Kossuth in response said:--

Mr. President: I consider it a particular favour of Providence that I am

permitted to partake, on the present solemn occasion, in paying the

tribute of honour and gratitude to the memory of your immortal

Washington.

An architect having raised a proud and noble building to the service of

the Almighty, his admirers desired to erect a monument to his memory.

How was it done? His name was inscribed upon the wall, with these

additional words: "You seek his monument--look around."

Let him who looks for a monument of Washington, look around the United

States. The whole country is a monument to him. Your freedom, your

independence, your national power, your prosperity, and your prodigious

growth, is a monument to Washington.

There is no room left for panegyric, none especially to a stranger whom

you had full reason to charge with arrogance, were he able to believe

that his feeble voice could claim to be noticed in the mighty harmony of

a nation's praise. Let me therefore, instead of such an arrogant

attempt, pray that that GOD, to whose providential intentions Washington

was a glorious instrument, may impart to the people of the United States

the same wisdom for the conservation of the present prosperity of the

land and for its future security which he gave to Washington for the

foundation of it.

Allow me, sir, to add, Washington's wisdom consisted in doing all which,

according to the circumstances _of his time_ and the condition of

his country, was necessary to his country's freedom, independence,

welfare, glory, and future security. I pray to God that the people of

this Republic, and all those whom the people's confidence has entrusted

with the honourable charge of directing the helm of the commonwealth,

may be endowed with the same wisdom of doing all which _present_

circumstances and the _present_ condition of your country point out

to be not only consistent with but necessary to your country's present

glory, present prosperity, and future security.

Surely, that is the fittest tribute to the memory of Washington, that is

the most faithful adherence to the doctrine which he bequeathed to you,

by far a better tribute, and by far a more faithful adherence, than to

do, literally, the same that he did, amid circumstances quite different

from those you are now surrounded with, and in a condition entirely

different from that in which you and the world are now.

The principles of Washington are for ever true, and should for ever be

the guiding star to the United States. But to imitate literally the

accidental policy of Washington, would be to violate his principles. If

the spirit of Washington could raise its voice now, in this

distinguished circle of American patriots, it would loudly and

emphatically protest against such a course, and would denounce it as not

only injurious to his memory, but also as dangerous to the future of

this Republic which he founded with such eminent wisdom and glorious

success.

I have seen, sir, the people of the United States advised to regard the

writings of Washington as the Mahommedan regards the Koran, considering

everything which is not to be found in the Koran as useless to heed. Now

this parallel I, indeed, take for a very curious compliment to the

_memory of Washington_--a compliment at which his immortal spirit

must feel offended, I am sure.

Why? to what purpose is the immortal light of Heaven beaming in man's

mind, if it be wise not to make any use of it? To what purpose all that

assiduous care about public instruction, and about the propagation of

knowledge and intelligence, if the writings of Washington are the Koran

of America; forbidding the right of private judgment, which the great

majority of your nation claim as a natural right, even in respect to the

Holy Bible, that book of Divine origin? Look to the east where the

Koran rules, obstructing with its absolutism the development of human

intellect: what do you behold there? You behold mighty nations, a noble

race of men, interesting in many respects, teeming with germs of

vitality, and still falling fast into decay, because doomed to

stagnation of their intelligence by that blind faith in their Koran's

absolute perfection, which we see recommended as a model to the people

of this Republic, whose very existence rests on progress.

Indeed, gentlemen, I dare to say that I yield to nobody in the world, in

reverence and respect to the immortal memory of Washington. His life and

his principles were the guiding star of my life; to that star I looked

up for inspiration and advice, during the vicissitudes of my stormy

life. Hence I drew that devotion to my country and to the cause of

national freedom, which you, gentlemen, and millions of your

fellow-citizens and your national government, are so kind as to honour

by unexampled distinction, though you meet it not brightened by success,

but meet it in the gloomy night of my existence, in that helpless

condition of a homeless wanderer, in which I must patiently bear the

title of an "_imported rebel_" and of a "_beggar_" in the very

land of Washington, for having dared to do what Washington did; for

having dared to do it with less skill and with less success, but, Heaven

knows, not with less honesty and devotion than he did.

Well, it is useless to remark that Washington would probably have ended

with equal failure, had his country not met that foreign aid for which

they honourably _begged_. It is useless to remark that he would

undoubtedly have failed, if after the glorious battle of Yorktown he had

met a fresh enemy of more than two hundred thousand men, such as we met,

and had been forsaken in that new struggle by all the world. It is

useless to remark that success should not be the only test of virtue on

earth, and fortune should not change the devotion of a patriot into an

outrage and a crime; and particularly not, when success is only torn out

of the hands of patriotism by foreign violence, and by the most

sacrilegious infraction of the common laws of all humanity. All this is

useless to say. I must bear many things--must bear even malignity--but

can bear it more easily, because against the insult of some who plead

the cause of despots in your republic, I have for consolation the

tranquillity of my conscience, the love of my countrymen, the

approbation of generous friends, and the sympathy of millions in that

very land where I meet the title of an "_imported rebel_."

I was saying, sir, that I yield to no man on earth in reverence to the

memory of the immortal WASHINGTON! Indeed, I consider it not

inconsistent with this reverence to say: Never let past ages bind the

life of future;--let no man's wisdom be _Koran_ to you, dooming

progress to stagnation, and judgment to the meagre task of a mere

rehearsing memory.

Thus I would speak, should even that which I advocate, be contrary to

what Washington taught--even then I would appeal from the thoughts of a

man, to the spirit of advanced mankind, and from the eighteenth century

to the present age.

But fortunately I am not in that necessity; what I advocate is not only

not in contradiction, but in strict harmony with Washington's

principles, so much so that I have nothing else to wish than that

Washington's doctrine should be quoted fairly as a system, and not by

picking out single words, and concealing that which gives the

interpretation to these words.

Indeed I can wish nothing more than that the _principles_ of

Washington should be followed. And I may also be permitted to say, that

not every word of Washington is a principle, and that what he

recommended as a policy according to the exigencies of his time, he

never intended to recommend as a rule for ever to be followed even in

such circumstances which he, with all his wisdom, could neither foresee

nor imagine. And I may be perhaps permitted to wish the people of the

United States should take for a truth, even in respect to the writings

of Washington, what we are taught by the ministers of the Gospel in

respect to the Holy Scriptures--that, by the discretion of private

judgment, a distinction must be made between what is essential and what

is not, between what is substantial and what is accidental, between what

is a principle and what is but a history.

[Kossuth proceeded to argue concerning the just interpretation of

Washington's words, as in his New York speech; and continued:]

But what is the present condition upon the basis of which I humbly

plead? Allow me, in answer, to quote the words of one of your most

renowned statesmen, the present Secretary of State. You will find then,

gentlemen, that every word he then spoke, is yet more true and more

appropriate to-day.

"The holy alliance," says Mr. Webster, "is an alliance of crowns against

the people--of sovereigns against their own subjects;--the union of the

physical force of all governments against the rights of all people, in

all countries. Its tendency is to put an end to all Nations as such.

Extend the principles of that alliance, and the nations are no more.

There are only kings. It divides society horizontally, and leaves the

sovereigns above, and all the people below; it sets up the one above all

rule, all restraint, and puts down the others to be trampled beneath our

feet."

This is the condition of things to which I claim the attention of

Republican America: moreover, for its own interest's alike, I claim its

attention to the following words from the same statesman, worthy of the

most earnest consideration precisely now-a-days to every American.

"The declaration of ---- says: the powers have an undoubted right to

take a hostile attitude in regard to those states in which the overthrow

of the government may operate as an example."

Mark! oh! mark! gentlemen, how this abominable doctrine is carried out

in Hungary, in Prussia, in Schleswig Holstein, and in Hesse Cassel.

Now, the American statesman proceeds to maintain, that every sovereign

in Europe who goes to war _to repress an example_, is monstrous.

Indeed, if this principle be allowed, what becomes of the United States?

Are you not as legitimate objects for the operation of that principle as

any we attempt to set an example on the other side of the Atlantic. You

thought that when oppressed you might lawfully resist oppression. We, in

Hungary, thought the same; but against us is that monstrous principle of

armed intervention _against setting up an example_. So let me

therefore ask with Mr. Webster: Are you so sick of your liberty and its

effects, as to be willing to part with that doctrine upon which your

very existence rests? Do you forget what you, as a people, owe to

_lawful resistance_? and are you willing to abandon the law and

rights of society to the mercy of the allied despots, who have united to

crush them everywhere? Neutrality? Why, indeed, that would be a strange

explanation of neutrality, if you would sanction by your indifference,

the hostile alliance of all despots against republican, nay, against

constitutional principles on earth.

But suppose Hungary rises once more to do what Washington did (and be

sure it will), and Russia interferes again and you remain again (what

some of you call) neutral--that is, you remain indifferent--what is the

consequence? Czar Nicholas and Emperor Francis-Joseph may buy and carry

away arms, ammunition, armed ships--nay, even armed sympathizers (if

they find them)--to murder Hungary with and you will protect that

commerce, and consider it a lawful one. But if I buy the same, you don't

protect that commerce; and if I would enlist an "armed expedition," for

what the Czar may do against Hungary, you would send me to prison for

ten years.

Is that neutrality? The people of Hungary crushed by violence, shall be

nothing, its sovereign right nothing; but the piracy of the Czar,

encroaching upon the sacred rights of mine and many other nations, shall

be regarded as legitimate, against which the United States, though grown

to mighty power on earth, able without any risk of its own security to

maintain the law of nations and the influence of its glorious example,

should still have nothing to object, only because Washington, more than

half a century ago, declared neutrality appropriate to the infant

condition of his country then; and was anxious to gain time, that your

country might settle and mature its recent institutions, and progress to

that degree of strength, when it would be able to defy any power on

earth in a just cause.

No, gentlemen, my principles may be rejected by the United States, but

never will impartial history acknowledge that by doing thus the United

States followed the principles of Washington. The ruling policy of

Washington may be summed up in the word "_national self-preservation_,"

to which he, as the generous emotions of his noble breast prompted, was

ever inclined to subordinate everything.

And he was right. Self-preservation must be the chief principle of every

nation. But the _means_ of this self-preservation are different in

different times. To-day, I confidently dare state, the duty of

self-preservation commends to the United States, not to allow that the

principle of absolutism should become omnipotent by having a charter

guaranteed to violate the laws of nature and of nature's God, which

Washington and his heroic associates invoked, when they proclaimed the

independence of this Republic.

A second principle of Washington, and precisely in regard to foreign

nations, is, to extend your commercial relations. That is, again, a

principle, gentlemen, which I boldly can invoke to the support of my

humble claims; because if the league of despots becomes omnipotent in

Europe, it is certain that the commerce of Republican America will very

soon receive a death blow on the other side of the Atlantic; whereas,

the maintenance of the law of nations, by affording a fair field to

Hungary, Italy, and Germany, to settle their accounts with their own

domestic oppressors, would open a vast field to your commercial

relations, larger than imagination can conceive.

The third principle of Washington is to steer clear of permanent

alliances with any portion of the foreign world. Well, sir, I do not

solicit alliances; I solicit the maintenance of the laws of nations,

that the unholy alliance of despots may not interfere with the natural

right of nations, upon which yourselves have established the lofty hall

of your national independence.

It is on the stream of these rights that you are borne on in a rapid and

irresistible course of prosperity. Believe me, gentlemen, that course

you cannot check--you could not abandon the privileges upon which you

embarked, without exposing to a shipwreck the glorious future of your

existence and allow me to state that my poor country has some particular

claim to be protected by the consistency of your principles, because

_we are the first nation towards which you have not exercised your

principles._ You say you recognize every _de facto_ government.

Well, why was this not done with Hungary? We shook off the yoke of the

Austrian dynasty, we declared our national independence, and did thus

not in an untimely movement of popular excitement, but after we became

_de facto_ independent, after we had, by crushing our enemy in our

struggle of legitimate defence and driving him out from our country,

proved to the world that we have sufficient strength to take our

position amongst the independent nations of the earth.

And still the United States (which they never yet have done) withheld

the benefit of their recognition, which we have full reason to believe

would have been immediately followed by other recognitions, and thus

would have prevented the foreign interference of Russia, by encouraging

our national independence within those boundaries of diplomatic

communication which no isolated power dared yet to disregard.

Sir, I have studied the history of your immortal Washington and have,

from my early youth, considered his principles as a living source of

instruction to statesmen and to patriots.

Select Speeches of Kossuth · 第 54 / 84 题