John J. (John Joseph) Lalor.

Cyclopædia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States online

. (page 278 of 290)
Online LibraryJohn J. (John Joseph) LalorCyclopædia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States → online text (page 278 of 290)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

world, and resignation to present suffering, in an-
ticipation of happiness in a future life. They
think of perfecting man's life on earth by contemn-
ing and despising it. They assure us that the
general observance of their doctrines or precepts
is the best means to secure the tranquillity and
happiness of nations, and of strengihening social
wder. — Unfortunately these modern defenders
of what Bentham calls the principle of asceticism,,
do not preach by example. Fully provided them-
selves with all that can satisfy most completely
awakened wants, it ill becomes them to censure
in the impoverished classes the aspiration to a
position more or less nearly resembtog their own,
unless they first themselves renounce the advan-
tages of their position. This, however, they do
not do; they very willingly make use of the goods
which they pretend to despise; we generally find
them very anxious to escape privation, and none of
them has yet been able to persuade himself to live
in a Diogenes tub. This contradiction between
their theory and their practice gives ground for
the belief that their faith in the truth and efficacy
of their doctrine is not very lively or sincere, and
this is probably one of the causes of the fruit-
lessness of their preaching. — But even if they
were to join example to precept, as did some of
their predecessors in past ages, they would suc-
ceed no better than did these in inducing man-
kind to live a life contrary to their instincts. We
can not change the nature of things by ignoring
it; it remains what it is despite all our opinions

and all our errors. The soul of man, such as Gtod
made it, and as it manifests itseU during the en-
tire time of its union with the body — from the
cradle to the grave — is an inexha/ustM^ source of de-
sires (Frederick Bastiat, Harmonies Economigues);
and a desire is nothing but a seeking for some sat-
isfaction, or a shrinking from some pain, that ia
to say, a tendency to weU-being. — This tendency,
therefore, is essential to the soul; it is as intimate-
ly connected with, and inherent in, our nature, as
the mysterious force which attracts them to the
centre of the earth is to heavy bodies. All that
the will of man can do is to direct this tendency
toward some gratifications rather than toward
others; but we obey them in all our resolves, even
when we constrain present wants in order to en-
joy a future gratification, or impose a hardship
upon ourselves to escape still greater ones, or re-
sist the temptation to a physical gratification with
a view to intellectual or moral pleasure, or even
when we practice the greatest possible renuncia-
tion, and deny ourselves all of this world's goods
with the hope of thus obtaining a happy existence
in a better world. — Among the infinite variety of
directions that may be given to our wants, some
are more and some less favorable, some are more
and some less opposed to the perfecting or im-
provement of human life. Thus, for instance,
nations whose desires are too exclusively directed
toward sensual gratifications, soon degenerate, be-
cause it is the nature of such gratifications to
weaken the vigor and manhood of those who
give themselves over to them without restraint,
to degrade their affective faculties, to render
them at the same time less fitted for intellectual
operations, and thus to weaken the principal ele-
ment of our power. But too absolute a repression
of the instincts which urge us to sensual gratifi-
cations would be attended with no less pernicious
results. Whether this repression be inspired by
religious belief, or prompted by the idea — an idea
which bears the impress rather of laziness than of
philosophy — that it is better for man to stifle his
wants than to have to produce the means of satis-
fying them, the inevitable effect will be to degrade
his most precious faculties by allowing them to
remain inactive. For it is to their activity alone
that we must attribute the immense development
which they have acquired, a development which
may be estimated by comparing the most civilized
portions of the population of Europe with the
tribes that have remained almost in their primitive
state of barbarism. — The science of morals points
out to us the reefs upon which our blind tenden-
cies would wreck us ; its duty is to show us as
clearly as possible the good or evil courses which
wants may take, by discovering and indicating
to us all the consequences of our inclinations,
whether proximate or remote. Of the many
courses which these inclinations may take, there
is one which will surely lead to our ruin, and oth-
ers which lead as surely to the progressive im-
provement of humanity in every respect. It is
the part of morals to tell us whither these differ-



ent courses lead, in order that, while obeying the
irresistible impulse of our nature to seek after
well-being, we may be leas exposed to losing our
way. — In the present state of science this mis-
sion of morals is scarcely even outlined, and the
only real progress which we have made in this re-
spect for over a century, is due to political econo-
my. — But, although political economy has thrown
a great deal of light upon the consequences of
some of the tendencies and habits of mankind
taken collectively, its object is not so much to influ-
ence us in the direction of our wants as to enlight-
en us on the general means of insuring their sat-
isfaction. It is for this reason that it takes these
wants as they are, and recognizes utility in every-
thing which they cause us to seek, without stop-
ping to examine whether they are rational or not.
Those who find fault with it for proceeding in this
manner, do not realize that it could not act other-
wise without extending its field of investigation
beyond measure; that it could not furnish suitable
rules to guide us in the choice of our satisfactions,
and in the development of our inclinations and
tastes, without creating out of whole cloth a sci-
ence which does not exist. The principles of po-
litical economy are in every way independent of
the direction our wants take, and they will be
none the less true and useful when the progress
of morality shall have made the general wants of
man better understood, and more strictly conform-
able to well-being and the perfection of life than
they are at present. The natural laws o'f produc-
tion, distribution and consumption of the objects
of our wants remain the same, no matter what
the nature of the satisfactions which these objects
procure, and independently of the favorable or
injurious results which the habit of these gratifi-
cations may have upon individuals and nations.
It is with the principles of political economy as
with those of mechanics : they remain the same
whether applied to the creation of an implement
of warfare — an instrument of death and destruc-
tion — or suggesting rules for the better employ-
ment of the forces employed in the production of
means of subsistence. Thus, for instance, the prin-
ciples of political economy are as weH adapted to
point out to the savages of North America the gen-
eral means of obtaining abundantly the alcoholic
wants which degrade and kill them, as they are
to enlighten civilized nations upon the social con-
ditions most favorable to the increase and diffu-
sion of all that can contribute to the improvement
of physical life and of the intellect. — It is never-
theless true that the progress of morality, without
changing anything in the principles of political
economy, must aid in rendering the application
of those principles more profitable; and the realiza-
tion of this truth has led most economists to some
extent into the domain of morals, while they were
seeking to measure the relative extent and merit
of different classes of wants, while they were
combating the errors and prejudices which favor
luxurious and purely frivolous expenses, and con-
demning those which tend to enervate and de-

grade nations. — The wants of nations are never
a fixed quantity; they are constantly varying and
generally progressive; but they are endowed with
such elasticity, even in what concerns food, that
experience has frequently shown that great varia-
tions may occur in their yearly alimentary produc-
tion without exercising any proportionate influ-
ence upon the number of the population, that the
population may increase without an equivalent
increase in the quantity of products, and that
an increase of general production may coincide
with the stationary state of the population. In
this latter case the wants of each are more fully
satisfied; in the former cases they are necessari-
ly restricted, and there is, consequently, more

A. Clement.

WAR. (See Declabation of War, Bellig-
erents, Exchange of Prisoners.)

WAR, The Civil.

U. S. History.)

(See Rebellion, The, in

WAR DEPARTMENT. One of the executive
departments of the United States government, es-
tablished by act of Aug. 7, 1789. (1 Stat, at Large,
p. 49.) The head of this department, oflicially
designated the secretary of war, has charge of all
matters respecting military affairs, under the direc-
tion of the president; has custody of all records,
etc., relating to the army, the superintendence of
all purchases of military supplies, the direction of
army transportation, the distribution of stores,
etc., the signal service and meteorological records,
the disbursement of all appropriations for rivers
and harbors and their survey and improvement,
and the superintendence and supply of arms and
munitions of war. The secretary of war is a mem-
ber of the cabinet (salary, $8,000). He is required
to make an annual report to congress, with state-
ment of all appropriations and their expenditure,
contracts for supplies or services, reports of sur-
veys, and of improvements of rivers and harbors,
returns of the militia in the various states, etc. —
The extensive business of the war department is
distributed among ten military bureaus, each under
a chief who is an officer of the regular army, and
receives a salary of $5,000 while at the head of a
bureau. The chief clerk of the department (salary,
$3,750) has charge of the correspondence and ac-
counts, commimicates between the secretary and
department oflScers, and has general superintend-
ence of 90 to 100 clerks and other employes at-
tached to the secretary's office. The adjutant
general of the United States army is at the head of
a bureau of 575 clerks, etc. He issues the orders
of the president and the general commanding the
army, conducts the army correspondence, the re-
cruiting and enlistment service, issues commis-
sions, receives reports and resignations, is custo-
dian of the voluminous army records of the United
States, keeps the muster rolls, and makes an an-
nual report of the strength and discipline of the



army. The Inspector general, with assistance, in-
spects and reports the condition of the army at all
military posts, as well as the accounts of its dis-
bursing ofScers. The quartermaster general (132
clerks, etc.) has charge of army transportation,
clothing, quarters, equipage, forage, wagons,
horses and mules, fuel and lights, stationery, hos-
pitals, medicines, etc. He employs and pays
guides, spies, etc., defrays funeral expenses, and
has charge of the national cemeteries. The com-
missary general (38 clerks, etc.) is charged with
the subsistence department, army rations, and
purchase and distribution of the same. The sur-
geon general (468 clerks, etc.) has control of the
medical department, the selection, purchase and
distribution of medicines, records of all wounded,
disabled and deceased soldier?, the supervision of
army surgeons and of the army medical museum
at Washington. The latter contains an extensive
exhibit of specimens, representing the effects upon
the human body of wounds, morbid conditions,
etc., with the complete hospital records of the
army, and a very extensive library of nearly 60,000
volumes. The paymaster general (60 clerks, etc.)
keeps the accounts and disburses the pay of the
army, through a large body of paymasters. The
chief of engineers (17 clerks, etc.) is commander
of the corps of engineers, charged with fortifica-
tions, torpedo service, military bridges, river and
harbor improvements, military and geographical
surveys, etc. The chief of ordnance (36 clerks,
etc.) is charged with artillery and all munitions of
war, prescribing models and modifications of weap-
ons, and their construction, preservation and dis-
tribution to the regular army and to the militia of
the states. The chief signal officer superintends
the signal service, and the weather bureau, with a
corps of instruction in signal duties, prepares and
issues maps and charts, and publishes daily me-
teorological reports from the numerous stations of
observation, which are afterward consolidated in
peiTuanent form. The judge advocate general re-
ceives and reviews proceedings of courts-martial
and other military tribunals of the army, and fur-
nishes opinions and reports on questions of law,
etc., to the secretary of war. — The war depart-
ment is conducted at an annual expense for sala-
ries of $1,936,855 (in 1884), and contingent ex-
penses (including printing) of $840,000. The fol-
lowing is a complete list of the secretaries of war,
with their terms of office :

1. Henry Knox Sept. 12,1789

2. Timothy Pickering Jan. 2,1795

3. James McHenry Jan. 27,1796

4. SamuelDexter May 13,1800

5. Roger Griswold Feb. 3,1801

6. Henry Dearborn March 5,1801

7. William Bustis March 7,1809

8. John ArmBtrong Jan. 13,1813

9. James Monroe _ Sept. 27,1814

10. William H. Crawford Aug. 1,1815

11. George Graham ad interim.

12. John C. Calhoun Oct. 8,1817

13. JamesBarbonr March 7,1825

14. Peter B. Porter May 26,1828

15. John H.Eaton March 9,1829

16. Lewie Cass Aug. 1,1831

17. Joel R. Poinsett March 7, 188T

18. JohnBell March 6,1841

19. John C. Spencer Oct. 12,1841

20. James M. Porter March 8,184.1

21. William Wilkins Feb. 15,1844

22. William L. Marcy March 6,1845

23. George W. Crawford March 8,1849

24. Charles M. Conrad Aug. 15,1850-

26. Jefferson Davis March 5,1863

26. John B.Floyd March 6,1857

27. JosephHolt Jan. 18,1861

28. Simon Cameron March 6,1861

29. Edwin M. Stanton Jan. 15, 1862

Ulysses S. Grant, ad int Aug. 12, 1867

Lorenzo Thomas, " Feb. 21,1868

30. John M. Schoflcld May 28,1868

31. John A. Rawlins Marchll, 1869

William T. Sherman Sept. 9, 1869

32. William W. Belknap Oct. 26,1869

83. Alphonso Taft March 8,1876

34. Jas. Donald Cameron May 22,1876

86. George W. McCrary March 12, 1877

36. Alexander Ramsey Dec. 10,1879

37. .Robert T. Lincoln March 5,1881

A. R. Spopford.
WARS (in TJ. S. History). I. French and
Indiak War. This was the first national war of
the United States, although no such nation as the-
United States had as yet a formal existence.
Previous wars had been waged by but one colony
or a few adjacent eolonies in combination. They
had been the inevitable Indian wars, such as the
Pequot war in 1637, or King Philip's war in 1675,
waged by Massachusetts and Connecticut, and th&
Tuscarora war, in 1711, waged by North and
South Carolina; or conflicts with the neighboring^
French and Spaniards, into which the colonies
had been dragged by their connection with the
mother country. Such were King William's war, in
1689-97, in which Massachusetts, Connecticut and
New York united to attack Canada by land and
sea; Queen Anne's war, in 1702-13, in which the
fighting was done separately by South Carolina in
the south, and by New England, New York and
New Jersey in the north ; the Spanisji war, in
1639-42, in which the brunt was borne by Ogle-
thorpe and his new colony of Georgia ; and King
George's war, in 1744r-8, in which all the northern
colonies took part. In the course of these con-
flicts, an increasing community of interests had
brought an-lncreasing number of the colonies to
act together; but none of them had been general,
and still less could any of them be called quad-
national. The French and Indian war was essen-
tially different from all its predecessors. It was not.
provoked by European diplomacy, but continued
for two j'ears in America before war was declared
in Europe. It was not brought on by European
interests, but was accepted by the colonies in de-
fense of their own interests. It was waged by all
the colonies in common, from New Hampshire to
Georgia. In waging it, the first plain distinction,
appeared between Americans, or "provincials,"
and Englishmen. (See Nation.) And, as a part
of it, the first effort was made to secure a formal
union of the colonies. (See Albany Plan of
Union.) — In 1748 the Ohio land company was
formed, as a Virginia and London speculation.
Several of the Washington family were engaged



In it, and its object was to develop Virginia's
western resources. The peculiar claims of Vir-
ginia, from the asserted northwest direction of her
northern boundary line, made it doubtful whether
the country around what is now. Pittsburgh was
in Virginia or in Pennsylvania. (See Virginia;
Tbrritories, I.) The Ohio company obtained
from the crown a grant of 500,000 acres in this
neighborhood, and began preparations to make
roads to it through the still unsettled country.
The French colonial empire in America then con-
sisted of two settled territories, in Canada and at
New Orleans, the two having about one-tenth the
population of the English colonies, joined by a
line of some sixty forts between New Orleans and
Montreal. Many of these forts, such as Detroit
and Natchez, have since become the sites of flour-
ishing cities. The country through which the line
ran was an Indian territory, with a few French
hunters and traders in addition to the garrisons.
But the French asserted territorial claims up to
the crest of the AUeghanies; and they naturally
took alarm as the first feeble wave of English set-
tlement appeared over the mountains. In 1749
they sent an expedition through the present states
of Ohio and Kentucky, to bury leaden plates at
important points, with the arms of France graven
on them, to assert possession of the country, and
to warn English traders out of it. In 1753 the
rivals came closer together : the Ohio company
built Redstone old fort (now Brownsville), on the
Monongahela; and in 1753 the French built forts
at Presque Isle, now Erie, and on the Alleghany
to the south of it. Late in the same year, George
Washington, then a young land surveyor, was
sent to Presque Isle by Gov. Dinwiddle, of Vir-
ginia, to warn off the intruders. They declined
to go, and made active preparations to extend
their acquisitions. — The key of the country was
the point at the junction of the Alleghany and
Monongahela, now known as Pittsburgh. All
parties understood its importance. Late in 1753
Dinwiddle bought from the Indians the right to
build a fort there, and sent men to do the work.
Early in 1754 came the conflict : the French de-
scended from Presque Isle, drove away the En-
glish, and finished the fort themselves, calling it
Fort DuQuesne; and the French and Indian war
had begun. The battles, such as the defeat of
Braddock in 1755, and Johnson's defeat of Dies-
kau, near Lake George, in the same year, were at
first not very creditable to the English and pro-
vincials. Their discordant and inefficient efforts
were easily foiled by the inferior forces of the
abler French leaders. In 1757 Pitt became the
head of the English ministry, and order, vigor,
sense and success came with him into the English
councils. Fort Du Quesne fell the next year, and
Quebec in 1759. During the following year the
various French forts were taken into possession,
and the French empire in America was lost for-
ever. In 1763, by the peace of Paris, Great Brit-
ain was formally vested with the jurisdiction of
the whole of North America east of the Missis-

sippi, the Ploridas being ceded by Spain, the ally
of France in the war, in exchange for Havana,
which an English expedition had captured two
years before. Of her former possessions in North
America, France ceded the portion east of the
Mississippi to her victorious enemy. Great Britain,
and the portion west of that river to her partner
in misfortune, Spain. — The persistence of Great
Britain in retaining her conquests from France
in North America, and thus relieving her other
colonies from the constant danger impending from
Canada, was at first sight a great mistake. The
French minister for foreign affairs warned the
British envoy, at the time that the cession of
Canada would only clear the way for the inde-
pendence of the original British colonies ; .and
from 1763 until 1775 French statesmen patiently
watched the fulfillment of the prophecy, and
were encouraged by the unanimous reports of
French agents in North America. It even became
the fashion in Great Britain, after the opening of
the revolution, to attribute the boldness of the
colonists entirely to the cession of Canada. But,
after all, the change of jurisdiction in 1763 can
not thus be made the universal scape-goat: it but
substituted Great Britain for Prance as an enemy.
Burgoyne's expedition would not have been any
more dangerous to the colonies under a French
than under a British standard. The truth seems
rather to be that the cession of Canada would
have postponed the day of conflict with the mother
country for half a century, if the stupidity of
British statesmen had not brought it to a head in
1775. France, Great Britain and all Europe com-
bined could not finally have balked of its prey
the Anglo-Saxon lust for land; but the cession of
Canada to the mother country satiated it peacea-
bly for the time, just as Napoleon's cession of
Louisiana in 1803 (see Annexations, I.) satiated
it again for the time. From this point of view
the action of Great Britain in retaining the western
territory would seem to have been as blindly wise
as her subsequent attempt to "govern" the colo-
nies was blindly foolish. — II.- See Revolution.

— III. See Algerine War. — IV. War of
1812. The causes of the " second war for inde-
pendence," as the war of 1813 is sometimes called,
are elsewhere given. (See Embargo ; Democratic
Party, III.) The internal political difficulties
which accompanied it, and the great development
of national feeling which followed it, have also
been given a separate place. (See Convention,
Hartford; Nation, II.) It is designed here
only to give, in some necessary detail, the course
of action which closed it by the treaty of Ghent.

— March 8, 1813, the Russian minister at Wash-
ington, Daschkofl, offered to the American gov-
ernment, by direction of the czar, his friendly
mediation in the war. Madison accepted it, and
nominated. May 39, Bayard, of Delaware (see that
state), Gallatin, and John Quincy Adams, then
minister to Russia, as negotiators. July 19, the
senate confirmed them, except Gallatin, who was
secretary of the treasury: the affairs of the treas-






ury were in'so critical a conditioa that the senate
refused to sanction his absence from the country.
Nov.'4, 1813, while the three American negotia-
tors were in St. Petersburgh, one of them uncon-
firmed, Castlereagh wrote to the secretary of state,
dechning the Russian mediation, but offering to
treat directly, and suggesting London as the place.
It is supposed that Great Britain, not caring to of-
fend Russia or to allow that country's friendship
for the United States to influence the final treaty,
wished to transfer the negotiations from St. Peters-
burgh. In January, 1814, Henry Clay and Jona-
than Russell were nominated and confirmed as
additional negotiators; and Gallatin, who had by
this time resigned the treasury, was confirmed. —
In .August, 1814, the place of negotiation was
transferred to Ghent; and here the five commis-
sioners met Lord Gambler, Henry Goulburn, and
William Adams, on the part of Great Britain.
The time was hardly propitious for peace negotia-
tions. On the 30th of the previous March the
allies had entered Paris in triumph; in April Na-
poleon had departed for Elba ; and the British
government was free to settle accounts with the
upstart people whose ships had won more flags
from her navy in two years than all her European
rivals had done in a century. And so, while ne-
gotiations were going on, detachments of Welling-

Online LibraryJohn J. (John Joseph) LalorCyclopædia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States → online text (page 278 of 290)