propitious circumstances, have been placed in a wrong and most unfortunate position in respect to each other, which they at length begin to perceive.

In the first place, nations have frequently been led into wars, in consequence of a misapprehension of the actual state of things. They have been made to believe, (we do not undertake to say under what influences or in what way,) that they are bound to maintain what are called national interests at any expense whatever. In making an estimate of the hazard and injury of these interests, as preparatory to a state of war, they have frequently labored under great mistakes. In other words, in placing an estimate on their own interests, they have not allowed enough for the peculiar situation, the passions, and the interests of others. Either from being too intensely occupied with their own concerns, or from wanting suitable means of information, or from hasty and inaccurate judgments on the facts that have come to their notice, they have supposed others to be prompted by a deeper hostility towards them, than was actually the case. And they have too frequently acted upon this erroneous supposition. If they had been so situated as to understand each other better, the natural sentiments of kindness would have gained the ascendency; and they would not have committed the great error of placing the supposed claims of their country above the claims of mankind. This error they begin in some degree to perceive. But this is not all.

In the second place, nations have frequently been plunged into war, and have shed the blood of other nations, when the great mass of the people have never been consulted in respect to it; or if they have been consulted, their feelings have been disregarded. Owing to the prevalence of monarchial and despotic forms of government, (a state of things which is undergoing a rapid modification,) the destiny of nations has often been placed in the hands of individuals, who were too ignorant, prejudiced, or unjust, to sustain a responsibility so immense. The result has frequently been, that the most trifling circumstances, operating upon minds of such a structure, have plunged nations into wars, when at the same time the great body of the people entertained towards each other entirely friendly sentiments. We will illustrate what we

mean by a single instance out of hundreds, perhaps we may say, thousands of others. Frederic of Prussia, (Frederic the Great, as he is commonly designated in history,) entered into a war with Maria Theresa, the queen of Hungary and Bohemia. This king afterwards wrote a history of the war. In the manuscript history, and as it was originally written, he gave the following concise statement of the motives, under the influence of which he engaged in it. "I had troops entirely prepared to act; this, the fulness' of my treasury, and the vivacity of my character were the reasons, why I made war on Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia." In a few sentences afterwards he added more explicitly some other motives which are to be united with these. "Ambition, interest, and a desire to make the world speak of me, vanquished all, and war was determined on."* It certainly cannot be pretended, that such a war as this is a proof, that the Prussians, Bohemians, and Hungarians possess an implanted or connatural enmity to each other. The probability is, that they were as much taken by surprise, and as much astonished, as the whole civilized world were, at its occurrence. A war, existing under such circumstances, may prove, that the rulers are perverse and cruel; but does not necessarily prove this in respect to the people generally.It will of course be seen that things of this nature are to be taken into consideration, before we are at liberty to say, in opposition to the arguments, which have been brought forward, that man is by nature and instinctively the enemy of his fellow man.

§. 182. The objection, drawn from wars, further considered. But there is a third view of this objection, which remains to be taken. If we could arrive at the truth on the subject before us, it would undoubtedly be seen, (and the distinction in respect to all inquiries into the active principles of human nature is frequently an important one,) that, in times of national war, men fight together as corporations, rather than as individuals; and while in battle they shoot at the man, who happens to be opposite to them, they subdue the voice of pity and conscience by the mistaken and illusive consideration, that the wound is aimed, not so much at the poor bleeding * See the Memoir of Voltaire, appended to Condorcet's Life of Voltaire.

individual, as at the state or nation. If they could thrust aside this idea, and separate the man from the political corporation to which he belongs, it is beyond doubt, that they would reach forth the hand of kindness, bind up the wounds of their victim, and breath their consolations into his dying bosom.

In consequence of early associations and what are supposed to be conflicting national interests, it is not an uncommon thing for Englishmen to say that they hate the French nation, while the same persons will frequently admit, that they have no hatred to individual Frenchmen; but on the contrary have a regard and love for those, with whom they happen to be acquainted. We maintain, therefore, that a hatred against nations is not necessarily a hatred against humanity. And men begin to understand this. They make a broader distinction than they were wont to do formerly, between the government and the people, between the responsibilities of public policy and the responsibility that attaches to private individuals. And accordingly in times of war, if the action of armies in the vicinity of each other is suspended by a truce, nothing is more common than to see both officers and soldiers reciprocating acts of hospitality and friendship. Acting as men and with the natural feelings of men, they sympathize in each other's personal sufferings, and endeavor to render each other happy. And yet acting in their national capacity, and as members of their respective political corporations, they will be found in a few days after coolly putting each other to death. The fact is, that it is impossible for us either to love or to hate masses of beings, considered in the mass. And hence war necessarily involves the pathematic and moral anomaly of destroying those, who would be found, when separated from the mass and considered individually, to be entitled to our esteem and affection.

§. 183. Illustration of the statements of the foregoing section.

The doctrine of the foregoing section, that bodies or masses of men may fight with and destroy each other, while at the same time each party entertains towards the opposite party, individually considered, no other than humane or friendly sentiments, is not a mere assertion. Strange and para

doxical as it may appear, it is proved beyond doubt by history; particularly by that interesting and instructive portion of history, which appears in the form of private Memoirs. A single extract, illustrative of this apparently contradictory view of human nature and in confirmation of what has been said, will be introduced here. In the late bloody war, generally known as the Peninsular War, two detachments of the French and English armies were stationed near each other on the banks of the Tagus, the one at Almeyrim, the other at Santarem. The following statement of the feelings and intercourse that existed between the two parties, when not engaged in battle, is given by a member of the English army in the interesting Work, entitled Recollections of the Peninsula; and when we consider, that it relates to men, who both before and afterwards were engaged to their utmost ability in destroying each other, it is to be regarded as one among a thousand other proofs that war is a horrible delusion, and is against nature.

"About the middle of February, (says this writer,) as I was one day walking by the river side with three or four companions, we observed an unusual crowd on the opposite bank, and several French officers. They saluted us, with a "Bon jour, Messieurs ;" and we soon fell into conversation. They were exceedingly courteous. They spoke in the highest terms of Romana, who had lately died, calling him "Le seul général Espagnol digue de son grade." They asked after Lord Wellington; saying he had done wonders with the Portuguese, and praising him greatly for his conduct of the campaign. They next inquired, if our king was not dead; and on our replying that he was not, one of them spoke, but inaudibly; another, in a louder voice, repeated "Le génèral dit, que tout le monde aime votre Roi George, qu'il a étè bon pére de famille, et bon père de son peuple." We were thus, at once, let into the rank of one of their party, and not a little delighted at the manner, in which they had spoken of our excellent and unfortunate sovereign. A great deal of good humor prevailed; we quizzed each other freely. They asked us how we liked bacallao and azete, instead of English roast beef? and we, what they did at Santarem without the restaurateurs, cafés, and salles de spectacle of their dear Par

is? They replied, laughing, that they had a theatre; and asked us to come over, and witness the performance of that evening, which would be, "L'Entrée des Francois das Lisbon. A friend of mine most readily replied, that he recommended to them, "La répetition d'une unovelle piéce, 'La Fuite des Francois.'" They burst into a long, loud, and general laugh-the joke was too good, too home. Their general, however, did not think it wise to remain longer; but he pulled his hat, and wishing us good day with perfect good humor, went up the hill, and the group immediately dispersed."

§. 184. Of patriotism or love of country.

One of the most important modifications of that more general and extensive form of goodwill or benevolence, which extends to all mankind, is PATRIOTISM or love of country. It seems to be the intention of nature, when we consider the diversities of customs and languages that exist, and particularly that in many cases countries are distinctly separated from each other by large rivers, lakes, gulphs, mountains, and seas, that mankind, instead of being under one government, shall exist in separate and distinct communities or nations, each having its own institutions and civil polity. And such, at any rate, is the fact. We are not only members of mankind and citizens of the world, (a relation which ought to be more distinctly and fully recognized than it ever has been,) but are members, and as such have appropriate duties to fulfill, of our own particular community. And it is thus, that a foundation is laid for that particular state of mind, which we denominate Patriotism.

This affection we regard as secondary, rather than original. It is that love, which we exercise, and ought to exercise towards the members of our species considered as such, heightened by the consideration, that those, towards whom it is put forth, are sprung from the same race, inhabit the same territory, are under the same constitutions of government, speak the same language, and have the same interests. So that the love of our race, as it is modified in the form of love of our country, while it is more restricted, becomes proportionally more intense. And in point of fact, it is unques