must concede the same rights to all other nations and peoples. Thus only can it secure the confidence of the people, the respect of mankind, and the favor of that Almighty Power who holds the destinies of men and nations in the hollow of His hands.

"It will be a glorious day for our country when it can be said with sincerity and truth that all its rulers and all its people are in favor of liberty for all nations, and opposed to forcing any form of government upon any people. May God speed the coming of that day."

SPEECH OF GENERAL GRANT.

General Grant's speech was a surprise to me. I knew the General personally and considered him the most quiet, reticent public man I had ever known. Great interest was felt in what he would say, but it was not expected that he would say much. On the contrary, he made what, for him, was a long speech. This may have been caused by the speech of Mr. Clay, who preceded him, and to whom he referred. It is highly probable that he was led to speak so freely of the Mexican War by what Mr. Clay said on that subject. He says, in his "Memoirs," that he "was a great admirer of Mr. Clay."

He begun by stating that although he had served in two wars, the Mexican War and the war to put down the Rebellion, the military profession was not his choice. When he was a student at West Point his highest ambition was to be a professor in some college or university. A military life

had no charms for him, and he had not the faintest idea of staying in the Army, even if he should be graduated, which he did not expect. His going to West Point was his father's arrangement, not his. The first year he was there a bill was introduced into Congress to abolish the Military Academy, and he was in hopes it would pass, as he saw in this an honorable way to obtain a discharge. But the bill failed, and he remained a cadet at that institution.

It was in this way that he became a soldier in the Mexican War. He had always considered that this was a political and an unholy war. He was bitterly opposed to the annexation of Texas, and to this day he regarded the war which resulted as one of the most unjust wars ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon Mexico cannot. The fact is, annexationists wanted more territory than they could possibly lay any claim to as part of the new acquisition.

In taking military possession of Texas after annexation, the army of occupation, under General Taylor, was directed to occupy the disputed territory. The army did not stop at the Nueces, and offer to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary question, but went beyond, apparently in order to force Mexico to initiate war. He was satisfied that General Taylor looked upon the Mexicans as the aggrieved party, but he was obliged to obey his instructions. This is one of

the greatest objections to the military profession—that the soldier is obliged to obey his orders, no matter how unjust they may be. Practically, the soldier is a machine, having no use for either conscience or principle, as against his orders, and must run as the machine master directs, even if he runs himself and his country to perdition.

The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements was not sufficient to provoke hotilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, "Whereas, war exists by the act of Mexico," etc., and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated, there were but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it. As a rule, American soldiers are brave; but American politicians are not. And it often happens that a brave soldier, when he is turned into a politician, is, by that very act, turned into a coward. The history of our country has furnished some striking examples of this truth. As to politicians, he had heard of very prominent ones who were strongly opposed to the Philippine War (while the Administration was in suspense whether to make it or not), as unjust to the Filipinos and ruinous to our own country; but who, after it was brought on by our management, denounced as traitors those who continued true to their convictions, and still held and expressed their original and honest sentiments. Such men sacrifice their country to their party, and are unsafe counsellors for a free people.

This war is a good illustration of the trite saying that

"history repeats itself." We were exploited into a war with the Filipinos in the same way, substantially, as the Mexican War was brought about. The management was about the same in each case. And the object of the war in each case was the same. Primarily, it was in one case to extend slavery, and in the other to establish serfdom. But the ultimate object in each case was to make money out of the labor of other men; and, to that end, to govern them and their country as we pleased.

He said that he had given his views of slavery and war briefly, in another place, but he would avail himself of this occasion to give them more fully, for the times, he thought, demanded it.

He concurred entirely with Mr. Clay in the opinion that nothing but "dire necessity" would justify a nation in making war. It might seem strange to some that, as he had served in two wars, he should be so much opposed to what seemed to be his own profession; and he thought, perhaps, that the present occasion would justify him in giving some of the reasons for his opposition.

His natural dislike to war was very much developed and strengthened by a sermon upon that subject which he heard when he was a young man. It was very much increased by reading history; and his own experience had made it so odious to him that he would do anything that was right to avoid it.

The sermon referred to was a remarkable effort, and made such an impression upon him that he still remembered a considerable part of it. The text was a verse in Isaiah, which he had often heard quoted, and which he had sometimes read:

"4. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

In explaining this text the preacher first described war, and illustrated it by word-pictures drawn from the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, from the retreat of Napoleon from Moscow, and from the horrible cruelties practiced by the successful party during the civil wars in England.

"I have never," the General said, "heard anything equal to the description this preacher gave of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Titus was naturally cruel, though he afterwards became apparently humane, from policy. The history of that siege, as some historian has truly said, is a story of 'incredible horrors.' It is too dreadful to be more than alluded to here: famine, fire, pestilence, murder, unnatural and vile brutality before the city was taken, and the giving of it up to slaughter and destruction by an inhuman soldiery afterwards.

"As this man drew this picture with a master hand, I could almost see the wretched victims of Roman ferocity, and of their own folly, dying of disease and starvation; I could almost hear the cries and groans of helpless mothers and their starving children, making the city of David and Solomon a sardonic mockery of its former pride and glory.

"With the same powerful memory and imagination, this man described the retreat of the great army of Napoleon from Moscow. He painted, almost to the very life, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of men on that fa