Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

doubtless be admitted, that no nation on earth has expended more property in preparations for war, than Britain. They have made an ample experiment of the doctrine that preparations for war are the best means of preserving peace,' and have they not proved it to be false and pernicious? By acting on this principle-by being ever ready to revenge real or imaginary wrongs, and by their efforts to excite and cherish the love of martial glory, have they not been subjected to the calamities of war more than half the time for 1800 years? Have they not sacrificed millions of their own people, and murdered millions of their brethren of other countries? Yet, it is to be feared, a great part of that nation still glories in her warring character and destructive exploits; and for her successes she is perhaps an object of envy to all surrounding countries."

Conversation on War.

[From Grecian Stories, by Maria Hack.] "But what most show'd the vanity of life, Was to behold the nations all on fire, In cruel broils engag'd, and deadly strife; Most Christian kings inflam'd by black desire, With honourable ruffians in their hire,

Cause war to rage, and blood around to pour. Of this sad work when each begins to tire,

They sit them down just where they were before, Till for new scenes of woe peace shall their force restore." Thomson.

"THE account we read of the Spartans last night surprised me very much, mamma, (said Harry ;) I could not have believed they would use their poor slaves so shamefully; for I thought that the truly brave were always humane.

Mrs. B.-If by the "truly brave" you mean those who excel in the art of war, I am sure, Harry, that if they are really humane they must be truly miserable.

Harry. It does not appear so to me, mamma. If I were an officer I should feel a great deal of pleasure in assisting the wounded, and taking care of prisoners.

Mrs. B.-But would it not make you very unhappy to reflect, that if it had not been for the war, the poor men you were so kindly assisting might be at home with their own families, neither wounded nor made prisoners? In the hour of victory, the greatest victory that has been gained by the greatest General of our own times, these sad thoughts pressed heavily on the heart of the conqueror. It would be impossible to give you an idea of the agitation and anxiety endured by this great commander during the latter part of the terrible conflict. Thousands of brave men, whom he had often led to battle, lay lifeless before him. Though resolved that himself, and every Englishman in the field, should die rather than yield the contest, he felt that it was an awful alternative. He was anxiously expecting his allies to come to his assistance; and often, it is said, he prayed in agony for the Prussians on the night. When at last the thunder of their artillery was heard advancing, he exclaimed, "There goes old Blücher at last!" and burst into tears. Even the full assurance of victory could not remove his sorrow: "Believe me," he afterwards said, "that nothing, excepting a battle lost, can be half so melancholy as a battle won. The bravery of my troops has hitherto saved me from that greater evil; but to win even such a battle as this of Waterloo, at the expence of the lives of so many gallant friends, could only be termed a heavy misfortune, were it not for its results to the public benefit.”

AMERICA.

Kentucky Peace Association. [From the Lexington (Ken.) Monitor.]

"THE Citizens of Lexington consider it a duty imperiously required of them by recent events in this place, to express their sentiments relative to personal rencounters between citizens in a sanguinary manner, thereby to prevent similar occurrences; being

unequivocally of the opinion, that no circumstances can arise between our citizens, where their honour might not be better sustained by a reference to the deliberate opinion of a few judicious and pacific men, than by an appeal to deadly combat.

"We hereby pledge ourselves to discountenance, by all means in our power, such meetings; and do hereby declare, that it is our mature and decided opinion that it will evidence more magnanimity in thus submitting any difference that may arise between individuals, to such men to decide, as justice may require, and more completely preserve the honour of the individual, than a resort to arms, which makes no discrimination between innocence and guilt, and which is often occasioned by a want of correct understanding, between the parties, of the cause of complaint, angry passions hastening to an issue, when explanations would reconcile." [Signed by George Trotter, and 84 others.]

This is good news from the West. We had heard with deep regret, that the people of the Western States were in the habit of travelling armed, like Arabs, to be always ready to fight on the shortest notice. We cannot therefore wonder that duels had become so frequent as to excite alarm.

The

formation of a Peace Society, or a Civilization Society, was very needful, and we doubt not that the effects will be salutary. If this Association can bring the barbarous custom into disrepute, it will of course be abolished; and we hope it will not be long before our western brethren will be ashamed of the savage practice of going armed and prepared for murdering one another. By assuming this menacing attitude, men betray a want of confidence in one another, a want of brotherly love, and expose themselves to the worst of crimes.

But private war is public war in miniature, and we may reason from the less to the greater. The supposed necessity, the principles, and the spirit, are the same in both customs.

Those who have duly reflected on the causes and effects of public war, can with great truth adopt the language of our Lexington brethren, and say, we are "unequivocally of the opinion, that no circumstances can arise be tween nations, where their honour might not be better sustained by a reference to the deliberate opinion of a few judicious and pacific men, than by an appeal to deadly combat.” They can also express it as their "mature and decided opinion that it will evidence more magnanimity in thus submitting any difference that may arise between nations, to such men to decide, as justice may require, and more completely preserve the honour of the natim, than a resort to arms, which makes no discrimination between innocence and guilt, and which is often occasioned by a want of correct understanding between the parties,-angry passions hastening on to an issue, when explanations would reconcile."

War, as well as duelling, "makes no discrimination between innocence and guilt ;" and the method of settling differences, by referring them to "a few judicious and pacific men," is equally applicable to national disputes and those between two individuals. Duelling and public war were both derived from the barbarous state of society in former ages, and their present existence is a proof that the nations in this age are but partiatly civilized.

Review of the Practice of Retaliation.

RETALIATION is the Christian name for revenge. It is so clearly repugnant both to the letter and spirit of the gospel to revenge an injury, that such conduct must have another name, or its antichristian character could not be concealed. To say of a ruler or a military commander, that he is a revengeful man, would be regarded as a serious accusation, or an unfounded calumny. But to say of such men, that they distressed or destroyed prisoners, or burnt towns or villages, to

retaliate similar wrongs on the part of an enemy, would be thought by many to imply no charge inconsistent with justice, religion and benevolence. The ordinary modes of distressing or killing people in war, are not generally known by the name of retaliation or revenge. The most sanguinary and horrible battles may be fought, thousands may be killed and wounded; and still nothing may be done which a warrior would regard as inconsistent with a declaration that "every man did his duty"-nothing which calls for retaliation. But if one of the parties steps aside from the usual and honourable modes of murdering or distressing men, by refusing quarter to a captive, or killing an officer with a flag of truce, or wantonly burning a village-such things are supposed to demand retaliation.

It requires no extraordinary powers of recollection to call to mind instances of retaliation, in which captives were held responsible for the conduct of their general-over whom it was impossible that they should have any control; and, also, in which innocent people, men, women, and children, had their habitations consumed, to revenge wrongs of which they were not the agents.

However just it may be to hold generals as responsible for the wrongs done by soldiers under their control, it is manifestly unjust to treat soldiers as responsible for the wrongs done by their general; or to inflict evil on the inhabitants of one territory, to revenge similar evils done to the same class of people in another. Yet such have been the usual modes of revenge adopted by christian warriors!

In former ages of barbarity, when the people of Scotland were divided into clans, like the natives of America, it is said they had " a law, that when a person belonging to one clan murdered a man belonging to another, the murderer, if found, should be hanged as he deserved; but if he could not be found, the first man of the same clan that could be found,

should be hanged in his stead." Now who does not see that this was a savage and unjust law? But is it not at least as reasonable as the modes of retaliation which are adopted by christian nations? These nations are seldom contented with retaliating by an equal injury; ten, twenty, or even a hundred fold, is often regarded as lawful; and, like the ancient barbarians of Scotland, they will inflict these retaliatory evils on persons who never injured them.

If the gospel had required revenge as positively as it has forbidden it, what worse might have been expected of christian nations, than they have usually done in retaliating in juries? That they should allow themselves to revenge wrongs, when it can be done on the guilty agents, is certainly as much as would be reasonably expected of men, who hope for par don through a Mediator who has absolutely prohibited rendering evil for evil, and who has made a forgiving spirit in man, one towards another, a condition of their obtaining the forgiveness of God. What then shall be thought of their conduct, in re venging upon subjects the wrongs of their rulers-upon soldiers the wrongs of their generals, and upon the innocent the wrongs of the guilty!

It is said that among the aborigines of South America, revenge was one of the first things which the parents instilled into the minds of their children; and were we to examine impartially the history of Christian nations, should we not more naturally suppose that they were educated like these savages, than that they had been brought up as the disciples of the Prince of peace? Nay, is it not an undeniable truth, that, among professed Christians, a meek, forbearing spirit is branded with the name of pusillanimity, and that revenge is the very thing to which they attach the names of honour and glory? And has it not been esteemed a very honourable thing to murder subjects for the real or pretended faults of

their sovereigns, and to sacrifice soldiers to atone for the sins of their generals!

How much more magnanimous would a ruler appear, in boldly refusing to descend to such acts of inhumanity, than in wreaking his vengeance on the innocent, for crimes which they never committed, and which it was not in their power to prevent.

Some, however, will plead, that rulers and their subjects form one body politic; that wrongs must be retaliated on some part of the body, and that as rulers do not choose to be personally assailed, there is no way to retaliate but by striking the subjects. So then, rather than not violate the laws of Christ at all, you would have the ruler act the part of a barbarian, by destroying the innocent for the offences of the guilty?

Suppose that similar modes of revenge should be generally adopted in society-that when a man has received an injury from the head of a family, he should go and retaliate the wrong on the children or servants of the offender, suffering his own exasperated spirit to dictate the measure of vengeance to be inflicted. Would the state of society be improved by such a custom? Or shall we say that rulers are the only Christians who have a right to adopt the inhuman principles of savages!

There are but a few of any civilized community who will not, on serious reflection, reprobate those acts which are usually termed measures of retaliation. Let this point, then, be fully understood and admitted, that it is absolutely unjust and barbarous to revenge the wrongs of rulers on their subjects, or the wrongs of the guilty on the innocent. Then a great point will be gained, and the operations of war will soon be circumscribed and limited. In that case rulers would be compelled either to renounce the custom of war, or to fight their own battles. Nine times in ten the real or pretended wrongs for which wars

are made, are the wrongs of rulers themselves, and not of those who are doomed to suffer in the contest; and frequently he who declares the war, might very justly adopt the words of David-Lo, I have sinned, I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done!'

Dr. Belknap's Testimony on Wars with the Indians.

"HOWEVER fond we may have been of accusing the Indians of treachery and infidelity, it must be confessed that the example was first set them by the Europeans. Had we always treated them with that justice and humanity which our religion inculcates, and our true interest required, we might have lived in as much harmony with them, as with any other people on the globe." Hist. of N, H. vol. i. P. 11.

Such is the testimony of one of the most impartial and respectable of our historians. It was written in the last century; but it is such a testimony as we may expect will be given by impartial historians of what has more recently occurred.

The first part of Dr. Belknap's testimony was grounded on a deplorable fact which occurred in 1614. One of the "Voyagers,' Voyagers," by the name of Hunt, "who visited the northern coasts of America, decoyed about twenty Indians on board, and sold them for slaves at Malaga. This fidious action excited a violent jealousy in the natives, and bitterly enraged them against succeeding adventurers." p. 10.

per

This event happened several years prior to the arrival of our forefathers at Cape Cod. But such an outrage, committed by an Englishman against the Indians, would long be remembered, and the knowledge of it widely extended among the roving tribes. This occurrence very naturally prepared the Indians to look with a jealous eye on all adventurers from the same country. When, therefore, the natives saw our ancestors land on

[blocks in formation]

The latter part of Dr. Belknap's testimony derives much support from the seventy years of peace between the first settlers of Pennsylvania and the natives; and from the well attested fact, that the Indians have been as remarkable for their attachment to benefactors, as for their revenge to such as injured them.

That the Indians have in no instance been the aggressors in our wars with them will not be affirmed. But it would be easy to collect a multitude of facts in the conduct of our ancestors, and in the conduct of our people in the present age, which were adapted to excite the enmity of the Indian tribes, and to produce war. Many more might probably have been collected if our histories had always been written by disinterested men, or if the Indians had written histories of the treatment they had received from the white people.

The natives have generally been regarded by our people as an inferior, savage race; and too many have been disposed to treat them as having no rights, and but little claim to respect or to justice; and so far as these sentiments have been entertained, they have operated like a deceitful mirror, which diminishes the wrongs, on our own part, and magnifies those which have been done by the natives.

It is admitted that the Indians have been cruel and barbarous in their modes of warfare; and this fact has had a powerful influence in exciting prejudice against the unfortunate tribes. But it should be considered that war is ever cruel and barbarous,

by whatever nation it is conducted. If this is doubted by any one, let him read the following extract of a letter from one of our white Chiefs :"Camp before St. Marks, April 9, 1818.

"The spy companies, supported by the horse, were ordered forward: a short and spirited conflict ensued: the Indians soon gave way, and were pursued through their towns. The three succeeding days were employed in scouring their country, burning their towns, and securing their corn and cattle, of which were found a great abundance ;-upwards of three hundred houses have been consumed. Capt. M'Ewer having hoisted English colours on board his boats, Francis the prophet, Hoemotchemucho, and two others, were decoyed on board: these have been hanged to day!"

If the Chief of our army can boast of exploits like these, and be applauded by the people of the United States, let us no more reproach the Indians for their revengeful and savage modes of warfare.

But do our Generals "know what manner of spirit they are of?" Probably they do not, any more than the British Generals did, when they exposed themselves to the reproach of Gothic barbarity, by burning Charlestown, and other towns in the revolutionary war. Our people could then see much to blame in the conduct of the Britons, but they can now boast of similar exploits. So fatally does the spirit of war bewilder the minds of men.

The solemn truths affirmed by Dr. Belknap should be sounded throughout the land, and be made to reach, at least by echo, the ears of every man who has any concern in the government of our nation. We therefore repeat them :

"However fond we may have been of accusing the Indians of treachery and infidelity, it must be confessed that the example was first set them by Europeans. Had we always treated them with that justice and humanity which our religion inculcates, and our

« PreviousContinue »