b. 7, § 22; Legare, Rep. House of Rep., June 13th, 1838; Halleck, Elem. Mil. Art and Science, ch. 1, p. 29.)

§ 26. Again, it is said that the benefits of war are more than counterbalanced by the evils it entails, and that, "most commonly, the very means by which we repel a despotism from abroad, only establishes over us a military despotism at home." Much has been said and written about military despotism, but we think he who studies history thoroughly, will not fail to prefer a military despotism to a despotism of mere politicians. The governments of Alexander and Charlemagne, were infinitely preferable to those of the petty civil tyrants who preceded and followed them; and there is none so blinded by prejudice as to say that the reign of Napoleon was no better than that of Robespiere, Danton, and the other "lawyers" who preceded him, or of the Bourbons, for whom he was dethroned. We could point to numerous instances where the benefits of war have more than compensated for the evils which attended it; benefits not only to the generations who engaged in it, but also to their descendants for long ages. Had Rome adopted the non-resistance principle when Hannibal was at her gates, we should now be in the night of African ignorance and barbarism, instead of enjoying the benefits of Roman learning and Roman civilization. Had France adopted this principle when the allied armies invaded her territories, in 1792, her fate had followed that of Poland. If the United States had adopted this principle in 1776, what would now be the character and condition of America? (Leiber, Politicel Ethics, b. 7, § 21; Halleck, Elem. Mil. Art and Science, ch. 1, pp. 30-33; Dymond, Essay on the Principles of Morality, essay 3, ch. 19.)

§ 27. We have thus noticed, in detail, the various arguments against war used by the advocates of non-resistance, not because the arguments themselves have any real foundation or force, but on account of the character and influence of their authors, and the effect they apparently produce, not only upon religious enthusiasts, but also upon many christian philanthropists. Such arguments need only to be examined. to convince us of their weakuess and absurdity, however plausible they may appear at first sight.

We cannot better terminate this chapter, than by quoting the following peculiarly just and appropriate remarks of Dr.

*

*

Leiber, on the influence and character of war: "The continued efforts," he says, "requisite for nations to protect themselves against the ever repeated attacks of a predatory foe, may be infinitely greater than the evils entailed by a single and energetic war, which forever secures peace from that side. No human mind is vast enough to comprehend in one glance, nor is any human life long enough to follow out consecutively all the immeasurable blessings, and the unspeakable good, which have resolved to markind from the ever-memorable victories of little Greece over the rolling masses of servile Asia, which were nigh sweeping over Europe like the high tides of a swollen sea, carrying its choking sand over all the germs of civilization, liberty, and taste, and nearly all that is good and noble. Wars have frequently been, in the hands of providence, the means of disseminating civilization, if carried on by a civilized people—as in the case of Alexander, whose wars had a most decided effect upon the intercourse of men and extension of civilization- or of rousing and re-uniting people who had fallen into lethargy, if attacked by less civilized and numerous hordes. Frequently we find, in history, that the ruder and victorious tribe is made to recover, as it were, civilization, already on the wane, with a refined nation. Paradoxical as it may seem at first glance, it is, nevertheless, amply proved by history, that the closest contact, and consequent exchange of thought and produce, and enlargement of knowledge, between two otherwise severed nations, is frequently produced by war. War is a struggle, a state of suffering; but as such, at times, only that struggling process without which, in proportion to the good to be obtained, or, as would be a better expression for many cases, to the good that is to be borne- no great and essential good falls ever to the share of man. Suffering, merely as suffering, is not an evil. Our religion, philosophy, every day's experience, prove it. No maternal rejoicing brightens up a mother's eye, without the anxiety of labor." (Leiber, Political Ethics, b. 7, §§ 20, 21; Halleck, Elem. Mil. Art and Science, ch. 1, pp. 32, 33; For opinions of Grotius on the subjects of this chapter, vide his work, De Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. 1; lib. 2, caps. 1, 20, and lib. 3, cap. 5.)

CHAPTER XIV.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF WARS.

-

CONTENTS.

1. Definition of war- 2. Divisions made by military writers-3. By historians-4. By publicists- 5. Wars of insurrection and revolution 26. Wars of independence-27. Wars of opinion-8. Wars of conquest-9. Civil wars 10. National wars-11. Wars of intervention- 12. Armed intervention is war-13. For the preservation of the balance of power- 14. Historical examples- 15. Intervention of allies between Russia and Turkey in 1854- 16. In internal affairs of states17. Treaty of Paris and congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815 18. British views of armed intervention - 19. Intervention by reason of treaty obligations 20. By invitation of the contending parties - 21. To stay the effusion of blood- 22. For self-defense- 23. Public wars- -824. Private wars-8 25. Mixed wars- - 26. Perfect and imperfect wars27. Solemn and non-solemn wars- - 28. Effect of subsequent ratification- 29. Lawful and unlawful wars- 30. Distinction between unlawful and unjust wars- 31. Individual liability for acts of hostility.

§1. War has been defined, "A contest between states, or parts of states, carried on by force." This definition is by some considered defective, and as excluding that class of civil wars which are sometimes carried on between families and factions which do not constitute either states or organized parts of states; like the wars of the Guelphs and Ghiberlines in Italy, the guerilla wars in Spain, and the wars of factions in Mexico and South America. But a close exami

nation into the origin and nature of these wars will show that they are, in most cases, waged by organized parts of a state, and have reference to some principle of internal organization or party supremacy. (Massé, Droit Commercial, tome 1, § 118; Ortolan, Regles Internationales, liv. 3, ch. 1; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 1, cap. 1, §2; Puffendorf, de Jur. Nat. et Gent., lib. 1, cap. 1, §8; Albericus Gentilis, de Jur. Bel., lib. 1, cap. 2; Bynkershoek, Quaest. Jur. Pub., lib. 1, cap. 1; Leiber, Politcal Ethics, b. 7, § 15; Jomini, Precis de l'Art de la Guerre, ch. 1; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 263; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, § 49; Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 2, p. 2; Manning, Law of Nations, pp. 94-96; De Felice, Droit de la Nat., etc., tome 2, lecs. 20, 22; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 2, cap. 1, §1; Heffter, Droit International, §113; Riquelme, Derecho Pub. Int., lib. 1, tit. 2, cap. 7; Rayneval, Inst. du Droit Nat., liv. 3, ch. 1, §1.)

§ 2. Wars have been divided into different classes, according to the views and professions of those who discuss them. Military writers, generally, consider them in relation to the military operations which are carried on, and, therefore, divide them into offensive and defensive wars. But these terms are here used in a very different sense from that in which they are usually employed by political and ethical writers; for a war may be essentially defensive in its political and moral character, even where we begin it, if intended to prevent an attack or invasion, which is under preparation. A nation which first incites the war, is the real offender, by its aggression on the rights of others, although, as a matter of policy, it may confine itself to operations which are, in a military point of view, merely defensive. Hence wars,

which are entirely offensive in their military character, are sometimes essentially defensive in their nature and origin, and vice versa. (Jomini, Precis de l'Art de la Guerre, ch. 1; Halleck, Elem. Military Art and Science, ch. 2, p. 35; Garden, De Diplomatie, liv. 6, § 5; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, § 67; Kent, Com. On Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 50, note; Rayneval, Inst. du Droit Nat., liv. 3, ch. 2; Ortolan, Diplomatie, de la Mer, tome 2, p. 5; De Felice, Droit de la Nat., etc., tome 2, lec. 20; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 2, cap. 1, § 3; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 3, ch. 2, § 15; Burlamaqui, Droit de la Nat. et des Gens, tome 5, pt. 4, ch. 3.)

§ 8. But historians and publicists have generally divided wars according to their origin, objects, and effects, having reference, also, to the character of the parties which engage in them. Thus, historians have classified these contests, as wars of intervention, wars of insurrection or of revolution, wars of independence, wars of conquest, wars of opinion, religi ous wars, national wars, and civil wars. They have also classified them according to the general theater of military operations, as land wars, and maratime wars; or, as Asiatic, African, European, and American wars. Again, they are sometimes divided, with respect to periods of time or of history, as ancient and modern wars, or wars of antiquity, of classic history, of the middle ages, and of recent times. The exact periods of these several divisions are not definitively fixed, nor are the divisions themselves of much importance in international jurisprudence, except that it is to be remembered that the rules of international law, adopted at one period, may not be applicable to another period. (De Felice, Droit de la Nat., tome 2, lec. 22; Jomini, Precis de l'Art de la Guerre, ch. 1; Halleck, Elem. Mil. Art and Science, ch. 2, pp. 35, 36; Ortolan, Diglomatie de la Mer., liv. 3, ch. 2.)

§ 4. Publicists, on the other hand, have divided and classified these contests with reference to the affairs of state, the legal status of the parties engaged in them, and the international rights and obligations which result from them. Thus, text-writers usually classify them as public or solemn wars, perfect wars, and imperfect wars, mixed wars, the non-solemn kind of wars, and acts of hostility not followed by actual war, but governed by the laws of war. Such classification is of little importance, except so far as it may be necessary to distinguish between the rules applicable to particular cases. These distinctions, however, are sometimes adhered to with great tenacity, and argued with great learning in diplomatic discussions of questions growing out of the hostile acts of particular states. We will now proceed to discuss these different kind of wars, and the rights and duties peculiarly applicable to each. (Vattel, Droit des Gens, lib. 3, ch. 1, § 2; Wheaton, Elem. Int. Law, pt. 4, ch. 1, §§ 6, 7; Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac., lib. 1 cap. 3, § 4; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, pp. 50, 51; Ortolan, Diplomatie de la Mer., liv. 3, ch. 1;