New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1873-09-04
The Aggressive Policy of Dcsput.
isms and S'ree Governments,


bic to conduc' himself with improperly to-
ward lis fellows. The spirit Of aggression
belongs rather 10 the despot than the free
man. In the very nature Of the case it is
allied more with drspotic than free Gov
eminent. For, the success Of the latter de-
tory as upon the contentcd disposition Of its
subjects, and the opportunities which those
subjects have nf ENJOYING life, liberty. and
the pursuit of what seems 10 them their high
est good. We think the worlds history
can be referred to, with confidence to prove
that the majority Of those Governments,
which have laid any claim to freedom, have
as general rule pursued a peaceful policy
toward other states. DespotiSms have ever
appeared to consider war and its corolaries,
conquest, plumber, and slavery, the elements
necessary TO their existence. Ii is scarcely
fair, we allow, to measure the policy of an
cient States with the same standard by which
We estimate the modern. Much allowance
must be made for the radical difference of the
times. The diffusion of knowledge, the i'm
provement in the condition of the laboring
classes, the increasing dread of excessive
wealth confined to the few, aud of abjcct
poverty diffused among the many, has
changed very materially the polity of modern
States. 1t has made free Governments
possible in sense not even dreamed of by
the most eminent philosophers of antiquity.
There was, rs Mr.. Mill in one of his dis
sertations Ton Grote's History Of Greece
asserts of Athens, " scarcely possibility of
permanent Improvement for mankind until
intellect had first asserted its superiority.
even in military sense, over brute force.
With the barbarous part Of the species press.
ing in all round to crush every early germ of
improvement all would have been lost if there
had not also been an instinct in the better
and more gifted portions Of mankind to push
for dominion over the duller and coarser.
Besides, in a small but hourshng free COM
munity like Athens, ambition was simply the
dictate of prudence. No such community
could have had any safety for its own free
dom, but by acquiring power
so much, as an explanation of the foreign
policy of Athens, a policy often too hastily
condemned when gagged by our modern
notions OF justice. We cite the Athenian
State as an instance, because it is the only
really free State Of antiquity which can be
said to have pursued an aggressive policy
toward other States. We have but to turn
to the despotisms Of Phillip and his son and
successor to see systematic course of agrees
sion. From the accession of Alexander to
his death in that last debauch, his career is A
marked example ofthe love of conquest which
seems to be leading trait of all despotislns.
The attempts Of. his great intator, Napoleon
l, to carry out similar schemes. and the Sec
ond and baser imitation of Napoleon III to
strengthen his empire in the same manner,
would seem to warrant this belief.
free government would be naturally
opposed TO war, unless it be waged to MAIN
tain the national honor OF resist the cncroach-
ments of tyranny, because wars and agrees
sions must bring increased taxes, which fall
always upon the people; they must interfere
with the pursuit of commerce and the cultiya-
ton Of agriculture. Even when war stimu-
lates trade, as il did in our late war, the
probable loss Of valuable young men must
lead any free government to hesitate before
resorting TOT it. Whether history is yet con-
ceded TO be a science, with certain nvarahle
laws governing it, and possessing unchange-
able characteristics, is still an open ques-
ton.
AT any rate we are justified in Judging the
conduct Of nations some what ny the past and
are warranted in estimating what the action
of certain States will be, by Our knowledge
Of what other States have done in similar
circumstances, making. of course, all due
allowance for differences Of time and ciyiliza-
ton. Self-preseryation led free Athens TO
conquest. Employment for her numerous
soldiery, plumber for her generals, and for
tunes for her bankrupt nobility, more than
The mere desire for larger domain, induced
tyrannical Rome To plant her standard on
every soil.
The leading idea Of the ancient Egyptian
and Assyrian despotisms was conquest. 1t
- typiied in the various nationalities repre-
sented as rendering tribute or conquered in
war, upon their tomhs and monuments.
nav more
pacific policy from various ,causes, because
the question of international law is better
understood; the idea of balance of power
is acknowledged, and because federal unions
have rendered individual States more secure
against aggression.
But In spite of these influences the despot-
isms of modern times have remained true to
the policy Of their ancient prototypes.
1t was our modern French despot who pre-
vented German freedom in ls4s. who nv his
very blunders made that liberty and unity
possible in 1866, who sought to conquer
Mexico and failed as VIGOROUSLY as his uncle
did before him in Egypt. II was semi
civilized Turkish despotism, which crushed
struggling Crete. Ii was the modern trum-
yirate Of despotism-Russia, Prussia, and
Ausiria-which blotted Poland out from the
map. We know that England has her con-
quered india that the United States pro.
voked war with Mexico. But Sepny re-
bellion has modified the rigor of English
rule, and the majority of the people Of the
United States opposed the Mexican war from
principle.
Aggressions may arise from religious zeal.
But free government is not so likely 10 err