THE CONTROVERSY OF VIEWS ON THE FUTURE OF HUNGARY BETWEEN FERENC DEAK AND LAJOS KOSSUTH DURING THE ADOPTION OF THE DUALISTIC AGREEMENT (1865 – 1867)

Every nation is proud of its national leaders, preserves the memory on them. The Hungarians are no exception, and they gave birth to one of their best sons, who led the national liberation war of 1848 – 1849 and greatly contributed to the birth of their nation. The name of this Hungarian is Lajos Kossuth. Being under the rule of the Habsburg dynasty for a long time, the Hungarian people, who had significant traditions of statesmanship since the Middle Ages, found themselves under the threat of assimilation. Only the ascetic activity of such national leaders as I Szecheny, S. Petőfi, L. Kossuth, F. Deák and others saved Hungarians from such participation. Their activity was most clearly manifested during the revolution and the national liberation war of 1848 – 1849. However, even after the defeat, the leaders had to work on solving the national problems of Hungary and its peoples. In the 60s of the XIX century the views on the political future of former like-minded people diverged diametrically. This applies to the entire spectrum of activities of Ferenc Deák and Lajos Kossuth. The latter, throughout his long life (1802 – 1894), while living in exile, continued to call on all Hungarians to realize the main goal – the restoration of their own independent state, completely separated from the Austrian Empire. The opposite position was taken by the leader of the constitutionalists, the head of the liberal party, F. Deák. Taking into account all internal and external circumstances, he and his numerous like-minded people chose the path of compromise with the dynasty and Austria and advocated the restoration of Hungary’s constitutional rights through purely peaceful means. The political differences between the two national leaders were most clearly manifested during the preparation and conclusion of the dualistic Austro-Hungarian agreement, which determined the state system not only of historical Hungary but also of the entire Habsburg Empire for the next half-century. Among active politicians, it was L. Kossuth who understood the final tragedy of such a compromise choice by the Hungarians, which could bring temporary tactical results but could not ensure strategic national interests.