A Reminder of Real Statesmen

Trump, Putin, the collection of weird European leaders whose names are not worth remembering or repeating, are not great statesmen. 

Nobody in power in any country today can lay claim to historic greatness. 

That’s why we must look to the past to find achievements by true statemen and leaders of nations. 

The modern world has produced many great men, but not in the field of politics. The list of great athletes, artists, writers, thinkers, entertainers, soldiers, businessmen, etc., is endless, but the list of great statesmen is short.

In the Ukraine drama, the lead actors are a Russian spy, an American businessman, and a bad Ukranian comedian. None of them are statesmen. All three belong in a bar, not in high office. How they got there is still puzzling. 

The public spat between Trump and Zelensky is a reminder of how standards have fallen. A king, a statesman, a leader of consequence should never entertain a beggar and a clown, let alone in front of the whole world. 

Trump demeaned his office by inviting Zelensky in the first place and then proceeding to hash out a deal in front of cameras. But I expected nothing less. Trump is closer to Zelensky in character and type than he is to the great statesmen of the past. 

Across the world, in almost every capital, not one political leader is worth a damn. The Covid fraud revealed that. They all wore the stupid masks for their flocks. 

An exception can be made for Lukashenko. But he’s the only one.

II.

An excerpt from, “Bismarck and Russia in 1863″ By Robert H. Lord, The American Historical Review, October 1923:

Bismarck’s debut in international politics was made in connection with the Polish crisis of 1863, and it is generally held that he came through this first test with brilliant success. The Alvensleben Convention, in particular, although almost unanimously condemned by the public at that time, is now commonly regarded as “a master stroke. . . perhaps the most fruitful act of his career “,’ “the corner-stone of Prussia’s future greatness. By it he is said to have averted the danger of a Franco-Russian alliance and of a Russo-Polish reconciliation, to have gained for Prussia the tsar’s exclusive friendship and warm gratitude, and to have assured for himself that Russian support without which he could scarcely have succeeded in his wars of the next seven years. Similarly, he has claimed and received much credit for having, in the summer of 1863, refused Russia’s proposals for a joint attack on Austria and France. He had the chance with Russian aid to strike down his two most dangerous future opponents and, to realize German unity at once, but he overcame this temptation through a sound conviction that “German unity must be effected without foreign influence by the nation’s own strength”. Thus, by his vigorous action in the one case and his wise self-restraint in the other, at the very beginning of his career in power he showed himself a past master of diplomacy and paved the way for all his later triumphs.

An excerpt from, “Bismarck and Gladstone” By Louis James Block, The Sewanee Review, October 1912:

The two statesmen are remarkably characteristic of their respective countries. Bismarck was a German of the Germans, and Gladstone an Englishman of the noblest type. Bismarck was a soldier as well as a statesman. The career which he had hoped to follow was that of a soldier fighting for his fatherland. At the height of his political triumphs he wrote to the King: “I have always regretted that my parents did not allow me to testify my attachment to the royal house, and my enthusiasm for the greatness and glory of the Fatherland, in the front rank of a regiment rather than behind a writing desk. Perhaps I should have made a poor general, but, if I had been free to follow the bent of my inclination, I would rather have won battles for your Majesty than diplomatic campaigns.” In the Franco Prussian War he wore the spear-tipped helmet and rode side by side with Von Moltke. Then again he was an obedient servant of the crown. The laissez-faire doctrine had little influence in political matters in Germany. The state, according to German theory and practice, does not exist to protect private property or to further individual interests, but to be an embodiment of the organic unity of public life. His loyalty to Kingship rested not on his personal allegiance to a dynasty, but on the conviction that he was subserving the highest interest of the people to whom he belonged. He sacrificed his own wishes and instincts to the common good, and he spoke the truth when he wrote under his portrait: “I am consumed by my desire for serving my country.” He may have had a cynical disregard for the ordinary scruples that govern most men, but he saw with unfaltering clearness the great purpose to which his life was devoted, and he pursued it with unsparing vigor and startling success. He had the somewhat rough and burly humor of his race, the love of nature, which also belongs to them, and the fondness for simple domestic joys which made his home life, like that of Gladstone, an example and an inspiration. He willingly submitted to the judgment of experts, he cheerfully acknowledged intellectual talent in others. He was no church goer, he spoke with contempt “of the crew of court chaplains,” but there are passages in his letters which reveal a profound and unshaken faith in supersensible verities. He was an admirable writer. His letters and speeches belong to the literature of his country. In many ways Gladstone was the reverse of all this. He was essentially the scholar in politics. His journey from Toryism to Liberalism pulled every heart string which united him to his home, and it is one of the marvels of his career that he drew so many adherents along with him. He had always wished to be a Conservative of the best sort—that is, to be a preserver of the good, to hold to the truth and the institutions in whose forms truth binds the past to the future. But he was inconvenienced by possessing a daring intellect, or rather it possessed him, and it led him along a path which he had little contemplated. Step by step, he moved, convincing himself as he proceeded, and more and more he became the champion of the rights of man, and of the emancipation of those held in bondage. No English statesman can be said to have had a nobler or more alluring career. He seems, indeed, like one of the knights of old, clad in the brilliant armor of his eloquence, defending the oppressed, relieving the distressed. He was master of many literatures as well as of politics. He was an indefatigable worker, and his various leisures were always found to be only occupations in diverse fields. He was also mainly an English statesman, he had no desire to mingle in the great game of European politics, which so fascinated his colleague and rival. He was the great leader of Reform and no man ever served England more effectively than he, not only England but all mankind. 

JULY 30,1898—a little over thirty years ago—the news of Bismarck’s death spread over the world, yet there are still people in every country who remember the trenendous impression created. It is especially interesting to glance over the American newspaper comments. The Spanish-American War had not yet ended. On July 31 and August 1 the newspapers reported that peace negotiations were about to begin. It would have been of small wonder if the American people had been too engrossed in their own affairs to pay much attention to the death of the German Chancellor. Quite to the contrary, in all the newspapers, North and South, East and West, there was but one outcry: “Bismarck is dead!” Everything else for the moment was crowded into the background. Pages and pages were filled with telegrams, biographies, discussions, and pictures relating to this event. Some of the papers commented only on the attitude of Bismarck towards the United States; some said that he was a friend, but more took the opposite view. The latter were mistaken. When Sidney Whitman, the famous English writer, paid a visit to Bismarck after the latter had retired from office as Chancellor to his estate Friedrichsruh, near Hamburg, he was much astonished to find in his study the pictures of Ulysses Grant, Walter Phelps, and George Bancroft, but the picture of only one Englishman—Lord Beaconsfield. “I gleaned,” writes Whitman in his recollections of Bismarck, “that his personal relations with the Americans whom he had met in the course of his career, had invariably been of a most cordial character. Nearly all of them were attracted to him by the charm of his manner.”

. . .The friendship of Bismarck with George Bancroft, the American historian and diplomat, is of an entirely different character. When Bancroft was appointed as Minister to Berlin in the year 1867, his fame was at its zenith. His history of the United States was a standard work of that time. He had many influential friends among political people, and to him was accorded the honor of delivering the speech before both Houses of Congress on the first anniversary of Lincoln’s assassination.

In order to understand Bismarck’s relations with Bancroft, we must turn our eyes for a moment to the whole European situation at this time. Bancroft went to Berlin in the year 1867; Bismarck had just then accomplished the first part of his political work. The wars of 1864 and 1866 had resulted in the formation of the North German Confederation. Bismarck then knew that the unification of all Germany was only a question of time, although the suspicions of the great European powers, above all of France, were not favorable to the unification at that time; they feared a change in the balance of power. He was therefore interested in the attitude of the United States. He never anticipated active help, of course, but after the successful termination of the Civil War the United States had won so much international prestige that it was of considerable importance in the determination of his policies, whether or not the United States was likely to join those European powers who were against the unification of Germany. It was therefore very gratifying to him that a man like Bancroft should have been sent to Berlin.

Bancroft knew Germany very well. He had studied at Goettingen and Berlin and had, at this early period, expressed a deep admiration for the spiritual freedom he found in the German universities. As a historian he was especially interested in Prussia, viewing it as the foremost power which had protected Protestantism against Catholicism after the Thirty Years’ War and in the Seven Years’ War of the time of Frederick the Great. His house in the Tiergarten became the rendezvous of Berlin society. He counted among his guests not only the political and military leaders of Prussia, but also the outstanding scientists and artists in Berlin.

Bancroft was struck by the resemblance of the North German Constitution to that of the United States and in his dispatches to the Department of State made frequent comments upon this subject. He once asked Bismarck whether it was the result of imitation, or whether the same necessities led to the same result. The Chancellor answered diplomatically, “a little of each.”

Bancroft had many opportunities to meet the German statesman besides those due to his mission. Bismarck was eager to explain his German politics to Bancroft in detail, so that the latter was able to give his government very valuable information.

Whenever the United States was the subject of conversation, Bismarck’s comments showed that he paid close attention to the development of the new world. Once he spoke favorably of the purchase of northwest America from Russia. Russia, he said, could not turn it to any account; the enterprising men of the United States would do so. He had lately heard that the region was well wooded; if so, it would be valuable for its forests and furs. On speaking of the United States as a wine-growing country, he compared California to Hungary in that both produced gold and wines.

It was Bismarck’s custom to ride or walk in the Tiergarten early in the morning. Sometimes Bancroft joined him. They often spoke of general matters, but questions of religion were of interest to them too. They, agreed in the belief that ultramontanism in the Catholic church interfered with the independence of the States. There was always mutual understanding between the two men. Bismarck liked to talk without restriction, whether he spoke about his serious illness of former years, described his estate with the old trees which he loved so much, or discussed race questions, music, or modern fiction.

During the Franco-Prussian War, Bancroft was a strong advocate of the German cause. Bismarck, at the headquarters at the front, remained in constant communication with him. How important he believed Bancroft to be for good German-American relations, is expressed in a letter written to Motley when the Minister was in danger of being recalled. It is also expressed in the official farewell article in the Staatsanzeiger, written when Bancroft left Berlin in 1874, which, without doubt, was inspired by Bismarck and which spoke in high appreciation of the importance of Bancroft’s mission for the improvement of German-American relations.