to his guide, and said, You undertook to conduct me to the earth, and you have brought me into hell! No, Sir, said the guide, I have made no mistake, this is really the earth, and these are men; devils never treat one another in this cruel manner, they have more sense, and more of what men (vainly) call humanity."

Had Franklin lived at this day I have no doubt that, notwithstanding his scepticism, he would have been one of the most active and efficient advocates for the principles of "Peace on Earth, and good will to man.”.

NO. 29.

WASHINGTON'S OPINION ON WAR.

The rising generation, when they read, on the page of history, the achievements of their fathers, are fired with a spirit of heroism; and it is not uncommon, to hear them wish, that they had been born before the American revolution, or that such times would again return, that they might have an opportunity to signalize their valour. But I can tell them

that this is any thing else than patriotism,— it is downright vain glory and selfishness; as any one may see, who will take the trouble to discriminate between cause and effect. That the independence of the United States is highly to be appreciated, is not to be doubted for a moment, and that this great event was preceded by war, calamity and suffering, is known to all. Many, therefore, look on war as the cause of independence, and become its advocates, and there is perhaps no obstacle so great in the way of the friends of peace, in this country, as the glory and success of the revolutionary war, and the gratitude which we owe to all the disinterested actors of that scene. But if we judge of the goodness of a thing barely by its consequences, and call war good, because it was followed by independence, then we should call the stamp act and other oppressive measures of the British Government good, because they were the cause of the war, and in fact, may with more propriety be called the cause of independence, than war itself, which was only a means. Now the cause of the acts of the British government, to tax America, may

be found in the "old French War," which ended so gloriously for the British empire, of which we then formed a part, and which was so disastrous in its consequences. Because God can bring good out of evil, is that any reason why we should love the evil? Yet it is common for young men to wish, that the horrors of the revolutionary war were renewed, that they might share in its honors, and I have heard the same wish, or something ve ry much like it, even from the pulpit.

But there is no necessary connection between war and independence. We might have had war without independence, like Scotland, and we might possibly-I do not say proba bly-have had independence without war,as Maine obtained her independence from Massachusetts, barely by the force of argument, and an appeal to common sense. Or we might have remained united to the British empire, for all purposes of peace, commerce and a mutual interchange of good offices, and independent, as far as it respects all matters of Government, and internal regulations, in the same manner that Maine is still united to Massachusetts, in the great confed

eration of the union; and avoiding all the evils of hereditary government, to which we have a hereditary abhorrence, and in the same manner that all the nations of Christendom might be united in one grand league and covenant, which would put an end to all wars, and would forever blast the hopes of those, who wish to reign over men by the power of the sword and would sink military glory in eternal obscurity.

Sully, in his memoirs remarks: "It may be laid down as a principle, that there are no means, but what are preferable to war; if the same end may be obtained by it." Franklin has observed that "there never was a good war nor a bad peace." Washington entertained similar sentiments. Many, who view this great man, look on him only as a general, a warrior, a mere fighter; and some, even of my own countrymen, place Napoleon far above him, in the scale of excellence. Not that they would have been so mad, as to wish to see Bonaparte in this country-no,—they admire the glossy skin of the striped tiger, while safe from the clutch of his paw, or the spiry folds of the

boa constrictor, while out of reach of their gripe, or the poison of his breath. But the tyrant of France would have been a tyrant in America, if he had had the power. Considered barely as a general, Washington was, perhaps, surpassed in his own army, and nothing but a difference in success was wanting, to make Arnold a hero, and Washington a rebel. Did time and space allow, I could adduce examples, in civil and religious wars, where heroes have acquired renown, by changing sides and fighting against those principles, which they once defended, showing, that it was a love of war and its accompanying vices, and not of civil or religious liberty, by which they were actuated. It was not receiving the sword of Cornwallis, that has endeared the name of Washington to every American and to every friend of liberty on earth,—a Suwarroff, a Marlborough, or a prince Eugene, would have done the same,—but it was the surrendering of his own sword to Congress; an act, too great for the imitation of Napoleon, and, I fear, of Bolivar.

But I detain my readers too long from the