The national movement to foster the social, political, and economic rejuvenation of Hungary began in earnest some twenty years before the Revolution of 1848. There was a direct line of development from the first reform diet of 1825, which demanded the redress of national grievances but no economic or social reform, to the last diet of feudal Hungary in 1847–1848, which demanded and obtained national sovereignty, the emancipation of the peasants, and the codification of basic human rights. During these years Hungary's political climate definitely changed, and every political group, even the court circles in Vienna, moved in what can be called a generally progressive or leftist direction. The court, the Hungarian chancellery in Vienna, the royal administration in Budapest, the conservative, liberal, and radical parties in the diet, and the extra-parliamentary opposition in the streets and the cafés—all assiduously planned, advocated, and introduced reform programs.

The 1840's were a decade of dynamism for Hungarian liberals. Two important developments had produced a measure of unity in the liberal camp. As the Habsburgs increased their colonial treatment of Hungary, the Hungarians attempted to counter that policy with an economic program and, simultaneously, drafted a political platform. This collision between Habsburg reactionary policy and Hungarian liberalism made it imperative that the liberals unify, clarify their ideology, and shape a political strategy. More than anything else, the liberals needed a resolute leader who could consolidate the various reform factions into a united body. Ferenc Deák was considered the figure of greatest stature among all the liberals and the natural head of the nascent liberal party. Yet he was at his most undecided stage during this prerevolutionary period of ferment.

It would certainly be rash to attempt to correct anything that Béla Király has written about Ferenc Deák or to try to add anything important to what he has to say, since his biography of Deák is the most recent and, in English, the most detailed assessment of the life of the “sage of the Fatherland” that has thus far been published. It would be even more temerarious for someone who, like myself, has never engaged in original research on that particular period to attempt to do so. Therefore, I will only raise a few general questions about Kiraly's article.

In the first hours of the revolution in Budapest on March 15, 1848, a young radical historian, Pál Vasvári, warned a crowd of demonstrators that the strength of the absolutistic government of Vienna lay in its ability to set one people against another. Referring to the Italians, Austrians, Czechs, and Magyars, he stated: “We are all brother nations. By ourselves we are weak, but together, strong, powerful and invincible. … Therefore, long live brotherhood among the nations!

The purpose of this brief presentation is to show that Lajos Kossuth was both a sincere nationalist and a sincere liberal and that these convictions did not contradict but strongly reinforced each other. It is also my intention to demonstrate that Kossuth was not a revolutionary but a reformer who in 1848 was forced by events beyond his control to promote revolution at home as well as to seek alliances with revolutionary circles outside Hungary. His ambition was not to accomplish a drastic reorganization of Europe but, by peaceful means, to make Hungary a great country. A great Hungary, he believed, would benefit all the inhabitants of the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen and contribute to peace, progress, and liberty in Europe.

Throughout the Revolution of 1848–1849 the national aspirations of the Hungarians generally evoked a negative response from both liberal and radical Czechs, although, on the whole, the radicals expressed less hostility than the liberals toward developments in Hungary. Of the two groups, the Czech radicals were the least interested in maintaining the territorial and political integrity of the Habsburg monarchy and the more revolutionary in their demands and expectations. Consequently they had less cause to criticize the Magyars. Indeed, after the Habsburgs declared war against Hungary and the Russians openly assisted them in subduing the Hungarian revolutionaries, the radicals openly expressed sympathy for the Magyar cause.

It is no secret that during the first half of the nineteenth century Hungarian nationalism changed from quiescence to fierce agitation, from relative indifference to extreme preoccupation, from an aristocratic prerogative to a mass movement, and from a disregard of the lower classes to a sincere endeavor to make everyone who lived in the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen happy. Among the most conspicuous promoters of this modern, aggressive nationalism were István Széchenyi, Miklós Wesselényi, and Lajos Kossuth. All three nurtured identical hopes for the future of the nation, but they advocated very different methods for attaining the fulfillment of these expectations. They were contemporaries or near-contemporaries; yet their successive rise and decline reflected important shifts in the evolution of Hungarian nationalism as it gradually moved into an all-encompassing doctrine requiring total personal commitment and integration.