Permit me here to quote, as most pertinent to this view of the subject,
an extract from a speech of Mr. Pitt in 1797, defending his refusal to
offer terms of peace to the Directory of France. Alluding to some
remarks of Sir John Sinclair, in the House of Commons, deprecating war
as a great evil, and calling on ministers to propose an immediate peace,
Mr. Pitt says,--"He began with deploring the calamities of war, on the
general topic that all war is calamitous. Do I object to that sentiment?
No. But is it our business, at a moment when we feel that the
continuance of that war is owing to the animosity, the implacable
animosity, of our enemy, to the inveterate and insatiable ambition of
the present frantic government of France,--not of the _people_ of
France, as the honorable baronet unjustly stated,--is it our business,
at that moment, to content ourselves with merely lamenting, in
commonplace terms, the calamities of war, and forgetting that it is part
of the duty which, as representatives of the people, we owe to our
government and our country, to state that the continuance of those evils
upon ourselves, and upon France, too, is the fruit only of the conduct
of the enemy, that it is to be imputed to them and not to us?" Now does
not this correctly describe our position? We make no question about the
calamities of war; but how are these calamities to be avoided? This war
has been forced upon us, and we must wage it to the end, or submit to
the dismemberment of the Union, and acknowledge, in flat contradiction
of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the right of Secession.
Pages:
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357