FRIEND OF PEACE. REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS OF LORD KAMES mm INTRODUCTION. WHEN a celebrated writer attempts to vindicate an opinion or custom, which has long been popular, almost any thing will pass for solid argument. Both his premises and conclusions will commonly be admitted, without careful examination. But fortunately for the interests of humanity, the reasonings of philosophers in favor of sanguinary customs, are not invincible. Their fallacy may be detected by persons of moderate talents, if they can summon fortitude enough to examine them impartially. Lord Kames was a man of eminent talents, and in many respects an agreeable writer. His "Sketches of the history of man" are in general useful and entertaining. But when such a writer errs, he commonly carries a multitude with him; and especially when he writes in favor of a popular custom. In the second Book of the work which has been named, "Sketch VI" is entitled "War and Peace compared." In this "sketch" the author seriously attempts to prove, that the alternate succession of war and peace is as necessary and useful, as the changes of weather, and that perpetual peace is worse than perpetual war. While such opinions prevail, war will of course be popular and unavoidable. No powerful exertions will be made to abolish a custom, while it is generally believed to be both necessary and useful. It hence becomes important that his lordship's arguments should be thoroughly examined, and their fallacy made evident. His reasoning on this subject is such as we might naturally expect from a great man in defending a false but popular doctrine. Of course, it is both plausible and incorrect. The principal arguments in this sketch will be presented and reviewed; and to these we shall subjoin another from the sketch on "the origin of nations." His lordship did not arrange and number his arguments in favor of war in a methodical manner; but they will now be numbered for the convenience of the reader, as well as the reviewer. ARGUMENT I. "The blessings of peace are too well known to need illustration: industry, commerce, the fine arts, power, opulence, &c. &c. depend on peace. What has war in store for balancing blessings so substantial? Let us not abandon the field without making at least one effort. "Humanity, it must be acknowledged, gains nothing from wars of small states in close neighborhood: Such wars are brutal and bloody, because they are carried on with bitter enmity against individuals. Thanks to Providence, that war at present bears a less savage aspect: We spare individuals and make war upon the nation only: barbarity and cruelty give place to magnanimity: and soldiers are converted from brutes into heroes. Such wars give exercise to the elevated virtues of courage, generosity and disinterestedness, which are always attended with consciousness of merit and of dignity. Friendship is in peace cool and languid; but in a war for glory exerts the whole fire of its enthusiasm." p. 290. ANSWER. In the first of these paragraphs we have his lordship's summary of "the blessings of peace;" and in the second a summary of the "balancing blessings" of war. It will behove us to make an analytical and careful examination of these blessings of war which are supposed to balance the blessings of peace. We will first notice the concession-" Humanity gains nothing from the wars of small states in close neighborhood." But why does humanity gain nothing by such petty wars? "Such wars are brutal and bloody, because carried on with bitter enmity against individuals." But we may ask,-what wars are not "brutal and bloody?” And are wars between great nations less "brutal and bloody," than wars between small states? "Thanks to Providence," replies his lordship, "that war at present bears a less savage aspect: we spare individuals and make war upon the nation only." But is not every nation composed of "individuals?" Are all these individuals spared in the present mode of warfare? In making "war on a nation only," do we make war against an abstract idea? a war by which individuals are not injured? If not, is it "less savage" to make war on a whole nation, few of whom have ever done us any injury, than to make war on a smaller number of individuals, who have really injured us? If this be "less savage," it must be because civilization has rendered men more unjust and inhuman than they were in a savage state. But his lordship says-" Barbarity and cruelty give place to magnanimity;" and "soldiers are converted from brutes into heroes." Such he supposes are the consequences of making "war upon a nation only" instead of making war upon individuals with whom we are offended. He evidently argues on the supposition, that men fight with "less bitter enmity" when they fight against a nation of strangers, few or none of whom have given any cause of offence, than when they fight persons "in close neighborhood," who have offended them. This is probably true in general. But is there no "barbarity" in making an indiscriminate war on a nation of strangers, not one of whom to a million has ever done us any harm? Is this the way for "barbarity and cruelty to give place to magnanimity !” On this principle a robber or pirate may show his magnanimi ty in making war on innocent strangers, if he only forbears to do the same on persons "in close neighborhood" who have given him offence. Thus robbers as well as "soldiers" may be "converted from brutes into heroes." A savage mode of conversion indeed! But "such wars," we are told, "give exercise to the elevated virtues of courage, generosity, and disinterestedness, which are always attended with a consciousness of merit and dignity." Here we have a fine cluster of the blessings of war. We will however examine them, to see whether they are blessings in reality, or only in pretence. Is that "courage" a virtue by which entire strangers without any provocation can bravely meet each other in a field of battle for mutual butchery and murder? If this be true virtue, then the most inhuman and hardened villains, are the most virtuous men; and we may throw open the gates of heaven to bloody cut-throats, while we exclude every humble follower of Jesus. Shall we also give the names of "generosity and disinterestedness" to ambition and murderous valor, or to any qualities of mind by which men are disposed to destroy unoffending fellow beings? It is true indeed, that soldiers have little interest in the quarrels of their rulers; at least they have little reason to expect any benefit from fighting, but the praise of deluded men, who call evil good and good evil. There seems to be therefore something resembling "generosity and disinterestedness" in their exposing their lives without a prospect of real advantage. But in duly estimating the dispositions and actions of men, we should have respect to the end in view, and the means adopted. In wars in general, on the part of the warmaker, both the end and the means are as truly abominable, as they are in the case of a gentleman's bribing or compelling a servant to murder a rival for the sake of property or fame. The servant may indeed display undaunted valor, skill and dexterity; but to attribute to him "the elevated virtues of courage, generosity and disinterestedness" would be a most unjustifiable perversion of language. But to illustrate more fully his meaning in the sentence now under review, the writer has a long note containing two examples of the blessings of war. One of the narratives we shall give entire, that we may have a fair view of the blessings of war: "In the war carried on by Louis XII of France against the Venetians, the town of Brescia, being taken by storm and abandoned to the soldiers, suffered for seven days all the distresses of cruelty and avarice. No house escaped but that where Chevalier Bayard was lodged. At his entrance the mistress, a woman of rank, fell at his feet, and deeply sobbing, “O! my lord, save my life, save the honor of my daughters."— "Take courage Madam," said the Chevalier, "Your life and their honor shall be secure while I have life." The two daughters, brought from their hiding-place, were presented to him; and the family reunited, bestowed their whole attention on their deliverer. A dangerous wound he had received, gave them opportunity to express their zeal. They employed a notable surgeon; they attended him by turn day and night; and when he could bear to be amused, they entertained him with concerts of music. Upon the day fixed for his departure, the mother said to him, " to your goodness, my lord, we owe our lives; and to you, all we have belongs by right of war; but we hope from your signal benevolence, that this slight tribute will content you ;"-placing upon the table an iron coffer full of money. "What is the sum?" said the Chevalier. "My lord," answered she, trembling, "no more but 2500 ducats, all that we have ;-but if more be necessary we will try our friends."—"Madam, "said he, " your kindness is more precious in my eyes than a hundred thousand ducats. Take back your money, and depend always on me."-"My good lord, you kill me in refusing this small sum; take it only as a mark of your friendship to my family"-" Well," said he, "since it will oblige you, I take the money; but give me the satisfaction of bidding adieu to your amiable daughters." They came to him with looks of regard and affection. "Ladies," said he, "the impression you have made on my heart will never wear out. What return to make I know not; for men of my profession are seldom opulent. But here are 2500 ducats of which the generosity of your mother has given me the disposal. Accept them as a marriage present; and may your happiness in marriage equal your merit"-"Flower of chivalry!" cried the mother," may the God who suffered death for us reward you here and hereafter." Having given this narrative, his lordship gravely asks," Can peace afford so sweet a scene?"-just as though the pleasing sentiments expressed by these four persons, were sufficient to counterbalance, or even annihilate, all the sin and misery occasioned where a "town, being taken by storm and abandoned to |