some of these counties
amounted to 35,000. In every county was a fortress, and whenever defence
became necessary, the rich men went into these fortresses under their
own banner, and the others went under the King's colours, and were
commanded by the sheriff of the county, who might be here Governor--at
least who was the chief of the Executive. Certain of the cities were
raised to constitutional rights. A smaller city, if surrounded by
fortifications, or if an important post, was represented in the Diet,
whilst larger places, if not posts of importance for national defence,
were represented only by the County Delegates. Every place that had the
elements of defence had political rights. So it came to pass that the
aristocracy were not a few men, but half a million. I had contended to
beat down this barrier of aristocracy. Before the Revolution, in
municipal governments only the nobility had a share--they only were the
men who could vote: but the change was easy. The frame of
self-government was ready. We had only to say, _the people_ instead
of _the nobility_ had the right to vote; and so, in one day, we
buried aristocracy, never to rise again. Each county elected its
Representatives to the Diet, and had the right of intercourse with other
counties by means of letters on all matters of importance to these
counties; and therefore our fifty-two primary councils were normal
schools of public spirit. We elected our Judicatory and Executive, and
the government had not a right to send instructions or orders to our
Executive; and if an order came which we considered to be inconsistent
with our constitutional rights, it was not sent to the Executive, but to
the Council; and therefore the arbitrary orders of the Government could
not be executed, because they came not into the hands of the Executive.
Thus were our Councils barriers against oppression.
When the French took Saragossa, it was not enough to take the city--they
had to take every house. So also _we_ went on, and though some
counties might accept the arbitrary orders of the government, some
resisted; and, by discussing in their letters to the other counties the
points of right, enlightened them; and it was seen that when the last
house in Saragossa had been beaten down, the first stood erect again. In
consequence of the democratic nature of our institutions, our Councils
were our Grand Juries. But after having elected our Judges, we chose
several men in every county meeting, of no public office, but
conspicuous for their integrity and knowledge of the law, to assist the
Judges in their administration.
Believe me, these institutions had a sound basis, fit to protect a
nation against an arbitrary government which was aiming at
centralization and oppression. Now, these counties having contended
against the Austrian Government, it did everything to destroy them. The
great field was opened in the Diet of 1847. Having been elected by the
county of Pest, I had the honour to lead the party devoted to national
rights and opposed to centralization and in defence of municipal
authority. It was my intention to make it impossible that the Government
should in future encroach upon the liberties of the people. We had the
misfortune in Hungary to be governed by a Constitutional King, who at
the same time was the absolute monarch of another realm--by birth and
interests attached to absolutism and opposed to constitutional
government. It was difficult to be an absolute monarch and behave as
King of Hungary. There is on record a speech of mine, spoken in the
Hungarian Diet, about the inconsistency of these two attributes in one
man--that either Austria must become constitutional, or Hungary
absolutistical. That speech virtually made the Revolution of 1848 at
Vienna. After this Revolution, I was sent to Vienna to ask that our
laws be established, releasing the people from feudal rights and
demanding a constitutional ministry. Then it was that a circumstance
occurred, to which I heard an allusion in the toast offered to me. I was
told the King would grant our request; only, there was agitation in
Vienna, and it would look as if the King were yielding to pressure. If
the people would be quiet, the King would sanction our laws. Then I
said, that if the King would give his sanction to our legislative
measures, peace would be made for the House of Austria in twenty-four
hours. But when that consent was given in one Chamber, in another
Chamber that wicked woman, Sophia, the mother of the present Emperor,
who calls himself King of Hungary--no, he does _not_ call himself
King of Hungary, for he thinks the national existence of Hungary is
blotted out--plotted how to ruin my people and destroy that sanction
which was nothing but a necessary means to secure a just cause. Next
came the Hungarian ministry--and, strange to say, I saw myself placed
close to the throne.
When in Vienna, after the sanction was granted, steps were taken to
retract it; I went to the Arch-Duke Stephen, the Palatine of Hungary,
the first constitutional authority of Hungary,--the elective viceroy,
and told him he ought to return to Hungary if he wished to preserve his
influence.
He answered that he could not return to Hungary, for if the King did not
sanction our laws--he (the Arch-Duke Stephen) might be proclaimed King
instead of the Emperor of Austria, and he would never dethrone his
cousin.
I answered, that he spoke like an honest man, but perhaps the time would
come when he would find an empty seat on that throne, and he had better
take it, for I could assure him, if he did not, no other man ever would
with the consent of the people. When five months later, in Hungary, we
met for the last time, he called me to his house on a stormy night, and
desired of me to know what would be the issue of matters. I answered: I
can see no issue for you, but the crown or else the scaffold, and then
for the people a Republic. But even from this alternative I will relieve
you: for you the crown, for me the scaffold, if the Hungarian
independence is not achieved.--I make no hesitation here to confess that
such was the embarrassed state of Hungarian affairs that I should have
felt satisfied for him to have accepted the crown. Remember that your
fathers did not design at first to sever the ties which bound the
colonies to England, but circumstances forced the issue. So it was with
us. We asked at first only Democratic institutions, but when it was
possible we were glad to throw away our Kings.