Chapter 4
I confidently hope, Mr. Mayor, the Corporation and Citizens of THE EMPIRE CITY will grant me a second opportunity. If this be your generous will, then let me take this for a boon of happier days; and let me add, with a sigh of thanksgiving to the Almighty God, that Providence has selected your glorious country to be the pillar of freedom, as it is already the asylum to oppressed humanity.
I am told that I shall have the high honour to review your patriotic militia. My heart throbs at the idea of seeing this gallant army enlisted on the side of freedom against despotism. The world would then soon be free, and you the saviours of humanity. Citizens of New York, it is under your protection that I place the sacred cause of freedom and the independence of Hungary.
* * * * *
VI.--REPLY TO THE BALTIMORE ADDRESS.
[_Dec. 10th_, 1851.]
Mr. Henry P. Brooks, Chairman of the Committee of the Baltimore City Council, came forward, and after congratulating Kossuth upon his release from peril, and arrival in America, he presented the following resolutions of the Council written on parchment:--
IN CITY COUNCIL.
Whereas it is understood that Louis Kossuth, the illustrious Hungarian patriot and exile, is about seeking an asylum upon our shores; and whereas it is believed that the city of Baltimore, in common with the whole people of the United States, feel a deep and abiding interest in the cause of freedom wherever it is assailed, and entertain the most sincere regret for the unfortunate condition of Hungary; and whereas, in the reception of Kossuth, an opportunity is offered of expressing our sympathy for the cause of Hungarian independence--of recording our detestation of the unholy coalition by which that gallant people have been crushed, and of evincing our admiration of the noble conduct of the Turkish Sultan in refusing to deliver to the despots of Europe that illustrious exile and patriot whom it is about to be our privilege and pride to receive, as it befits the chosen people of liberty to receive one who has so nobly battled and suffered in that sacred cause; therefore--
_Resolved_, By the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, that we look to the arrival of Kossuth upon our shores with mingled feelings of satisfaction and regret--satisfaction that we are enabled to afford a safe asylum to an illustrious patriot--regret that the cause of liberty should give birth to such necessity.
_Resolved_, That we sympathize fully with the Hungarians in their important struggles for Independence, but mindful of that Providence which crowned our own efforts for liberty with success, trust yet to behold that glorious future which their noble leader so eloquently predicts for his beloved country.
_Resolved_, That we regard the alliance with Russia and Austria for the purpose of crushing the spirit of liberty in Hungary as a fit accompaniment in the annals of time for the infamous partition of unfortunate Poland by the same tyrannical powers, each alike worthy of the execration of the civilized world.
_Resolved_, That we cordially welcome Kossuth and his exiled companions to the full enjoyment of American liberty and an asylum beyond the reach of European despotism.
_Resolved_, further, That a Joint Committee of five from each branch of the City Council be appointed, whose duty it shall be, in conjunction with the Mayor, in the event of their arrival in our city, to tender to them appropriate public tokens of our esteem and admiration for their gallant conduct, as well as of our sympathy for their sufferings and their cause.
Committee under the last resolution--First Branch: Henry P. Brooke, John Dukehart, J. Hanson Thomas, David Blanford, John Thomas Morris.
Second Branch: Jacob J. Cohen, W. B. Morris, Hugh A. Cooper, James C. Ninde, Geo. A. Lovering.
JOHN H. J. JEROME, Mayor. JOHN S. BROWN, President of First Branch. HUGH BOLTON, President of Second Branch. City of Baltimore, State of Maryland, United States of America, Oct. 28, A.D. 1851.
[After hearing several other--complimentary addresses, Kossuth in a few minutes replied. He began with apologies, and then proceeded]:--
Permit me to say, that in my opinion the word "glory" should be blotted out from the Dictionary in respect to individuals, and only left for use in respect to nations. Whatever a man can do for his country, even though he should live a long life, and have the strongest faculties, would not be too much: for he ought to use his utmost exertions, and his utmost powers, in return for the gifts he receives. Whatever a man can do on behalf of his country and of humanity, would never be so much as his duty calls upon him to do, still less so much as to merit the use of the word "glory" in regard to himself. Once more, I say, that duty belongs to the man and glory to the nation. When an honest man does his duty to his own country, and becomes a patriot, he acts for all humanity, and does his duty to mankind.
You have bestowed great attention upon the cause of Hungary, and the subject is here well understood generally, which is a benefit to me. I declare to you all, that I find more exact knowledge of the Hungarian cause here, than in any other place I have been. Yet I am astonished to see in a report of the proceedings of the United States Senate, that a member rose and said that we were not struggling for the principle of Freedom and of Liberty, but rather for the support of our ancient Charter. This, gentlemen, is a misrepresentation of our cause. There is a truth in the assertion that we were struggling for our _ancient rights_, for the right of self-government is an ancient right. The right of self-government was ours a thousand years ago, and has been guaranteed to us by the coronation oaths of more than thirty of our kings. I say that this right was guaranteed to us, yet it had become a dead letter in the course of time. Before the Revolution of 1848 we were long struggling to enforce our notorious but often invaded rights; but the whole people were not interested in them: for although they were constitutional rights, they were restricted in ancient times, not to a particular _race_, but to a particular _class_, called Nobles. These did not belong to the Magyars alone, but to all the races that settled in the country, to the Sclaves, to the Wallachians, the Serbs, and to others, whatever their race or their extraction. Yet none but the _Nobles_ were privileged. We saw that for one class only to be interested in these rights was not enough, and we wished to make them a benefit to every man in the country, and to replace the old Constitution by one which should give a common and universal right to all men to vote, without regard to the tongue they speak or the Church at which they pray. I need not enter further into the subject than to say, that we established a system of practically universal suffrage, of equality in representation, a just share in taxation for the support of the State, and equality in the benefits of public education, and in all those blessings which are derived from the freedom of a free people.
It has been asked by some, why I allowed a treacherous general to ruin our cause. I have always been anxious not to assume any duty for which I might be unsuited. If I had undertaken the practical direction of military operations, and anything went amiss, I feared that my conscience would torture me, as guilty of the fall of my country, as I had not been familiar with military tactics. I therefore entrusted my country's cause, thus far, into other hands; and I weep for the result. In exile, I have tried to profit by the past and prepare for the future. I believe that the confidence of Hungary in me is not shaken by misfortune nor broken by my calumniators. I have had all in my own hands once; and if ever I am in the same position again, I will act. I will not become a Napoleon nor an Alexander, and labour for my own ambition; but I will labour for freedom and for the moral well-being of man. I do but ask you to enforce your own great constitutional principles, and not permit Russia to interfere.
* * * * *
VII.--HEREDITARY POLICY OF AMERICA.
[_Speech at the Corporation Dinner, New York, Dec. 11th_, 1851.]
The Mayor having made an address to Kossuth, closed by proposing the following toast:--
"Hungary--Betrayed but not subdued. Her call for help is but the echo of our appeal against the tread of the oppressor."
Kossuth rose to reply. The enthusiasm with which he was greeted was unparalleled. It shook the building, and the chandeliers and candelabras trembled before it. Every one present rose to his feet, and appeared excited to frenzy. The ladies participated in honouring the Hungarian hero. At length the storm of applause subsided, and then ensued a silence most intense. Every eye was fixed on Kossuth, and when he commenced his speech, the noise caused by the dropping of a pin could be heard throughout the large and capacious room.
KOSSUTH'S SPEECH.
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.