[_Speech at Louisville, March 6th_.]
At the Court House, Louisville, Kossuth was addressed by Bland Ballard,
Esq., and replied as follows:
Whatever be the immediate issue of that discussion about foreign policy,
which now so eminently occupies public attention throughout the United
States, from the Capitol and White-house at Washington down to the
lonely farms of your remotest territories, one fact I have full reason
to take for sure, and that is: That when the trumpet-sound of national
resurrection is once borne over the waves of the Atlantic announcing to
you that nations have risen to assert those rights to which they are
called by nature and nature's God--when the roaring of the first
cannon-shot announces that the combat is begun which has to decide which
principle is to rule over the Christian world--absolutism or national
sovereignty--there is no power on earth which could induce the people of
the United States to remain inactive and indifferent spectators of that
great struggle, in which the future of the Christian world--yes, the
future of the United States themselves is to be decided. The people of
the United States will not remain indifferent and inactive spectators
and will not authorize, will not approve, any policy of indifference.
You yourself have told me so, sir.
In the position of every considerable country there is a necessity of a
certain course, to adopt which cannot be avoided, and may be almost
called destiny. The duty as well as the wisdom of statesmen consists in
the ability to steer, in time, the vessel into that course, which, if
they neglect to do in time, the price will be higher and the profit
less.
There is scarcely anything which has more astonished me than the
fact--that, for the last thirty-seven years, almost every Christian
nation has shared the great fault of not caring much about what are
called foreign matters, foreign policy. Precisely the great nations,
England, France, America, which might have regulated the course of their
governments for a very considerable period, abandoned almost entirely
that part of their public concerns, which with great nations is the most
important of all, because it regulates the position of the country in
its great national capacity. The slightest internal interest was
discussed publicly and regulated previously by the nation, before the
government had to execute it; but, as to the most important
interest--the national position of the country and its relations to the
world, Secret Diplomacy, a fatality of mankind, stepped in, and the
nations had to accept the consequences of what was already done, though
they subsequently reproved it. In England, I four months ago, avowed
that all the interior questions together cannot equal in importance the
exterior; _there_ is summed up the future of Britain: and if the
people of England do not cut short the secrecy of diplomacy--if it do
not in time take this all absorbing interest into its own hands, as it
is wont to do with every small home interest, it will have to meet
immense danger very soon, as this danger has already seriously
accumulated by former neglect. Here too, in the United States, there is
no possible question equal in importance to foreign policy, and
especially in regard to European matters. And I say that, if the United
States do not in due time adopt such a course, as will prevent the Czar
of Russia, and his despotic satellites, from believing that the United
States give them entirely free field to regulate the condition of
Europe, which cannot fail to react morally and materially on your
condition, then indeed embarrassments, sufferings, and danger will
accumulate in a very short time over you.
Great Britain, it is clear as matters now stand, can avoid a war with
the continental powers of Europe only by joining their alliance, or at
least by giving them security, that England will not only not support
the liberal movement on the Continent, but that it will submit to the
policy of the absolutist powers. It is not impossible that England will
yield. Do not forget, gentlemen, that an English ministry, be it Tory or
Whig, is always more or less aristocratic, and it is in the nature of
aristocracy that it may love its country well, but indeed aristocracy
more. There is therefore always some inclination to be on good terms
with whoever is an enemy to what aristocracy considers its own enemy,
that is, democracy. This consideration, together with the above
mentioned carelessness of the people about foreign policy, gives you the
key to many events which else it would be impossible to understand.
People against another people should never feel hatred, but brotherly
sympathy. The memory of oppression suffered from governments should
never be imparted to nations, and children should never be hated,
despised, or punished, because their fathers have sinned. We Hungarians
wrestled for centuries with Turkey, and now we are friends, true
friends, and natural allies against a common enemy. Several of my own
ancestors lost their lives in Turkish wars, or their property in ransom
out of Turkish captivity; yet to me it is a Turkish Sultan who saved my
life and gave bread to thousands of my countrymen, which no other power
did on earth. Such is the change of time. It is Russia which crushed my
bleeding fatherland, yet the inexorable hatred of my heart does not
extend to the people of Russia. I love that people--I pity its poor,
unfortunate instruments of despotism. Wherever there is a people, there
is my love. Therefore, let the passionate excitement of past times
subside before the prudent advice of present necessities. You are blood
from England's blood, bone from its bone, and flesh from its flesh. The
Anglo-Saxon race was the kernel around which gathered this glorious
fruit--your Republic. Every other nationality is oppressed. It is the
Anglo-Saxon alone which stands high and erect in its independence. You,
the younger brother, are entirely free, because Republican. They, the
elder brother, are monarchical, but they have a constitution, and they
have many institutions which even you retained, and, by retaining them,
have proved that they are institutions congenial to freedom, and dear to
freemen. The free press, the jury, free speech, the freedom of
association, the institution of municipalities, the share of the people
in the legislature, are English institutions; the inviolability of
person and the inviolability of property are English principles. England
is the last stronghold of these principles in Europe. Is this not enough
to make you stand side by side with those principles in behalf of
oppressed humanity?
If the United States and England unite in policy now and make by their
imposing attitude a breakwater to the ambitious league of despotism, the
Anglo-Saxon race, with all who gathered around that kernel, will not
only have the glorious pleasure of having saved the Christian world from
being absorbed by despotism, but you especially will have the noble
satisfaction of having contributed to the progress and to the
development of freedom in England, Scotland, and Ireland themselves: for
the principles of national sovereignty, independence, and
self-government, when restored on the continent of Europe, must in a
beneficent manner reach upon those islands themselves. They may remain
monarchical, if it be their will to do so, but the parliamentary
omnipotence, which absorbs all that _you_ call _State_ rights
and self-government, will yield to the influence of Europe's liberated
continent. England will govern its own domestic concerns by its own
parliament, and Scotland its own, and Ireland its own, just as the
states of your galaxy do; the three countries are destined to mutual
connection, by their geographical relations, by far more than New York
with Louisiana or Carolina with California. By conserving the
state-rights of self-government to all of them they will unite in a
common government for the common interest, as you have done. _Union,
and not unity, must be the guiding star of the future_ with every
power composed of several distinct bodies, and though I am a republican
more perhaps than thousands who are citizens of a republic, inasmuch as
I have known all the curse of having had a king--still such a
development of Great Britain's future, were it even connected with
monarchy, I, a true republican, would hail with fervent joy. To
contribute to such a future, I indeed should consider more practical
support to the cause of freedom, to the cause of Ireland itself, than,
out of passionate aversions either for past or present wrongs, to
discourage, nay, almost force Great Britain to submit to the threatening
attitude of despots or even to side with them against liberty. Out of
such a submission there can never result any good to any one in the
world, and certainly none to you--none to the nations of Europe--none to
Ireland--but increased oppression to Europe and Ireland, and danger to
you yourselves.
I therefore say that a war side by side with England against the leagued
despots, if war should become a necessity, is not an idea to look on in
advance with aversion. You have united with England on a far less
important occasion. And should England _not_ yield to the despots,
I most confidently ask whoever in the United States inclines to judge
matters according to the true interests of his country and not by
private passion, whether you _could_ remain indifferent in a
struggle, the issue of which either would make England omnipotent on
earth, or crush liberty down throughout the world, leave America exposed
to the pressure of victorious despotism, and before all, exclude
republican America from every political and commercial relation with all
Europe. Should England see that she will not stand alone in protesting
against interference, she will, she must protest against it, because it
is the condition of her own future. But if the United States should
again adhere to the policy of indifference (which is no policy at all),
then indeed England may perhaps yield to the threatening attitude of the
absolutist powers. The policy of the United States may now decide the
direction of the policy of England, and thus prevent immense mischief,
incalculable in its consequences, even for the future of the United
States themselves.
It is here I take the opportunity briefly to refer to an assertion of an
American statesman, who holds a high place in your affections and in my
respect. He advances the theory, that, should, you now take the course
which I humbly claim, the despots of Europe would be provoked by your
example to interfere with your institutions and turn upon you in the
hour of your weakness and exhaustion, because you have set an example of
interference.
I indeed am at a loss to understand that. Is it interference I claim?
No; precisely the contrary, if you now declare "that your very existence
being founded on that principle of the eternal laws of nature and of
nature's God--that every nation has the independent right to regulate
its domestic concerns, to fix its institutions and its government"--you
cannot contemplate with indifference that the absolutist powers form a
league of mutual support against this principle of mankind's common law.
You therefore protest against this principle of "foreign interference."
I indeed cannot understand by what logic such a protest could be taken
up by the despotic powers as a pretext for interference in your domestic
concerns. My logic is entirely different. It runs thus; If your country
remains an indifferent spectator of the violation of the laws of nations
by foreign interference, _then_ it has established a precedent--it
has consented that the principle of interference become interpolated
into the book of international law, and you will see the time when the
league of despots commanding the whole force of oppressed Europe will
remind you thus:
"Russia has interfered in Hungary, because it considered the example set
up by Hungary dangerous to Russia. America has silently recognized the
right of that interference. France has interfered in Rome, because the
example of the Roman democracy was dangerous to Prance. America has
silently agreed. The absolutist governments, in protection of their
divine right, have leagued in a saintly alliance, with the openly avowed
purpose to aid one another by mutual interference against the spirit of
revolution and the anarchy of republicanism. America has not protested
against it; therefore the principle of foreign interference against
every dangerous example has, by common consent of every power on
earth--contradicted by none, not even by America--become an established
international law."
And reminding you thus, they will speak to you in the very words of that
distinguished statesman to whom I respectfully allude.
"You have quitted the ground upon which your national existence is
founded. You have consented to the alteration of the laws of
nations--the existence of your republic is dangerous to us; _we
therefore, believing that your anarchical (that is, republican)
doctrines are destructive of, and that monarchical principles are
essential to, the peace and security and happiness of our subjects, will
obliterate the bed which has nourished such noxious weeds; we will crush
you down as the propagandists of doctrines too destructive to the peace
and good order of the world."_
I have quoted the very words, very unexpectedly given to
publicity,--words, which I out of respect and personal affection, did
not answer then, precisely because I took the interview for a private
one. Even now I refrain from entering into further discussion, out of
the same considerations of respect, though I am challenged by this
unlooked for publicity. I will say nothing more. But after having
quoted the very words, I leave to the public opinion to judge whether
their authority is against or for a national protest against the
principle of foreign interference.
Let once the principle become established with your silent consent and
you will soon see it brought home to you, and brought home in a moment
of domestic discord, which Russian secret diplomacy and Russian gold
will skilfully mix. You may be sure of it; and this mighty Union will
be shaken by that very principle of foreign interference which you
silently let be established as an uncontroverted rule for the despots of
the earth.
Great countries are under the necessity of holding the position of a
power on earth. If they do not thus, foreign powers dispose of their
most vital interests. Indifference to the condition of the foreign world
is a wilful abdication of their duty, and of their independence.
Neutrality, as a constant rule, is impossible to a great power. Only
small countries, as Switzerland and Belgium, can exist upon the basis of
neutrality.
Great powers may remain neutral in a particular case, but they cannot
take neutrality for a constant principle, and they chiefly cannot remain
neutral in respect to principles.
Great powers can never play with impunity the part of no power at all.
Neutrality when taken _as a principle_ means indifference to the
condition of the world.
Indifference of a great power to the condition of the world is a chance
given to foreign powers to regulate the interests of that indifferent
foreign power.
Look in what light you appear before the world with your policy of
indifference. Look at the instructions of your navy in the
Mediterranean, recently published, forbidding American officers even to
speak politics in Europe. Look at the correspondences of your commodores
and consuls, frightened to their very souls that a poor exile on board
an American ship is cheered by the people of Italy and France, and
charging him for the immense crime of having met sympathy without any
provocation on his part. Look at the cry of astonishment of European
writers, that Americans in Europe are so little republican. Look how
French Napoleonist papers frown indignantly at the idea that the
Congress of the United States dare to honour my humble self. Look how
they consider it almost an insult, that an American Minister, true to
his always professed principles, dares to speak about European politics.
Look how one of my aristocratical antagonists, who quietly keeps house
in France, where I was not permitted to pass, and who, a tool in other
hands, would wish to check my endeavours to benefit my country, because
he would like to get home in some other way than by a revolution and
into a republic--look how he, from Paris in London papers, dares to
scorn the idea that America could pretend to weigh anything in the scale
of European events.
Do you like this position, free republicans of America? And yet that is
your position in the world now, and that position is the consequence of
your adhering to your policy of indifference, at a time when you needed
to act like a power on earth.
Remember the Sibylline books. The first three were burned when you
silently let Russian interference be accomplished in Hungary, and did
not give us your recognition when we had achieved and declared our
independence.
Six books yet remain. The spirit of the age, the Sibylla of opportunity,
holds a second three books over the fire. Do not allow her to burn
them--else only the last three remain, and I fear you will have, without
profit, more to pay for them than would have bought all the nine, and
with them the glory and happiness of an _eternal, mighty Republic!_
Gentlemen, I humbly thank you for your kindness, and bid you an
affectionate farewell.
* * * * *