It is no pleasing task, nor a thankful one, to dive into the
souls of some men; but there are occasions when, to bring up the
mud from the bottom, reveals to us on what soundings we are, on
what coast we adjoin.

How were these officers to gain glory? How but by a distinguished
slaughtering of their fellow-men. How were they to be promoted?
How but over the buried heads of killed comrades and mess-mates.

This hostile contrast between the feelings with which the common
seamen and the officers of the Neversink looked forward to this
more than possible war, is one of many instances that might be
quoted to show the antagonism of their interests, the incurable
antagonism in which they dwell. But can men, whose interests are
diverse, ever hope to live together in a harmony uncoerced? Can
the brotherhood of the race of mankind ever hope to prevail in a
man-of-war, where one man's bane is almost another's blessing? By
abolishing the scourge, shall we do away tyranny; _that_ tyranny
which must ever prevail, where of two essentially antagonistic
classes in perpetual contact, one is immeasurably the stronger?
Surely it seems all but impossible. And as the very object of a
man-of-war, as its name implies, is to fight the very battles so
naturally averse to the seamen; so long as a man-of-war exists,
it must ever remain a picture of much that is tyrannical and
repelling in human nature.

Being an establishment much more extensive than the American
Navy, the English armed marine furnishes a yet more striking
example of this thing, especially as the existence of war
produces so vast an augmentation of her naval force compared with