PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONAL

BROTHERHOOD

A baccalaureate address delivered at the University of Michigan June 23, 1896.

BY JAMES B. ANGELL, LL.D.

In his great address on Mars Hill, St. Paul declared that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men," and also that He "hath determined the bounds of their habitation."

The brotherhood and the separateness of nations are 5 thus clearly set forth as of divine appointment. If they are so, they must be compatible with each other. It must be possible and right for nations to lead each a separate life, and yet to live in brotherly relations. There must then be some proper way of cherishing the 10 sentiment of patriotism and at the same time a brotherly regard for mankind.

We profess, as individuals and as a nation, to be governed by the principles of Christian. ethics. We are all agreed that patriotism is so commendable a virtue 15 that we despise, if we do not hate, a citizen who is devoid of it. We are all agreed that our nation, if it is to be respected by others or by us, must maintain its rights with dignity and self-respect.

While our country cherishes this spirit of manly in- 20 dependence, what attitude should it hold toward other countries? What spirit should we cherish toward other peoples? What relations should we aim to hold with them? These are questions which it seems proper that

you should consider in a spirit at once Christian and patriotic, as you are about to go forth into active life, where you will play an important part in shaping public opinion. I believe it is not unbecoming the day or the 5 occasion that answer to them should be sought in the spirit of devotion to our country, of love to our race, and of reverence to the Father of nations.

Perhaps at the outset we should ask whether it really is possible for us to cherish the sentiment of patriotism 10 and at the same time the spirit of brotherhood towards the citizens of other nations. Some distinguished writers, like the Russian, Count Tolstoi, have maintained that the spirit of brotherhood ought to overpower and drown out the feeling of special devotion to 15 one's own country. That eminent author goes so far as to say: "If patriotism is good, then Christianity, which gives peace, is an empty dream." There is a story that the great and good Fénelon once said: "I love my family better than myself; I love my country better 20 than my family; but I love the human race better than my country." The parable of the good Samaritan has been cited as condemning patriotism. No doubt that wonderful parable, which more than almost any other teaching of Christ, shows the extraordinary reach of 25 his mind beyond the prevalent ideas of his day, does bid

us regard the remotest dweller on the other side of the earth as our neighbor, and commands us to do what we may for his help.

But, after all, we cannot forget that God has set us 30 first in families, then in nations. Our primary relations to our families are necessarily closer than our relations to the race. We may, however, find it our duty in the spirit of Fénelon's words, to tear ourselves away from our families and give our services and lives to our

nation. We may find it our duty, like many missionaries, to tear ourselves away both from family and nation, to give our services and lives to mankind. It is obvious that the tenderest love for our families may co-exist with genuine love for our country, and the most 5 ardent patriotism may not divest us of genuine love for our race. The contradiction which Tolstoi sees between patriotism and Christianity does not necessarily exist. They are not exclusive of each other.

Duties grow out of relations and are correlative with 10 them. Our relations as children to our parents impose on us filial duties. God having set men in nations, the citizens of each nation owe special duties to each other and to their country. These are patriotic duties. So, too, each nation, our nation, must watch and work with 15. special interest for its own welfare, while it cherishes a proper interest in the well-being of all mankind, and carefully abstains from injustice to any nation. Such a course is no more to be criticised as selfish than is the devotion by a man of his time and efforts to the support 20 and well-being of his own family or of himself.

Providentially we are so situated that it has been easy for us, with a genuine patriotism, to develop our resources and to attend to our own affairs without much complication with the great powers of the world, and 25 without cherishing sharp animosities toward them. None of the states south of us have been strong enough to be a menace to us. The ocean has been our great bulwark against encroachments from the east. From the moment that we escaped in 1798 from an 30 entangling alliance with France, we have, with a wise instinct, obeyed the counsel of Washington to avoid any such alliance with transatlantic powers. All their dynastic disputes, their questions of balance of power,

their quarrels about title to territory, their envyings and jealousies, which have compelled them to weigh themselves down with taxation for the support of great standing armies and immense navies, and have often in5 volved them in dreadful wars, have not much concerned us and have given us no serious trouble. Their populations, sighing for our lives of peace and prosperity, have been hurrying by hundreds of thousands yearly to our shores to share in our comfort and hap10 piness. However eagerly any one of the European nations may be watching to catch another at some disadvantage and fall upon it in war, not one of them desires aught but peace with us. More than once some of them have settled disputes with us by peaceful 15 methods, which they could hardly have settled with each other save by war. It would, therefore, seem to be both wise and easy to continue our traditional policy of refraining from any part in purely European controversies, and to content ourselves with securing a just 20 settlement of questions which grow directly out of our commercial intercourse with them.

On the other hand, there was a rational ground for the satisfaction with which we saw France, Spain and Portugal withdraw from the American continent. Espe25 cially were we constantly menaced with serious trouble with Spain so long as her territory touched ours. Though the Latin-American races, who inhabit the domain which stretches from our southern border to Cape Horn, have yet much to learn about the just ad30 ministration of republican forms of government, it is, in my opinion, a wise policy for our government to discourage the acquisition by European powers of any more territory on our continent than they now possess. If they are permitted to begin the carving up of the Cen

tral and South American states according to the process by which they are grabbing all the most desirable territory of the African continent, we shall be in danger of having European controversies, from which we have kept aloof, transferred to our own neighborhood. There 5 seems to be no indication that any European power is inclined to absorb any of the states of Central or South America, or would venture to do so, in the face of our strenuous protest.

There appears, therefore, every reason to hope that if 10 we pursue a policy of moderation, justice and firmness towards other nations, without being drawn into European entanglements or indulging in gratuitous exasperations of other powers, we may be left undisturbed in the enjoyment of peace and prosperity.

15

But it is too much to expect that questions will not arise from time to time-many of them serious and difficult questions-between us and other nations. We have of late years had several such problems, especially in our relations with Great Britain. War, according to 20 modern methods, is such a dreadful calamity that recently attention has been called afresh to the inquiry whether we may not make provisions with some nations, if not with many nations, for the establishment of an international court, to which difficulties that cannot be 25 adjusted by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, may be referred for settlement.

It is conceded on all hands that this nation is most happily situated to take the lead in so beneficent a movement. Our geographical isolation frees us from many 30 embarrassments which a European continental power might encounter in taking the initiative. We have already been conspicuous in our efforts to diminish and to avoid the evils of war. We were the first to empha