war, must be for every such individual to decide for himself; but if any be in doubt on such a point, he may be consoled by the reflection, that he can yet serve the cause of peace in the regular discharge of his own professional duty. In extending the influence of the Gospel, in enforcing the law of love, the fundamental principle of Christianity, he is exerting a power to which none can object, and coöperating with those combined efforts which may, perhaps, with more propriety and efficiency, be committed to secular hands. We know not of any argument, beside those above considered, which can be brought with even the appearance of reason, against the associations of the friends of peace. The assertion, that their labors are useless, that they cannot contribute materially to the accomplishment of their object, is one of that class of discouraging predictions, much easier made than shown to be probable, and which, if believed in, would put an end to all exertion for the good of mankind. In our opinion, the very fact that such societies have been established, has done good. The few voices already raised against the custom of war, have been heard far and wide, and not heard in vain. The publications of the Peace Societies may have reached comparatively few; but the fact, that an attempt is making to free the earth from one of its most appalling evils, has become known and appreciated by thousands. That they can accomplish the immediate abandonment of war, is impossible; that their efforts will coöperate powerfully with the other causes now at work, under God's providence, in diminishing its horrors, and gradually banishing it from the world, is not only possible, but probable, we had almost said certain. God speed them in their noble work! The associated friends of peace have directed their attention to devising a plan for settling, without recourse to arms, those controversies between nations, which now too frequently terminate in war. Their favorite idea is, that of a council, composed of delegates from all civilized nations, to whom such disputes should be referred. We think they have been unfortunate in their choice of a remedy, and that a more simple and practicable plan, more consistent with the liberty of the respective nations, and with the general interests of the world, be adopted; nay, that it is even now, in many cases, acted on, and only requires some few and simple regulations, to render it of general utility. We refer to the employment of VOL. XXVI. 3D S. VOL. VIII. NO. II. may 24 arbitration, or mediation, by some power friendly to both contending parties. Our objections to the establishment of a Congress of Nations are, that it must either be inefficient for the objects it is designed to accomplish, or, if armed with power to carry its decrees into effect, that its organization will be inconsistent with the independence of the respective states, with the progress of liberty, and even with the permanent establishment of peace itself. Unless armed with power, such a tribunal must be inefficient. If it is a congress of sovereigns, or of ambassadors, authorized to act in all cases, if it has troops directly at its own disposal, or if it may call on one or more of its supporters for military assistance, its decisions may, for a time at least, meet submission. Were it even invested with a high degree of that moral power, that influence over public opinion, which marks the movements of a nation, it might be authoritative. A congress of sovereigns and plenipotentiaries would command respect, even if it were certain their decisions never would be enforced by arms. It is on this principle, of the factitious dignity of the judge, that arbitration rests. Any man, of common sense, could have decided the late question between the United States and France, as well as the king or the prime minister of England; and would, practically, have had equal power to enforce his decision; for the British nation never would sanction a war to give effect to a mediation. Why, then, did the parties respect the intervention of England? Because the mediator was one whose aid it was not beneath their dignity to accept; it was not the king personally, nor his ministers, nor his ambassadors; it was England, mighty England, who offered herself as a common friend. But a congress, or a court, of mere private individuals, not representing their respective nations, because not authorized to act for those nations, or bind them in support of their decisions, a court, simply, to judge such cases as should be brought before it, and without power to do more than recommend its determinations to the contending parties, the world is not yet wise enough to submit to the decrees of such a board of respectable private gentlemen, the only tribunal on earth possessed of no physical power, unless, indeed, we make an exception in favor of the Ecclesiastical Councils of Massachusetts. But if such a tribunal were, for any length of time, submitted to, it would soon acquire physical power. If it were a court of private individuals at first, it would be a very different body at the end of ten years. The fiend of ambition is not laid yet. Pretexts would not be wanting, upon which this court of nations might found a claim to control the armies and navies of its mighty constituents. In the very first instance in which such a court should decide against powerful injustice, if its decision was not obeyed, would not all the better feelings of humanity prompt the nations to carry that decision into effect, at the sword's point? This they might properly do, of their own sovereign choice; but if it were to uphold the decision of the grand tribunal of arbitration, that moment they would establish a sovereignty over themselves. The support, voluntarily given at first, would afterwards be requested; and if such requests were long complied with, it would soon be demanded as a matter of established right. Then let any nation disobey the mandates of the supreme Tribunal, and the standing armies of all the neighboring powers would be put in motion, to reduce it into order, under the specious pretext of maintaining the peace of the world. Will it be said, that the nations would know their own true interests better? We believe it, indeed, and the result we have already pointed out, in the entire inefficiency of the proposed tribunal; but if it were efficient, if its decrees were submitted to, it must be by a relinquishment of independence on the part of the different states. And let no one suppose, that this relinquishment would only extend to the right of making war. If the Tribunal had acquired the right of forcibly suppressing wars between the members of the great republic of nations, it would soon claim that of allaying intestine disturbances in the respective states. Civil wars are not less fierce than foreign; and the benevolence of the great council would surely interpose, to stop the effusion of blood; nor could this be done in any way so effectually, as by the presence of an overwhelming force. Now, though we would that the progress of reform could always be gradual and tranquil, we yet hold to the faith of our ancestors, that, when evils become insufferable, a revolution is necessary, though it may be accompanied with bloodshed. We believe, too, that, if foreign powers undertake, by force, to oppose the struggles of a people resolved on freedom, all they can effect will be to continue the contest for ages, with immense slaughter, while, otherwise, it might have been briefly and happily ended. "For Freedom's battle, once begun, We should then, regard, as an event of sad omen, the intervention of this Council of the world, to maintain the peace of Germany or Italy, against the efforts of the people themselves. It will be seen, that, if the above remarks are just, the establishment of such a council would not even secure the object for which it is proposed, that of peace. We cannot believe that the whole world would submit tamely to its sway; then, indeed, there would be peace, the dead tranquillity of despotism. The new principle of preserving peace will be like the old idea of the balance of power, a shadow, to secure which, nations, in former days, squandered the substantial means of greatness and independence. The balance of power, and the blessing of peace, are alike best secured, not by arbitrary arrangements for the purpose, but by a just, friendly, yet dignified and independent course pursued by each nation towards the rest. But the experiment of an International Tribunal is not altogether untried. The history of the world presents, at least, two instances of something approaching to that which has been recently proposed. The earlier of these may be found in the power claimed and exercised by the Popes, in the middle ages, to exercise control over sovereigns; and a more striking instance can hardly be imagined, to illustrate both the inefficiency of such a tribunal for the preservation of peace, and the danger resulting from it to the liberties of the respective states. Concessions were made to this great spiritual power, by the different monarchs, or extorted from them, deeply compromising their personal and political independence; and yet, if two of these same princes were engaged in war, and the supreme Pontiff interfered in the truly Christian character of a peace-maker, his voice, powerful as it was at other times, was unheeded amid the din of arms. Another instance, and still more in point, is furnished by the self-styled "Holy Alliance" of European sovereigns, organized with especial reference to the preservation of peace, and proving, in the end, a combination to put down every effort, which should be made by any of the nations, for the recovery or defence of their liberty. We have no desire, with these examples before us, to see the experiment of an international tribunal again repeated. It is well, in all projected improvements, to study the course of nature, and to identify with that, as far as possible, the efforts of our own art. The engineer would be regarded as mad, who should endeavor to construct a rail-road across some precipitous mountain, when a level route through broad valleys lay invitingly before him. And the philanthropist, in devising remedies for the evils of his day, will do well to watch the tendencies of society, and conform his plans to them, assuring himself that he will thus accomplish his object in the speediest and best manner. Such a course, in reference to the evils of war, is that indicated by the disposition of governments, in modern times, to refer subjects of dissension between them, to neutral powers, as arbiters or mediators. What reason can be assigned, why this mode of settling disputes, instead of being occasionally resorted to, if perchance one of the parties should desire it, should not be recognised by the common consent of nations, as in every case obligatory upon them? Let it be considered indispensable, before a state resorts to the law of force, that this mode of peaceably deciding every question be resorted to. And since nations, like individuals, are little disposed for peaceful measures, at the moment when they consider their rights as invaded, let advantage be taken of the period of peace, to prepare for that of hostile feeling. Why should not a section be inserted in all the treaties of our country with foreign powers, providing that, in case of future difficulties between the high contracting parties, neither nation shall have recourse to arms, until the methods of arbitration and mediation shall both have been tried and have failed? Were our country to set this glorious example, would not other powers soon perceive the reasonableness, the safety, the humanity, and the dignity of a similar course? Soon would our conduct be imitated, and a most powerful security given to the peace of the world. But whether such decided steps are taken by our country, or not, we have the satisfaction of believing, that the public opinion of the world at large will soon enforce the general adoption of this principle. A war now is not, as in former days, an affair only of the two nations engaged in it. It affects others also, commercially and politically. France cannot blockade Mexico, but that English and American merchants share in the suffering. The peace of all becomes, therefore, the interest of all. The voice of interest, then, will be listened to; and not that voice alone. There is a more generous spirit arising in the world; the traces are disappearing of that political bigotry, |