The heroism that may be told of such a day, is but a drop compared with the thousands untold currents of unselfish patriotism and high resolve that well up in the bosoms of our Union soldiers. Not that daring deeds are not performed by Rebel ranks, but--
"True fortitude is seen in great exploits,
That justice warrants, and that wisdom guides,
All else is towering frenzy and distraction."
THAT is the difference! That is the difference between North and South, between pro-slavery and abolition, in the causes for which they fought the Civil War. "Justice" gave to the Northern soldier "true fortitude;" without it the Southern soldier's acknowledged "daring deeds" are just "towering frenzy."
That is the difference refused by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. by Henry Livermore Abbott, by Andrew Atkinson Humphreys, by George B. McClellan. For them there was a duty.
A duty to whom? To what? Ah, it was vague wasn't it? Half-thought. It was not a duty to country, though all said so. Holmes left that duty, didn't see out the war, convinced (by three woundings) that he had earned the right to decide to further fulfill his duty off the battlefield. Not much of a duty, that! McClellan would not fight.
To country? Holmes, Abbott and McClellan did not believe the United States could defeat the Confederacy. Believed it could not defeat the Confederacy. Thought the whole attempt a great misjudgment. The Union was not being invaded, the South was. They did not fight to save the Union.
The future Justice Holmes did not fight in the Civil War for justice. None of them did. Not for abolition of slavery--All four derided the notion. Nor for any principle, any value. They were proto-pragmatists.
They killed in cold blood. They were not hot with the fire of a crusade for "justice," they did not hate; they did not hate slavery or the rebellion or the Southern soldier who was trying to kill them.
The soldiers who were doing their best to kill one another felt less of personal hostility...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...
"True fortitude is seen in great exploits,
That justice warrants, and that wisdom guides,
All else is towering frenzy and distraction."
THAT is the difference! That is the difference between North and South, between pro-slavery and abolition, in the causes for which they fought the Civil War. "Justice" gave to the Northern soldier "true fortitude;" without it the Southern soldier's acknowledged "daring deeds" are just "towering frenzy."
That is the difference refused by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. by Henry Livermore Abbott, by Andrew Atkinson Humphreys, by George B. McClellan. For them there was a duty.
A duty to whom? To what? Ah, it was vague wasn't it? Half-thought. It was not a duty to country, though all said so. Holmes left that duty, didn't see out the war, convinced (by three woundings) that he had earned the right to decide to further fulfill his duty off the battlefield. Not much of a duty, that! McClellan would not fight.
To country? Holmes, Abbott and McClellan did not believe the United States could defeat the Confederacy. Believed it could not defeat the Confederacy. Thought the whole attempt a great misjudgment. The Union was not being invaded, the South was. They did not fight to save the Union.
The future Justice Holmes did not fight in the Civil War for justice. None of them did. Not for abolition of slavery--All four derided the notion. Nor for any principle, any value. They were proto-pragmatists.
They killed in cold blood. They were not hot with the fire of a crusade for "justice," they did not hate; they did not hate slavery or the rebellion or the Southern soldier who was trying to kill them.
The soldiers who were doing their best to kill one another felt less of personal hostility...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...
-Holmes.
Pragmatists do not do hate. Humphreys' and Abbott's carefree daring at Fredericksburg was free of the care for human life, theirs and others. It was lifeless. Such daring is not "true fortitude."
It was a vague, ill-defined, half-baked, "test of manhood" for them; removed from life and from care for life, valueless except for adherence to the value of valuelessness.
...[W]e equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred conviction that were the opposite of ours...
Your value is just as good as my value! Your value is slavery,--Bully for you!--my value is valuelessness, the important thing old chap is there is no "personal hostility;" we kill and are killed in cold blood, as sport! For them, in Holmes' words, there was "brotherhood for the enemy." Fuck that shit. I'm with Armstrong.
Pragmatists do not do hate. Humphreys' and Abbott's carefree daring at Fredericksburg was free of the care for human life, theirs and others. It was lifeless. Such daring is not "true fortitude."
It was a vague, ill-defined, half-baked, "test of manhood" for them; removed from life and from care for life, valueless except for adherence to the value of valuelessness.
...[W]e equally believed that those who stood against us held just as sacred conviction that were the opposite of ours...
Your value is just as good as my value! Your value is slavery,--Bully for you!--my value is valuelessness, the important thing old chap is there is no "personal hostility;" we kill and are killed in cold blood, as sport! For them, in Holmes' words, there was "brotherhood for the enemy." Fuck that shit. I'm with Armstrong.
