Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

ART. VII. HALLECK'S MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE. Elements of Military Art and Science, or Course of Instruction in Strategy, Fortifications, Tactics of Battles, etc.: embracing the duties of Staff, Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery and Engineers. Adapted to the use of Volunteers and Militia. By. H. WAGER HALLECK, A. M., Lieut. of Engineers, U. S. Army. New-York: D. Appleton & Co., 200 Broadway. Philadelphia: G. S. Appleton, 148 Chesnut-Street. 1846.

[ocr errors]

WE esteem it a fortunate circumstance, that the work, we have placed at the head of this article, should have made. its appearance at this particular time, when the energies of a nation are called forth for the prosecution of a war in a distant and populous country. This state of things is now drawing from the peaceful walks of life, for the more stirring scenes of a campaign, and with scarce a moment's warning, many of our most quiet and useful citizens; and conferring the highest military rank upon not a few, whose previous avocations had but little fitted them for the responsible stations they now fill. While the feelings and sympathies of our people are enlisted for the honorable and successful termination of an existing war, they may be more willing to listen to those sober truths, taught by reason and experience, which, in times of less need, have in vain presented themselves for their consideration. And as we have so recently witnessed the most striking contrast, in the operations of our little army on the field, between the effects produced by the possession and use of that knowledge which is intended to be conveyed, in the work before us, and the grossest ignorance of the elementary principles of the military art; it is to be hoped, that the period is not far distant, when more rational, just, and comprehensive views, will prevail in the military department of our government. In no branch of knowledge are we so ignorant, mistaken, and unprepared to decide; and yet, as a people, there is no subject on which we are so confident, vain-glorious, and dictatorial. Our statesmen and stump-orators discuss the principles of strategy and tactics, with a degree of arrogance and facility which is only equalled by the modesty of their applications for the highest military offices, without a moment's preparation for the

solemn and responsible duties, which they seek to assume. And all this very naturally results from the fact, that we are too apt to consider war, as neither an art nor a science, in which, much previous study and cultivation are essential to success. Forgetting, or unwilling, to heed the testimony of Washington-who, in his last annual message to Congress, says: "whatever argument may be drawn from particular examples superficially viewed, a thorough examination of the subject will evince, that the art of war is both compre hensive and complicated; that it demands much previous study; and that the profession of it, in its most improved and perfect state, is always of great moment to the security of a nation,"—we have acted on the principle that the conferring of rank, of itself makes the general; and rely almost exclusively for our protection against national insult or military invasion, upon the "native courage" and "indomitable energy" of our people.

To remedy, in some measure at least, these serious defects, and to call the attention to this subject, as well of those, who seek for high places in our army, as of those, whose duty it is to legislate for its government, this little volume has been prepared and published by Mr. Halleck. It is a complete outline of the principles, which should govern a nation in undertaking and preparing for war, and the means which should be used to guard against defeat, and ensure success, in carrying it on. In the smallest possible compass, we have a masterly defence of the justifiableness of war, under proper circumstances; a discussion of some of these circumstances; of the different kinds of war, and the object and end of each. We find here laid down the general principles of strategy, which are to govern in the selection of the seat of war, and the concentration of forces upon important points; and of the "tactics of battles" by which to direct our manœuvres and perform our evolutions, when in the face of the enemy, and on the field of action; the art of supplying and facilitating the movements of an army when on the march, and of strengthening and forti fying their position when stationary; the organization of an army, with the use, duties, and proportions of the different corps comprising it; and the qualifications of officers of different grades, with the principles which should govern in their appointment, education, and promotion. It is the most complete manual, we have ever seen, either for the

young officer, who is desirous of gaining a general knowledge of his profession by the most speedy process, or for the citizen, who is willing to become sufficiently acquainted with the principles and nomenclature of the military art, to act and speak intelligibly in relation to it.

The work seems to have been prepared with reference to an expected war with England; and for the benefit of a class of officers, then likely to be called into service, to meet such an emergency. Originally delivered in the form of lectures, before the "Lowell Institute" of Boston, with no expectation of publication, the author placed the sheets in the hands of the printer, upon the solicitation of a number of officers of the militia. With becoming modesty, he states, in his preface, that,

"No pretension is made to originality in any part of the work; the sole object having been to embody in a small compass, well established military principles, and to illustrate these by reference to the events of past history, and the opinions and practice of the best generals."

In judging of the merits or demerits of this work, we must look to the object he had in view. And though none of the principles laid down by the author may be new, or entirely original with him, the plan of the work, and the effort to convey such an amount of information in relation to the military art, in such a popular form, and in so small a space, certainly entitle him to more credit than he claims for himselt, if the task has been well executed.

In the "introduction," the author takes up the subject of the justifiableness of war, and gives the arguments pro and con with great fairness and candor. If, as some assert, "all wars are contrary to the revealed will of God," we ought to expect to find, in his revealed will, some direct prohibition of war. On the contrary, though bloody wars were raging in the times of Christ and his Apostles, and though war had been positively commanded in the Old Testament, yet, neither Christ nor his Apostles anywhere condemn it. Nor can it, with any reason, be answered, that though not directly condemned in the holy scriptures, it is indirectly forbidden by such passages as "Thou shall not kill;" "I say unto you, that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also," &c. For if these passages are to be interpreted literally, they strike at the root of all our penal statutes, and make

it a moral wrong to enforce any of our laws, instituted for the protection of the innocent and punishment of the guilty. The frame work of civil society would be shattered, the legislative and judicial departments of government, would fall for want of support. Of what value are laws without sanctions? In what would consist the merit of enacting them, without the establishment of courts to decide when they are broken, and with full power to have such decisions enforced and executed? We are incapable of comprehending the idea of a government, if society is not justified in using force, through the ministers of the law, for its own protection. But if these passages are taken in connection with many others in holy writ, the only rational interpretation that can be given them, is, that they are intended to impress upon our minds the general duty of love and forgiveness; that they do not prohibit the use of force in preventing or punishing crime, whether in nations or individuals, but teach us to combine love and justice, and free our hearts from all evil motives. But say the advocates of non-resistance in nations, "God commands us to love every man, alien or citizen, as ourselves, and no act of society can make it our duty to violate this command." Here again, we reply, that this command enforces the great virtue of mutual love, and teaches us that we should treat all men with justice and mercy, and hate no one, not even a stranger. But does the Bible, as a whole, teach us that there should be no degrees in our love? Are all human beings equally entitled to our care and our affection? We are commanded to love our parents; and the man, who does not seek first, the comfort and happiness of his own family, is "worse than an infidel." The relations in which God has placed us, and the natural affections with which he has endowed us, no less than the teachings of the gospel, make it our imperative duty, first to protect from the attacks of others, those who are most endeared to us, and most dependent upon us; and if necessary for their defence, we are not only permitted, but bound to take the life of the assailant. I need not hate, but should feel compassion for the unfortunate being, whose life, the necessity of my position, has forced me to take. Does the judge, who sentences the criminal, or the sheriff, who executes this sentence, necessarily entertain any other than the kindest feelings towards his fellow creature, whom he thus deprives of life?

Next to my family, I naturally love, and feel most concern for my neighbors of the same community; and an extension of the same principle of our nature, tells me to defend my country against, and love her better, than the rest of the world. If as a nation, she is attacked, there is no civil magistrate, to whom an appeal can be made, and I am bound to assist in her protection by force. This force I am only justified in using, so long as the wrong-doers persist in the wrong, which called it forth. I destroy my enemies, so long as they are the instruments of evil; but as soon as they are rendered harmless, I am bound to treat them as my friends, and bestow the same care upon them as upon my wounded comrade. The principle which governs the execution of laws upon the offending individual, and the use of force against the offending nation, is precisely the same. And if, as members of society, we are justified in enacting and executing laws, for the punishment of individuals among our neighbors and relatives, is the moral rule of forbearance stronger, when the offender becomes a nation, and a stranger? We reason with our neighbor, who has wronged us, and urge him to pursue a different course; if he still persist, we claim the protection of the law, and apply to the officers of justice to execute it. We refer the foreign nation, who seeks to oppress us, to the international code, adopted by all civilized communities to regulate their intercourse with each other, and appeal to their sense of justice; if they still persist in a course of wrong-doing, and refuse to give justice, we call in the aid of our armies, to restrain and compel them. And the right to use violence, only begins at the point where forbearance ceases to be virtue.

We have been anxious to give some idea of the ground taken by the author, in relation to this question of the justifiableness of war. Having done this, we must pass rapidly from this interesting discussion, which we would gladly follow up, did time permit; and refer the reader, who is desirous of being enlightened or convinced, to the work itself. He will then find the whole subject discussed, not merely with the spirit of a soldier, but with that of a citizen and a moralist. He will be convinced that all history refutes the argument of the demoralizing effects of war; and especially will he mourn over the contrast presented by the state of political morality in our country, soon after the two principal wars in which we have

« AnteriorContinuar »