WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.
It has seemed to me worth while to show from the history of civilization just what war has done and has not done for the welfare of mankind. In the eighteenth century it was assumed that the primitive state of mankind was one of Arcadian peace, joy, and contentment.
In the nineteenth century the assumption went over to the other extreme — that the primitive state was one of universal warfare.
This, like the former notion, is a great exaggeration. Man in the most primitive and uncivilized state known to us does not practice war all the time; he dreads it; he might rather be described as a peaceful animal.
Real warfare comes with the collisions of more developed societies. If we turn to facts about the least civilized men we find proofs that they are not warlike and do not practice war if they can help it. The Australians have no idea Note. Their fights do not lead to slaughter or spoils or other consequences of victory.
Quarrels between tribes are sometimes settled by a single combat between chiefs. They have no political organization, so there can be no war for power. An Englishman who knew them well said that he knew of serious wounds, but he had known of but one death from their affrays.
We are told Edition: Perhaps the converse would be true: We are not astonished to hear that they develop excessive tyranny and cruelty to those who are weaker than themselves, especially to women, and even to their mothers. This is attributed in great part to head-hunting and cannibalism.
In general they know the limits of their own territory and observe them, but they quarrel about women. In one case only had he heard of war for any other reason; three brothers, Barolongs, fought over one woman, and their tribe had remained divided, up to the time of writing, into three parties.
During his residence in the Bechuana country he never saw unarmed men strike each other. They quarrel with words, but generally both parties burst into a laugh and that ends it. A Spanish priest, writing an account, inof the Aurohuacos of Colombia, 5 says that they have no weapons of offense or defense.
If two quarrel they go out to a big rock or tree and each with his staff beats the rock or tree with vituperations.The federal New Deal programs cast the states in supporting, cooperative roles with a clearly dominant national government.
However, since both levels participated in the programs, the layers began to blur. MBA career goals essay samples and career goals essay tips for writing a strong career essay for top ranked mba programs. The authority of the country lies absolutely within the central government and the lower levels could be abolished if the centre so wished.
Although they appear very similar in operation federal and unitary systems of government immediately individualise themselves from one another in their definitions/5(12).
The Effect of the Republican Party on US Tax Law Essay Sample Introduction The old American doctrine “ public good, public interest and public representation ” is a far cry to the federal .
American Association of Port Authorities SEAPORT GOVERNANCE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA Introduction: To observers from abroad, even experienced port specialists, the seaport system of the United States might seem at first glance to be anything but a system.
Separation of powers divides power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as distinct departments of American national government. This endows several different institutions—the Congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch—with the .