are two opposing forces; one urging him to the action and excitement
of war, the other to the comparative inaction and tranquillity of
peace. On the side that urges war, we see hate, ambition, courage,
energy, and strength; on the side that urges peace we see love,
contentment, cowardice, indolence, and weakness. We see arrayed for
war the forceful faults and virtues; for peace the gentle faults
and virtues. Both the forceful and the gentle qualities tend to
longevity in certain ways and tend to its prevention in other ways;
but history clearly shows that the _forceful qualities have tended
more to the longevity of nations than the gentle_. If ever two
nations, or two tribes, have found themselves contiguous, one forceful
and the other not, the forceful one has usually, if not always,
obtained the mastery over the other, and therefore has outlived
it. If any cow and any lion have found themselves alone together,
the lion has outlived the cow.

It is true that the mere fact of being a lion has not insured long
life, and that the mere fact of being a cow has not precluded it;
and some warlike tribes and nations have not lived so long as tribes
and nations of softer fibre. This seems to have been due, however,
either to the environments in which the two have lived, or to the
fact that the softer nation has had available some forces that
the other did not have. The native Indians of North America were
more warlike than the colonists from Europe that landed on their
shores; but the Indians were armed with spears and arrows, and
the colonists with guns.

Now, those guns were the product of the arts of peace; no nation
that had pursued a warlike life exclusively could have produced them
or invented the powder that discharged them. This fact indicates what