[Sidenote: Condition of the Macedonian empire.]

[Sidenote: Principles and passions which led to the conquest of Greece.]

In the mean time, in the interval between the second and third Punic
wars, occurred the Macedonian wars, which prepared the way for conquests
in the East. The great Macedonian empire was split up into several
monarchies among the generals of Alexander and their successors. The
Ptolemies reigned in Egypt; the successors of Seleucus in Babylonia;
those of Antigonus in Syria and Asia Minor; those of Lysimachus in
Thrace; and of Cassander in Macedonia. It was the mission of Rome to
subdue these monarchies, or rather her good fortune, for she was
destined to conquer the world. The principles which animated these wars
cannot be defended on high moral grounds, any more than the conquest of
India by England, or of Algeria by France. They were based entirely upon
ambition--upon the passion for political aggrandizement. I confess I
have no sympathy with them. Roman liberties were not jeopardized, nor
were these monarchies dangerous rivals like Carthage. The subjugation of
Italy was in accordance with what we now call the Monroe doctrine--to
obtain the ascendency on her own soil; and even the conquest or of
Sicily was no worse than the conquest of Ireland, or what would be the
future absorption of Cuba and Jamaica within the limits of the United
States. The Emperor Napoleon would probably justify both the humiliation
of Carthage and the conquest of Greece and Asia and Egypt, and others
would echo his voice in defense of aggressive domination, on some plea
of pretended schemes of colonization, and the progress of civilization.
But I do not believe in overturning the immutable laws of moral
obligation for any questionable policy of expediency. I look upon the
great civil wars of the Romans, which followed these conquests, in which
so much blood was shed, and in which Marius and Sulla and Caesar and