Mr. President and Gentlemen,--We are assembled in what may be called
the Holy Week of our community,--not occupied by pomps of a complex
ceremonial, swelling in tides of music, beneath time-honored arches,
but set apart, with the unadorned simplicity of early custom, to
anniversary meetings of those charitable and religious associations
from whose good works our country derives such true honor. Each
association is distinct. Gathered within the folds of each are its own
members, devoted to its chosen objects: and yet all are harmonious
together; for all are inspired by one sentiment,--the welfare of the
united Human Family. Each has its own separate orbit, a pathway of
light; while all together constitute a system which moves in a still
grander orbit.
Among all these associations, none is so truly comprehensive as ours.
The prisoner in his cell, the slave in his chains, the sailor on
ocean wanderings, the Pagan on far off continent or island, and the
ignorant here at home, will all be commended by eloquent voices. I need
not say that you should listen to these voices, and answer to their
appeal. But, while mindful of these interests, justly claiming your
care, it is my present and most grateful duty to commend that other
cause, the great cause of Peace, which in its wider embrace enfolds
prisoner, slave, sailor, the ignorant, all mankind,--which to each of
these charities is the source of strength and light, I may say of life
itself, as the sun in the heavens.
* * * * *
Peace is the grand Christian charity, fountain and parent of all
other charities. Let Peace be removed, and all other charities sicken
and die. Let Peace exert her gladsome sway, and all other charities
quicken into life. Peace is the distinctive promise and possession
of Christianity,--so much so, that, where Peace is not, Christianity
cannot be. It is also the promise of Heaven, being the beautiful
consummation of that rest and felicity which the saints above are said
to enjoy. There is nothing elevated which is not exalted by Peace.
There is nothing valuable which does not gain from Peace. Of Wisdom
herself it is said, that all her ways are pleasantness, and all her
paths are Peace. And these golden words are refined by the saying of
the Christian Father, that the perfection of joy is Peace. Naturally
Peace is the longing and aspiration of the noblest souls, whether for
themselves or for country. In the bitterness of exile, away from the
Florence immortalized by his divine poem, and pacing the cloisters of a
convent, where a sympathetic monk inquired, "What do you seek?" Dante
answered, in accents distilled from the heart, "_Peace!_"[279] In the
memorable English struggles, while King and Parliament were rending the
land, a gallant supporter of monarchy, the chivalrous Falkland, touched
by the intolerable woes of War, cried, in words which consecrate
his memory more than any feat of arms, "_Peace! peace!_"[280] Not in
aspiration only, but in benediction, is this word uttered. As the
Apostle went forth on his errand, as the son forsook his father's roof,
the choicest blessing was, "_Peace be with you!_" When the Saviour
was born, angels from heaven, amidst choiring melodies, let fall that
supreme benediction, never before vouchsafed to the children of the
Human Family, "_Peace on earth, and good-will towards men!_"
[279] Longfellow's Poets and Poetry of Europe, p. 513.
[280] Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, Book VII. Vol. IV. p.
255.
To maintain this charity, to promote these aspirations, to welcome
these benedictions, is the object of our Society. To fill men in
private with all those sentiments which make for Peace, to lead men in
public to the recognition of those paramount principles which are the
safeguard of Peace, above all, to teach the True Grandeur of Peace, and
to unfold the folly and wickedness of the Institution of War and of
the War System, now recognized and established by the Commonwealth of
Nations as the mode of determining international controversies,--such
is the object of our Society.
* * * * *
There are persons who allow themselves sometimes to speak of
associations like ours, if not with disapprobation, at least with
levity and distrust. A writer so humane and genial as Robert Southey
left on record a gibe at the "Society for the Abolition of War,"
saying that it had "not obtained sufficient notice even to be in
disrepute."[281] It is not uncommon to hear our aims characterized as
visionary, impracticable, Utopian. Sometimes it is hastily said that
they are contrary to the nature of man, that they require for success
a complete reconstruction of human character, and that they necessarily
assume in man qualities, capacities, and virtues which do not belong
to his nature. This mistaken idea was once strongly expressed in
the taunt, that "an Anti-War Society is as little practicable as an
Anti-Thunder-and-Lightning Society."[282]
[281] Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society, Vol. I.
p. 224.
[282] Hon. Jeremiah Mason, of Boston, to Mr. Sumner.
Never a moment when this beautiful cause was not the occasion of jest,
varying with the character of the objector. More than a century ago
there was something of this kind, which arrested the attention of no
less a person than Leibnitz, and afterwards of Fontenelle. It was where
an elegant Dutch trifler, as described by Leibnitz, following the
custom of his country, placed as a sign over his door the motto, _To
Perpetual Peace_, with the picture of a cemetery,--meaning to suggest
that only with the dead could this desire of good men be fulfilled.
Not with the living, so the elegant Dutch trifler proclaimed over his
door. A different person, also of Holland, who was both diplomatist and
historian, the scholarly Aitzema, caught the jest, and illustrated it
by a Latin couplet:--
"Qui pacem quæris libertatemque, viator,
Aut nusquam aut isto sub tumulo invenies";--
which, being translated, means, "Traveller, who seekest Peace and
Liberty, either nowhere or under that mound thou wilt find them."[283]
Do not fail to observe that Liberty is here doomed to the same grave as
Peace. Alas, that there should be such despair! At length Liberty is
rising. May not Peace rise also?
[283] Leibnitz, Codex Juris Gentium Diplomaticus, Dissert. I. §
1: Opera (ed. Dutens), Tom. IV. Pars 3, pp. 287, 288. Fontenelle,
Éloge de Leibnitz: OEuvres, Tom. V. p. 456.
Doubtless objections, to say nothing of jests, striking at the heart of
our cause, exert a certain influence over the public mind. They often
proceed from persons of sincerity and goodness, who would rejoice to
see the truth as we see it. But, plausible as they appear to those who
have not properly meditated this subject, I cannot but regard them--I
believe that all who candidly listen to me must hereafter regard
them--as prejudices, without foundation in sense or reason, which
must yield to a plain and careful examination of the precise objects
proposed.
Let me not content myself, in response to these critics, with the
easy answer, that, if our aims are visionary, impracticable, Utopian,
then the unfulfilled promises of the Scriptures are vain,--then the
Lord's Prayer, in which we ask that God's kingdom may come on earth,
is a mockery,--then Christianity is no better than the statutes of
Utopia. Let me not content myself with reminding you that all the
great reforms by which mankind have been advanced encountered similar
objections,--that the abolition of the punishment of death for theft,
so long delayed, was first suggested in the "Utopia" of Sir Thomas
More,--that the efforts to abolish the slave-trade were opposed, almost
in our day, as visionary,--in short, that all endeavors for human
improvement, for knowledge, for freedom, for virtue, all the great
causes which dignify human history, and save it from being a mere
protracted War Bulletin, a common sewer, a _Cloaca Maxima_, flooded
with perpetual uncleanness, have been pronounced Utopian,--while, in
spite of distrust, prejudice, and enmity, all these causes gradually
found acceptance, as they gradually came to be understood, and the
aspirations of one age became the acquisitions of the next.
Satisfactory to some as this answer might be, I cannot content myself
with leaving our cause in this way. I shall meet all assaults, and
show, by careful exposition, that our objects are in no respect
visionary,--that the cause of Peace does not depend upon any
reconstruction of the human character, or upon holding in check the
general laws of man's being,--but that it deals with man as he is,
according to the experience of history,--and, above all, that our
immediate and particular aim, the abolition of the Institution of War,
and of the whole War System, as _established_ Arbiter of Right in the
Commonwealth of Nations, is as practicable as it would be beneficent.
I begin by putting aside questions, often pushed forward, which an
accurate analysis shows to be independent of the true issue. Their
introduction has perplexed the discussion, by transferring to the great
cause of International Peace doubts which do not belong to it.
* * * * *
One of these is the declared right, inherent in each individual,
to take the life of an assailant in order to save his own
life,--compendiously called the _Right of Self-Defence_, usually
recognized by philosophers and publicists as founded in Nature and the
instincts of men. The exercise of this right is carefully restricted
to cases where life itself is in actual jeopardy. No defence of
property, no vindication of what is called _personal honor_, justifies
this extreme resort. Nor does this right imply the right of attack;
for, instead of attacking one another, on account of injuries past or
impending, men need only resort to the proper tribunals of justice.
There are, however, many most respectable persons, particularly of
the denomination of Friends, some of whom I may now have the honor of
addressing, who believe that the exercise of this right, even thus
limited, is in direct contravention of Christian precepts. Their
views find faithful utterance in the writings of Jonathan Dymond, of
which at least this may be said, that they strengthen and elevate,
even if they do not always satisfy, the understanding. "We shall be
asked," says Dymond, "'Suppose a ruffian breaks into your house, and
rushes into your room with his arm lifted to murder you; do you not
believe that Christianity allows you to kill him?' This is the last
refuge of the cause. Our answer to it is explicit,--_We do not believe
it_."[284] While thus candidly and openly avowing an extreme sentiment
of non-resistance, this excellent person is careful to remind the
reader that the case of the ruffian does not practically illustrate the
true character of War, unless it appears that war is undertaken simply
for the preservation of life, when no other alternative remains to a
people than to kill or be killed. According to this view, the robber on
land who places his pistol at the breast of the traveller, the pirate
who threatens life on the high seas, and the riotous disturber of the
public peace who puts life in jeopardy at home, cannot be opposed by
the sacrifice of life. Of course all who subscribe to this renunciation
of self-defence must join in efforts to abolish the Arbitrament of
War. Our appeal is to the larger number who make no such application
of Christian precepts, who recognize the right of self-defence as
belonging to each individual, and who believe in the necessity at times
of exercising this right, whether against a robber, a pirate, or a mob.
[284] On the Applicability of the Pacific Principles of the New
Testament to the Conduct of States, p. 10.
* * * * *
Another question, closely connected with that of self-defence, is
the asserted _Right of Revolt or Revolution_. Shall a people endure
political oppression, or the denial of freedom, without resistance? The
answer to this question will necessarily affect the rights of three
million fellow-citizens held in slavery among us. If such a right
unqualifiedly exists,--and sympathy with our fathers, and with the
struggles for freedom now agitating Europe, must make us hesitate to
question its existence,--then these three millions of fellow-men, into
whose souls we thrust the iron of the deadliest bondage the world has
yet witnessed, must be justified in resisting to death the power that
holds them. A popular writer on ethics, Dr. Paley, has said: "It may be
as much a duty at one time to resist Government as it is at another to
obey it,--to wit, whenever more advantage will in our opinion accrue
to the community from resistance than mischief. The lawfulness of
resistance, or the lawfulness of a revolt, does not depend alone upon
the grievance which is sustained or feared, but also upon the probable
expense and event of the contest."[285] This view distinctly recognizes
the right of resistance, but limits it by the chance of success,
founding it on no higher ground than expediency. A right thus vaguely
defined and bounded must be invoked with reluctance and distrust. The
lover of Peace, while admitting, that, unhappily, in the present state
of the world, an exigency for its exercise may arise, must confess the
inherent barbarism of such an agency, and admire, even if he cannot
entirely adopt, the sentiment of Daniel O'Connell: "Remember that no
political change is worth a single crime, or, above all, a single drop
of human blood."
[285] Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, Book VI. ch. 3.
* * * * *
These questions I put aside, not as unimportant, not as unworthy of
careful consideration, but as unessential to the cause which I now
present. If I am asked--as advocates of Peace are often asked--whether
a robber, a pirate, a mob, may be resisted by the sacrifice of life, I
answer, that they may be so resisted,--mournfully, necessarily. If I
am asked to sympathize with the efforts for freedom now finding vent
in rebellion and revolution, I cannot hesitate to say, that, wherever
Freedom struggles, wherever Right is, there my sympathies must be.
And I believe I speak not only for myself, but for our Society, when
I add, that, while it is our constant aim to diffuse those sentiments
which promote good-will in all the relations of life, which exhibit
the beauty of Peace everywhere, in _national_ affairs as well as
_international_, and while especially recognizing that central truth,
the Brotherhood of Man, in whose noonday light all violence among men
is dismal and abhorred as among brothers, it is nevertheless no part
of our purpose to impeach the right to take life in self-defence or
when the public necessity requires, nor to question the justifiableness
of resistance to outrage and oppression. On these points there
are diversities of opinion among the friends of Peace, which this
Society, confining itself to efforts for the overthrow of War, is not
constrained to determine.
Waiving, then, these matters, with their perplexities and difficulties,
which do not in any respect belong to the cause, I come now to
the precise object we hope to accomplish,--_The Abolition of the
Institution of War, and of the whole War System, as an established
Arbiter of Justice in the Commonwealth of Nations._ In the accurate
statement of our aims you will at once perceive the strength of our
position. Much is always gained by a clear understanding of the
question in issue; and the cause of Peace unquestionably suffers often
because it is misrepresented or not fully comprehended. In the hope of
removing this difficulty, I shall _first_ unfold the true character
of War and the War System, involving the question of Preparations for
War, and the question of a Militia. The way will then be open, in the
_second_ branch of this Address, for a consideration of the means by
which this system can be overthrown. Here I shall exhibit the examples
of nations, and the efforts of individuals, constituting the Peace
Movement, with the auguries of its triumph, briefly touching, at the
close, on our duties to this great cause, and the vanity of Military
Glory. In all that I say I cannot forget that I am addressing a
Christian association, for a Christian charity, in a Christian church.