Mises Daily

Home | Library | True Patriotism

True Patriotism

April 8, 1999

True Patriotism

(A speech delivered at the Men's Club of the Prospect Street Congregational Church in Cambridge, Mass., June 7, 1898)

There are moments in every man's life, in the life of every nation, when,
under the excitement of passion, the simple truths which in common times are
the foundation upon which the right order and conduct of life depend are apt
to be forgotten and disregarded. I shall venture tonight to recall to you
some of these commonplace truths, which in these days of war need more than
ever to be kept in mind.

There never was a land that better deserved the love of her people than
America, for there never was a mother-country kinder to her children. She
has given to them all that she could give. Her boundless resources have lain
open to them, to use at their will. And the consequence has been that never
in the history of man has there been so splendid a spectacle of widely
diffused and steadily increasing material welfare as America has displayed
during the last hundred years.

Millions upon millions of men have lived here
with more comfort, with less fear, than any such numbers elsewhere in any
age have lived. Countless multitudes, whose forefathers from the beginning
of human life on earth have spent weary lives in unrewarded toil, in
anxiety, in helplessness, in ignorance, have risen here, in the course of
even a single generation, to the full and secure enjoyment of the fruits of
their labor, to confident hope, to intelligent possession of their own
faculties. Is not the land to be dearly loved in which this has been
possible, in which this has been achieved?

But there is a deeper source of love of country than the material advantages
and benefits it may afford. It is in the character of its people, in their
moral life, in the type of civilization which they exhibit. The elements of
human nature are indeed so fixed that favorable or unfavorable circumstances
have little effect upon its essential constitution, but prosperity or the
reverse brings different traits into prominence. The conditions which have
prevailed in America have, if broadly considered, tended steadily and
strongly to certain good results in the national character; not, indeed, to
unmixed good, but to a preponderance of good.

The institutions established for self-government have been founded with intent to secure justice and
independence for all. The social relations among the whole body of the
people, are humane and simple. The general spirit of the people is liberal,
is kindly, is considerate. The ideals for the realization of which in
private and public conduct there is more or less steady and consistenteffort, are as high and as worthy as any which men have pursued. Every
genuine American holds to the ideal of justice for all men, of independence,
including free speech and free action within the limits of law, of obedience
to law, of universal education, of material well-being for all the
well-behaving and industrious, of peace and good-will among men. These,
however far short the nation may fall in expressing them in its actual life,
are, no one will deny it, the ideals of our American democracy.

And it is
because America represents these ideals that the deepest love for his
country glows in the heart of the American, and inspires him with that
patriotism which counts no cost, which esteems no sacrifice too great to
maintain and to increase the influence of these principles which embody
themselves in the fair shape of his native land, and have their expressive
symbol in her flag. The spirit of his patriotism is not an intermittent
impulse; it is an abiding principle; it is the strongest motive of his life;
it is his religion.

And because it is so, and just in proportion to his love of the ideals for
which his country stands, is his hatred of whatever is opposed to them in
private conduct or public policy. Against injustice, against dishonesty,
against lawlessness, against whatever may make for war instead of peace, the
good citizen is always in arms.

No thoughtful American can have watched the course of affairs among us
during the last thirty years without grave anxiety from the apparent decline
in power to control the direction of public and private conduct, of the
principles upon regard for which the permanent and progressive welfare of
America depends; and especially the course of events during the last few
months and the actual condition of the country today, should bring home to
every man the question whether or not the nation is true to one of the chief
of the ideals to which it has professed allegiance.

A generation has grown
up that has known nothing of war. The blessings of peace have been poured
out upon us. We have congratulated ourselves that we were free from the
misery and the burdens that war and standing armies have brought upon the
nations of the Old World. "Their fires" -- I cite a fine phrase of Sir
Philip Sidney in a letter to Queen Elizabeth -- "Their fires have given us
light to see our own quietness."

And now of a sudden, without cool
deliberation, without prudent preparation, the nation is hurried into war,
and America, she who more than any other land was pledged to peace and
good-will on earth, unsheathes her sword, compels a weak and unwilling
nation to a fight, rejecting without due consideration her earnest and
repeated offers to meet every legitimate demand of the United States. It isa bitter disappointment to the lover of his country; it is a turning-back
from the path of civilization to that of barbarism.

"There never was a good war," said Franklin. There have indeed been many
wars in which a good man must take part, and take part with grave gladness
to defend the cause of justice, to die for it if need be, a willing
sacrifice, thankful to give life for what is dearer than life, and happy
that even by death in war he is serving the cause of peace. But if a war be
undertaken for the most righteous end, before the resources of peace have
been tried and proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense; it is a
national crime. And however right, however unavoidable a war may be, and
those of us who are old enough to remember the war for the Union know that
war may be right and unavoidable, yet, I repeat the words of Franklin,
"There never was a good war."

It is evil in itself, it is evil in its
never-ending train of consequences. No man has known the nature of war
better than General Sherman, and in his immortal phrase he has condensed its
description -- "War is hell." "From the earliest dawnings of policy to this
day," said Edmund Burke, more than a hundred years ago, "the invention of
men has been sharpening and improving the mystery of murder, from the first
rude essays of clubs and stones to the present perfection of gunnery,
cannoneering, bombarding, mining, and all these species of artificial,
learned and refined cruelty in which we are now so expert, and which make a
principal part of what politicians have taught us to believe is our
principal glory."

And it is now, at the end of this century, the century in
which beyond any other in history knowledge has increased and the arts of
peace have advanced, that America has been brought by politicians and
writers for the press, faithless to her noble ideals, against the will of
every right-minded citizen, to resort to these cruel arts, these arts of
violence, these arts which rouse the passions of the beast in man, before
the resources of peace had been fairly tested and proved insufficient to
secure the professed ends, which, however humane and desirable, afford no
sufficient justification for resorting to the dread arbitrament of arms.

There are, indeed, many among us who find justification of the present war
in the plea that its motive is to give independence to the people of Cuba,
long burdened by the oppressive and corrupt rule of Spain, and especially to
relieve the suffering of multitudes deprived of their homes and of means of
subsistence by the cruel policy of the general who exercised for a time a
practical dictatorship over the island. The plea so far as it is genuine
deserves the respect due to every humane sentiment. But independence secured
for Cuba by forcible overthrow of the Spanish rule means either practicalanarchy or the substitution of the authority of the United States for that
of Spain. Either alternative might well give us pause. And as for the relief
of suffering, surely it is a strange procedure to begin by inflicting worse
suffering still. It is fighting the devil with his own arms. That the end
justifies the means is a dangerous doctrine, and no wise man will advise
doing evil for the sake of an uncertain good. But the plea that the better
government of Cuba and the relief of the reconcentrados could only be
secured by war is the plea either of ignorance or of hypocrisy.

But the war is declared; and on all hands we hear the cry that he is no
patriot who fails to shout for it, and to urge the youth of the country to
enlist, and to rejoice that they are called to the service of their native
land. The sober counsels that were appropriate before the war was entered
upon must give way to blind enthusiasm, and the voice of condemnation must
be silenced by the thunders of the guns and the hurrahs of the crowd.

A declaration of war does not change the moral law. "The ten commandments
will not budge" at a joint resolve of Congress. Was James Russell Lowell
aught but a good patriot when during the Mexican war he sent the stinging
shafts of his matchless satire at the heart of the monstrous iniquity, or
when, years afterward, he declared, that he thought at the time and that he
still thought the Mexican war was a national crime? Did John Bright ever
render greater service to his country than when, during the Crimean war, he
denounced the Administration which had plunged England into it, and employed
his magnificent power of earnest and incisive speech in the endeavor to
repress the evil spirit which it evoked in the heart of the nation?

No! the
voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the
clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is
bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word
of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to
be silent, and spite of obloquy, misrepresentation and abuse, to insist on
being heard, and with sober counsel to maintain the everlasting validity of
the principles of the moral law.

So confused are men by false teaching in regard to national honor and the
duty of the citizen that it is easy to fall into the error of holding a
declaration of war, however brought about, as a sacred decision of the
national will, and to fancy that a call to arms from the Administration has
the force of a call from the lips of the country, of the America to whom all
her sons are ready to pay the full measure of devotion. This is indeed a
natural and for many a youth not a discreditable error. But if the nominal,
though authorized, representatives of the country have brought us into a warthat might and should have been avoided, and which consequently is an
unrighteous war, then, so long as the safety of the State is not at risk,
the duty of the good citizen is plain. He is to help to provide the
Administration responsible for the conduct of the war with every means that
may serve to bring it to the speediest end. He is to do this alike that the
immediate evils of the war may be as brief and as few as possible, and also
that its miserable train of after evils may be diminished and the vicious
passions excited by it be the sooner allayed. Men, money, must be abundantly
supplied. But must he himself enlist or quicken the ardent youth to enter
service in such a cause? The need is not yet. The country is in no peril.

There is always in a vast population like ours an immense, a sufficient
supply of material of a fighting order, often of a heroic courage, ready and
eager for the excitement of battle, filled with the old notion that
patriotism is best expressed in readiness to fight for our country, be she
right or wrong. Better the paying of bounties to such men to fill the ranks
than that they should be filled by those whose higher duty is to fit
themselves for the service of their country in the patriotic labors of
peace. We mourn the deaths of our noble youth fallen in the cause of their
country when she stands for the right; but we may mourn with a deeper
sadness for those who have fallen in a cause which their generous hearts
mistook for one worthy of the last sacrifice.

My friends, America has been compelled against the will of all her wisest
and best to enter into a path of darkness and peril. Against their will she
has been forced to turn back from the way of civilization to the way of
barbarism, to renounce for the time her own ideals. With grief, with anxiety
must the lover of his country regard the present aspect and the future
prospect of the nation's life. With serious purpose, with utter
self-devotion he should prepare himself for the untried and difficult
service to which it is plain he is to be called in the quick-coming years.

Two months ago America stood at the parting of the ways. Her first step is
irretrievable. It depends on the virtue, on the enlightened patriotism of
her children whether her future steps shall be upward to the light or
downward to the darkness.

Charles Eliot Norton (1827-1908) was an influential "man of letters" who
taught art history at Harvard and produced, among other Italian studies, a
three-volume prose translation of Dante. He was also editor of the North
American Review

At the turn of the century, the Boston area was a hotbed of anti-imperialist activity. This June 7, 1898 speech was delivered to the Men's Club of the
Prospect Street Congregational Church in Cambridge, MA. It is reprinted in
Letters of Charles Eliot Norton (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913),
Sara Norton and M.A. DeWolfe, eds.

A week after Norton's speech, on
June 15th, the New England anti-imperialists met at Boston's Faneuil Hall to
protest the adoption an an imperial policy by the U.S. This meeting
resulted in the formation of the Anti-Imperialist Committee of
Correspondence, which bloomed into the Anti-Imperialist League that
November. Norton was one of the original eighteen honorary vice presidents
of the League (along with Charles Francis Adams and Grover Cleveland).

Thanks to John Carney, a Mises University alum, a second year at the
University of Pennsylvania Law School, and an associate editor of the School's Journal of Constitutional Law

See also Anti-War Links

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Follow Mises Institute