William Shakespeare - "Much Ado About Nothing"

William H. Gilder - "Schwatka's Search"

Unknown - "History of Friedrich II of Prussia V Vol 15"

John Munro - "The Story Of Electricity"

The Duel Between France and Germany

C >> Charles Sumner >> The Duel Between France and Germany



Ralph Zimmerman, David Starner, Charles Franks and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team.



THE DUEL BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY

REPRINTED FROM "ADDRESSES ON WAR"

BY CHARLES SUMNER




THE DUEL BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY, WITH ITS LESSON TO
CIVILIZATION.

LECTURE IN THE MUSIC HALL, BOSTON, OCTOBER 26, 1870.


"When kings make war,
No law betwixt two sovereigns can decide,
But that of arms, where Fortune is the judge,
Soldiers the lawyers, and the Bar the field."

DEYDEN, _Love Triumphant_, Act I. Sc. 1.




LECTURE.


MR. PRESIDENT,--I am to speak of the Duel between France and
Germany, with its Lesson to Civilization. In calling the terrible
war now waging a Duel, I might content myself with classical
authority, _Duellum_ being a well-known Latin word for War.
The historian Livy makes a Roman declare that affairs are to be
settled "by a pure and pious duel"; [Footnote: "Puro pioqne
duello."--_Historie_, Lib. I. cap. 32.] the dramatist Plautus
has a character in one of his plays who obtains great riches "by
the duelling art," [Footnote: "Arte duellica."--_Epidicus_,
Act. III. Sc. iv. 14.] meaning the art of war; and Horace, the
exquisite master of language, hails the age of Augustus with the
Temple of Janus closed and "free from duels," [Footnote: "Vacuum
duellis."--_Carmina_, Lib, IV. xv. 8.] meaning at peace,--for
then only was that famous temple shut.




WAR UNDER THE LAW OF NATIONS A DUEL.


But no classical authority is needed for this designation. War, as
conducted under International Law, between two organized nations,
is in all respects a duel, according to the just signification of
this word,--differing from that between two individuals only in
the number of combatants. The variance is of proportion merely,
each nation being an individual who appeals to the sword as
Arbiter; and in each case the combat is subject to rules
constituting a code by which the two parties are bound. For long
years before civilization prevailed, the code governing the duel
between individuals was as fixed and minute as that which governs
the larger duel between nations, and the duel itself was simply a
mode of deciding questions between individuals. In presenting this
comparison I expose myself to criticism only from those who have
not considered this interesting subject in the light of history
and of reason. The parallel is complete. Modern war is the duel of
the Dark Ages, magnified, amplified, extended so as to embrace
nations; nor is it any less a duel because the combat is quickened
and sustained by the energies of self-defence, or because, when a
champion falls and lies on the ground, he is brutally treated. An
authentic instance illustrates such a duel; and I bring before you
the very pink of chivalry, the Chevalier Bayard, "the knight
without fear and without reproach," who, after combat in a chosen
field, succeeded by a feint in driving his weapon four fingers
deep into the throat of his adversary, and then, rolling with him,
gasping and struggling, on the ground, thrust his dagger into the
nostrils of the fallen victim, exclaiming, "Surrender, or you are
a dead man!"--a speech which seemed superfluous; for the second
cried out, "He is dead already; you have conquered." Then did
Bayard, brightest among the Sons of War, drag his dead enemy from
the field, crying, "Have I done enough?" [Footnote: La tresjoyeuse,
plaisante et recreative Hystoire, composee par le Loyal Serviteur,
des Faiz, Gestes, Triumphes et Prouesses du Bon Chevalier
sans Paour et sans Reprouche, le Gentil Seigneur de Bayart:
Petitot, Collection des Memoires relatifs a l'Histoire de France,
Tom. XV. pp. 241, 242.] Now, because the brave knight saw
fit to do these things, the combat was not changed in original
character. It was a duel at the beginning and at the end. Indeed,
the brutality with which it closed was the natural incident of a
duel. A combat once begun opens the way to violence, and the
conqueror too often surrenders to the Evil Spirit, as Bayard in
his unworthy barbarism.

In likening war between nations to the duel, I follow not only
reason, but authority also. No better lawyer can be named in the
long history of the English bar than John Selden, whose learning
was equalled only by his large intelligence. In those conversations
which under the name of "Table-Talk" continue still to instruct,
the wise counsellor, after saying that the Church allowed
the duel anciently, and that in the public liturgies there were
prayers appointed for duellists to say, keenly inquires, "But
whether is this lawful?" And then he answers, "If you grant any
war lawful, I make no doubt but to convince it." [Footnote: Table-
Talk, ed. Singer, London, 1856, p. 47,--_Duel_.] Selden
regarded the simple duel and the larger war as governed by the
same rule. Of course the exercise of force in the suppression of
rebellion, or in the maintenance of laws, stands on a different
principle, being in its nature a constabulary proceeding, which
cannot be confounded with the duel. But my object is not to
question the lawfulness of war; I would simply present an image,
enabling you to see the existing war in its true character.

The duel in its simplest form is between two individuals. In early
ages it was known sometimes as the Judicial Combat, and sometimes
as Trial by Battle. Not only points of honor, but titles to land,
grave questions of law, and even the subtilties of theology, were
referred to this arbitrament, [Footnote: Robertson, History of the
Reign of Charles V.: View of the Progress of Society in Europe,
Section I. Note XXII.]--just as now kindred issues between nations
are referred to Trial by Battle; and the early rules governing the
duel are reproduced in the Laws of War established by nations to
govern the great Trial by Battle. Ascending from the individual to
corporations, guilds, villages, towns, counties, provinces, we
find that for a long period each of these bodies exercised what
was called "the Right of War." The history of France and Germany
shows how reluctantly this mode of trial yielded to the forms of
reason and order. France, earlier than Germany, ordained "Trial by
Proofs," and eliminated the duel from judicial proceedings, this
important step being followed by the gradual amalgamation of
discordant provinces in the powerful unity of the Nation,----so
that Brittany and Normandy, Franche-Comte and Burgundy, Provence
and Dauphiny, Gascony and Languedoc, with the rest, became the
United States of France, or, if you please, France. In Germany the
change was slower; and here the duel exhibits its most curious
instances. Not only feudal chiefs, but associations of tradesmen
and of domestics sent defiance to each other, and sometimes to
whole cities, on pretences trivial as those which have been the
occasion of defiance from nation to nation. There still remain to
us Declarations of War by a Lord of Frauenstein against the free
city of Frankfort, because a young lady of the city refused to
dance with his uncle,--by the baker and domestics of the Margrave
of Baden against Esslingen, Reutlingen, and other imperial
cities,--by the baker of the Count Palatine Louis against the
cities of Augsburg, Ulm, and Rottweil,--by the shoe-blacks of the
University of Leipsic against the provost and other members,--and
by the cook of Eppstein, with his scullions, dairy-maids, and
dish-washers, against Otho, Count of Solms. [Footnote: Coxe,
History of the House of Austria. (London, 1820) Ch. XIX., Vol. I.
p. 378.] This prevalence of the duel aroused the Emperor
Maximilian, who at the Diet of Worms put forth an ordinance
abolishing the right or liberty of Private War, and instituting a
Supreme Tribunal for the determination of controversies without
appeal to the duel, and the whole long list of duellists, whether
corporate or individual, including nobles, bakers, shoe-blacks,
and cooks, was brought under its pacific rule. Unhappily the
beneficent reform stopped half-way, and here Germany was less
fortunate than France. The great provinces were left in the
enjoyment of a barbarous independence, with the "right" to fight
each other. The duel continued their established arbiter, until at
last, in 1815, by the Act of Union constituting the Confederation
or United States of Germany, each sovereignty gave up the right of
war with its confederates, setting an example to the larger
nations. The terms of this important stipulation, marking a stage
in German unity, were as follows:--

"The members of the Confederation further bind themselves under no
pretext to make war upon one another, or to pursue their
differences by force of arms, but to submit them to the Diet."
[Footnote: Acte pour la Constitution federative de l'Allemagne du
8 Juin 1815, Art. 11: Archives Diplomatiques, (Stuttgart et
Tubingen, 1821-36,) Vol. IV. p. 15.]

Better words could not be found for the United States of Europe,
in the establishment of that Great Era when the Duel shall cease
to be the recognized Arbiter of Nations.

With this exposition, which I hope is not too long, it is easy to
see how completely a war between two nations is a duel,--and, yet
further, how essential it is to that assured peace which
civilization requires, that the duel, which is no longer tolerated
as arbiter between individuals, between towns, between counties,
between provinces, should cease to be tolerated as such between
nations. Take our own country, for instance. In a controversy
between towns, the local law provides a judicial tribunal; so also
in a controversy between counties. Ascending still higher, suppose
a controversy between two States of our Union; the National
Constitution establishes a judicial tribunal, being the Supreme
Court of the United States. But at the next stage there is a
change. Let the controversy arise between two nations, and the
Supreme Law, which is the Law of Nations, establishes, not a
judicial tribunal, but the duel, as arbiter. What is true of our
country is true of other countries where civilization has a
foothold, and especially of France and Germany. The duel, though
abolished as arbiter at home, is continued as arbiter abroad. And
since it is recognized by International Law and subjected to a
code, it is in all respects an Institution. War is an institution
sanctioned by International Law, as Slavery, wherever it exists,
is an institution sanctioned by Municipal Law. But this
institution is nothing but the duel of the Dark Ages, prolonged
into this generation, and showing itself in portentous barbarism.




WHY THIS PARALLEL NOW?


Therefore am I right, when I call the existing combat between
France and Germany a Duel. I beg you to believe that I do this
with no idle purpose of illustration or criticism, but because I
would prepare the way for a proper comprehension of the remedy to
be applied. How can this terrible controversy be adjusted? I see
no practical method, which shall reconcile the sensibilities of
France with the guaranties due to Germany, short of a radical
change in the War System itself. That Security for the Future
which Germany may justly exact can be obtained in no way so well
as by the disarmament of France, to be followed naturally by the
disarmament of other nations, and the substitution of some
peaceful tribunal for the existing Trial by Battle. Any
dismemberment, or curtailment of territory, will be poor and
inadequate; for it will leave behind a perpetual sting. Something
better must be done.




SUDDENNESS OF THIS WAR.


Never in history has so great a calamity descended so suddenly
upon the Human Family, unless we except the earthquake toppling
down cities and submersing a whole coast in a single night. But
how small all that has ensued from any such convulsion, compared
with the desolation and destruction already produced by this war!
From the first murmur to the outbreak was a brief moment of time,
as between the flash of lightning and the bursting of the thunder.

At the beginning of July there was peace without suspicion of
interruption. The Legislative Body had just discussed a
proposition for the reduction of the annual Army Contingent. At
Berlin the Parliament was not in session. Count Bismarck was at
his country home in Pomerania, the King enjoying himself at Ems.
How sudden and unexpected the change will appear from an
illustrative circumstance. M. Prevost-Paradol, of rare talent and
unhappy destiny, newly appointed Minister to the United States,
embarked at Havre on the 1st of July, and reached Washington on
the morning of the 14th of July. He assured me that when he left
France there was no talk or thought of war. During his brief
summer voyage the whole startling event had begun and culminated.
Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen being invited to become
candidate for the throne of Spain, France promptly sent her
defiance to Prussia, followed a few days later by formal
Declaration of War. The Minister was oppressed by the grave
tidings coming upon him so unprepared, and sought relief in self-
slaughter, being the first victim of the war. Everything moved
with a rapidity borrowed from the new forces supplied by human
invention, and the Gates of War swung wide open.




CHALLENGE TO PRUSSIA.


A few incidents exhibit this movement. It was on the 30th of June,
while discussing the proposed reduction of the Army, that Emile
Ollivier, the Prime-Minister, said openly: "The Government has no
kind of disquietude; at no epoch has the maintenance of peace been
more assured; on whatever side you look, you see no irritating
question under discussion." [Footnote: Journal Officiel du Soir, 3
Juillet 1870.] In the same debate, Gamier-Pages, the consistent
Republican, and now a member of the Provisional Government, after
asking, "Why these armaments?" cried out: "Disarm, without waiting
for others: this is practical. Let the people be relieved from the
taxes which crush them, and from the heaviest of all, the tax of
blood." [Footnote: Journal Official du Soir, 2 Juillet 1870.] The
candidature of Prince Leopold seems to have become known at Paris
on the 5th of July. On the next day the Duc de Gramont, of a
family famous in scandalous history, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
hurries to the tribune with defiance on his lips. After declaring
for the Cabinet that no foreign power could be suffered, by
placing one of its princes on the throne of Charles the Fifth, to
derange the balance of power in Europe, and put in peril the
interests and the honor of France, he concludes by saying, in
ominous words: "Strong in your support, Gentlemen, and in that of
the nation, we shall know how to do our duty without hesitation
and without weakness." [Footnote: Ibid., 8 Juillet.]

This defiance was followed by what is called in the report,
"general and prolonged movement,--repeated applause"; and here was
the first stage in the duel. Its character was recognized at once
in the Chamber. Gamier-Pages exclaimed, in words worthy of memory:
"It is dynastic questions which trouble the peace of Europe. The
people have only reason to love and aid each other." [Footnote:
Ibid.] Though short, better than many long speeches. Cremieux, an
associate in the Provisional Government of 1848, insisted that the
utterance of the Minister was "a menace of war"; and Emmanuel
Arago, son of the great Republican astronomer and mathematician,
said that the Minister "had declared war." [Footnote: Ibid.]

These patriotic representatives were not mistaken. The speech made
peace difficult, if not impossible. It was a challenge to Prussia.




COMEDY.


Europe watched with dismay as the gauntlet was thus rudely flung
down, while on this side of the Atlantic, where France and Germany
commingle in the enjoyment of our equal citizenship, the interest
was intense. Morning and evening the telegraph made us all
partakers of the hopes and fears agitating the world. Too soon it
was apparent that the exigence of France would not be satisfied,
while already her preparations for war were undisguised. At all
the naval stations, from Toulon to Cherbourg, the greatest
activity prevailed. Marshal MacMahon was recalled from Algeria,
and transports were made ready to bring back the troops from that
colony.

Meanwhile the candidature of Prince Leopold was renounced by him.
But this was not enough. The King of Prussia was asked to promise
that it should in no event ever be renewed,--which he declined to
do, reserving to himself the liberty of consulting circumstances.
This requirement was the more offensive, inasmuch as it was
addressed exclusively to Prussia, while nothing was said to Spain,
the principal in the business. Then ensued an incident proper for
comedy, if it had not become the declared cause of tragedy. The
French Ambassador, Count Benedetti, who, on intelligence of the
candidature, had followed the King to Ems, his favorite watering-
place, and there in successive interviews pressed him to order its
withdrawal, now, on its voluntary renunciation, proceeding to urge
the new demand, and after an extended conversation, and
notwithstanding its decided refusal, seeking, nevertheless,
another audience the same day on this subject, his Majesty, with
perfect politeness, sent him word by an adjutant in attendance,
that he had no other answer to make than the one already given:
and this refusal to receive the Ambassador was promptly
communicated by telegraph, for the information especially of the
different German governments. [Footnote: Bismarck to Bernstorff,
July 19, 1870, with Inclosures: Parliamentary Papers, 1870, Vol.
LXX.,--Franco-Prussian War, No. 3, pp. 5-8. Gerolt to Fish, August
11, 1870, with Inclosures: Executive Documents, 41st Cong. 3d
Sess., H. of R., Vol. I. No. 1, Part 1,--Foreign Relations, pp.
219-221. The reader will notice that the copy of the Telegram in
this latter volume is the paper on p. 221, with the erroneous
heading, "_Count Bismarck to Baron Gerolt._"]




PRETEXT OF THE TELEGRAM.

These simple facts, insufficient for the slightest quarrel,
intolerable in the pettiness of the issue disclosed, and monstrous
as reason for war between two civilized nations, became the
welcome pretext. Swiftly, and with ill-disguised alacrity, the
French Cabinet took the next step in the duel. On the 15th of July
the Prime-Minister read from the tribune a manifesto setting forth
the griefs of France,--being, first, the refusal of the Prussian
King to promise for the future, and, secondly, his refusal to
receive the French Ambassador, with the communication of this
refusal, as was alleged, "officially to the Cabinets of Europe,"
which was a mistaken allegation: [Footnote: Bismarck to
Bernstorff, July 18, and to Gerolt, July 19, 1870: Parliamentary
Papers and Executive Documents, Inclosures, _ubi supra._] and
the paper concludes by announcing that since the preceding day the
Government had called in the reserves, and that they would
immediately take the measures necessary to secure the interests,
the safety, and the honor of France. [Footnote: Journal Officiel
du Soir, 17 Juillet 1870.] This was war.

Some there were who saw the fearful calamity, the ghastly crime,
then and there initiated. The scene that ensued belongs to this
painful record. The paper announcing war was followed by prolonged
applause. The Prime-Minister added soon after in debate, that he
accepted the responsibility with "a light heart." [Footnote: "De
ce jour commence pour les ministres mes collegues, et pour moi,
une grande responsibilite. ["Oui!" _gauche_.] Nous l'acceptons,
le coeur leger."] Not all were in this mood. Esquiros, the
Republican, cried from his seat, in momentous words, "You
have a light heart, and the blood of nations is about to
flow!" To the apology of the Prime-Minister, "that in the
discharge of a duty the heart is not troubled," Jules Favre, the
Republican leader, of acknowledged moderation and ability, flashed
forth, "When the discharge of this duty involves the slaughter of
two nations, one may well have the heart troubled!" Beyond these
declarations, giving utterance to the natural sentiments of
humanity, was the positive objection, most forcibly presented by
Thiers, so famous in the Chamber and in literature, "that the
satisfaction due to France had been accorded her---that Prussia
had expiated by a check the grave fault she had committed,"--that
France had prevailed in substance, and all that remained was "a
question of form," "a question of susceptibility," "questions of
etiquette." The experienced statesman asked for the dispatches.
Then came a confession. The Prime-Minister replied, that he had
"nothing to communicate,--that, in the true sense of the term,
there had been no dispatches,--that there were only verbal
communications gathered up in reports, which, according to
diplomatic usage, are not communicated." Here Emmanuel Arago
interrupted: "It is on these reports that you make war!" The
Prime-Minister proceeded to read two brief telegrams from Count
Benedetti at Ems, when De Choiseul very justly exclaimed: "We
cannot make war on that ground; it is impossible!" Others cried
out from their seats,--Garnier Pages saying, "These are phrases";
Emmanuel Arago protesting, "On this the civilized world will
pronounce you wrong"; to which Jules Favre added, "Unhappily,
true!" Thiers and Jules Favre, with vigorous eloquence, charged
the war upon the Cabinet: Thiers declaring, "I regret to be
obliged to say that we have war by the fault of the Cabinet";
Jules Favre alleging, "If we have war, it is thanks to the
politics of the Cabinet;....from the exposition that has been
made, so far as the general interests of the two countries are
concerned, there is no avowable motive for war." Girault
exclaimed, in similar spirit: "We would be among the first to come
forward in a war for the country, but we do not wish to come
forward in a dynastic and aggressive war." The Duc de Gramont, who
on the 6th of July flung down the gauntlet, spoke once more for
the Cabinet, stating solemnly, what was not the fact, that the
Prussian Government had communicated to all the Cabinets of Europe
the refusal to receive the French Ambassador, and then on this
misstatement ejaculating: "It is an outrage on the Emperor and on
France; and if, by impossibility, there were found in my country a
Chamber to bear and tolerate it, I would not remain five minutes
Minister of Foreign Affairs." In our country we have seen how the
Southern heart was fired; so also was fired the heart of Franco.
The Duke descended from the tribune amidst prolonged applause,
with cries of "Bravo!"--and at his seat (so says the report)
"received numerous felicitations." Such was the atmosphere of the
Chamber at this eventful moment. The orators of the Opposition,
pleading for delay in the interest of peace, were stifled; and
when Gambetta, the young and fearless Republican, made himself
heard in calling for the text of the dispatch communicating the
refusal to receive the Ambassador, to the end that the Chamber,
France, and all Europe might judge of its character, he was
answered by the Prime-Minister with the taunt that "for the first
time in a French Assembly there were such difficulties on a
certain side in explaining _a question of honor_." Such was
the case as presented by the Prime-Minister, and on this question
of honor he accepted war "with a light heart." Better say, with no
heart at all;--for who so could find in this condition of things
sufficient reason for war was without heart. [Footnote: For the
full debate, see the _Journal Officid du Soir_, 17 Juillet
1870, and Supplement.]

During these brief days of solicitude, from the 6th to the 15th of
July, England made an unavailing effort for peace. Lord Lyons was
indefatigable; and he was sustained at home by Lord Granville, who
as a last resort reminded the two parties of the stipulation at
the Congress of Paris, which they had accepted, in favor of
Arbitration as a substitute for War, and asked them to accept the
good offices of some friendly power. [Footnote: Earl Granville to
Lords Lyons and Loftus, July 15, 1870,--Correspondence respecting
the Negotiations preliminary to the War between France and
Prussia, p. 35: Parliamentary Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX.] This most
reasonable proposition was rejected by the French Minister, who
gave new point to the French case by charging that Prussia "had
chosen to declare that France had been affronted in the person of
her Ambassador," and then positively insisting that "it was this
boast which was the _gravamen_ of the offence." Capping the
climax of barbarous absurdity, the French Minister did not
hesitate to announce that this "constituted an insult which no
nation of any spirit could brook, and rendered it, much to the
regret of the French Government, impossible to take into
consideration the mode of settling the original matter in dispute
which was recommended by her Majesty's Government." [Footnote:
Lord Lyons to Earl Granville, July 15, 1870,--Correspondence
respecting the Negotiations preliminary to the War between France
and Prussia, pp. 39, 40: Parliamentary Papers, 1870, Vol. LXX.]
Thus was peaceful Arbitration repelled. All honor to the English
Government for proposing it!

Copyright (c) 2007. topbookz.net. All rights reserved.