e united to
crush them everywhere? Neutrality? Why, indeed, that would be a strange
explanation of neutrality, if you would sanction by your indifference,
the hostile alliance of all despots against republican, nay, against
constitutional principles on earth.

But suppose Hungary rises once more to do what Washington did (and be
sure it will), and Russia interferes again and you remain again (what
some of you call) neutral--that is, you remain indifferent--what is the
consequence? Czar Nicholas and Emperor Francis-Joseph may buy and carry
away arms, ammunition, armed ships--nay, even armed sympathizers (if
they find them)--to murder Hungary with and you will protect that
commerce, and consider it a lawful one. But if I buy the same, you don't
protect that commerce; and if I would enlist an "armed expedition," for
what the Czar may do against Hungary, you would send me to prison for
ten years.

Is that neutrality? The people of Hungary crushed by violence, shall be
nothing, its sovereign right nothing; but the piracy of the Czar,
encroaching upon the sacred rights of mine and many other nations, shall
be regarded as legitimate, against which the United States, though grown
to mighty power on earth, able without any risk of its own security to
maintain the law of nations and the influence of its glorious example,
should still have nothing to object, only because Washington, more than
half a century ago, declared neutrality appropriate to the infant
condition of his country then; and was anxious to gain time, that your
country might settle and mature its recent institutions, and progress to
that degree of strength, when it would be able to defy any power on
earth in a just cause.

No, gentlemen, my principles may be rejected by the United States, but
never will impartial history acknowledge that by doing thus the United
States followed the principles of Washington. The ruling policy of
Washington may be summed up in the word "_national self-preservation_,"
to which he, as the generous emotions of his noble breast prompted, was
ever inclined to subordinate everything.

And he was right. Self-preservation must be the chief principle of every
nation. But the _means_ of this self-preservation are different in
different times. To-day, I confidently dare state, the duty of
self-preservation commends to the United States, not to allow that the
principle of absolutism should become omnipotent by having a charter
guaranteed to