Select Speeches of Kossuth · Chapter 4Preface to Kossuth's Speeches. (4)
This chapter is not translated yet. You are reading the original.
Having stated so far the difference of the situation, I beg leave now to assert that it is an error to suppose that non-interference in foreign matters has been bequeathed to the people of the United States by your great Washington as a doctrine and as a constitutional principle. Firstly, Washington never even recommended to you non-interference in the sense of indifference to the fate of other nations. He only recommended neutrality. And there is a mighty diversity between these two ideas. Neutrality has reference to a state of war between two belligerent powers, and it is this case which Washington contemplated, when he, in his Farewell Address, advised the people of the United States not to enter into entangling alliances. Let quarrelling powers, let quarrelling nations go to war—but do you consider your own concerns; leave foreign powers to quarrel about ambitious topics, or narrow partial interests. Neutrality is a matter of convenience—not of principle. But while neutrality has reference to a state of war between belligerent powers, the principle of non-interference, on the contrary, lays down the sovereign right of nations to arrange their own domestic concerns. Therefore these two ideas of neutrality and non-interference are entirely different, having reference to two entirely different matters. The sovereign right of every nation to rule over itself, to alter its own institutions, to change the form of its own government, is a common public law of nations, common to all, and, therefore, put under the common guarantee of all. This sovereign right of every nation to dispose of itself, you, the people of the United States must recognize; for it is the common law of mankind, in which, because it is such, every nation is equally interested. You must recognize it, secondly, because the very existence of your great republic, as also the independence of every nation, rests upon this ground. If that sovereign right of nations were no common public law of mankind, then your own independence would be no matter of right, but only a matter of fact, which might be subject, for all future time, to all sorts of chances from foreign conspiracy and violence. And where is the citizen of the United States who would not revolt at the idea that this great republic is not a righteous nor a lawful existence, but only a mere accident—a mere matter of fact? If it were so, you were not entitled to invoke the protection of God for your great country; for the protection of God cannot, without sacrilege, be invoked but in behalf of justice and right. You would have no right to look to the sympathy of mankind for yourselves; for you would profess an abrogation of the laws of humanity upon which is founded your own independence, your own nationality.
Now, gentlemen, if these be principles of common law, of that law which God has given to every nation of humanity—if to organize itself is the common lawful right of every nation; then the interference with this common law of all humanity, the violent act of hindering, by armed forces, a nation from exercising that sovereign right, must be considered as a violation of that common public law upon which your very existence rests, and which, being a common law of all humanity, is, by God himself, placed under the safeguard of all humanity; for it is God himself who commands us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves, and to do towards others as we desire others to do towards us. Upon this point you cannot remain indifferent. You may well remain neutral to war between two belligerent nations, but you cannot remain indifferent to the violation of the common law of humanity. That indifference Washington has never taught you. I defy any man to show me, out of the eleven volumes of Washington's writings, a single word to that effect. He could not have recommended this indifference without ceasing to be wise as he was; for without justice there is no wisdom on earth. He could not have recommended it without becoming inconsistent; for it was this common law of mankind which your fathers invoked before God and man when they proclaimed your independence. It was he himself, your great Washington, who not only accepted, but again and again asked, foreign aid—foreign help for the support of that common law of mankind in respect to your own independence. Knowledge and instruction are so universally spread amongst the enlightened people of the United States, the history of your country is such a household science at the most lonely hearths of your remotest settlements, that it may be sufficient for me to refer, in that respect, to the instructions and correspondence between Washington and the Minister at Paris—the equally immortal Franklin—the modest man with the proud epitaph, which tells the world that he wrested the lightning from heaven, and the sceptre from the tyrant's hands.
I will go further. Even that doctrine of neutrality which Washington taught and bequeathed to you, he taught not as a constitutional principle—a lasting regulation for all future time, but only as a matter of temporary policy. I refer in that respect to the very words of his Farewell Address. There he states explicitly that "it is your policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." These are his very words. Policy is the word, and you know that policy is not the science of principle, but of exigencies; and that principles are, of course, by a free and powerful nation, never to be sacrificed to exigencies. The exigencies pass away like the bubbles of a shower, but the nation is immortal: it must consider the future also, and not only the egotistical dominion of the passing hour: it must be aware that to an immortal nation nothing can be of higher importance than immortal principles. Again, in the same address Washington explicitly says, in reference to his policy of neutrality, that "with him a predominant motive has been to gain time to your country to settle and mature its institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it the command of its own fortunes." These are highly memorable words, gentlemen. Here I take my ground; and casting a glance of admiration over your glorious land, I confidently ask you, gentlemen, are your institutions settled and matured or are they not? Are you, or are you not, come to such a degree of strength and consistency as to be the masters of your own fortunes? Oh! how do I thank God for having given me the glorious view of this country's greatness, which answers this question for me! Yes! you have attained that degree of strength and consistency in which your less fortunate brethren may well claim your protecting hand.
One word more on Washington's doctrines. In one of his letters, written to Lafayette, he says:—"Let us only have twenty years of peace, and our country will come to such a degree of power and wealth that we shall be able, in a just cause, to defy any power on earth whatsoever." "In a just cause!" Now, in the name of eternal truth, and by all that is dear and sacred to man, since the history of mankind is recorded, there has been no cause more just than the cause of Hungary. Never was there a people, without the slightest reason, more sacrilegiously, more treacherously attacked, or by fouler means than Hungary. Never has crime, cursed ambition, despotism, and violence, united more wickedly to crush freedom, and the very life, than against Hungary. Never was a country more mortally aggrieved than Hungary is. All your sufferings—all your complaints, which, with so much right, drove your forefathers to take up arms, are but slight grievances in comparison with those immense deep wounds, out of which the heart of Hungary bleeds! If the cause of our people is not sufficiently just to insure the protection of God, and the support of right-willing men—then there is no just cause, and no justice on earth. Then the blood of no new Abel will moan towards Heaven. The genius of charity, Christian love, and justice will mourningly fly the earth; a heavy curse will fall upon morality—oppressed men will despair, and only the Cains of mankind walk proudly with impious brow about the ruins of liberty on earth.
Now, allow me briefly to consider how your Foreign Policy has grown and enlarged itself. I will only recall to your memory the message of President Monroe, when he clearly stated that the United States would take up arms to protect the American Colonies of Spain, now free republics, should the Holy (or rather unholy) Alliance make an attempt either to aid Spain to reduce the new American republics to their ancient colonial state, or to compel them to adopt political systems more conformable to the policy and views of that alliance. I entreat you to mark this well, gentlemen. Not only the forced introduction of monarchy, but in general the interference of foreign powers in the contest, was declared sufficient motive for the United States to protect the colonies. Let me remind you that this declaration of President Monroe was not only approved and confirmed by the people of the United States, but that Great Britain itself joined the United States, in the declaration of this decision and this policy. I further recall to your memory the instructions given in 1826 to your Envoys to the Congress of Panama, Richard Anderson and John Sergeant, where it was clearly stated that the United States would have opposed, with their whole force, the interference of the continental powers in that struggle for independence. It is true, that this declaration to go even to war, to protect the independence of foreign States against foreign interference, was restricted to the continent of America; for President Monroe declares in his message that the United States can have no concern in European straggles, being distant and separated from Europe by the great Atlantic Ocean. But I would remark that this indifference to European concerns is again a matter, not of principle but of temporary exigency—the motives of which have, by the lapse of time, entirely disappeared—so much that the balance is even turned to the opposite side.
President Monroe mentions distance as a motive of the above-stated distinction. Well, since the prodigious development of your Fulton's glorious invention, distance is no longer calculated by miles, but by hours; and, being so, Europe is of course less distant from you than the greater part of the American continent. But, let even the word distance be taken in a nominal sense. Europe is nearer to you than the greatest part of the American continent—yea! even nearer than perhaps some parts of your own territory. President Monroe's second motive is, that you are separated from Europe by the Atlantic. Now, at the present time, and in the present condition of navigation, the Atlantic is no separation, but rather a link; as the means of that commercial intercourse which brings the interest of Europe home to you, connecting you with it by every tie of moral as well as material interest.
There is immense truth in that which the French Legation in the United States expressed to your government in an able note of 27th October past:—"America is closely connected with Europe, being only separated from the latter by a distance scarcely exceeding eight days' journey, by one of the most important of general interests—the interest of commerce. The nations of America and Europe are at this day so dependent upon one another, that the effects of any event, prosperous or otherwise, happening on one side of the Atlantic, are immediately felt on the other side. The result of this community of interests, commercial, political, and moral, between Europe and America—of this frequency and rapidity of intercourse between them, is, that it becomes as difficult to point out the geographical degree where American policy shall terminate, and European policy begin, as it is to trace out the line where American commerce begins and European commerce terminates. Where may be said to begin or terminate the ideas which are in the ascendant in Europe and in America?"
It is chiefly in New York that I feel induced to urge this, because New York is, by innumerable ties, connected with Europe—more connected than several parts of Europe itself. It is the agricultural interest of this great country which chiefly wants an outlet and a market. Now, it is far more to Europe than to the American continent that you have to look in that respect. On this account you cannot remain indifferent to the fate of freedom on the European continent: for be sure, gentlemen—and I would say this chiefly to the gentlemen of trade—should absolutism gain ground in Europe, it will, it must, put every possible obstacle in the way of commercial intercourse with republican America: for commercial intercourse is the most powerful convoyer of principles, and be sure the victory of absolutism on the European continent will in no quarter have more injurious national consequences than against your vast agricultural and commercial interests. Then why not prevent it, while it is still possible to do so with comparatively small sacrifices, rather than abide that fatal catastrophe, and have to mourn the immense sacrifices it would then cost?
Even in political considerations, now-a-days, you have stronger motives to feel interested in the fate of Europe than in the fate of the Central or Southern parts of America. Whatever may happen in the institutions of these parts, you are too powerful to see your own institutions affected by it. But let Europe become absolutistical (as, unless Hungary be restored to its independence, and Italy become free, be sure it will)—and your children will see those words, which your national government spoke in 1827, fulfilled on a larger scale than they were meant, that "the absolutism of Europe will not be appeased, until every vestige of human freedom has been obliterated even here." And oh! do not rely too fondly upon your power. It is great, assuredly. You have not to fear any single power on earth. But look to history. Mighty empires have vanished. Let not the enemies of freedom grow too strong. Victorious over Europe, and then united, they would be too strong even for you! And be sure they hate you most cordially. They consider you as their most dangerous opponent. Absolutism cannot sleep tranquilly, while the republican principle has such a mighty representative as your country is. Yes, gentlemen, it was the fear of driving the absolutists to fanatical effort, which induced your great Statesmen not to extend to Europe the principle on which they acted towards the New World, and by no means the publicly avowed feeble motives. Every manifestation of your public life in those times shows that I am right to say so. The European nations were, about 1823, in such a degraded situation, that indeed you must have felt anxious not to come into any political contact with that pestilential atmosphere, when, as Mr. Clay said in 1818, in his speech about the emancipation of South America, "Paris was transferred to St. Petersburg." But scarcely a year later, the Greek nation came in its contest to an important crisis, which gave you hope that the spirit of freedom was waking again, and at once you abandoned the principle of political indifference for Europe. You know, your Clays and your Websters spoke, as if really they were speaking for my very cause. You know how your citizens acted in behalf of that struggle for liberty in a part of Europe which is more distant than Hungary: and again when Poland fell, you know what spirit pervaded the United States.
I have shown you how Washington's policy has been gradually changed: but one mighty difference I must still commemorate. Your population has, since Monroe's time, nearly doubled, I believe; or at least has increased by millions. And what sort of men are these millions? Are they only native-born Americans? No European emigrants? Many are men, who though citizens of the United States are, by the most sacred ties of relationship, attached to the fate of Europe. That is a consideration worthy of reflection with your wisest men, who will, ere long agree with me, that in your present condition you are at least as much interested in the state of Europe, as twenty-eight years ago your fathers were in the fate of Central and Southern America. And really so it is. The unexampled sympathy for the cause of my country which I have met with in the United States proves that it is so. Your generous interference with the Turkish captivity of the Governor of Hungary, proves that is so. And this progressive development in your foreign policy, is, in fact, no longer a mere instinctive ebullition of public opinion, which is about hereafter to direct your governmental policy; the opinion of the people is already avowed as the policy of the government. I have a most decisive authority to rely upon in saying so. It is the message of the President of the United States. His Excellency, Millard Fillmore, made a communication to Congress, a few days ago, and there I read the paragraph:—"The deep interest which we feel in the spread of liberal principles, and the establishment of free governments, and the sympathy with which we witness every struggle against oppression, forbid that we should be indifferent to a case in which the strong arm of a foreign power is invoked to stifle public sentiment and repress the spirit of freedom in any country."
Now, gentlemen, here is the ground which I take for my earnest endeavours to benefit the cause of Hungary. I have only respectfully to ask: Is a principle which the public opinion of the United States so resolutely professes, and which the government of the United States, with the full sentiment of its responsibility, declares to your Congress to be a ruling principle of your national government—is that principle meant to be serious? Indeed, it would be a most impertinent outrage towards your great people and your national government, to entertain the insulting opinion, that what the people of the United States and its national government profess in such a solemn diplomatic manner could be meant as a mere sporting with the most sacred interests of humanity. God forbid that I should think so. Therefore, I take the principle of your policy as I find it established—and I come in the name of oppressed humanity to claim the unavoidable, practical, consequences of your own freely chosen policy, which you have avowed to the whole world; to claim the realization of those expectations which you, the sovereign people of the United States, have chosen, of your own accord, to raise in the bosom of my countrymen and of all the oppressed.
You will excuse me, gentlemen, for having dwelt so long upon that principle of non-interference with European measures: but I have found it to be the stone of stumbling thrown in my way when I spoke of what I humbly request from the United States. I have been charged as arrogantly attempting to change your existing policy, and since I cannot in one speech exhaust the complex and mighty whole of my mission, I choose on the present opportunity to develop my views about that fundamental principle: and having shown, not theoretically, but practically, that it is a mistake to think that you had, at any time, such a principle, and having shown that if you ever entertained such a policy, you have been forced to abandon it—so much, at least, I hope I have achieved. My humble requests to your active sympathy may be still opposed by—I know not what other motives; but the objection, that you must not interfere with European concerns—this objection is disposed of, once and for ever, I hope. It remains now to inquire, whether, since you have professed not to be indifferent to the cause of European freedom—the cause of Hungary is such as to have just claims to your active and effectual assistance and support. It is, gentlemen.
To prove this I do not now intend to enter into an explanation of the particulars of our struggle, which I had the honour to conduct, as the chosen Chief Magistrate of my native land. It is highly gratifying to me to find that the cause of Hungary is—excepting some ridiculous misrepresentations of ill-will—correctly understood here. I will only state now one fact, and that is, that our endeavours for independence were crushed by the armed interference of a foreign despotic power—the principle of all evil on earth—Russia. And stating this fact, I will not again intrude upon you with my own views, but recall to your memory the doctrines established by your own statesmen. Firstly—I return to your great Washington. He says, in one of his letters to Lafayette, "My policies are plain and simple; I think every nation has a right to establish that form of government under which it conceives it can live most happy; and that no government ought to interfere with the internal concerns of another." Here I take my ground:—upon a principle of Washington—a principle, not a mere temporary policy calculated for the first twenty years of your infancy. Russia has interfered with the internal concerns of Hungary, and by doing so has violated the policy of the United States, established as a lasting principle by Washington himself. It is a lasting principle. I could appeal in my support to the opinion of every statesman of the United States, of every party, of every time; but to save time, I pass at once from the first President of the United States to the last, and recall to your memory this word of the present annual message of his Excellency President Fillmore:—"Let every people choose for itself, and make and alter its political institutions to suit its own condition and convenience." I beg leave also to quote the statement of your present Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, who, in his speech on the Greek question, speaks thus:—"The law of nations maintains that in extreme cases resistance is lawful, and that one nation has no right to interfere in the affairs of another." Well, that precisely is the ground upon which we Hungarians stand.
But I may perhaps meet the objection (I am sorry to say I have met it already)—"Well, we own that it has been violated by Russia in the case of Hungary, but after all what is Hungary to us? Let every people take care of itself, what is that to us?" So some speak: it is the old doctrine of private egotism, "Every one for himself, and God for us all." I will answer the objection again by the words of Mr. Webster, who, in his speech on the Greek question, having professed that the internal sovereignty of every nation is a law of nations—thus goes on, "But it may be asked 'what is all that to us?' The question is easily answered. We are one of the nations, and we as a nation have precisely the same interest in international law as a private individual has in the laws of his country." The principle which your honourable Secretary of State professes, is a principle of eternal truth. No man can disavow it, no political party can disavow it. Thus happily I am able to address my prayers, not to a party, but to the whole people of the United States, and will go on to do so as long as I have no reason to regard one party as opposed or indifferent to my country's cause.
But from certain quarters it may be avowed, "Well, we acknowledge every nation's sovereign right; we acknowledge it to be a law of nations that no foreign power interfere in the affairs of another, and we are determined to respect this common law of mankind; but if others do not respect that law it is not ours to meddle with them." Let me answer by an analysis:—Every nation has the same interest in international, law as a private individual has in the laws of his country. That is an acknowledged principle with your statesmen. What then is the latter relation? Does it suffice that an individual do not himself violate the law? Must he not so far as is in his power also prevent others from violating the law? Suppose you see that a wicked man is about to rob—to murder your neighbour, or to burn his house, will you wrap yourself in your own virtuous lawfulness, and say, "I myself neither rob, nor murder, nor burn; but what others do is not my concern. I am not my brother's keeper. I sympathize with him; but I am not called on to save him from being robbed, murdered, or burnt." What honest man of the world would answer so? None of you. None of the people of the United States, I am sure. That would be the damned maxim of the Pharisees of old, who thanked God that they were not as others were. Our Saviour was not content himself to avoid trading in the hall of the temple, but he drove out those who were trading there.
The duty of enforcing observance to the common law of nations has no other limit than the power to fulfil it. Of course the republic of St. Marino, or the Prince of Monaco, cannot stop the Czar of Russia in his ambitious annoyance. It was ridiculous when the Prince of Modena refused to recognize the government of Louis Philippe—"but to whom much is given, from him will much be expected," says the Lord. Every condition has not only its rights, but also its own duties; and whatever exists as a power on earth, is in duty a part of the executive government of mankind, called to maintain the law of nations. Woe, a thousandfold woe to humanity, should there be no force on earth to maintain the laws of humanity. Woe to humanity, should those who are as mighty as they are free, not feel interested to maintain the laws of mankind, because they are rightful laws,—but only in so far as some partial money-interests would desire it. Woe to mankind if every despot of the world may dare to trample down the laws of humanity, and no free nation make these laws respected. People of the United States, humanity expects that your glorious republic will prove to the world, that republics are founded on virtue—it expects to see you the guardians of the laws of humanity.
I will come to the last possible objection. I may be told, "You are right in your principles, your cause is just, and you have our sympathy, but, after all, we cannot go to war for your country; we cannot furnish you armies and fleets; we cannot fight your battle for you." There is the rub! Who can exactly tell what would have been the issue of your own struggle for independence (though your country was in a far happier geographical position than we, poor Hungarians), had France given such an answer to your forefathers in 1778 and 1781, instead of sending to your aid a fleet of thirty-eight men-of-war, and auxiliary troops, and 24,000 muskets, and a loan of nineteen millions? And what was far more than all this, did it not show that France resolved with all its power to espouse the cause of your independence? But, perhaps, I shall be told that France did this, not out of love of freedom, but out of hatred against England. Well, let it be; but let me then ask, shall the curse of olden times—hatred—be more efficient in the destinies of mankind than love of freedom, principles of justice, and the laws of humanity? And is America in the days of steam navigation more distant from Europe to-day, than France was from America seventy-three years ago? However, I most solemnly declare that it is not my intention to rely literally upon this example. It is not my wish to entangle the United States in war, or to engage your great people to send out armies and fleets to raise up and restore Hungary. Not at all, gentlemen; I most solemnly declare that I have never entertained such expectations or such hopes; and here I come to the practical point.
The principle of evil in Europe is the enervating spirit of Russian absolutism. Upon this rests the daring boldness of every petty tyrant to trample upon oppressed nations, and to crush liberty. To this Moloch of ambition has my native land fallen a victim. It is with this that Montalembert threatens the French republicans. It was Russian intervention in Hungary which governed French intervention in Rome, and gave German tyrants hardihood to crush all the endeavours for freedom and unity in Germany. The despots of the European continent are leagued against the freedom of the world. That is A MATTER OF FACT. The second matter of fact is that the European continent is on the eve of a new revolution. It is not necessary to be initiated in the secret preparations of the European democracy to be aware of that approaching contingency. It is pointed out by the French constitution itself, prescribing a new Presidential election for the next spring. Now, suppose that the ambition of Louis Napoleon, encouraged by Russian secret aid, awaits this time (which I scarcely believe), and suppose that there should be a Republic in France; of course the first act of the new French President must be, at least, to recall the French troops from Rome. Nobody can doubt that a revolution in Italy will follow. Or if there is no peaceful solution in France, but a revolution, then every man knows that whenever the heart of France boils up, the pulsation is felt throughout Europe, and oppressed nations once more rise, and Russia again interferes.