“GROUND ARMS!”

/‘R
‘:17

AN ORATION  

DELIVERED AT

ATIC-IE CELEBRATION OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND%

SEVENTEENTH ANNIVERSARY

OF '1‘!-IE

A DECLARATION OE INDEPENDENCE,

AT THE INVITATION OF ’J'.‘I-IE COUNCILS OF TI-IE
CITY OF PHILADEI..EHIA,

IN INDEPENDENCE SQUARE, JULY 4m, 1893,

BYR

JAMES M. BECK,

OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR.

EB

PHILADELPHIA:
PRESS cm ALLEN, LANE 8: SCOTT.

189,3.% ‘ %

 

 

“GROUND ARMS!”

AN ORATION

'DEI..IVEREI) IN

INDEPENDENCE SQUARE, PHIL'ADELPHIA,
N _/ULY .42.‘/'2, 1893.

1'T‘\
K17

My FELLOW-COUNTRYME.N :~————One hunclrecl and seventeen
years ago this day some fifty provincial gentlemen, with knee
breechesand powdered queues, the representatives of thirteen
colonies of the British Crown, which, located on the edge of an
unbroken wilderness, were less accessible to civilization than is
the Congo now, met in Philadelphia, a country town of about
twenty thousand people, and deliberating within the walls of
the building within whose shadow I speak, thence issued to
the world a statement of their grievances against the British
Crown, and a declaration of their assumption of independent
sovereignty. ~Apart from the statement of grievances, which

, was only of transient importance, the Dieclaration, as drafted

by the young Virginian farmer-lawyer, contained a declaration
of the rights of man more radical and revolutionary than any
similar political document, and utterly subversive of adopted
theories of government; At the time apparently insignificant,

this event has become of overshadowing importance in the «

affairs of men. It lit a train of human revolt which has
slowly and increasingly blasted a pathway of freedom for hu»
manity through the granite rocks of,Ca*:sarisn1 and feudalism.
Well might Mirabeau say that, tried by its standard, every
government in Europe was divested of its rights. To the

masses of men in every part of the world, struggling to escape

from the house of bondage and into the promised land, itvhas
been as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.
This is the g1“eat fact of which the colossal statue in New York

vi

4

harbor is the beautiful symbol. It would be impossible to

"properly estimate its importance, for it can only be determined

in its due perspective of time and result. Even in this evening
of the nineteenth century we can as little appreciate its true
position in history as one can judge the architectural beauty of

the Cologne Cathedral by standing on its steps. Carry your

minds forward in imagination yet another century. Picture
to yourselves the greatest republic in the world, whose popu-
lation will be two hundred millions, and whose territory will
reach from the land of the North Star to that of the Southern
Cross, reflecting the most splendid and perhaps the culmina-

_ ting civilization of the world, and from such vantage ground

you can appreciate that in the preceding two thousand years
of human history the three events which may then dominate
the entire landscape, even as Mt. Blanc rises above its fellows,
are the birth of Christ, the discovery of America, and the Decla-
ration of Independence. The first gave to men a newspirit,
which has since leavened humanity; the second, a great conti-
nent, whereon, as on a stage, the splendid drama of democracy
could be enacted ; and the third, a free people, who have de-

I monstrated their capacity to rule themselves. Of each event

one can say, in the exalted language of Richter, that it has
“lifted empires off their hinges, turned the stream of the cen-
turies out of its channel, and still governs the ages.”

We would dishonor ourselves did we fail to celebrate an
event so glorious ; and what more fitting place on the face of
the whole earth for such commemoration than here within
the shadow of the tower from which, as from Pharos, the light
of liberty has streamed, under the gothic arches of God’s trees,
and in the presence of the historical descendants of the peo-
ple who first heard the old bell in joyful reverberations “pro-
claim liberty throughout the land and unto all the inhabitants
thereof?” What Mecca is to the Mussulman and Jerusalem

 to the Israelite, must henceforth forever this temple be to

every lover of liberty. Did we not thus meet in high festival,

I these very walls would cry_ out against us. Indeed even now
theyspealc to us out of the past, reminding us with an elo-..

quence unattainable by mortal man of our debt to the dead
and our duty to the unborn. Here then we hdfve met, my

 

5 .
countrymen, on the greatest festal day in our nation’s calen-
dar, and to‘Hirn by whose gracious ordinance the word was
spoken, we will appeal in the simple but stately language of
Whittier’s Centennial hymn :--~----

‘‘ Our father’s God, from out whose hand

The centuries fall like grains of sand,
We meet to—day, united, free,
And loyal to our land and Thee,

To thank Thee for the era done,
And trust Thee for the opening one.”

It is the unique distinction of the Declaration of Independ-
ence that its definition of liberty is so full and ample that time
cannot make it obsolete. Other similar events have been
but milestonessin the march of progress. The Magna Charta
and the petition of right are no longer sufficient in themselves
to satisfy the ripened aspirations of men, but when Jefferson
drafted the great Declaration he drew for all mankind, without
distinction to race, condition, or creed, a title deed to liberty,
so broad and comprehensive that “time cannot wither nor
custom stale” its eternal verity. That all men are created
equal ; that they have a right as the gift of God and independ-
ent of government to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi-
ness; that governments derive their j ust: powers from the
consent of the governed; that the people have the inherent
right to alter or abolish their government whenit has ceased to
answer their necessities, thus constituting the people the first

and only estate, are principles which satisfy the highest ideals

of liberty. By the much quoted and much misunderstood
axiom, that all men are created equal, Mr. Jefferson did not
mean either a natural equality or even an equality of natural
opportunity, for either would contradict the common observa-
tion of men, which discloses as infinite a difference between men
and their environments as between the stars. He was simply
defining the province of government, and. he was contending
that politically all men were equal and that the government,
therefore, should not give to any man an artificial and law-

made advantage over another. “Equal and exact justice to

all men, special privileges to none.” He therefore proscribed
the spirit of caste, and an hereditary monarch or a feudal

Q:
3?’

6

aristocracy came equally under his anathema. He illustrated
his meaning by his last and most significant commentary on
the text of the instrument which is inseparably connected with
his name. ‘Nhen asked nine days before his death to write a
sentiment for the forthcoming fiftieth anniversary of the Decla-
ration—---the day ofjubilee on which, by a singular coincidence,
he was destined to die--—he wrote, “ The eyes of men are opened
and opening to the rights of men. "‘ * * “The mass of
men are not born with saddles on their backs nor a favored
few booted and spurred ready to ride them legitimately by the
grace of God.” It is to be feared that we have hardly realized

as yet his splendid ideal, else why the extraordinary honors

recently paid within our country to the representatives of -the
class who claim, by the right of heredity, “to ride booted
and spurred the masses of mankind P” We have witnessed the
gentleman in charge of the Spanish princess write circular
letters instructing American ladies and gentlemen how to
act in the presence of royalty, and we have read his complaint
that the Infanta had been insulted and annoyed by the social

, snobs and tuft-hunters, who insisted upon thrusting them—

selves into her presence. Eminent foreigners, distinguished
for learning and genius, have visited our shores comparatively,
unnoticed, but the possession of a title has seemed tohave
the fascination for our countrymen that the candle has for
the moth. These ovations to Spanish grandees and Russian

T nobles, in so far as they are inspired by considerations of

rank, are wrong. Otherwise Mr. Jefferson was wrong, and if
he was wrong, then America was wrong. The spirit of caste
is not dead nor the race of Tories wholly extinct.

The noblest virtue of the great Declaration was the spirit
which impelled it. This was so far‘ in advance of the times as
to deserve comment here, and it is to thisl desire to di-
rect especial attention. It is obvious that the statement of
grievances was not intended for the colonists. No need
existed to remind them what they had suffered. The into1er-
able burdens and wrongs set forth in this terrible indictment

of the British Crown had driven its loyal and willing sub-

jects to open rebellion, and had been burned into their recol-
lection as with a red-hot iron. For years they had been the

7

subject of innumerable pamphlets, speeches, petitions, and
discussions both in England and America. The time for dis-
cussing them with the Mother Country had ceased with the
first shot of the embattled farmers at Lexington. The
purpose of the Declaration, as clearly set forth in its noble

preamble, was to appeal to the justice of the world in_

support of the necessity of the separation. It commences,
“VVhen in the course of human events it becomes neces-»
sary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have
connected them with another ”“ "“‘  rzc2Cs’c'e’7zz‘7*i.r.s‘,7!>e*cz‘ M Ma
0pz'rzz'mz5 of mmzf.:z'7za’ Mqzzzws Zflzzzz‘ 2‘/ze;y 5/zozzld (ire/arm z‘/re’ cazzses
re;/'22}:/z z'm.,z>e’[ z’/Mm in Mar 5e*,z>czm:z‘z'072.” N 0 State paper ever con-—
tained a nobler sentiment than this.. It assumed that there
was a rule of right and wrong and of justice and injustice
that regulated the intercourse of nations as well as individuals.
It is believed that there was a great human conscience, which,
rising higher than the selfish interests and prejudices ,. of na-
tions and races, would approve that which was right and con»-
demn that which was wrong. It felt that this approval was
more to be desired than national advantage. It constituted
mankind a judge between contending nations, and lest its
judgment should temporarily err it established posterity as a
court of it last resort. It placed the tie of humanity above
that of nationality. It solemnly argued the righteousness
_of the separation at the bar of history, solemnly prefixing
its statement of grievances with the words: “In proof of
this, let facts be submitted to a candid world;” and finally
concluded its appeal from the judgment of the moment
to that of eternity, in'the words :i “Appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.” The
nobility of this appeal becomes more manifest when we re-
gard the conditions of thoughtrat that time. There existed
then no law of right or wrong between nations. Mankind
was engaged on both sidesof the Atlantic in armed con-
flicts, which succeeded each other with horrible frequency and
intensity. While at nominal peace, nations levied commercial
warfare against each other by prohibitive tariffs and burden—
some legal restrictions. Each Government regarded its own

selfish ‘interests as the highest and only good. International ‘.

8

law existed only in name, and consisted of “a wilderness of
single instances.” \/Vars were commenced without provoca-
tion-—-often without a formal declaration,—were conducted

,without regard to the rights of neutrals and non-combatants,

or the commonest dictates of humanity, and were consum-—
mated by the wholesale spoliation of territory and the pil-

T laging of galleries, museums, and libraries. ‘The armies of

Welliiigtoii and Napoleon were only worthy of Alaric . or
Attila. The only la.w of nations was that ascribed by the poet
to Rob Roy,

“The good old rule
Sufficeth them, the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can.”

Think, for example, of the events which took place in Europe
within the succeeding forty years; of the decrees by which
France and England forbade the world to tradewith the
other, and under cover of which they preyed upon the
commerce of the world like hawks upon a dove-cote; ofthe
destruction of the Danish fleet, and the bombardment of
Copenhagen by England in advance of any declaration of
war and without any provocation; of Napoleon’s invasion

" of neutral territory and the assassination of the Due D’Eng-

heiii, of his appropriation of whole countries without regard
to the wishes of their inhabitants by placing Bernandotte on the
throne of Sweden, l\/Iurat on that of Naples, his brother Louis‘
on that of Holland, Jerome on that of Westphalia, and Joseph
on that of Spain. In such an age, with every nation as an
Ishmael, there would seem to have been no sentiment of right
or wrong or enlightened conscience of man to which an appeal
could be made. The sentiment of the Declaration,made out
of“ a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” is therefore
the more striking and commendable. ‘We need not stop to
note how splendidly that appeal has been sustained; As the
Declaration states, facts were submitted to a candid world,
which in an age of force convinced the calm reason of
humanity, and when, a century later, the time—stained docu-
ment, to which our fathers had pledged their lives, their for-
tunes, and their sacred honors, was brought out on this very

‘J

spot, the representatives of every nation, including that of
England herself, were here to testify by their presence their
approval of an appeal to the universal conscience of man.
The United States has demonstrated its right to l3epa1*ate ex-
istence and no discordant protest is now heard against its
splendid vindication by humanity.

I am persuaded that the spirit, of which this Declaration
was only an expression, is now a new force in humanity. In
the one hundred and seventeen intervening years the world
has progressed so swiftly towards an enlightened sense of
justice that a “ decent respect to the opinions of mankind” is
a greater power in regulating the intercourse of nations
than the combined armies and navies of the world. Each
nation does at least in some measure fear to-day the dis-
approval of humanity and covets as a good the approval
of posterity. This respect for public opinion is increasingly
causing nations to arbitrate their differences by other means
than that wretched survival of barbarism—-war. Prior to
the nineteenth century, there is hardly an instance when
nations settled their grievances other than by a resort to
the sword, while during the present century over seventy-
five disputes have been adjusted by mediation and arbitra-

tion. Of .these twenty—five related to claims for damages
to citizens in one country while in the offending country;

in sixteen disputed boundaries were amicably fixed; and in
five the yet more difficult questions of disputed acquisitions

of new territory were peacefully decided. In some of these"

cases the national honor and historical prestige were believed
to be involved and found entirely capable of amicable adjust-
ment, namely, the Luxemburg qliestion of 1867, the Crete
affair, and the Alabama claims. The incalculable gain to
humanity of these peaceful arbitraments can be measured by
the stupendous fact that in the wars of the nineteenth century

lover fifteen thousand millions of dollars have been spent and

over five millions ofmen killed. The mind cannot graspthe mag-

nitude ofthe figures. The largest single aggregation of human

beings is the city of London, and when we reflect that a num-
ber of people exceeding the teeming population of the English
metropolis have fallen beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of

10

war, we can appreciate the belief of every thoughtful man
that the ordeal of battle is both a crime against humanity and
a relic: of primitive barbarism. The questions sought to be
decided by war have rarely remained adjusted, notwithstanding
the imposing and awful demonstration of brute force. Take,
for example,‘the unhappy Rhine provinces; Torn from Ger-
many by France nearly two centuries ago, and entirely galli~
cized in that time, yet no statute of limitations availed France

when, humiliated and well-—nigh annihilated by the armies of i

Germany, it was obliged to again yield Alsace and Lorraine.
Nor is their ownership determined to-day. In the event of a
French triumph in the next war, it is safe to assume that
the first and imperative condition of peace would be the re»-

covery of Alsace and Lorraine. In the meantime, as if charged  

with the curseof God, these little provinces are making of
Europe an armed camp, compelling twenty—seven millions of
men to be ready for a possible death, and driving the nations
of Europe to inevitable bankruptcy. Wliat the armies of
France and Germany, the grandest in organization and equip-
ment that the world has ever known, have thus signally failed
to do,rnamely, to definitely decide a single question--and
that in itself a comparatively unimportant one---—the moral
power of la “ decent respect to the opinions, of mankind ”, has
done without shedding a drop of blood, for in the seventy-
five instances of peaceful mediation heretofore alluded to there
was, with but one exception, a loyal and lasting submission

-to the results ofthe arbitrament of peacer This power of
. moral sentiment, sneered at by the unthinking and superficial,

can be measured in yet another way. England and America
are to—dayarbitratingi the question of territorial rights and
alleged unlawful seizures, both formerly fruitful subjects of
war, and are thus affordingan impressive object lesson to

rhumanity which is worth a dozen naval reviews or army
mobilizations. Let us suppose that the international court at

Paris should decide in favor of_Great Britain. England, in-
deed all the world, could not enforce that judgment if the
United States refused to obey it. Guarded as we are by two‘
mighty oceans, and with our inexhaustible resources,the;
combined armies and navies of the world could not coiiquer,

II

us. We are to—day invincible. The power, therefore, that
would compel us to loyally accept the decision would be the
“ decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” which would
condemn as iniquitous and shameful bad faith in such arbitra-
tion. ‘ « '

— Herein lies the possibility of a period of perpetual peace.
Notwithstanding the fact that to-day men are making prepa-
rations in Europe for war on a scale unprecedentedly vast, and,
paradoxical as it may therefore seem, I believe that the time
will come when men will “beat their swords into plow-
shares and their spears into pruning-hooks.” How many
deluges of blood lie between I know not, but I clearly see
His bow in the cloud, as a covenant of peace. This may
seem the wild dream of a visionary, but we are celebrating in
this Columbian year the triumph of a dreamer, and that the
greatest civic adhievement inhistory. I In existing conditions
of thought it is indeed hard to accept the possibility of a
day when the mutual hatreds of nations, which exist inde-
pendent of disputed questions, and are the baneful heritage of
the centuries, can be determined otherwise than by war.
Apparently they do not admit of arbitration. But may not
this apparent impossibility disappear with the growing senti-
ment of fraternity in men ? Nor am I alone in this opinion.

A learned French philosopher, Michel Revon, whose work ,

has recently received the medal of the French Academy,
states that unless a general war takes place in Europe within

, the next ten years the spirit of militarism will lose its

power. It is true that the great battle-thinker of our time,
Von Moltke, who has carried the organizatiorvof armies
to a perfection not reached by even Napoleon, has said
that “Peace is only a dream, and not even a beautiful

dream. War,” he adds, “is ordained by God.” Neverthe- “

less, even as the power of the Roman Empire was doomed
in its hour of unchallenged supremacy when the Prince of
Peace lay in his manger at Bethlehem, so I believe the spirit
of militarism, now apparently at its highest development, is in
reality losing its iron sway on the minds of men. As our
own great commander has well said, “Arbitration maynot

satisfy either nation at the time, but it satisfies the conscience:

I2

of mankind and must commend itself more and more as a;
means of adjusting disputes.” Indeed, General Grant, better
than Bismarck with his “blood and iron,” caught the spirit of
his time in those words, remembered above his every other
utterance, “Let us have peace.” However comparatively

unnoticed it may have been the English Parliament has rarely a

done a nobler or better act than when it unanimously passed,
on June 16th, 1893, a resolution, authorizing Her Majesty’s
Government to conclude a general treaty -with the United
States to submit all future questions between the countries to-
arbitration. ‘

The trouble with our and preceding; ages has been that
man has still sufficient of the original barbarian to approve
and applaud war. We have not yet learned to take a hori-
zontal view of the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” The
current belief is that “Thou shalt not kill 5’ means “Thou
shalt kill ”——-under given circumstances. We do not content
ourselves with applauding a defensive war, which is often in-
evitable and morally defensible, but we regard as of paramount
glory a war of aggression and conquest. That which is a:
crime between individuals we defend between nations. A
single murder we consider the gravest of all offenses and’
punish accordingly, whether done in the heat of passion or
not; but murder by the hundred thousand, cruelly and
deliberately planned months in advance, in which the vic-
tims are generally the involuntary result of forced drafts, this
we enthusiastically applaud. If we were but honest with
ourselves we would admit that we regard it as the most
glorious of all pastimes. By the very toys and books we give
our children we instil in them the martial ardor. Men go to-
the tented field, not robed in the black of mourning or the-
scarlet of the executioner, but gaily attired as for a ball-«
room. Indeed, asin the night before Waterloo, they
have gone in the same habiliments from the dance of life
to the dance of death. The strainsof music which pre-
cede it are not funereal in character but have the festal and
triumphant strain of a bridal chorus. Men of generous and
Christian instincts rejoice iniit as in a profession. The
women of our day, rivaling the stern Roman matrons, who»

I3

awarded life or death to the gladiators with their “/zaérz‘ or
7»z07?z /zzz/2¢"2‘,” or emulating the queen of beauty who awarded
the wreath to the victorious in the medimval tournaments,
sit in this greater tourney of the nations and reward the victors
with their smiles and approbation. They indeed must accept
a share of the moral responsibility. It has been well and
truthfully stated by that great ethical teacher, Mr. Ruskin,
that the prevention of war is within the power of women.
He says: “Let but every Christian lady who has conscience
toward God, vow that she will mourn, at least outwardly, for
His killed creatures. Your praying is useless, and your
church—going mere mockery of God, if you have not plain
obedience in you enough for this. Let every lady in the up-
per classes of civilized Europe simply vow that, while any
cruel war proceeds she will wear black-———~—a rnute’s black-—-with
no jewel, no ornament, no excuse for or evasion into pretti-
ness——~—l tell you again no war would last a week.” This
may at first impress the hearer as the wild enthusiasm
of a visionary, but who could measure the effect upon the
human rnindof universal mourning while any war proceeds.

T/ze rm! _p0ssz'&z'Zz'ty 63]’ rear [225 in our all/om z'7zcz'zj‘z’7*r7zct> :0‘

2'2‘. The whole world was recently thrilled by the loss
of Her lVIajesty’s ship. Victoria, with four hundred of her
officers and crew, due to an accidental blow of the ram
of the Camper-down. Strange paradox! We lament as an
accident what we would applaud if done by design. Such a
loss of life in war would be so insignificant as hardly to receive
notice. y For every life lost by this accident a hundred fell at

Gettysburg, while in that frightful holacaust of human life, the ,

Russian campaign of 1812, it is estimated that one hundred
and twenty—five thousand men perished in battle, one hundred
and twenty-three thousand died of hunger and cold, and one

hundred and ninety thousand were taken prisoners. The mind‘

cannot grasp the dimensions of such a disaster, and blunted
and deadened as our sensibilities are by the alleged necessity of
war, this frightful tragedy on the stage of the world has called
forth less tears thanthe ending of Hamlet on the stage of the
theatre. T T   ‘T y

As the ‘nineteenth century draws to its close, the signs are

14

multiplying that humanity is awakening from this nightmare
and that the twentieth century will bring the dawn of a better
day. Nothing can be more striking to the thoughtful ob-
server than the p"rogress that has been made in the crusade
against war. The opinion of mankind is slowly but surely
condemning it. It would be interesting, indeed, to trace this
gradual development of this_peace sentiment. Sporadic
attempts at peaceful mediation could be mentioned by the
Popes in the Middle Ages, by Henry IV. of France, wl1o
proposed a universal league of peace in the early part
of the seventeenth century, but the first practical attempt
to ‘substitute the power of love for that of force was made
by William Penn upon the banks of the Delaware, and,

curiously enough, the contracting parties were seemingly i

the most divergent, namely, the peaceful Quakers and the ab-

original savages. Meeting on that delightful shore “that is

washed  the Delaware’s waters,” the illustrious Quaker, to
whom be eternal honor, said to the Indian chiefs: “ The great
God has written His law in our hearts, by which we are told
and commanded to love and to help and to do good to one
another. It is not our custom to use hostile weapons against
our fellow creatures. For which reason we have come un-
armed. Our object is not to do injury but to do good. We
have met them in the broad pathway of good faith and good
will, so that no advantage can be taken on either side, but all
is to be openness, brotherhood, and love, and all are to be
treated as of the same flesh and blood.” To that those
whom we in our arrogance have called savages replied,
“ VVhi_le the sun shines and the river runs, we will keep peace
with VVilliam Penn and his children.” This treaty, of which
it has been said that it was inscribed not on parchment but

on human hearts, was observed with scrupulous fidelity for.

over seventy years, and Pennsylvania and the City of
Brotherly Love (noblest title of any city in the whole world)
never heard, during that golden period the waiuwhoop of the

savage or the Clangor of clashing arms. In that coming day .

of perpetual peace, the founder of Pennsylvania will be justly
regarded as its morning staijheralding in a night of bar-
barism the approaching dawn. In the eighteenth cen-—

.15

tury Voltaire launched his curse against war in his noble
sentiment, “Every European war is a civil war;” while on
August 25th, 1790, the orator of the Revolution, Mirabeau,
made this prediction as to the influence of democracy
upon war: “Perhaps the hour is not far distant when
Freedom as absolute sovereign of both worlds will ful-
fill the wish of the philosophers and relieve mankind from
the crime of war, and proclaim eternal peace.” These
peaceful utterances of men, who, treading the mountain
ranges of prophetic observation, descried the dawn, were
soon lost sight of in thatfearful cataclysm, the French
Revolution and the wars of Napoleon, and it was not until
the latter was sent to St. Helena, “the mighty somnarnbulist
of ashattered dream” of universal empire, that the still
small voice of peace was again heard. The sovereigns of
Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France entered into the Holy
Alliance, by which they bound themselves “to aid one an-
other in conformity with Holy Scriptures on every occasion.”
The primary purpose of the alliance was to compel and main-
tain peace, but, unfortunately for humanity, it was soon per-
verted to choke the growing democracy of Europe and throt-
tle freedom. But the idea was in the minds of men, and
was compelling nations, perhaps from the sheeriexhaustion
of previous wars, to determine their disputes by peaceful
methods. ~At~ first this was accomplished by the mediation
ofa friendly sovereign, and dispute after dispute was submit-
mitted to a ruler of a neutral State and by them decided.
This mediation could not long answer the purposes of peace,
for it possessed the obvious objections that it was not always
easy to secure a mediator who was disinterested and unbiased
or one with sufficient capacity to interpret treaties and na-
tional laws. At the Paris congress which put an end to the
Crimean war, the first important step was taken to insure
peace when, at the instance of the International Peace Society.
a clause was inserted in that treaty by which the powers

pledged themselves to consider conditions of peace before be-

ginning war‘; but the method of adjusting the differences,

whether by mediation of a friendly sovereign or a court of T

arbitration,'was not mentioned.

16

A nobler and better course was suggested, and it is to
a Philadelphian that the credit is due, and as usual such
credit is conspicuously wanting. In March, 1865, Thomas
'\/Villing Balch suggested by a public letter that the pending
Alabama claims, which seemed incapable of adjustment, and
were a source of intense irritation between our country
and England, should be “decided by a court of arbitration to
be composedrot‘ one representative of eachcountry and three
representatives to be appointed by foreign powers. One can
appreciate the advance of public sentiment in the last quarter
ofa century when I state that Mr. Balch could not for a time
persuade a newspaper to even publish his letter, until finally
it found a place in the columns of the New York .Trz'&zz7zzr.
Mr. Balch also submitted his idea to President Lincoln, who,

however, rejected it on the ground that it savored too much
of the millennium. Mr. Lincoln added, however, in his quaint .

Way, that “ the idea was worth airing.” It was not until 1871
that the commissioners from England and the United States
signed the treaty at Washington, by which they agreed to
submit their cause of qu’arrel to an international court of ar-
bitration. The appointment of said court, their meeting at
Geneva, their subsequent award in favor of the United States,
and the loyal submission to it of Great Britain, constitute a
milestone in the march of human progress.

The trend of thought can often be determined by care-
fully observing the tendencies and purposes of the novels at
present attractingppublic interest. Thus, three novels have
appeared in recent years, each of which has the same moral
purpose. The fact that these writers differ in nationality,
the one a Frenchman, the second a Russian, the-third an
Austrian, and that the success of each of theirtvvorks has
been pronounced, not only in their own countries but all
over the world, would seem to indicate that their high pur-
pose has found a responsive echo in the minds of men. I
refer to Tolstoi’s “ War and Peace,” Suttner’s “ Ground Arms,”
and Zola’s “The Downfall.” Each with a most powerful
realism, which is one of the characteristics of current fiction,

‘ depicts war as it is. Theirs are not the pictures of conflict to

which we have been accustomed—not the battle as the general

-V‘ 
WM

I7

sees it, from the safe vantage ground of a remote hillock, but
the red sea of carnage, into which men plunge in the mad
frenzy of the nations. V\/ar has no glamour for these writers.
The dismembered bodies, the mad passions, the hideous ex-
cesses, the disregard of the sanctity of life, the pathos of the
hospital with its attendant scourge of cholera and typhus,
the martyrdom of the battle-field, in which thousands of the
innocent expiate the sins of others, the destrucgtion of prop-
erty, the injury to the advance of the peaceful arts, the fearful
aftermath of international prejudices and hatreds thereby
sown, are the aspects of war which they describe with a terror
of description as though their pens were dipped in blood.‘
Their argument is for the universal disarmament of nations,
as the only method of inaugurating the period of peace.

It is an interesting fact, and more than a mere coincidence,
that contemporary art reveals the same protest against the
war spirit. Its tendency is to make war repulsive rather than
glorious. It treats it in a cosmopolitan rather than a selfishly
national spirit. Between the French battle painters of the
beginning and end of our century there is a vast difference in
the spirit with which the subject is treated. One who gazes
upon the acres of canvas in the Palace of Versailles will
notice that battles are always pictured in a manner to
captivate the spectator with the idea of war, and to inflame
the martial spirit. The French are always victorious, and
the enemy always in retreat. Even in the battle of York-
town, as depicted in this series, an American will notice with
considerable amusement that the foremost figures are Rocham—~
beau and De Grasse, while Washington is crowded into the
obscure background. The paintings, however, of Detaille and
De Neuville are entirely different in conception and treatment.
They not merely represent the ghastly horrors of war, but

they treat their countrymen and their enemies with equal.

fairness. Take, for example, De Neuville’s noble picture,

‘ “A Parley” (Un Parliamentaire). o It represents a shell-

stormed French village, into which some German officers
have entered blindfolded and under the protection of a flag of
truce. The German officers are depicted in a manner with
which their compatriots could not possibly quarrel. Yet the

18

wicked folly of the war is indicated in a simple peasant

woman, who, with her house shattered by the shells and in '

ruins before her, shakes her clenched fist in maniacal _frenzy
at these representatives of the invaders. One feels that the

painter means no reflection upon the German officers. They «

are pawnswmoved upon the chess—board of war by higher
powers, but the protest of the shrieking woman is the 2812/!-
sz.“/mm's'——tl1e groan of the world at this colossal iniquity.

The Russian painter, Verestschagin, has given the subject .

the same repulsive character. His picture of the battle of
Plevna, in which the Czar is leisurely seated at a table watch-
ing the battle from a distance, gave great offense in Russia.
His pictures of the dying and the slain are marked by a
terrible fidelity to nature, which some have thought beyond
the proper limits of art. Yet thepainter should hold the
“ mirror up to nature,” and Verestsichagin has served his day

and generation well by awakening with his brush the indigna- T

tion of men at the frightful results of the battle. ,
Let me finally and very briefly state a few of the many con-
siderationsl which, in my judgment, inevitably tend to peace.

Each is deservingof far more careful treatment than is possible 4

at present,iand opens a vista of indefinite and glorious possi-
bilities which it will repay any one to consider. ‘ Be it my
task simply to summarize them in the shortest way.

I. The spirit —of‘democracy will lessen the possibility of war.
Nothing can be more sure than its rising tide. Its stride is
that of a seven-leagued giant. The masses of the people, who
are the real sufferers from war, ordinarily ‘do not cause it,
while, on the contrary, the greatest number of arrnedlconflicts
have been due to the arrogance and pride or personal selfish-
ness of rulers. Take, for example, the Franco—~Prussian war.
It is well known that ‘Napoleon the Third, sick both in‘ mind
and body, did not desire the conflict, but, on the contrary,
was seriously meditating but twelve months before it opened
a proposal looking to the mutual disarmament of Europe and

the constitution of an international court of arbitration. Un- -

happily for France, his self--willed and headstrong Empress
desired the war in the interests of the Napoleonic dynasty,

19

and at her instigation, added to the self~confessed alteration
of dispatches by Bismarck, there was precipitated that short
but terrible conflict which terminated in the “terrible year”
and the partial destruction of Paris. Undoubtedly this war
could not have been commenced had it not received a, popular
support from the French people, but the bad counsel of the
Empress and her immediate advisers was the stick that
started the avalanche. The unhappy queen of fashion, when
her only son fell beneath a Zulu spear, must have keenly felt
the immeasurable sorrow that her foolish ambition had in part
inflicted upon France. With the advance‘ of parliamentary
government the day is not far distantwhen no ruler can de--
clare war without the consent of the people, and that will
materially lessen such conflicts. T T

2. The advance of civilization has increased the sense of
brotherhood of men by facilitating the communication of ideas,
and has made possible a public opinion strong enough to repress
these and other evils. The newspaper which we each morning
pick from our door-steps, acquaints ‘us with the happenings of
the world during the last twenty-four hours, and creates an
interest on our part in the general welfare of humanity that
was impossible a century ago. The telegraph has brought all
men as under one roof, and the cable enables Gresham and
Gladstone to discuss questions of mutual interest almost as
freely as if they were sitting at the same table. T The steam»-
ship which can cross the Atlantic in five days and seventeen
hours, and the railroad train which can carryipassengflers from
New York to San Francisco in five days, cause the mingling
of men and their mutual intercourse until by friendly contact
and the realization of their mutual helpfulness their national
prejudices and hatreds have been forgotten. Hence have
arisen the great international expositions, commencingwith
theonein London in I851 and terminating with the present
at Chicago. Had the Prince Consort done nothing more for
humanity than instituting these friendly competitions of brain

T and muscle he would have deserved his beautiful monument at

Hyde Park. These peaceful Olympiads of industry cannot
help but weaken the inborn hatreds of different races, which

20

are in the least analysis the profound and underlying causes

of war,

3. The development of means of destruction will serve to
prevent war.‘ Spealcing on the army bill a few years ago,
Prince Bismarck, stated that to the next war between France
and Germany the last would be but child’s play. He further
added that it would be a war of exceptional ferocity, and, fit-
tingly borrowing a figure from the shambles, he said that on
the part of the victor it would be a case of “ bleeding white.”
This metaphor relates to the habit of butchers drawing the
last drop of blood from certain kinds of cattle to make their
flesh white. It is undoubtedly true that since the last war
cannon and rifles have been so developed that unless some
sufficient armor can be found for the human body the mortal-
ity would be unexampled. I believe it was General Sheridan
who, commenting on this fact in an address at VVest Point,
said that the next war would be one of annihilation. Un-
doubtedly this fact contributes materially to the present
peace of Europe. Europe is to-day afraid to engage, in war,

while the democratic masses are sullenly refusing to be “food T

I

for powder’ in the interest of their rulers.

T 4. The United States, I-firmly believe, will compel peace at
no distant day, and it will do this without any intention on
her part. Here is a fact whose importance has been almost
overlooked. The governments of Europe are to—day bank»-
rupt under great debts, whose payment is impossible. Mili-
tary service is well-nigh universal, and out of every five men one
is constantly in arms. It has been estimated that it takes the
work of one farmer or manual laborer to sustain each soldier
in the army, and thus two men out of every five are unnec—
essarily drawn from the productive forces of the nations.
The military burdens, together with past debts, are so

crushing that economic forces are paralyzed and the masses

are in a state of revolt. Wltll land enhanced in price, with
raw materials difficult of access, weighed down by the
burdens of a military and civil list, the time is not far distant
when these nations cannot compete with the United, States
unless they throw off such burdens. VVith our own debt re—-

2I

duced by marvelous recuperation to but little over $500,000,-
000, with the certainty that in the next quarter of a century

both it and our pension list will be practically obliterated, with

an abundance of cheap land, with unrivaled and inexhaustible
natural resources, with the most inventive, intelligent, and
productive labor in the world, the economic primacy of the
world will be ours. The desire of America is now to enter
the markets of the world and challenge all comers. It re-
quires no knowledge ofpolitical economy to state that in
such competition the ‘decrepit. and bankrupt nations of the
continent, staggering and groaning under the‘ most frightful

burden of military power the world has ever known, must in—- ~

evitably be driven to the wall unless they disarm. It is my

belief, therefore, that America is destined to be not sim-

ply the liberator but the pacificator of civilization.

5. To this last consideration perhaps should be added the
thought, not of an Anglo-American 7»*e’zmz'07z, advocated by Mr.

Andrew Carnegie in the .Z\/"07/2‘/z Azzzerzbazz R.e’nz'ra:/ for June,  

1893, but of an Anglo—American cz//zkzrzcr in the interests of
peace. They are the only two countries upon which the sun
does not set, and which are beyond question unconquerable by
any power that could be sent against them. Together they unite,
without counting their colonial dependencies, an English-
speaking nation numbering to-day over one hundred millions
of people, and destined within fifty years to number two hun-
dred millions. Wl1ile~ each is an amalgam of other races---
and happily so, as mixed races have ever been the strongest--
yet the main stock of each nation is Teutonic in origin. They
have in common the same language, literature, and law-
Should these two nations join hands in the interests of peace

a and say—-

“ For Christian shame, put by this barbarous brawl.
He that stirs next to carve for his own rage
Holds his soul light. He dies upon his motion,” .

their influence must be a great and beneficent one. These
two are the greatest cornpetitorsfor the world’s industrial
supremacy, and they will compel by their own comparative
freedom from governmental burdens a like exemption on the
part of other countries. a

22

6.. We would omit the greatest consideration that justifies
the hope of peace did we not mention Christianity. I mean

i by that no ecclesiastical organization, but the impulse of for-

bearance, self—sacrifice, and love that the world owes to the

great Martyr, and which to-day animates all religions, Jew

or Gentile, Protestant or Catholic. It is this that gives force
and effect to the “ decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
We who are here assembled have this day unanimously re--
solved, at the instance of the Carpenters’ Company, and on
motion of the honored “ Father of the Centennials,” Colonel
Peyton, that “ we deem it both proper and appropriate ' that
the citizens of the United States, regardless of nationality,
religious sect or denomination, should, in the interest of peace,
fraternity, and future prosperity, suggest and commend a
meeting of the human family in the city’ of jerusa1em,togive
thanks and praise to God, the Father of all, and so appropi-i—
ately celebrate the closing of the nineteenth and the opening
of the twentieth century of the Christian era.”

Let uspray God thatthis noble and beneficent purpose, so
fraught with good for humanilty, may be carried out.. Where
Hewalked, proclaiming “ Peace on earth, good--will to man,”
there let the nations meet and take a high resolve to obey
His imperative mandate, uttered in hour of supremest need,
when Peter unsheathed his sword in the holiest cause that
ever inspired a man to action, “Put up again thy sword into his
place, for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Iknow no fitter place in which to inaugurate this move-
ment than Philadelphia, where Penn, by precept and example,
taught the power of love, and none in which with greater
propriety it can be consummated than in Jerusalem, where
died the Prince of Peace. In such holy convocation of the
human family, perhaps the first step towards a realization of
the “ parliamentof man and the federation of the world,” let

His voice, still and small, yet mightier than the tempest or A

the earthquake, rise above the passionate quarrels of men! ‘

‘‘ Down the dark future, through long generations,
The echoing sounds grow fainter and then cease ;
And like a bell, with solemn, sweet vibrations,
I hear once more the voice of Christ say, “Peace! ”