THE MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY, by Edward Everett Hale

“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land.” Sir Walter Scott: The Lay of the Last Minstrel

Edward Everett Hale wrote The Man Without a Country in 1864 as subtle but stern criticism of Americans tiring of the Civil War. Generations of school children, including me, read and were much affected by this story. As patriotism is now all but politically incorrect, it deserves to become well known again. I highly recommend it for upper elementary and secondary students. It serves as a vital corrective to our “hate America” professors, teachers, and political leaders.

Caution: It reads like a documentary. Actually, it is a good example of historical fiction. Herewith a few rules for that genre. The plot must be based on an actual incident or an historical era. This story is based on the infamous albeit murky Burr conspiracy. Aaron Burr, a Vice President remembered now for fatally shooting the former Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton in a dual, seemed intent on breaking away a few southern states, combining them perhaps with northern Mexico, and creating a new country. Burr does not appear in the Hale story, which is congruent with the requirement that major historical characters do not play a role or if they do, they are background characters. If they do appear at all, they must not do or say anything out of character. Example: Portraying George Washington as a prankster, even though he was so socially powerful and overbearing that his very presence intimidated visitors, would create a ridiculously false image. Certainly, for those who know anything about Washington's character, it would cause a willing suspension of disbelief, something a fiction author must never to do. Also, everything in the social environment must conform to conditions as they were then. I once noticed jet trails in the sky of a movie supposedly set in the 19^th century. That laughable gaffe immediately destroyed my willing suspension of disbelief.

Well done historical fiction serves many useful purposes. Perhaps its most important purpose is that it can tell us what contemporary people were really feeling during an historical period. Impartial histories rarely convey those crucial motivations. I know the causes of the American War for Independence, but until I read historical fiction, I found it hard to understand why colonial Americans were willing to kill British soldiers. There is a vast difference between saying “I am willing to die for my cause” and “I am willing to kill for my cause.” Historical fiction explained the latter.

Plot: In the early years of the Republic, the protagonist, Philip Nolan, a young army officer in Texas became involved in Burr's bizarre scheme. Arrested, Nolan was bought to trial before a court martial. Asked about his loyalty, Nolan rashly cursed his country and said he never wanted to hear the name of United States of America again. Shocked, the judge, who had served in the Revolutionary Army, gave Nolan his wish. Sentenced in 1807, Nolan was to live out his life aboard navy ships wherein he was never to hear mention of his country.

Nolan's outburst in court was a classic instance of the danger making rash statements. He spoke without the requisite prior thought and thus sentenced himself to a life unconnected to his country.

Aboard ship, he lived a mostly solitary life. Occasionally he spoke to naval officers, but they were hesitant to talk with him as they were strictly ordered to avoid mentioning the United States. Even news was censored. Newspapers had articles and whole pages torn out so that Nolan would not even read the name of the United States. The United States became the story's antagonist; always present, always in the background.

As the years and then the decades went by, Nolan engaged in scholarly pursuits. He collected wildlife specimens bought aboard by sailors. As a result of numerous voyages, he understood sailing procedures nearly as well as commissioned officers and thus was an invaluable source of help for young officers.

Prior to all that, he was almost released when he heroically manned a cannon and helped defeat an English ship in the War of 1812. Unfortunately, nothing came of his captain's praise and request for release; official Washington had forgotten about Nolan.

A most poignant moment came when Nolan, following his usual routine, joined officers in poetry reading. Ironically, that day they read Sir Walter Scott's Lay of the Last Minstrel. Nolan chocked up and broke into tears as he, of all people, read “This is my own, my native land.”

He died in 1863. Aware that Nolan bitterly regretted his early attitude, a kind officer told him the story of America's expansion over the past half century. However, he spared Nolan the depressing fact of the Civil War.

Reflection: What can be learned from The Man Without a Country? Hale intended that readers develop a sense of patriotism. That is a virtue now too often sneered at. Why is patriotism a virtue? It is rooted in human nature. Therefore, because human nature is the basis for natural law, everyone is obliged to love his or her country. That patriotism is rooted in human nature should be obvious. The universal sense of all mankind testifies to an inherent emotional affection for one's country.

After all, a country proceeds from human nature. Think about it. At some point in far distant history, men and women married, had children, and eventually a village was formed. As additional villages were formed by people possessing similar characteristics but above all a common language, cities formed. All together, the many municipalities became an entire country. So we say that a country proceeds from human nature. And, because human nature is basically good because it was created by God, therefore countries are inherently good. Consequently, just as it is obligatory to love one's parents, one must love one's country.

In a sense, a country is a father writ large. That's even clear from the fact that “patriot” is related to the Latin “pater” meaning father. Therefore, on a deeper level, the sin, yes sin, against patriotism is another instance of father hatred. The first sin was Lucifer's when he sinned against his Father Creator. Adam and Eve's original sin was also a sin against their Father Creator. Human families have been marked by father hatred ever since. Sigmund Freud based his oedipal complex theory largely on Shakespeare's plays. Recall Shakespeare's tragedies such as Macbeth when the protagonist murders King Duncan, an obvious father figure, or King Lear in which daughters Goneril and Regan hate their father/king.

What causes anti-patriotism; hatred of one's own country? As stated above, it's part of father hatred. Undoubtedly there are multiple causes. Keep in mind that in the social sciences, such as psychology, there are no single variable interpretations. A great many American school teachers and college professors have passed their anti-American attitudes, father-hatred in a thin disguise, onto their students. Schooling is thus another causative factor. As we educators say, one generation without education and an entire civilization can be lost. In the United States, patriotism is no longer a norm because there have now been a couple of generations insufficiently educated about their own country. Students learn only the evils done by Americans; they know little of the immense good.

Be sure of this: Human nature is so constructed that everyone has a deep seated need to believe in institutions greater than one's self. One institution common to everyone is one's 's country. Be also sure that whenever a person proceeds contrary to his nature, there will be attendant penalties. If a critical mass of people proceed likewise, there will be widespread social pathologies. Consequently, as patriotism is relegated to the trash heap of history, so too are the many, various, and related so-called welding institutions such as traditions, customs, and ways of doing things that mark one culture from another and thus produce in their actors a feeling akin to kinship that is necessary for the culture to function cohesively. If not lost, these welding institutions are at least being severely damaged.

To a greater or in some cases lesser degree, patriotism is boxed with love of other attachments, such as love of church, family, community, one's alma mater, and the like. Those dismissive of patriotism will generally be, more or less, dismissive of those other institutions. Sociologically, that is not good. From working in soup kitchens to donating huge funds to art museums, societies depend on a critical mass of volunteers.

Granted, there are many persons that ladle out soup that are not patriotic. Now no one can be active in every worthwhile cause, but a socially good person should have at least some degree of attachment to all his social institutions. Patriotism is especially important. On a day-to-day basis, patriotism may not even occur to most persons. Its importance comes into play when one's country is endangered. During wartime, all institutions must mesh. All citizens must be supportive.

Those rootless people who lack a love of country have no long range concern for its well being, for the nation's future generations. Thus they favor government policies that act to their immediate benefit. Over time, and this is happening now, government agencies usurp the place of families and other social institutions such as churches and schools. When people receive various forms of welfare—Social Security, aid to dependent children, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and now even government sponsored health care, the inherent need for families breaks down. Which is why we can say that when governments engage in tasks contrary to their purpose, horrific social pathologies result. The paradox is, that as patriotism becomes weaker, government becomes stronger.

Not that government is any cure for family breakdowns. Herewith a relevant universal principle: Governments are only good at tasks involving force. That's why the American government should stick to its primary purposes—defending the populace from foreign enemies and domestic criminals and enforcing contracts. Yes, there are other legitimate tasks but for good social order, the fewer tasks government takes on, the better is the country.

Of course, horrific social pathologies serve as an invitation to government to Do Something. That's an irresistible invitation. Consequently, government acts and the inevitable result is counter-productive social programs, which intensifies the existing social pathologies and brings about even more trouble. The ultimate consequence is an endless loop of well intentioned programs and more social breakdowns. My native city, Detroit, is an embarrassing example.

In conclusion, patriotism is, for many good reasons, an obligation under natural law. And, when practiced well, it is also a virtue. It should be once more enshrined as such.