صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

portment throughout the whole business was perfectly correct.”

[ocr errors]

REMARKS. - From the summary which has now been given of the origin, progress, and result of the war between Mason and M'Carty, some useful lessons may be derived: First. We may learn the sentiments and character of a duellist. He is one who has so little of the fear of God before his eyes, as to despise the command, Thou shalt do no murder.' He has so little regard to the good of society, as to set the worst example of violating the laws both of God and his country. He is so deluded or so inhuman that, for the momentary gratification of the vilest passions, he will expose his family and dearest friends to years of bitter anguish and distress. He is one who, under the pretext of superior refinement, adopts some of the worst principles of Gothic barbarity. Disregarding the laws of civilized men, the duellists of our country meet each other in the field of battle with all the ferocity of savages," and settle their foolish disputes by sanguinary combat.

But is there no apology for such men? Should any one of them be indicted for murder, committed in a duel, might not the plea of insanity be successfully urged in his favour? Is it possible for intelligent men, free from insanity, to war like Mason and M'Carty? Are not men thus deranged as truly objects of pity, as the common residents of a madhouse? And would it not be wise and benevolent in the rulers of our nation—instead of multiplying military academies to provide hospitals for the safe-keeping and recovery of military maniacs ?-Such are the men who render wars inevitable. But,

Second. Such duellists as limit their

war-spirit to private combat, and do their own fighting, may still be called

[ocr errors][merged small]

What but the wickedness of such conduct can equal its meanness and inhumanity !

Third. Public war and private duelling are made of the same materials; false principles of honour and justice, and savage passions and manners.

Fourth. As in the private war under review, the Newspapers were the bellows for blowing the spark to a flame, so it is in the contests of nations. One incendiary editor may diffuse his own bad passions, or the malignant passions of another, and set the world on fire.

Fifth. In the battle of Mason and M'Carty we have an illustration of the common principles of defensive war. In public war, each party professes to act in self-defence, and accuses the other of being the aggressor. So it unquestionably was with Mason and M'Carty. Whichsoever of the two might be first in offending, in the course of the contest each became an aggressor. At the time of the decisive battle, it would perhaps have been difficult for any impartial man to decide which of them had been most abusive, or most to blame. Each was doubtless correct in accusing the other of injurious treatment-each fought in self-defenceand each was a murderer in the sight of God.

Sixth. From the statement of Gen. Mason's friends we infer, that, in the opinion of duellists, there is nothing "indecorous," nothing beneath their dignity, to meet each other in a field of battle, "with all the ferocity of savages"-nothing" indecorous" in the most wanton, malignant, and deliberate murder; and that a dispute between two such gentlemen may be honourably terminated" by one's murdering the other!

66

Whether such sentiments and such conduct are beneath the dignity of duellists, we shall refer to the judgment of those who are better acquainted than we are with that class of citizens. But we may venture to assert, that such sentiments and such

conduct, are far below the dignity of civilized, enlightened, and good men, and perfectly unbecoming the character of any man who deserves the name of a Christian.

Seventh. Notwithstanding all that the friends of Mason have said in his defence, or their own, this battle has been generally censured, as malignant, wanton, and barbarous. Mason "died as a fool dieth," and the bloody conqueror, like Cain, has fled to another country. But why this censure of the war between Mason and M'Carty? It was as necessary and as just, as public wars in general, and far less distressing in its effects. Here one man only lost his life one woman was made a widow; one mother was bereaved of a son; and one child lost a father. But in the more horrible contests of nations, how many thousands of men are murdered in a single battle! how many women are made widows! how many mothers are bereaved of their sons! how many children are made fatherless !—And for what is all this waste of human life, this bereavement and wo? To gratify such unworthy passions as are displayed by duellists, or to procure employment, money and fame for man-butchers, or for men who prefer living on human sacrifices to earning their bread by honest and useful labour !

It may be proper here to remark, that the battle now reviewed, was not accompanied with the conflagration of villages, nor the devastation of property. The conqueror does not boast of hanging captives, nor of burning 300 houses in one day. He is satisfied with having murdered his armed adversary, without heaping other mischiefs on a bereaved and innocent family. Satisfied! did I say? Far from this; he retired from the field of battle with " feelings amounting almost to hopeless and black despair."

Whether the conqueror of the Seminoles is worthy of more applause than the conqueror of Gen.

Mason, is a question on which the great men of our country seem to be divided in opinion; it is therefore a question which we shall leave for the consideration of our readers.

[ocr errors]

Finally. How unhappy is the lot of an amiable woman, when connected by marriage with a gentleman of honour"- -a professed duellist. How great must be her anxiety lest he should murder or be murdered! Let the extreme anguish of Mrs. Mason have its due influence on all females, and dispose them to proper exertions to put an end to such savage customs, as Duelling and War. Much might be done by the ladies with little expense.

The Cloak for Crimes.

"When a nation is in danger, whatever obstructs its preservation must yield for a time."

THIS principle was advanced by the Hon. Alexander Smyth, in his eloquent defence of Gen. Jackson. To enforce the principle, he quoted the following maxim "Amidst arms the laws are silent."

That wars are usually made and conducted on the principle and maxim now before us, we shall not deny. When the rulers of a nation wish for War, the cry is heard, "the nation is in danger." But nine times in ten, when this cry is raised, the great danger of the nation has probably consisted in the blindness and revengeful passions of its own rulers. This remark is intended as applicable to the aggressors in war, or those who are first in appealing to arms for the decision of a controversy.

Those who make and conduct a war on the pretext that" the nation is in danger," assume the right of determining what "obstructs its preservation," and what must " yield for a time." All men are liable to be misled by their passions-rulers and warriors not excepted. Hence the horrible atrocities which are committed in every war. Under the cloak of preserving the liberty and independence of

a nation, war-makers have often sacrificed the lives of their own citizens by thousands, and bound the survivors in the chains of despotism.

Whatever may be the real design of the war-maker, his avowed object is the good of the nation. If the principles of religion, virtue, justice, or humanity-or the love of God and man, are supposed to "obstruct" his designs, they must all" yield for a time," and give place to the most atrocious acts of injustice, violence, and barbarity.

On the very principle now in review were perpetrated all the horrid atrocities of the French revolution. Whatever party was in power, to preserve the nation from impending danger was the professed object. And under this pretext hundreds of thousands of human beings were sacrificed to the ungodly ambition or diabolical fury of a few desperate and infatuated demagogues. To the same principle we are to attribute the innumerable murders, massacres, and conscriptions of Napoleon Buonaparte. Under the cloak of love to the French people, he ravaged Europe, violated the rights of all within his reach, caused the death of millions, and filled his own country with oppression, mourning, and wo.

The principle which Mr. Smyth has, avowed was the pretext for the offensive acts of Great Britain; her impressment of seamen, her orders in council, her capture of the Danish fleet, &c. &c. The nation was in danger, and whatever was supposed to obstruct its preservation was made to" yield for a time."

On this principle, the people of the United States have established a military despotism as a defence of liberty and equal rights, and have deprived 15 or 18 thousands of our citizens of the unalienable rights of freemen, and reduced them to the degraded condition of slaves. This principle has also been a pretext for wars on the diminished tribes of our red brethren, for pursuing them

with deadly and exterminating rancour, and for associating our people with one tribe of savages to destroy another.

"Amidst arms the laws are silent;" that is, during the ravages of a public contest, if laws oppose the warrior's object, they are disregarded, as of no authority. This is as true of the laws of God as of the civil laws of a state. No command or prohibition of Jehovah is so sacred or important as not to be treated as subordinate to the will of a military commander.

But may we not safely affirm that the principle advanced by Mr. Smyth is wicked and immoral, even when the danger of a nation is real? It is the same as that of doing evil that good may come, or doing certain injustice to others to save one's self from probable calamity. It also involves the Jesuitical principle-that a good end will sanctify the basest means. If the principle were just, when a nation is in danger of war, it would be right to employ assassins to destroy the most efficient characters in the nation from which the war is apprehended, or to destroy the instigators of war in one's own country. Indeed it is questionable whether this mode of proceeding would not be less unjust, less expeusive, and less calamitous, than the usual modes of appealing to arms; but as it is not common in this age, the bare proposition would justly fill the minds of men with horror.

When the late war commenced on the Indians, the Seminoles were in very great danger. Suppose then that, on Mr. Smyth's principle, the Seminole chiefs had employed some desperate ruffians to assassinate or poison Mr. Monroe and General Jackson; who would not have been shocked at the horrid proceeding? Yet in what respect would this have been worse than hanging captive chiefs, after the alleged danger of our nation was supposed to be at an end?

The rights and dangers of a

community are the rights and dangers of its individual members. If no individual may righteously adopt and apply the principle of Mr. Smyth for his own preservation, no community has a right to adopt and reduce it to practice. If a community has a right to adopt it, so has every individual; and it may as properly be urged in defence of piracy, highway robbery, and private murder, as the more enormous crimes of public war. The principle is not only unjust and immoral in its nature, but it opens the door to every species of abuse, injustice, and atrocity. On some account and in some degree, every nation is always in danger. But when no peculiar dangers really exist, such dangers may be imagined or pretended. Then every thing which ambition, avarice, or malignity shall say "obstructs its preservation, must yield for a time." The histories of wars, both ancient and modern, clearly show, that this abominable principle has been the bane of human happiness, the pretext for the most flagitious deeds of rapine, violence, and devastation, and the refuge of the most abandoned murderers.

We shall not deny that the principle is authorized by the law of nations; but we may boldly assert, that what is called the law of nations, is to a dreadful extent the law of barbarity and injustice. Though some improvements have been made within a few centuries; it is still but a barbarous code. It authorizes deeds of violence and injustice far more horrible than those for which pirates and highwaymen are usually hanged in our country.

There can hardly be a deed committed in the wars of our times, so atrocious, as not to find an apology in the examples of former ages, and in the law of nations; and when such authority is found, many appear as well satisfied, as though the deed had been expressly enjoined by the God of Heaven. But let the same deed be compared with the

example and precepts of the Prince of Peace; it may then appear a crime of the deepest die, proceeding from motives abhorrent to the benevolent mind, and to every Christian feeling.

How very small is that portion of the conduct of nations at war, which can possibly be reconciled to this heavenly precept- All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do even the same unto them!' Is it not then a disgrace for Christians to support a custom that so flagrantly violates the precepts of that benevolent and humane religion which they profess? Is it not a shame for them to attempt to justify by the law of nations, a course of conduct which is positively forbidden by the law of God?

By disregarding the laws of Heaven, as they relate to rulers and nations, and by making the precedents of former barbarians and the fallible law of nations the directory, and the criterion of right or wrong, the Christian world has been for ages filled with violence and wo;-millons of men have been annually trained to the business of human butchery, and the reproach of man has been accounted his greatest glory.

If such are the principles and maxims of war; such their direful effects; and such the law of nations, is it not time that they should be discarded and abolished by every Christian people?,

It may truly be said of the people of the United States, even at the present time," the nation is in danger." With equal truth it may be affirmed, that its greatest danger results from its guilt, and from the popularity of the principles and spirit of War among ourselves. These endanger the nation a hundred fold more than all the savages of our forests, or the armies of foreign countries. But it should be understood, that the very things which endanger the nation, are the things which "obstruct its preservation," and which should

"yield for a time." Let it then be the aim of every man who has the welfare of the country at heart, to do all in his power to eradicate the fatal principles and spirit of war, and make them" yield for a time," and for ever, to the benign principles and spirit of Him who "suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps." Such a construction and application of Mr. Smyth's principle, would do more to preserve the nation, than millions of such inhuman acts as he was dis

posed to justify, or than all our military and naval establishments.

The foregoing Remarks have not been designed to reproach either the Hon. Mr. Smyth, Gen. Jackson, or any other man; but to expose a principle, which has been the ruin of nations, which has licensed this globe as a vast slaughter-house for human victims, and licensed men to become the tormentors and destroyers of their own species.

SONNET

BY JOHN DAWES MORGAN,

Written in a Grotto containing the Busts of illustrious Heroes.

DECK'D with bright guerdons of immortal fame,
In native splendour Albion's heroes shine;
A wondering world resounds their boasted name,
And twining laurels deck their brilliant shrine.
But say, cherubic train, whose flaming choir

Fill with ecstatic lays the vocal sky;

Are these the race, whom heav'n's eternal Sire
Views with peculiar smile and fav'ring eye?
Go,-to yon moss-clad cell direct thy feet,

There shall thine eyes a nobler Hero view;
See suppliant Faith infernal powers defeat,
And heavenly Grace Corruption's might subdue.
This lowly Conqueror of himself survey,

And ah! how mean is Grandeur's dazzling ray!

« السابقةمتابعة »