THE ETHICAL VALUE OF PATRIOTISM IN THE CONCRETE
Patriotism serves a necessary purpose, and is therefore a fundamental
human good. In some form it is existentially necessary. The problem of
patriotism now becomes, then, “What is its form to be?” For patriotism
as it actually appears in persons and nations is not all good. It may
be, as an individual possession, morally colorless. There are barnacles
attached to the ship of state. Zimmermann made a keen remark when he
said, “The love of one’s country, however extolled, is, in many cases,
no more than the love of an ass for its stall.”[189] It may be either
noble or narrow. There is a higher and lower patriotism. It depends
on how it expresses itself. Before the ethical value of nationalistic
loyalty can be fully determined it must be looked at in its concrete
forms. The varying motives and effects of patriotism must be considered.
Why is patriotism noble? The reason why it has been popularly extolled
is that it is a form of unselfishness. There is hardly another cause
in the world today that calls forth such heroic self-sacrifice as the
cause of one’s country. Royce included the state among the causes
that have organized men in unselfish devotion. He said, “... we have
certain human activities that do now already tend to the impersonal
organization of the life of those engaged in them. Such activities
are found in the work of art, in the pursuit of truth, and in genuine
public spirit. Beauty, Knowledge, _and the State_, are three ideal
objects that _do actually claim from those who serve them harmony,
freedom from selfishness, and a wholly impersonal devotion_.”[190] And
unselfishness is one of the fundamental human virtues. It makes the
individual himself a better man, and is most certainly needed in the
structure of society.
Patriotism has the tendency to make men idealists. It is hard enough to
get men’s thoughts off of purely material things, and whatever can draw
their devotion to an ideal cause is, so far, worth while.
Patriotism has made for coöperation among men. The primary purpose
of the state is that of coöperation, that is, of making it possible
for men successfully to _live together_. That, on the face of it,
is a noble purpose. And the state has actually secured a larger
range of coöperation than what had been attained before it. It has
secured a wider range of peace. It is a larger peace unit. Hence,
the state as an integration of men is a gain, and is not, if it is
avoidable, to be destroyed. It would not, for instance, be a gain
to condemn even Germany to destruction as long as any other mode of
treatment is possible. Of course this argument assumes that the state
is indispensable as an institution for the integration of mankind.
But it really is indispensable. An irreducible unit of society is
a community--those living in close contact in some given limited
territory. Hence, the territorial principle is an inescapable one in
the organization of society. And, if so, communities will, by their
conflicts, if by nothing else, be organized into states. That is what
has happened. No organization of society on any other plan is likely to
find it possible to dispense with the state. And now, if the state is
so necessary and valuable in the organization of society, patriotism as
a force that preserves the state and its benefits is of value to men.
But the relations of patriotism to war and internationalism are now
its most crucial problems. It is often argued that while patriotism
has done and does what is claimed for it, it has in large measure
outlived its usefulness, and is a prolific source of the world’s
greatest troubles at the present time in that it makes for jealousy,
conflict, and war. Patriotism is said to be divisive, when thought of
in world terms. Hasn’t it, therefore, outlived its usefulness, and
isn’t it time to entrust the keeping of the coöperation of men to a
still larger institution that shall be worldwide, and thus avoid the
conflicts of the present? The feeling that prompts this argument is
embodied in the following words: “... a striking factor in today’s
thinking is the perception of the immoral consequences of patriotism.
We see that while devotion to country entails the final sacrifice of
self, it entails also the most inhumane sacrifice of others. We have
not yet been able to think the matter out. Distraught, we reverence the
men who are dying for their separate flags and strain our eyes beyond
the battlefields for the oriflamme of internationalism.”[191] It is
evident that when countries go to war, all cannot be right, and that
fact puts the patriots of some country in a false position. One cannot
take simply the attitude of uncritical patriotism. The good man and
the good patriot are not necessarily one and the same. If the contrary
were true, then neither we nor the Germans would have any moral grounds
upon which to be indignant at one another. Not all causes become just
simply for the reason that one’s country chooses to defend them.
Aristotle called attention to the fact of varying governments in the
world, and drew the following conclusion: “If, then, there are many
forms of government, it is evident that the virtue of the good citizen
cannot be the one perfect virtue. But we say that a good man is he who
has perfect virtue. Hence, it is evident that the good citizen need
not of necessity possess the virtue which makes a good man.”[192] A
larger view than that of uncritical patriotism is therefore needed, and
the critic says that such is just what the patriot cannot be expected
to attain. The critic makes the charge that the coöperation that has
been gained in patriotism is an obstruction in the way of attaining a
larger coöperation. Patriotism, in other words, is not a proper force
for saving the world. For one thing, it contents a man with his own
country; the patriot doesn’t strive for any higher organization of men,
and so the spirit of progress is deadened. Moreover, so the critic
sometimes says, patriotism is simply a coöperation for conflict. It is
setting men at each other’s throats.
It will have to be admitted first of all that patriotism may be the
kind of force that its critic describes it to be. And if it were
irrevocably and wholly committed to be such a spirit, one would have
to pass an unfavorable verdict upon it. Whatever its benefits might
otherwise be, the world would not tolerate it, if that meant to be
forever confronted with the possibility of another conflict such as the
present one. It may, however, be pleaded that the present internecine
conflict of patriots is not a permanent condition of mankind. It is
a stage through which the race is having to pass in its development
towards world-wide organization. And it is not altogether strange that
in the process, patriotism should be a temporary difficulty, just as
family, clan, and provincial pride once were. The factors making for a
world integration have not yet fully found themselves, and of course,
are not adequate for the job of overcoming the prejudices of patriots.
Moreover, it is natural for any stage of progress gained to be a bar
to further progress. Each stage has to be sharply and definitely
conceived in order to be reached, but that in turn makes it a bar to
further development. The vision of the next step simply doesn’t come
easily to men’s minds. Moreover, it is easy for them to take achieved
results as final. Those results have to be taken seriously, if they are
to yield their full value. And besides, a stage of progress doesn’t
know itself simply as a link in a single logical line of development;
it has many individual interests of its own,--interests which may
give it a tendency to fly out of what has been the line of progress.
Other things, too, get mixed up with it that tend to pull it out of
its straight and narrow path. Patriotism has been mixed up with
and betrayed by junkeristic, dynastic, and profiteering interests.
Patriotism itself surely should not have to bear the full blame for
the faults of those evil companions, although patriotism, it must be
admitted, has been in bad company. In the light of all the facts, it
seems most accurate to say that patriotism taken as a whole does offer
difficulties in the way of welding men into larger peace units. But
after all they are only difficulties, and not impassable barriers. They
are practical rather than theoretical, not rational and necessary. They
offer no grounds for a final condemnation of patriotism.
It does not seem to be fair, at any rate, to say that patriotism is
a disintegrating factor in world affairs. There is no larger unit of
cooperation that it is breaking up. And patriotism can claim for itself
that it has come in as a force making for larger groupings of men. If
patriotism were at one sudden blow stricken out of the world, we should
be set backward rather than forward in the process of winning the
conditions of world peace.
Patriotism cannot be set down as an ultimate enemy of peace on earth
and good will among men because it sometimes supports a war. The
purpose of a state is not primarily that of waging war, but that of
enabling men to live together in peace. And correspondingly patriotism
is not exclusively or mainly a war-waging virtue. In fact, it more
commonly expresses itself as a peaceful and constructive public spirit.
Patriotism, as matters now stand, is not likely to cause the opening
of hostilities, although it will support a war which has already been
started. And it is, even in war, usually a defensive rather than an
offensive attitude. This is virtually proved by the fact that all the
belligerent countries have to make their peoples believe that they are
fighting a defensive war. That is the way in which the martial spirit
of patriots has to be appealed to. And it is a significant thing that
such is the case. It indicates that the destruction of patriotism
is not necessary to the attainment of world peace, but that the end
may be secured simply through the decay of the bellicose spirit. As
a matter of fact, the conscience of the world has already undergone
great changes with regard to war. It is probable that the earliest
savage state was that of almost incessant warfare. And in those days,
it wasn’t necessary to find any pretext for opening hostilities. The
sufficient reason for an attack was that the other group had something
that the party of the first part wanted. The earliest stage of savage
and even civilized life, therefore, was one in which wars could quite
uniformly be frankly wars of aggression. The stage in which the present
generation seems to be living is that of “wars of defense.” There are
some signs that the next era will be that of peace. The whole world
is getting tired of war, and longing for internationalism. And, what
is new, these feelings are springing up all over the world _at the
same time_. Perhaps we are already in the transitional period. At any
rate, it does not seem to be quite accurate to charge that patriotism
is the first cause of wars in these days. It is safe to say that the
populations of the world wanted peace in 1914. Something else is the
first cause of wars. A dispute arises between two governments, and
patriotism, to be sure, adds fuel to the flames. But patriotism in
itself is for the most part peaceful until it is fanned into fury.
But even if patriotism does go to war, it is not simply for that to
be condemned without further ado. The resistance that a nation offers
is often really a service to the cause of integration in the world.
_For world coöperation cannot be based upon world conquest._ That is
not the way to a broader unity. And whoever opposes such conquest is
the friend of true unity. There can be such a thing as an integration
on a thoroughly bad principle. A robber band or a conscienceless
monopolistic “trust” would be examples of just such an organization.
And there also may be a thoroughly _unholy alliance_ in the political
realm. It is just that which the spirit of patriotism is at the
present time preventing. World domination and world brotherhood are
incompatible, and that proposition right now just as truly has a
practical application, although in a different way, for those who
live west of the Rhine as for those who live on the other side. If it
is wrong for Germany to build up a world-empire on the principle of
domination, it is wrong for us to let her do it. Integration implies
a unity of differences. There can, then, be no true integration
where significant differences are ignored. And there will be no just
organization of all the peoples of the world where the individuality
of some of the parts is disregarded. Within the nation, we demand that
the individuality of each unit be respected. The pacifist makes that
demand for himself. And it is just as much right that the individuality
of each nation should be respected in the community of which it is a
part. The nation occupies the same position with regard to the world
that the individual occupies with regard to the country. Similar rights
and similar duties may be claimed for both. It is fair that the
same organizing principle should be applied on both the national and
international levels, namely, unity in difference.
In other words, the same principles of justice and liberty that must
guide within the nation must also be normative of the relations between
states. The integration of a nation is one of will, and, moreover, one
of _good will_. The same thing can be said of a world organization.
_The permanent integration of the world will have to be upon the basis
of good will._ And that cannot have been accomplished where a great
many apparently within the fold are not in it at heart. Peace wouldn’t
necessarily mean good will or true integration. If, for instance, we
voluntarily surrendered to Germany, as the pacifists sometimes urge,
and showed good will on our part, that wouldn’t necessarily call forth
the same spirit on the part of Germany. Their spirit might simply be
that of exaggerated egoism. But on the other hand, will it make for
good will to go on fighting Germany? In the long run, it seems to be
the way that is necessary to follow in order to bring her to a frame of
mind where she can be coöperated with.
It is therefore not completely out of harmony with the cause of world
coöperation that a state should sometimes go to war. And the nation
itself has rights and duties. It would not be any more morally good
for a country to consent to its extinction or the serious crippling
of its individuality than it would be for the human individual to
commit suicide or incapacitate himself. The state fights for its
individuality, and individuality is a thing worth fighting for. It is
right that each individual nation should have the privilege of living a
life of its own, that is, as long as it does not forfeit its privilege
by ignoring the rights of others.
The recognition of the tendencies and power of patriotism shut one
up to the conclusion that a world organization will have to be
established along the lines of internationalism rather than those
of cosmopolitanism. Each group has its own consciousness which will
have to be taken into account. Wallas says that, “In England the
‘particularism’ of trades and professions and the racial feeling of
Wales and Ulster, of Scotland or Catholic Ireland, seem to be growing
stronger and not weaker.”[193] It will be the same with patriotism
in a world organization. The successful line of development in world
organization seems to be one in which the preceding stages are not
wiped out, but are preserved and made the basis of a new integration.
Therefore, it seems as if the next larger grouping or groupings of men
will have to be joined onto nationalism. Sumner stated a truth when he
said, “... changes which run with the mores are easily brought about,
but ... changes which are opposed to the mores require long and patient
effort, if they are possible at all.”[194] If a reform is to be made in
the direction of a world integration, it will, if it wishes to succeed,
have to be joined onto patriotism.
But there are reasons why it is better that we should develop into
internationalism rather than cosmopolitanism. The latter contains
fundamental dangers. It makes too much for detachment, aloofness, and
selfishness. The Stoics were an example of how cosmopolitanism passed
into those things. The eighteenth century was an “age of Reason” which
tended towards cosmopolitanism, and it was a cosmopolitanism which
though enlightened was chill and abstract. Cosmopolitanism tends to
reduce all life to a mediocre type. This danger is well pointed out in
the following words: “I believe largely in the comparative permanence
of what we call racial characteristics; I sincerely hope they will not
be merged into a common humanity.... Nearly every group of peoples has
developed its own mentality, its own psychology, ideas and ideals. We
need to preserve the difference between those ideas and ideals. If you
merge them, you get a common--a very common--humanity. All progress
takes place in the reaction between extremes. All philosophy has arisen
from a mixture of races which brought to one another different ideas
and ideals.”[195] The condition of progress is the preservation of
national characteristics. But, what is even more important, there are
in cosmopolitanism grave moral dangers involved. G. F. Barbour says:
“The great meeting-places where the currents of Oriental and Occidental
life have come together have indeed produced a vivid and brilliant type
of life, but hardly one that has been morally stable and sound.”[196]
Each side finds it easy to adopt the vices of the other, but not the
virtues, and both sides are liable to become superficial. The brilliant
but shallow and immoral life of Corinth in the days of Paul offers an
example.
The problem at the present time is to federate groups. Individuals have
already become unified. But what sets the problem gives rise also to a
hope. The existence of groups will prove an aid in the accomplishment
of world unification. And the wise humanitarian will work through the
groups that already exist, that is, countries.
World cosmopolitanism would, at least at present, leave the individual
cold; he could not comprehend it, and could not be intelligently loyal
to it. Hence, in order to get effective sympathy and action among
men, there must exist a group of the size and meaning that is able to
appeal to the individual. There must be aroused something like what
Royce called “provincialism.” Provincialism might be interpreted in
one way as loyalty to that integration of men whose individuality
expressed the individuality of oneself. And from it will be derived
dynamic for humanitarianism. Royce said that, “... philanthropy that
is not founded upon a personal loyalty of the individual to his own
family and to his own personal duties is notoriously a worthless
abstraction.”[197] And the application was that “the province will not
serve the nation best by forgetting itself, but by loyally emphasizing
its own duty to the nation and therefore its right to attain and to
cultivate its own unique wisdom.”[198] Therefore Royce said that,
“Every one ... ought, ideally speaking, to be provincial,--and that no
matter how cultivated, or humanitarian, or universal in purpose or in
experience he may be or may become.”[199] Provincialism did not mean
exclusiveness or jealousy. To Royce, “... our province, like our own
individuality, ought to be to all of us rather an ideal than a mere
boast.... The better aspect of our provincial consciousness is always
its longing for the improvement of the community.”[200] But the point
is that the spirit of provincialism is a useful force in securing
the attachment of men. And the clue that one finds in it is that the
best way to get a world integration is to do it by the federation of
nationalities. The organization of patriotic loyalties would secure
an integration that would hang together. Under such an arrangement,
the patriot would contribute strength to internationalism by his very
attachment and loyalty to his own nation. Nationalism would thus become
a spur to a wider humanitarian impulse. And patriotism can, if properly
educated, be counted upon to support international government. The
patriot himself will develop an insistent demand for internationalism
when he once clearly sees, what is true, that the individuality of his
own nation is best realized in a community of nations where legitimate
national differences are synthesized in justice.
This program of the unification of nationalities is to be taken
seriously. Emphasis must be laid not only on nationality but also upon
unification. The patriot must really recognize that he has another
loyalty than that to country, namely, that to internationalism. It
is plain that improvements can be made upon the present world order,
and the most important thing to do is to work towards some kind of
arrangement whereby national disputes can be settled according to
international law, and the peace can be kept at the same time that
justice is done. As a matter of fact, most thoughtful individuals do
long for some kind of internationalism at the same time that they are
patriotic. In a situation like the present many are torn by a conflict
between loyalty to humanitarianism on the one hand and patriotism on
the other. And it is a situation with which the individual cannot deal
satisfactorily alone. There must be an end put to the system which
makes such conflicts possible. But one must remember also that the
nation is just about as helpless as the individual. The nation, too, is
faced with a conflict of loyalties which it cannot by itself solve. The
rescue must come out of a concerted action of nations. The situation
must be dealt with in the very beginning by an international act. It is
not to be expected that any one country can deal adequately with the
present world problems. The disarmament or non-resistance of any one
nation will not be a solution, and it seems unreasonable for any one
to counsel his own country to take any such action. However, we must
relate our patriotism to internationalism. “We must keep patriotism,
and yet go beyond it, if we are to save what is best in patriotism
itself, just as for the sake of religion, religious men had to go
beyond their own willingness to die for their own faith. Toleration
demanded not irreligion, but a better religion, and we might have a
better patriotism if we could remember that we are also citizens of the
world.”[201] The nations must be in some respects like the planets in
the system of the universe. The planets have each a free swing in their
own orbits, but they do not collide. Each helps to hold all the rest
in place, and together they all form one system. We all have, at the
present time, in addition to the duty of winning the war, the further
obligation of working for permanent conditions of peace. We may fairly
claim that we have inherited this war and are not really responsible
for it, but if we do not discharge our international duties both now
and when the conditions of peace are being planned at the end of this
present conflict, _we shall be responsible for the next war_.
It is a reassuring fact to the internationalist at the same time
that it is a justification for the continued existence of patriotism
that there actually have been and are tendencies making not only for
closer relations between nations, but also for the moralizing of those
relations.[202] In material things countries have been drawn closer
and closer together. They are not economic wholes. They are debtors
and creditors of one another. They do not keep improved methods of
industry in the country where they originated; even improved methods
of war have not been so restricted. And they are interdependent in
non-material things. Physicians and surgeons do not hide their ideas
within their own group. And art and science, of course, have long
been ties that have bound together associations of the citizens of
diverse countries. There is, in short, a wide unofficial intercourse
between the citizens of different countries, a fact which leads Burns
to exclaim, “Nor will even diplomatic subtleties be able to keep us
back: for trust between the citizens of diverse states is trust between
the states, and the official governments will soon have to submit to
the new situation.”[203] But states as such consider themselves to be
in moral relations with one another. What else can it mean that they
have foreign secretaries, and employ an extensive diplomatic service
which does a continuous business; that they have been increasingly
taking common action for the control of disease or the management of
postal and telegraphic communication; that they have been more and more
concluding such peace treaties as exist, for instance, between England
and the United States?[204]
The present war even is proving that the nations of the world are
closely interrelated. The struggle is world-wide, and it could not
have assumed such tremendous proportions were not every part of the
world in close touch with all the rest. And it is significant that
the contestants are alliances. Lippman well remarks: “The process of
fusion has gone so far that war itself has ceased to be a national
enterprise.”[205] The existence of alliance is portentous of the
relations of the future. It will do something towards creating a
feeling of sympathy between the citizens of the allied countries,
and it will show that the nations can work together. And if they can
coöperate in war, it ought to be fairly easy for them to draw the
conclusion that they can act together in peace. Moreover, if the Allies
win the present war, the peace that will result will be representative
of the interests of a large group of very different peoples. It is
encouraging, too, in the attitude of at least one nation that President
Wilson, at the very time when he went to war, declared for a league
of nations. We should do well to remind ourselves that one form of
patriotism finds its satisfaction in its country as a good neighbor and
a servant of humanity.
The observation of moral relations as expressed in the “rules of
war” has received a jolt in this present conflict. But that doesn’t
necessarily mean that the morality of nations is smashed. The
essential moral temper of the world is shown by the horror that
has been manifested at the atrocities that have been committed.
And, moreover, every belligerent nation has been eager to justify
itself before the world. That in itself is an indication that a world
sentiment has been formed on the conduct of nations in the declaring
and waging of war. A century ago militarists did not need to bother
themselves much about the world’s opinion. The moral relationships of
states in war is further illustrated by the fact that we even hear what
is officially announced in the war bulletins of our enemies, and that
we send word to them upon questions in which they still have a common
interest with ourselves.[206] In view of all these facts it may well be
asked what forces are doing any better in the direction of a broader
integration of mankind than the several countries and the patriotic
citizens of those countries.
The fact of the business is that patriotism is a stage in the growth
of loyalty. States and nations are steps in the process of world
integration. After families, tribes, city-states, and all the rest,
have come nations. Nations must have the loyalty of mankind because
they are the largest peace units so far attained, and because they
will be the foundations of larger peace units. The next step in the
organization of the race seems to be that of internationalism. And the
logic of history seems to indicate that international government will
come. The tendency of societal organization has been toward larger and
larger wholes. “The tendency to the enlargement of the social unit has
been going on with certain temporary relapses throughout human history.
Though repeatedly checked by the instability of the larger units, it
has always resumed its activity, so that it should probably be regarded
as a fundamental biological drift the existence of which is a factor
which must always be taken into account in dealing with the structure
of human society.”[207] The process of enlargement is still carrying
on. States and nations have actually grown very close together, and are
increasingly establishing official relations between themselves. And
the temper of the patriotic spirit has become such that on the whole
it will not only welcome but further international government. In this
character patriotism shows itself to be a force making not only for
the salvation of the one country but of mankind. This is at once its
justification and an indication of what there is in it that the morally
good man ought to approve and support. If the fundamental justification
of patriotism is that it strengthens the principle of coöperation
among men and makes for peace, then its continued vindication will
be in its further support and extension of the primary principle for
which it stands. There is good reason why its relations to war and
internationalism are crucial problems of patriotism. The fundamental
good of the nation is that it is a peace unit, and if patriotism comes
to the place where it stands for war more than for peace, and is in
the way of larger groupings of men, it will have defeated itself. The
higher patriotism is that which looks toward internationalism.
The practical ethical problem in patriotism is that of separating the
good from the evil, and of preserving the former while allowing the
latter to fall into disuse. It is fairly certain that nationalism and
patriotism could not be destroyed even if one thought that such was the
best thing to do. Some form of an organization of men based upon the
geographical principle is with us to stay in at least the predictable
future. And countries will not consent to extinction. _Patriotism is
the will to national individuality_, and patriots will insist upon that
individuality. In view of these facts, it seems that our salvation does
not lie in breaking up the units that already exist, but in securing
a larger measure of coöperation between them. And it is all the more
sure that we should proceed in that way for the reason that patriotism
secures things of great value in the world. If we destroyed it, we
should lose the good along with the evil. This can be illustrated.
Patriotism in one way is national pride. And pride often causes
trouble. But on the other hand, it often causes good. It may be said
of national pride along with Zimmerman: “Virtues and vices are often
put in motion by the same spring. It is the philosopher’s part to make
known these springs, and the legislator to profit by them. Pride is
the gem of so many talents and apparent virtues, that to destroy it is
wrong, it should only be turned to good.
“_Were men not proud what merit should we miss!_”[208]
If patriotism were destroyed, it is likely that we should be forced to
recreate it.
The literature on the subject of the details of reconstruction after
the war proposes two main lines of approach. Some writers place the
greatest stress upon the readjustment of the arrangements of national
and international government. For instance, this school emphasizes the
need for the international control of backward countries and the main
highways upon the seas. Lippmann says, “... the supreme task of world
politics is not the prevention of war, but a satisfactory organization
of mankind. Peace will follow that.”[209] The idea seems to be that
if the causes of friction are effectively removed, trouble will not
arise. Another school of writers places its reliance upon broadening
the vision of men. Powers represents this method of approach. He
says, “The chief remedy--perhaps we may say the only remedy--for ills
that flesh is heir to, is to be found in the increased intelligence
and forbearance of men.”[210] These methods will have to be used
in conjunction with each other. It is not safe in the near future
to trust entirely to human nature as long as irritating causes of
friction remain, and by removing the causes of friction we may allow
the belligerent type of patriotism to fall into disuse. But neither
will any merely external arrangements provide security so long as human
nature finds its glory in a chauvinistic patriotism. Patriotism is the
_will_ to national individuality. It is a major task of mankind to see
that that will is intellectualized and ethicized.
NOTES
PART I
[1] There is a widespread recognition among psychologists and
students of character that the study of conduct should begin with
these unreasoned impulses. For examples of such a recognition see the
following: Jas. R. Angell, _Chapters from Modern Psychology_, pp. 24,
25; Wm. McDougall, _An Introduction to Social Psychology_, pp. 2,
3, 43; Gilbert Murray, Herd Instinct and the War, a lecture in _The
International Conflict_ by Murray and others, p. 23; Wilfred Trotter,
_The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_, p. 15; Graham Wallas,
_The Great Society_, p. 41; E. B. Holt, _The Freudian Wish_, p. 132;
Walter Lippmann, _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, p. 50; A. F. Shand, _The
Foundations of Character_, Introduction, pp. 1-9.
[2] Cf. Francis Galton: _Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its
Development_, p. 72.
[3] Wm. James: _The Principles of Psychology_, Vol. II, p. 430. Quoted
by Wm. McDougall: _Social Psychology_, pp. 85, 86.
[4] Wilfred Trotter: _The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_.
Other writers have emphasized gregariousness, but Trotter’s book is the
most elaborate and important in recent literature. Aristotle declared
that man was a social animal. See _Politics_, Book I, Chap. I. Cf. also
McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 84.
[5] W. G. Sumner: _Folkways_, p. 15.
[6] Martin Conway: _The Crowd in Peace and War_, p. 76.
[7] Gilbert Murray: _Herd Instinct and the War_, p. 34.
[8] _Ibid._, p. 37.
[9] Conway: _The Crowd_, p. 79.
[10] Bertrand Russell: _Why Men Fight_, p. 51.
[11] We have been following here an article by Anne C. E. Allinson
entitled “Virgil and the New Patriotism” in the _Yale Review_, October,
1917.
[12] Prof. Max F. Meyer, of the University of Missouri, in a letter in
the _New York Times_ of August 16, 1917.
[13] McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 208. Footnote.
[14] The terms _out-group_ and _in-group_ are borrowed from Sumner. See
W. G. Sumner: _Folkways_.
[15] Alfred Loisy: _The War and Religion_.
[16] _Ibid._, p. 65.
[17] _Ibid._, p. 62.
[18] _Ibid._, p. 20.
[19] _Ibid._, p. 79.
[20] J. M. Robertson: _Patriotism and Empire_.
[21] _Ibid._, p. 36.
[22] Wm. McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 55.
[23] Walter Lippmann: _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, p. 208.
[24] J. M. Robertson: _Patriotism and Empire_, p. 138.
[25] Goethe: _Faust_, Part II, Act 2. The translation here used is
quoted by F. M. Stawell: Patriotism and Humanity. _I. J. E._, April,
1915, p. 299.
[26] McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 140.
[27] For a book that emphasizes the emulative impulse in its account of
the behavior of nations see Thorstein Veblen: _The Nature of Peace_.
Cf. pp. 31 ff.
[28] William James has contended that the center of the problem of
peace and war is that there is an impulse of pugnacity. Cf. The Moral
Equivalent of War and Remarks at the Peace Banquet in _Memories and
Studies_.
PART II
[29] Graham Wallas: _The Great Society_, p. 50.
[30] _Ibid._, p. 50.
[31] Lessing: _Nathan the Wise_, Act IV, Scene IV. The translation used
here is that of the edition of Geo. Alex. Kohut. New York, 1917.
[32] W. G. Sumner: _Folkways_, p. 23.
[33] For data concerning such societies in America see Sydney Aaron
Phillips: _Patriotic Societies of the United States_. No less than
forty-four are listed.
[34] J. M. Robertson: _Patriotism and Empire_. Part II. The Militarist
Regimen.
[35] Hegel: _The Philosophy of Right_, Dyde’s edition.
[36] _Ibid._, p. 310.
[37] _Ibid._, pp. 313, 314.
[38] Edward Everett Hale: _The Man Without a Country_.
[39] J. M. Robertson: The Jingoism of Poets. See his _Criticisms_, Vol.
II.
[40] Graham Wallas: _The Great Society_, p. 153.
[41] Sumner: _Folkways_, pp. 630, 631.
[42] The Teaching of Patriotism. In _Social and International Ideals_.
Lect. I.
[43] _The Citizen_ of Milford, Conn.
[44] Cf. Harry Pratt Judson: _The Young American_; Ella Lyman Cabot and
Others: _A Course in Citizenship_; Constance D’Arcy Mackay: _Patriotic
Plays_ and _Pageants for Young People_.
[45] Russell: _Why Men Fight_, pp. 160, 161.
[46] W. G. Sumner: _Folkways_, pp. 635, 636.
[47] _Ibid._, p. 177.
[48] Trotter: _Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_, p. 205.
[49] Russell: _Why Men Fight_, p. 154.
[50] McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 97.
[51] Cooley: _Human Nature and the Social Order_, p. 265.
[52] Graham Wallas: _The Great Society_, pp. 281, 282.
[53] M. Gabriel Tarde has made more of this disposition than any other
writer. See Tarde: _The Laws of Imitation_. His definition of imitation
is on p. XIV, in preface to the second edition.
[54] Sumner: _Folkways_, p. 5. Italics mine.
[55] C. D. Burns: _The Morality of Nations_, p. 106.
[56] Lippmann: _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, p. 51.
[57] Sumner: _Folkways_, p. 30.
[58] _Ibid._, pp. 77, 173, 174.
[59] _Ibid._, p. 71.
[60] Cf. C. D. Burns: _The Morality of Nations_, pp. 14, 15.
[61] Lessing: _Nathan the Wise_, Act III, Sc. VII. Kohut’s edition.
[62] Cooley: _Human Nature and the Social Order_, p. 36. Quoted by
Ross: _Social Psychology_, p. 4.
[63] Ross: _Social Psychology_, p. 273.
[64] Russell: _Why Men Fight_, p. 236. The fact that patriotism has
been relatively uncriticized is not its only source of strength; it is
an important one.
[65] Sumner: _Folkways_, p. 95. Italics mine.
PART III
[66] The beliefs, however, are often closely related to the impulses
and habits, and may simply be the latter raised to the level of
consciousness. In fact, when an impulse or a habit gets raised to the
conscious level, it becomes a belief.
[67] Graham Wallas: _The Great Society_, p. 36.
[68] Alfred Tennyson. Poem has no title. Stanza given is the opening
one. See _The Works of Alfred Lord Tennyson_, London and New York,
MacMillan Co., 1892, p. 64.
[69] Herbert Spencer: _Social Statics_, p. 283.
[70] Daniel Webster: Reply to Hayne. Jan. 26, 1830.
[71] Green: Works. Vol. II. _The Principles of Political Obligation_,
p. 384. Italics mine.
[72] Cf. Thomas Hobbes: _Leviathan_.
[73] J. S. Mill. In letter to John Sterling, Oct. 20-22, 1831. Elliott:
_Letters_, Vol. I, p. 15.
[74] Josiah Quincy, Jr.: Second Centennial of Boston. Sept. 17, 1830.
[75] L. T. Chamberlin: _Patriotism and The Moral Law_, p. 10.
[76] J. S. Mill: _Principles of Political Economy_, Vol. II, p. 397.
[77] Cf. Aristotle: _Politics_, Bk. I, Chap. 1, p. 3. Jowett’s edition.
[78] Cf. Plato: _The Republic_.
[79] Edward Everett Hale: _The Man Without a Country_. Preface, pp. IV,
V. School edition; Boston; Little, Brown, and Co.; 1905.
[80] The term “syndicalism” as here used means roughly the principle
that societal control should be in the hands of organizations based
upon the fact of common occupation. Cf. G. D. H. Cole: _The World of
Labour_.
[81] Plato: _Crito_, pp. 371 ff. Jowett’s edition.
[82] Bernard Bosanquet: _Social and International Ideals_, p. 8.
[83] Bertrand Russell: _Why Men Fight_, p. 55.
[84] Herbert Spencer: _Social Statics_, pp. 296, 297.
[85] Loisy: _The War and Religion_, pp. 36, 37.
[86] Zimmermann: _On National Pride_, p. 94.
[87] Patrick Henry: Speech in Virginia Legislature, 1775.
[88] Abraham Lincoln: Gettysburg Address. Nov. 19, 1863.
[89] Bacon: _De Augmentis Scientarum_, B. VI, Ch. III. (Spedding and
Ellis). Quoted by Alexander F. Shand: _The Foundations of Character_,
p. 7.
[90] Walter Lippmann: _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, pp. 74, 75.
[91] Samuel Adams: Protest of Boston Against Taxation. May 24, 1764.
[92] John Dewey: Progress, _I. J. E._, April, 1916, p. 321.
[93] Cf. Veblen: _The Nature of Peace_, pp. 166, 167.
[94] Chamberlain: _Patriotism and The Moral Law_, p. 6.
[95] L. P. Jacks: _The Changing Mind of a Nation at War_, pp. 78, 79.
Jacks is talking of war-time conditions.
[96] George Washington: Letter to the Governors. June 18, 1783. Italics
mine.
[97] McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 207.
[98] C. D. Burns: _The Morality of Nations_, p. 11.
[99] Bosanquet: _Social and International Ideals_, p. 3.
[100] Royce: _The Philosophy of Loyalty_, p. 40.
[101] _Ibid._, p. 41.
[102] Zimmermann: _On National Pride_, pp. 280, 281.
[103] William Cowper: The Task, II, 206.
[104] Sir Walter Scott: The Lay of the Last Minstrel. Canto Sixth.
[105] Cf. Mill: _On Liberty_; and Spencer: _Social Statics_.
[106] Hegel: _The Philosophy of Right_, pp. 330, 337.
[107] Cf. H. P. Judson: _The Young American_. Chap. I, pp. 9, 10.
[108] H. H. Powers: _The Things Men Fight For_, p. 283.
[109] Nitobe: _Bushido, The Soul of Japan_, p. 116.
[110] C. D. Broad: The Prevention of War. _I. J. E._, Jan., 1916, p.
243.
[111] For a clear statement of the diplomatic aims of the different
nations in this present war see H. H. Powers: _The Things Men Fight
For_.
[112] J. S. Mill: Letter dated Oct. 25, 1865. Elliott: _Letters_. Vol.
II, p. 47.
[113] Chas. Sumner: The True Grandeur of Nations. Boston, July 4, 1845.
[114] Powers: _The Things Men Fight For_, p. 340.
[115] Green: Works. Vol. II. _The Principles of Political Obligation_,
p. 338.
[116] See Anne C. E. Allinson: Virgil and the New Patriotism, _Yale
Review_, Oct., 1917, p. 158.
[117] King: Washington or Greatness. In _Patriotism and Other Papers_,
pp. 72, 73.
[118] L. S. Woolf: International Morality. _I. J. E._, Oct., 1915, p.
18.
[119] Loisy: _The War and Religion_, p. 21.
[120] Elroy Headley: _Patriotic Essays_, Introduction, p. XV.
[121] Mazzini: 1834. Quoted by Rose: _Nationality in Modern History_,
p. 74.
[122] Longfellow: The Building of the Ship.
[123] Josiah Quincy, Jr. Speech at Second Centennial of Boston, Sept.
17, 1830.
[124] Wm. Watson: The True Patriotism. See _The Poems of William
Watson_, New York and London, Macmillan Co., 1893, p. 76.
[125] Chamberlin: _Patriotism and The Moral Law_, pp. 24, 25.
[126] Chas. E. Hughes: _Addresses Before the Empire State Society, S.
A. R._ Nov. 26, 1906.
[127] Bosanquet: _Social and International Ideals_, preface, pp. VI,
VII.
[128] Chamberlin: _Patriotism and The Moral Law_, p. 14.
[129] John Grier Hibben: _The Higher Patriotism_, p. 18.
[130] J. M. Robertson: _Patriotism and Empire_, p. 202.
[131] International Reform Bureau: _Patriotic Studies_, 1888-1905.
[132] Thos. S. King: _Patriotism and Other Papers_, p. 49.
[133] Cf. E. A. Venturi: _Joseph Mazzini_, with two essays by Mazzini:
_Thoughts on Democracy_ and _The Duties of Man_.
[134] Royce: _Loyalty_, pp. 214, 215, 118.
[135] Royce: Duties of Americans in the Present War. In _The Hope of
the Great Community_, pp. 3, 4. Italics mine.
[136] Graham Wallas: _Human Nature in Politics_, p. 100.
PART IV
[137] J. M. Robertson: _Patriotism and Empire_.
[138] W. Trotter: _The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_.
[139] T. Veblen: _The Nature of Peace_.
[140] Loisy: _The War and Religion_.
[141] H. H. Powers: _The Things Men Fight For_.
[142] Cf. statement of procedure in the preface.
[143] Sophie Bryant: _Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_,
Vol. IX, p. 678:2.
[144] Of course, one can care about the fate of countries other than
his own and be interested in institutions of another order, the church,
for instance, but when he does these things, he does them in his
character as something other than a patriot. No person is merely a
patriot. In so far as he is a patriot his interest is absorbed in his
country.
[145] Royce: _The World and the Individual_, Vol. I, p. 292.
[146] Veblen: _The Nature of Peace_. Cf. Chap. IV, Peace Without Honour.
[147] Bosanquet: _The Principle of Individuality and Value_, p. 68.
[148] _Ibid._, margin of p. 68.
[149] E. B. Talbot: Individuality and Freedom. _Philosophical Review_,
November, 1909, p. 600.
[150] Aristotle: _Politics_. Book II, Chap. 2, p. 28. Jowett’s
translation.
[151] Gertrude B. King: The Servile Mind. _I. J. E._, July, 1916, p.
503.
[152] Ellen B. Talbot: Individuality and Freedom. _Philosophical
Review_, November, 1909, p. 603.
[153] Warner Fite: _Individualism_, p. 14.
[154] Ellen B. Talbot: Individuality and Freedom. _Philosophical
Review_, November, 1909, p. 602.
[155] Cf. Aristotle: _Politics_. Book I, Chap. 2, p. 4. Jowett’s
edition.
[156] Warner Fite: _Individualism_, p. 126.
[157] _Ibid._, p. 122.
[158] Royce: _The Problem of Christianity_, Vol. I, p. 152.
[159] _Ibid._, preface, p. XXV.
[160] Fite: _Individualism_, p. 173.
[161] Howison: _The Limits of Evolution_, p. 7.
[162] C. M. Bakewell: Royce As an Interpreter of American Ideals. _I.
J. E._, p. 307, April, 1917, Vol. XXVII.
[163] Joseph Mazzini: _On the Duties of Man_, Ch. V. In E. A. Venturi:
_Joseph Mazzini_, p. 312.
[164] _Ibid._, p. 313.
[165] _Ibid._, pp. 314, 315.
[166] Arthur Ponsonby, _I. J. E._, Jan., 1915, pp. 143, 144.
[167] Cited by Edward Everett Hale: _The Man Without a Country_,
introduction, p. VIII.
[168] McDougall: _Social Psychology_, p. 85.
[169] Green: _Works_, Vol. II, _Principles of Political Obligation_, p.
523.
[170] Sumner: _Folkways_, pp. 566, 567.
[171] Spencer: _Social Statics_, p. 300.
[172] Green: _Works_, Vol. II, _Principles of Political Obligation_,
table of contents, p. XXXV, for p. 446.
[173] H. C. Brown: Human Nature and the State, _I. J. E._, Jan., 1916,
p. 179.
[174] Spencer: _Social Statics_, p. 279.
[175] Green: _Works_, Vol. II, _Principles of Political Obligation_, p.
444.
[176] Rose: _Nationality in Modern History_, p. 12.
[177] J. Berg Esenwein: _Short Story Masterpieces: Russian_.
Introduction to Gogol, p. 67.
[178] Warner Fite: _Individualism_, p. 100. Italics mine. The last
sentence, also, comes before the rest of the passage in the author’s
own text.
[179] _Ibid._, p. 112.
[180] Joseph Mazzini: _On the Duties of Man_, Ch. V. In E. A. Venturi:
_Joseph Mazzini_, p. 317.
[181] Ernest Barker: The Discredited State, _Political Quarterly_,
Feb., 1915, p. 111.
[182] Robert C. Winthrop: The Patriot Traveler in a Foreign Land. See
H. P. Judson: _The Young American_, p. 118.
[183] Veblen: _The Nature of Peace_, p. 142.
[184] C. D. Burns: _The Morality of Nations_, pp. 7, 65.
[185] Russell: _Why Men Fight_, p. 151.
[186] Lippmann: _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, p. 38.
[187] _Ibid._, p. 50.
[188] Cf. Graham Wallas: _The Great Society_, p. 308.
[189] Zimmermann: _On National Pride_, p. 137.
[190] Royce: _The Religious Aspect of Philosophy_, p. 212. Italics mine.
[191] Anne C. E. Allinson: Virgil and the New Patriotism, _Yale
Review_, October, 1917, p. 141.
[192] Aristotle: _Politics_, Book III, Ch. 3, p. 72. Jowett’s
translation.
[193] Graham Wallas: _The Great Society_, p. 10.
[194] Sumner: _Folkways_, p. 94.
[195] A. C. Haddon: _Universal Races Congress, Record of Proceedings_,
London, 1911, p. 26. Quoted by G. F. Barbour, _I. J. E._, Oct., 1913,
pp. 14, 15. Footnote.
[196] G. F. Barbour, _I. J. E._, Oct., 1913, p. 15.
[197] Royce: _Provincialism_, p. 99. In _Race Questions and Other
American Problems_.
[198] _Ibid._, p. 99.
[199] _Ibid._, p. 65.
[200] _Ibid._, pp. 100, 102.
[201] F. Melian Stawell, _I. J. E._, April, 1915, pp. 296, 297.
[202] C. D. Burns and L. S. Woolf have made a good deal of these
tendencies. Cf. C. D. Burns: _The Morality of Nations_, and L. S.
Woolf: _International Government_.
[203] C. D. Burns: _The Morality of Nations_, p. 237.
[204] For these and similar facts see C. D. Burns: The State and
Its External Relations. _Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society_,
1915-1916, p. 300.
[205] Lippmann: _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, p. 45.
[206] The _New York Times_ of Nov. 27, 1917, contained a report to
the effect that the United States Government was preparing to notify
Berlin of the steps that had been taken in the United States regarding
the internment of unnaturalized Germans in this country. It was the
purpose to inform Germany of the number of those interned, who they
were, and how they were treated. The object was to reassure Germany
that the interned Germans were not being ill-treated, and so to protect
Americans interned in Germany.
[207] Trotter: _The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War_, pp. 121,
122.
[208] Zimmerman: _On National Pride_, p. 306.
[209] Lippmann: _The Stakes of Diplomacy_, p. 224.
[210] H. H. Powers: _The Things Men Fight For_, p. 7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Samuel _Protest of Boston Against Taxation_, 1764.
Allen, Stephen H. _The Moral Responsibility for Wars._
International Journal of Ethics, October, 1915.
Allinson, Anne C. E. _Virgil and the New Patriotism._ Yale Review,
October, 1917.
Andrews, Mary Raymond Shipman _The Perfect Tribute._ New York, 1906.
Angell, James R. _Chapters from Modern Psychology._ New York,
London, etc., 1912.
Aristotle _Politics._ Translation by B. Jowett. Oxford,
1885.
Bacon, Dolores _Songs Every Child Should Know._ New York, 1906.
Bakewell, C. M. _Royce as an Interpreter of American Ideals._
International Journal of Ethics, April, 1917.
Bang, J. P. _Hurrah and Hallelujah._ With introduction by
Ralph Connor. New York, 1917.
Barbour, G. F. _Christian Ethics and the Ideal of Nationality._
International Journal of Ethics, October, 1913.
Barker, Ernest _The Discredited State._ Political Quarterly,
February, 1915.
Bell, Clive _Art and War._ International Journal of Ethics,
October, 1915.
Bosanquet, Bernard Note on Mr. Cole’s paper, _Conflicting Social
Obligations._ Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society, 1914-15.
_Patriotism in the Perfect State._ In _The
International Crisis in Its Ethical and
Psychological Aspects_, by Eleanor Sidgwick and
Others. New York, London, etc., 1915.
_The Principle of Individuality and Value._
London, 1912.
_The Philosophical Theory of the State._ London,
1910. First published, 1899.
_The Reality of the General Will._ International
Journal of Ethics, April, 1894.
_Social and International Ideals--Being Studies
in Patriotism._ London, 1917.
_The Value and Destiny of the Individual._
London, 1913.
Bradley, A. C. _International Morality: The United States of
Europe._ In _The International Crisis in Its
Ethical and Psychological Aspects_, by Eleanor
Sidgwick and Others. London, New York, etc.,
1915.
Broad, C. D. _The Prevention of War._ International Journal
of Ethics, January, 1916.
Brown, Harold Chapman _Human Nature and the State._ International
Journal of Ethics, January, 1916.
_Social Psychology and the Problem of a Higher
Nationality._ International Journal of Ethics,
October, 1917.
Bryant, Sophie Article on _Patriotism_ in Hasting’s
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IX.
Bryce, James Opening address in _The International Crisis:
The Theory of the State_, by Louise Creighton
and Others. London, New York, etc., 1916.
Burns, C. Deslisle _The Nature of the State in View of Its External
Relations._ Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society, 1915-1916.
_The Moral Effects of War and Peace._
International Journal of Ethics, April, 1915.
_The Morality of Nations._ London, 1915.
_When Peace Breaks Out._ International Journal
of Ethics, October, 1915.
Cabot, Ella Lyman _A Course in Citizenship._ Introduction by
William Howard Taft. Boston, New York, etc.,
1914.
Carr, H. W. _Instincts and Intelligence._ The British
Journal of Psychology, Vol. III, 1909-1910.
Chamberlain, L. T. _Patriotism and the Moral Law._ New York, 1900.
Clarke, George H. _A Treasury of War Poetry._ Boston, New York,
1917.
Cohen, Morris R. _Recent Philosophical-Legal Literature in
French, German and Italian, 1912-1914._
International Journal of Ethics, July, 1916.
Cole, G. D. H. _Conflicting Social Obligations._ Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society, 1914-15.
_The Nature of the State in View of Its External
Relations._ Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society, 1915-16.
_The World of Labour._ London, 1913.
Congress of Constructive Patriotism Proceedings, January 25, 1917,
held under the auspices of the National Security
League. New York, 1917.
Conway, Martin _The Crowd in Peace and War._ New York, etc.,
1915.
Cooley, Charles H. _Human Nature and the Social Order._ New York,
etc., 1902.
Cowper, William _The Task._
Cox, G. C. _Individuality Through Democracy._ The Journal
of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific
Methods, May 27, 1915.
Creighton, Louise _Church and State._ In _The International
Crisis: The Theory of the State_, by Louise
Creighton and Others. London, New York, etc.,
1916.
Curtis, G. W. _Patriotism_ (1857). _Education and Local
Patriotism_ (1891). In his _Orations and
Addresses_, Vol. I. New York, 1894.
Dearmer, Percy _Patriotism._ Oxford Pamphlets for War Time, No.
13. London, New York, etc., 1915.
Dewey, John _Force and Coercion._ International Journal of
Ethics, April, 1916.
_Progress._ International Journal of Ethics,
April, 1916.
Dewey and Tufts _Ethics._ New York, London, 1910. First
published, 1908.
Emery, Henry C. _What Is Realpolitik?_ International Journal of
Ethics, July, 1915.
Esenwein, J. Berg _Short Story Masterpieces: Russian._ New York
and Philadelphia, 1912.
Fite, Warner _Individualism._ New York, etc., 1911.
Frend, William _Patriotism._ London, 1804.
Galton, Francis _Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its
Development._ New York, 1883.
Giddings, F. H. _The Principles of Sociology._ New York, London,
1896.
Goethe Faust.
Green, T. H. _Works._ Edited by R. L. Nettleship, Vol. II,
_Lectures on the Principles of Political
Obligation_. London, 1886.
Haddon, A. C. Speech at Universal Races Congress. Congress
Record of Proceedings. London, 1911.
Hale, Edward Everett _The Man Without a Country._ School edition with
Introduction and Notes by the Author. Boston,
1905.
Hall, Charles H. _Patriotism and National Defense._ Economic
Tracts, No. 18. New York, 1885.
Hall, James Parker _The Force of Precedents in International Law._
International Journal of Ethics, January, 1916.
Headley, Elroy _Patriotic Essays._ Newark, N. J., 1917.
Hegel, G. W. F. _The Philosophy of Right._ Translated by S. W.
Dyde. London, 1896.
Henry, Patrick Speech in Virginia Legislature, 1775.
Hershey, Amos S. _Neutrality and International Law._
International Journal of Ethics, January, 1916.
Hibben, John Grier _The Higher Patriotism._ North American Review,
1915; and New York, 1915.
Hobbes, Thomas _Leviathan._ London, 1651.
Holmes, S. J. _The Evolution of Animal Intelligence._
New York, 1911.
Holt, E. B. _The Freudian Wish and Its Place in Ethics._ New
York, 1915.
Howison, G. H. _The Limits of Evolution._ New York, London,
1904.
Hughes, Charles E. Address before Empire State Society of the Sons
of the American Revolution, November 26, 1906.
International Reform Bureau _Patriotic Studies._ Washington, 1905.
Jacks, L. P. _The Changing Mind of a Nation at War._ In _The
International Crisis in Its Ethical and
Psychological Aspects_, by E. Sidgwick and
Others. London, New York, etc., 1915.
James, William _Memories and Studies_: XI. _The Moral
Equivalent of War_; XII. _Remarks at the Peace
Banquet._ New York, London, 1911.
_The Principles of Psychology._ 2 Vols. New
York, 1890.
Judd, Charles H. _Psychology._ New York, 1907.
Judson, Harry Pratt _The Young American._ New York, 1897.
King, Gertrude Besse _The Servile Mind._ International Journal of
Ethics, July, 1916.
King, Thomas Starr _Patriotism and Other Papers_: I. _Patriotism._
II. _Washington or Greatness._ Boston, 1864.
Laski, H. J. _Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty._ New
Haven, 1917.
_The Sovereignty of the State._ The Journal of
Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods,
February 17, 1916.
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim _Nathan the Wise._ Edited by George
Alexander Kohut. New York, 1917.
Lincoln, Abraham _Gettysburg Address._
Lindsay, A. D. _The State and Society._ In _The International
Crisis: The Theory of the State_, by Louise
Creighton and Others. London, New York, etc.,
1916.
Lippmann, Walter _The Stakes of Diplomacy._ New York, 1915.
Second edition, 1917.
Lloyd, Alfred H. _The Doctrinaire in Time of Crisis._
International Journal of Ethics, July, 1916.
Loisy, Alfred _The War and Religion._ Translated into English
by Arthur Galton. Oxford, 1915.
Longfellow, Henry W. _The Building of the Ship._
Mackay, Constance D’Arcy _Patriotic Plays and Pageants for Young
People._ New York, 1912.
Mackenzie, J. S. _Might and Right._ In _The International Crisis:
The Theory of the State_, by Louise Creighton
and Others. London, New York, etc., 1916.
Marshall, H. R. _The Relation of Instinct and Intelligence._ The
British Journal of Psychology, Vol. V, 1912-13.
McDougall, William _Instinct and Intelligence._ The British Journal
of Psychology, Vol. III, 1909-10.
_An Introduction to Social Psychology._ London,
1908. Eighth edition, 1914.
Meredith, H. O. _Class Distinctions._ International Journal
of Ethics, October, 1914.
Meredith, James _Perpetual Peace and the Doctrine of
Creed Neutrality._ International Journal of Ethics,
July, 1915.
Meyers, Charles S. _Instinct and Intelligence._ The British Journal
of Psychology, Vol. III, 1909-10.
Mill, John Stuart _Autobiography._ New York, 1873.
_On Liberty._ Boston, 1863.
_Principles of Political Economy._ 2 Vols.
London, 1848. London, New York, etc., 1909.
_Representative Government._ London, 1861. New
York, 1882.
_The Letters of John Stuart Mill._ Edited by Hugh
S. R. Elliot, with note on Mill’s private life
by Mary Taylor. London, New York, etc., 1910.
Miller, Joseph Dana _The Difficulties of Democracy._ International
Journal of Ethics, January, 1915.
Morgan, C. Lloyd _Instinct and Intelligence._ The British Journal
of Psychology, Vol. III, 1909-10.
Murray, Gilbert _Herd Instinct and the War._ In _The
International Crisis in Its Ethical and
Psychological Aspects_, by Eleanor M. Sidgwick
and Others. London, New York, etc., 1915.
_Faith, War, and Policy._ Boston, New York, 1917.
Nitobe, Inazo O. _Bushido, the Soul of Japan._ Philadelphia,
1900.
Oakeley, Hilda D. _The Idea of a General Will._ In _The
International Crisis: The Theory of the State_,
by Louise Creighton and Others. London, New
York, etc., 1916.
Orth, Samuel P. _Law and Force in International Affairs._
International Journal of Ethics, April, 1916.
Peabody, Selim H. _American Patriotism._ New York, 1881.
Perry, Ralph Barton _Non-Resistance and the Present War--A Reply to
Mr. Russell._ International Journal of Ethics,
April, 1915.
Phillips, Sydney _Patriotic Societies of the United States._
Aaron New York, 1914.
Philp, J. H. _The Principle of Individuation in the
Philosophy of Josiah Royce._ Yale Ph. D.
Thesis, 1916.
Plato _Crito._ Translated by B. Jowett. Oxford, 1871.
_The Republic._ Translated by B. Jowett. Oxford,
1871.
Ponsonby, Arthur _International Morality._ International Journal
of Ethics, January, 1915.
Powers, H. H. _The Things Men Fight For._ New York, 1917.
Quincy, Josiah, Jr. _Second Centennial of Boston_, 1830.
Rashdall, Hastings _Egoism, Personal and National._ In _The
International Crisis: The Theory of the State_,
by Louise Creighton and Others. London, New
York, etc., 1916.
Rhodes, D. P. _The Great Resolve._ Boston, 1916.
Robertson, J. M. _Criticisms._ Vol. II. Essay on _The Jingoism of
Poets_ (1887). London, 1903.
_Patriotism and Empire._ London, 1899.
Rogers, A. K. _The Formulas for State Action._ International
Journal of Ethics, April, 1916.
_The Philosophy of Loyalty._ The Journal of
Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods,
January, 1918.
Rose, J. H. _Nationality in Modern History._ New York, 1916.
Ross, E. A. _Social Psychology._ New York, 1908.
Royce, Josiah _Race Questions, Provincialism, and Other
American Problems._ New York, 1908.
_The Conception of God._ New York, 1902.
_The Hope of the Great Community_, including
_The Duties of Americans in the Present War_.
New York, 1916.
_The Philosophy of Loyalty._ New York, 1914.
First published, 1908.
_The Problem of Christianity._ 2 Vols. New York,
1913.
_The Religious Aspect of Philosophy._ Boston,
New York, 1885.
_The World and the Individual._ 2 Vols. Vol. I,
1899. Vol. II, 1901. New York, London, etc.,
1912.
Russell, Bertrand _The Ethics of War._ International Journal of
Ethics, January, 1915.
_The Nature of the State in View of Its External
Relations._ Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society, 1915-16.
_War: The Offspring of Fear._ Union of
Democratic Control, Pamphlet 3. London, 1915.
_The War and Non-Resistance--A Rejoinder to
Professor Perry._ International Journal of
Ethics, October, 1915.
_Why Men Fight._ New York, 1917.
Scott, J. F. _Patriots in the Making._ New York, 1916.
Scott, Walter _The Lay of the Last Minstrel._
Seymour, Charles _The Diplomatic Background of the
War--1870-1914._ New Haven, 1916.
Shand, A. F. _The Foundations of Character._ London, 1914.
Shelton, H. S. _The Hegelian Concept of the State and Modern
Individualism._ International Journal of Ethics,
October, 1913.
Sidgwick, Eleanor M. _The Morality of Strife in Relation to the War._
In _The International Crisis in Its Ethical and
Psychological Aspects_, by E. Sidgwick and
Others. London, New York, etc., 1915.
Sons of the American Revolution; Empire State Society Addresses at the
banquet of the Empire State Society of the Sons
of the American Revolution, November 26, 1906.
New York, 1907.
Sorley, W. R. _The State and Morality._ In _The International
Crisis: The Theory of the State_, by Louise
Creighton and Others. London, New York, etc.,
1916.
Spencer, Herbert _Patriotism._ In _Facts and Comments_. New York,
1902.
_Social Statics._ American edition. New York,
1882.
Stawell, F. Melian _Patriotism and Humanity._ International Journal
of Ethics, April, 1915.
Stephen, Leslie _Thomas Hobbes._ English Men of Letters Series.
New York, London, 1904.
Stirner, Max (Johann _The Ego and His Own._ New York, 1907.
Kaspar Schmidt)
Stout, G. F. _Instinct and Intelligence._ The British Journal
of Psychology, Vol. III, 1909-10.
_War and Hatred._ In _The International Crisis
in Its Ethical and Psychological Aspects_, by E.
Sidgwick and Others. London, New York, etc.,
1915.
Stratton, George _The Docility of the Fighter._ International
Malcolm Journal of Ethics, April, 1916.
Sumner, W. G. _Folkways._ Boston, 1907.
Sumner, Charles _The True Grandeur of Nations_, July 4, 1845.
Talbot, Ellen B. _Individuality and Freedom._ The Philosophical
Review, Vol. 18, 1909.
Tarde, Gabriel _The Laws of Imitation._ New York, 1903.
Tennyson, Alfred _Poetical Works._ London and New York, 1892.
Townsend, Harvey _The Principle of Individuality in the
Gates Philosophy of Thomas Hill Green._ Cornell Ph. D.
Thesis. Lancaster, Pa., 1914.
Trotter, Wilfred _The Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War._
New York, 1917.
Veblen, Thorstein _An Inquiry into the Nature of Peace and the
Terms of Its Perpetuation._ New York, London,
etc., 1917.
Venturi, E. A. _Joseph Mazzini._ With two essays by Mazzini:
_Thoughts on Democracy_ and _The Duties of Man_.
London, 1875.
Wallas, Graham _Human Nature in Politics._ London, 1908.
_The Great Society._ New York, 1914.
Washington, George _Letter to the Governors_, 1783.
_Farewell Address_, 1796.
Watson, J. B. _Behavior._ New York, 1914.
Watson, William _The True Patriotism._ In _Works_. New York,
London, etc., 1893.
Webster, Daniel _Reply to Hayne_, 1830.
Wordsworth, William _Complete Poetical Works._ London, 1909.
Woolf, L. S. _International Morality._ International Journal
of Ethics, October, 1915.
_International Government._ Fabian Research
Department. London, 1916.
Zimmerman, J. G. _On National Pride._ Translated from the German.
London, 1771.
Transcriber’s Note
In a few cases, obvious errors in punctuation have been corrected.
Page 28: “essentials in the disipline” changed to “essentials in the
discipline”
Page 32: “There is a compusion” changed to “There is a compulsion”
Page 33: “is is put under” changed to “it is put under”
Page 47: “it is not admissable” changed to “it is not admissible”
Page 48: “ties which binds” changed to “ties which bind”
Page 81: “will be to be nationally” changed to “will to be nationally”
Page 85: “existence in there” changed to “existence is there”
Page 103: “At at rate” changed to “At any rate”