Some time back there appeared in certain New York papers systematic falsehoods, which went so far as to state that we, the Hungarians, had struggled for oppression, while it was the Austrian dynasty which stood up for liberty! Such effrontery astonishes even one who has seen Russian treacheries. We may be misrepresented, scorned, jeered at, censured. Our martyrs, whose blood cries for revenge, may be laughed at as fools. Heroes, who will command the veneration of history, may be called Don Quixotes. But that among freemen and professed republicans even the honour of an unfortunate nation, in its most mournful suffering, should not be sacred,—that is indeed a sorrowful page in human history.
You cannot expect me to enter into a special refutation of this compound of calumnies. I may reserve it for my pen. But inasmuch as the basis of all the calumnies lies in general ignorance concerning the relation of the Magyars to other races of Hungary, permit me to speak on the question of NATIONALITIES, a false theory of which plays so mischievous a part in the destinies of Europe. No word has been more misrepresented than the word Nationality, which is become in the hands of absolutism a dangerous instrument against liberty.
Let me ask you, gentlemen: are you, the people of the United States, anation, or not? Have you anationalgovernment, or not? You answer, yes: and yet you are not all of one blood, nor of one language. Millions of you speak English; others French, German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, and even several Indian dialects: yet you are a nation. Neither your central government, nor those of separate states, nor your municipalities, legislate or administer in every language spoken among you; yet you have a national government.
Now, suppose many of you were struck with the curse of Babel, and exclaimed, "This union is an oppression! our laws, our institutions, our state and city governments, are an oppression! What is union to us? what are rights? what avail laws? what is freedom? what is geography? what is community of interests to us? They are all nothing; LANGUAGE is everything. Let us divide the Union, divide the states, divide the very cities, divide the whole territory, according to languages. Let the people of every language become a separate state: for every nation has a right to national life, and to us, the language, and nothing else, is the nationality. Unless the state is founded upon language, its organization is tyranny."
What then would become of your great Union? What of your constitution, the glorious legacy of your greatest man? What of those immortal stars on mankind's moral sky? What would become of your country itself, whence the spirit of freedom soars into light, and rising hope irradiates the future of humanity? What would become of this grand, mighty complex of your republic, should her integrity ever be rent by the fanatics of language? Where now she walks among the rising temples of liberty and happiness, she soon would tread upon ruins, and mourn over human hopes. But happy art then, free nation of America, founded on the only solid basis,—liberty! a principle steady as the world, eternal as the truth, universal for every climate, for every time, like Providence. Tyrants are not in the midst of you to throw the apple of discord and raise hatred in this national family, hatred ofraces, that curse of humanity, that venomous ally of despotism. Glorious it is to see the oppressed of diverse countries,—diverse in language, history, habits,—wandering to these shores, and becoming members of this great nation, regenerated by the principle of common liberty.
If language alone makes a nation, then there is no great nation on earth: for there is no country whose population is counted by millions, but speaks more than one language. No! It is not language only. Community of interests, of rights, of duties, of history, but chiefly community of institutions; by which a population, varying perhaps in tongue and race, is bound together through daily intercourse in the towns, which are the centres and home of commerce and industry:—besides these, the very mountain-ranges, the system of rivers and streams,—the soil, the dust of which is mingled with the mortal remains of those ancestors who bled on the same field, for the same interests, the common inheritance of glory and of woe, the community of laws and institutions, common freedom or common oppression:—all this enters into the complex idea of Nationality.
That this is instinctively felt by the common sense of the people, nowhere is more manifestly shown than at this very moment in my native land. Hungary was declared by Francis Joseph of Austriano more to existas a Nation, no more as a State. It was and is put under martial law. Strangers, aliens to our laws and history as well as to our tongue, rule now, where our fathers lived and our brothers bled. To be a Hungarian is become almost a crime in our own native land. Well: to justify before the world the extinction of Hungary, the partition of its territory, and the reincorporating of the dissected limbs into the common body of servitude, the treacherous dynasty was anxious to show that the Hungarians are in a minority in their own land. They hoped that intimidation and terrorism would induce even the very Magyars to disavow their language and birth. They ordered a census of races to be made. They performed it with the iron rule of martial law; and dealt so arbitrarily that thousands of women and men, who professed to be Magyars, who professed not to know any other language than the Magyar, were, notwithstanding all their protestation, put down as Sclaves, Serbs, Germans, or Wallachians, because their names had not quite a Hungarian sound. And still what was the issue of this malignant plot? That of the twelve millions of inhabitants of Hungary proper, the Magyars turned out to be more than eight millions, some two millions more than we know the case really is. The people instinctively felt that the tyrant had the design through the pretext of language to destroy the existence of the complex nation, and it met the tyrannic plot as if it answered, "We are, and must be, a nation; and if the tyrant takes language only for the mark of nationality, then we are all Magyars." And mark well, gentlemen! this happened, not under my governorship, but under the rule of Austrian martial law. The Cabinet of Vienna became furious; it thought of a new census, but prudent men told them that a new census would give the whole twelve millions as Magyars; thus no new census was taken.
But on the European continent there unhappily has grown up a school, which bound the idea of nationality to the idea of language only, and joined political pretensions to it. There are some who advocate the theory that existing States must cease, and the territories of the world be divided anew by languages and nations, separated by tongues.
You are aware that this idea, if it were not impracticable, would be a curse to humanity—a deathblow to civilization and progress, and throw back mankind by centuries. It would be an eternal source of strife and war: for there is a holy, almost religious tie, by which man's heart is bound to his home, and no man would ever consent to abandon his native land only because his neighbours speak another language than himself. His heart claims that sacred spot where the ashes of his fathers lie—where his own cradle stood—where he dreamed the happy dreams of youth, and where nature itself bears a mark of his manhood's toil. The idea were worse than the old migration of nations was. Nothing but despotism would rise out of such a fanatical strife of all mankind.
And really it is very curious. Nobody of the advocates of this mischievous theory is willing to yield to it for himself—but others he desires to yield to it. Every Frenchman becomes furious when his Alsace is claimed to Germany by the right of language—or the borders of his Pyrenees to Spain—but there are some amongst the very men who feel revolted at this idea, who claim of Germany that it should yield up large territory because one part of the inhabitants speak a different tongue, and would claim from Hungary to divide its territory, which God himself has limited by its range of mountains and the system of streams, as also by all the links of a community of more than a thousand years; to cut off our right hand, Transylvania, and to give it up to the neighbouring Wallachia, to cut out like Shylock one pound of our very breast—the Banat—and the rich country between the Danube and Theiss—to augment by it Turkish Serbia and so forth. It is the new ambition of conquest, but an easy conquest not by arms, but by language.
So much I know, at least, that this absurd idea cannot, and will not, be advocated by any man here in the United States; which did not open its hospitable shores to humanity, and greet the flocking millions of emigrants with the right of a citizen, in order that the Union may be cut to pieces, and even your single States divided into new-framed, independent countries according to languages.
And do you know, gentlemen, whence this absurd theory sprang up on the European Continent? It was the idea of Panslavismus—that is the idea that the mighty stock of Sclavonic races is called to rule the world, as once the Roman did. It was a Russian plot—it was a dark design to make out of national feelings a tool to Russian preponderance over the world.
Perhaps you are not aware of the historical origin of this plot. It was after that most immortal act of tyranny, the third division of Poland, that the chance of fate brought the Prince Czartorinsky, to the Court of Catherine of Russia. He subsequently became minister of Alexander the Czar. It was in this quality that, with the noble aim to benefit his fallen fatherland, he claimed from the young Czar the restoration of Poland, suggesting for equivalent the idea of Russian preponderance over all nations of the old Sclavonic race. I believe his intention was sincere; I believe he did not mean to overlook those natural borders, which, besides the affinity of language, God himself has drawn between the nations. But he forgot that he might be no longer able to master the spirits which he would raise, and that an undesired fanaticism might force sundry fantastical shapes into his framework, by which the frame itself must burst in pieces. He forgot that Russian preponderance cannot be propitious to liberty; he forgot that it cannot be favourable even to the development of the Sclave nationality, because Sclavonic nations would by this idea be degraded into mere Russians, that is, absorbed by despotism.
Russia got hold of the fanciful idea very readily! May be that young Alexander had in the first moment noble inclinations; the warm heart of youth is susceptible to noble instincts. It is not common in history to find young princes so premature in tyranny as Francis-Joseph of Austria. But a few years of power were sufficient to extinguish every spark of noble sentiment, if there was one, in Alexander's heart. Upon the throne of the Romanoffs the man is soon absorbed by the Autocrat. The traditional policy of St. Petersburg is not an atmosphere in which the plant of regeneration can grow, and the fanciful idea became soon a weapon of oppression and of Russian preponderance—Russia availed herself of the idea of Panslavism to break Turkey down, and to make an obedient satellite out of Austria. Turkey still withstands her, but Austria has fallen into the snare. Russia sent out its agents, its moneys, its venomous secret diplomacy; it whispered to the Sclave nations about hatred against foreign dominion—about independence of religion connected with nationality under its own supremacy; but chiefly it spoke to them of Panslavism under the protectorate of the Czar. The millions of his large empire also, all oppressed—all in servitude—all a tool to his ambition; them too he flattered with the idea of becoming rulers of the world, in order that they might not think of liberty: he knew that man's breast cannot maintain in ascendancy two great passions at once. He gave them ambition and excluded the spirit of liberty. This ambition got hold of all the Sclave nations through Europe; so Panslavism became the source of a movement, not of nationality, but of the dominion of languages. That word "language" replaced every other sentiment, and so it became a curse to the development of liberty.
Only one part of the Sclavonic races saw the matter clear, and withstood the current of this dark Russian plot. These were the Polish Democrats—the only ones who understood that to fight for liberty is to fight for nationality. Therefore they fought in our ranks, and were willing to flock in thousands upon thousands to aid us in our struggle; but we could not arm them, so I would not accept them. We ourselves had a hundredfold more hands ready to fight than arms—and there was nobody in the world to supply us with arms.
Now let me see what was the condition of Hungary under these circumstances.
Eight hundred and fifty years ago, when the first King of Hungary, St. Stephen, becoming Christian himself, converted the Hungarian nation to Christianity, it was the Roman Catholic clergy of Germany whom he invited to assist him in his pious work. They did assist him, but the assistance, as happens with human nature, was accompanied by some worldly designs. Hungary offered a wide field to the ambition of foreigners, and they persuaded the King to adopt a curious principle, which he laid down in his last Will and Testament—that it is not good for the people of a country to be but of one extraction and speak but one tongue. A second rule was, to adopt the language of the Church—Latin—for the language of government, legislature, law and all public proceedings. This is the origin of that fatality, that Democracy did not grow up for centuries in Hungary. The public proceedings being in Latin, the laws given in Latin, public instruction carried on in Latin, the great mass of the people, who were agriculturists, did not partake in any of this; and the few who in the ranks of the people partook in it, became severed and alienated from the people's interests. This dead Latin language, introduced into the public life of a living nation, was the most mischievous barrier against liberty. The first blow to it was stricken by the Reformation. The Protestant Church, introducing the national language into the divine services, became a medium to the development of the spirit of liberty, and so our ancient struggles for religious liberty were always connected with the maintenance of political rights. But still, Latin public life went on down to 1780. At that time, Joseph of Hapsburg, aiming at centralization, replaced the Latin by the German tongue. This roused the national spirit of Hungary; and our forefathers seeing that the dead Latin language, excluding the people from the public concerns, cannot be propitious to liberty, and anxious to oppose the design of the Viennese Cabinet to Germanize Hungary, andso melt it into the common absolutism of the Austrian dynasty—I say, anxious to oppose this design by a cheerful public life of the people itself, from the year 1790 began to pass laws in the direction that by-and-by, step by step, the Latin language should be replaced in the public proceedings of the Legislature and of the Government by a living language familiar to the people itself. And what was more natural, than that, being in the necessity to choose one language, they choose the Magyar? the more so, since those who spoke Hungarian were not only more than those who spoke any one of the other languages, but were if not more than, at least equal to, all those who spoke several other languages together.
Be so kind to mark well, gentlemen; no other language was oppressed—the Hungarian language was enforced upon nobody. Wherever another language was in use even in public life; of whatever Church—whatever popular school—whatever community—it was not replaced by the Hungarian language. It was only the dead Latin, which by-and-by became eliminated from the diplomatic public life, and replaced by the living Hungarian in Hungary.
In Hungary, I say. Gentlemen, be pleased to mark: never was this measure extended into the municipal life of Croatia and Sclavonia, which, though belonging for 800 years to Hungary, still were not Hungary, but a race with distinct local institutions.
The Croatians and Sclavonians themselves repeatedly urged us in the common parliament to afford them opportunity to learn the Hungarian language, that, having the right, they might also enjoy the benefit, of being employed in the government offices of our common Hungary. This opportunity was afforded to them, but nobody was forced to make use of it; while neither with their own municipal and public life, nor with the domestic, social, religious life, of any other people in Hungary itself, did the Hungarian language ever interfere. It replaced only the Latin language, which no people spoke, and which was contrary to liberty, because it excluded the millions from public life. Willing to give freedom to the people, we expelled that Latin tongue; which was an obstacle to its future. We did what every other nation in the old world has done, clearing by it the way to the universal liberty.
Your country is happy even in that respect. Being a young nation, you did not find the Latin tongue in your way when you established this Republic; so you did not want a law to eject it from your public life. You have a living language, which is spoken in your Congress, in your State Legislatures, and by which your Government rules. It is not the native language of your whole people—and yet no man in the Union takes it for an oppression that legislature and government is not carried on in every language spoken in the United States.
And one thing I have to mention yet. This replacing of the Latin language by the Hungarian was not a work of our recent measures, it was done before, step by step, from 1791. When we carried in 1848 our democratic reforms, and gave political, social, civil, and full religious freedom to the whole people, we extended our cares to the equal protection of every tongue and race, affording to all equal right to aid out of the public funds, for the moral, religious, and scientific development in churches and in schools. Nay, we extended this even to political affairs, sanctioning the free use of every tongue, in the municipalities and communal corporations, as well as in the administration of justice. The promulgation of the laws in every tongue, the right to petition and to claim justice in each man's tongue, the duty of the government to answer in the same, all this was granted, and thus far more was done in that respect also, than any other nation ever accorded to the claims of tongues; by far more than the United States ever did, though there is no country in the world where so many different languages are spoken as here.
It is therefore the most calumnious misrepresentation to say that the Hungarians struggled for the dominion of their ownrace. No; we struggled for civil, political, social, and religious freedom, common to all, against Austrian despotism. We struggled for the great principle ofself-government against centralization; because centralization is absolutism; and is inconsistent with constitutional rights. Austria has given the very proof of it. The House of Austria had never the intention to grant constitutional life to the nations of Europe. I will prove that on another occasion. But the friends of the Hapsburgs say, it has granted a constitution—in March, 1849. Well, where is that Constitution now? It was not only never executed, but it was, three months ago, formally withdrawn. Even the word Ministry is blotted out from the Dictionary of the Austrian government! Schwarzenberg is again House, Court, and State Chancellor, as Metternich was; only Metternich ruled not with the iron rule of martial law over the whole empire of Austria as Schwarzenberg does. Metternichencroached uponthe constitutional rights of Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, and Slavonia. Schwarzenberg hasabolishedthem, and young Francis-Joseph has melted all the nations together into common bondage, where the promisedequality of nationalitiesis carried out most literally, to be sure, for they are all equally oppressed, and all are equally ruled by absolutist principles and by the German language. And why was that illusory constitution withdrawn? Because it was a lie from the beginning; an impossibility. It was founded on the principle of centralization. It centralized thirteen different nations, which had had no political history in common, except to have groaned under Austrian rule. Under such circumstances to have a common life was an absurdity augmented by deceit.
I cannot exhaust this vast topic in one speech. We want Republican institutions, so founded on self-government everywhere, that the people themselves may be sovereign everywhere. This is the cause, for which I humbly request your protecting aid. It is the cause of oppressed Europe. It is the cause of Germany, bleeding under some thirty petty tyrants who lean on that league of despots, the basis of which is Petersburg. It is the cause of fair, but unfortunate Italy, which in so many respects is now dear to our heart. We have a common enemy; so we are brothers in arms for freedom and independence. I know how Italy is situated; and I dare confidently to declare, there is no hope for Italy, but in that great republican party, at the head of which Mazzini stands. It has nothing to do with communistical schemes, or the French doctrines of Socialism: but it wills, that Italy be free and republican. Whither else could Italy look for freedom and independence, if not to that party which Mazzini leads? To the King of Naples perhaps? Let me be silent about that execrated man. Or to the dynasty of Sardinia and Piedmont? This professes to be constitutional; yet it captures those poor Hungarian soldiers who seek an asylum in Piedmont,—captures, and delivers them to Austria to be shot: and theyareshot, increasing the number of those 3742 martyrs whom Radetzky murdered on the scaffold during three short years. The House of Savoy is become the blood-hound of Austria against fugitive Hungarians.
Gentlemen, the generous sympathy of public opinion here (God be blessed!) is strongly aroused to the wrongs and sufferings of Hungary. I look toyouraid to keep that sympathy alive,—to urge the formation of societies to collect funds and support a loan,—to move in favour of the propositions which I had the honour to express at the Corporation Banquet. Consider not the weakness of my address, but only the strength of my cause; and following the generous impulse of your republican hearts, accord to it the protective aid of the free independent Press. Then I may yet see fulfilled the noble words of your Chairman's poetry:—
Truth crush'd to earth shall rise again;The eternal years of God are hers;But error, wounded, writhes in pain,And diesamong….(let me add, Sir,)..with allher worshippers.
In the course of the same evening, one of the toasts drunk was, "To the Political Exiles of Europe," to which Michael Doheny, Esq., an Irish exile, first responded, in a speech full of animosity against England. After him Mr. DANA made the following speech, which may be a useful comment on that of Kossuth.
My friend, who has taken his seat, spoke in his own right as a political exile from Ireland, a country than which none has more deeply suffered from the woes of foreign domination. I speak here by no such title. And yet if any man may without presumption claim to speak in behalf of the political exiles and rebels against tyranny, of several nations, of all nations, indeed it is an American. For he is not only himself the heir of a nation of rebels, but his whole lineage is cosmopolitan, and he may boast that he is akin to all the races of Europe. We have no exclusive origin, thank God! In the veins of our country there flows the blood of a thousand tribes, just as our language is made up of a thousand idioms. We hear a good deal from certain quarters about the greatness of races, the practical energy of this race, the artistic genius of the other, and the great intellectual qualities of another. America disproves of all these dogmas, and establishes in their stead the higher principle that all races are capable of a noble development under noble institutions. Give freedom to the Celt, the Slavon, or the Italian, or whatever other people; give them freedom and independence; establish among them the great principle oflocal self-government, and the earth does not more surely revolve in its orbit than they will in due time ripen into all the excellence and all the dignity of humanity. Men make and control institutions, but institutions in their turn make men. And if a people under Providence are endowed with institutions that have given free play and healthy growth to the most useful and admirable powers of man, it is not for that people to boast of its race as better than other races, and thank God, like the Pharisee, that it is not as other men. No, it is for that people to see the cause of its good fortune in its institutions, and to remember that it has responsibilities, and that it owes a helping hand to others that honestly struggle for such benefits. Especially is this the case with the American people, made up as they are from all races, and absorbing yearly as they do so much of the best blood of all. America has thriven and grown strong upon the misfortunes of Europe. Our toast specially refers to the political exiles of Europe, but the truth is, that all the exiles of that continent are political. Every shipload of emigrants that seeks our shores has been banished by political causes; for had the institutions of their country been such as to secure to them freedom and the prosperity of freedom, do you think they would have forsaken their homes and the homes of their fathers to seek new homes beyond the ocean? We owe then to Europe a debt for all this population and power that it has flung upon our shores, and how else can we pay it except by doing what we can to help the European nations to gain their freedom and form institutions under which there will be no political exiles? For one I go for paying that debt, according to our means and opportunities. I saw the other day in the streets a large body of Europeans of various nations, marching along with a red flag. In Paris, or Rome, or Vienna, such a procession would have been impossible, or if it could have got into the streets, it would have been assailed by the soldiery, and its members either shot down or flung into prison. Yet in New York they went peacefully on their way, made their demonstration in all freedom, and no trouble or harm came of it. Very many of those men were political exiles. And why? Not because they were bad men, for here in New York nothing could be more quiet and appropriate than their behaviour. But they prove, that from whatever country there are political exiles, there the institutions are bad. I know we are in the habit of hearing about Red Republicans and Socialists as men who are dangerous on account of their opinions, and who have deserved to be banished from France, from Germany, from Italy. I will not now say anything about those opinions, but this I do say, that a country where all opinions and every opinion cannot be held and freely discussed, has a bad system of government and bad institutions. It is not the men nor their opinions that stand condemned, but the government and institutions. Therefore it is that we must sympathize with such exiles, without regard to their opinions, and pray earnestly and labour earnestly for the elevation of all countries to freedom.
* * * * *
[Speech to the New York Militia, December 16th.]
The First Division, consisting of four brigades, was presented to Kossuth in the Castle Garden. Major-General Sandford then proceeded to address Kossuth as follows:—
Governor Kossuth:—It is with no ordinary feeling of gratification that I have this opportunity of addressing you, in the name and on behalf of the citizen soldiers of the city of New York. With an unbounded admiration of your devotion to the great cause of constitutional liberty, and of that indomitable firmness with which you have persevered under all circumstances in sustaining it, they were most happy to testify, upon your arrival in our city, their sense of your services in that cause which they are organized to sustain, and now they are again assembled to greet you with a heart-felt welcome, and to listen to the voice of one whom they have learned to respect, to love, and to venerate. The body of men now presented to you, about five thousand in number, represents the First Division of New York State Militia. The division enrols about fifty thousand men in this city and upon Staten Island, and the law of our State only imposes upon the general body the duty of appearing armed and equipped once in each year, at an annual parade appointed for that purpose. But out of this large number the law provides for the organization of those who are willing and desirous to acquire that degree of military science, to fit them, upon any sudden emergency of domestic insurrection or of foreign aggression, to sustain the laws and support the institutions of our country. They uniform and equip themselves at their own expense, and they serve without pay, satisfied with the consciousness that they are discharging a duty to their country, and qualifying themselves to sustain the honour of our flag and the freedom won by our fathers. They represent fairly all classes of our citizens. Our hard-working and ingenious mechanic—our enterprising and energetic merchant—our intelligent professional men—our grocers, butchers, bakers, and cartmen, are all to be found in our ranks, exhibiting in public spirit, energy, and intelligence, a body of men not to be surpassed, even in this country of active enterprise and widely diffused intelligence. It is amongst such men, devoted to such a service, that, you may feel well assured, the intelligence of the noble struggle of the Hungarian people for their rights and liberties was received with the deepest feeling, and the progress of your contest watched with the most earnest solicitude. They exulted in your victories as the triumph of freedom over oppression and despotism—they saw in your almost superhuman energies and dauntless courage the hearts of a people determined to be free. They rejoiced that a great nation, with kindred principles and institutions, was established as an independent republic amidst the despotisms of Europe. But, alas! all their hopes and anticipations were blasted. Such an example amidst the down-trodden subjects of the arbitrary governments of Europe, was viewed with alarm by their despotic rulers, and the enslaved hordes of the imperial Russian were hurled upon the free sons of Hungary. Even with such mighty odds, we should not have despaired for Hungary, had she been afforded but one year of peaceful preparation to complete her organization and develop her resources. Her gallant sons upon her own soil, and battling for their homes, their altars, and their independence, would have been unconquerable. But treason and despotism combined, triumphed over freedom. Then commenced a scene of horrors and cruelty, such as despots only and the minions of despots can perpetrate.
Hungarian liberty may be cast down, but cannot be destroyed. The sacred flame burns unquenched in the hearts of the people, and will again burst forth, a glorious light to enlighten the nation—but a consuming fire to their oppressors. But when? and how shall this be accomplished? Sir, we believe and feel with you that this will be accomplished whenever the free people of America, uniting with those kindred nations of Europe which sustain and shall secure free institutions, will support and insist upon that great moral principle of international law which you have recently so eloquently and ably expounded—that one nation should not interfere with the domestic concerns of another. Establish this great and just principle, and Hungary would again assume her station among the nations of the earth—free and independent. Establish this great principle, and Germany and Italy would also soon be free. Sir, we believe in this great principle; we believe it to be a principle of justice and humanity; we believe it to be the inalienable right of every people to establish such forms of government as are best adapted to their condition, and as they may deem best calculated to ensure their own rights, liberties, and pursuit of happiness. And we believe that this great principle of international law should be the basis of the intercourse of nations, and that we have no more right to make free with the forms of government of other nations, than with their forms of religion. But this principle being conceded and established, how is it to be enforced? How are the despotic dynasties of Europe to be prevented from lending their combined energies to crush every germ of freedom amongst those who, if left to themselves, would, like Hungary, be free and independent. Solely by the method which you have so ably developed. Solely by inducing those nations which are strong enough to maintain the principles of international law—to unite in their support, and by such union, effectually to guarantee the peace of the world. To effect this most desirable object, you have adopted the true method. You would operate upon the public opinion, and public opinion operating upon free government, creates and establishes public and international law. But when we see this great principle of non-intervention violated—when we see a free and united people crushed and trampled upon by foreign despots, because they have dared to proclaim and establish equal rights and privileges as the basis of their own institutions, must we look tamely on and see the life-blood of freedom crushed out by the iron heel of barbaric despotism, and hear the death-groans of the brave and free without daring to express our feelings or to extend the hand of sympathy and comfort to the suffering sons of liberty? No! in the name of outraged justice and humanity, no! We will openly, warmly, and freely express our sympathy in the cause of freedom, and our approbation of the devotion, the endurance, and the gallantry of her sons. We will, by all constitutional modes, endeavour to sustain those principles, which will terminate this outrage upon the sacred laws of justice and humanity. We will further aid this cause by contributing our share to the contributions offered by our people to enable you to advance the establishment of those principles so important to the emancipation of your beloved Hungary, and so essential to the preservation of civil and religious liberty. And now upon this interesting occasion, I hail the presence of this noble company of faithful and devoted sons of Hungary, your companions in exile and in prison, and present them to this division; men, who, like our fathers, pledged their sacred honours "to sustain the independence of their country." [Here there was an outburst of cheering, and Colonel Berczenszy and the other Hungarians, companions in arms of Kossuth, all rose, and were again greeted with another burst of enthusiastic cheering.] We receive them as friends and brothers, and as martyrs in the same holy cause of constitutional liberty in which our fathers fought and bled, and suffered, and triumphed; and in which, we trust and believe, you will also live to triumph and rejoice, in the bosom of your own, your native land.
Loud applause followed the conclusion of this address.
Kossuth then rose and said—
General and gentlemen,—I accept with the highest gratitude, the honour to meet the first division of the New York State Militia, who having, in their capacity of citizen soldiers, honoured me on my arrival by their participation in the generous welcome which I met with, have also, by the military honour bestowed on me, so much contributed to impart to this great demonstration that public character which cannot fail to prove highly beneficial to the cause which I hold up before the free people of this mighty republic, and which I dare confidently to state is the great question of freedom and independence to the European continent. I entreat you, gentlemen, not to expect any elaborate speech from me, because really I am unprepared to make one. You are citizen soldiers, a glorious title, to which I have the ambition of aspiring; so, I hope you will kindly excuse me, if I endeavour to speak to youassoldiers. Do you know, gentlemen, what is the finest speech I ever heard or read? It is the address of Garibaldi to his Roman soldiers in the last war, when he told them:—"Soldiers, what I have to offer you is fatigue, danger, struggling, and death—the chill of the cold night, the open air, and the burning sun—no lodgings, no munitions, no provisions—but forced marches, dangerous watchposts, and continual struggling with bayonets against batteries. Let those who love freedom and their country, follow me." That is the most glorious speech I ever heard in my life. But, of course, that is no speech for to-day. I will speak so, when I again meet the soldiers of Hungary, to fight once more the battle of freedom and independence. [After various compliments to General Sandford on the appearance of his soldiers, and the good order of the republic, Kossuth continued as follows:] I thank you for the explanation of the organization and discipline of this gallant division. Europe has many things to learn from America. It has to learn the value of free institutions—the expansive power of freedom—the practical value of local self-government, as opposed to centralization. But one of the most important lessons you give to Europe, is in the organization of the militia of the United States. You have the best organized army in the world, and yet you have scarcely a standing army at all. That is a necessary thing for Europe to learn from America—-that great standing armies must cease. But they can cease, onlythen, when the nations are free; for great standing armies are not national institutions, they are the instruments of dynastic violence or foreign despotism. The existence of tyranny imposes on Europe great standing armies. When the nations once become free, they will not want them, because they will not war with each other. Freedom will become a friendly link among nations. But as far as they may want them, your example shows that a popular militia, like yours, is the mightiest national Defence. Thirty-seven years ago a great battle was fought at New Orleans, which showed what a defence your country has in its militia. Nay more, your history proves that this institution affords the most powerful means of Offensive war, should war become indispensable. I am aware, gentlemen, that your war with Mexico was chiefly carried on by volunteers. I know what a distinguished part the volunteers of New York took in that war. And who were these volunteers? Who were those from New York city, and of other regiments? They were of your militia, the source of that military spirit which is the glory of your country, and its safety when needed in time of war or social disorder. I learned all this from the United States, and it was my firm intention to carry out this militia organization in Hungary. My idea was and still is to do so, and I will endeavour, with the help of God, to carry it out.
My idea is, there are duties towards one native land common to every citizen, and public instruction and education must have such a direction as to enable every citizen to perform them. One of these duties is to defend it in time of danger, to take up arms for its freedom and independence and security. My idea is to lay such a foundation for public instruction, in the schools, that every boy in Hungary shall be educated in military skill, so much as is necessary for the defence of his native land, and those who feel inclined to adopt the profession of arms, might complete their education in higher public schools and universities, as is the case in the professions of the bar, and physic, and the pulpit. But I would have no distinction among the citizens. To defend our country is a common duty, and every one must know how to perform it. Taking the basis of your organization as an example for Hungary, Hungary would have at least one million of men ready to defend it against the oppression of any power whatever. That the militia of Hungary, thus developed, would be the most solid guardian of my country's freedom and independence, we have shown in our past struggles. The glorious deeds which the unnamed heroes of the people achieved, proves what with previous preparation they could do in defence of their native land. Often they have gone into battle without knowing how to fire or cock a musket; but they took batteries by their bayonets, and they achieved glorious deeds like those that are classed among the deeds of immortality. We have not either wish or inclination for conquest. We are content with our native land if it be independent and free. For the maintenance of that independence and freedom, we established by law the institution of the National Guard. It is like your militia. I consider the organization to be like a porcupine, which moves on its own road quietly, but when attacked or when danger approaches, stretches forth its thorns. May God Almighty grant that I may soon see developed in my native land, the great institution of a National Guard!
The power of Hungary, thus established, is a basis indispensable to the freedom of Europe. I will prove this in a few words. The enemy of European freedom is Russia. Now, can Hungary be a barrier to secure Europe against this power of Russia? I answer: yes. You are a nation of twenty-four millions, and you have an organized militia of some three millions; Hungary is a nation of fifteen millions, and at least can have one million of brave citizen soldiers. I hope this may be regarded, then, as a positive proof of what I say about the ability of Hungary to resist the power of despotism, and defend Europe against Russian encroachments. Another thing is, the weakness of Russia herself; for she is not so strong as people generally believe. It has taken her whole power to put down Hungary, and all she can raise consists of 750,000 men. Then you must consider that the Russian territory is of immense extent, and that its population is oppressed; tranquillity and the order of the grave,—not the order of contentment,—is kept in Russia itself, only by the armed soldiery of the Czar. Now, it is not much when I say that 250,000 men are indispensable to keep tranquillity in the interior of that empire; 100,000 men are necessary to guard its frontiers extending from Siberia to Turkey; 100,000 to keep down the heroic spirit of oppressed Poland, Take all this together, and you will see that Russia scarcely can, at the utmost, employ 300,000 men in a foreign war, and, really, it had not more engaged, as history will prove, in the greatest struggle it made for existence—it could not bring more into the field. The million of citizen soldiers would not require to be so brave as they are, to be a match for those 300,000 men; and, therefore, the first result of restored independence in Hungary would be—should the Czar once more have the arrogant intention to put his foot upon mankind's neck, as he blasphemously boasted he had the authority of God to do—the repression of his power by Hungary. Not only would it be repressed, but Hungary could assault him in a quarter where she would find powerful allies. His financial embarrassments are very great, for you know that even in the brief war in Hungary he was necessitated to raise a loan in England. We should have for our allies the oppressed people, and our steps would be marked by the liberation of all who are now enslaved. First among our allies would be the Polish nation, which is not restricted to the Poland of the maps, but extends through the wide provinces of Gallicia, Lithuania, &c. These are proofs that the might of Russia is not so immense that it should intimidate a nation fighting in a just cause. With Hungary once free, Russia would never dare to threaten European liberty again.
But if Russia is so weak as I have shown her to be, why, you may say, do I ask your support and aid against her interference? Because Russia is only thirty hours' distance from Hungary, and one of her large armies stands prepared to move at any time against the liberties of our people, before we could have time to develop our resources. This is the motive why I ask, in the name of my country, the great and beneficial support of the United States to check and prevent Russian interference in Hungary, so that we may havetimeto erect it into an insurmountable barrier and impregnable fortress against the despotism of the Czar. This, I say, is the reason why I claim aid from the United States, and ask it to assume its rightful executive in the police of nations. That is the only glory which is wanting to the lustre of your glorious stars. The militia of the United States having been the assertors of the independence and liberties of this country and the guardians of its security, have now scarcely any other calling; and I confidently hope, that being your condition, you will not deny your generous support to the great principle of non-interference, in the next struggle which Hungary will make for freedom and independence, which even now is felt in the air, and is pointed out by the finger of God himself. Mysecondearnest wish and hope is, that the people will see that their commerce with other people, whether in revolution or not, shall be secured. It is not so much my interest as it is your right; and I hope the militia of the United States will ever be ready to protect oppressed humanity. Mythirdhumble claim is, that this great republic shall recognize the legitimate independence of Hungary. The militia of this country fought and bled for that principle upon your own soil; so, by the glory of your predecessors—by all the blessings which have flowed from your struggle, which make your glory and happiness—you will feel inclined to support this my humble claim for the recognition of the legitimate independence of my fatherland.
I thank you for the generous sympathy, and for the reception and welcome of my companions, the devoted sons of Hungary, who were ready to sacrifice life and fortune to the independence of their native land. There are several among them who were already soldiers before our struggle, and they employed their military skill in the service of their country. But there were others who were not soldiers, yet whose patriotism led them to embrace the cause of their native land, and they proved to be brave and efficient supporters of the freedom for which they fought. Thanking you for the sympathy you have expressed for them, I promise you, gentlemen, that they will prove themselves worthy of it. I will point out to them the most dangerous places, and I know they will acquit themselves honourably and bravely. As to myself, I have here a sword on my side given to me by an American citizen. This being a gift from a citizen of the United States, I take it as a token of encouragement to go on in that way by which, with the blessing of Almighty God, I shall yet be enabled again to see my fatherland independent and free. I swear here before you, that this American sword in my hand shall be always faithful in the cause of freedom—that it shall be ever foremost in the battle—and that it shall never be polluted by ambition or cowardice.
* * * * *
[Reply to the Address of the Democrats of Tammany Hall, New York, Dec. 17th.]
Mr. Sickles, who made the address, closed by stating that he contributed to the cause of Hungary "a golden dollar, fresh from the free mines of the Pacific;" adding that he trusted millions would follow, and that the "Almighty Dollar," if still the proverb of a money-making people, would become a symbol of its noblest instincts and truest ambition.
Kossuth, in reply, after warm thanks, declined the personal praises bestowed on him, and sketched the series of events by which the Austrian tyranny had converted him from insignificance into a man of importance. He then proceeded to comment on France[*] as follows:—I hope that the great French nation will soon succeed to establish a true republic. But I have come to the conviction, that for freedom there is no duration in CENTRALIZATION, which is a legacy of ambitious men. To be conquerors, power must be centralized; but to be a free nation, self-government must reign in families, villages, cities, counties, states. As power now is lodged in France, the government has in its hand an army of half a million of men, under that iron discipline which is needed in a standing army. It has under its control a budget of more than a thousand million francs. It can dispose of every public office in France; it has a civil army of more than 500,000 men: the mayor of the least village derives his appointment from the government. All the police, all thegens d'armes, are in its hands. Now, gentlemen, is it not clear that—with such authority and force,—not to become dangerous to liberty, every President needs to be a Washington. And Washingtons are not so thickly strewn around. Woe to the country, whose institutions are such, that their freedom depends on the personal character of one man. Be he the best man in the world, he will not overcome the essential repugnance of his position to freedom. When France abandons thiscentralization, and carries out her own principles of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," bylocal self-government, she will be the great basis of European republics. As to sovereignty of the people, I take it that the right to cast a vote for the election of a President once in four years does not exhaust the sovereign rights of a nation. A people deciding about its own matters, must be everywhere master of its own fate, in village communes as much as in electing its chief officer.
[Footnote *: The news of thecoup d'étathad not yet reached him.]
You have spoken about certain persons who will have "peace at any price." Of course you feel that permanent peacecannotbe had at any less price, than that which buys justice: nor can there be justice, where is no freedom. Under oppression is neither contentment nor tranquillity. There are some who prefer being oppressed to the dangers of shaking off oppression; but I am sure there are millions who fear death less than enslavement. Peace therefore will not exist, though all your Rothschilds and Barings help the despots. To withhold material aid from the oppressed will not avert the war, but by depriving the leaders of the means of concert will simply make the struggle more lingering: a result surely not desired by friends of peace.
But, sir, I thank you for your dollar. The ocean is composed of drops. The greatest results are achieved, not by individuals, but by the humble industry of mankind, incessantly bringing man nearer to the aim providentially destined for him. Not all the Rothschilds together can wield such sums as poor people can; for the poor count by millions. Those dollars of the people have another great value. One million of them given by a million of men gives hope to the popular cause: it gives the sympathy and support of a million men. I bless God for that word of yours, that the one dollar should be followed by many; for then your example would not only in a financial respect be a great benefit, but afford a foundation for that freedom which the Almighty designs for the nations. Here is a great glory for your country to aim at. It is glorious to stand at the top of the pyramid of humanity; more glorious to become yourselves the pillar on which the welfare of human nature rests. For this, mankind looks to your country with hope and confidence.
* * * * *
[Address in the Plymouth Church at Brooklyn, Dec. 18th, 1851.]
The Rev. H. W. Beecher having assured Kossuth of the deep and religious interest long felt and expressed towards him within those very walls: Kossuth replied, declaring that he felt himself always in the power of God, and believed Christianity and freedom to be but one cause. He went on to add:
The cause of Hungary is strongly connected with the principle of religious liberty on earth. In the first war of the sixteenth century a battle was fought by the Moslems in Hungary, by which the power of our nation was almost overthrown. At that time the monarchy was elective. A Hungarian, who was Governor of Transylvania, was chosen king, but another party elected Ferdinand of Austria to be King of Hungary. A long struggle ensued, in which the Princes of Transylvania called in Turkish aid against the House of Austria.
In the hour of necessity, the House of Austria complied with the wishes of my nation, whenever my country had taken up arms; but no sooner was the sword laid down, than this dynasty always neglected to perform its promises. In the midst of the last century, under Maria Theresa, those who did not belong to the Catholic faith were almost excluded from all offices. Joseph succeeded, who was a tolerant man; but scarcely was he in his grave, when the Emperor Francis renewed persecution, and it was only in 1848, that religious liberty was established to every creed. When the House of Austria took arms against the laws of 1848, they took arms against religious liberty.
In our Parliament, it was Roman Catholics who stood in the van of battle for religious liberty: but when I say this, I must state it without drawing any commentary from it. It was reserved to our revolution to show the development of the glorious cause of freedom. When my country imposed on me the duty to govern the land, I was ready to show the confidence I had in religious freedom. I chose a Catholic Minister to be Minister of Education in Hungary, and he fully justified the confidence I reposed in him. He has shown that our Constitution is founded upon equality; that it regards all men as citizens, and makes no distinction of profession. It is only under free institutions that a clergyman can remain a clergyman with burning heart towards his own duties, and yet, when called to perform the duties of a citizen, be no longer a clergyman but a citizen. Could the Church of Rome have appreciated this principle, and have acted upon it, my friend Mazzini were not now necessary for the freedom of Italy. But as Rome did not appreciate it, the temporal power of the Pope will probably fall at the next revolution.
My principles are, that the Church shall not meddle with politics, and Government will not meddle with religion. In every society there are political and civil concerns on one side, and on the other social concerns; for the first, civil authority must be established—in political and civil respects every one has to acknowledge the power of its jurisdiction. But, in respect to social interests, it is quite the contrary. Religion is not an institution—it is a matter of conscience.
For the support of these principles I ask your generous aid. You know that whenever the House of Austria attains to any strength, its first step is to break down religious liberty. And Austria is helped by Russia, which is even still less propitious to these principles; you remember the insolence or hardship to which in Russia those people are subject who do not belong to the Greek Church; at the present time the poor Jews are subjected to great indignities, and compelled, if not to shave off their hair, to cut it in a particular manner, so as to distinguish them from members of the Greek Church. But Hungary, by the providence of God, is destined to become once more the vanguard of civilization, and of religious liberty for the whole of the European Continent against the encroachments of Russian despotism, as it has already been the barrier of Christianity, against Islamism.
Kossuth then proceeded to explain, that any moneys contributed by the generosity of the American public would not be employed as a warlike fund, for which it would be utterly insignificant; but solely as a means of enabling the oppressed to concert their measures. After this he canvassedthe three propsof Austria, and pointed out the weakness of them all; viz. its loans,—its army,—and Russia. Its loans run fast to a bankruptcy. Its army is composed of nations which hate it. Under the Austrian government, the Tyrol perhaps alone has escaped bombardments, scaffolds, and jails filled with patriots. The armies are raised by forcible conscriptions, and contain some hundred thousand Hungarians who recently fought and conquered Austria, whom Austria now keeps in drill to serve against her when the time comes. As to the third prop—Russia,—possibly for some days yet in the future it may support Austria; but not in a long war: Austria can never stand in a long war.
I am told (said Kossuth) that some who call themselves "men of peace" cry out forpeace at any price. But is the present condition peace? Is the scaffold peace?—that scaffold, on which in Lombardy during the "peaceful" years the blood of 3742 patriots has been shed. When the prisons of Austria are filled with patriots, is that peace? or is the discontent of all the nations peace? I do not believe that the Lord created the world forsucha kind of peace as that,—to be a prison,—to be a volcano, boiling up and ready to break out. No: but with justice and liberty there will be contentment, and with contentment, peace—lasting peace, consistent peace: while from the tyrants of the world there is oppression, and with oppression the breaking forth of war…..
* * * * *
[Reply to the Address of the Bar of New York, Dec. 19th, 1851.]
A reception and a banquet to Kossuth having been prepared by the Bar at Tripler Hall, ex-justice Jones introduced him with a short speech; after which Judge Sandford, in the name of the whole Bar, read an ample address, of which the following is the principal part:—
Governor Kossuth.—The Bar of New York, having participated with their fellow-citizens in extending to you that cordial and enthusiastic welcome which greeted your landing upon the shores of America, have solicited the opportunity to express to you, as a member of the legal profession, their respect for your great talents and eminent attainments, and their admiration for the ardour and enthusiasm with which you have devoted all your powers and energies to the sacred cause of the emancipation of your native land. Wherever freedom has needed an advocate, wherever law has required a supporter, wherever tyranny and oppression have provoked resistance, and men have been found for the occasion, it is the proud honour of our common profession to have presented from our ranks some prominent individual who has generously and boldly engaged in the service; and Hungary has furnished to the world one of the most striking in the brilliant series of illustrious examples. As early as the year 1840, the public history of Hungary had made us acquainted with the distinguished part which a Mr. Kossuth, an attorney, as he was then described, had performed in sustaining the laws of his country. Mr. Kossuth, the Attorney of that day, has since matured into the Counsellor, Statesman, Patriot, Governor, and now stands before us the Exile more distinguished for his firmness and undaunted courage in his last reverse than for his exaltation by the free choice of his countrymen. After the years of your imprisonment and painful anxiety had worn away, and the illegal measure of your arrest had been publicly acknowledged, we found you restored to your personal liberty, and again ardently engaged in the great cause of your country's freedom. At the meeting of the Diet of Hungary which was held in November, 1847, and before the flame of revolution had illuminated Europe, we found a series of acts resolved upon by that body, which declared an equality of civil rights and of public burdens among all classes, denominations, and races in Hungary and its provinces, perfect toleration for every form of religion, an extension of the elective franchise, universal freedom in the sale of landed property, liberty to strangers to settle in the country, the emancipation of the Jews, the sum of eight millions set apart to encourage manufactures and construct roads, and the nobles of Hungary, by a voluntary act, abolishing the old tenure of the lands, thereby constituting the producing classes to be absolute owners of nearly one half of the cultivated territory in the kingdom. This great advance made by your country in a system of benign and ameliorating legislation, was checked by occurrences which are too fresh in your recollection to require a recapitulation. We welcome you among us; we tender you our admiration for your efforts; our sympathy for your sufferings; our cordial wishes that your persevering labours may be successful in restoring your country to her place among nations, and her people to the enjoyment of those blessings of civil and religious liberty, to which, by their intelligence and bravery, and by thelaws of nature and of nature's God, they are justly entitled. Our professional pursuits have led us to the study of the system of jurisprudence which has been matured by the wisdom and experience of ages, but which has been recognized by all eminent jurists to be founded upon the defined principles of Christianity. From that great source of law we have learned, that as members of the family of mankind, our duties are not bounded by the territorial limits of the government which protects us, nor circumscribed as to time or space. We have framed a constitution of government, and under it have adopted a system of laws which we are bound to execute and obey. The stability and efficiency of our own government are dependent upon the intelligence, virtue, and moderation of our people. It has been justly remarked by one of our most distinguished jurists, that "in a republic, every citizen is himself in some measure entrusted with the public safety, and acts an important part for its weal or woe." Trained as we have been in these principles of self-government, appreciating all the blessings which a bounteous Creator has so profusely showered upon us, and desirous to see the principles of civil and religious liberty extended to other nations, we rejoice at every uprising of their oppressed people; we sympathize with their struggles, and within the limits of our public laws and public policy, we aid them in their efforts. If through weakness or treachery they fail, we grieve at their misfortunes. In you, sir, we behold a personification of that great principle which forms the corner stone of our own revered Constitution—the right of self-government. Darkened as has been the horizon of suffering Hungary, in you, sir, still burns that living fire of freedom, which we trust will yet light up her firmament, and shed its lustrous flame over her wasted lands. "The unnamed demi-gods" whose blood has moistened her battle-fields, the martyrs whose lives have been freely offered up on the scaffold and beneath the axe, the living exiles now scattered through distant lands, have not suffered, are not suffering in vain. Governments were created for the benefit of the many, and not of the few. A day, an hour of retribution will yet come; the Almighty promise will not be forgotten—"Vengeance is mine—I will repay it, saith the Lord."
Kossuth thereupon replied:—
Gentlemen,—Highly as I value the opportunity to meet the gentlemen of the Bar, I should have felt very much embarrassed to have to answer the address of that corporation before such a numerous and distinguished assembly, had not you, sir, relieved my well-founded anxiety by justly anticipating and appreciating my difficulties. Let me hope, that herein you were the interpreter of this distinguished assembly's indulgence.
Gentlemen of the Bar, you have the noble task to be the first interpreters of the law; to make it subservient to justice; to maintain its eternal principles against encroachment; and to restore those principles to life, whenever they become obliterated by misunderstanding or by violence. My opinion is, that Law must keep pace in its development with institutions and intelligence, and until these are perfect, law is and must be with them in continual progress. Justice is immortal, eternal, and immutable, like God himself; and the development of law is only then a progress, when it is directed towards those principles which, like Him, are eternal; and whenever prejudice or error succeeds in establishing in customary law any doctrine contrary to eternal justice, it is one of your noblest duties, gentlemen,—having no written Code to fetter justice within the bonds of error and prejudice,—it is one of your noblest duties to applyPrinciples, —to show that an unjust custom is a corrupt practice, an abuse; and by showing this, to originate that change, or rather development in the unwritten, customary law, which is necessary to make it protect justice, instead of opposing and violating it.
If this be your noble vocation in respect to the Private laws of your country, let me entreat you, gentlemen, to extend it to that Public law which, regulating the mutual duties of nations towards each other, rules the destinies of humanity. You know that in that eternal code of "nature and of nature's God," which your forefathers invoked when they raised the colonies of England to the rank of a free nation, there are no pettifogging subtleties, but only everlasting principles: everlasting, like those by which the world is ruled. You know that when artificial cunning of ambitious oppressors succeeds to pervert those principles, and when passive indifference or thoughtlessness submits to it, as weakness must submit: it is the noble destiny—let me say, duty—of enlightened nations, alike powerful as free, to restore those eternal principles to practical validity, so that justice, light, and truth may sway, where injustice, oppression, and error have prevailed. Raise high the torch of truth; cast its beams on the dark field of arbitrary prejudice; become the champions of principles, and your people will be the regenerators of International law.
It will. A tempestuous life has somewhat sharpened my eye, and had it even not done so, still I would dare to say, I know how to read your people's heart. It is conscious of your country's power; it is jealous of its own dignity; it knows that it is able to restore the law of nations to the principles of justice and right; and knowing its ability, its will shall not be lacking. Let the cause of Hungary become the opportunity for the restoration of true and just international law. Mankind is come to the eleventh hour in its destinies. One hour of delay more, and its fate may be sealed, and nothing left to the generous inclinations of your people—so tender-hearted, so noble, and so kind—but to mourn over murdered nations, its beloved brethren in humanity.
I have but to make a few remarks about two objections, which I am told I shall have to contend with. The first is, that it is a leading principle of the United States not to interfere with European nations. I may perhaps assume that you have been pleased to acquaint yourselves with what I have elsewhere said on that argument; viz. that the United States had never entertained or confessed such a principle, or at any rate had abandoned it, and had been forced to do so: which indicates it to have been only a temporary policy. I stated the mighty difference between neutrality and non-interference; so I will only briefly remark that a like difference exists between alliance and interference. Every independent power has the right to form alliances, but is not under duty to do so: it may remain neutral, if it please. Neither alliances nor neutrality are matters of principle, but simply of policy. They may hurt interest, but do not violate law; whereas with interference the contrary is the case. Interference with the sovereign right of nations to resist oppression, or to alter their institutions and government, is a violation of the law of nations and of God: therefore non-interference is a duty common to every power and every nation, and is placed under the safeguard of every power, of every nation. He who violates that law is like a pirate: every power on earth has the duty to chase him down as a curse to human nature. There is not a man in the United States but would avow that a pirate must be chased down; and no man more readily than the gentlemen of trade. A gentleman who came yesterday to honour me with the invitation of Cincinnati, that rising wonder of the West,—with eloquence which speaks volumes in one word, designated aspiracythe interference of foreign violence with the domestic concerns of a nation. There is such a moving power in a word of truth! That word has relieved me of many long speeches. I no longer need to discuss the principle of your foreign policy: there can be no doubt about what is lawful, what is a duty, against piracy. Your naval forces are, and must be, instructed to put down piracy wherever they meet it, on whatever geographic lines, whether in European or in American waters. You sent your Commodore Decatur for that purpose to the Mediterranean, who told the Dey of Algiers, that "if he claims powder, he will have it with the balls;" and no man in the United States imagined this to oppose your received policy. Nobody then objected that it is the ruling principle of the United States not to meddle with European or African concerns; rather, if your government had neglected so to do, I am sure the gentlemen of trade would have been foremost to complain. Now, in the name of all which is pleasing to God and sacred to man, if all are ready thus to unite in the outcry against a rover, who, at the danger of his own life, boards some frail ship, murders some poor sailors, or takes a few bales of cotton—is there no hope to see a similar universal outcry against those great pirates who board, not some small cutters, but the beloved home of nations? who murder, not some few sailors, but whole peoples? who shed blood, not by drops, but by torrents? who rob, not some hundred weight of merchandize, but the freedom, independence, welfare, and the very existence of nations? Oh God and Father of human kind! spare—oh spare that degradation to thy children; that in their destinies some bales of cotton should more weigh than those great moralities. Alas! what a pitiful sight! A miserable pickpocket, a drunken highway robber, chased by the whole human race to the gallows: and those who pickpocket the life-sweat of nations, rob them of their welfare, of their liberty, and murder them by thousands—these high-handed criminals proudly raise their brow, trample upon mankind, and degrade its laws before their high reverential name, and term themselves "most sacred majesties." But may God be blessed, there is hope for human nature; for there is a powerful, free, mighty people here on the virgin soil of America, ready to protect the laws of man and of Heaven against the execrated pirates and their associates.
But again I am told, "The United States, as a power, are not indifferent; we sympathize deeply with those who are oppressed; we will respect the laws of nations; but we have no interest to make them respected by others towards others." Interest! and always interest! Oh, how cupidity has succeeded to misrepresent the word? Is there any interest which could outweigh the interest of justice and of right? Interest! But I answer by the very words of one of the most distinguished members of your profession, gentlemen, the present Honourable Secretary of State:—"The United States, as a nation, have precisely the same interest (yes,interestis his word) in international law as a private individual has in the laws of his country." He was a member of the bar who advanced that principle of eternal justice against the mere fact of policy; and now that he is in the position to carry out the principle which he has advanced, I confidently trust he will be as good as his word,[*] and that his honourable colleagues, the gentlemen of the bar, will remember their calling to maintain the permanent principles of justice against the encroachments of accidental policy.
[Footnote *: See the extracts from Mr. Webster's speech at the WashingtonBanquet.]
But I may be answered—"If we (the United States) avow that we will not endure the interference of Russia in Hungary (for that is the practical meaning, I will not deny), and if Russia should not respect our declaration; then wemighthave to go to war." Well, I am not the man to decline the consequences of my principles. I will not steal into your sympathy by evasion. Yes, gentlemen, I confess,shouldRussia not respect such a declaration of your country, then you are forced to go to war, or else be degraded before mankind. But, gentlemen, you must not shrink back from the merewordwar; you must consider what is the probability of its occurrence. I have already stated publicly my certain knowledge how vulnerable Russia is; how weak she is internally. But the best clue to you as to what will be her future conduct, if you act decisively, will be gained by examining the extreme caution and timidity with which, in the late events, she felt her way, before she interposed by force.
The last French Revolution broke out in February, 1848. The Czar hates republics,—name and thing; but he did not interfere against the France of Lamartine, any more than against the France of Louis Philippe in 1830. Why not? He dared not. But he resorted to his natural and his most dangerous weapon,secret diplomacy. He sent male and female intriguers to Paris, and succeeded in turning the revolution into a mock republic. But from the pulsations of the great French heart every tyrant had trembled. The German nation took its destiny into its own hands, and proposed to itself to become ONE, in Frankfort. The throne in Berlin quaked; the Austrian emperor fled from his palace, a few weeks after he had with his own hands waved the flag of freedom out of his window. In Vienna an Austrian Parliament met. A constitution was devised for Polish Gallicia, linked by blood, history, and nature, to the Poland domineered over by the Czar; while on its western frontier another Polish province, Posen, was wrapt in revolutionary flames. You can imagine how the Czar raged, how he wished to unite all mankind in one head, so that he might cut it off with a single blow; and still he nowhere interfered. Why not? Again I say, he was prudently afraid. However, the French republic became very innocent to him—almost an ally in some respects, really an ally in others, as in the case of unfortunate Rome. The gentlemen of Frankfort proved also to be very innocent. The hopes of Germany failed—the people were shot down in Vienna, Prague, Lemberg,—the Austrian mock Parliament was sent from Vienna to Kremsen, and from Kremsen home. Only Hungary stood firm, steady, victorious—the Czar had nothing more to fear from all revolutionary Europe—nothing from Germany—nothing from France. He had no fear from the United States, since he knew that your government then was not willing to meddle with European affairs: so he had free hands in Hungary. But one thing still he did not know, and that was—what willEnglandand what willTurkeysay, if he interferes?—and that consideration alone was sufficient to check him. So anxious was he to feel the pulse of England and of Turkey, that he sent first a small army—some ten thousand men—to help the Austrians in Transylvania; and sent them in such a manner as to have, in case of need, for excuse, that he was called to do so,not by Austria only, but by that part of the people also, which deceived by foul delusion, stood by Austria!Oh, it was an infernal plot! We beat down and drove out his 10,000 men, together with all the Austrians—but the Czar had won his game. He was hereby assured that he would have no foreign power to oppose him when he dared to violate the law of nations by an armed interference in Hungary. So he interfered with all his might.