It is true that such a law may be unjust and wrong, but we can scarcely agree that it will necessarily be so.

The distinction between war, as thus duly declared, and "international Lynch-law" is too evident to need comment.
But it is said that the benefits of war are more than counterbalanced by the evils it entails, and that, "most commonly, the very means by which we repel a despotism from abroad, only establishes over us a military despotism at home." Much has been said and written about _military_ despotism; but we think he who studies history thoroughly, will not fail to prefer a military despotism to a despotism of mere politicians.

The governments of Alexander and Charlemagne were infinitely preferable to those of the petty civil tyrants who preceded and followed them; and there is no one so blinded by prejudice as to say that the reign of Napoleon was no better than that of Robespierre, Danton, and the other "lawyers" who preceded him, or of the Bourbons, for whom he was dethroned.
"Caesar," says a distinguished senator of our own country, "was rightfully killed for conspiring against his country; but it was not he that destroyed the liberties of Rome.

That work was done by the profligate politicians without him, and before his time; and his death did not restore the republic.

There were no more elections: rotten politicians had destroyed them; and the nephew of Caesar, as heir to his uncle, succeeded to the empire on the principle of hereditary succession." "And here History appears in her grand and instructive character, as Philosophy teaching by example: and let us not be senseless to her warning voice.