Jefferson
on the Evils of War
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
 The
Jeffersonian
principles of peace, commerce, honest friendship with all nations,
and entangling alliances with none, as annunciated in Jefferson’s
first inaugural address, are no where more evident than in his opinion
of war.
War
and Peace
Jefferson
was a man of peace. President Polk will ever be associated with
the Mexican War, Lincoln with the Civil War, McKinley with the Spanish-American
War, Wilson with World War I, Roosevelt with World War II, Johnson
with Vietnam, Bush I with Gulf War I, and Bush II with the ongoing
debacle in Iraq. But such is not the case with Jefferson. Even though
he is usually considered to be one of the "great" presidents,
he is not remembered as such because he was associated with a major
war.
As
a man of peace, he often made a contrast between the blessings of
peace and the scourge of war:
I love peace,
and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful
lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than
by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the
sufferer.
War has been
avoided from a due sense of the miseries, and the demoralization
it produces, and of the superior blessings of a state of peace
and friendship with all mankind.
I value peace,
and I should unwillingly see any event take place which would
render war a necessary resource.
Having seen
the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under
the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their
opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing
that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity
and happiness.
Believing
that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits
of peace, that on these alone a stable prosperity can be founded,
that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a
long reckoning for ages to come, I have used my best endeavors
to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict
Europe, and which assail us on every side.
I do not
believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those
peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if
undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to
produce the desired effect.
We love and
we value peace; we know its blessings from experience. We abhor
the follies of war, and are not untried in its distresses and
calamities.
On
several occasions, Jefferson presented his philosophy of peace to
some Indian tribes:
The evils
which of necessity encompass the life of man are sufficiently
numerous. Why should we add to them by voluntarily distressing
and destroying one another? Peace, brothers, is better than war.
In a long and bloody war, we lose many friends, and gain nothing.
Let us then live in peace and friendship together, doing to each
other all the good we can.
Born in the
same land, we ought to live as brothers, doing to each other all
the good we can, and not listening to wicked men, who may endeavor
to make us enemies. By living in peace, we can help and prosper
one another; by waging war, we can kill and destroy many on both
sides; but those who survive will not be the happier for that.
How much
better is it for neighbours to help than to hurt one another.
How much happier must it make them. If you will cease to make
war on one another, if you will live in friendship with all mankind,
you can employ all your time in providing food and clothing for
yourselves and your families; your men will not be destroyed in
war; and your women and children will lie down to sleep in their
cabins without fear of being surprised by their enemies and killed
or carried away. Your numbers will be increased instead of diminishing,
and you will live in plenty and in quiet.
The
Evils of War
Because
Jefferson was a man of peace, he considered war to be a great evil:
I abhor war
and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind.
The insults
& injuries committed on us by both the belligerent parties,
from the beginning of 1793 to this day, & still continuing,
cannot now be wiped off by engaging in war with one of them.
I have seen
enough of one war never to wish to see another.
One war,
such as that of our Revolution, is enough for one life.
The most
successful war seldom pays for its losses.
War is as
much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer.
War is an
instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies,
instead of indemnifying losses.
We have obtained
by a peaceable appeal to justice, in four months, what we should
not have obtained under seven years of war, the loss of one hundred
thousand lives, an hundred millions of additional debt, many hundred
millions worth of produce and property lost for want of market,
or in seeking it, and that demoralization which war superinduces
on the human mind.
Great sacrifices
of interest have certainly been made by our nation under the difficulties
latterly forced upon us by transatlantic powers. But every candid
and reflecting mind must agree with you, that while these were
temporary and bloodless, they were calculated to avoid permanent
subjection to foreign law and tribute, relinquishment of independent
rights, and the burthens, the havoc, and desolations of war.
War
and the Nations
Jefferson
did not consider a nation to be great because of its military might:
"Wars and contentions, indeed, fill the pages of history with
more matter. But more blessed is that nation whose silent course
of happiness furnishes nothing for history to say." He considered
war between nations to be "the consequence of a want of respectability
in the national character." Regarding the attitude toward war
of the people of the United States, Jefferson believed that "no
country, perhaps, was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These
dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether
in or out of office."
He
knew firsthand the folly of getting involved in European wars:
Wars with
any European powers are devoutly to be deprecated.
For years
we have been looking as spectators on our brethren in Europe,
afflicted by all those evils which necessarily follow an abandonment
of the moral rules which bind men and nations together. Connected
with them in friendship and commerce, we have happily so far kept
aloof from their calamitous conflicts, by a steady observance
of justice towards all, by much forbearance and multiplied sacrifices.
At length, however, all regard to the rights of others having
been thrown aside, the belligerent powers have beset the highway
of commercial intercourse with edicts which, taken together, expose
our commerce and mariners, under almost every destination, a prey
to their fleets and armies. Each party, indeed, would admit our
commerce with themselves, with the view of associating us in their
war against the other. But we have wished war with neither.
It is much
to be desired that war may be avoided, if circumstances will admit.
Nor in the present maniac state of Europe, should I estimate the
point of honor by the ordinary scale. I believe we shall on the
contrary, have credit with the world, for having made the avoidance
of being engaged in the present unexampled war, our first object.
The cannibals
of Europe are going to eating one another again. A war between
Russia and Turkey is like the battle of the kite and snake. Whichever
destroys the other, leaves a destroyer the less for the world.
This pugnacious humor of mankind seems to be the law of his nature,
one of the obstacles to too great multiplication provided in the
mechanism of the Universe. The cocks of the henyard kill one another
up. Bears, bulls, rams, do the same. And the horse, in his wild
state, kills all the young males, until worn down with age and
war, some vigorous youth kills him, and takes to himself the harem
of females. I hope we shall prove how much happier for man the
Quaker policy is, and that the life of the feeder is better than
that of the fighter; and it is some consolation that the desolation
by these maniacs of one part of the earth is the means of improving
it in other parts. Let the latter be our office, and let us milk
the cow, while the Russian holds her by the horns, and the Turk
by the tail.
He
recognized that geography was one of the great advantages of the
United States: "The insulated state in which nature has placed
the American continent should so far avail it that no spark of war
kindled in the other quarters of the globe should be wafted across
the wide oceans which separate us from them." With a very few
exceptions, the United States has always had to cross oceans to
wage its wars.
Jefferson
realized that the push for war comes, not from the people in the
nations, but from the governments of the nations:
We have received
a report that the French Directory has proposed a declaration
of war against the United States to the Council of Ancients, who
have rejected it. Thus we see two nations, who love one another
affectionately, brought by the ill temper of their executive administrations,
to the very brink of a necessity to imbrue their hands in the
blood of each other.
The agents
of the two people [United States and France] are either great
bunglers or great rascals, when they cannot preserve that peace
which is the universal wish of both.
The people
now see that France has sincerely wished peace, and their seducers
[federalists] have wished war, as well for the loaves and fishes
which arise out of war expenses, as for the chance of changing
the Constitution, while the people should have time to contemplate
nothing but the levies of men and money.
No one wakes
up in the morning with the desire to drop bombs on people in foreign
countries that he does not know, have never injured him in any way,
and are no threat to him or his family. This desire is always government
induced and government sponsored. When it comes to mass murder,
the state takes a backseat to no one.
Jefferson
thought it beneficial for a nation to avoid war:
Never was
so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which
has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest
to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the
close of a long war, a little town, or a little territory, the
right to cut wood here, or to catch fish there, expended in improving
what they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building
ports, improving the arts, and finding employment for their idle
poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier.
This I hope will be our wisdom.
Jefferson
believed that the best policy for the United States toward other
nations was one of friendship and nonintervention:
Unmeddling
with the affairs of other nations, we had hoped that our distance
and our dispositions would have left us free, in the example and
indulgence of peace with all the world.
To cherish
and maintain the rights and liberties of our citizens, and to
ward from them the burthens, the miseries, and the crimes of war,
by a just and friendly conduct toward all nations, were among
the most obvious and important duties of those to whom the management
of their public interests have been confided; and happy shall
we be if a conduct guided by these views on our part, shall secure
to us a reciprocation of peace and justice from other nations.
The desire
to preserve our country from the calamities and ravages of war,
by cultivating a disposition, and pursuing a conduct, conciliatory
and friendly to all nations, has been sincerely entertained and
faithfully followed.
He
much preferred commerce to war: "War is not the best engine
for us to resort to; nature has given us one in our commerce, which,
if properly managed, will be a better instrument for obliging the
interested nations of Europe to treat us with justice." The
current U.S. foreign policy of belligerency, intervention, hegemony,
and subjugation is a far cry from the example of Jefferson.
The
Advent of War
It
is true that Jefferson did believe in war under certain circumstances:
If ever there
was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave
us independence.
It is our
duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually
take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves.
If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired
from within or without, we must try to extinguish it. In that,
I have no doubt, we shall act as one man.
Obviously,
traversing oceans to bomb places that many Americans cannot even
locate on a map would not fall into this category.
But
even though Jefferson realized that war might take place, he had
his doubts as to whether we would be better off at its conclusion:
"If we are forced into war [with France], we must give up political
differences of opinion, and unite as one man to defend our country.
But whether at the close of such a war, we should be as free as
we are now, God knows." If a war was necessary then it should
not be undertaken "till our revenue shall be entirely liberated
from debt. Then it will suffice for war, without creating new debt
or taxes." But Jefferson opposed "taxing the industry
of our fellow citizens to accumulate treasure for wars to happen
we know not when and which might not perhaps happen but from the
temptations offered by that treasure."
He
also did not believe in the bloodthirsty doctrine of "total
war" that the United States has engaged in since 1862.
In a model treaty drawn up while he was in France, Jefferson contended
that if contracting parties went to war, their trade should not
be interrupted, prisoners were to be given good treatment, merchants
were to be given time to settle their affairs and depart peacefully
from enemy territory, and women, children, and scholars were to
be considered non-combatants. (It is inconceivable that Jefferson,
or any of the Founding Fathers, could ever have considered women
serving in combat or semi-combat roles à la Jessica
Lynch.)
On
actually abolishing war, Jefferson was certainly no utopian, and
stated: "I hope it is practicable, by improving the mind and
morals of society, to lessen the disposition to war; but of its
abolition I despair."
The
Declaration of War
Jefferson
was particularly concerned about the executive branch of government
having the war power. Our modern Jeffersonian in Congress, Rep.
Ron Paul (R-TX), was one of the few legislators to voice
similar concerns as the U.S. was poised to invade Iraq. Here
again is Jefferson:
The power
of declaring war being with the Legislature, the Executive should
do nothing necessarily committing them to decide for war in preference
of non-intercourse, which will be preferred by a great many.
I opposed
the right of the President to declare anything future on the question,
Shall there or shall there not be war?
Considering
that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power
of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it
my duty to await their authority for using force in any degree
which could be avoided. I have barely instructed the officers
stationed in the neighborhood of the aggressions to protect our
citizens from violence, to patrol within the borders actually
delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when necessary
to repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property.
As the Executive
cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither
ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent
body from deliberating on the question.
Congress
[must] be called [if there] is a justifiable cause of war; and
as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative
side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side by preventing
the competent body from deliberating on the question.
We have already
given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war by transferring
the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative
body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.
The making
reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing. Remonstrance and
refusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows,
it is considered as an act of war, and never yet failed to produce
it in the case of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case
were important enough to require reprisal, and ripe for that step,
Congress must be called on to take it; the right of reprisal being
expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the
Executive.
The question
of war being placed by the Constitution with the Legislature alone,
respect to that [makes] it [the Executive’s] duty to restrain
the operations of our militia to those merely defensive; and considerations
involving the public satisfaction, and peculiarly my own, require
that the decision of that question, whichever way it be, should
be pronounced definitely by the Legislature themselves.
Standing
Armies
Like
the British
Cato and the American
Brutus, Jefferson was averse to standing armies:
There are
instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which
place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those
governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained
from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases.
Such an instrument is a standing army.
Were armies
to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon,
we never should have been without them. Our resources would have
been exhausted on dangers which have never happened, instead of
being reserved for what is really to take place.
Nor is it
conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept
up in time of peace.
The spirit
of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.
In
another statement regarding relations with the Indians, Jefferson
again decried standing armies:
We must do
as the Spaniards and English do. Keep them in peace by liberal
and constant presents. Another powerful motive is that in this
way we may leave no pretext for raising or continuing an army.
Every rag of an Indian depredation will, otherwise, serve as a
ground to raise troops with those who think a standing army and
a public debt necessary for the happiness of the United States,
and we shall never be permitted to get rid of either.
Conclusion
Jefferson
was not alone in his views on the evils of war. Most of the Founding
Fathers thought likewise:
"Of
all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to
be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every
other." ~ James Madison
"There
was never a good war or a bad peace." ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Preparation
for war is a constant stimulus to suspicion and ill will."
~ James Monroe
"While
there are knaves and fools in the world, there will be wars in
it." ~ John Jay
"The
fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast
with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments
of peace." ~ Alexander Hamilton
"My
first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from
the earth." ~ George Washington
But
today, instead of sages like Madison, Franklin, Monroe, Jay, Hamilton,
Washington, and Jefferson, we have warmongers like Bush, Cheney,
Libby, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Abrams. And instead
of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the American public is fed
a steady diet of David Frum, William Kristol, Sean Hannity, Jonah
Goldberg, Max Boot, Fox News, and the War Street Journal.
Jefferson
was not perfect, and he was at times inconsistent, but overall his
principles were sound. The senseless waste of American lives in
Bush’s Iraq fiasco could have been avoided if Jefferson’s aversion
to war had been followed instead of forsaken, as have the other
sound principles of the Founders.
[These
quotations from Jefferson have been taken from a variety of sources.
Most are from the now out-of-print volume, The
Complete Jefferson, edited and assembled by Saul K. Padover.
However, other similar volumes of Jefferson’s writings are available,
and much is now available online, such as this collection
of Jefferson’s
letters.]
September
15, 2004
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting and
economics at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. Visit his
website.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Laurence
M. Vance Archives
|
