empire. Rome was a city near the mouth of the Tiber. She reached out
and conquered a few neighboring cities in the Latin plain, binding them
securely to herself by domestic and economic ties. Then she extended
her power south and north, crossed into northern Africa, conquered Gaul
and Spain, swept Asia Minor, until a territory three thousand by two
thousand miles in extent was under the sway of her all-conquering arm.

What justified Rome, as far as she had justification, was the remarkable
strength and wisdom with which she established law and order and the
protections of civil society over all the conquered territory, until
often the subject populations were glad they had come under the
all-dominant sway of Rome, since their situation was so much more
peaceful and happy than before. Such justification, however, is after
the fact: it is not moral justification of the building of the empire.
That represented a succession of claim-jumpings.

For an illustration from more modern history, take the greatest
international crime of the last five hundred years, with one exception--
the partition of Poland. It is true the Polish nobles were a nuisance to
their neighbors, ever quarreling among themselves, with no central
authority powerful enough to restrain them, but that did not justify the
action taken. Three nations, or rather the autocratic sovereigns of
those nations, powerful enough to accomplish the crime, agreed to
partition Poland among themselves. They did it, with the result that
there are plenty of Poles in the world to-day, but there is no Poland.

Consider the possession of Silesia by Prussia. Silesia was an integral
part of the Austrian domain, long so recognized. Friedrich the Great
wanted it. He annexed it. The deed caused him many years of recurring,
devastating wars; again and again he was near the point of utter defeat;