Can the way Ioannis Kapodistrias thought and acted as Governor of Greece, believing that almost everything should be done from scratch following a strictly hierarchical path that would be directly controlled by him, appear realistic to us today, who have the later knowledge, and even correct to some, especially when we see how those who governed the country afterward handled minor or major issues?

But we must not ignore that during the Kapodistrian years, although the armed struggle had gradually come to an end, the revolutionary spirit and the expectations it created were still intense, as unrealistic as some of them might have been.

Those who opposed the Governor were not only exploiters of the common people and instruments of foreign influence, as he and his supporters emphasized, but many of them had envisioned a different post-revolutionary society, one that was liberal, in the design of which they hoped to participate actively.

They could therefore not tolerate the authoritarian and strictly hierarchical Kapodistrian model of organizing the new state. However, if we focus only on Kapodistrias's genuinely conservative political choices and do not see the significant work he accomplished or attempted to achieve for the organization of the Greek State, we would present a partial picture of a complex reality.

This image would be even more incomplete if we did not consider the motives and practices of those who disagreed with him, opposed him, and some even killed him. Those who, for various reasons, opposed him did not hesitate to accept, without protest, any decisions of the Powers to secure his removal from power, to assist the ongoing British effort to undermine the Governor, and to resort to unfounded accusations and slanders.

The assassination relieved those who feared any form of extension of Kapodistrias's power but plunged the country into civil war and disrepute, which perhaps only he still had the capacity to prevent, by making some concessions.