AND, first, of _War and the War System in the Commonwealth of
Nations_. By the Commonwealth of Nations I understand the Fraternity of
Christian Nations recognizing a Common Law in their relations with each
other, usually called the Law of Nations. This law, being established
by the consent of nations, is not necessarily the law of all nations,
but only of such as recognize it. The Europeans and the Orientals often
differ with regard to its provisions; nor would it be proper to say,
that, at this time, the Ottomans, or the Mahometans in general, or
the Chinese, have become parties to it.[286] The prevailing elements
of this law are the Law of Nature, the truths of Christianity, the
usages of nations, the opinions of publicists, and the written texts or
enactments found in diplomatic acts or treaties. In origin and growth
it is not unlike the various systems of municipal jurisprudence, all of
which are referred to kindred sources.
[286] Since the delivery of this Address, Turkey and China have
accepted our Law of Nations.
It is often said, in excuse for the allowance of War, that nations
are independent, and acknowledge no _common superior_. True, indeed,
they are politically independent, and acknowledge no common political
sovereign, with power to enforce the law. But they do acknowledge
a common superior, of unquestioned influence and authority, whose
rules they are bound to obey. This common superior, acknowledged by
all, is none other than the Law of Nations, with the Law of Nature as
a controlling element. It were superfluous to dwell at length upon
opinions of publicists and jurists declaring this supremacy. "The Law
of Nature," says Vattel, a classic in this department, "is not less
_obligatory_ with respect to states, or to men united in political
society, than to individuals."[287] An eminent English authority, Lord
Stowell, so famous as Sir William Scott, says, "The _Conventional
Law of Mankind_, which is evidenced in their practice, _allows_ some
and _prohibits_ other modes of destruction."[288] A recent German
jurist says, "A nation associating itself with the general society of
nations _thereby recognizes a law common to all nations_, by which its
international relations are to be regulated."[289] Lastly, a popular
English moralist, whom I have already quoted, and to whom I refer
because his name is so familiar, Dr. Paley, says, that the principal
part of what is called the Law of Nations derives its obligatory
character "_simply from the fact of its being established, and the
general duty of conforming to established rules_ upon questions
and between parties where nothing but _positive regulations_ can
prevent disputes, and where disputes are followed by such destructive
consequences."[290]
[287] Law of Nations, Preface.
[288] Robinson's, Chr., Admiralty Reports, Vol. I. p. 140.
[289] Heffter, Das Europäische Völkerrecht der Gegenwart, § 2.
[290] Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, Book VI. ch. 12.
The Law of Nations is, then, the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of
Nations, governing their relations with each other, determining their
reciprocal rights, and sanctioning all remedies for the violation of
these rights. To the Commonwealth of Nations this law is what the
Constitution and Municipal Law of Massachusetts are to the associate
towns and counties composing the State, or what, by apter illustration,
the National Constitution of our Union is to the thirty several States
which now recognize it as the supreme law.
* * * * *
But the Law of Nations,--and here is a point of infinite importance
to the clear understanding of the subject,--while anticipating and
providing for controversies between nations, recognizes and establishes
War as final Arbiter. It distinctly says to nations, "If you cannot
agree together, then stake your cause upon _Trial by Battle_." The mode
of trial thus recognized and established has its own procedure, with
rules and regulations, under the name of Laws of War, constituting a
branch of International Law. "The Laws of War," says Dr. Paley, "are
part of the Law of Nations, and founded, as to their authority, upon
the same principle with the rest of that code, namely, upon the fact
of their being _established_, no matter when or by whom."[291] Nobody
doubts that the Laws of War are established by nations.
[291] Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, Book VI. ch. 12.
It is not uncommon to speak of the _practice_ of War, or the _custom_
of War,--a term adopted by that devoted friend of Peace, the late
Noah Worcester. Its apologists and expounders have called it "a
judicial trial,"--"one of the highest trials of right,"--"a process of
justice,"--"an appeal for justice,"--"a mode of obtaining rights,"--"a
prosecution of rights by force,"--"a mode of condign punishment." I
prefer to characterize it as an INSTITUTION, established by
the Commonwealth of Nations as Arbiter of Justice. As Slavery is an
Institution, growing out of local custom, sanctioned, defined, and
established by Municipal Law, so War is an Institution, growing out
of general custom, sanctioned, defined, and established by the Law of
Nations.
Only when we contemplate War in this light can we fully perceive
its combined folly and wickedness. Let me bring this home to your
minds. Boston and Cambridge are adjoining towns, separated by the
River Charles. In the event of controversy between these different
jurisdictions, the Municipal Law establishes a judicial tribunal, and
not War, as arbiter. Ascending higher, in the event of controversy
between two different counties, as between Essex and Middlesex, the
same Municipal Law establishes a judicial tribunal, and not War, as
arbiter. Ascending yet higher, in the event of controversy between two
different States of our Union, the Constitution establishes a judicial
tribunal, the Supreme Court of the United States, and not War, as
arbiter. But now mark: at the next stage there is a change of arbiter.
In the event of controversy between two different States of the
Commonwealth of Nations, the supreme law establishes, not a judicial
tribunal, but War, as arbiter. War is the institution _established_ for
the determination of justice between nations.
Provisions of the Municipal Law of Massachusetts, and of the National
Constitution, are not vain words. To all familiar with our courts it
is well known that suits between towns, and likewise between counties,
are often entertained and satisfactorily adjudicated. The records of
the Supreme Court of the United States show also that States of the
Union habitually refer important controversies to this tribunal. Before
this high court is now pending an action of the State of Missouri
against the State of Iowa, founded on a question of boundary, where
the former claims a section of territory--larger than many German
principalities--extending along the whole northern border of Missouri,
with several miles of breadth, and comprising more than two thousand
square miles. Within a short period this same tribunal has decided
a similar question between our own State of Massachusetts and our
neighbor, Rhode Island,--the latter pertinaciously claiming a section
of territory, about three miles broad, on a portion of our southern
frontier.
Suppose that in these different cases between towns, counties, states,
War had been _established_ by the supreme law as arbiter; imagine the
disastrous consequences; picture the imperfect justice which must have
been the end and fruit of such a contest; and while rejoicing that in
these cases we are happily relieved from an alternative so wretched and
deplorable, reflect that on a larger theatre, where grander interests
are staked, in the relations between nations, under the solemn sanction
of the Law of Nations, War is _established_ as Arbiter of Justice.
Reflect also that a complex and subtile code, known as Laws of War, is
established to regulate the resort to this arbiter.
* * * * *
Recognizing the irrational and unchristian character of War as
established arbiter between towns, counties, and states, we learn to
condemn it as established arbiter between nations. If wrong in one
case, it must be wrong in the other. But there is another parallel
supplied by history, from which we may form a yet clearer idea: I refer
to the system of _Private Wars_, or, more properly, _Petty Wars_,
which darkened even the Dark Ages. This must not be confounded with
the _Trial by Battle_, although the two were alike in recognizing
the sword as Arbiter of Justice. The _right to wage war_ (_le droit
de guerroyer_) was accorded by the early Municipal Law of European
States, particularly of the Continent, to all independent chiefs,
however petty, but not to vassals; precisely as the _right to wage
war_ is now accorded by International Law to all independent states
and principalities, however petty, but not to subjects. It was
mentioned often among the "liberties" to which independent chiefs were
entitled; as it is still recognized by International Law among the
"liberties" of independent nations. In proportion as any sovereignty
was absorbed in some larger lordship, this offensive _right_ or
"liberty" gradually disappeared. In France it prevailed extensively,
till at last King John, by an ordinance dated 1361, expressly forbade
Petty Wars throughout his kingdom, saying, in excellent words, "We by
these presents ordain that all challenges and wars, and all acts of
violence against all persons, in all parts whatsoever of our kingdom,
shall henceforth cease; and all assemblies, musters, and raids of
men-at-arms or archers; and also all pillages, seizures of goods and
persons illegally, _vengeances and counter-vengeances_, surprisals
and ambuscades.... All which things we will to be kept and observed
everywhere without infringement, on pain of incurring our indignation,
and of being reputed and held disobedient and rebellious towards us and
the crown, and at our mercy in body and goods."[292] It was reserved
for that indefatigable king, Louis the Eleventh, while Dauphin, as late
as 1451, to make another effort in the same direction, by expressly
abrogating one of the "liberties" of Dauphiné, being none other than
the _right of war_, immemorially secured to the inhabitants of this
province.[293] From these royal ordinances the Commonwealth of Nations
might borrow appropriate words, in abrogating forever the Public
Wars, or, more properly, the Grand Wars, with their _vengeances and
counter-vengeances_, which are yet sanctioned by International Law
among the "liberties" of Christian nations.
[292] Cauchy, Du Duel considéré dans ses Origines, Liv. I. Seconde
Époque, Ch. V. Tom. I. pp. 91, 92.
[293] Du Cange, Dissertations sur l'Histoire de St. Louis, Diss.
XXVII. (XXIX.): _Des Guerres Privées_.
At a later day, in Germany, effective measures were taken against the
same prevailing evil. Contests there were not confined to feudal
lords. Associations of tradesmen, and even of domestics, sent defiance
to each other, and even to whole cities, on pretences trivial as those
sometimes the occasion of the Grand Wars between nations. There are
still extant _Declarations of War_ by a Lord of Frauenstein against
the free city of Frankfort, because a young lady of the city refused
to dance with the uncle of the belligerent,--by the baker and other
domestics of the Margrave of Baden against Esslingen, Reutlingen,
and other imperial cities,--by the baker of the Count Palatine
Louis against the cities of Augsburg, Ulm, and Rottweil,--by the
shoeblacks of the University of Leipsic against the provost and other
members,--and, in 1477, by the cook of Eppenstein, with his scullions,
dairy-maids, and dish-washers, against Otho, Count of Solms. Finally,
in 1495, at the Diet of Worms, so memorable in German annals, the
Emperor Maximilian sanctioned an ordinance which proclaimed a permanent
Peace throughout Germany, abolished the _right_ or "liberty" of Private
War, and instituted a Supreme Tribunal, under the ancient name of
Imperial Chamber, to which recourse might be had, even by nobles,
princes, and states, for the determination of disputes without appeal
to the sword.[294]
[294] Coxe, History of the House of Austria, Ch. XIX. and XXI.
* * * * *
_Trial by Battle_, or "judicial combat," furnishes the most vivid
picture of the Arbitrament of War, beyond even what is found in the
system of _Petty Wars_. It was at one period, particularly in France,
the universal umpire between private individuals. All causes, criminal
and civil, with all the questions incident thereto, were referred to
this senseless trial. Not bodily infirmity or old age could exempt a
litigant from the hazard of the Battle, even to determine differences
of the most trivial import. At last substitutes were allowed, and,
as in War, bravoes or champions were hired for wages to enter the
lists. The proceedings were conducted gravely according to prescribed
forms, which were digested into a system of peculiar subtilty and
minuteness,--as War in our day is according to an established code,
the Laws of War. Thus do violence, lawlessness, and absurdity shelter
themselves beneath the Rule of Law! Religion also lent her sanctions.
With presence and prayer the priest cheered the insensate combatant,
and appealed for aid to Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace.
The Church, to its honor, early perceived the wickedness of this
system. By voices of pious bishops, by ordinances of solemn councils,
by anathemas of popes, it condemned whosoever should slay another in a
battle so impious and inimical to Christian peace, as "a most wicked
homicide and bloody robber"[295]; while it treated the unhappy victim
as a volunteer, guilty of his own death, and handed his remains to
unhonored burial without psalm or prayer. With sacerdotal supplication
it vainly sought the withdrawal of all countenance from this great
evil, and the support of the civil power in ecclesiastical censures.
To these just efforts let praise and gratitude be offered! But, alas!
authentic incidents, and the forms still on record in ancient missals,
attest the unhappy sanction which Trial by Battle succeeded in
obtaining even from the Church,--as in our day the English Liturgy,
and the conduct of the Christian clergy in all countries, attest the
unhappy sanction which the Institution of War yet enjoys. Admonitions
of the Church and labors of good men slowly prevailed. Proofs by
witnesses and by titles were gradually adopted, though opposed by the
selfishness of camp-followers, subaltern officers, and even of lords,
greedy for the fees or wages of combat. In England Trial by Battle was
attacked by Henry the Second, striving to substitute Trial by Jury.
In France it was expressly forbidden by that illustrious monarch, St.
Louis, in an immortal ordinance. At last, this system, so wasteful of
life, so barbarous in character, so vain and inefficient as Arbiter of
Justice, yielded to judicial tribunals.
[295] "Statuimus, juxta antiquum ecclesiasticæ observationis
morem, ut quicumque tam impia et Christianæ paci inimica pugna
alterum occiderit seu vulneribus debilem reddiderit, _velut
homicida nequissimus et latro cruentus_, ab Ecclesiæ et omnium
fidelium coetu reddatur separatus," etc.--Canon XII. Concil.
Valent.,--quoted by Cauchy, Du Duel, Liv. I. Première Époque, Ch.
III., Tom. I. p. 43, note.
The Trial by Battle is not Roman in origin. It may be traced to the
forests of Germany, where the rule prevailed of referring to the sword
what at Rome was referred to the prætor; so that a judicial tribunal,
when urged upon these barbarians, was regarded as an innovation.[296]
The very words of surprise at the German custom are yet applicable to
the Arbitrament of War.
[296] "Nunc agentes gratias, quod ea Romana justitia finiret,
feritasque sua novitate incognitæ disciplinæ mitesceret, et solita
armis decerni jure terminarentur."--Velleius Paterculus, Lib. II.
c. 118.
The absurdity of Trial by Battle may be learned from the instances
where it was invoked. Though originally permitted to determine
questions of personal character, it was extended so as to embrace
criminal cases, and even questions of property. In 961 the title to
a church was submitted to this ordeal.[297] Some time later a grave
point of law was submitted. The question was, "Whether the sons of a
son ought to be reckoned among the children of the family, and succeed
equally with their uncles, if their father happened to die while their
grandfather was alive." The general opinion at first was for reference
of the question to the adjudication of arbiters; but we are informed by
a contemporary ecclesiastic, who reports the case, that the Emperor,
Otho the First, "taking better counsel, and unwilling that nobles
and elders of the people should be treated _dishonorably_, ordered
the matter to be decided by champions with the sword." The champion
of the grandchildren prevailed, and they were enabled to share with
their uncles in the inheritance.[298] Human folly did not end here. A
question of theology was surrendered to the same arbitrament, being
nothing less than whether the Musarabic Liturgy, used in the churches
of Spain, or the Liturgy approved at Rome, contained the form of
worship most acceptable to the Deity. The Spaniards contended zealously
for the liturgy of their ancestors. The Pope urged the liturgy having
his own infallible sanction. The controversy was submitted to Trial by
Battle. Two knights in complete armor entered the lists. The champion
of the Musarabic Liturgy was victorious. But there was an appeal to
the ordeal of fire. A copy of each liturgy was cast into the flames.
The Musarabic Liturgy remained unhurt, while the other vanished into
ashes. And yet this judgment, first by battle and then by fire, was
eluded or overthrown, showing how, as with War, the final conclusion
is uncertain, and testifying against any appeal, except to human
reason.[299]
[297] Robertson, History of Charles V., Vol. I. Note 22.
[298] Widukindii, Res Gestæ Saxonicæ, Lib. II. c. 10: Monumenta
Germaniæ Historica, ed. Pertz, Scriptorum Tom. III. p. 440.
[299] Robertson, History of Charles V., Vol. I. Note 22.--The
Duel has a literature of its own, which is not neglected by
Brunet in his _Manuel du Libraire_, where, under the head of _Les
Combats Singuliers_, Tom. VI. col. 1636-1638, _Table Méthodique_,
28717-28749, will be found titles in various languages, from
which I select the following: Joan. de Lignano, Tractatus do
Bello, de Repressaliis, et de Duello, Papiæ, 1487; Tractatus de
Duello, en Lat. y en Castellano, por D. Castillo, Taurini, 1525;
Alciat, De Singulari Certamine, Lugd., 1543. In the development of
civilization how can the literature of War expect more honor than
that of the Duel?
An early king of the Lombards, in a formal decree, condemned the Trial
by Battle as "impious"[300]; Montesquieu, at a later time, branded
it as "monstrous"[301]; and Sir William Blackstone characterized it
as "clearly an unchristian, as well as most uncertain, method of
trial."[302] In the light of our day all unite in this condemnation. No
man hesitates. No man undertakes its apology; nor does any man count
as "glory" the feats of arms which it prompted and displayed. But the
laws of morals are general, and not special. They apply to communities
and to nations, as well as to individuals; nor is it possible, by
any cunning of logic, or any device of human wit, to distinguish
between that domestic institution, the Trial by Battle, established by
Municipal Law as arbiter between individuals, and that international
institution, the grander Trial by Battle, established by the Christian
Commonwealth as arbiter between nations. If the judicial combat was
impious, monstrous, and unchristian, then is War impious, monstrous,
and unchristian.
[300] Liutprandi Leges, Lib. VI. cap. 65: Muratori, Rerum Italic.
Script., Tom. I. Pars 2, p. 74.
[301] Esprit des Lois, Liv. XXVIII. ch. 23.
[302] Commentaries, Book IV. ch. 33, Vol. IV. p. 418.
* * * * *
It has been pointedly said in England, that the whole object of king,
lords, and commons, and of the complex British Constitution, is "to
get twelve men into a jury-box"; and Mr. Hume repeats the idea, when
he declares that the _administration of justice_ is the grand aim of
government. If this be true of individual nations in municipal affairs,
it is equally true of the Commonwealth of Nations. The whole complex
system of the Law of Nations, overarching all the Christian nations,
has but one distinct object,--_the administration of justice_ between
nations. Would that with tongue or pen I could adequately expose
the enormity of this system, involving, as it does, the precepts of
religion, the dictates of common sense, the suggestions of economy, and
the most precious sympathies of humanity! Would that now I could impart
to all who hear me something of my own conviction!
I need not dwell on the waste and cruelty thus authorized. Travelling
the page of history, these stare us wildly in the face at every turn.
We see the desolation and death keeping step with the bloody track; we
look upon sacked towns, ravaged territories, violated homes; we behold
all the sweet charities of life changed to wormwood and gall. The soul
is penetrated by the sharp moan of mothers, sisters, and daughters, of
fathers, brothers, and sons, who, in the bitterness of bereavement,
refuse to be comforted. The eye rests at last upon one of those fair
fields, where Nature, in her abundance, spreads her cloth of gold,
spacious and apt for the entertainment of mighty multitudes,--or,
perhaps, from curious subtilty of position, like the carpet in Arabian
tale, contracting for the accommodation of a few only, or dilating
for an innumerable host. Here, under a bright sun, such as shone at
Austerlitz or Buena Vista, amidst the peaceful harmonies of Nature,
on the Sabbath of Peace, are bands of brothers, children of a common
Father, heirs to a common happiness, struggling together in deadly
fight,--with madness of fallen spirits, murderously seeking the lives
of brothers who never injured them or their kindred. The havoc rages;
the ground is soaked with commingling blood; the air is rent by
commingling cries; horse and rider are stretched together on the earth.
More revolting than mangled victims, gashed limbs, lifeless trunks,
spattering brains, are the lawless passions which sweep, tempest-like,
through the fiendish tumult.
"'Nearer comes the storm and nearer, rolling fast and frightful on.
Speak, Ximena, speak, and tell us, who has lost and who has won?'
'Alas! alas! I know not, sister; friend and foe together fall;
O'er the dying rush the living; pray, my sister, for them all!'"
Horror-struck, we ask, wherefore this hateful contest? The melancholy,
but truthful, answer comes, that this is the _established_ method of
determining justice between nations!
The scene changes. Far away on some distant pathway of the ocean,
two ships approach each other, with white canvas broadly spread to
receive the flying gale. They are proudly built. All of human art
has been lavished in their graceful proportions and compacted sides,
while in dimensions they look like floating happy islands of the sea.
A numerous crew, with costly appliances of comfort, hives in their
secure shelter. Surely these two travellers must meet in joy and
friendship; the flag at mast-head will give the signal of fellowship;
the delighted sailors will cluster in rigging and on yard-arms to look
each other in the face, while exhilarating voices mingle in accents of
gladness uncontrollable. Alas! alas! it is not so. Not as brothers,
not as friends, not as wayfarers of the common ocean, do they come
together, but as enemies. The closing vessels now bristle fiercely
with death-dealing implements. On their spacious decks, aloft on all
their masts, flashes the deadly musketry. From their sides spout
cataracts of flame, amidst the pealing thunders of a fatal artillery.
They who had escaped "the dreadful touch of merchant-marring rocks,"
who on their long and solitary way had sped unharmed by wind or wave,
whom the hurricane had spared, in whose favor storms and seas had
intermitted their immitigable war, now at last fall by the hand of
each other. From both ships the same spectacle of horror greets us.
On decks reddened with blood, the murders of the Sicilian Vespers and
of St. Bartholomew, with the fires of Smithfield, break forth anew,
and concentrate their rage. Each is a swimming Golgotha. At length
these vessels--such pageants of the sea, such marvels of art, once so
stately, but now rudely shattered by cannon-ball, with shivered masts
and ragged sails--exist only as unmanageable wrecks, weltering on the
uncertain wave, whose transient lull of peace is their sole safety.
In amazement at this strange, unnatural contest, away from country
and home, where there is no country or home to defend, we ask again,
Wherefore this dismal scene? Again the melancholy, but truthful, answer
promptly comes, that this is the _established_ method of determining
justice between nations.
Yes! the barbarous, brutal relations which once prevailed between
individuals, which prevailed still longer between communities composing
nations, are not yet banished from the great Christian Commonwealth.
Religion, reason, humanity, first penetrate the individual, next larger
bodies, and, widening in influence, slowly leaven nations. Thus,
while condemning the bloody contests of individuals, also of towns,
counties, principalities, provinces, and denying to all these the right
of _waging war_, or of appeal to _Trial by Battle_, we continue to
uphold an atrocious _System_ of folly and crime, which is to nations
what the System of Petty Wars was to towns, counties, principalities,
provinces, also what the Duel was to individuals: for _War is the Duel
of Nations_.[303] As from Pluto's throne flowed those terrible rivers,
Styx, Acheron, Cocytus, and Phlegethon, with lamenting waters and
currents of flame, so from this established System flow the direful
tides of War. "Give them Hell," was the language written on a slate
by an American officer, speechless from approaching death. "Ours is a
damnable profession," was the confession of a veteran British general.
"War is the trade of barbarians," exclaimed Napoleon, in a moment of
truthful remorse, prompted by his bloodiest field. Alas! these words
are not too strong. The business of War cannot be other than the trade
of barbarians, cannot be other than a damnable profession; and War
itself is certainly Hell on earth. But forget not, bear always in mind,
and let the idea sink deep into your souls, animating you to constant
endeavor, that this trade of barbarians, this damnable profession, is
part of the War System, sanctioned by International Law,--and that
War itself is Hell, recognized, legalized, established, organized, by
the Commonwealth of Nations, for the determination of international
questions!
[303] Plautus speaks in the _Epidicus_ (Act III. Sc. iv. 14, 15) of
one who obtained great riches by the _Duelling Art_, meaning the
Art of War:--
"_Arte duellica_
Divitias magnas indeptum."
And Horace, in his Odes (Lib. IV. Carm. xv. 4-9), hails the age of
Augustus, as at peace, or _free from Duels_, and with the Temple of
Janus closed:--
"Tua, Cæsar, ætas
... vacuum _duellis_
Janum Quirini clausit."
* * * * *
"Put together," says Voltaire, "all the vices of all ages and places,
and they will not come up to the mischiefs of one campaign."[304] This
strong speech is supported by the story of ancient mythology, that Juno
confided the infant Mars to Priapus. Another of nearer truth might be
made. Put together all the ills and calamities from the visitations of
God, whether in convulsions of Nature, or in pestilence and famine,
and they will not equal the ills and calamities inflicted by man upon
his brother-man, through the visitation of War,--while, alas! the
sufferings of War are too often without the alleviation of those gentle
virtues which ever attend the involuntary misfortunes of the race.
Where the horse of Attila had been a blade of grass would not grow;
but in the footprints of pestilence, famine, and earthquake the kindly
charities spring into life.
[304] Dictionnaire Philosophique, Art. _Guerre_.
The last hundred years have witnessed three peculiar visitations of
God: first, the earthquake at Lisbon; next, the Asiatic cholera, as it
moved slow and ghastly, with scythe of death, from the Delta of the
Ganges over Bengal, Persia, Arabia, Syria, Russia, till Europe and
America shuddered before the spectral reaper; and, lastly, the recent
famine in Ireland, consuming with remorseless rage the population of
that ill-starred land. It is impossible to estimate precisely the
deadly work of cholera or famine, nor can we picture the miseries which
they entailed; but the single brief event of the earthquake may be
portrayed in authentic colors.
Lisbon, whose ancient origin is referred by fable to the wanderings
of Ulysses, was one of the fairest cities of Europe. From the summit
of seven hills it looked down upon the sea, and the bay bordered with
cheerful villages,--upon the broad Tagus, expanding into a harbor ample
for all the navies of Europe,--and upon a country of rare beauty,
smiling with the olive and the orange, amidst grateful shadows of the
cypress and the elm. A climate offering flowers in winter enhanced the
peculiar advantages of position; and a numerous population thronged
its narrow and irregular streets. Its forty churches, its palaces, its
public edifices, its warehouses, its convents, its fortresses, its
citadel, had become a boast. Not by War, not by the hand of man, were
these solid structures levelled, and all these delights changed to
desolation.
Lisbon, on the morning of November 1, 1755, was taken and sacked by
an earthquake. The spacious warehouses were destroyed; the lordly
palaces, the massive convents, the impregnable fortresses, with the
lofty citadel, were toppled to the ground; and as the affrighted people
sought shelter in the churches, they were crushed beneath the falling
masses. Twenty thousand persons perished. Fire and robbery mingled
with earthquake, and the beautiful city seemed to be obliterated. The
nations of Europe were touched by this terrible catastrophe, and succor
from all sides was soon offered. Within three months, English vessels
appeared in the Tagus, loaded with generous contributions,--twenty
thousand pounds in gold, a similar sum in silver, six thousand barrels
of salted meat, four thousand barrels of butter, one thousand bags of
biscuit, twelve hundred barrels of rice, ten thousand quintals of corn,
besides hats, stockings, and shoes.
Such was the desolation, and such the charity, sown by the earthquake
at Lisbon,--an event which, after the lapse of nearly a century, still
stands without a parallel. But War shakes from its terrible folds
all this desolation, without its attendant charity. Nay, more; the
Commonwealth of Nations _voluntarily agrees, each with the others_,
under the grave sanctions of International Law, to invoke this
desolation, in the settlement of controversies among its members,
while it expressly declares that all nations, not already parties to
the controversy, must abstain from any succor to the unhappy victim.
High tribunals are established expressly to uphold this arbitrament,
and, with unrelenting severity, to enforce its ancillary injunctions,
to the end that no aid, no charity, shall come to revive the sufferer
or alleviate the calamity. Vera Cruz has been bombarded and wasted
by American arms. Its citadel, churches, houses, were shattered, and
peaceful families at the fireside torn in mutilated fragments by the
murderous bursting shell; but the English, the universal charities,
which helped to restore Lisbon, were not offered to the ruined Mexican
city. They could not have been offered, without offending against the
_Laws of War_!
* * * * *
It is because men see War, in the darkness of prejudice, only as an
agency of attack or defence, or as a desperate sally of wickedness,
that they fail to recognize it as a form of judgment, sanctioned and
_legalized_ by Public Authority. Regarding it in its true character,
as an _establishment_ of the Commonwealth of Nations, and one of
the "liberties" accorded to independent nations, it is no longer
the expression merely of lawless or hasty passion, no longer the
necessary incident of imperfect human nature, no longer an unavoidable,
uncontrollable volcanic eruption of rage, of _vengeances and
counter-vengeances_, knowing no bound; but it becomes a gigantic and
monstrous Institution for the adjudication of international rights,--as
if an earthquake, or other visitation of God, with its uncounted woes,
and without its attendant charities, were legally invoked as Arbiter of
Justice.
Surely all must unite in condemning the Arbitrament of War. The
simplest may read and comprehend its enormity. Can we yet hesitate?
But if War be thus odious, if it be the Duel of Nations, if it be the
old surviving Trial by Battle, then must its unquestionable barbarism
affect all its incidents, all its machinery, all its enginery, together
with all who sanction it, and all who have any part or lot in it,--in
fine, the whole vast System. It is impossible, by any discrimination,
to separate the component parts. We must regard it as a whole, in its
entirety. But half our work is done, if we confine ourselves to a
condemnation of the Institution merely. There are all its instruments
and agencies, all its adjuncts and accessaries, all its furniture
and equipage, all its armaments and operations, the whole apparatus
of forts, navies, armies, military display, military chaplains, and
military sermons,--all together constituting, in connection with the
Institution of War, what may be called the WAR SYSTEM. This
System we would abolish, believing that religion, humanity, and policy
require the establishment of some peaceful means for the administration
of international justice, and also _the general disarming of the
Christian nations_, to the end that the prodigious expenditures now
absorbed by the War System may be applied to purposes of usefulness
and beneficence, and that the _business_ of the soldier may cease
forever.
While earnestly professing this object, I desire again to exclude
all question of self-defence, and to affirm the duty of upholding
government, and maintaining the supremacy of the law, whether on
land or sea. Admitting the necessity of Force for such purpose,
_Christianity revolts at Force as the substitute for a judicial
tribunal_. The example of the Great Teacher, the practice of the early
disciples, the injunctions of self-denial, love, non-resistance to
evil,--sometimes supposed to forbid Force in any exigency, even of
self-defence,--all these must apply with unquestionable certainty
to the established System of War. _Here, at least, there can be no
doubt._ If the sword, in the hand of an assaulted individual, may
become the instrument of sincere self-defence, if, under the sanction
of a judicial tribunal, it may become the instrument of Justice also,
_surely it can never be the Arbiter of Justice_. Here is a distinction
vital to the cause of Peace, and never to be forgotten in presenting
its claims. The cautious sword of the magistrate is unlike--oh, how
unlike!--the ruthless sword of War.
* * * * *
The component parts of the War System may all be resolved into
PREPARATIONS FOR WAR,--as court-house, jail, judges,
sheriffs, constables, and _posse comitatus_ are _preparations_ for
the administration of municipal justice. If justice were not to be
administered, these would not exist. If War were not sanctioned by the
Commonwealth of Nations, as the means of determining international
controversies, then forts, navies, armies, military display, military
chaplains, and military sermons would not exist. They would be useless
and irrational, except for the rare occasions of a police,--as similar
preparations would now be in Boston, for defence against our learned
neighbor, Cambridge,--or in the County of Essex, for defence against
its populous neighbor, the County of Middlesex,--or in the State of
Massachusetts, for defence against its conterminous States, Rhode
Island and New York. Only recently have men learned to question these
preparations; for it is only recently that they have opened their eyes
to the true character of the system, in which they are a part. _It will
yet be seen, that, sustaining these, we sustain the system._ Still
further, it will yet be seen, that, sustaining these, we wastefully
offend against economy, and violate also the most precious sentiments
of Human Brotherhood,--taking counsel of distrust, instead of love, and
provoking to rivalry and enmity, instead of association and peace.
Time does not allow me to discuss the nature of these preparations; and
I am the more willing to abridge what I am tempted to say, because,
on another occasion, I have treated this part of the subject. But
I cannot forbear to expose their inconsistency with the spirit of
Christianity. From a general comprehension of the War System, we
perceive the unchristian character of the preparations it encourages
and requires, nay, which are the synonyms of the system, or at least
its representatives. I might exhibit this character by an examination
of the Laws of War, drawn from no celestial fount, but from a dark
profound of Heathenism. This is unnecessary. The Constitution of our
own country furnishes an illustration remarkable as a touch-stone
of the whole system. No town, county, or state has the "liberty" to
"declare War." The exercise of any proper self-defence, arising from
actual necessity, requires no such "liberty." Congress is expressly
authorized to "declare War,"--that is, to invoke the Arbitrament of
Arms. And the Constitution proceeds to state, that all "giving aid
and comfort" to the enemy shall be deemed traitors. Mark now what
is said by a higher authority. "Love your enemies"; "If thine enemy
hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink." Under the War System,
obedience to these positive injunctions may expose a person to the
penalty of the highest crime known to the law. Can this be a Christian
system? But so long as War exists as an Institution this terrible
inconsistency must appear.
The character of these preparations is distinctly, though
unconsciously, attested by the names of vessels in the British Navy.
From the latest official list I select an illustrative catalogue.
Most are steamships of recent construction. Therefore they represent
the spirit of the British Navy in our day,--nay, of those War
Preparations in which they play so conspicuous a part. Here are the
champions: Acheron, Adder, Alecto, Avenger, Basilisk, Bloodhound,
Bulldog, Crocodile, Erebus, Firebrand, Fury, Gladiator, Goliah, Gorgon,
Harpy, Hecate, Hound, Jackal, Mastiff, Pluto, Rattlesnake, Revenge,
Salamander, Savage, Scorpion, Scourge, Serpent, Spider, Spiteful,
Spitfire, Styx, Sulphur, Tartar, Tartarus, Teazer, Terrible, Terror,
Vengeance, Viper, Vixen, Virago, Volcano, Vulture, Warspite, Wildfire,
Wolf, Wolverine!
Such is the Christian array of Victoria, Defender of the Faith! It may
remind us of the companions of King John, at another period of English
history,--"Falkes the Merciless," "Mauleon the Bloody," "Walter Buck,
the Assassin,"[305]--or of that Pagan swarm, the savage warriors of our
own continent, with the names of Black-Hawk, Man-Killer, and Wild-Boar.
Well might they seem to be
"all the grisly legions that troop
Under the sooty flag of Acheron!"
As a people is known by its laws, as a man is known by the company he
keeps, as a tree is known by its fruits, so is the War System fully and
unequivocally known by the Laws of War, by its diabolical ministers,
typical of its preparations, and by all the accursed fruits of War.
Controlled by such a code, employing such representatives, sustained
by such agencies, animated by such Furies, and producing such fruits
of tears and bitterness, it must be open to question. Tell me not that
it is sanctioned by any religion except of Mars; do not enroll the
Saviour and his disciples in its Satanic squadron; do not invoke the
Gospel of Peace, in profane vindication of an _Institution_, which,
by its own too palpable confession, exists in defiance of the most
cherished Christian sentiments; do not dishonor the Divine Spirit of
gentleness, forbearance, love, by supposing that it can ever enter into
this System, except to change its whole nature and name, to cast out
the devils which possess it, and fill its gigantic energies with the
inspiration of Beneficence.
[305] Matthew Paris, Historia Major, p. 274.
I need say little of military chaplains or military sermons. Like the
steamships of the Navy, they come under the head of Preparations. They
are part of the War System. They belong to the same school with priests
of former times, who held the picture of the Prince of Peace before
the barbarous champion of the Duel, saying, "Sir Knight, behold here
the remembrance of our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ, who willingly
gave his most precious body to death in order to save us. Now ask of
him mercy, and pray that on this day he may be willing to aid you, if
you have right, for he is the sovereign judge."[306] They belong to the
same school with English prelates, who, in the name of the Prince of
Peace, consecrate banners to flaunt in remote war, saying, "Be thou in
the midst of our hosts, as thou wast in the plains of India and in the
field of Waterloo; and may these banners, which we bless and consecrate
this day, lead them ever on to glorious victory." No judgment of such
appeals can be more severe than that of Plato, who called men "most
impious," who by prayer and sacrifice thought to propitiate the Gods
towards slaughter and outrages upon justice,--thus, says the heathen
philosopher, making those pure beings the accomplices of their crimes
by sharing with them the spoil, as the wolves leave something to
the dogs, that these may allow them to ravage the sheepfold.[307]
Consenting to degrade the "blessedness" of the Gospel to the "impiety"
of the War System, our clergy follow long established custom, without
considering the true character of the system whose ministers they
become. Their apology will be, that "they know not what they do."
[306] Cauchy, Du Duel, Liv. I. Seconde Époque, Ch. III. Tom. I. p.
74.
[307] Plato, Laws, Book X. ch. 13, 14.
Again I repeat, so long as the War System prevails under the sanction
of International Law, these painful incongruities will be apparent.
They belong to a system so essentially irrational, that all the
admitted virtues of many of its agents cannot save it from judgment.
Here the question occurs, Is the _Militia_ obnoxious to the same
condemnation? So far as the militia constitutes part of the War System,
it is impossible to distinguish it from the rest of the system. It is
a portion of the extensive apparatus provided for the determination of
international disputes. From this character it borrows the unwholesome
attractions of War, while disporting itself, like the North American
Indian, in finery and parade. Of the latter feature I shall speak only
incidentally. If War be a Christian institution, those who act as its
agents should shroud themselves in colors congenial with their dreadful
trade. With sorrow and solemnity, not with gladness and pomp, they
should proceed to their melancholy office. The Jew Shylock exposes
the mockery of street-shows in Venice with a sarcasm not without echo
here:--
"When you hear the drum,
And the vile squeaking of the wry-necked fife,
Clamber not you up to the casements then,
Nor thrust your head into the public street,
To gaze on Christian fools with varnished faces;
But stop my house's ears,--I mean my casements:
Let not the sound of shallow foppery enter
My sober house."
Not as part of the War System, but only as an agent for preserving
domestic peace, and for sustaining the law, is the militia entitled to
support. And here arises the important practical question,--interesting
to opponents of the War System as to lovers of order,--whether the
same good object may not be accomplished by an agent less expensive,
less cumbersome, and less tardy, forming no part of the War System,
and therefore in no respect liable to the doubts encountered by the
militia. Supporters of the militia do not disguise its growing
unpopularity. The eminent Military Commissioners of Massachusetts,
to whom in 1847 was referred the duty of arranging a system for its
organization and discipline, confess that there is "either a defect
of power in the State government to an efficient and salutary militia
organization, or _the absence of a public sentiment in its favor_, and
a consequent unwillingness to submit to the requirements of service
which alone can sustain it"; and they add, that they "have been met,
in the performance of their task, with information, from all quarters,
of its general neglect, and of the certain and rapid declension of
the militia in numbers and efficiency."[308] And the Adjutant-General
of Massachusetts, after alluding to the different systems which
have fallen into disuse, remarks, that "the fate of each system is
indicative of public sentiment; and until public sentiment changes,
_no military system whatever can be sustained in the State_."[309] Nor
is this condition of public sentiment for the first time noticed. It
was remarked by the Commissioners charged by the Legislature with this
subject as long ago as 1839. In their Report they say, "It is enough to
know that all attempts, hitherto, to uphold the system, in its original
design of organization, discipline, and subordination, _are at last
brought to an unsuccessful issue_."[310]
[308] Mass. Senate Documents, 1848: Doc. No. 13, pp. 4, 5.
[309] Ibid., Doc. No. 15, p. 23.
[310] Mass. House Documents, 1839: Doc. No. 6, p. 14.
None familiar with public opinion in our country, and particularly in
Massachusetts, will question the accuracy of these official statements.
It is true that there is an indisposition to assume the burdens of
the militia. Its offices and dignities have ceased to be an object of
general regard. This, certainly, must be founded in the conviction
that it is no longer necessary or useful; for it is not customary with
the people of Massachusetts to decline occasions of service necessary
or useful to the community. The interest in military celebrations
has decayed. Nor should it be concealed that there are large numbers
whose honest sentiments are not of mere indifference, who regard with
aversion the fanfaronade of a militia muster, who not a little question
the influence upon those taking part in it or even witnessing it, and
look with regret upon the expenditure of money and time.
If such be the condition of the public mind, the Government must
recognize it. The soul of all effective laws is an animating public
sentiment. This gives vitality to what else would be a dead letter.
In vain enact what is not inspired by this spirit. No skill in the
device of the system, no penalties, no bounties even, can uphold it.
Happily, we are not without remedy. If State Legislatures are disposed
to provide a substitute for this questionable or offensive agency, as
conservator of domestic quiet, it is entirely within their competency.
Let the general voice demand the _substitute_.
Among powers reserved to States, under the National Constitution, is
that of _Internal Police_. Within its territorial limits, a State has
municipal power to be exercised according to its own will. In the
exercise of this will, it may establish a system, congenial with the
sentiment of the age, to supply the place of the militia, as guardian
of municipal quiet and instrument of the law. This system may consist
of unpaid volunteers, or special constables, like fire companies in
the country, or of hired men, enrolled for this particular purpose,
and always within call, like fire companies in Boston. They need
not be clad in showy costume, or subjected to all the peculiarities
of military drill. A system so simple, practical, efficient,
unostentatious, and cheap, especially as compared with the militia,
would be in harmony with existing sentiment, while it could not fail to
remedy the evils sometimes feared from present neglect of the militia.
Many attempts have been made to reform the militia. _It remains, that a
proper effort should be made to provide a substitute for it._
An eminent English jurist of the last century,--renowned as scholar
also,--Sir William Jones,--in a learned and ingenious tract,
entitled "An Inquiry into the Legal Mode of Suppressing Riots, with
a Constitutional Plan of Future Defence," after developing the
obligations of the citizen, under the Common Law, as part of the Power
of the County, presents a system of organization independent of the
military. It is not probable that this system would be acceptable
in all its details to the people of our community, but there is
one of his recommendations which seems to harmonize with existing
sentiment. "Let companies," he says, "be taught, in the most private
and orderly manner, for two or three hours early every morning, until
they are competently skilled in the use of their arms; _let them not
unnecessarily march through streets or high-roads, nor make any the
least military parade, but consider themselves entirely as part of
the civil state_."[311] Thus is the soldier kept out of sight, while
the citizen becomes manifest; and this is the true idea of republican
government. In the midst of arms the laws are silent. Not "arms," but
"laws," should command our homage and quicken the patriotism of the
land.
[311] Works, Vol. VIII. p. 494.
While divorcing the Police from the unchristian and barbarous War
System, I confess the vital importance of maintaining law and order.
Life and property should be guarded. Peace must be preserved in our
streets. And it is the duty of Government to provide such means as are
most expedient, if those established are in any respect inadequate, or
uncongenial with the Spirit of the Age.
* * * * *
I must not close this exposition without an attempt to display the
inordinate expenditure by which the War System is maintained. And here
figures appear to lose their functions. They seem to pant, as they toil
vainly to represent the enormous sums consumed in this unparalleled
waste. Our own experience, measured by the concerns of common life,
does not allow us adequately to conceive the sums. Like the periods
of geological time, or the distances of the fixed stars, they baffle
imagination. Look, for an instant, at the cost to us of this system.
Without any allowance for the loss sustained by the withdrawal of
active men from productive industry, we find, that, from the adoption
of the National Constitution down to 1848, there has been paid directly
from the National Treasury,--
For the Army and Fortifications, $475,936,475
For the Navy and its operations, 209,994,428
------------
$685,930,903[312]
This immense amount is not all. Regarding the militia as part of
the War System, we must add a moderate estimate for its cost during
this period, being, according to the calculations of an able and
accurate economist, as much as $1,500,000,000.[313] The whole presents
an inconceivable sum-total of _more than two thousand millions_ of
dollars already dedicated by our Government to the support of the War
System,--nearly twelve times as much as was set apart, during the same
period, to all other purposes whatsoever!
[312] American Almanac, 1849, p. 162. United States Executive
Documents: 28th Cong. 1st Sess., No. 15, pp. 1018-19; 35th Cong.
1st Sess., No. 60, pp. 6, 7.
[313] Jay's War and Peace, p. 13, note; and "True Grandeur of
Nations," _ante_, Vol. I. p. 79.
Look now at the Commonwealth of Europe. I do not intend to speak of War
Debts, under whose accumulated weight these nations are now pressed
to earth, being the terrible legacy of the Past. I refer directly to
the existing War System, the establishment of the Present. According
to recent calculations, its annual cost is not less than a _thousand
millions_ of dollars. Endeavor, for a moment, by comparison with other
interests, to grapple with this sum.
It is larger than the entire profit of all the commerce and
manufactures of the world.
It is larger than all the expenditure for agricultural labor, producing
the food of man, upon the whole face of the globe.
It is larger, by a hundred millions, than the value of all the exports
sent forth by all the nations of the earth.
It is larger, by more than five hundred millions, than the value of all
the shipping belonging to the civilized world.
It is larger, by nine hundred and ninety-seven millions, than the
annual combined charities of Europe and America for preaching the
Gospel to the Heathen.
Yes! the Commonwealth of Christian Nations, including our own country,
appropriates, without hesitation, as a matter of course, upwards of
a thousand millions of dollars annually to the maintenance of the
War System, and vaunts its three millions of dollars, laboriously
collected, for diffusing the light of the Gospel in foreign lands!
With untold prodigality of cost, it perpetuates the worst Heathenism
of War, while, by charities insignificant in comparison, it doles to
the Heathen a message of Peace. At home it breeds and fattens a cloud
of eagles and vultures, trained to swoop upon the land; to all the
Gentiles across the sea it dismisses a solitary dove.
Still further: every ship-of-war that floats costs more than a
well-endowed college.
Every sloop-of-war that floats costs more than the largest public
library in our country.
* * * * *
It is sometimes said, by persons yet in leading-strings of inherited
prejudice, and with little appreciation of the true safety afforded
by the principles of Peace, that all these comprehensive preparations
are needed for protection against enemies from abroad. Wishing to
present the cause without any superfluous question on what are called,
apologetically, "defensive wars," let me say, in reply,--_and here
all can unite_,--that, if these preparations are needed at any time,
according to the aggressive martial interpretation of self-defence
in its exigencies, there is much reason to believe it is because
the unchristian spirit in which they have their birth, lowering and
scowling in the very names of the ships, provokes the danger,--as the
presence of a bravo might challenge the attack he was hired to resist.
Frederick of Prussia, sometimes called the Great, in a singular spirit
of mingled openness and effrontery, deliberately left on record, most
instructively prominent among the real reasons for his war upon Maria
Theresa, _that he had troops always ready to act_. Thus did these
_Preparations_ unhappily become, as they too often show themselves,
_incentives_ to War. Lord Brougham justly dwells on this confession
as a lesson of history. Human nature, as manifest in the conduct of
individuals or communities, has its lesson also. The fatal War Spirit
is born of these preparations, out of which it springs full-armed. Here
also is its great aliment; here are the seeds of the very evil it is
sometimes vainly supposed to avert. Let it never be forgotten, let it
be treasured as a solemn warning, that, by the confession of Frederick
himself, it was the possession of _troops always ready to act_ that
helped to inspire that succession of bloody wars, which, first pouncing
upon Silesia, mingled at last with the strifes of England and France,
even in distant colonies across the Atlantic, ranging the savages of
the forest under hostile European banners.[314]
[314] "Que l'on joigne à ces considérations _des troupes toujours
prêtes d'agir_, mon épargne bien remplie, et la vivacité de mon
caractère: c'étaient les raisons que j'avais de faire la guerre à
Marie-Thérèse, reine de Bohême et d'Hongrie." These are the very
words of Frederick, deliberately written in his own account of
the war. Voltaire, on revising the work, dishonestly struck out
this important confession, but preserved a copy, which afterwards
appeared in his own Memoirs. Lord Brougham, in his sketch of
Voltaire, says that "the passage thus erased and thus preserved is
extremely curious, and for honesty or impudence has no parallel
in the history of warriors."--Brougham, Lives of Men of Letters,
_Voltaire_, p. 59.
But I deny that these preparations are needed for just self-defence. It
is difficult, if not impossible, to suppose any such occasion in the
Fraternity of Christian Nations, _if War ceases to be an established
Arbitrament_, or if any state is so truly great as to decline its
umpirage. There is no such occasion among the towns, counties, or
states of our extended country; nor is there any such occasion among
the counties of Great Britain, or among the provinces of France; but
the same good-will, the same fellowship, and the same ties of commerce,
which unite towns, counties, states, and provinces, are fast drawing
the whole Commonwealth of Nations into similar communion. France and
England, so long regarded as natural enemies, are now better known to
each other than only a short time ago were different provinces of the
former kingdom. And there is now a closer intimacy in business and
social intercourse between Great Britain and our own country than there
was at the beginning of the century between Massachusetts and Virginia.
* * * * *
Admitting that an enemy might approach our shores for piracy or
plunder or conquest, who can doubt that the surest protection would
be found, not in the waste of long-accumulating preparation, not in
idle fortresses along the coast, built at a cost far surpassing all
our lighthouses and all our colleges, but in the intelligence, union,
and pacific repose of good men, with the unbounded resources derived
from uninterrupted devotion to productive industry? I think it may be
assumed as beyond question, according to the testimony of political
economy, that the people who spend most sparingly in Preparations for
War, all other things being equal, must possess the most enduring
means of actual self-defence at home, on their own soil, before
their own hearths, if any such melancholy alternative should occur.
Consider the prodigious sums, exceeding in all two thousand millions
of dollars, squandered by the United States, since the adoption of
the National Constitution, for the sake of the War System. Had such
means been devoted to railroads and canals, schools and colleges, the
country would possess, at the present moment, an accumulated material
power grander far than any it now boasts. There is another power,
of more unfailing temper, which would not be wanting. Overflowing
with intelligence, with charity, with civilization, with all that
constitutes a generous state, ours would be peaceful triumphs,
transcending all yet achieved, and surrounding the land with an
invincible self-defensive might, while the unfading brightness of a
new era made the glory of War impossible. Well does the poet say with
persuasive truth,--
"What constitutes a State?
Not high-raised battlement or labored mound,
Thick wall or moated gate;
Not cities proud with spires and turrets crowned;
Not bays and broad-armed ports,
Where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride:
No: MEN, high-minded MEN."[315]
Such men will possess a Christian greatness, rendering them unable to
do an injury; while their character, instinct with all the guardian
virtues, must render their neighbors unable to do an injury to them.
[315] Sir William Jones, Ode in Imitation of Alcæus: Works, Vol. X.
p. 389.
The injunction, "In time of Peace prepare for War," is of Heathen
origin.[316] As a rule of international conduct, it is very
questionable in a Christian age, being vindicated on two grounds only:
first, by assuming that the Arbitrament of War is the proper tribunal
for international controversies, and therefore the War System is to be
maintained and strengthened, as the essential means of international
justice; or, secondly, by assuming the rejected dogma of an Atheist
philosopher, Hobbes, that War is the natural state of man. Whatever
may be the infirmities of our passions, it is plain that the natural
state of man, assuring the highest happiness, and to which he tends
by an irresistible heavenly attraction, is Peace. This is true of
communities and nations, as of individuals. The proper rule is, In time
of Peace cultivate the arts of Peace. So doing, you will render the
country truly strong and truly great; not by arousing the passions of
War, not by nursing men to the business of blood, not by converting the
land into a flaming arsenal, a magazine of gunpowder, or an "infernal
machine," just ready to explode, but by dedicating its whole energies
to productive and beneficent works.
[316] True Grandeur of Nations, _ante_, Vol. I., pp. 97, seqq.
* * * * *
The incongruity of this system may be illustrated by an example. Look
into the life of that illustrious philosopher, John Locke, and you will
find, that, in the journal of his tour through France, describing the
arches of the amphitheatre at Nismes, he says, "In all those arches,
to support the walls over the passage where you go round, there is
a stone laid, about twenty inches or two feet square, and about six
times the length of _my sword, which was near about a philosophical
yard long_."[317] Who is not struck with the unseemly incongruity
of the exhibition, as he sees the author of the "Essay concerning
Human Understanding" travelling with a sword by his side? But here
the philosopher only followed the barbarous custom of his time.
Individuals then lived in the same relations towards each other which
now characterize nations. The War System had not yet entirely retreated
from Municipal Law and Custom, to find its last citadel and temple in
the Law and Custom of Nations. Do not forget, that, at the present
moment, our own country, the great author, among the nations, of a new
Essay concerning Human Understanding, not only travels with a sword
by the side, like John Locke, but lives encased in complete armor,
burdensome to limbs and costly to treasury.
[317] King's Life of Locke, Vol. I. p. 99.
Condemning the War System as barbarous and most wasteful, the token
and relic of a society alien to Christian civilization, we except
the Navy, so far as necessary in arrest of pirates, of traffickers
in human flesh, and generally in preserving the police of the sea.
But it is difficult for the unprejudiced mind to regard the array of
fortifications and of standing armies otherwise than obnoxious to the
condemnation aroused by the War System. Fortifications are instruments,
and standing armies are hired champions, in the great Duel of Nations.
* * * * *
Here I quit this part of the subject. Sufficient has been said to
expose the War System of the Commonwealth of Nations. It stands before
us, a colossal image of International Justice, _with the sword, but
without the scales_,--like a hideous Mexican idol, besmeared with human
blood, and surrounded by the sickening stench of human sacrifice. But
this image, which seems to span the continents, while it rears aloft
its flashing form of brass and gold, hiding far in the clouds "the
round and top of sovereignty," can be laid low; for its feet are clay.