Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-12-22
AN INADEQUATE DOCTRINE"

appearance among US as if there still any pcr-
formerly inculcated. In fact, the Advocate seems
to realize that it has very limited field Of useful
ness In our country at the present time, and is
itself somewhat embarrassed to know how TO ~ de-
fine its position" as periodical opposed on princ-
pie to the whole theory of war, but at the same
time intensely devoted to the prosecution of the
particular war in which our Government is engaged
against the shareholders rebellion of the South"
Painfully conscious of the incongruty which exists
between the creed of the Society and the practice
of IFS modern disciples, the Advocate feels called
from time to time to defend the limitations and ap-
pcation Of its doctrine" against the cavis of such
among the more thorough-going and consistent
peacemen as are disposed to question the propriety
of that /" military strife with the Confederate
States" which the Advocate upholds and sustains
as "peace paper" Explaining its doctrine"
in the current number, it says:
sefpressrvaton ia an instinct in every animated be-
ing, absolute universal law Ii is to keep the weak
from berg oyerpowered by the strong that is made
social and civil government s ordained The prevalence
of the doctrine Of strict entire onrestance would in
troduce the reign OF violence and Danish peace from the
earth State certainly has the right to preserve aelf
aud whatever necessary TO that end it is its right and
duty to
g But it is replied we must not do evil that good may
come. Very well think. But killing man who
converts himself into wild beast ard society is
doing evil Society has claims upon no less Ger
taby than the OF violence The grandest incentive
crime confidence Of mpunity; and ts check is
the certainty of retrbuton The Southern States rushed
into this conflict under the that Yankees would
not fight and their orators pledged themselves that
ladys hmbe would hold all the blood that would be she'd
They believed But their people were slow to
the risk and the leaders precptated hosttes for the
avowed that this would fire the Southem heart
The North ready to argue and not ready to fight
The South then had the Government in their hands dung
long years of preparation for forcibe revolution but
they resorted to argument to loyal process for
constructing the nation They were resolved South
oigarcby, with Cuba and Mexico annexed. They
were to seize the capital President Davis to hold
evees in the White House. The country to be shver
ed and slavery and cotton to be supreme All nature aud
the voice of God commanded US to resist. :
Let be surprised at seeing in this periodical
peated declarations of true position and object 1t is
sent not subscribers only but to ministers others in
various places in single numbers and is scattered widely
tract The demands that be explicit; and
strictly nOIresstant friends and councillors have
right TO know not only ground but We bate
no title Of our opposition TO ioor as mode c settling tn
teTndtI0nat c0btrOUersies engine OF conquest
pacity revenge. The custom is utterly wrongs but
civil government hold TO be in its legitimate operation
quite distinct from thar of the and deserving
not of rebuke and resistance but cordial support by
good tho exercise of its right to enact and enforce
laws for the general wesl"
1t seems, therefore that the Advocate of Peace"
and the American Peace Society of which it is the
organ, are opposed to war only as GA mode of set
tlng international controversies, or as an engine Of
conquest, rapacity, or revenge" They are not
opposed to ciUil lodr as such-that is the war of
a lawful Government against nsurgents-though
civil wars, above all others, are fraught with the
direst evils which pertain to the wsr-Systen.
war in defence of civil government, we tod, is
quite distinct from war waged by one civil Gov.
ernment against another
1t is not doubted that there is distinction be-
tween civil and international wars. But if, as the
"Advocate Of Peace" argues, /" civil government
is ordained to keep the weak from being overpsw.
cred by the strong" and if selfpreservation is an
absolute universal law, we are curious to learn by
what process of ratiocinatiOn our contemporary
arrives at the conclusion that il is lawful to
defend civil government against the sggres-
sions Of portion Of its own Subjects but
not against the aggressions Of another power.
Why should the "absolute universal law of
selfpreservation be limited in its application
only to cases Of danger arising from within
State and not from Without Either the logic of
the Advocate is loose or its doctrine is unsound,
for certain it is that the logic is too wide for the
doctrine or the doctrine is too narrow for the logic.
In seeking to defend enough Of the war system
for its present purpose it has defended enough for
the purposes Of all who believe in the right of q
Government to protect its life and happiness, from
the assaults of foreign violence as well as from the
shocks of intestine commoion. When the Advo-
cate says that, since civil war Las come upon US,
:" peace men, like other good citizens, must leave
our Government at discretion to deal with it in
the usual way Of employing, if it can, all the
force requisite to put its laws in execution against
rebels just as against any oth>r class of criminals"
we are unable to perceive the validity of the
grounds on which it would deny to our Govern
ment the right to deal with foreign wrongs +" in
the usual way Of employing all the force requisite
to maintain our interests or our rights If it is
rightful, as the Advocate not only admits but af-
firms, to resist unto war this attempt Of portion
Of our own people to wrest eleven States from the
jurisdiction Of the National Government, we are
at loss to understand why it shonld be wrongful,
NIn A. IL