LETTER XXXVII.
Dear Charles,—It is well for the dignity of your reverence,
that your head was not within arm's length, when you
wrote your ergo—“a conservative is the most pugnacious
fellow on earth!” We would have ascertained the length
and tenacity of your ears. Whereas, we are so little pugnacious
that we fight tooth and nail against war, for instance,
almost to the very verge of a Quaker's yea and nay doctrine.
And on that topic, since you wish an opinion, my opinion
is that of all wise—(hem!)—and moderate persons; and of
course is, I presume, your opinion. I maintain that war in
pure self-defence is right—in all other cases wrong. I maintain,
moreover, that in the present state of the world defensive
preparations are a means of preventing war; and that any
contrary opinion, while it may seem to be very meek and
amiable, is preposterous and presumptuous. I maintain, still
further, that the deliverance of weak nations against the
tyranny and despotism of mighty ones, may be very justifiable
cause of war; and provided the right and justice be
on our side, and a war of defence has become inevitable, it
seems not materially to alter the case whether we always
strike the first or the second blow. For, if the unrighteous
nation stands in the posture of an assailant, and merely waiting
the most favorable opportunity to commence its assault,
if it can be crippled in the means and intruments of violence,
so as to render the meditated violence impracticable, there is
the same obvious reason for a preventive blow on our part
here, as in a private case where we, in a state of nature in
person, or in a civilized state by the agency of the magistrate,
cripple the threatening assassin or wrest away his weapons.
True, many errors, arising from prejudice, anger, cowardice,
jealousy, suspicion, may occur in the application of
this rule, or in acting according to any war or self-defensive
principles; but such possibilities only teach the necessity of
greater calmness, caution, forbearance, prudence, benevolence.
Possible or even probable evil is by no means a
conclusive argument against the practice or use of a grand
and important rule. If so, most rules are wholly impracticable.
And even granting that error always attaches to action
on the self-defensive principle, the evils arising are vastly
less than would follow from our refusing to defend ourselves
or our country when assaulted with a murderous intention
on the part of the assailants. The very few instances in
which a refusal to defend ourselves has disarmed an assassin,
and preserved both our lives and property, can be easily accounted
for, without supposing Heaven designed to teach
that men would always be providentially delivered, if they
should remain passive! There may be times and occasions
when circumstances prevent or forbid the use of the naturally
appointed means of defence; and then we may, without presumption,
look for special deliverance by unusual means.
But in instances almost innumerable, helpless innocents, who
not only made no defence, but were actually incapable of
defence—nay, who were earnestly supplicating for mercy—
have been brutally violated and then demoniacally murdered!
In such cases, we learn that passivity is not only unavailing
to preserve life, but is the very reason why life is destroyed.
Charles, I apprehend if Granddaddy Thompson, of Hoosier
memory, had been within rifle-shot when certain miscreants
were stealing towards their victims to violate and to murder,
jurors would have been saved the risk of perjury; and
the rescued victims, with their agonized parents and friends,
would have thought, as they clasped their deliverer to their
hearts, that no harm had been done.
But, Charles, while we say all this, and are willing and
ready to go far, when, with right and justice on our side,
either collectively or individually, we strike aggressive or
defensive blows to protect life or liberty, yet in all other
respects we belong to the peace society.
I cannot, Charles, see the truth, nor feel the force of any
arguments drawn from the mere love of national glory and
national honor. What is society, whether on a small or a
large scale, other than an aggregated individual? It may,
indeed, be conceived as consisting of a thousand hands; a
thousand heads; and, if you please, a thousand hearts; or
all these multiplied a thousand-fold more; but, while such a
political being may accomplish, in every conceivable way,
a thousand-thousand times beyond the natural and personal
individual, is there,
can there be any other law for the government
and guidance of that multiplied individual, than the
law that governs and guides the single individual?
The combined man, it is true, may in that capacity be a
sovereign; and since no adequate earthly tribunal exists to
which its rights and wrongs may be referred for adjudication,
it may redress its own wrongs and defend its own rights:
yet here regard must ever be paid to a moral law infinitely
superior to any combination of human beings—nay, if a combination
were to comprise all the created individuals of the
universe!
The maxims, the rules, the obligations of eternal justice
bind, and with no possibility of the least exception, the community
as stringently as the individual; and no mere might
or opportunity can confer right. Hence all must concede
that communities may not take advantage of weakness in a
neighbor to invade their possessions or wrest away their
land; and if one community be indebted in money or produce
to another, it is no less base to elude or refuse payment,
than for a single debtor to defraud his personal creditor.
A community may, indeed, as the individual, become
insolvent; but that insolvency, without the creditor's consent,
can no more morally free in the one case than the
other. The doctrine that teaches contrary to this, under any
pretext whatever is sheer and hypocritical villany; an eternal
stigma, through all coming ages of the world's history,
is indelibly branded on the shameless brow of mobocratical
demagogueism—and the black scorchings of the stamp have
left there repudiation. All this is felt to be true. Logic
cannot and does not create that feeling, although sophistry
is often employed to weaken that feeling or to eradicate it.
Where, then, is exception in favor of national honor and
glory found? Wherein does the combined man differ from
the separate man, that what is puerile, weak, base, unholy,
in the latter, is not and ought not to be essentially so in the
former? By what transformation, plea, or veiling, or coloring,
do we so frequently, after discerning the ugliness of
temper that leads the duelist into the field in defence of
his honor at every paltry insult, real or imaginary, all at once
discern the glorious beauteousness of national grandeur appealing
to arms to assert its dignity? How comes it to pass
that individual forbearance and gentleness are so amiable,
while national is so distasteful? We praise the man who,
rather than lose his time, embitter his temper, waste his
means, or injure his philanthrophy, forgoes a small and
righteous claim; but we vituperate and scorn and taunt a
grand community which, acting on the very same principles,
is ready, for the sake of peace, to give up an unimportant
right!
Will it be said that a nation, from what is called a
pusillanimous behaviour, would be exposed not only to the
contempt of the world, but to fresh insult and aggression?
I answer, first, that it is true of nations, and especially of
great and powerful and brave nations, what is sometimes
true of rich and generous men—such can afford to wear an
old coat. Yes, Charles, our good old relative, Uncle Sam,
can afford to wear an old coat or even a shocking bad hat,
and to do some things as well as others without fear of disgraceful
charges, or with a conviction that such charges will
be deemed a silly lie. The old gentleman can outlive them!
But is it so certain that appeals to the good sense and religious
and moral principles of Christian nations, which the
example of a great nation's forbearance and patience would
set to the world, must, of necessity, be answered by scorn
and aggression? It is, indeed, almost certain that such a
people as ours, that could magnanimously and bravely dare
to yield a comparatively small and undoubted right, rather
than wage a bloody and demoralizing war, would receive the
hearty applause of the world now and through all enduring
time. If forbearance and gentleness and humanity disarmed
not an enemy, and that enemy misinterpreting our
conduct, and imputing it to cowardice or other base motives,
adventured to be unjust again, and, in common parlance, having
got the inch, proceeded to take the ell, then might we
fight with a safe conscience, and with the very approval of
the Most High himself. We had retreated to the wall; and
if the enemy died in his unrighteous assault, his blood would
rest on his own head.
Without running the doctrines of ultra peace societies to
their full extent, I cannot but believe, however, that a special
Providence would be exerted in defence of virtuous and pious
nations as of similar individuals, who refused to take the
sword in aggressive wars, or for the mere avenging of insulted
honor, or to gain a military reputation: and that such
communities, if defensive war became inevitable, would be
victorious.
In conclusion, dear Charles, I must express my belief
that sentiments like these, when they leak out, render my
chance for promotion in the army rather slim: but, perhaps,
this will prove no great loss, as we abound in here with conscientious
and unconscientious fighting folks numerous as
you do out there; and who go for all Oregon and our country
—right or wrong! Several of these benevolent heroes,
by the way, have drunk so much for the honor of their
country and the justice of her claims, as to have acquired
noses fiery enough to touch off a cannon!—Bang!
