Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1852-01-01
EASTERN TIMES.
Bath, Thursday, Jan. |, 1852.
Our Foreign Policy.

1t seems 10 De apprenenueu ny certain wig
statesmen and leading journals of the wing
party, that our foreign policy in relation to non
Intervention is about to undergo complete
and radical change, through the influence OF
kossuth's doctrines. Indeed, the Hon. Ed
ward Everett, of Massachusetts,, expresses the
opinion, in the following extract from letter
of recent date, commenting upon the nominal
tion of Mr.. Webster for the Presidency, that
"a ae,o issue is actually about TO be made in
our poziticsr'' He says ...--
"Such step, (Mr Websters nomination)
annears to be peculiarly seasonabie at this mo-
ment, when, if we may Judge from the tone of
some leading journals, new issue is about TO
be made in our politics. A feeling seems 10
be getting up in favor of reversing the foreign
policy of the country, established when Wash
inpton was President, and Jefferson Secretary
of State, and followed by all their successors,
and of adopting instead the policy of systematic
interuention-that is to say, of going to war
with all the other nations of Christendom, for
the sake of propagating our principles and
forms of government.
g need not say shat such a policy is much
less likely TO resultin changing the monarchies
of Europe into republics than in eventually
changing our own happy republic into mill
tary despotsm. In the mean time, OF course,
It would plunge US and Europe into one gener-
al, confused, revolutionary, murderous conflict.
The fears of Mr.. Everett and his friends are,
thus far, entirely i}uential, not to say ground
less-for, as yet, there. has been nothing to
base them upon except the fiattering comments
of the democratic press, with now and then an
honorable ally from the opposition press) upon
the reception of Kossuth in England and in our
own country, and perhaps some declarations
made at popular gatherings in honor of the
Hungarian chief We have seen no indication
in all this, that "a new issue is to be made in
our politics. nor any cause for alarm that onr
nation has any idea of going TO ,rar ''fOr the
sake of propagating our principles and form
of government" Kossuth, himself, neither
desires nor contemplaes any such course, on
our part-nor do his doctrines, on this subject,
so mastery set forth in his New York Corpo-
ration Banquet speech have any legitimate ten
dency TO produce any such sentiments.
Hitherto, there has been much uncertainty
and speculation as to the views and objects, so
far as this Intervention policy is concerned, of
the great Hungarian, but on the occasion above
alluded to, he happily removed all doubt, by
his clear, comprehensive and unexcep:ionable
exposition of the principle, in itself, and its ap-
plication 10 independent nations. The effort
81 biSooyaro1 III
part of its gifted author, thorough knowledge
of the workings and policy of our government.
The entire speech should be read, for a full
comprehension of the logical argument running
through it:
AS the subject is attracting so much inter-
est, we propose giving, as briefly as possible,
the view of this non-intervention doctrine,
which Kossuth takes, according to the ideas
advanced by him on the occasion alluded TO.
Kossuth commences alphabetically, contend
ing that # the idea of non-interference in for
eign affairs has ever been one of the ruling and
lasting ideas in the policy of our country, it
was adopted as course of policy, simply, in
sur infancy as a nation, and not as a .funda-
mental principle Of government. After al
luding to the progress of our country, he comes
more directly to the subject, as follows =
Having stated so far the difference of the
situation, beg leave now to state that ii is en-
trely an unfounded superstition that the doc
trine of non-interference in foreign matters had
been, to the people of the United States, by
your great Washington, bequeathed to be a
constitutional principle to you.
Mo- that is not the case.
Firstly: Washington never even recon-
mended non-interference, or indifference to the
fate of other nations TO yon. He has only re-
commended neutrality. And there is a mighty
difference between these two ideas.
Neutrality is an idea which has reference 10
state of war between two beligerent powers,
and it is this case which Washington contem-
plated when he, in his Farewell Address, ad-
Vlsed the people of the United States not to
enter into entangling alliances. Let quarrel
ing powers-lel quarreling nations war; you
consider your own concerns, and let foreign
powers quarrel about ambitious topics, or
scanty, particular interests. Neutrality is a
matter of convenlence-not of principle.
But even as neutrality has reference to a
state of war between beligerent powers, the
principle of non-interference has, on the con-
trary, reference to the sovereign right of ma
tons TO dispose of their own domestic con-
Germs.
Therefore these two ideas of neutrality and
non-lnterference are two entirely different ideas
having reference 10 two entirely different mat
tiers.
The sovereign right of whatever nation to
dispose of itself, to alter It's institutions, 10
change the form of its own goverement, is a
common public law of nations, common to all
and therefore, put under the common guaran-
tee of all.
The sovereign right of every nation TO dis
pose of itself, you, the people of the United
States, must recognize, because it is common
law of mankind, in which, being common
law of mankind, every nation is equally inter-
ested. You must recognize it, secondly, be-
cause the very existence of your great repub-
lie, as also the independence of every nation,
rests upon this basls-upon this ground. If
that sovereign right Of nations were no COM
mon public law of mankind, then, your own
independent existence would be no matter OF
flght, but only matter Of fact, which might
De subject 10 whatever time, 10 whatever
chances ct power and of violence.
ana where is the citizen of the United States
VIM would not feel revolted against the idea
l''a' ,ne existence of this great Republic is not
riSn'eous' nor lawful one but only mere
accloen'' mere matter of fact!
~ "o'o So you were not entitled 10 in
Vohe 'he pro'ec,loh Oh God for your great coun-
Try oecdune mo projection of God cannot.
without sacrilege, be invoked but in behaif =,
Justice and right. y You had no roht tn innl, =,
the sympathy of mankind for yourself. because -
m