Gerrit Smith to Frederick Douglass, May 25, 1852
Kossuth.
Frederick Douglass: My Dear Friend:—You call, in your newspaper, for my opinions of Kossuth and his Mission. There are others, who also desire to know them.
To write for the million is, of itself, great encouragement and stimulus to write: whilst to know, that it is only a handful, who read what is written by one, who takes the unusual and offensive views of things, which I take, necessarily goes far to discourage such a one from writing, and even to disqualify him for it. No person can write too well, even if conscious of having the whole world for his readers. Nevertheless, with such a consciousness to arouse his powers, he writes more willing and more ably than he could without it. Is not this true, in the case of yourself, Mr. Goodell, Mr. Garrison, and others, who write for an uphill and unpopular cause?
Now, if there is not something in what I have just said, which should excuse me from responding to your call, there is, at least, something in it to mitigate the offence of writting, without due spirit and study, the pages, which you request me to write. Under this view of the case, I proceed to write them.
I sympathize neither with the most favorable, nor with the most unfavorable opinions entertained of Kossuth. In the esteem of many, he is the man of men. On the other hand, there are some, who believe him to be weak in judgment: and some, who believe him to be destitute of integrity.
I have not seen Kossuth:—but I have read his Speeches. The impression they have made upon me is, that he is not only transcendently eloquent—especially when his country, his deeply wronged country, is his theme—but that he is a man of extraordinary judgment, discernment, skill, tact: and that he is, moreover, eminently unselfish.—Nevertheless, Kossuth is, in my opinions, but a patriot.
To be a patriot—a true, and not a sham patriot—such a patriot, as is Kossuth—a lover of one's country, instead of a lover of one's self—is, indeed, something. Nay, it is much. He is at a wide remove from unmingled and mere selfishness, who, instead of being absorbed with his individual interests, carries in his patriotic and sympathising bosom the interests of a whole nation. Still, it is not in the patriot, that we are to find the
summit of human excellence.
It is the philanthropist, who is the highest style of man. His country is the world.—His countrymen mankind. And such a one loves God, as well as man. It never fails, that he who loves all men, loves their Maker also.
But we have no right to contrast the philanthropist with the patriot for the purpose of disparaging and underrating the patriot. The different quarters of a City are suddenly and simultaneously fired. A vast amount of property and thousands of lives are in awful peril. Now, he is a noble and glorious inhabitant of that City, who, in this hour of her distress, forgets his property, his family, and himself, and studies and toils to save the whole City. Less noble and glorious, indeed, is that other inhabitant, but still not without praise, who, in this dread hour, thinking not of his possessions, and refusing to betake himself to safety, searches out a helpless friend, and, at every hazard to his own life, devotes himself to the preservation of his friend's life. What, if he is guilty of neglecting all others, but this friend?—and what, if, in making a way for this friend, he is even guilty of jostling others, and impeding their progress, and endangering their escape?—nevertheless, because all this is done, not for his own sake, but for the sake of another, we are far more disposed to praise than blame him. It is true, that it requires a John Howard to perform the disinterested and sublime part of the former inhabitant: and that Kossuth is to be compared only with the latter inhabitant.—Nevertheless, how small a proportion of men are worthy of even so honorable a comparison! It is true, that Kossuth, as he leads poor Hungary by the hand, concerned alone for her deliverance, is guiltily forgetful of others. But is he not equally and beautifully forgetful of himself also? It is true, that he is so absorbed with the wrongs of his own country, as to forget the unspeakably deeper wrongs, which are suffered in other countries; and that he is so anxious to terminate the wrongs of his own country, as to descend to the policy of ignoring and blinking those deeper wrongs, and of flattering, for the sake of gaining their favor and help, the very authors of those deeper wrongs.—Nevertheless, when we look at Kossuth's great and lofty object, and at the self-sacrificing benevolence with which he pursues it, we can pardon much in him, which we would not pardon, were it the offspring of selfishness, instead of patriotism. It is true, that a philanthropist could not come from Ireland
to America to ask help to overthrow Irish oppression, and, all this time, keep silence respecting the infinitely greater American oppression. It is true, that a philanthropist could not go from America to Brazil for help to put an end to American slavery, without reminding the Brazilians, that they too are slaveholders. It is true, that a philanthropist could not do all the things, which Kossuth does. But a patriot can:—and when he does, let us not visit unmitigated concemnation upon him. Let us remember, that his errors are committed for his country's sake: and let us not treat them as the errors of a selfish man, who, were self-expense involved, would not help to lighten the burdens, which crush any of his fellow men—even his own countrymen. I admit, that Kossuth cannot afford to be measured by the standard of philanthropy. But, when measured by his proper standard—by the standard of patriotism—what patriot is there, either of ancient or modern times, who surpasses him?
Enough, however, of Kossuth. Let us, now, to his Mission:—and let us first inquire, whether the Governmental action, which he calls for, is proper. Possibly I should think it so, did I regard Civil Government in the light, in which most persons regard it, and did I believe with them, that it concern itself with such interests of its subjects, as their schools, and churches, and trade, and canals, and roads. Possibly, they, who have the common views of Civil Government, and hold, that the relation between it and its subjects is like that between the teacher and his ignorant pupils, or that between the guardian and his infant wards, or that between the parent and his toddling children, are bound, in consistency, to approve the Governmental action, which Kossuth calls for. But, believing, as I do, that the only legitimate province of Civil Government is to protect its subjects in their rights of person and property: and that its subjects are to do their own work, and not to solicit, nor suffer, Civil Government to do it for them; I am manifestly, not at liberty to favor such action of Government, as Kossuth commends to us.
A large share of the wrongs and wretchedness of our world would quickly disapper, were Civil Government, which has so ambitously and impertinently stretched itself over the well nigh entire field of human affairs, to be reduced to its appropriate and narrow limits. As it is, Civil Government overshadows the people, instead of being owned by the people. As it is, it degrades and dwarfs the people, by doing the work of the people. But, when it shall have receded from its usurpations, then the people will be
seen to rise rapidly into their proper place and character.
Kossuth would interest the American Government in Hungary. But, if the views of Civil Government, which I have now advanced, are just, then the American Government has nothing to do either with Hungary or with Kossuth. It has but to look at home, and mind its own and only business of protecting one American from the aggressions of foreigners—its own and only business of holding a shield over the heads of its subjects, beneath which they may, in that manly self-reliance, which scorns to hang on Government, accomplish with their own hands their own Heaven-appointed tasks.
But, though I disagree with Kossuth, when he claims, that the American Government should do for Hungary, I, nevertheless, agree with him, when he claims, that the American people should do for her. I would have [illegible] people, but not its Government, do for [illegible] cause of freedom in foreign lands. — Moreover, is it entirely clear, that Government has the right to hinder its subjects from arming and organizing themselves in their own country for the purpose of going into other countries? Is it entirely clear, that the laws of Congress, which forbid a "military expedition or enterprise" in such cases, are not laws in restraint and derogation of natural rights? Do not these laws invade the freedom of the individual, in respect to matters with which he has everything, and his Government nothing, to do? If Americans arm, and muster, and invade Cuba, or Canada, or Ireland, or Austria, or Russia, it is, of course, a proper concern of the Governments of those countries:—but is it perfectly certain, that it is a proper concern of the Government of this country? I readily admit, that, in no distresses, which might betide them, would these invaders have the right to look to the American Government for relief. But, it is not so clear to me, that the American Government has the right to interfere with their departure from America, or with their preparations for such departure.—I am aware, that one, who should deny this right, might possibly be embarrassed by such extreme cases, as Mr. Jefferson supposes in his letter to Gouverneur Morris. But should such extreme cases be allowed to overthrow the general rule? And, indeed, could not even such extreme cases be disposed of under the general rule? If the people of America should, each one upon his own responsibility, go to war against Great Britain, and, yet, the American Government not declare war, this
non-declaration of war would not necessarily prevent the Government of Great Britain from declaring war against both the American Government and American people.
I am yet to speak of the greatest error in Kossuth's political platform. This error is, that foreigners have no right to interfere with the internal policy and arrangements of a nation. This error is another proof, that Kossuth is but a patriot, instead of a philanthropist. How very natural, that a patriot should fall into this error! For how can a patriot distrust the ability of his own idolized country to regulate her own concerns! And how can a patriot's pride of country brook foreign interference with those concerns?
Should Hungary gain her independence; and her Government ordain, that, in all coming time, her light-haired men and women shall be excluded from all share in the soil, or be consigned to the gallows, or, what is worse, to slavery, it follows, that Kossuth, to be consistent with himself, would deny to foreigners all right to interfere with this wrong. Thus sacred, in the eye of the patriot, is the Government of his country! So sacred, that it must not be broken through by foreigners, even though for the purpose of rescuing the victims of a wrong so wanton, and cruel, and diabolical! But, it is not so with the philanthropist. In his eye, these victims are infinitely more sacred than the Government. Indeed, in his eye, to use the words of our beloved Whittier:
"---- the one sole sacred thing
Beneath the [cone] of Heaven is man."
Reason forbids the repression of our sympathies out of respect to geographical and national lines. It is only for convenience sake, that such lines may be drawn across the human brotherhood. It is true, that they bound the flow of patriotism. But philanthropy is paramount to patriotism; and they have no authority and no power to arrest its tides, or to release from the obligation, which every man is under to be the keeper of every other man. In all this, religion agrees with reason. When it says: "Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard," it does not add, that it is lawful to stop the ears to cries, which come from under a foreign Government. When it requires us to sympathise with "them, that are drawn unto death and those, that are ready to be slain," it does not exclude from the range of our sympathy all others than our own countrymen. On the contrary, it requires that the Samaritan shall endeavor to deliver the Jew, and the Jew the Samaritan, however much, in this work of manhood and
mercy, they may have to cross and re-cross lines of jurisdiction.
Every family has the government of itself. Nevertheless, if my neighbor is beating his wife, I have the right to break into the family enclosure, and rescue her. So, too, every nation has its own government: and, so too, if the Government, be it of my own, or of any other country, outrages and tramples upon any portion of its subjects, I am at liberty to hear, and to be moved by, the cries of my common humanity, and to express my sympathy in the most effective form, albeit my doing so may bring me into conflict with such Government.
I cheerfully admit our obligation to respect Civil Government. There is no institution, which I more profoundly respect.—But, we are never to forget, that man is more than Civil Government: that it was made for him, and not he for it: and that, hence, whenever a case arises, in which one must be sacrificed to the other, it must be sacrificed to him, and not he to it. A true Civil Government, however, never comes in collision with human rights.
It is not easy to decide what, on the whole, will be the influence upon this country of Kossuth's visit. It will be bad, so far as it increases the war-spirit among us:—for the less we have to do with swords and guns the better. And it will be bad, so far as it increases our patriotism:—that patriotism being already disgustingly [bleared], and being of that most hateful type, which cries out: "Our country, right or wrong!" It is, moreover, so profoundly hypocritical, that, whilst, with one hand, it binds the chains of slavery, with the other it swings its hat for liberty. I can but hope, however, that the tone of our patriotism will be a little (I fear, but very little) improved by Kossuth's visit. Happy for us, if it shall, thereby, be elevated into somewhat of resemblance to his own loftier, and truer, and more honest patriotism. There is one point of view, in which every enemy of oppression rejoices in the visit of Kossuth to America. The quakings of the terrified slaveholders in his presence—the presence of a strong, eloquent, earnest denouncer of oppression—do most impressively tell the whole world, and the slaveholders themselves especially, how unnatural and cowardly wicked is slavery, and how precarious its existence. The affrighted slaveholders regarded Kossuth's burning words, as so many burning brands among the powder-casts of slavery; and they were in as great a hurry to rid the South of him, as Louis Napoleon was to rid France of
him. The Gadarenes "besought Jesus to depart from them, for they were taken with great fear." But not more troubled by the presence of Jesus were the owners of the literal swine than were the owners of the human swine by the presence of Kossuth.
Are you familiar with the writings of Mazzini? I am not. Nevertheless, I know enough of them to be persuaded, that his is a wise and profound philosophy. He is the friend and fellow revolutionist of Kossuth.—I wish, that he, too, would visit America.—He would, in my judgment, make broader and more affective appeals to our human nature than Kossuth has done. He would speak less for his country, and more for universal man. Or, if he should speak no less for his country, nevertheless what he spoke would be spoken in the name of universal man, and for the benefit of universal man—for the oppressed everywhere, and against the oppressive everywhere. I do not forget, that Kossuth does, sometimes, speak for, and in the name of, our common humanity—for, and in the name of, all mankind. But, it is manifest, that he does so, only sentimentally and rhetorically.
The man of all men, who should have come to America to plead for his oppressed countrymen, was Daniel O'Connell. O'Connell was a patriot. Never was there a more devoted one. He was, however, more than a patriot. He was a philanthropist. He was as true to the Negro, as to the Irishman—ay, to the Negro, whom he had not seen, as to the Irishman, whom he had seen. Kossuth can flatter the oppressor; and not only receive, but solicit, help from him. I cheerfully admit, that he does all this for poor Hungary's sake, and not selfishley and sordidly. But O'Connell scorned the help offered by one set of oppressors against another.—His language, in respect to assistance from American slaveholders to liberate Ireland, was: "We do not want blood-stained money. Those, who commit, and those, who countenance, the crime of slavery, I regard as the enemies of Ireland, and I desire to have no sympathy or support from them." And such are equally the enemies of Hungary. Every slaveholder is the enemy of freedom, everywhere. He is such, whether he knows it or not—whether he wills it or not. He is, necessarily, such from the mere fact, that he is a slaveholder. And his enmity is against all kinds of freedom - individual, social, politial, and spiritual.
On another occasion, O'Connell said: "I am an abolitionist. I am for speedy, immediate abolition. I care not what caste, creed,
or color, slavery may assume. I am for its total, its instant abolition. Whether it be personal or political, mental or corporeal, intellectual or spiritual, I am for its immediate abolition. I enter into no compromise with slavery. I am for justice in the name of humanity, and according to the laws of the living God." At another time, he said: "I shall show my love to my country by continuing my exertions to obtain for her justice and good government: but, I feel, that I have something Irish at my heart, which makes me sympathize with all those, who are suffering under oppression, and forces me to give to universal man the benefit of the exertions, which are the consequence." And in a similar strain did this noble man express himself, when, on another occasion, he said: "I am the advocate of civil and religious liberty all over the globe; and wherever tyranny exists, I am the foe of the tyrant; wherever oppression shows itself, I am the foe of the oppressor; wherever slavery rears its head, I am the enemy of the system. I am the friend of liberty in every clime, class and color. My sympathy with distress is not confined within the narrow bound of my own green island. No—it extends itself to every corner of the earth. My heart walks abroad; and wherever the miserable is to be succored, and the slave is to be set free, there my spirit is at home, and I delight to dwell in its abode."
Would to God, that the Irishmen in America had, all of them, the soul of O'Connell! Then, would slavery soon disappear from America. The Irishman has beautiful characteristics. Nevertheless, I confess, that, when I see the emigrants from Ireland—from the land of oppression and the land of O'Connell—as ready as the emigrants from other countries, and as ready as native Americans, to fraternize with oppressors and with the revilers of O'Connell, to vote with them and for them—I confess, when I see this, that I feel none the prouder for being the grandson of a woman, who was born in Ireland.
Will Kossuth succeed? Possibly, he will. Possibly, Hungary will be able to throw off the yoke of Austria. God grant, that she may. And, yet, it will be a comparatively worthless success—for, if achieved in the spirit and policy of Kossuth, it will be the success of patriotism, instead of philanthropy.
The world is, yet, to see a philanthropic political revolution—a revolution, which shall place its subjects on the side of man and liberty. Hitherto, the best political revolutions, instead of transforming their subjects into lovers of man and lovers of lib-
erty, have left them the enemies of both—and, even, increasedly such. The American Revolution is no exception to this remark: and how lamentable, that it is not. Had that Revolution been the offspring of philanthropy, the whole civilized world would, probably, ere this, have been won to its blessed example. But, it had no higher parentage than patriotism: and America is, at this day, the mightiest of all hinderances to the political redemption of the nations. Had the American Revolution originated, been carried on, and consummated, in philanthropy, America would not, now, be preeminent in her hatred and contempt of man, and in her hatred and contempt of liberty. That she loves white men, is no more evidence, that she loves man; and that she loves liberty for white men is no more evidence, that she loves liberty; than being a sectarian is evidence of loving christians. He, alone, loves man, who loves all men: and he, alone, loves liberty, who loves it for all men. The slaveholder fancies, that he loves liberty.—But he mistakes self-love for the love of liberty. Did he love liberty, he would love to see it enjoyed by his slaves. Strenuousness for his own liberty, so far from being an evidence of his love of liberty, is characteristic of all other tyrants, as well as of himself.—The "liberty," which Edmund Burke says the slaveholder is preeminently attached to, deserves not that name. True liberty is a beautiful and holy thing, which cannot, possibly, be appreciated by one, who is "proud, jealous, stubborn, haughty;" and as such is the slaveholder characterized by Burke.
That America prates much of liberty proves but her self-ignorance or hypocrisy.—That she, whilst holding millions in a bondage, one hour of which is worse than a whole life-time of Hungarian oppression, should presume to send a ship for Kossuth, and to express sympathy with Hungary, proves only, that she either has no eyes to see herself with, or that she wilfully shuts them. Again, is it not the affectation of all affectations, and the farce of all farces, for America to complain of the interference of Russia with the cause of liberty in Hungary? "O man, that judgest them, which do such things, and doest the same!" Hayti had gained her independence. Napoleon resorted to the policy of starving her into submission to his despotism. He called on America to concur in this policy; and America was shameless enough to concur in it. Congress suspended
trade with Hayti. Scarcely less shameless was she in instructing her representatives in the Congress at Panama to oppose the recognition of Hayti as a free and independent State. But these are not the only instances in which America has furnished Russia with precedents for her attack on Hungarian liberty. Mexico and Columbia were about to deliver Cuba from the yoke of Spain, and her slaves from the yoke of slavery. For this America threatened them with war; and they desisted. Nay, in her diplomatic intercourse with Spain, she went so far as to threaten to take possession of Cuba and Porto Rico: so determined was she to prevent the independence of those islands, and the abolition of slavery in them. But "the cream of the joke" is, that America, which now denounces Russia for crushing the cause of liberty in Hungary, did actually call on Russia to help her crush the cause of liberty in Cuba!
I am not of the croaking number, who believe, that the world is getting worse. On the contrary, I am among those hopeful ones, who believe, that it is getting better. I am not sure, however, that, among those great political revolutions, which good men love to contemplate, there is a single one, which helped to make the world better. That the world has been benefitted—has been moved upward—by some of these revolutions is a common admission. But, in my esteem, the praise is to be bestowed less on the revolutions, and more on the growth of those great and good principles, which the revolutions did, but so imperfectly, illustrate—did, but so partially, carry out. Highly prized as are these revolutions, they, nevertheless, did more to cramp and pervert, than to [develop] those principles. This is not strange, seeing, that the revolutions were chiefly the work of patriots, and that the principles were nursed in the bosom of philanthropy. The seed, which philanthropy is ever sowing, becomes a very different harvest in the hands of mere patriots from what it would have been, had the reaping been left to the sower. Very distant, perhaps, is the day, when philanthropic political revolutions shall take place—revolutions in the name of the human brotherhood and for the human brotherhood. But they will yet take place; and, when they do, then mere patriotism will be counted as a very poor thing. Glorious battles will be fought in those revolutions. I say not, that swords and guns will be used in them. Perhaps, they will not be. But, whether they will, or will not be, philanthropy can, at all events, be pretty safely entrusted with the selection of her own weapons.
I am, my dear Douglass, with
great regard, your friend,
Gerrit Smith.
Peterboro, May 25, 1852.