Sir,--In returning you my most humble thanks for the honour you did me
by your toast, and by coupling my name with that cause which is the
sacred aim of my life, I am so overwhelmed with emotion by all it has
been my strange lot to experience since I am on your glorious shores,
that I am unable to find words; and knowing that all the honour I meet
with has the higher meaning of principles, I beg leave at once to fall
back on my duties, which are the lasting topics of my reflections, my
sorrows, and my hopes. I take the present for a highly important
opportunity, which may decide the success or failure of my visit. I must
therefore implore your indulgence for a pretty long and plain
development of my views concerning that cause which the citizens of New
York, and you particularly, gentlemen, honour with generous interest.
When I perceive that the sympathy of your people with Hungary is almost
universal, and that they pronounce their feelings in its favour with a
resolution such as denotes noble and great deeds about to follow; I
might feel inclined to take for granted, at least _in principle_,
that we shall have your generous aid for restoring to our land its
sovereign independence. Nothing but _details_ of negotiation would
seem to be left for me, were not my confidence checked, by being told,
that, according to many of your most distinguished Statesmen, it is a
ruling principle of your public policy never to interfere in European
affairs.
I highly respect the source of this conviction, gentlemen. This source
is your religious attachment to the doctrines of those who bequeathed to
you the immortal constitution which, aided by the unparalleled benefits
of nature, has raised you, in seventy-five years, from an infant people
to a mighty nation. The wisdom of the founders of your great republic
you see in its happy results. What would be the consequences of
departing from that wisdom, you are not sure. You therefore
instinctively fear to touch, even with improving hands, the dear legacy
of those great men. And as to your glorious constitution, all humanity
can only wish that you and your posterity may long preserve this
religious attachment to its fundamental principles, which by no means
exclude development and progress: and that every citizen of your great
union, thankfully acknowledging its immense benefits, may never forget
to love it more than momentary passion or selfish and immediate
interest. May every citizen of your glorious country for ever remember
that a partial discomfort of a corner in a large, sure, and comfortable
house, may be well amended without breaking the foundation; and that
amongst all possible means of getting rid of that partial discomfort,
the worst would be to burn down the house with his own hands.
But while I acknowledge the wisdom of your attachment to fundamental
doctrines, I beg leave with equal frankness to state, that, in my
opinion, there can be scarcely anything more dangerous to the
progressive development of a nation, than to mistake for a basis that
which is none; to mistake for a principle that which is but a transitory
convenience; to take for substantial that which is but accidental; or to
take for a constitutional doctrine that which is but a momentary
exigency of administrative policy. Such a course of action would be like
to a healthy man refusing substantial food, because when he was once
weak in stomach his physician ordered him a severe diet. Let me suppose,
gentlemen, that that doctrine of non-interference was really bequeathed
to you by your Washingtons (and that it was not, I will essay to prove
afterwards), and let me even suppose that your Washingtons imparted to
it such an interpretation, as were equivalent to the words of Cain, "Am
I my brother's keeper?" (which supposition would be, of course, a
sacrilege; but I am forced to such suppositions:) I may be entitled to
ask, is the dress which suited the child, still suitable to the full
grown man? Would it not be ridiculous to lay the man into the child's
cradle, and to sing him to sleep by a lullaby? In the origin of the
United States you were an infant people, and you had, of course, nothing
to do but to grow, to grow, and to grow. But now you are so far grown
that there is no foreign power on earth from which you have anything to
fear for your existence or security. In fact, your growth is that of a
giant. Of old, your infant frame was composed of thirteen states, and
was restricted to the borders of the Atlantic: now, your massive bulk is
spread to the gulf of Mexico and the Pacific, and your territory is a
continent. Your right hand touches Europe over the waves; your left
reaches across the Pacific to eastern Asia; and there, between two
quarters of the world, there you stand, in proud immensity, a world
yourselves. Then you were a small people of three millions and a half;
now you are a mighty nation of twenty-four millions. Thus you have fully
entered into the second stadium of national life, in which a nation
lives at length not for itself separately, but as a member of the great
family of human nations; having a right to whatever is due from that
family _towards_ every one of its full-grown members, but also
engaged to every duty which that great family may claim _from_
every one of its full-grown members.
A nation may, either from comparative weakness, or by choice and policy,
as Japan and China, or by both these motives, as Paraguay under Dr.
Francia,--be induced to live a life secluded from the world, indifferent
to the destinies of mankind, in which it cannot or will not have any
share. But then it must be willing to be also excluded from the benefits
of progress, civilization and national intercourse, while disavowing all
care about all other nations in the world. No citizen of the United
States has, or ever will have, the wish to see this country degraded to
the rotting vegetation of a Paraguay, or the mummy existence of a Japan
and China. The feeling of self-dignity, and the expansiveness of that
enterprizing spirit which is congenial to freemen, would revolt against
the very idea of such a degrading national captivity. But if there were
even a will to live such a mummy life, there is no possibility to do so.
The very existence of your great country, the principles upon which it
is founded, its geographical position, its present scale of
civilization, and all its moral and material interests, would lead on
your people not only to maintain, but necessarily more and more to
develop your foreign intercourse. Then, being in so many respects linked
to mankind at large, you cannot have the will, nor yet the power, to
remain indifferent to the outward world. And if you cannot remain
indifferent, you must resolve to throw your weight into that balance in
which the fate and condition of man is weighed. You are a power on
earth. You must be a power on earth, and must therefore accept all the
consequences of this position. You cannot allow that any power in the
world should dispose of the fate of that great family of mankind, of
which you are so pre-eminent a member: else you would resign your proud
place and your still prouder future, and be a power on earth no more.
I hope I have sufficiently shown, that should even that doctrine of
non-interference have been established by the founders of your republic,
that which might have been very proper to your infancy would not now be
suitable to your manhood. It is a beautiful word of Montesquieu, that
republics are to be founded on virtue. And you know that virtue between
man and man, as sanctioned by our Christian religion, is but an exercise
of that great principle--"Thou shalt do to others as thou desirest
others to do to thee." Thus I might rely simply upon your generous
republican hearts, and upon the consistency of your principles; but I
beg to add some essential differences in material respects, between your
present condition and that of yore. Of your twenty-four millions, more
than nineteen are spread over yonder immense territory, the richest of
the world, employed in the cultivation of the soil, that honourable
occupation, which in every time has proved to be the most inexhaustible
and most unfailing source of public welfare and private happiness, as
also the most unwavering ally of freedom, and the most faithful fosterer
of all those upright, noble, generous sentiments which the constant
intercourse with ever young, ever great, ever beautiful virtue, imparts
to man. Now this immense agricultural interest, desiring large markets,
at the same time affords a solid basis to your manufacturing industry,
and in consequence to your immensely developed commerce. All this places
such a difference between the republic of Washington and your present
grandeur, that though you may well be attached to your original
principles (for the principles of liberty are everlastingly the same),
yet not so in respect to the exigencies of your policy. For if it is to
be regulated by _interest_, your country has other interests to-day
than it had then; and if ever it is to be regulated by the higher
consideration of _principles_, you are strong enough to feel that
the time is already come. And I, standing here before you to plead the
cause of oppressed humanity, am bold to declare that there may never
again come a crisis, at which such an elevation of your policy would
prove either more glorious to you, or more beneficial to man: for we in
Europe are apparently on the eye of that day, when either the hopes or
the fears of oppressed nations will be crushed for a long time.
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.
Now I humbly ask, with the view of these circumstances before your eyes,
can it be convenient to such a great power as this glorious Republic, to
await the very outbreak, and not until then to discuss and decide on
your foreign policy? There may come, as under the last President, at a
late hour, agents to see how matters stand in Hungary. Russian
interference and treason achieved what the sacrilegious Hapsburg dynasty
failed to achieve. You know the old words, "While Rome debated, Saguntum
fell." So I respectfully press upon you my FIRST entreaty: it is, that
your people will in good time express to your central government what
course of foreign policy it wishes to be pursued in the case of the
approaching events I have mentioned. And I most confidently hope that
there is only one course possible, consistently with the above recorded
principles. If you acknowledge that the right of every nation to alter
its institutions and government is a law of nations--if you acknowledge
the interference of foreign powers in that sovereign right to be a
violation of the law of nations, as you really do--if you are
_forbidden to remain indifferent_ to this violation of international
law (as your President openly professes that you are)--then there
is no other course possible than neither to interfere in that
sovereign right of nations, nor to allow any other powers
whatever to interfere.
But you will perhaps object to me, "That amounts to going to war." I
answer: no--that amounts to preventing war. What is wanted to that
effect? It is wanted, that, being aware of the precarious condition of
Europe, your national government should, as soon as possible, send
instructions to your Minister at London, to declare to the English
government that the United States, acknowledging the sovereign right of
every nation to dispose of its own domestic concerns, have resolved not
to interfere, but also not to let any foreign power whatever interfere
with this sovereign right in order to repress the spirit of freedom in
any country. Consequently, to invite the Cabinet of St. James's into
this policy, and declare that the United States are resolved to act
conjointly with England in that decision, in the approaching crisis of
the European continent. Such is my FIRST humble request. If the citizens
of the United States, instead of honouring me with the offers of their
hospitality, would be pleased to pass convenient resolutions, and to
ratify them to their national government--if the press would hasten to
give its aid, and in consequence the national government instructed its
Minister in England accordingly, and by communication to the Congress,
as it is wont, give publicity to this step, I am entirely sure that you
would find the people of Great Britain heartily joining this direction
of policy. No power could feel peculiarly offended by it; no existing
relation would be broken or injured: and still any future interference
of Russia against the restoration of Hungary to that independence which
was formally declared in 1849 would be prevented, Russian arrogance and
preponderance would be checked, and the oppressed nations of Europe soon
become free.
There may be some over-anxious men, who perhaps would say, "But if such
a declaration of your government were not respected, and Russia still
did interfere, then you would be obliged by this previous declaration,
to go to war; and you don't desire to have a war." That objection seems
to me as if somebody were to say, "If the vault of heaven breaks down,
what shall we do?" My answer is, "But it will not break down." Even so I
answer. But your declaration _will_ be respected--Russia will not
interfere--you will have no occasion for war--you will have prevented
war. Be sure Russia would twice, thrice consider, before provoking
against itself, besides the roused judgment of nations--(to say nothing
of the legions of republican France)--the English "Lion" and the
star-surrounded "Eagle" of America. Remember that you, in conjunction
with England, once before declared that you would not permit European
absolutism to interfere with the formerly Spanish colonies of America.
Did this declaration bring you to a war? quite the contrary; it
prevented war. So it would be in our case also. Let me therefore most
humbly entreat you, people of the United States, to give such practical
direction to your generous sympathy for Hungary, as to arrange meetings
and pass such resolutions, in every possible place of this Union, as I
took the liberty to mention above.
The SECOND measure which I beg leave to mention, has reference to
commercial interest. In later times a doctrine has stolen into the code
of international law, which is as contrary to the commercial interests
of nations as to their independence. The pettiest despot of the world is
permitted to exclude your commerce from whatever port he pleases. He
has only to arrange the blockade, and your commerce is shut out; or, if
captured Venice, bleeding Lombardy, or my prostrate but resolute
Hungary, rises to shake off the Austrian tyrant's yoke (as surely they
will), that tyrant believes he has the right, from that very moment, to
exclude your commerce from the uprisen nation. Now, this is an
absurdity--a tyrannical invention of tyrants violating your
interest--your independence. The United States have not always regarded
things from the despotic point of view. I find, in a note of Mr.
Everett, Minister of the United States in Spain, dated "Madrid, Jan. 20,
1826," these words:--"In the war between Spain and the Spanish American
colonies, the United States have freely granted to _both_ parties
the hospitality of their ports and territory, and have allowed the
agents of _both_ to procure within their jurisdiction, in the way
of lawful trade, _any_ supplies which suited their convenience."
Now, gentlemen, this is the principle which humanity expects, for your
own and for mankind's benefit, to see maintained by you, and not yonder
fatal course, which permits tyrants to draw from your country every
facility for the oppression of their nations, but forbids nations to buy
the means of defence. That was not the principle of your Washington.
When he speaks of harmony, of friendly intercourse, and of peace, he
always takes care to apply his ideas to _nations_, and not to
_governments_--still less to tyrants who subdue nations by foreign
arms. The sacred word Nation, with all its natural rights, should not be
blotted out, at least from _your_ political dictionary: and yet I
am sorry to see that the word nation is often replaced by the word
Government. Gentlemen, I humbly wish that the public opinion of the
people of the United States, conscious of its own rights, should loudly
and resolutely declare that the people of the United States will
continue its commercial intercourse with any or every nation, be it in
revolution against its oppressors or be it not; and that the people of
the United States expect confidently, that its government will provide
for the protection of your trade. I feel assured, that your national
government, seeing public opinion so pronounced, will judge it
convenient to augment your naval forces in the Mediterranean: and to
look for some such station for it as would not force the navy of
republican America to make disavowals inconsistent with republican
principles or republican dignity, only because King So-and-So, be he
even the cursed King of Naples, grants the favour of an anchoring place
for the naval forces of your republic. I believe your illustrious
country should everywhere freely unfurl the star-spangled banner of
liberty, with all its congenial principles, and not make itself in any
respect dependent on the glorious smiles of the Kings Bomba et Compagne.
The THIRD object of my wishes, gentlemen, is the recognition of the
independence of Hungary when the critical moment arrives. Your own
declaration of independence proclaims the right of every nation to
assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to
which "the laws of nature and nature's God" entitle them. The political
existence of your glorious republic is founded upon this principle, upon
this right. Our nation stands upon the same ground: there is a striking
resemblance between your cause and that of my country. On the 4th July,
1776, John Adams spoke thus in your Congress, "Sink or swim, live or
die, survive or perish, I am for this declaration. In the beginning we
did not go so far as separation from the Crown, but 'there is a divinity
which shapes our ends.'" These noble words were present to my mind on
the 14th April, 1849, when I moved the forfeiture of the Crown by the
Hapsburgs in the National Assembly of Hungary. Our condition was the
same; and if there be any difference, I venture to say it is in favour
of us. Your country, before this declaration, was not a
_self-consisting independent_ State. Hungary was. Through the
lapse of a thousand years, through every vicissitude of this long
period, while nations vanished and empires fell, _the self-consisting
independence of Hungary was never disputed_, but was recognized by
all powers of the earth, sanctioned by treaties made with the Hapsburg
dynasty, at the era when this dynasty, by the freewill of my nation,
which acted as one of two contracting parties, was invested with the
kingly crown of Hungary. Even more, this independence of the kingdom was
acknowledged to make a part of the international law of Europe, and was
guaranteed not only by foreign European governments, such as Great
Britain, but also by several of those once constitutional states which
belonged formerly to the German, and after its dissolution, to the
Austrian empire.
This independent condition of Hungary is clearly defined in one of our
fundamental laws of 1791, in these words:--"Hungary is a free and
independent kingdom, having its own self-consistent existence and
constitution, and not subject[*] to any other nation or country in the
world." This therefore was our ancient right. _We were not dependent
on, nor a part of, the Austrian empire, as your country was dependent on
England._ It was clearly defined that we owed to Austria nothing but
good neighbourhood, and the only tie between us and Austria was, that we
elected to be our kings the same dynasty which were also the sovereigns
of Austria, and occupied the same line of hereditary succession as our
kings; but by accepting this; our forefathers, with the consent of the
King, again declared, that though Hungary accepts the dynasty as our
hereditary kings, all the other franchises, rights, and laws of the
nation shall remain in full power and intact; and our country shall not
be governed like the other dominions of that dynasty, but according to
our constitutionally established authorities. We could not belong to
"the Austrian Empire," for that empire did not then as yet exist, while
Hungary had already existed as a substantive kingdom for many centuries,
and for some two hundred and eighty years under the government of that
Hapsburgian dynasty. The Austrian Empire, as you know, was established
only in 1806, when the Rhenish confederacy of Napoleon struck the
deathblow of the German empire, of which Francis II. of Austria, was not
_hereditary_ but _elected_ Emperor. That Hungary had belonged
to the _German_ empire is a thing which no man in the world ever
imagined yet. It is only now that the Hapsburgian tyrant professes an
intention to melt Hungary into the German Confederation; but you know
this intention to be in so striking opposition to the European public
law, that England and France solemnly protested against it, so that it
is not carried out even to-day. The German Empire having died, its late
Emperor Francis, also King of Hungary, chose to entitle himself Austrian
Emperor, in 1806; but even in that fundamental charter he solemnly
declared that Hungary and its annexed provinces _are not intended to
make, and will not make, a part of the Austrian Empire_. Subsequently
he entered with this empire into the German Confederation, but Hungary,
as well as Lombardy and Venice, not making part of the Austrian empire,
still remained separated, and were not received into the confederacy.
[Footnote *: In the original Latin, _obnoxium_, "not entangled, or
compromised, with any other."]
The laws which we succeeded to carry in 1848, of course altered nothing
in that old chartered condition of Hungary. We transformed the
peasantry into freeholders, and abolished feudal incumbrances. We
replaced the political privileges of aristocracy by the common liberty
of the whole people; gave to the people at large representation in the
legislature; transformed our municipalities into democratic
corporations; introduced equality before the law for the whole people in
rights and duties, and abolished the immunity of taxation which had been
enjoyed by the class called _Noble_; secured equal religious
liberty to all, secured liberty of the press and of association,
provided for public gratuitous instruction of the whole people of every
confession and of whatever tongue. In all this we did no wrong. All
these were, as you see, internal reforms which did not at all interfere
with our allegiance to the king and were carried lawfully in peaceful
legislation _with the king's own sanction_. Besides this there was
one other thing which was carried. We were formerly governed by a Board
of Council, which had the express duty to govern according to our laws,
and be responsible for doing so; but we found by long experience that a
Corporation cannot really be responsible; and that this was the reason
why the absolutist tendency of the dynasty succeeded in encroaching upon
our liberty. So we replaced the Board of Council by Ministers; the empty
responsibility of a Board by the individual responsibility of men--and
_the king consented to it_. I myself was named by him Minister of
the Treasury. That is all. But precisely here was the rub. The dynasty
could not bear the idea that we would not give to its ambition the life
sweat of our people; it was not contented with the 1,500,000 dollars
which were generously appropriated to it yearly. It dreaded that it
would be disabled in future from using our brave army, against our will,
to crush the spirit of freedom in the world. Therefore it resorted to
the most outrageous conspiracy, and attacked us by arms, and upon
receiving a false report of a great victory this young usurper issued a
proclamation declaring that Hungary shall no more exist--that its
independence, its constitution, its very existence is abolished, and it
shall be absorbed, like a farm or fold, into the Austrian Empire. To all
this Hungary answered, "Thou shalt not exist, tyrant, but we will;" and
we banished him, and issued the declaration of the deposition of his
dynasty, and of our separate independence.
So you see, gentlemen, that there is a very great difference between
your declaration and ours--it is in our favour. There is another
difference; you declared your independence of the English crown when it
was yet very doubtful whether you would be successful. We declared our
independence of the Austrian crown only after we, in legitimate defence,
were already victorious; when we had actually beaten the pretender, and
had thus already proved that we had strength to become an independent
power. One thing more: our declaration of independence was not only
overwhelmingly voted in our Congress, but every county, every
municipality, solemnly declared its consent and adherence to it; so it
became sanctioned, not by mere representatives, but by the whole nation
positively, and by the fundamental institutions of Hungary. And so it
still remains. Nothing has since happened on the part of the nation
contrary to this declaration. One thing only happened,--a foreign
power, Russia, came with its armed bondsmen, and, aided by treason, has
overthrown us for a while. Now, I put the question before God and
humanity to you, free sovereign people of America, can this violation of
international law abolish the legitimate character of our declaration of
independence? If not, then here I take my ground, because I am in this
very manifesto entrusted with the charge of Governor of my fatherland. I
have sworn, before God and my nation, to endeavour to maintain and
secure this act of independence. And so may God the Almighty help me as
I will--I will, until my nation is again in the condition to dispose of
its government, which I confidently trust,--yea, more, I know,--will be
republican. And then I retire to the humble condition of my former
private life, equalling, in one thing at least, your Washington, not in
merits, but in honesty. That is the only ambition of my life. Amen.
Here, then, is my THIRD humble wish: that the people of the United
States would, by all constitutional means of its wonted public life,
declare that, acknowledging the legitimacy of our independence, it is
anxious to greet Hungary amongst the independent powers of the earth,
and invites the government of the United States to recognize this
independence _at the earliest convenient time_. That is all. Let
me see the principle announced: the rest may well be left to the wisdom
of your government, with some confidence in my own respectful discretion
also.
So much for the people of the United States, in its public and political
capacity. But if that sympathy which I have the honour to meet with is
really intended to become beneficial, there is one humble wish more
which I entertain: it is a respectful appeal to generous feeling.
Gentlemen, I would rather starve than rely, for myself and family, on
foreign aid; but for my country's Freedom, I would not be ashamed to go
begging from door to door. I have taken the advice of some kind friends
whether it be lawful to express such a humble request, for I feel it an
honourable duty neither to offend nor to evade your laws. I am told it
is lawful. There are two means to see this my humble wish accomplished.
The first is, by spontaneous subscription; the second is, by a loan. The
latter may require private consultation in a narrower circle. As to
subscriptions, the idea was brought home to my mind by a plain but very
generous letter, which I had the honour to receive, and which I beg to
read. It is as follows:--
CINCINNATI, O., Nov. 14, 1851.
M. LOUIS KOSSUTH, Governor of Hungary:--Sir--I have authorized the
office of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, in New York, to
honour your draft on me for one thousand dollars. Respectfully yours, W.
SMEAD.
I beg leave here publicly to return my most humble thanks to the
gentleman, for his ample aid, and the delicate manner in which he
offered it; and it came to my mind, that where one individual is ready
to make such sacrifices to my country's cause, there may perhaps be many
who would give their small share to it, if they were only apprised that
it will be thankfully accepted, however small it may be. And it came to
my mind, that millions of drops make an ocean, and the United States
number many millions of inhabitants, all warmly attached to liberty. A
million dollars, paid singly, would be to me far _more_ precious
than paid in one single draft; for it would practically show the
sympathy of the people at large. Would I were so happy as your
Washington was, when he also, for your glorious country's sake, in the
hours of your need, called to France for money.
Sir, I have done. I came to your shores an exile: you have poured upon
me the triumph of a welcome such as the world has never yet seen. And
why? Because you took me for the representative of that principle of
liberty which God has destined to become the common benefit of all
humanity. It is glorious to see a free and mighty people so greet the
principle of freedom, in the person of one who is persecuted and
helpless. Be blessed for it! Your generous deed will be recorded; and as
millions of Europe's oppressed nations will, even now, raise their
thanksgiving to God for this ray of hope, which by this act you have
thrown on the dark night of their fate; even so, through all posterity,
oppressed men will look to your memory as to a token of God that there
is a hope for freedom on earth, since there is a people like you to feel
its worth and to support its cause.
* * * * *