Essays and Reviews
War and Loyalty
by Orestes A. BrownsonAn Oration delivered before the Authorities of the City of Boston in the Tremont Temple, July 4, 1946
by Fletcher Webster
Boston. Eastburn 1846 8vo. pp. 33Our orators have invested the Fourth of July with so many disturbing associations, that our citizens are gradually becoming less and less disposed to greet its annual return with those festivities which it was the hope of our fathers would continue to 322 mark it through all generations to come. Still, it is a day sacred in the affections of every American citizen, and it cannot come round without exciting lively emotions of gratitude and joy in every American heart. The birth of a nation is an event to be remembered, and the day on which it takes its rank in the family of independent nations is well deserving to be set apart by some service, at once joyous and solemn, recounting the glory which has been won, the blessings which have been received, and pointing to the high destiny and grave responsibilities to which the new people are called.
The orations ordinarily given on our national anniversary are of that peculiar sort which it is said neither gods nor men can tolerate. They are tawdry and turgid, full of stale declamation about liberty, fulsome and disgusting glorification of ourselves as a people, or uncalled-for denunciations of those states and empires that have not seen proper to adopt political institutions similar to our own. Yet we may, perhaps, be too fastidious in our taste, and too sweeping in our censures. Boys will be boys, and dulness will be dulness, and when either is installed "orator of the day," the performance must needs be boyish or dull. But when the number of orations annually called forth by our national jubilee, from all sorts of persons, throughout the length and breadth of the land, is considered, we may rather wonder that so many are produced which do credit to their authors, and fall not far below the **ion, than that there are so few. All are not mere school-boy-productions; all are not patriotism on tiptoe, nor eloquence on stilts. Every year sends out not a few, which, for their sound sense, deep thought, subdued **ission, earnest spirit, manly tone, and chaste expression, deserve an honorable place in our national literature. There **axeand perhaps as large a proportion as we ought to expect Fourth of July orators, who, while they indulge in not unseemly exultations, forget to disgust us with untimely rant about self-governmen@ the marvellous virtue and intelligence of the masses, and the industrial miracles they are daily performing; who show by their reserve, rather than by their noisv declama- 323 tion, that they have American hearts, and confidence in American patriotism and American institutions. A people not factitiously great has no occasion to speak of its greatness; and true patriotism expresses itself in deeds, not wores. The real American patriots are not those shallow brains and gizzard hearts which are alwavs prating of the American spirit, American genius, American interest,-, American greatness, and calling for an American party., but those calm, quiet, self-possessed spirits who rarely think of asking themselves whether they are Americans or not, and who are too sincere and ardent in their patrotism to imagine it can be necessary to parade its titles. Their patriotism has no suspicions, no jealousies, no fears, no self-consciousness. It is too deep for words. It is silent, majestic. It is where the country is, does what she bids, and, though sacrificino, all upon her altars, never dreams that it is doing any thing extraordinary. There is, perhaps, more of this genuine patriotism in the American people than strangers, or even we ourselves, commonly suppose. The foam floats on the surface, and is whirled bither and thither by each shifting breeze; but below are the sweet, silent, and deep waters.
Among the orations delivered on our great national festival, which we would not willingly forget, the one before -us by Mr. Fletcher Webster, eldest son of the Hon. Daniel Webster, deserves a bioh rank. It is free from the principal faults to which we have alluded, simple and chaste in its style and language, bold and maiily in its tone and spirit, and, in the main, sound and just in doctrine and sentiment. It frequently reminds us of the qualities which mark the productions of the authors distino,uished father, and which have placed him at the head of American orators; and it bears ample evidence, that, with time, experience, and effort, the son need not be found tmwoithy of such a father.
Certainly, we do not suhcribe to every sentiment, view, or arOlUMeDt Of this eloquent (ration; but we like its frank and maniy tone, it:, independent and earnest spirit, and we accept without reserve the leadino, doetrin(,, it was designed to set 324 forth. We are also grateful to Mr. NVebster for having ha4 the moral courage to assert great truths in a community where they can win little applause, and to administer a. well merited rebuke to certain dangerous ultraisins when and where it was not unctlied for. He has proved that he is not unworthy to be, reckoned a freeman and a patriot, and he deserves and will receive the approbation of all who can distinguish between words and things, and prefer sound sense and solid wisdom to mad fanaticism and bollow cant. It is cheering to find our young men rising above the tendencies of the age and country and madifesting some respect for the wisdom and virtue of their ,ancestors, and indicating that they have some suspicion that III that is wise and just was not borti with the new generation and possibly may not die with it. It permits us to hope thinus may not have gone quite so badly with us as we had feared; that the people are less unsound at the core than we bad dared believe; that, after all, there is a redeeming spirit at work among them; and that our noble experiment in behalf of popular in. stitutions may not be destined to a speedy failure.
Our great danger lies in the radical tendency which has become so wide, deep, and active in the American people. We have, to a great extent, ceased to regard any thing as sacred oi venerable; we spurn what is old; war against what is fixed; and labor to set all religious, domestic, and social institutions afloat on the wild and tumultuous sea of speculation and experiment. Nothing has hitherto gone right; nothing has been achieved that is worth retaining; and man and Providence have thus far done notbidg but commit one continued series of blunders. All things are to be reconstructed; the world is to be recast, and by our own wisdom and streD(Ytb. We must herrow no light from the past, adopt none of its maxims, and take no data from its experience. Even languaoe itself, which only embodies the thought,,;, convictions, sentiments, hopes, affections, and aspirations of the race. cannot serve as a med'am of interCourse between man and man. It is not safe to affirm that black is black, for the word black only names an idea which th# 325 past entertained, and most likely a false idea. With such a tenklenev, wide and deep, stron(y and active, we cannot but apprebend the most serious dangers. With it there can be no permanent institutions, no government, no society, no virtue, no well-being.
There is much to strengthen this radical tendency. It is natural to the inexperienced, the conceited, and the vain; and it can hardly fail to be powerful in a community where these have facilities for occupying prominent and commanding positions. YOUDO- enthusiasts, taught to "remember, when they are old, not to forget the dreams of their youth," that is, not to profit by experience, and not doubting that what they were ignorant of yesterday was known by no one, and that they must needs be as far in advance of all the world as they are of their own infancy, bring benevolent affection, disinterested zeal, and conscientiousness to its aid; political aspirants, reckless of principle and greedy of place, appeal to it as their most facile means of success; and the mass of the people, finding their passions flattered, and their prejudices undisturbed, are thrown off their oluard, presume all is right, and cherish unconsciously the enemy that is to destroy them. A factitious public opinion grows up, becomes supreme, to which whoever wishes for some consideration in the community in which he lives, must offer incense, and which he must presume on no occasion to contradict. The majority of the people, indeed, may not be represented by this opinion,-may, it is true, not approve it; but they are isolated one from another, minding each their own affairs, and ionorant of their numbers and strength; while, the few, by their union, mutual acquaintance, concert, and clamor, are able to silence any single voice not raised in adulation of their idol. Political parties conspire to the same end. One party to-day, ambitious of success, courts this factitious public opinion as a useful auxil@.ary, and succeeds; the other must do so tomorrow, or abandon all hopes of succeeding. Then follows a strife of ch shall bid highest, parties, whi and outradical the other. The radical tendency is thus daily exaggerated by those who iu 326 reality disapprove i@ and in their feelings have no sympathy with it. Ifence, the evil goes ever from bad to worse. Un happily, this is no fancy sketch. We have seen it, and we see it daily pass under our own eyes, and not, we codfess, without lively alarm for our beloved country and her popular institutiods.
It i s, therefore, with more than ordinary pleasure that we see among our youn- men, in whose bands are the destinies of our country, whose views and pas-,ions and interests must be consulted by any party aspiring to power and place, some symptonis of an opposing tendency. Right glad are we that the young "sovereigns" show some signs of beginning to take SOUDDer and more practical views, and to cherish a reaction against the ultraisms of the day. This oration, and some other indicatiODS, which have not escaped our notice, prove to us that there is a returning respect for the wisdom of experience, and that the reign of the Garrisons, the Parkers, the Sumners, the O'Sullivans, the Cliannings, the Abby Folsoins, et id oinne qenus, appreaches its termination, and that henceforth practical sense and wise experience will at least dispute the throne with fadatic zeal. blind enthusiasm, and bloated conceit.
In preparing this oration, Mr. Webster must have been conscious that he was running athwart the views of many whom most of us have bee@ accustomed to hold in high esteem, and tl)at, in venturing to assert the lawfulness of war and the obligation of the citizen to obey the government, he would be attacking every class of fanatics in the land, and could not fail to incur the unmitigated wrath and hostility of the whole modern " Peace" party. Yet his courage did not fail him. He does not appear to have had any misgivings before even the awful shade of the late Noah Worcester, founder of the American Peace Society, and be has dared consult his relations as a man and a citizen, and to lay it down as his rule of action, that he is responsible, not to the self-created associations of the day, to the reigning catit of the time and place, but solely to his God and his country. For this, however much be may be condemned 327 oy Fanatical reformei-,,,, we lionor him, and for this every rightininded mai-i will lionor him; for in this be has asserted his in. dependence, and set an example worthy of imitation. The main topic of this oration is the lawfulness of war, and the duty of the citizen to obey the governments topic at all 6mes intei-estiii(r and important, and especially so at this time, when we are actually engared in a war with a neighboring republic, the necessity of which is questioned by many of our citizens; and when there is widely prevalent a notion that the citizen is under no moral obligation to obey the law, if it does not chance to coincide with his own private convictions of justice and expediency. We arree in the main with the view of this topic which the author takes, and gladly avail ourselves of th@ occasion to make some additional remarks of our own, which may tend to illustrate and confirm it, though the readers of the oration may, perhaps, consider them quite superfluous.
The war of 1812, declared by this country aoainst Great Britain, a-, is well known, was exceedingly unpopular in the New .England States,-not, indeed, in consequence of any especial partiality for Great Britain herself, nor because they were less patriotic than the other members of the confederacy, but because the chief burdens of the war fell upon them, in the ruin it brought to their commerce and its dependent interests, then their principal interests. It is not for us to pronounce any opinion on the justice or expediency of that war; but we cannot censure with extreme severity the New England people for being stronaly opposed to it. Yet there can be no question, that, in the madness of the moment, the opposition was cai@ed to wholly unjustifiable lengths, and, though we willingly acquit it of all treasonable inteiitions, it in r eality stopped only this side of treason' Some weak-minded but well disposed New England i-n'-isters, incapable of taking comprehensive views and of seek;n(,r to remedy an evil by attacking it in its principle, seeing th6 Jano,er to the union, to the stability of our institutions, occa. stoned by the opposition to the war, which they never thought 328 Of censuring or attempting to moderate, lamenting the very so. rious evils suffered by their friends and nei@ylibors, and taking it for granted that the war was wholly unnecessary and unjust, made the grand discovery in moral theology that war is nzalgtm in se, is always unnecessary, and can never be lawful. They without much delay proceeded, more suo, to form an association against war, and to preach, lecture, and issue tracts in favor of universal peace. They appealed to the prejudices aoainst the actual war, and to general philanthropy. New Englanders, especially Bostonians, are rarely insensible to the appeal to philintbropy. Since the soaening down of some of the asperities of their primitive Puritanism, which took place in the latter half of the last ceiftury, they have been justly remai-kitble for Ctieir philantbropy,-no people in the world more so, Industrious, frugal, economical, they certainly are; but mean, sordid, miserly, they are not, and are incapable of beino,. They are, in truth, open, frank, generous, and liberal, with a sort of passion for world reform, which is one of their foibles. The unpopularity of the war of 1812, and the popularity of the ippeal to I)I)ila.. tliropy, gave to the peace movement a speedy and strong support, till peace became a sort of cant among us, and it was ba-zai-dous to one's reputation to intiiiiate that war, terrible as may be its evils, is nevertheless sometimes just and necessary.
But the genuine Yankee is never satisfied with doing only one thing at a time. He is really in his gloi,y only when be has some dozen or more irons all in the fire at once. The simple question of peace could by Do means absorb his superabtindant zeal and philanthropy, so lie invented and set on foot antislavery and various other movements, all of which adopted the it peace principle;" for the chief actors in one were, for the most part, prominent actors in all. By means of agitation, froth and foam, declamation and rant, Of COnV@ntiOnS, agents, tracts, lectures, sermon,,, periodicals, a Dew cod,, of morals has been gradually trained ,imoti(r us all that wis once regarded as settled is now cilled in question what was approved bv the generations which preceded us is now pronounced low, eartiliv sensual, &vil., I 329 ish; the fairest reputations are blackened; our own patriots and heroes are calumniated, and even Wasbincyton himself has been publicly branded as an " inbutyilu butcher." We are cast ,ompleteiv adrift. There was no true morality in the world before these modern societies spi-unr from the womb of night, and we are required to look to a few canting ministers, strolling -pinsters, and beardless youths, as the sole authoritative expounders of the precepts of the divine law. We are unable to determine what it is safe to eat or to dritil@, when to rise up or sit down, unless some of these self-constituted guides condescend to inform us. Sin and death hover everywhere; poison lurks in everv thing, even in the bread ni de from the finest wliea@ and in the purest water from the fountain; aid there seeing to be no possible means of living but to go naked and cease to eat or drink. It is a wonder how the world his contrived, for six thousand years, to get on, how men and women have contrived to be born, to live, to grow, and to persuade themselves that they enjoy a tolerable share of health and vigor, both of mind and body.
The joke, in fact, becomes serious. Many of the rising generation are beginning to take it, not as a dull jest, but as downright earnest. It interferes quite too much with the social and domestic business of life, and, if continued much longer, will reduce the great mass of us to mere automata. It is, therefore, high time for what sober sense, for what decency, there may have been left in the community to speak out, send these fanatics back to their native inanity, and let it be known, that, though for a time we have suffered ourselves to be made fools of, after all, we are not quite so stupid, so vain or conceited, as to imagine that nobody understood or practised the moral virtues till our modern associations burst from darkness to teach them; that we really have riot sunk so low as to lose all respect for our ancestors, all reverence for the awful past, over which has flowed the tide of human j,)y and human sorrow, and to be ivbolly unable to serve our own generation without calumiiiating those which have placed us in the world and made us what we am 330 He is a foolish as well as a wicked son who curses the mother that bore hii-n. There has been, from the first, a Provideric(3 that has watched over and ruled in the affairs of men; our distant forefathers had eyes, ears, hands, intellects, heart,-,, as well as we, and knew how to use them, and did use them not always ineffectually. How, indeed, would the hoary Past, were it not that experience has made it wise and taught it to make allowances for the follies and pranks of youth, laugh At our solemn airs and grave decisions 1 How should we hano, our heads and bluslr, even to the tips of our ears, could we but for one moment see ourselves as it sees us! " The son," says the proverb, " tltinks his father a fool; the father knows his son to be one." The more we sttidv what has been, the less disposed sball we be to exult in what is. Happily, we begin to discover some syrnptol,ns that there are those among us, who have, now and then, at !east. a suspicion that change is not always progress, and that it is more creditable to be able to revere wisdom than to cont(,mn it.
NVar, i(yainst which nearly all our modern fanatics declaim so much, and which in the iiew moral code is utterlv prohibited, is, of course, not a thing to be sou(rbt for its own sl@e. Its iiecessitv must alwtys be lamented, as we must always larinent that t@ere ' are crimes to be redressed, or criminals to be punished, or diseases to be cured. But because we must always lament that there are offenders to be punished, it does not follow that to punish them is never necessary, or that their punishment is an evil, and morally wrong; or because it is to be regretted that there are diseases, that we must treat the physician and his drugs as a nuisance. The further weeps that be has occasion to ebasti,,,e his child, but knows that " to spare the rod is to spoil the child;" nor does it necessarily follow, because war involves terrible evils, and is to be avoided whenever it can be without sacrificing the public weal, that it is in itself wrong, and mav never be resorted to without violating the law of God. Its necessity is an evil, but, as a remedy, it may be just and beneficial. lxwme is au evil, but not, therefore, the medicine that restores 331 to bealfh. War is a violent remedy for a violent disease, and a,-, such may, when all other remedies prove 01- must prove ineffectual, be resorted to without sin. We, therefore, venture to maintain, in the very- face of our modern fanatics, that war declared by the sovereign authority of the state, for a just cause, and prosecuted with right intentions, is not morally wrong, ard mav be engaged in with a safe conscience.
That war is not morally wrong, in itself, is evident from the fact, that Almiobty God has himself, on several occasions, as in the case of the ancient Israelites, actually commanded or approved it. But God cannot command or approve what is morally wroii(r without doing wrong himself; which is absurd and impious to suppose. It cannot be in itself morally wrong, unless probil5ited by some law; but there is no law which prohibits it. It is not prohibited by the law of nature. By the law of nature, the individual has the right to defend and avenge himself. Justice not only forbids wrODg to be done, but requires that the wrong done be avenged. In a state of nature where there is no established goverdi-nent, but each individual is left to his own sovereignty, each one has the rioht of depending and avengin(r himself in his own hands. If this be true of a private person, it must also be true of the state or nation; for nations have precisely the same rights in relation to one another that individuals have. They then, who adinit no law but the law of nature,, must concede that war is not prohibited.
-Nor is war prohibited by the divine law. This all will read!ly grant to be true, so far as concerns the old law, which no. where condemns war, and not frequently presents us God himself as commanding or approving it. It is also true, so fax as concerns the new law, or Christian law. 11 If Christian discipline, " says St. Augustine, " condemned all ways, the Gospel would have given this counsel of salvation to the soldiers who asked what they should do, that they should throw away their arms and withdraw themselves from the military service altoge.ther. But it says to them, 'Do violence to no man, calumni. ate no one, and be content with vour wages.' St. Luke iii. 14; 332 Surely it does not prohibit the military @rvice to those whom commands to be contented with its wages." *
Our Lord, St. Alatt4 viii. 10, commends the faith of a CelItL rion who had soldiers under his comniadd, say-, he had rot found so great faith in Israel, and yet does not order him to throw away his arms, or abandon the military service. C;)rnelitis, Acts x. 2, 11 a centurion of the band which is called Italian," is commended as "a religious man, feai-ino- God; " and the blessed Apostle Paul, Heb. xi. 32-34, pi,aises Gedeon, Bai@,ic, Samson, and others, " who tbi-ouolh faith subdued kingdoms, became valiant in war, put to flight the arinies of foreigners." These considerations show that war is not prohibited by the Christian law. Then it is prohibited by Do law, and therefore is not necessarily sinful, but may be just and expedient.
But it is objected, that there are certain passages in the LNew Testament which, if not expressly, yet by implication, evidently deny the lawfulness of war. 1. "All that take the swor@l sball perish by the sword." St. Matt. xxvi. 52. But to tali:e the sword is to use the sword without the order or consent of the proper authority. He who only uses the sword by order or consent of the proper authority, that is, of the political sovereign, if he be a private person, or of God, if he be a public person or sovereign prince, does riot take the sword, but simply uses the sword committed to him. Nor are we to understand that all who take the sword on incompetent authority will be literally slain, but that they will perish by their own sword, that is, be punished eternally for their sin, if they do not repent.t 2. "I say unto you, not to resist evil; but if any man strike *11 Nam si Cbristiana discipline omnia bella culparet, boc potius militibus consiliutn salutis petentibus in Evangelio diceretur, ut abjicei,ent arena, seque omnino militiee subtraherelit. Dictum est aiitein eis, Veinineni concusse)-itis, nuili caluni?ziam feee?-itis; sufficiai vobis stipendiizni vestrunt. Quibus pi-oprium stipeiidiuni sufficere de- bereproecepit,militareutiquenonprobibuit." Epist.V.,.ddMareel. linum, @. 2. 15. n, t See St. Augi-,stine, Contra Faust m, lib. 22, c. 70, and St. Thonu% Summa, 2. 9 Q. 40,., a. I. 336 thee ontry igbt cheek, turn to him the other also." St. MatL v. 39. AA7"at is resistance of evil; but this text forbids the re. @t@ince of evil; tliey,@foi-e it forbids war. But the precept re- fei-s to the interior disposition, and commands that preparation of the. heart which does not resist evil by rendering evil for evil, uut endures patiently whatever wrongs or injuries are necessary for the boner of God and the salvation of men. It is not to be understood to the letter, for our l,ord, who fulfilled it, when struck it, his face, did, not turn the other cheek, but defendoo Liiiiself by reasoning. It commands patience under wronos and insults, and forbids us to seek to avenge ourselves on our own authoi l@v; but it does not prohibit the redress of wronys by the prefer authorities; because we know from the testimony of St. Paul that the magistrate is " the minister of God, an aven(ret to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Rom. xiii. 4. Wroncrs, when redressed by the proper authority, may be 'redressed without any malignant feelin(rs, and, indeed, with the lno$t benevolent intentions towards the wi-ono,-doer. Wrous are not, in all cases, to go univenged, otherwise God would not have appointed a ministry to avenge, them. It is often the greatest of evils to suffer offences to go unp unisbed, and one of the most certain methods of preventing them is for the riagistrate to let it be known -tnd understood that they cannot be coiumitted with impunity.* *11 SLi-iit ergo ista prweepta patienti@ semper in cordis prmparatione -e-tinenda, ipstque benevolentia, ne reddatur malum pro malo, semper in troluntate complenda est. Agenda sunt auteir. multa, etiam cum iiivitis bpnigna qiiadam asperitate plectejidis, quorum potius utilitati consulejida est ciuam voluiitati........... Nam in corripiendo '@ilio quamlibet aspere, nunqiiam amor patei,iius ae.ittitur. Fit tamen quod no lit et doleat, qui etiam vi(letur dolore sanaiidus. Ae per boe si terrena ista respublica p@eepta Christiana custodial, et ipsa bella sine bellevolentia non gerentur, ut ad pietatis justitimque pacatam societatem victis facilius consulatur. Nam cui licentia iniquitous eripitur, utilitei-, vincitur, quoiiiam nihil est infelicius felicitate peccatitium, qua pcenalis nutritiir impunitas, et mala voluntas velut hostis interior roboratur." S. Aug. ubi sup. et de Serat. Domiiii, lib. 1, c. 19, and also St. Thom. as, ubi sup. 334 3. '-Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place to v.,Yatb; for it is written,. Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord." Rom. xii. 19. This, though relied on by the peace party, is not to the purpose, for it speaks of pri. vate revenge, which every body admits is condemned by the Christian law. It is of the same import with the text we have just dismissed. It simply commands patience under injuries, forbearance towards those who do us wrong, and forbids us to seek redre@@,s of wrongs done us in a resentful spirit, or by our own bands or authority. BiA it d@ not necessarily imply that the public authority, which is the minister of God, n-ay not redress them, or that the commonwealth may not repel or vindicate attacks upon itself, whether they come from within or from without. To avenge wrongs is not in itself wrong, because it is said the Lord " will repay;" nor is it wrong for the m4sti-ate to avenge them, for "he is the minister of God, an avenger," as we have seen, "to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil;" and it is wrong for the individual to do it only because in civil society his natural riobt to do so is taken away, and because it is made his duty to leave it to God or the minister God in his providence appoints.
4. 11 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but powerful through God." 2 Cor. x. 4. But St. Paul is speal@ing, not of the sword which the magistrate bears, nor of that which the sovereign state, as the minister of God to execute wrath, may put into the bands of it-, servants, but of the weapons to bE used in the conversion of infidels and sinners. These, indeed, are not carnal, but spiritual, and powerful through the virtue God confers on them. Carnal weapons are unlawful in the work of conversion, for conversion is not conversion unless voluntary. God says to the sinner, " Give me tby heart," that .'s, tby will; and this cal-Dal weapons can force no man give. It can be subdued only by spiritual arms, rendered effectual through divine grace. But this says notliidg against the lawfulness of repellidir or avengin(y injustice wh@tber from suljects or i'oreiffn. as, by the proper autht)-.'Ities. These several texts, tJ@,-n, @e 335 nothing Vainst our general conclusion, that war is not, in aU cases, prohibited by the Clii,istiatA law.
but we ti-e told, still further, tlaat war is opposed to peace yet the Gospel is a Gospel of peace, commands peace, and pronounces -,t blessing on peacemakers. " Be(iti pacifici, quorian filii Oei vocabitntur." St. Matt. v. 9. War, undertaken for its own '-,ake, lookiii(r to itself as the end, is opposed to peace, and unlawful, we grant; but way, undertaken for the sake of obtaining ,t just and lasting peace, is Dot opposed to peace, but may be the only means possible of restoring and securing it. Peace is then willed tfie intentions are peaceful- and war, as a necessity, becomes itself a peacemaker, and as such is lawful, and its prosecutors are not necessarily deprived of the blessing pronounced on peacemakers. Hence, St. Augustine says," Pacem habere debet voluntas. bellunt necessitas, ut liberet Deus a necessitate, et conserver in pace. -LVon enim pax quceritur ut helium excitetur, sed helium geritur ut pax acquiratur. Esto er,qo etiam bellando paeificus, ut eos quos expugnas, ad pttcis utilitatem vincendo perditcas." * The peace is broken, not by the just war, butby the previous injustice which has rendered the war necessary. The war itself is, necessarily, no more repuo,nant to the virtue of peace than medicine is to health. The mission of our Saviour is not opposed to peace, because followed by certain evils of which he speaks, St. Matt. x. 34-36, and which were not the end for which be came into world. Tbt, preacl.ino, of the Gospel is not inconsistent with the virtue of peace, because, tlirouoh the depravity and wickedness of men, it often occasions discord, divisions, and even wars; nor do they rvho faithftill preach it any the less "follow after the thinfrs y which make for peace." In asserting that war is not necessarily unlawful, we are far from pretending that all wars are jus@ or that war may ever be waged for slight and trivial offences. The n-ation is bound Studiously to avoid it, to forbear till forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and appeal to arms oiilv as the last resort, after all other * Epist. 205, dd Bot?ifaciiiin Comitem. 336 appeals have failed, or it is morally certain that they must fa',I. But wl)en its rights are 'seriously invaded, when the offender will not Iliiten to reason, and continues his injustice, the nation iiiav appeal to arms, and commit its caise to the God of battles, The responsibility of the appeal rests on the offender whose injustice has provoked i'@.
It may be said that war is unjustifiable, because, if all would practise justice, there could be no war. T ndoubtedly, if all men and nations were wise and just, wars would cease. We nii@),ht then, in very deed, " beat our swords into ploughslare-, and our spears into pruning-books," and learn war no more. We should, mot in vision only, but in reality, possess universal peace. So, if all individuals understood and practised the moral and Christian virtues in their perfection, there would be no occasion for penal codes, and a police to edforce them. If no vi-on(,Ys or outrao-es were committed, there would be none to be .0pressed or punished. If there were no diseases, there would -ie none to cure. If the world were quite another world than it is, it-would be. But so long as the world is what it is, so long as man fails to respect the rights of man, the penal code and police will be necessary; so lono, as diseases obtain, the physici,,tti and his drugs, nauseous as they are, will be indispensable; and so long as nation continues to encroach on nation, the ao,-; grieved party will have, the ri(yht and be compelled to defend and aven(re itself by an appeal to arms, terrible as that appeal )Day be, and deplorable as may be the necessity which dein,inds it.
Tl,ie evils of war are great, but not the greatest. It is a greater evil to lose national freedom, to become the tributaries or the slaves of the foreigner, to see the sanctity of our homes invaded, our altars desecrated, and our wives and children made the prev of the ruthless oppressor. These are evils which do not die with us, but may descend upon our posterity thrc)uoh all cor@iino, generations. The man who will look tamely on tnd see altar,, and home defiled, all that is sacred and dear wrested from him, and his country stricken from the roll of nations, has as little reqsor. tc applaud himself for his morals as for his manliood. No doubt, philanthropy may weep over the wounded and the dying; but it is no great evil to die. It is appointed unto all men to die, and, so far as the death itself is concerned, it matters not whether it comes a few months earlier or a few months later, on the battle-field or in our own bedebambers. Thff evil is not in dying, but in dying unprepared. If prep,ared,-and the soldier, fighting bv command of his country in her cause, may be prepared,-it is of little consequence whether the death come in the shape of sabre-cut or leaden bullet, or in that of disease or old age. The tears of the sentimentalist are lost upon him who is conscious of his responsibilities, that be is commanded to place duty before death, and to weigh no danger against fidelitv to his God and his country. Physical pain is ii@t worth counting. Accumulate all that you can imagine, the Christian greets it with joy when it lies in the pathway of his duty. He who cannot tlke his life in his band, and, pausing not for an instant before the acetin)ulited tortures of years, rush in, it the call of dutv, where "blows fall thickest, and blows fall heaviest," deserves rebuke for his moral weakness, rather than commendation for his " peaceable dispositions." War,, we have been told, cost money i and we have among us men piquing themselves on their lofty spiritual views, aqcusitio, the age of being low and utilitarian, and setting themselves up as moral and religious reformers, who can sit calmly down and cast up in dollars and cents the expenses of war, and point to the amount as an unanswerable argument aoainst its lawfulness. War unquestionably costs money, and so do food and clothing. But the sums expended in war would, if applied to that pur-I)ose, found so many schools and universities, and educate so i-nany children! The amount expended for food and clothing would found a larger number of schools and universities, and educate a larger number of children. You should ask, Dot, Will it cost money? but, Is it necessary, is it just? Would you weigh gold in the balance **ustice, patriotism,, he@ 338 -,Iiik back to ,-oui- tribe, and never aspire to the dignity of beino, contemptible. 0 But havino- established that war may be necessary and n _just, the question comes tip, What is the duty of the citizen or subject, when his government is actually engaoed in war ? This is a question of some momen@ especially at the present time, when there are so many among us who entertain very loose irlotions of Allegiance, and hardly admit that loyalty is or can be a virtue. We may answer, in general terms, that, when a nation declares war, the war is a law of the land, and binds the subject to the same extent and @lor the same reason as any other law of the land. The whole question is simply a question of the obligation of the citizen to obey the law. So far as the subject is bound to obey the law, so far be is bound to render all the aid in prosecutin(r the war the government commands him to render, and in the form in which it commands it.
If the government leaves it optional with the citizen whether to take an active part in the war or not, he is unquestionably bound to remain passive, if lie believes the war to be unjust. Consequentlv, no foreigner, owing no allegiance to the sovereign niakitio, t@e war, can volunteer his services, if he entertains -.ny scruples about its justice. But the subject, though entertaining doubts about the justice of a given war in its incipient stages, believing his government too hasty in its proceedings, and not so foi-I)earin(r as it might and should have been, yet after the war has been declared, after his country is involved in it, can retreat only by sufferiDO' grievous wronos, and seeks now to advance only for the purpose of securing a just and lasting peace, may, no doubt, even volunteer his active services, if he bonestly believes them to be necessary; for the war now has changed its original character, has c@ed to be aggressive, and become defensive and just. In such a case, love of country, and the general duty of each citizen to defend his country, to preserve its freedom and independence, override the scruples he felt with regard to the war iL its incipient stages, and enable him to take part in it with 339 a safe conscience. But, however this may be, it is clear, tha4 when the government has actually declared war, and actually command,,, the servic . of the subject, be is bound in conscien@ wliate%,er may be his private convictions of the justice of the war, to i-eii(tei- them, on the ground that be is bound in conscience to obe.v the law. If he takes part in obedience to the command of the government, he takes part, even thou-11 his private con- viction is aiiainst the war, with a good conscience; because the niotive from which lie acts is not to prosecute a war he does not reo,ard as just, but to obey his sovereign, which he is not at liberty not to do, and which he must do for conscience' sake. The law binds in conscience, because all legitimate govern- anent exists by divine appointment, and lia,- a diViDe right to make laws. For the same reason, then, that we are bound in conscience to obey God, we. are bound in conscience to obey the law. The sovereignty resides in the nation, but @ derived from God. Per me reges regnant, et legum conditoresjusta decern-ttnt.
13 y me kings reion and lawgivers decree just things." Prov. viii. 15. " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but from God; and the powers that are, are ordained of God. Therefore be that resisteth the power resist- eth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase damnation to themselves." Rom. xiii. 1, 2. Since, then, the nation is sovereign bv di%-iiie al)pointi-neiit, it follows necessarily, that, when the sovereign authority of the nation declares war, and commands the services of the subject, be is held, on his allegiance to God, who is the King of kings and Sovereign of sovereigns,. to render them, and cannot i fuse without purchasing damnation to himself. The nation is not constituted soverei-n by the a,-,sent of the individuals of which it is composed, for it must be a sovereign nation before individuals have or can have the right of assenting or dissenting. The error of Rousseau and of some of our own politicians is in assuming that the sovereignty, the authority to institute government, to make and execute laws, inheres primarily in the people distributively, as equal, independent individu- 340 als, and is subsequently possessed I)v the people collectively, as a political oi-(ranism or pet-son, by N-ii-tue of the assent of the people taken distributively. The notive foi, acin,ooatin(y this view in twofold: the first s, to make the basis of sovereignty pui-elv hitman; and the second, to take from actuallv existino- goveriirnerits all @laims to inviolability, and thus establish a sort of legal -iyht on the part of subjects to rebel aoainst the constittited autl)orities, whenever they judge it to be expedient. The, doctrine is the offsprino- of an age disposed to revolt from both God and the state, and can be regarded oniv with horror by the Christian and the patriot. The true doctrine is, that every nation, that is, every people taken ' collectively, a,-, a moral unity, as a collective individual, is, by the fact that it is a nation, sovereign, and sovereign bv the ordinance of God. Being thus invested by the di%,iiie will with the political sovereignty, the nation acting in its sovereign capacity has, saviny the divine law, the rioht to institute such forms of government, or to adopt such methods for the expression of its sovereign will, as it in its pi-udeiiee judges best. It may institute a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a ptit-e democracy; it may combine these three forms, or any two of them, in any proportion and degree, and establish such mixed governments as it pleases; or it may reject all these forms, and, as with us, establish representative government, to be carried on through the medium of popular election. Which is wisest and best is for each nation to decide for itself. In point of fact, we suppose all are best where they fit, and worst ,%vhere they do not fit. But however individuals may speculate, and whatever preferences as simple individuals they may have, the nation acting in @ts sovereign capacity is the sovereign arbitet-, and alone decides which sball be adopted, and having once decided, that form which it adopts is legitimate, exists by divine right, and its legitimate acts are laws, and bind in the interior as well as in the exterior court. This is as true of the actual American goverDrEents as of any others. The American people were created by their colonial governments, established -by legitimate authority, bodies corl)o. 341 rate and politic subject to the crown of Great Britian. But the r,barters granted bv the crown, creating the colonial governiiient-,, and reserving the allegiance of the colonies, expressed or necessarily implied reciprocal obligations. There was an express or implied contrac t between the crown and the colonies. When the crown, on its part, broke the contract, as we alleged it did, it forfeited its rights, and the colonies were ipso facto absolved from their allegiance, and necessarily became ipso facto free and independent states or nations, as Great Brititin herself subsequedtly acknowledged them to be. As independent Dations, they possessed by the ordinance of God, who makes every nation, in that it is a nation, sovereign, the right of self-government, and were free to devise and adopt such forms of govern.. meD@ not repugnant to the divine law, as they in the exercise of their sovereign wisdom judged to be most expedient. They, in the exercise of the right given them by Almigl)ty God, established the representative form of government, under a fedei-al head. This form of government, therefore, exist.-, with us @, divine right, is an ordinance of God. As such it is sovereig@ and inviolable; a,-, such it has from God authority to enact lanvs for the common good. Then, since we are all bound in conscience to obey God, we are bound to obey the government, and when it enacts war, just the same as when it enacts any tliino- else
Ic,-norant, conceited, and unbelieving politicians, who would be free to rule, but not bound to obey, may affect to be startled, whenever there is speeder of the divine right of government; but we really say nothitio, that militates in the least conceivable de,yree against popular sovereignty. Our real offence consists, not in denying the popular sovereignty, but in asserting for it a divine sanction. What, indeed, is it we say? Simply, that the nation, that is, the people as a moral unitv, or collective individual, as distinguished from the people taken distributively, is sovereign by the ordinance of God; from which it follows, that the people taken distributively owe allegiance to the nation, and are bound to obey all the sovereign enactments of the government, not 342 mere] v because it is human government, but because it is human govcrnitient goveriiiii(r by divine right. This abrido'es no right oi' the sovereiod people, but confirms its rights by tl!e hifhest of all possible sanctions. It leaves the nation free to adopt, if it eliooses, a pure democracy, and commands us, even though indin@idually disappi-ovino- that form of government, to obey it for conscience' sake. In a word, the doctrine we lay down makes tli(,, nation-that is, the whole people taken collectively-soverei,rn and inviolable, and the form of government it adopts, legit i,nate and sacred, as the ordinance of God. It no doubt, therefore, slai-nps with the divine as well as the national displeasure what by a strange perversion is termed sometimes " the sacred right of insurrection," and utterly condemns all attempts at rebellion or resistance to establish government, in the legitimate exercise of its legitimate functions, as so many attacks on the inviolability of the nation, and therefore on the inviolability of God himself, who ordains that every nation, in that it is a nation, sball be sovereign and inviolable. It can tolerate Do efforts of an per- y tion of the people to change by violence any established form of government for the sake of establishing another form which they may believe to be more for the common good. But it leaves individuals perfectly free to labor through leoal forms, in an orderly manner, for the amelioration of the laws and institilfions of the, country, and the nation itself, when acting in its, sovereign capacity, as we did at the epoeli of what we call our Revolution, or as we do thtotiuh, the legal conventions of the people, to change even the form of the government, and to ordain such new methods for the expression of its sovereign will as it may believe to be most for the common good.* It leaves the people as the commonwealth and the people as individuals all the freedom there is this side of license, and forbids nothing that is compatible with national sovereignty and inviolability. It can be objected to, then, by none who are not prepared to object to all government, all law, and all order. * See St. Th., Sunima, 1. 2, Q. 97, a 1, and St Aug., De Ube" .drbitrio, I., c. 6. 343 The duty of obedience to law is precisely the same under a republican government as under any other form of government. For though the people make the law, yet it is not in the same sense as that in which they are held to obey it. They make the law in their collective sense. as a moral unity, or public person; they are held to obey in their ditributive capacity, as simple individual,. In their quality of electors, acting throu(,Yli le(ral forms prescribed by sovereign authority, the people with U.@ make the law, but it is only when so tcting that they malc It, have any voice in making it, or incur ,tuy responsibility, be the law what it may. As individuals aetin(r in any other capacitv, they are subjects, and in the same sense and to the same extent as they would be in case they edjoyed no elective francliise at all. The law is as imperative with us as it is under any other form of gon,erninent, and can no more be resisted Nvith a safe conscience fhan elsewhere.
This assumed, the individual in his qujity of subject stands here in relation to the law precisely as he does in those countries Nvllere there is no elective franchise. He incurs, indeed, as elector, a responsibility for the law, and cannot be exempted from blame, if he have not done all in his power to mal@e the law just and useful; but when the proper -,authorities have enacted and promulgated the law, he in his quality of subject incurs no responsibility by obeying it, in consequence of his respoiisibility as an elector in making it. The act of making the law was not his individual act, and lie is responsible for it, providido, he acted with proper motives, only so far as he went to make up the collective unity that enacted it. But the act of obedience or of disobedience is purely his individual act, and is unaffected, as obedience or disobedience, by any act of his performed in another capacity, in which he acts not a-, an individual, but as a part of a whole. Suppose, then, I look upon the war declared by my government as udiust or uncalled for. This may be a good reason why I should exert myself in my quality of elector to get the law declining it repealed, but it leaves me in ii)y qtialitv of subject precisely where I should be in case I 344 had no elective friiicliise, I am just is much bound to obey the law declaring the war, iiid incur no more blame for aidiiio in prosecuting it. The citizen, when he believes a law Unjust is doubtless bound as an elector to seek its repeal; but till repealed, he is as much bound to obey as he would be if he were no elector, and only a simple subj ct; and being so bound, i& curs no blame in obevin(y it, that he would not then also incur.
But is there no limit to this obedience to law? Have I riot the ri(rht to judoe the acts of authority, and decide for myself whether they are such as I ought or ought not to obey ? That is, Does or does not the law depend on the assent of the governed for its validity ? It is a sort of maxiin with us Ai-nericans, that no man can be justly held to obey a law to which be has not assented. This, taken absolutely, is not admissible. The soverei(yn authority resides in the people as a whole, taken colleetively, not in the people distributively, and is derived not from the people as individuals, as Rousseau dreamed, but from God, a,, we have before proved from the Holy Scriptures. Moreover, to make the law depend on the assent of the governed, that is, on the assent of the subject, is to deny that the law is law, that the subject is a subject, and to assert that one is bound by no law, but free to do as be pleases. There can be no legitimate government unless it have the right to govern, and there can be no ri(yht to govern where there is not a correlative obligation to obev. If the law cannot bind the subject till he gives his assent, and he is free to give or withhold his assent, lie iF,, iDd can be, under no obligation to obey unless be chooses, and then there is no ri(ybt on the part of the government to enforce obe(iience; then no right to govern; and then no government. To make the law depend for its validity on the assent of the governed is, then. the denial of all governments But governineiit exists by divine right. It has from God the right to cornmand. Then it is not under the necessity of entreating or requesting the subject to be so complacent as to obey. The law, then, is complete, the i-noment it is enacted and promilgated by the proper authority. If the law is then coi-nplete, the sub- 346 ,iect has no assent to give or withhold, no jti(l@y-ment to form, no recision to take, but that to obev.
Nevertheless, there is a sense, in this Gantry, and perhaps iii all countries, in which it is true that tl-ie a-sent of the governed is essential to the validity of the law; but this is the assent they give in their quality of electors, tlirouo@h the medium of their representatives in enacting tl)e law, not an assent wbi@h they give a,,, subjects to the law after it is enacted and I)roi-nulgated. The distinction is ol)%Tious and important. It is only in our quality of electors, throuo-li the medium of our representatives, that we have any legislative authority, -tny assent, to give or to withhold. But in this quality we have tli-eadv assented to the law, otherwise it could not have been enacted, since there is no power with us but the people in this quality and through this medium that does et, can inak(@, the law. Havin(y thus @sented, ii,,iy, enacted the law, we leave no more assent to give, and it would be absurd to seek, after this, the assent of the people in their capacitv of simple individuals, in which they are simply @llbj et,,, and have no legislative voice whatever. Having spoken,once in our legislative capacity, as electors, throuoli our represeiitatives, we must obey, till, by speaking again in the same capacity and through the same medium, we repeal the law. That is, when the people have made the law, they must obey it, till they, through the forms through which they made it, repeal it.
But laws inav undoubtedly be unjust. Am I bound to obey unjust laws ? @,Ve will let St. Thomas answer this question for us. " Laws imposed bv human authority may be either just or unjust. If they are indeed just, they bind in conscience, by the eternal law from which they are derived, according to Prov. viii. 15,-'Per me ?-eyes regnant, et l@qum conditores justa decernunt.' They are just when they ordain what is for the common good, when enacted bv an authority wliici@ does not exceed its powers, and when they Distribute in 'e,ltial proportions the burdens they impose upon the subjects for the common good. For, since each man is a part of the i-oultitticle, everv man I)elon(rs to the multi 346 tukl-e in that which he, is and in that which he has, in like man. ner as the part belnii(,Ys in what it is to the whole, and hence nature allows a certain detriment to the part that the whole may besa%,ed. Consequently, laws of this kind, which proportion equally the burdens imposed, are just, bind in conscience, and are legal laws. Bub laws may be unjust in two senses. 1. By contrariety to humai?, good, in the respects just mentioned. They are unjust, when a prince imposes burdens on his subjects, not for the common good, but rttlier for his own glory or cupidity, wlied they exceed the commission or the authority which ordains them, and when the burdens they impose, even though for the common good, are not equally proportioned. Such acts are violences rather than laws, as St. Augustine says, -De Lib. Arb., I., c. 5.-'Lex e8se non videtur, qu(e justa non fuerit.' Laws of this kind do not bind in conscience, unless, perchance, for the avoiding of scandal or disorder, for which a man must forego his own rifyhts, according to St. Matt. v. 40, 41,-' Qui anyariaverit te mille passus, ?,ade ezim eo alia duo; et qui abstulerit tibi tunicam, da ei et pallium.' 2. Laws may be unjust by coiitrai-ietv to divii),e good, as the edicts of tyrants commanding idolatry or other tliin,),s forbidden -t)v the divine ltw. Such laws are to be observed in no sense whatever, since, Acts iv., it is necessary to obey God rather than men." *
The principle is, that all just laws bind in conscience; bu4 with regard to unjust laws, we i-nust distinguish between those which are unjust because they ordain what is repugnant to human good, and tl)ose which are unjust because they ordain what is repugnant to the divine law. Tile latter do not bind, but we are bound in conscience to refuse to obey them at all hazards; the former, when they only reqtii i-c us to suffer wroii o- -and if they go fai@tber and command us to do wrong, they are identical -,vith the latter,-we may obey, and tre bound to obey, when our disobedience would cause scandal or breed disturbance in the state.
But m ho is to determine whether the laws are just or unjust ' Suiizma, 1 2, Ques 96, a. 4 347 Not ab-,(- lutely in all casi,@s the state, for that would make the distinction between just and unjust laws nuo,,atory, since the state, in enactin(r a law, decides that it is just; not the individual, for that would make the law depend on the assent of the subject for its legality, which we have seen is Dot the fact, and cannot be the fact, if we are to have government at all. There is here, to many minds, no doubt, a serious difficulty; but, without con,-;i(lei@in(r it in a light which would involve a controversy foreifyn to our present purpose, we may answer the question by laying down the principle, that authority is always presumptively in the right, and the law prima facie evidence of justice. The onus probandi rests on the shoulders of the subject, who must prove the law to be unjust, before be can have the right to refuse it obedience. For this his own private judgment or conviction can never suffice. If he can allege nothing against the law but his own individual persuasion of its injustice, he is bound, by his general obligation to obey the laws, to obey it. No one, then, can ever be justified in disobeying on his own pri%-ate authority. He must sustain his refusal to obey by an authority higher than his own, higher than that of the state, or else he will be guilty of resisting the ordinance of God, and, therefore, purchase damnation to himself. Hence, where tnere is no infallible authority to decide, the subject must always presume the law to be just., and faithfully obey it, unless it manifestly and undeniably ordains what is wrong in itself, and pro- bibited by the law of God,
This rule may strike some as too stringent, but, if examined, closely, it will be found to allow all the liberty to the subject compatible with the existedce of government. If, for instance, the government should command me to lie, to steal, to rob, to bear false witness, or any thing else manifestly against the law of nature or the law of God, I should bold myself bound to disobey, and to take the consequences of my disobedience. So, also, if my government should declare war against an unoffending state, manifestly for the purpose of stripping it of its ter. ritorv, destroying its independence, and reducing its people to 348 slaverv or for thc- purpose of overthrowing the Christian religion and substituting, a false religion, and should command me to aid it in its nefarious desi(yns, I should hold myself bound in conscience to refuse at all hazards; for such a wax would be manifestly and palpably unjust, not in my judgment only, but in that of all sound-minded men. Such a case would be clear, and duty would be so plain that no question could arise. But in a case less clear and manifest, in a case where ' there was room for doubt, for an honest difference of opinion, I should hold myself bound to obey the orders of the government, for conscience' sake, leaving the responsibility with it, sure of incurring no blame myself.
In conclusion, we say, that, though we have defended the lawfulness of war, when declared by the sovereign authority, for a just cause, and prosecuted with riulit intentions, we have no sympathy with that restless and ambitious spirit that craves war for the sake of excitement or glory. Only a stern necessity can ever justify the resort to arms, and that necessity does not in reality often exist. In most cases, the war, with a little prudence, a little forbearance, a little use of reason, might be avoided; and a terrible responsibility rests upon rulers when they unnecessarily plun(ye two nations in the horrors of war. Yet it I)elongs- to the sovereign authority to judge of the necessity of the war, no less than to declare it; and when not manifestly and undeniably for that which is wrODO' in itself, the subject is bound to obey, and give his life, if need be, for his country. But the subject can, with a good conscience, fight only under the national banner. He can never justly fiobt under the bloodred flag of the factiodist or of the revolutionist. The, loyal subject hears no call to the battle-field but that of his sovereign. This sovereign be hears, by him he stand-,, for him he is ready to fight against any enemies, from within or from without. But therp he stops. Ile can join ivith no factioii, with no party, against the legitimate authorities of his country. No dreams of free institutions, of popular government, of an earthly par@ dise can make Iiiiii raise the parricidal hand, and seek by vio- 349 lence to overthrow le-itii-nate government, and introduce a new n institutions, and political order. No, dearly as we love liberal a,,, ready as we are to spill our bloo in ',heir defense wlier6 they are the legal order, we would rush to the side of authority, and spill the same blood against them, if there were an attempt by violence to introduce them. True freedom is only where the law is supreme, and the law is supreme only where the people reverence it, and feel themselves bound by their duty to God to obey it.
Adapted from
Essays and Reviews p. 321
Brownson's Quarterly Review, October, 1846
Works, Vol. XVI, p. 1
Revised January 8, 2005.