Aristocracy should vanish, not _in_ the nations, but also from _amongst_ the nations. So long as that is not done, liberty will nowhere be lasting on earth . . . A privilege never can be lasting.
Liberty restricted to one nation never can be sure. You may say, "We are the prophets of G.o.d"; but you shall not say, "G.o.d is only _our_ G.o.d." The Jews have said so, and the pride of Jerusalem lies in the dust."
Through all his speeches the thought of the universality of liberty, and the doctrine that there is a community in man"s destiny, can be discerned. His later speeches, and especially his speeches made after his tour through the South, indicate a loss of confidence in the disposition of the country to give substantial aid to the cause of Hungary, and thenceforward the loss of hope was apparent in his conversation and speeches. Indeed, before he left the country, his thoughts were directed most largely to the care of his mother, wife and sisters, who, like himself, were exiles and dest.i.tute of the means of subsistence. It is not probable that he antic.i.p.ated at any time any other a.s.sistance than that which might follow an official announcement by the national authorities of an opinion adverse to interference by any state in the affairs of other states. His visit to Washington satisfied him that no such expression of opinion would be made by Congress, or by the administration of President Fillmore.
On the thirtieth day of April, 1852, Kossuth closed a speech in Faneuil Hall, which had occupied two hours and a half in its delivery, with these words: "I cannot better express my thanks than to pledge my word, relying, as I have said on another occasion of deep interest, upon the justice of our cause, the blessing of G.o.d, iron wills, stout arms and good swords, and upon your generous sympathy, to do all in my power with my people, for my country, and for humanity." Thus, as he approached the end of his career in America, he abandoned the thought of securing active interference, or, indeed, of official support in behalf of Hungary, whatever might have been his hopes when he landed in the United States.
During the period of Kossuth"s visit, from December, 1851, to June, 1852, the attention of the country was directed to the approaching Presidential election, and in public speeches and in conversations he attributed his failure to secure the endors.e.m.e.nt of Congress and of legislative a.s.semblies to that circ.u.mstance. In his first speech in Faneuil Hall he said, "Would it had been possible for me to have come to America either before that contest was engaged, or after it will be decided! I came, unhappily, in a bad hour." That Kossuth attributed too much importance to that circ.u.mstance, there can be no doubt.
Other, deeper-seated and more adverse causes were at work. The advice and instructions of Washington as to the danger of entangling foreign alliances were accepted as authority by many, and as binding traditions by all. Consequently, there was not, and could not have been, any time in the century when his appeal would have been answered by an aggressive step, or even by an official declaration in behalf of his cause.
Co-operating with this general tendency of public opinion, there existed a latent sentiment in the slave States and everywhere among the adherents and defenders of slavery that the mission of Kossuth was a menace to that peculiar inst.i.tution. Of this face he was convinced by his visit to Washington and his brief tour in the slave States. At Worcester a man in the crowd had shouted, "We worship not the man, but we worship the principle." The slave-holders were interested in the man, but they feared his principles; and well they might fear his principles for he was the avowed enemy of all castes and all artificial distinctions among men. Hence it was that he was avoided by the leaders of the Democratic Party, and hence it was that his special friends and supporters were Abolitionists, Free-soilers and Anti- slavery Democrats.
This condition of public opinion and of party division was reached as early as the twenty-ninth day of April, when Kossuth said: "Many a man has told me that if I had not fallen into the hands of the Abolitionists and Free-soilers, he would have supported me; and had I landed somewhere in the South, instead of New York, I would have met quite different things from that quarter; but being supported by the Free-soilers, of course I must be opposed by the South." All this was error. If Kossuth had been spurned by the Abolitionists and Free- soilers, he would not have been accepted by the South; for there was not a _quadrennium_ from 1832 to 1860 when that section would have contributed to the election of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency with the weight of the Declaration of Independence upon his shoulders, as it came from his pen, had he been in existence and eligible to the office.
Support of Kossuth, by aggressive action of by official declarations against Austria and Russia, was an impossibility for the country; and an open avowal of sympathy with his opinions and principles was an impossibility for the South or for the Democratic Party.
Henceforward Kossuth"s hopes were limited to pecuniary aid for himself and his family and friends, and to expressions of sympathy for his downtrodden country by individuals, by voluntary a.s.sociations, and by munic.i.p.alities. All his speeches after his visit to Washington were laden with one thought, viz., the duty of all free countries to resist the spread of absolutism. Pre-eminently this duty was upon America.
"Republican America," said he, "and all-overwhelming Russian absolutism cannot much longer subsist together on earth. Russia active,--America pa.s.sive,--there is an immense danger in the fact; it is like the avalanche in the Alps, which the noise of a bird"s wing may move and thrust down with irresistible force, growing every moment."
He quoted the declaration which the elder Cato made whenever he spoke, whether in private or in public: "However, my opinion is that Carthage must be destroyed." Imitating the language and spirit of Cato, Kossuth said: "However, the law of nations should be maintained, and absolutism not permitted to become permanent."
That he exaggerated the scope of what is called the law of nations there can be no doubt. Beyond a few points, such as the recognized rule in regard to piracy, the law of nations is very indefinite, and most certainly it has but little relation, if indeed it can be said justly to have any relation, to what he called "absolutism." Moreover, it is very doubtful whether any interference by one nation in the affairs of another nation, in whatever considerate way such interference might by presented, could produce aught but evil, in arousing the pa.s.sions of jealously and hostility. Had England and the United States tendered any advice even in the affairs of Austria, Hungary and Russia, such advice would have been rejected by the nations, and indignities would have been heaped upon the officious parties. All that part of Kossuth"s mission to England and the United States was hopeless from the beginning, and it seems to be an impeachment of his wisdom to a.s.sume that he ever entertained the thought that either country could or would make the cause of Hungary its own, whatever might be the general or official opinion as to the justice of the contest that Hungary had carried on.
His speeches and his private conversations justify the inference that he had a hope that in some way the influence of England and the United States might be exerted effectually in behalf of Hungary, and that through that influence the activity of Russia might be arrested.
Although he looked to France for aid to the cause of Hungary, he regarded the _coup d"etat_ of Napoleon as an adverse event,--as a step and an important step in the direction of "absolutism." On one occasion he said: "Look how French Napoleonish papers frown indignantly at the idea that the Congress of the United States dared to honor my humble self, declaring those honors to be not only offensive to Austria, but to all the European powers."
Mr. Webster delivered a speech in Boston in the month of November, 1849, when it was apprehended that Russia might a.s.sume the task of demanding of Turkey the surrender of Kossuth and others, and of executing them for crimes against Austria. On that occasion Mr.
Webster claimed that the Emperor of Russia was "bound by the law of nations"; and to that declaration Kossuth often referred. The full text of Mr. Webster"s speech leaves upon the mind the impression that what he then called "the law of nations" was only that general judgment of the civilized nations before which the Czar of Russia "would stand as a criminal and malefactor in the view of the public law of the world." Having this declaration in mind, Kossuth said: "It was a beautiful word of a distinguished son of Ma.s.sachusetts (Mr. Webster), which I like to repeat, that every nation has precisely the same interest in international law that a private individual has in the laws of his country." Mr. Webster"s speech did not justify the inference which Kossuth drew from it; but the speech itself was much less reserved than that which Mr. Webster delivered in 1852, when he held the office of Secretary of State, and spoke for the administration, at a banquet given in the city of Washington in Kossuth"s honor.
When Kossuth had abandoned the hope, which his intense interest in the fate of his country had inspired, that the United States might act in behalf of Hungary, he yet returned again and again to the subject. On one occasion he said; "I take it for an axiom that there exist interests common to every nation comprised within the boundaries of the same civilization. I take it equally for certain that among these common interest none is of higher importance than the principles of international law." Nor did he hesitate to say that our indifference to the spread of "absolutism" would be attended with serious and grievous consequences: "To look indifferently at these encroachments is as much as a spontaneous abdication of the position of a power on earth. And that position abandoned, is independence abandoned." He declared that neutrality did "not involve the principles of indifferentism to the violation of the law of nations"; and he attempted to stimulate the national pride by the declaration that neutrality was the necessity of weak states, like Belgium and Switzer- land, whose neutrality was due the rivalry of other powers, and not to their own will.
These appeals were in vain, although they were made in language most attractive, and although the sympathies of the people were sincere and active in behalf of Hungary. His mission was a failure, inasmuch as neither by argument, by eloquence, nor by sympathy was he able to secure an official declaration or promise of a purpose in the national authorities to interfere in the affairs of Continental Europe.
Kossuth"s personal wants and the necessities of his family and friends were met by the sale of Hungarian bonds and by voluntary contributions; but no substantial aid was given to Hungary in its contest with Austria and Russia.
In his many speeches Kossuth set forth his views upon national and international topics with freedom, and often with great wisdom. Said he on one occasion: "I take political economy for a science not exactly like mathematics. It is quite a practical thing, depending upon circ.u.mstances; but in certain proceedings a negative principle exists. In political economy it is not good for the people that a prohibitory system be adopted. Protection may sometimes be of service to a nation, but prohibition never." Thus did he qualify the claim of authors and students, who a.s.sert that political economy deserves rank among the sciences, whether exact or speculative, and thus did he recognize the protective theory as adapted to the condition of states while in the transition period in the development of the higher industries.
It was a favorite thought with Kossuth that England would become republican, and that the United States and republican England could lead the world in civilization and in the work and duty of elevating the ma.s.ses. His influence in Hungary had been due, in a large measure, to his active agency in the work of establishing a.s.sociations for the advancement of agriculture, public education, commerce, and the mechanic arts. He deprecated the opposition of the Irish in America to any and every form of alliance with England, and he did not hesitate to condemn the demand of O"Connell for the repeal of the union between England and Ireland. Said he: "If I could contribute one line more to the future unity in action of the United States and England, I should more aid the Irish than by all exclamations against one or the other. With the United States and England in union, the Continent of Europe would be republican. Then, though England remained monarchist, Ireland would be more free than it is now."
It is a singular incident in Kossuth"s history, in connection with Irish affairs, that in one of his speeches he foreshadowed Gladstone"s Home Rule policy,--but upon the basis of a legislative a.s.sembly for each of the three princ.i.p.al countries, England, Scotland and Ireland.
Thus did he indicate a public policy for Great Britain that has been accepted in part by the present government,--a policy that is to be accepted by the English nation and upon the broad basis laid down by a foreigner and sojourner, who had had only limited means for observation.
"If I were an Irishman, I would not have raised the standard of repeal, which offended the people of England, but the standard of munic.i.p.al self-government against parliamentary omnipotence; not as an Irish question, but as a common question to all; and in this movement all the people of England and Scotland would have joined, and there now would have been a Parliament in England, in Ireland and Scotland. Such is the geographical position of Great Britain that its countries should be, not one, but united, each with its own parliament, but still one parliament for all."
Although forty years have pa.s.sed without the fulfillment of Kossuth"s prophetic declaration of a public policy, its realization is not only possible, but probable. To the American mind, with our experience and traditions, such a solution of the Irish question seems easy, practicable, safe. We have States larger than Ireland, States smaller than Ireland, in which the doctrine of self-government finds a practical application. Not free from evils, not free from maladministration; but if our States are judged at half-century intervals, it will appear that they are moving with regular and certain steps towards better conditions. There is not one American State in which the condition of the people in matters of education, in personal and public morals, in industrial intelligence, in wealth and in the means of further improvement, has not been advanced, essentially, in the last fifty years. If all the apprehensions touching the evils and dangers of self-government in Ireland were well founded, there is an a.s.surance in our experience that the people themselves would discover and apply an adequate remedy.
Kossuth was an orator; and every orator is of necessity something of a prophet. He is more than a historian who deals only with the past, ill.u.s.trated with reflections, called philosophical, concerning the events of the past. With the orator those events are recalled and reviewed for encouragement or warning. The eye of the orator is turned to the future. The peroration of Mr. Webster"s speech in reply to Hayne contains a prophetic description of the Civil War as it was experienced by the succeeding generation. Fisher Ames" bold prediction as to the disposition of convicts to found and to maintain good government has been realized in the history of Van Diemen"s Land. Said Ames: "If there could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could live again, collect together, and form a society, they would, however loath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice--that justice under which they fell--the fundamental law of their state."
Nor did the spirit of prophecy desert Kossuth, in regard to Louis Napoleon. In 1852 he said: "The fall of Louis Napoleon, though old monarchial elements should unite to throw him up, can have no other issue than a republic,--a republic more faithful to the community of freedom in Europe than all the former revolutions have been."
He seemed also to foresee the unity of Italy, although he overestimated the tendency there towards republican inst.i.tutions. He declared that Austria studded the peninsula of Italy with bayonets, and that she was able to send her armies to Italy because Russia guarded her eastern frontier. His residence in Italy for a third of a century was due to his admiration for the history of the Italian peoples, and his belief in the capacity of the Italian races for the business of government.
"The spirit of republican liberty, the warlike genius of ancient Rome, were never extinguished between the Alps and the Faro." He declared that every stain upon the honor of Italy was connected with foreign rule, and that the petty tyrants of Italy had been kept on their tottering thrones through the intervention of Austria, Germany and France.
At the end he placed the responsibility for the domination of absolutism upon the Continent of Europe to the intervention of Russia and to her recognized supremacy in war. He appreciated the fact that Russia in coalition with Austria or Germany or France was more than the equal of the residue of the Continent, whether combined for offensive or defensive operations.
In the many speeches which Kossuth made in the United States, he endeavored to impress upon his hearers the conviction that absolutism, under which Europe was then groaning, would extend to America. This view made a slight impression only. To the common mind the ocean and the distance seemed a sufficient protection. In the lifetime of Kossuth, absolutism, both in church and state, has lost much of power on the Continent of Europe, while in America it has no abiding place.
Kossuth did not err in his opinion as to the policy of Russia in European affairs; but that policy never extended to America, even in thought. Of that policy Kossuth said: "It is already long ago that Czar Alexander of Russia declared that henceforth governments should have no particular policy, but only a common one, the policy of safety to all governments; as if governments were the aim for which nations exist, and not nations the aim for which governments exist."
Finally, he came to look upon Russia as the master of all Europe, and he sought to impress upon his hearers in America the opinion that the time would come when Russia would seek for mastery in the affairs of this continent. This apprehension on his part was not accepted by any cla.s.s of his hearers and followers, and the cession of Alaska must have quieted the apprehension which had taken possession of Kossuth"s mind.
In pa.s.sing from so much of Kossuth"s career in America as relates to his public policy and to his views upon public questions, it can be said that he entertained the broadest ideas of personal liberty and of the independence and sovereignty of states, coupled with an obligation binding all states to protect each and every state from the aggressive action of any other state.
It was his hope that England and the United States would unite, and by counsel, if not by active intervention, check, and in the end control, Russia in its manifest purpose to dominate over the Continent of Europe. This hope has not been realized. In no instance have the United States and England co-operated for the protection of any other state, and the influence of Russia on the Continent of Europe was never greater than it now is. Manifestly, England is the only obstacle to the domination of Russia over the Bosphorus.
In these forty years, Hungary has gained as a component part of the Austrian Empire, but, in the ratio of the augmentation of its power, the tendency to independence and to a republican form of government has diminished. The demonstrations that followed Kossuth"s death are evidence, however, that his teachings have affected the student cla.s.ses in Hungary, and it is possible that those teachings are destined to work changes in Hungary and Italy in favor of republican inst.i.tutions.
Kossuth"s teachings were in harmony with the best ideas that have been accepted in regard to state policy, international relations, and individual rights; but he was in advance of his own age and in advance of this age. For Europe he was an unpractical statesman, and in America he demanded what could not be granted. It does not follow, however, that his labors were in vain. He aroused the American mind to a higher sense of the power and dignity of the American nation, and he set forth the influence that England and the United States might exert in the affairs of the world whenever they should co-operate in an international public policy. He maintained the cause of universal liberty. At West Cambridge Kossuth said: "Liberty was not granted to your forefathers as a selfish boon; your destiny is not completed till, by the aid and influence of America, the oppressed nations are regenerated and made free."
These words were not wholly visionary, and in these forty years since they were uttered some progress has been made. The empires of Brazil and France have been transformed into republics, slavery has been abolished in North and South America, the weak states of Italy have been united in one government, the German Empire has been created, and all in the direction of popular liberty and with manifest preparation for the republican form of government. Nor can it be said justly that there has been a retrograde movement in any part of the world. These changes would have come to pa.s.s without Kossuth; but it is to his credit that his teachings were coincident with the trend of events, and they may have contributed to the accomplished results.
In 1849 Mr. Webster compared Kossuth to Wycliffe, by the quotation of the lines:
"The Avon to the Severn runs, The Severn to the sea; And Wycliffe"s dust shall spread abroad, Wide as the waters be."
It is not easy to form an opinion of Kossuth"s place as an orator, when considered in comparison or in contrast with other orators. He had but one central theme, the cause of Hungary, and on that theme he spoke many hundred times, and never with any offensive or tedious repet.i.tions. In Ma.s.sachusetts alone he delivered thirty-four speeches and orations, and it may be said that all of them were carefully prepared, and most of them were reduced to writing. His topics were the wrongs inflicted upon Hungary, the sufferings endured by his country, the dominating and dangerous influence of Russia in the affairs of Europe, the duty of England and America to resist that influence, the mission of the government and people of the United States to labor for the extension of free inst.i.tutions and the blessings of liberty to the less favored nations of the world,--all made attractive by references to general, local and personal histories.
As one test, and a very important test, of the presence of unusual power, it can be said that no other orator ever made so many acceptable addresses upon allied topics.
His cause did much for him. For im and for his country there was deep- seated and universal sympathy. In his case, with unimportant exceptions, there were no prejudices, or pa.s.sions, or principles, or traditions, to be overcome. Our history, whether as exiles, as revolutionists, or as pioneers in the cause of freedom, contributed materially to the success of his orations and speeches. All who heard him were astonished at the knowledge of our history, both local and general, which he exhibited. When he came to the old Hanc.o.c.k House in Boston, he mentioned the fact without waiting for information, so carefully had he studied the features of the city in advance of his visit. There were three persons in his suite who devoted themselves to the preparation of his speeches,--Gen. Klapka, Count Pulszky and Madame Pulszky. Their knowledge of Kossuth"s mind was such that they were able to mark the pa.s.sages in local histories and biographies that would be useful to him in his addresses. Those of his speeches which were prepared were written by these a.s.sistants, to whom he dictated the text. By their aid he was able to prepare his speeches with a celerity that was incomprehensible to the Western mind.
His first speech in Boston was delivered the twenty-seventh day of April, 1852, the day that he completed his fiftieth year. When in private conversation I spoke of the circ.u.mstance that it was my good fortune to welcome him to the State on that anniversary, he said: "Yes, it is a marked day; but unless my poor country is saved I shall soon wither away and die."
His voice, whether in public speech or in private conversation, commanded sympathy by its tones, even when his words were not comprehended. In his oratory there was exaggeration in statement, a characteristic that is common to orators, but not more strongly marked in the speeches of Kossuth than in the speeches of those with whom he might be compared.
His powers of imagination were not extraordinary, and of word painting he has not left a single striking example,--not one pa.s.sage that can be used for recitation or declamation in the schools. His cause was too pressing, his manner of life was too serious, for any indulgences in speech. In every speech he had an object in view; and even when he was without hope for Hungary in the near future, he yet announced and advocated doctrines and truths on which he relied for the political regeneration of Europe. He spoke to propositions,--clearly, concisely, convincingly.
In one oratorical art Kossuth was a adept; he deprecated all honors to himself, and with great tact he transferred them to his country and to the cause that he represented:
"As to me, indeed, it would be curious if the names of the great men who invented the plough and the alphabet, who changed the corn into flour and the flour into bread, should be forgotten, and my name remembered.
"But if in your expectations I should become a screen to divert, for a single moment, your attention from my country"s cause and attract it to myself, I entreat you, even here, to forget me, and bestow all your attention and your generous sympathy upon the cause of my downtrodden fatherland."
Kossuth gave rise to just criticism in that he appealed too often and too elaborately to the local and national pride of his audiences. This criticism was applicable to his speeches in England and in America.
In every attempt to fix Kossuth"s place in the list of historical orators,--and in that list he must have a conspicuous place,--certain considerations cannot be disregarded, viz.:
First, he spoke to England and American in a language that he acquired when he had already pa.s.sed the middle period of life. The weight of this impediment he felt when he said, "Spirit of American eloquence, frown not at my boldness that I dare abuse Shakespeare"s language in Faneuil Hall."
Second, we are to consider the amount of work performed in a brief period of time, and the conditions under which it was performed.
Between the twenty-fifth day of April and the fourteenth day of May, 1852, Kossuth delivered thirty speeches in Ma.s.sachusetts, containing, on an average, more than two thousand words in each speech, and not a sentence inappropriate to the occasion. These speeches were prepared and written in the intervals between the ceremonial proceedings, which occurred as often as every day.