course are "not far from the kingdom of heaven," as
nationalism views it. I, for one, however, would like a few of the
"data," supposed to be so efficacious in other matters.

To sum the matter up, in closing, I wish to state definitely and
clearly a few objections to nationalistic socialism that seem to me
fatal.

1. The world began in socialism. In the barbaric period the tribe was
all and the individual nothing. Every step of human progress has kept
pace with the rise of the individual.

2. Military socialism, such as Mr. Edward Bellamy advocates, would be
only another name for universal despotism, in which the individual, if
not an officer, would only count one in the ranks. It would be the
paradise of officialism on the one hand, and helpless subordination on
the other.

3. Nobody is ready to talk definitely about any other kind of
nationalism; for nobody has outlined any working method. If it is only
what everybody freely wishes done--and this seems to be the Rev.
Francis Bellamy's idea--then it is hard to distinguish it from
individualism. At any rate, it is not yet clear enough to be clearly
discussed.

4. Nationalism, as commonly understood, could mean nothing else but
the tyranny of the commonplace. Democracy, as we know it, is limited
in all sorts of ways. It only looks after certain public affairs,
while the main part of the life of the individual is free. But suppose
the majority undertook to manage all the business of the country,
appoint each man his place and keep him in it, determine what should
be known, and taught, and done--it fairly stifles one only to think of
it! There has never been a time in the history of the world, when the
wisest and best things would not have been voted down. For it is
always the few who lead in religion, in morals, in art, in literature,
in learning, in all high service. But these few now do it, not by
despotic power, but only by influence; so all may be free. And there
has never been a time in the world's history when the most important
things that were being done were of apparent utility in the eyes of
the crowd. Consider Homer and Virgil, Isaiah and Jesus, Dante,
Shakespeare, Angelo, Copernicus, Galileo, Goethe, Luther, Servetus,
Newton, Darwin, Spencer, Galvani,--had nationalism been dominant in
their days, how long would it have been before the "intelligent public
opinion" of the governing board of their departments would have had
them up to show cause why they