JOHN RUSSELL

Attacking the Liberal leader, Lord John Russell: 1st Earl of Beaconsfield

3rd Viscount Palmerston. Lajos Kossuth was the Hungarian leader of anti-monarchists who were agitating for a Parliament. While many English people sympathized with Kossuth, his government, which had good relations with England, did not want any of the other European Governments to officially meet with him. It was considered insulting to a government if a friendly government met officially with a politician who was not approved by his own government. Palmerston, as Temple was referred to, wanted to show English sympathy with the reforms advocated by Kossuth. He was then the Foreign Minister and wanted to invite Kossuth to the Foreign Ministry. However the Cabinet had a meeting and voted against the idea which would not only inflame the Hungarian government, but would outrage all the other countries in Europe for this diplomatic insult. Palmerston then decided that he would meet with Kossuth in his private residence. When the Prime Minister discovered this plan, he sent a note by messenger telling Palmerston that he was the Foreign Minister and inviting Kossuth to his home could not be seen as an official action. Palmerston has his own political base and had enough supporters in Parliament that if he would be fired, he could bring down the coalition government. So in effect he told his Prime Minister off and dared Russell to fire Palmerston. Then he went ahead with the meeting. The cabinet was upset, Queen Victoria was outraged (she never cared for Palmerson as a Foreign Minister), the Newspapers had a field day, and all the European counties complained vehemently to the Queen and the Prime Minister. But Russell didn’t dare fire Palmerston at that point. However, with Queen Victoria’s shrewd political maneuvering and Russell coalescing support, he was able to demote Palmerson to Home Secretary and assume the Foreign Ministry himself in 1952. However, Palmerston had the final winning hand, when 3 years later, he was elected Prime Minister and he and the Queen had to make a rapprochement.

1st Earl of Kingston

1st Earl of Kingston. Foreign Minister at this time. This decision was a terrible blow to the South who had been trying desperately to obtain diplomatic recognition for the Confederacy from England and other world powers.

1st Earl of Kingston. Historically, this quotation shows that in the middle of the 19th century bribery was commonplace and material when there were critical issues under defeat by the legislature. It was so blatant that the Prime Minister in his report to the Queen pointed it out just like other political factors.

This political issue has been in contention in every major world power since the Roman Empire. There has always been a division between hard liners and others. At issue is whether the nation should defend and or take up the cause of any national, individual, corporation, ideals even against a foreign country who may object to the behavior or use their own legal system to punish violators of their local laws. Failure to do so, they have argued over the years, makes the power appear weak and will invite further insult and transgressions. They claim that the government’s duty is always to protect its citizens from foreign elements regardless of whether the citizen’s behavior is right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, honest or dishonest. Also, this view holds that the nation should NEVER apologize as this makes it seem weak. These people have argued that it is the obverse of “My Country, Right or Wrong” and should be “Our Citizens, Right or Wrong”. On the other side, it is claimed that defending citizens or institutions that are clearly in the wrong not only is morally and ethically improper, but by being so indiscriminate, it weakens the nation’s power and credibility when it later wants to defend its citizens who are in the right and are being railroaded and discriminated against. And an apology, if the individual and institution has been in the wrong or caused harm and damage, is the proper thing to do and will often resolve matters and this is the best outcome often for the erring individual or institution. It is such a universal political issue of contention, that in the 2012 Presidential Campaign Mitt Romney had castigated President Barack Obama for apologizing to the African Nations for forcing their ancestors into American Slavery, even though Romney was very much opposed to slavery. It was the apology that makes America seem weak. The other side is that the apology shows that America has strong democratic principles and occasionally falls short, and when it does so, it acknowledges and corrects it setting a democratic example for all.

1st Earl of Kingston. In 1848, there were a number of democratic revolutions in Europe. In France, however, there was a Military Coup led by Louis Napoleon (Napoleon BonaparteII) who was then declared “President.” The French King and Queen escaped and went to England. The new Louis Napoleon French government charged that if the English would provide asylum to the French Royal Family, England would be interfering in the internal affairs of France by supporting the Royal Family in their presumed efforts to regain the crown. At the same time, there were many Englishmen who wanted nothing to do with the French King as France had been England’s traditional enemy. None the less, the Prime Minister maintained and strengthened the English principle and tradition of tolerance and asylum for a wide variety of political opinion. Over the years many people, great and not; right, left, and center, popular and unpopular, had found sanctuary in England. This tradition was picked up by America which even eclipsed England in being the great political asylum to the world.

1st Earl of Kingston

1st Earl of Kingston. Historically, this quotation shows that in the middle of the 19th century bribery was commonplace and material when there were critical issues under defeat by the legislature. It was so blatant that the Prime Minister in his report to the Queen pointed it out just like other political factors.

1st Earl of Kingston. In 1848, there were a number of democratic revolutions in Europe. In France, however, there was a Military Coup led by Louis Napoleon (Napoleon BonaparteII) who was then declared “President.” The French King and Queen escaped and went to England. The new Louis Napoleon French government charged that if the English would provide asylum to the French Royal Family, England would be interfering in the internal affairs of France by supporting the Royal Family in their presumed efforts to regain the crown. At the same time, there were many Englishmen who wanted nothing to do with the French King as France had been England’s traditional enemy. None the less, the Prime Minister maintained and strengthened the English principle and tradition of tolerance and asylum for a wide variety of political opinion. Over the years many people, great and not; right, left, and center, popular and unpopular, had found sanctuary in England. This tradition was picked up by America which even eclipsed England in being the great political asylum to the world.

This political issue has been in contention in every major world power since the Roman Empire. There has always been a division between hard liners and others. At issue is whether the nation should defend and or take up the cause of any national, individual, corporation, ideals even against a foreign country who may object to the behavior or use their own legal system to punish violators of their local laws. Failure to do so, they have argued over the years, makes the power appear weak and will invite further insult and transgressions. They claim that the government’s duty is always to protect its citizens from foreign elements regardless of whether the citizen’s behavior is right or wrong, reasonable or unreasonable, honest or dishonest. Also, this view holds that the nation should NEVER apologize as this makes it seem weak. These people have argued that it is the obverse of “My Country, Right or Wrong” and should be “Our Citizens, Right or Wrong”. On the other side, it is claimed that defending citizens or institutions that are clearly in the wrong not only is morally and ethically improper, but by being so indiscriminate, it weakens the nation’s power and credibility when it later wants to defend its citizens who are in the right and are being railroaded and discriminated against. And an apology, if the individual and institution has been in the wrong or caused harm and damage, is the proper thing to do and will often resolve matters and this is the best outcome often for the erring individual or institution. It is such a universal political issue of contention, that in the 2012 Presidential Campaign Mitt Romney had castigated President Barack Obama for apologizing to the African Nations for forcing their ancestors into American Slavery, even though Romney was very much opposed to slavery. It was the apology that makes America seem weak. The other side is that the apology shows that America has strong democratic principles and occasionally falls short, and when it does so, it acknowledges and corrects it setting a democratic example for all.

1st Earl of Kingston. Foreign Minister at this time. This decision was a terrible blow to the South who had been trying desperately to obtain diplomatic recognition for the Confederacy from England and other world powers.