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 class of his hearers and followers, and the cession of Alaska must
have quieted the apprehension which had taken possession of Kossuth's
mind.
In passing 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
classes in Hungary, and it is possible that those teachings are
destined to work changes in Hungary and Italy in favor of republican
institutions.
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
|