The Weekly Union Record

Why Do Nations Die?--The question has often presented itself to historians. Why do nations die? Is mortality a condition of the existence, or is it but accident? Reasoning from analogy may be multiplied abundantly both sides of the question. But, as regards the facts of history, there is one case, and only one, albeit a very weighty one, which can be quoted in opposition to the theory that nations, as well as individuals, must die. The case is that of China, where, from the earliest times of which we have any knowledge, a people has gone on increasing in numbers, and maintaining national existence down to the present day and of which we may truly say that, although it is possible to imagine a time when the empire may be directed by Europeans, it surpasses any ordinary imagination to conceive that vast population, numbering one third the whole human race, becoming extinct ceasing to be Chinese. So far as facts go China furnishes a strong argument against the doctrine of national mortality. But for one old nation that has lived and still lives there are half a dozen others which have perished. The Babylonians and the Assyrians are dead and gone: not a single living trace of them exists. The national existence of the ancient Egyptians passed away (we may say 1,800 years ago. The Greek nation ceased to exist long ago; and its blood has become mixed, and its country so changed that, should it revive again, it will rather be as a new people than as a continuation of its former existence. The Romans were but a tribe their empire was that of a polity rather than of a people: and both polity and people have disappeared. In the New World the mortality of nations has been still more strikingly displayed. The Mayas of Central America, the old Peruvians, the Toltecs and Aztecs of Mexico, have ceased to exist: and even the barbarous nomades are melting away before the advance of the new comers from Europe.

National Review