Absolutely. The entire concept we have today of the desire for a sanitary war where only soldiers are involved and only soldiers die and civilians are off-limits is actually something that has it's roots, as we know it today, in the Enlightenment.

I vaguely remember (this was four years ago) my Recent European History professor talking about a specific book written in the 1800's or so that had the author traveling to the distant future of the year 2000 or so and seeing that war had been completely eradicated and seen as pointless and unnecessary.

And now I'm going to drive myself nuts trying to remember the name of the book.

I'd go so far as to argue that as the nature of government changed from monarchs and the hands of the few toward democracy and the wider public opinion, that attitudes toward war changed. But that's another can of worms, and one I'm not in a position to back up, let alone discuss.

We certainly see what could be considered anti-war movements pertaining to the American Civil War. This can include but is not limited to the Peace Movement of anti-war abolitionists as well as the New York Draft Riots in 1863. The anti-war abolitionists are interesting because even though they knew that war would certainly be an opportunity to achieve their end goal, they were reluctant to throw their support behind the cause knowing that war would bring its own kind of terror. You can read more on this topic in a publication by Sheldon Richman here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_3/5_3_7.pdf