Your excellency observed, that duellists would "use their. influence to have people of other classes hanged for imitating their own example, in adopting a murderous mode of deciding controversies." May not this remark be emphatically applied to rulers who make war? Do they not cause private citizens to be hanged for deciding quarrels by slaughter and violence? And yet, is not this the mode in which they decide their own quarrels? While they authorize and justify the violent slaughter of the innocent, in their own disputes with the rulers of other nations, they will punish with death similar acts of violence in the private quarrels of their subjects or fellow citizens ! "To see" rulers" thus trifle with human life," in their own quarrels, "must naturally have considerable effect on the other classes of community." To this influence, sir, in my opinion, is to be ascribed the far greater part of all the private murders and robberies which take place in the world. Men who are trained up to robbery and murder by the custom of war, may be expected to follow their trade, and not always to wait for the word of command from those in authority. It requires more skill in the science of jesuitism, than such men generally possess, to see why it is more criminal for them to kill in their own quarrels, than to do the same acts in the quarrels of their rulers; or to see why they may not rob and plunder the innocent for their own benefit, with the same propriety as to rob and plunder for the benefit of others. When, therefore, by the custom of war, men have become hardened in vice, inured to crime, and habituated to acts of public authorized butchery and robbery; can it be wonderful if their own wants and inclinations should lead them sometimes to commit similar acts in a more private and unauthorized manner? Indeed, sir, when it shall be duly considered, how much is done by the custom of war, to corrupt the morals of community, and how many men are trained up to bloody and desperate enterprizes; the greater wonder will be, that private robberies and murders are not ten times more frequent than they are now known to be in the world. It is, however, to be observed, that men who are accustomed to the violence of war and to military discipline, very well know, that rulers will applaud acts of violence and inhumanity in one case, and punish them with death in another; and that there is no safety in robbing and murdering, except when it is done in obedience to the orders of government. SIR, LETTER III. WITH great propriety your excellency observed of duelling, that "popularity is the only element in which such a murderous custom can thrive, or even live, among men of re fection ;" and that "only let the custom become disreputable, and it will wither away like a weed pulled up by the roots, and exposed to the heat of the sun." The very same, sir, may be as truly affirmed of the more destructive custom of war. It is popularity which keeps this custom alive; it is this which produces the barbarous enthusiasm, to revenge, and to destroy. Let war become disreputable, let an enthusiasm to save the lives of men be excited, and the custom will soon be abhorred, as " a privileged mode of murder," under which rulers have assumed the right of exposing the lives of their own subjects, and of slaughtering the subjects of another nation. Suppose, sir, that prior to the late war, the people of this country had viewed the custom of war with the same abhorrence that you now do the custom of duelling: Would the war have been declared? Or had it been declared under such cir cumstances, would not you and some others have known, before this time, as well as I do, what it is to be dismissed from office, for being concerned in "a needless and inhuman custom." Without any ill will towards your excellency, or any other man in office, I may state another question: Would it not ❝give a check to the custom" of war, if the people of every nation should adopt your summary mode, and dismiss from office every man who shows a disposition to involve his coun try in the miseries of war? The Prince Regent of Great Brit ain and the President of the United States, have adopted a very laudable method to check duelling. Let the people of the two nations so far imitate the examples of their chief magistrates, as to resolve, that henceforth no person shall be continued in any office of honor or profit, who shall appear as an instigator of war. Then war and duelling will be placed, as they ought to be, on similar ground; and both, I hope," will wither away like weeds pulled up by the roots, and exposed to the heat of the sun.' You proposed the formation of societies to discuss the subject of duelling, and to employ their influence to effect a revolution in the opinions of those who favor the custom as honorable. In this proposal I cordially acquiesced. I may now in my turn propose the formation of societies, to discuss the subject of war, and to attempt a revolution in the opinions of those who favor this custom. As a thousand lives are sacrificed by war, to one by duelling, there seems to be a thousand fold stronger inducements in the former case, than in the latter. As I said of duelling I may say of war," the more it is examined, the more it will be abhorred." Should peace societies be formed, several points will de mand their attention. In the first place, it will behove them to investigate some mode for effecting a reformation in the manner of conducting newspapers-some mode which shall make it for the interest of editors to exclude from their papers every thing of a vindictive and inflammatory character; and to give the preference to such things, as are of a pacific, friendly, and uniting tendency. No species of publication has more influence on the state and morals of society than newspapers, and none which should be conducted with more care, and with purer motives. It is principally by inflammatory and libellous publications, that society is agitated, enmity exited, and a disposition for war produced. Free and candid discussions should be encouraged, but such things as tend to inflame the minds of people with enmity, or a war spirit, should be discountenanced by every virtuous member of society. For when the passions of a com munity are inflamed, reason has lost its control, and such measures will naturally be adopted as passion shall dictate; and these are commonly such as involve deplorable calamities. Let newspapers be made the vehicles of correct information and pacific sentiments, and the thirst for blood will abate, and the custom of war will lose its popularity. I might say more on this point, but your own reflections will supply many defects. SIR, LETTER IV. I HAVE already hinted at one thing, which would demand the attention of peace societies, should such be formed. I shall now observe, that it would also behove them to inquire, whether the most fatal delusions do not exist respecting national honor, true patriotism, and the right or power of rulers to make war. By what I have already said, your excellency has an idea of my views of national honor. I may however add a few thoughts on this point. The opinion which has been entertained of valor, or bravery in battle, as an honorable virtue, was evidently borrowed from the pagans, and not from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Fortitude to suffer wrong, and to meet even death itself in the path of obedience to God, rather than to do wrong, to avenge ourselves, or to render evil for evil, is the valor recommended by the precepts and the example of the Prince of Peace. This is a virtue, opposite in its nature and tendency to that vindictive valor, so much extolled by pagans and mahometans, and by such christians as prefer pagan morality to that inculcated by the gospel. The followers of Jesus were to resemble the harmless sheep and lambs, and not wolves and tigers. But many who have professed to be christians, have gloried in a resemblance to ferocious animals. Nor have they been contented with equalling the wolf and the tiger, in a blood thirsty disposition. They have far surpassed them. The wolf and the tiger are generally contented with devouring animals of different species from their own; and these they attack, not so much to acquire honor by bravery in battle, as to procure something to satisfy their hunger, and to feed their young. It is believed they have seldom been known to exult in the premeditated slaughter of hundreds of their own species. But men, yea, men calling themselves christians, are not con tented with butchering innumerable other tribes of animals, for food, clothing, and other uses, but they even make what they regard as an honorable trade, a professional employment, of killing one another. This conduct is believed to be peculiar to the human race, and to have no parallel in the history of other beings, in heaven, on earth, nor even in hell. Men glory in their dignity above the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; but whether their making a trade of destroying one another, is to be regarded as an excellence, as something which contributes to the honor of our race, let conscience and common sense determine. If it be not an honorable distinction between us and other tribes of creation, it is unquestionably something which deserves the abhorrence of every intelligent being. In our estimation of wild animals, we most abhor those which are most fierce and blood thirsty; yet we extol that in men, as an honorable virtue, which renders other beings objects of our abhorrence. We cannot see a hawk kill a chicken, nor a wolf kill a lamb, without feelings of commiseration for the sufferer, and feelings of indignation or detestation against the destroyer. Yet we can extol as a virtue the obdurate, unrelenting, revengeful, and ferocious bravery, with which men can butcher one an other in war. If satan had been appointed or permitted to dictate to christians what they should regard as honorable virtue and national honor, could he have suited himself better, than by proposing the very things, which are now so popular in christian nations? Could he have invented any thing, which would have insured more slaughter of mankind by the hands of each other? If in the view of God, men are to he regarded as virtuous, because they have arrived to such a pitch of hardness, inhumanity, and ferocity, that they can bravely slaughter one another i |