There's liar!-liar!-your-underpants-are-in-flames history and then there are Civil War remembrances. This is Holmes reality per the a la mode Romantic Civil War school. This is Holmes as Sir Walter Scott. There is another reality for Holmes.
The soldiers who were doing their best to kill one another felt less of personal hostility, I am very certain, than some who were not imperilled by their mutual endeavors. I have heard more than one of those who had been gallant and distinguished officers on the Confederate side say that they had had no such feeling. I know that I and those whom I knew best had not.
...
You could not stand up day after day in those indecisive contests where overwhelming victory was impossible because neither side would run as they ought when beaten, without getting at least something of the same brotherhood for the enemy that the north pole of a magnet has for the south--each working in an opposite sense to the other, but each unable to get along without the other. As it was then , it is now. The soldiers of the war...can join in commemorating a soldier's death with feelings not different in kind, whether he fell toward them or by their side.
I've read this sentiment so often I believe it. It is how Joshua Chamberlain expressed it also. I believe as Holmes says that many others in the Civil War felt likewise. It is certainly consistent with the sentimentality of the reunions.
This is very Chinese to me: "You can't have a struggle session without me (the victim) can you?" "Each unable to get along without the other." This is not real-real. This is the Civil War as a stage production, each actor playing his role. This is Fate. In this conception being a soldier in the Civil War was a job, a duty. There is a detachment of free will in that. Most of us don't want to go to work, we have to. Does Holmes take that commonly-expressed absence of free will further, i.e. does he believe also that it was the soldiers' "fate," their "destiny?" that they were in the hands of God?
The soldiers who were doing their best to kill one another felt less of personal hostility, I am very certain, than some who were not imperilled by their mutual endeavors. I have heard more than one of those who had been gallant and distinguished officers on the Confederate side say that they had had no such feeling. I know that I and those whom I knew best had not.
...
You could not stand up day after day in those indecisive contests where overwhelming victory was impossible because neither side would run as they ought when beaten, without getting at least something of the same brotherhood for the enemy that the north pole of a magnet has for the south--each working in an opposite sense to the other, but each unable to get along without the other. As it was then , it is now. The soldiers of the war...can join in commemorating a soldier's death with feelings not different in kind, whether he fell toward them or by their side.
I've read this sentiment so often I believe it. It is how Joshua Chamberlain expressed it also. I believe as Holmes says that many others in the Civil War felt likewise. It is certainly consistent with the sentimentality of the reunions.
This is very Chinese to me: "You can't have a struggle session without me (the victim) can you?" "Each unable to get along without the other." This is not real-real. This is the Civil War as a stage production, each actor playing his role. This is Fate. In this conception being a soldier in the Civil War was a job, a duty. There is a detachment of free will in that. Most of us don't want to go to work, we have to. Does Holmes take that commonly-expressed absence of free will further, i.e. does he believe also that it was the soldiers' "fate," their "destiny?" that they were in the hands of God?
We believed that it was most desirable that the North should win; we believed in the principle that the Union is indissoluable; we, or many of us at least, also believed that the conflict was inevitable, and that slavery had lasted long enough....we equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred conviction that were the opposite of ours,...we respected [the Confederates] as every men with a heart must respect those who give all for their belief.
...
There is one who on this day is always present on my mind...[I]n the streets of Fredericksburg...he
would become the focus of a hidden and annihilating fire...[He] was again moving on, in obedience
to superior command, to certain and useless death, when the order he was obeying was
countermanded... if you had seen him with his indifferent carriage, and sword swinging from his
finger like a cane, you would never have suspected that he was doing more than conducting a company drill on the camp parade ground.
Tons of unfeeling duty. Duty, duty, duty. (Humphreys was not the only one acting insanely at F-burg.)
...
There is one who on this day is always present on my mind...[I]n the streets of Fredericksburg...he
would become the focus of a hidden and annihilating fire...[He] was again moving on, in obedience
to superior command, to certain and useless death, when the order he was obeying was
countermanded... if you had seen him with his indifferent carriage, and sword swinging from his
finger like a cane, you would never have suspected that he was doing more than conducting a company drill on the camp parade ground.
Tons of unfeeling duty. Duty, duty, duty. (Humphreys was not the only one acting insanely at F-burg.)
Holmes swings between those opposite poles. Was it a job or a "sacred conviction?" How many folks in the pizza delivery profession hold a "sacred conviction" about their life's work and "give all for their belief?" To go about one's work with a sacred conviction is to willingly, enthusiastically participate in a higher cause. That sentiment is inconsistent with the earlier drudgery of going to work, of doing one's duty. In the first, there is free will in the choosing, in the latter, not so much. In the former, one can quickly lose free will, giving it over to the higher cause. Religious movements are like that, "sacred." Did the soldiers of the Civil War view their participation in the war as a sacred conviction or as doing one's duty at a job? If a sacred conviction did they feel direction from a sacred source?
I have wondered in my own mind if in some semi-meaningful sense the American people, particularly the fighting men, were not self-hypnotized by the war, if they became so obsessed that they did not fully appreciate what was happening and what they were doing (which, come to think of it, is the legal definition of insanity. :o). I feel that way about the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence. The colonists were obsessed, the Civil War generation was obsessed. Neither could see anything else. The decision to break away from England was irrational, the Dec. of
Ind. is an irrationally written document. People during the Civil War spoke of feeling "a lifetime compressed into four years," it was literally the only thing folks thought of. They were under its spell and four years later came to and wondered what had happened. I have wondered whether or not Andrew Atkinson Humphreys in some sense self-hypnotized and lost his insanity for four years.
A hypnotized state is one devoid of feeling. Humphreys and Henry Abbott both pranced about the battlefield as if oblivious to danger.The period immediately before and during the Civil War was
however one of hyper-intense feeling, as was the Revolutionary period. In that state too there is an absence of free will, i.e. it is not rational, one is not semi-unconscious as one is when hypnotized but the thought and the actions are not rational. They are not, in a sense, human. There are anecdotes of
people performing super-human feats of strength under intense feeling: the man whose family was in
a car accident, one of them pinned beneath the car, who lifted the car off his loved one with a strength
that neither he nor any person could have. The frenzy of the fighting in certain Civil war battles, in the hand-to-hand combat at Antietam, in the Bloody Angle at Gettysburg, was hyper-emotional, not hypo- as in a hypnotic state.
The Civil War generation was not hypnotized, I am searching for familiar near equivalents, but they were abnormal, they behaved abnormally and they felt abnormally, there was hyper-feeling and hypo-feeling more than there was normal feeling.
When it was felt so deeply as it was on both sides that a man ought to take part in the war unless
some conscientious scruple or strong practical reason made it impossible, was that feeling simply the requirement of a local majority that their neighbors should agree with them?
I think so.
I think not: [Well--EXCUUUSE me!] I think the feeling was right-in the South as in the North. I think that, as life is action and passion, it is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived.
I should like to point out that Mr. Justice Holmes does NOT provide, like, support there for his "I think not." That is near the beginning of the speech. Near the end he returns to it:
We attribute no special merit to a man for having served when all were serving. We know that, if the armies of our war did anything worth remembering, the credit belongs not mainly to the individuals who did it, but to average human nature.
Didn't expect him to say that, didja? That is really doggone interesting. Holmes was a complete elitist, a believer in Darwinian survival of the fittest, the author of the infamous majority opinion in the forced sterilization case of Buck v Bell ("Three generations of imbeciles are enough.). The Buck v Bell opinion is as consistent with that elitist strain of Holmes' thinking as it is shocking. However, Holmes is also the author of the law's "reasonable man" standard. That is "average human nature!" For our purposes in this post, I will tell you that from the first time I read Buck v Bell until the present
moment I have felt that Holmes and should not have been given the job of writing the majority opinion. It touched a nerve with Holmws and the nerve it touched was the Civil War. How, one may reasonably ask? This became a "state's interests" case in the Supreme Court, that is, the question in the Supremes' minds was,"Did the state have a legitimate and a sufficient interest to forcibly sterilize?" and Holmes wrote that since the state had a conceded interest in sending its "best" young men to be killed in war it was not unreasonable to demand the "lesser" sacrifice of sterilization from its lesser citizens.
There is an inhuman logic there. For our purposes here Holmes was shattered by the Civil War, more on that below, and his wiring got rewired. For the rest of his life he swung as he swings in this address between sacred convictions and pursuit of the Ideal and sterile duty.
...
So to the indifferent inquirer who asks why Memorial Day is still kept up we may answer, it celebrates and solemnly reaffirms from year to year a national act of enthusiasm and faith. It embodies in the most impressive form our belief that to act with enthusiasm and faith is the condition of acting greatly. To fight out a war, you must believe something and want something with all your might.
Ya gotta believe! Sacred conviction here, big-time sacred conviction, tons of sacred conviction. Holmes came not to believe in the Civil War.
...More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course...you should go some whither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate.
"Fate:" God; out of your hands.
...
New England...is mother of a race of conquerors--stern men, little given to the expression of their feelings, sometimes careless of their graces, but fertile, tenacious, and knowing only duty.
"A race of conquerors?" No. Holmes is way out over his skis there. We're back to unfeeling duty. Forget "enthusiasm and faith." This is Holmes as Sir Walter Scott, Holmes as Bismarck.
There is one grave and commanding presence...Who does not still hear the echo of those eloquent lips after the war, teaching reconciliation and peace?...I knew him, and I may even say I knew him well; yet,...I had not known the governing motive of his soul...His strength was not in honor alone, but in religion;...it was on the wings of religious faith that he mounted above even valiant deeds into an empyrean of ideal life.
The religious "motive" combines enthusiasm and faith with duty. Pow'ful combo. The rational Holmes did not imbibe the intoxicating contents of the religious chalice. But was the Civil War supra-rational to him?
...[T]he generation that carried on the war has been set apart by its experience. Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. It was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing. While we are permitted to scorn nothing but indifference,...the one and only success which it is his to command is to bring to his work a mighty heart.
"Scorn nothing but indifference:" Henry Abbott and Andrew Humphreys were indifferent to life, theirs and their mens. Holmes does not scorn their indifference, he honors it.
...
You must begin by wanting to...Feeling begets feeling, and great feeling begets great feeling.
Okay, that's enough. Holmes switches back and forth between duty and cause so much some
explanation is necessary.
Holmes was shattered by the Civil War. Physically, he was thrice-wounded. Psychologically,
mentally...Well, here:
-Entered the war an abolitionist. BELIEVED in that "sacred cause."
-Came to un-believe. Had bitter disagreements with his father on the cause, sacred and secular. Burned
all the letters of bitter disagreement.
-After his third wounding fervently wished that his foot would have to be amputated so that he could be forced to leave service. Did leave service.
-Post-war, co-founded the value-free political philosophy of pragmatism. Adopted a value-free judicial philosophy. "I do not know what is true."-Memorial Day address 1895.
-"After the war, the world never seemed right again."
-Childless by choice. "I don't want to bring another human being into such a world."
-Seventy years after the war, in old, old age, broke down, crying, when trying to talk to Mrs. Felix Frankfurter about the war.
-Kept Civil War uniforms. When he died and his secretaries were clearing out his effects they found them. Holmes had pinned a hand-written note to the uniforms:
"These are the uniforms I wore in the Civil War and the stains upon them are my blood."
They found a small piece of paper, unwrapped it and there were two minie balls:
"These balls were taken from my body."
Painful, painful reading.That is biblical sacrifice, biblical suffering.
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
"This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Louis Menand wrote reasonably that Holmes "lost belief in beliefs." Yes...maybe. He became agnostic about belief, about truth but he didn't lose the feeling for feeling. Holmes forced himself to unbelief as defense against the pain of acting upon belief that he himself had suffered. There is in Holmes a faux studied indifference to belief. "I do not know what is true" is a preposterous statement for any person over the age of ten to make. Holmes adopted callous philosophies as the body develops callouses, to provide protection against constant hurt. The man suffered and suffered all his life. He felt, he felt so much he didn't want to feel anymore. That was real.
There is upon their faces the shadow of approaching fate, and the glory of generous acceptance of it. I may say of them , as I once heard it said of two Frenchmen, relics of the ancien regime, "They were very gentle. They cared nothing for their lives." High breeding, romantic chivalry--we who have seen these men can never believe that the power of money or the enervation of pleasure has put an end to them. We know that life may still be lifted into poetry and lit with spiritual charm.
"High breeding," "romantic chivalry," "lifted"--above earthly concerns, above earth, "lit," inspired, by a divine flame. Holmes channeling Sir Walter Scott.
On William Francis Bartlett:
The solitary horseman in front of Port Hudson, whom a foeman worthy of him bade his soldiers spare, from love and admiration of such gallant bearing?
I don't believe that. I don't believe a Confederate commander told his troops not to plug Bartlett out of admiration for his "gallant bearing."
I have spoken of some of the men...because their lives are the type of what every soldier has known...I repeat, because they are types.
Belief in the common man, the reasonable man, very democratic, not elitist.
Year after year the comrades of the dead follow, with public honor, procession and commemorative flags and funeral march--honor and grief from us who stand almost alone...
But grief is not the end of all. I seem to hear the funeral march become a paean. I see beyond the forest the moving banners of a hidden column. Our dead brothers still live for us, and bid us think of life, not death--of life to which in their youth they lent the passion and joy of the spring. As I listen, the great chorus of life and joy begins again, and amid the awful orchestra of seen and unseen powers and destinies of good and evil our trumpets sound once more a note of daring, hope, and will.
He ends on this touching, positive statement of faith in the human spirit. There is consistency there with other things he wrote, said, and did, but it is inconsistent with others. On the whole of his life, it is more inconsistent than consistent.
Ya gotta believe! Sacred conviction here, big-time sacred conviction, tons of sacred conviction. Holmes came not to believe in the Civil War.
...More than that, you must be willing to commit yourself to a course...you should go some whither as hard as ever you can. The rest belongs to fate.
"Fate:" God; out of your hands.
...
New England...is mother of a race of conquerors--stern men, little given to the expression of their feelings, sometimes careless of their graces, but fertile, tenacious, and knowing only duty.
"A race of conquerors?" No. Holmes is way out over his skis there. We're back to unfeeling duty. Forget "enthusiasm and faith." This is Holmes as Sir Walter Scott, Holmes as Bismarck.
There is one grave and commanding presence...Who does not still hear the echo of those eloquent lips after the war, teaching reconciliation and peace?...I knew him, and I may even say I knew him well; yet,...I had not known the governing motive of his soul...His strength was not in honor alone, but in religion;...it was on the wings of religious faith that he mounted above even valiant deeds into an empyrean of ideal life.
The religious "motive" combines enthusiasm and faith with duty. Pow'ful combo. The rational Holmes did not imbibe the intoxicating contents of the religious chalice. But was the Civil War supra-rational to him?
...[T]he generation that carried on the war has been set apart by its experience. Through our great good fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. It was given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing. While we are permitted to scorn nothing but indifference,...the one and only success which it is his to command is to bring to his work a mighty heart.
"Scorn nothing but indifference:" Henry Abbott and Andrew Humphreys were indifferent to life, theirs and their mens. Holmes does not scorn their indifference, he honors it.
...
You must begin by wanting to...Feeling begets feeling, and great feeling begets great feeling.
Okay, that's enough. Holmes switches back and forth between duty and cause so much some
explanation is necessary.
Holmes was shattered by the Civil War. Physically, he was thrice-wounded. Psychologically,
mentally...Well, here:
-Entered the war an abolitionist. BELIEVED in that "sacred cause."
-Came to un-believe. Had bitter disagreements with his father on the cause, sacred and secular. Burned
all the letters of bitter disagreement.
-After his third wounding fervently wished that his foot would have to be amputated so that he could be forced to leave service. Did leave service.
-Post-war, co-founded the value-free political philosophy of pragmatism. Adopted a value-free judicial philosophy. "I do not know what is true."-Memorial Day address 1895.
-"After the war, the world never seemed right again."
-Childless by choice. "I don't want to bring another human being into such a world."
-Seventy years after the war, in old, old age, broke down, crying, when trying to talk to Mrs. Felix Frankfurter about the war.
-Kept Civil War uniforms. When he died and his secretaries were clearing out his effects they found them. Holmes had pinned a hand-written note to the uniforms:
"These are the uniforms I wore in the Civil War and the stains upon them are my blood."
They found a small piece of paper, unwrapped it and there were two minie balls:
"These balls were taken from my body."
Painful, painful reading.That is biblical sacrifice, biblical suffering.
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
"This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Louis Menand wrote reasonably that Holmes "lost belief in beliefs." Yes...maybe. He became agnostic about belief, about truth but he didn't lose the feeling for feeling. Holmes forced himself to unbelief as defense against the pain of acting upon belief that he himself had suffered. There is in Holmes a faux studied indifference to belief. "I do not know what is true" is a preposterous statement for any person over the age of ten to make. Holmes adopted callous philosophies as the body develops callouses, to provide protection against constant hurt. The man suffered and suffered all his life. He felt, he felt so much he didn't want to feel anymore. That was real.
There is upon their faces the shadow of approaching fate, and the glory of generous acceptance of it. I may say of them , as I once heard it said of two Frenchmen, relics of the ancien regime, "They were very gentle. They cared nothing for their lives." High breeding, romantic chivalry--we who have seen these men can never believe that the power of money or the enervation of pleasure has put an end to them. We know that life may still be lifted into poetry and lit with spiritual charm.
"High breeding," "romantic chivalry," "lifted"--above earthly concerns, above earth, "lit," inspired, by a divine flame. Holmes channeling Sir Walter Scott.
On William Francis Bartlett:
The solitary horseman in front of Port Hudson, whom a foeman worthy of him bade his soldiers spare, from love and admiration of such gallant bearing?
I don't believe that. I don't believe a Confederate commander told his troops not to plug Bartlett out of admiration for his "gallant bearing."
Belief in the common man, the reasonable man, very democratic, not elitist.
Year after year the comrades of the dead follow, with public honor, procession and commemorative flags and funeral march--honor and grief from us who stand almost alone...
But grief is not the end of all. I seem to hear the funeral march become a paean. I see beyond the forest the moving banners of a hidden column. Our dead brothers still live for us, and bid us think of life, not death--of life to which in their youth they lent the passion and joy of the spring. As I listen, the great chorus of life and joy begins again, and amid the awful orchestra of seen and unseen powers and destinies of good and evil our trumpets sound once more a note of daring, hope, and will.
He ends on this touching, positive statement of faith in the human spirit. There is consistency there with other things he wrote, said, and did, but it is inconsistent with others. On the whole of his life, it is more inconsistent than consistent.
