FIVE years ago, it was an opinion entertained by many, that a great war between European nations, such as took place in the early part of this century, would never again arise. The progress of civilization, it was said, had been so great, that the peace, which since the fall of Napoleon had been unbroken by other contests than those originating in revolts, which could hardly be called national wars, would not only be preserved, but would continually strengthen the bonds which held nation and nation together. The question of the possibility of establishing a secure basis for a general peace, was discussed more than at any previous period of history. Proposals were made for the constituting a tribunal among nations, which was to decide all disputes which might occur between them. And, in short, although it was not generally expected that these efforts would prove immediately successful, although the belief still prevailed that war is a necessary evil, it is certain, that at no time was the hope more general or more earnest, that, if war could not wholly be abolished, it might at least be in future restrained by the influence of civilization. But this hope has been suddenly and unexpectedly frustrated. Another

VOL. II. NO. I.

1

great European war has commenced. Not merely the nations of the East, where civilized manners and principles, if known at all, are but an imperfect copy of others, but England and France, the very representatives of European enlightenment, have been drawn into it; and, as yet, no man can foresee its termination. This war is as merciless and bloody as any which have preceded it. It is carried on with as inveterate hostility, and with as few of the mitigating circumstances of modern warfare, as any war of recent date. Indeed, it is, if anything, waged in a more barbarous manner than the wars which marked the opening years of this century. Nothing has been improved, except the cannon and rifles.

Has, then, civilization no influence in diminishing the frequency or the barbarity of wars? Or have the nations of Europe made little or no progress in civilization in this nineteenth century?— the century of inventions, to use the phrase in a somewhat different way from the Marquis of Worcester. This latter supposition is not likely to be favorably received. Nor will the first be generally admitted, for it is commonly supposed that this advance of civilization tends to the removal of all evils; and as war is one of these, to the abolition of that. But there is a class of philosophers at the present day, who have mostly sprung up since the beginning of the present war, who gravely assure us, that war is no evil at all; nay, a most excellent practice, and one in which we ought by all means to rejoice, seeing that it liberates the nation that engages in it from various calamities which are in themselves inseparable from a civilized community, and, moreover, that it improves the characters of those who enter upon it, strengthens their minds, and is on the whole an excellent specific for the complaints which, we are told, spring from peace. According to these philosophers, then, war is not at present to be considered an evil at all, and we ought not to wish to get rid of it now, whatever may be the case at some distant period. They cannot be perplexed by the want of influence of civilization on war,

for they do not think it ought to seek to abolish such a beneficent institution.

This is not the precise language of the men who advocate these principles. But what they say either has no meaning at all, or it leads to precisely the above-mentioned conclusions. They have not been very explicit in their statements, possibly from a vague sense of there being something in them bordering on the absurd. However, scarcely any one can have read the magazines and newspapers of the day, or have perused the last new novel or poem, without meeting with assertions and arguments having a direct tendency to this result. Such being the case, it may not be amiss to examine briefly some of these new theories, for fear that we may have been all along mistaken in supposing that war ought and is destined to be suppressed by the influence of civilization. We must, however, first know what sort of civilization we are speaking of; for we can certainly not expect to find any very recent writer who would go so far as to say that war is a blessing which we can never obtain any substitute for.

When we speak of civilization, then, we do not mean progress in Christianity, or even in the principles of morality. It is to be hoped that nations do make some progress in both; and it cannot very well be doubted, that one result of such progress must finally be the abolition of war, because it will evidently remove all the causes of war in time. But it is clear that, if this sort of progress is the only check upon war, we must postpone any hopes of a diminution of the number of contests between nations to an indefinite period. But what the word civilization usually means is intellectual, not moral, progress; or, at all events, such moral progress alone as seems practically to be necessitated by the advance of knowledge,—that is to say, what is called an "enlightened self-love." This is the civilization which is vulgarly supposed to have a restraining influence upon war, by rendering it unnecessary in one way or another, but which, according to our present bellicose school of philoso

phy, is incompetent to lessen the necessity of battles and sieges in any degree.

The arguments employed by this school, as we meet with them in print, consist in a somewhat overdrawn picture of the evils which, we are told, are sure to be found in all peaceful communities. The principal of these evils, according to these philosophers, and that which they chiefly love to declaim against, is the vice of meanness; a rather comprehensive expression, but which forms an admirable theme on which to "squirt" (this word, so familiar to our readers, and so admirably expressive, may perhaps be here admitted), with capital effect.

This vice is exemplified, it appears, in peace, in a very great variety of ways. Almost every one is a victim to it in both senses, he is at once subject to it and the object of it. The lord, the laborer, the merchant, and the clergyman are all mean in some way, each after his own fashion. To this gloomy description we may be compelled to assent. But it has recently been discovered, that this great vice prevails only among men in time of peace. In time of peace, however, it is perpetually augmenting itself, and can be got rid of only by a good, wholesome war once in a while, the stimulus of which acts at once as a cure for and a preventive of meanness in all its forms. The cure is not permanent, however, and so the dose must be repeated at intervals.

War too, besides curing meanness, sharpens the intellect to a surprising extent. This is said to be especially observable in the men who are converted in time of war from clodhoppers into members of the military profession. They become sensible, intelligent, and active, having been stupid and slow previously. But this improvement, it seems to be implied, extends to other classes of men besides soldiers, and helps to make every citizen of a free country more prompt and sharp-witted, and a more useful member of the community. In peace, men degenerate. They become sluggish and dull and narrow-minded. This evil, also, is

remedied, more or less perfectly, by war. The effects of war in exciting several of the nobler feelings of our natures are also dwelt upon with pride and satisfaction by the writers whose views we are considering. Patriotism, one of the most excellent of qualities, must of course be wonderfully increased by a declaration of war. By the way, we may here infer that the "spirit of '76" would have died out altogether among us before now, if it had not been for the recent war with Mexico, which fanned so powerfully the expiring embers of love for America within the bosoms of Americans. Perhaps (fearful thought) others than Americans might now rule Massachusetts, if patriotism had not been revived by our contest with the "Greasers." But we must return from this digression, although it would be highly interesting to attempt to trace with accuracy the connection between these great historical events.

The reader may easily imagine how various other noble sentiments, as generosity, honor, and the like, are called into extensive action by the influences which war exerts. Or if he cannot, which would manifest an intellectual deficiency that might perhaps be cured by enlisting in the Crimean army, he has only to read the English periodicals with attention, as has been said, and he will be instructed on this point.

The conclusion to which we are brought by modern views is, then, that as war affords such a variety of advantages to the nation which engages in it, these advantages may serve to overbalance the undoubted evils which it brings, so as to make war, in fact, not unfrequently a real blessing, always provided your quarrel be a just one. As it is probable, however, that no nation ever began a war considering themselves in the wrong, this proviso is not quite so important as it would seem.

No doubt, these views are not carried so far as we have pushed them here, by any very large number of persons; but that they are quite prevalent among the more zealous supporters of the justice and necessity of the present war, if