I, from my earliest days, never shared that opinion.  I felt always more sympathy with the Anglo-Saxon character and Anglo-Saxon institutions, which raised England, notwithstanding its monarchy and its aristocracy, to a position prouder than Rome ever held in its most glorious days:  and which, free from monarchical and aristocratical elements here in America, lie at the foundation of a political organization, upon which the first true democratic Republic was consolidated and developed into freedom, power, and prosperity, in such a short time, as to make it a living wonder to the contemporary age, and a book full of instruction to the coming generations.

However, that opinion about the French initiative prevailed in Europe, and it was a great misfortune; for you know that France has always as yet forsaken the movement which it raised in Europe, and the other nations acting not spontaneously, but only following the impulse which the French had imparted to them, faltered and stopped at once, as soon as the French failed them.  With that opinion of the French supremacy, no revolution in Europe could have a definite, happy issue.

Freedom never yet was given to nations as a gift, but only as a reward, bravely earned by one’s own exertions, own sacrifices, and own toil; and never will, never shall it be attained otherwise.

I speak therefore out of profound conviction, when I say that, though the heart of the philanthropist must feel pained at the new hard trials to which the French nation is, and will yet be exposed, by the momentary success of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte’s inglorious usurpation, still that very fact will prove advantageous to the ultimate success of liberty in Europe.  Louis Napoleon’s coup d’etat, much against his will, has emancipated Europe from its reliance upon France.  The combined initiative of nations has succeeded to the initiative of France; spontaneity and self-reliance have replaced the depending on foreign impulse and reliance upon foreign aid.  France is reduced to the level amongst nations, obliged to join general combinations, instead of regulating them; and this I take for a very great advantage.  Many have wondered at the momentary success of Louis Napoleon, and are inclined to take it for an evidence that the French nation is either not capable or not worthy to be free.  But that is a great fallacy.  The momentary success of Louis Napoleon is rather an evidence that France is thoroughly democratic.  All the revolutions in France have resulted in the preponderance of that class which bears the denomination of bourgeoisie.  Amongst all possible modifications of oppression, none is more detested by the people than oppression by an Assembly.  The National Assembly of France was the most treacherous the world has ever yet known.  Issued from universal suffrage, it went so far as to abolish universal suffrage, and every day of its existence was a new blow stricken at democracy for the profit of the bourgeoisie.  Louis Napoleon has beaten asunder that Assembly, which the French democracy had so many reasons to hate and to despise, and the people applauded him as the people of England applauded Cromwell when he whipped out the Rump Parliament.