The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-06-28
NATIONAL ANTIPATHIEs.


America have brought into prominence GER
tain considerations which may be OF more than
merely transtory interest. They have re-
vealed, not by any means for the first time, a
tact which it may perhaps be salutary to re-
member; the fact, namely, that considerable
number of persons consider it in the light OF
duty TO regard us with something like per-
sistent hatred They do not conine them
selves simply to feeling resentment, justi-
fable or foolish, against certain acts Of our
Government which were held to be un-
friendly but they proceed to draw the gene
raj inference that Englishmen, as a nation
are proper objects of antipathy. An American
will occasionally tell us, as if it were rather
gratifying and wholly creditable circum-
stance, that whilst he makes many distinctions
in favor of individuals, he regards us Gu RqsSo
with the same sort of feeling which Mel
son cherished towards Frenchmen. That
simple minded hero, if we remember rightly.
summed up the whole duty of his subordi-
mates in two great commandments-th they
were to obey orders, and hate Frenchmen as
they hated the Devil. OF course, when the
feeling is directed against ourselves, werecog-
nize its exquisitely unreasonable character.
We are conscious of many faults, and are by
no means in the habit Of concealing them:
but we cannot admit that we are so destitute
of compensating virtues as to justify any
people in taking us to be Unfortunately
udleIul IL may De tlat we are not guilty 10
the same extent of any such unreasoning SEN
timents ourselves Englishmen, at any rate,
are not so much inclined to follow each other
like flock of sheep and to adopt
universal creed of any kind with
out exception OF moderation: if
some Of us are foolish enough to cultivate
blind prejudices against foreigners, they
always find compatriots ready to take the op-
posite side of the question: and to rebuke
wifi Suff ioia of in1
are often enough to be found who regard
particular classes of foreigners with bitter hos
tility. III the old hatred of the French has
died out to some extent, it still works in many
provincial towns; and there are people who are
ready to retort upon our American detractors
with hatred which, primo t0cje at least, is
equally unreasonable 1t is perhaps worth
asking what is the real value to be attached
to such manifestations Of national sentiment.
The first remark that occurs upon TIE sub
ject is that it seems to be absurd to hate
people for displaying peculiarihes which are
the natural result Of the circumstances in
which they are placed. 1t would be ridiculous
in an American to condemn for retaining
Y many old preiudices, foolish though some of
them may be, considering the strength with
which the whole course of our history has
tended to fix them in our character; and
equally ridiculous in us to condemn the in
habitants of a new country for the want of
certain rehnements which are the slow product
of an ancient and continuous civilization. The
remark, indeed, is not sufficient by itself.
We hate thief and murderer,
though the circumstances under which he was
raised may have put it almost out of the ques-
ton that he should be anything better. AS
Christians, indeed, we are bound to hate no.
body and moralists have argued that if it
were possible to place the vilest of mankind
on some desert island, where they could do
no harm either by practice or example, we
$raeught to wish them to be as happy as their
condition would admit. AS a matter of fact,
however, very few people are sufficiently
good Christians to distinguish between man
and his qualities; we cannot contrive to love
criminal and hate his crimes; if we
loathe cruelty and vice, we equally loathe the
concrete embodiment of those tendencies; and
therefore, if we could say of any nation that
it was intrinsically worse than its neighbors
in a moral point of view, it would be excusable,
if not strictly iustiiable, to regard it with dis
| gust and that without taking into account the
causes to which its Generalization was owing.
d Here, however, we are met by the obvious
i facts No one can say that the difference
between civilized nations is so marked, and
marked so distinctly in one direction, as to
justify one in regarding another with simple
contempt. We have passed the time at
which we could summarily set down the
French as a frivolous and immoral people,
whose gayety was explained by their natural
fitness for slavery, and whose manners and
customs resembled those so tersely summed
up by proverbial navigator. We allow that
many Of our prejudices were founded on the
most profound ignorance, and that probably
no living man could give an impartial verdict
4 as to the general question of the relative
merits of Frenchmen and Englishmen. In
the same way, we often hear of an American
"a detailing string of commonplaces which he
a has learnt from his party, and naively ex-
planning our Indifference to them by the in.
nate stupidity and wickedness of our nation;
meanwhile we know perfectly well that the
81 same man in England would have run over
II another set of phrases with equal glibness
plagiarizing from the Duty IcIegraph instead
of the New York Tribune. The character and
essentially the same; but he would have worr
a different set of colors. The amazing mora
superiority which he arrogates to himself de
81 pends simply on his having happened to learn
+ certain political formulas by heart and is sc
81 far purely superficial. There are, it is true
'& certain marked differences of national char
"a acter, but they are not such as to establish
distinct superiority on either side, nor do the,
supply the grounds on which that su
periority is claimed. If an American
claimed to be quicker-witted than an Eng
lshman, we should have to inquire
into the truth of the supposed fact, and SCI
what is to be set against it on our side. Blu
when he claims to be the exclusive possesso
of certain political truths, he is really boast
y ing that he happens to read different set o
s newspapers from other people, and might a