227-228).

Lord Roberts wrote a very appreciative introduction to this book without any protest against the opinions expressed in it.] President Kruger, who decided on this most justifiable war, and not Cecil Rhodes, will, in spite of the tragic ending to the war itself, be known in all ages as the great far-sighted statesman of South Africa, who, despite the unfavourable material conditions, knew how to value the inestimable moral qualities according to their real importance.
The lessons of history thus confirm the view that wars which have been deliberately provoked by far-seeing statesmen have had the happiest results.

War, nevertheless, must always be a violent form of political agent, which not only contains in itself the danger of defeat, but in every case calls for great sacrifices, and entails incalculable misery.
He who determines upon war accepts a great responsibility.
It is therefore obvious that no one can come to such a decision except from the most weighty reasons, more especially under the existing conditions which have created national armies.

Absolute clearness of vision is needed to decide how and when such a resolution can be taken, and what political aims justify the use of armed force.
This question therefore needs careful consideration, and a satisfactory answer can only be derived from an examination of the essential duty of the State.
If this duty consists in giving scope to the highest intellectual and moral development of the citizens, and in co-operating in the moral education of the human race, then the State's own acts must necessarily conform to the moral laws.

But the acts of the State cannot be judged by the standard of individual morality.