Quote

On the contrary, all the world would point to that nation as violating a treaty, by going to war with a country with whom they had engaged to enter into arbitration.

In short, it may be said that on paper the obligations to settle international disputes peacefully are now so comprehensive and far-reaching that it is almost impossible for a state to resort to war without violating one or more solemn treaty obligations.

Treaties of peace, made after war, are entrusted to individuals to negotiate and carry out.

Nations keep agreements, keep their treaties so long as they continue to do them good.

It has been one of my difficulties, in arguing this question out of doors with friends or strangers, that I rarely find any intelligible agreement as to the object of the war.

Each one of these treaties is a step for the maintenance of peace, an additional guarantee against war. It is through such machinery that the disputes between nations will be settled and war prevented.

Naturally our Government would not consent to such terms, and so the war had to proceed.

If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another... after the war is on.

Diplomacy in general does not resolve conflicts. Wars end not due to peace processes, but due to one side giving up.

The wars don't end when you sign peace treaties or when the years go by. They will echo on until I'm gone and all the widows and orphans are gone.