The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1874-08-16
SOME PECULIAR FACTS IN HISTORY.
BRITISH THEORY OF WAR VS.. THAT OF CON-
TINENTAL NATIONS.
Comparative Destruotiveness of Weapons Used
IFrom the St. Louis Republican

IFrom the st. Louis Republican,
The congress of European powers, whic
began its session in Brussels on the 27t
nit, has as yet given out but very little @
It's work beyond a general outline of wha
it is proposed to do. The object of tn
conference, in general terms, is to provid
for mitigation of the horrors of war; t,
prescribe rules where only usages, Deepen
dent upon the precarious will of com
handing officer for their observance, hav,
hitherto prevailed. The prime mover il
this laudable scheme is the Emperor Alex
ander of Russia. whose advanced notions
of humanitarianism were alluded to in the
Repu6lican two or three Sundays ago. The
main object of the Russian government
however, seems to be diplomatic rather
than philanthropic, inasmuch as the bulk oil
the labors of the, conference is directed
towards lessening the destructiveness to life
and property of naval warfare. This fact
| the British government has already ac-
nature of Russia's objects, and she has
| entered her protest in the shape of refusal
to participate in or be bound by the action
of the conference.
In this connection it is of interest to
note fact that we have selCom seen ad-
verified to-. 1t is the essential difference
between the Anglo Saxon theory of war
fare and that held by the more despetic
nations of Christendom. In discussing
this point we will take England as the
Apglo-Saxop representative, and Russia,
Austria. Prussia and France as the repre-
sentatives of the counter idea. The two
ideas of warfare which we are about to
contrast may, for the sake of convenience,
be named the British and the Continental.
The Continental idea contemplates war as
struggle between two or more govern
ments. That is to say, between the gov
ernments as individuals, and it has always
been held under this theory that a state of
antagonism between the individual citizens
of each respectively. This theory is
corellary to the despotic or autocratic
theory of government, in which the citizen
is contemplated as merely an atom in
mass, and his individuality sunk in the
single personality of the government.
Hence the war of 1866 was between the
Emperors William and Francis Josepb
that of ls7O-l between William and Louis
Napoleon, and that of 1855 between
Nicholas and the Allied Powers. With
this theory the idea of warfare under a de-
fined code is perfectly compatible.
But the British theory of warfare, which
is also the American theory, involves all
the antagonisms that can be aroused and
all the appliances of destruction and con-
quest that can be invented or imagined.
Remorseless commandments, confagrations
of ships and dwellings,, close confinement
of prisoners of war, retaliatory executions.
frequent sackings and occasional butcheries,
all go to show that the British theory of
warfare contemplates enmity toward indi-
vlduals as we'll as toward governments.
This Is one point upon which Great Britain !
and the Continental powers in session at
Brussels radically disagree: The Cont
they call &c an idea :" that is to say,
consideration. But England
never fights except for a material object. |
and then she fights in very material way
and generally with strikingly/ material |
results. Take the history of the last one |
hundred and eighty years. beginning with
Marlborough and ending with Sir Garnet |
Wolseley, and we find that in point of
destructiveness and un-
mercy English warfare has been the most
oarbarons waged. Savagery has been the
rare exception with the Continental ma
ions; 80 rare that it has found but two
really prominent opponents, Butcher and
5uwarrow, and these have been frequently
called crazy because of their excuses. But
joae OF Butchers pursuits ever approached
n terocity Wellington's following up of |
victory in Spain, nor did any of Suwarrow's
outcherles ever assimilate in horror the
n urderous retrlbutions of the English upon
NE East Indian mutineers. All the Cont
rental nations fought the First Napoleon
With what was for them unexampled Zero.
lily, because they deemed him an usurper,
'ut 1t remained for England to adjudge him
) feion without hearing and deny him the
simplest rights of conquered Christian
oe. To use homely Americanism, the
Continental nations have merely fought to
whip, while England has always foug ht to
XII. No battles have been so destructive
If life as those in which English troops
rave fought, no commandments have been
% terrible as those which were inflicted by
English fleets.
Hence it is very logical that England
hould appear as protestant against the
mitigation of those possibilities of horror
which give her such dreadful supremacy
war: Now the progress of inventive art
pplled to the science of warfare, paradoxi-
FL as 1t may seem, has decreased the av.
rage mortality in battles on land and in
reased it in fights at sea. The statistics of
var make curious showing relative to
nc effect OF Improvement in firearms up
n the average of casualty in land battles,
We may divide modern warfare into three
ras !: The fiint-loc and smooth-hor gro