“In short, the crystallization of national existence at home has necessitated the eager exploitation of new lands which forms so noteworthy a feature of the life of today.”
Thus John Jay:[[15]]
“It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it.”
Alexander Hamilton sneers thus at the windy blood-for-profit statesmen:[[16]]
“Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have not there been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other?”
Professor Simon N. Patten (University of Pennsylvania) states the case bluntly:[[17]]
“Most nations have been formed by conquest, and have therefore started with a dominant and a subject class. The former seize the surplus, and force the latter to work for a bare minimum.”
The New York World is commendably frank concerning this matter:[[18]]
“Commerce and conquest have always been the main causes of war. Back of most slogans of strife has ever been the commercial watchword—‘trade follows the flag.’”
As illustrations of wars due to economic causes, The World mentions the wars of Venice and Genoa, The Crusades, our French-and-Indian-War, the American Revolutionary War, and the American Civil War.