The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of July 1st - July 7th, we are reading Chapter Two of The Metaphysical Club.

Our motto at The History Book Club is that it is never too late to begin a book. We are with you the entire way.

The second week's reading assignment is:

Week Two - July 1st - July 7th- Chapter Two
The Abolitionist (23 - 48)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on June 26th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon and Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. Please also patronage your local book stores.

This weekly thread will be opened up on July 1st.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bentley will be leading this discussion. Assisting Moderator Kathy will be the back up.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Louis Menand


REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary - SPOILER THREAD

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Bibliography - SPOILER THREAD

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please. And please do not place long list of books on the discussion threads. Please add to the bibliography thread where we love to peruse all entries. Make sure you properly cite your additions to make it easier for all.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Table of Contents and Syllabus:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

by Louis Menand

Welcome folks to the discussion of The Metaphysical Club.

Message One - on each non spoiler thread - will help you find all of the information that you need for each week's reading.

For Week Two - for example, we are reading and discussing the following:

Week Two - July 1st - July 7th- Chapter Two
The Abolitionist (23 - 48)

Please only discuss Chapter Two through page 48 on this thread. However from now on you can also discuss any of the pages that came before this week's reading - including anything in the Preface or Introduction or anything in Chapter One. However the main focus of this week's discussion is Chapter Two.

This is a non spoiler thread.

But we will have in this folder a whole bunch of spoiler threads dedicated to all of the pragmatists or other philosophers or philosophic movements which I will set up as we read along and on any of the additional spoiler threads - expansive discussions about each of the pragmatists/philosophers/philosophic movements can also take place on any of these respective threads. Spoiler threads are also clearly marked.

If you have any links, or ancillary information about anything dealing with the book itself feel free to add this to our Glossary thread.

If you have lists of books or any related books about the people discussed, or about the events or places discussed or any other ancillary information - please feel free to add all of this to the thread called - Bibliography.

If you would like to plan ahead and wonder what the syllabus is for the reading, please refer to the Table of Contents.

If you would like to write your review of the book and present your final thoughts because maybe you like to read ahead - the spoiler thread where you can do all of that is called Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts. You can also have expansive discussions there.

For all of the above - the links are always provided in message one.

Always go to message one of any thread to find out all of the important information you need.

Bentley will be moderating this book and Kathy will be the backup.

Make sure that you are familiar with the HBC's rules and guidelines and what is allowed on goodreads and HBC in terms of user content. Also, there is no self promotion, spam or marketing allowed.

Here are the rules and guidelines of the HBC:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Please on the non spoiler threads: a) Stick to material in the present week's reading.

Also, in terms of all of the threads for discussion here and on the HBC - please be civil.

We want our discussion to be interesting and fun.

Make sure to cite a book using the proper format.

You don't need to cite the Menand book, but if you bring another book into the conversation; please cite it accordingly as required.

Now we can begin week two...

Chapter Summaries and Overview

Chapter Two: The Abolitionist

Part 1, Chapter 2 The Abolitionist, Section 1

The author shows the Northern people rallying around the abolitionists when they start to feel that the South is pushing slavery on them. Holmes had been inspired by Emerson and took up the abolitionists' banner. He was sure these people were right and wanted to help as much as he could. The social unrest of the time is foreshadowing the coming of a new age of thinking and belief.

Part 1, Chapter 2 The Abolitionist, Section 2

The author describes the battle of Ball's Bluff and the way that battle helped Holmes reevaluate his life. It sets the stage for the man who will emerge from the war and be a major contributor to pragmatism, even though he does not know it yet.

Part 1, Chapter 2 The Abolitionist, Section 3

The reader sees Henry Abbott had an effect on Holmes. Holmes was already battling within himself and Abbott is giving him new ideas and views to consider on top of his own battle. With the loss of more men with each battle, his views more closely resembled those of Abbott. However, the war was not over and he had more experiences to deal with before his final decision can be made.

Most folks want to know right off the bat - what is the title about? Here is a good posting explaining that.

The Metaphysical Club

by John Shook

The Metaphysical Club was an informal discussion group of scholarly friends, close from their associations with Harvard University, that started in 1871 and continued until spring 1879.

This Club had two primary phases, distinguished from each other by the most active participants and the topics pursued.

The first phase of the Metaphysical Club lasted from 1871 until mid-1875, while the second phase existed from early 1876 until spring 1879. The dominant theme of first phase was pragmatism, while idealism dominated the second phase.

Pragmatism - First Phase:

The "pragmatist" first phase of the Metaphysical Club was organized by Charles Peirce (Harvard graduate and occasional lecturer), Chauncey Wright (Harvard graduate and occasional lecturer), and William James (Harvard graduate and instructor of physiology and psychology).

These three philosophers were then formulating recognizably pragmatist views. Other active members of the "Pragmatist" Metaphysical Club were two more Harvard graduates and local lawyers, Nicholas St. John Green and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who were also advocating pragmatic views of human conduct and law.

Idealist - Second Phase:

The "idealist" second phase of the Metaphysical Club was organized and led by idealists who showed no interest in pragmatism: Thomas Davidson (independent scholar), George Holmes Howison (professor of philosophy at nearby Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and James Elliot Cabot (Harvard graduate and Emerson scholar). There was some continuity between the two phases.

Although Peirce had departed in April 1875 for a year in Europe, and Wright died in September 1875, most of the original members from the first phase were available for a renewed second phase.

By January 1876 the "Idealist" Metaphysical Club (for James still was referring to a metaphysical club in a letter of 10 February 1876) was meeting regularly for discussions first on Hume, then proceeding through Kant and Hegel in succeeding years.

Besides Davidson, Howison, and Cabot, the most active members appear to be William James, Charles Carroll Everett (Harvard graduate and Dean of its Divinity School), George Herbert Palmer (Harvard graduate and professor of philosophy), and Francis Ellingwood Abbott (Harvard graduate and independent scholar).

Other occasional participants include Francis Bowen (Harvard graduate and professor of philosophy), Nicholas St. John Green, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and G. Stanley Hall (Harvard graduate and psychologist).

The Metaphysical Club was a nine-year episode within a much broader pattern of informal philosophical discussion that occurred in the Boston area from the 1850s to the 1880s.

Chauncey Wright, renowned in town for his social demeanor and remarkable intelligence, had been a central participant in various philosophy clubs and study groups dating as early as his own college years at Harvard in the early 1850s.

Wright, Peirce, James, and Green were the most active members of the Metaphysical Club from its inception in 1871.

By mid-1875 the original Metaphysical Club was no longer functioning; James was the strongest connection between the first and second phases, helping Thomas Davidson to collect the members of the "Idealist" Metaphysical Club.

Link to the Hegel Club:

James also was a link to the next philosophical club, the "Hegel Club", which began in fall 1880 in connection with George Herbert Palmer's seminar on Hegel. By winter 1881 the Hegel Club had expanded to include several from the Metaphysical Club, including James, Cabot, Everett, Howison, Palmer, Abbott, Hall, and the newcomer William Torrey Harris who had taken up residence in Concord.

This Hegel Club was in many ways a continuation of the St. Louis Hegelian Society from the late 1850s and 1860s, as Harris, Howison, Davidson, and their Hegelian students had moved east.

The Concord Summer School of Philosophy (1879-1888), under the leadership of Amos Bronson Alcott and energized by the Hegelians, soon brought other young American scholars into the orbit of the Cambridge clubs, such as John Dewey.

The "Pragmatist" Metaphysical Club met on irregular occasions, probably fortnightly during the Club's most active period of fall 1871 to winter 1872, and they usually met in the home of Charles Pierce or William James in Cambridge.

This Club met for four years until mid-1875, when their diverse career demands, extended travels to Europe, and early deaths began to disperse them. The heart of the club was the close bonds between five very unusual thinkers on the American intellectual scene.

Chauncey Wright and Charles Sanders Peirce shared the same scientific interests and outlook, having adopted a positivistic and evolutionary stance, and their common love for philosophical discussion sparked the club's beginnings. Wright's old friend and lawyer Nicholas St. John Green was glad to be included, as was Peirce's good friend William James who had also gone down the road towards empiricism and evolutionism. William James brought along his best friend, the lawyer Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who like Green was mounting a resistance to the legal formalism dominating that era. Green brought fellow lawyer Joseph Bangs Warner, and the group also invited two philosophers who had graduated with them from Harvard, Francis Ellingwood Abbott and John Fiske, who were both interested in evolution and metaphysics.

Other occasional members were Henry Ware Putnam, Francis Greenwood Peabody, and William Pepperell Montague.

Activities of the "Pragmatist" Metaphysical Club were recorded only by Peirce, William James, and William's brother Henry James, who all describe intense and productive debates on many philosophical problems.

Both Peirce and James recalled that the name of the club was the "Metaphysical" Club. Peirce suggests that the name indicated their determination to discuss deep scientific and metaphysical issues despite that era's prevailing positivism and agnosticism. A successful "Metaphysical Club" in London was also not unknown to them. Peirce later stated that the club witnessed the birth of the philosophy of pragmatism in 1871, which he elaborated (without using the term 'pragmatism' itself) in published articles in the late 1870s. His own role as the "father of pragmatism" should not obscure, in Peirce's view, the importance of Nicholas Green. Green should be recognized as pragmatism's "grandfather" because, in Peirce's words, Green had "often urged the importance of applying Alexander Bain's definition of belief as 'that upon which a man is prepared to act,' from which 'pragmatism is scarce more than a corollary'." Chauncey Wright also deserves considerable credit, for as both Peirce and James recall, it was Wright who demanded a phenomenalist and fallibilist empiricism as a vital alternative to rationalistic speculation.

The several lawyers in this club took great interest in evolution, empiricism, and Bain's pragmatic definition of belief.

They were also acquainted with James Stephen's A General View of the Criminal Law in England, which also pragmatically declared that people believe because they must act. At the time of the Metaphysical Club, Green and Holmes were primarily concerned with special problems in determining criminal states of mind and general problems of defining the nature of law in a culturally evolutionary way.

Both Green and Holmes made important advances in the theory of negligence which relied on a pragmatic approach to belief and established a "reasonable person" standard. Holmes went on to explore pragmatic definitions of law that look forward to future judicial consequences rather than to past legislative decisions.
(Source: http://www.pragmatism.org/research/me...)

Discussion Ideas and Themes of the Book

While reading the book - try to take some notes about the ideas presented along the following lines:

1. Science
2. Religion
3. Philosophy
4. Psychology
5. Sociology
6. Evolution
7. Pragmatism

There are very good reasons why this book is not only called The Metaphysical Club but also after the colon: A Story of Ideas in America and the purpose of our discussion of this book is "to discuss those ideas".

Don't just read my posts - but jump right in - the more you post and the more you contribute - the more you will get out of the conversation and the read.

We may want to continue our discussion of Transcendentalism so I have brought this over from the Chapter One thread:

Transcendentalism:

Transcendentalism was a religious and philosophical movement that was developed during the late 1820s and 1830s in the Eastern region of the United States as a protest to the general state of culture and society, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard University and the doctrine of the Unitarian church taught at Harvard Divinity School.

Among the transcendentalists' core beliefs was the "inherent goodness of both people and nature".

Transcendentalists believed that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual.

They had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.

It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed.

Origins
Transcendentalism first arose among New England congregationalists, who differed from orthodox Calvinism on two issues.

They rejected predestination, and they emphasized the unity instead of the trinity of God.

Following the skepticism of David Hume, the transcendentalists took the stance that empirical proofs of religion were not possible.

Transcendentalism developed as a reaction against 18th Century rationalism, John Locke's philosophy of Sensualism, and the predestinationism of New England Calvinism. It is fundamentally a variety of diverse sources such as Hindu texts like the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, various religions, and German idealism.

Emerson's Nature
The publication of Ralph Waldo Emerson's 1836 essay - Nature is usually considered the watershed moment at which transcendentalism became a major cultural movement.

Emerson wrote in his 1837 speech "The American Scholar": "We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds... A nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men."

Emerson closed the essay by calling for a revolution in human consciousness to emerge from the brand new idealist philosophy:

So shall we come to look at the world with new eyes. It shall answer the endless inquiry of the intellect, — What is truth? and of the affections, — What is good? by yielding itself passive to the educated Will. ...Build, therefore, your own world. As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit.

The Transcendental Club
In the same year, transcendentalism became a coherent movement with the founding of the Transcendental Club in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on September 8, 1836, by prominent New England intellectuals including George Putnam (1807–78; the Unitarian minister in Roxbury), Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Frederick Henry Hedge. From 1840, the group published frequently in their journal The Dial, along with other venues.

Second Wave of Transcendentalists
By the late 1840s, Emerson believed the movement was dying out, and even more so after the death of Margaret Fuller in 1850.

"All that can be said", Emerson wrote, "is that she represents an interesting hour and group in American cultivation".

There was, however, a second wave of transcendentalists, including Moncure Conway, Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Samuel Longfellow and Franklin Benjamin Sanborn.

Notably, the transgression of the spirit, most often evoked by the poet's prosaic voice, is said to endow in the reader a sense of purposefulness. This is the underlying theme in the majority of transcendentalist essays and papers—all of which are centered on subjects which assert a love for individual expression.

Major Transcendentalist Figures
The major figures in the movement were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Margaret Fuller and Amos Bronson Alcott.

Other prominent transcendentalists included Louisa May Alcott, Charles Timothy Brooks, Orestes Brownson, William Ellery Channing, William Henry Channing, James Freeman Clarke, Christopher Pearse Cranch, Walt Whitman, John Sullivan Dwight, Convers Francis, William Henry Furness, Frederic Henry Hedge, Sylvester Judd, Theodore Parker, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, George Ripley, Thomas Treadwell Stone, Emily Dickinson, and Jones Very.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcen...

More:
http://transcendentalism-legacy.tamu.edu
http://www.transcendentalists.com
http://womenshistory.about.com/bltran...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ihas/icon/tra...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tra...
Jones Very (no photo)
George Ripley (no photo)
Thomas Treadwell Stone (no photo)
Elizabeth Palmer Peabody (no photo)
Frederic Henry Hedge (no photo)
William Henry Furness (no photo)
Convers Francis (no photo)
John Sullivan Dwight (no photo)
James Freeman Clarke (no photo)
William H. Channing (no photo)
William E. Channing (no photo)
Orestes Brownson (no photo)
Charles Timothy Brooks (no photo)
Moncure Conway (no photo)
Octavius Brooks Frothingham (no photo)
Samuel Longfellow (no photo)
Franklin Benjamin Sanborn (no photo)
George Putnam (no photo)
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Emily Dickinson
Theodore Parker
Sylvester Judd
John Muir
Walt Whitman
Christopher Pearse Cranch
Louisa May Alcott
Henry David Thoreau
Margaret Fuller
Amos Bronson Alcott
David Hume
both by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Discussion Ideas:

Remember we are discussing major ideas and events right off the bat:

Ideas:
a) Metaphysics
b) Pragmatiism
c) Transcendalism
d) The Metaphysical Club
e) The Transcendentalist Club
f) Slavery

Events:
The American Civl War

People:
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Unionists and the North
Confederacy and the South
Abolitionists
Copperheads (also known as Peace Democrats and Butternuts)

Government:
The Constitution
Bill of Rights

Chapter Abstracts to transition you from Chapter One to Chapter Two

Chapter abstracts are short descriptions of events that occur in each chapter.

They highlight major plot events and detail the important relationships and characteristics of characters and objects.

The Chapter Abstracts that I will add can be used to review what you have read, and to prepare you for what you will read.

These highlights can be a reading guide or you can use them in your discussion to discuss any of these points. I add them so these bullet points can serve as a "refresher" or a stimulus for further discussion.

Here are a few:

* The Congress of the Civil War allowed the government to become a "progressive leader".

* The Republican party dominated the houses.

* Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Charles S. Pierce, and John Dewey helped to create these philosophical times.

* The North actually wanted "slavery to continue", just in the south and not in their area or neck of the woods.

* Oliver Wendell Holmes was a "Unionist".

* Daniel Webster helped to pass the Compromise of 1850.

* Abolitionists did not believe in "systems".

* Some people believed that "slavery was evil", but at the same time they also believed that "the races were not equal".

* Holmes wrote a book about his friend Emerson.

* Holmes Jr. entered Harvard at 17 years of age.

* Holmes Jr. became Editor of the Harvard Magazine, supporting "liberal views".

* Holmes ended up leaving Harvard to fight in the war.

Discussion Questions for Chapter Two and transitional Questions from Chapter One - think about some of these questions while you are reading:

1. What did the Civil War allow Congress to create as it became more active than any other time in history? In what ways?

2. How did the Abolitionists view the Unionists during the period of the Civil War? And why do you think that was?

3. Why do you think Boston was the financial center for all cotton products in the mid 19th century?

4. What were some of the ways that Oliver Wendell Holmes changed the tone of the Harvard Magazine as its editor?

5. What did the author convey were the reasons that Oliver Wendell Holmes joined the army in the first place, according to Menand?

6. Based upon what you are reading - how did the family and friends feel about the reasons their sons, husbands, uncles, nephews, cousins, fathers were dying in the Civil War? At least so many of them? What did the soldiers (on both sides) at that time think they were fighting for? (base your viewpoints on what you have read and discussed in this book and other primary sources - cite your sources). Were the soldiers happy about the way the war was going?

Some quotes from the Preface, Chapter One, and Chapter Two that might be the basis for discussion. Feel free to do a copy and paste and then post your commentary about each or any of them below. Be civil and respectful and discuss your ideas. Also read what your fellow readers are saying and comment on their posts if you agree or disagree and cite sources that help substantiate your point of view.

a) "The war alone did not make America modern, but the war marks the birth of modern America." Preface, pg ix

b) "They all believed that ideas are not 'out there' waiting to be discovered, but are tools - like forks and knives and microchips - that people devise to cope with the world in which they find themselves." Preface, pg xi

c) "But Delany concluded that the antislavery activists were more offended by the notion of Southerners presuming to send their agents into Northern cities to retrieve their 'property' than they were by discrimination against any black man already in their midst. And he was not wrong." --Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, pg 9

d) "If the American Union cannot be maintained, except by immolating human freedom on the altar of tyranny, then let the American Union be consumed by a living thunderbolt, and no tear be shed over its ashes." --Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 3, pg 14

e) "We went to bed one night old fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs & woke up stark mad Abolitionists." -- Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 1, pg 27

f) "Chief Justice Roger B. Taney remarked, had regarded blacks as 'a subordinate and inferior class of beings; who had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." --Part 1, Chapter 2, Section
1, pg 28

g) "Brown gave the abolitionists a taste of blood, and they found it thrilling." -- Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 1, pg 29

h) "The whole population, men, women, and children seem to be in the streets with Union favors and flags --Civil War is freely accepted everywhere by all as inevitable all as the least of the evils among which we are permitted to choose, anarchy being the obvious, and perhaps the only alternative."
-- Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 1, pg 31

i) "Revolutions do not follow precedents nor furnish them."
-- Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 1, pg 33

j) "'I always wanted to have a memorandum of this experience,' as he put it, 'so novel at the time to all & especially so to me from the novelty of the service of my youth.'"
-- Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 2, pg 37

k) "If there is a worse place than Hell, I am in it." Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 3, pg 43

l) "I firmly believe that the men who ordered the crossing of the river are responsible to God for murder." -- Part 1, Chapter 2, Section 3 pg 41

We are open.

Please feel free folks to discuss any of the ideas or quotes or abstracts presented for this week's reading.

Also, if you have netfilix or iTunes - you can watch this great old movie about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr called The Magnificent Yankee.

THE MAGNIFICENT YANKEE
Louis Calhern had been a fixture in Hollywood since 1921, playing in nearly 50 movies before he got his chance not only to carry a picture largely himself but to turn in what many considered a tour de force performance as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in The Magnificent Yankee (1950). A legal historian, philosopher and U.S. Supreme Court justice, Holmes was known as "The Great Dissenter" for the brilliance of his written opinions, often in opposition to the court majority. Calhern created a portrait of "a robust, living character," Variety said in November 1950, "scoring in all departments, from [Holmes'] younger days in Washington through his crotchety but still sagacious old age." The performance brought Calhern his only Academy Award® nomination; he was also nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Actor.

Up to this point, Calhern was most often a supporting player, although certainly key to many fine films for his ability to play a range from dark drama to broad comedy. He was the flustered Ambassador Trentino in Duck Soup (1933), Cary Grant's superior in Hitchcock's Notorious (1946), Buffalo Bill Cody in the musical Annie Get Your Gun (1950) and the crooked businessman with a mistress (Marilyn Monroe) in John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle (1950). But Calhern also had a long and distinguished stage career, and it was that which landed him this plum movie part. In 1946 Calhern had a great success on Broadway in the story of Holmes' life from his appointment to the high court by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 (incidentally, the year Calhern began acting) to his final years under FDR (Holmes died in 1935). His performance won him a number of theatrical honors, and after its successful Broadway run, Calhern toured with the show for ten months. When MGM bought the film rights, Calhern was the only logical choice for what he always considered his favorite role. He subsequently played the part on radio and television as well.

The part of Holmes' long-devoted wife Fanny was played on Broadway by Dorothy Gish (sister of Lillian). But when casting began on the film, Calhern requested his old friend Ann Harding, with whom he had appeared on stage. In fact, Calhern was the best man at Harding's first wedding, in 1926. An acclaimed stage actress, Harding had a very successful Hollywood career in the early 1930s, starring in film adaptations of such popular plays as Holiday (1930), in a part later played by Katharine Hepburn, East Lynne (1931) and The Animal Kingdom (1932). She moved back and forth between stage and screen, but her film stardom didn't last long and, like Calhern, her movie roles in the 1940s were largely supporting characters in such films as Mission to Moscow (1943) and The North Star (1943). Before the two were given the leads in The Magnificent Yankee, MGM cast them as comic foils for onscreen daughters Jane Powell and Debbie Reynolds in the musical Two Weeks with Love (1950).

Their work in the Holmes bio was highly praised, as was Emmet Lavery's adaptation of his hit play, which was based on a book by former U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle (one of the judges at the Nuremberg war-crimes trials). The story also depicted other famous people, including Holmes' colleague Justice Louis Brandeis (for whom the university is named) and, as narrator, Owen Wister, author of what is often considered the first Western novel, The Virginian. Although it was not a huge box office hit, The Magnificent Yankee fared well with reviewers. The only real criticism was reserved for the glaring fact that although all the other characters aged more than 20 years, Edith Evanson, as the Holmes' housekeeper, remained exactly the same throughout the story.

Director: John Sturges
Producer: Armand Deutsch
Screenplay: Emmet Lavery, based on his play and the book Mr. Justice Holmes by Francis Biddle
Cinematography: Joseph Ruttenberg
Editing: Ferris Webster
Art Direction: Arthur Lonergan, Cedric Gibbons
Original Music: David Raksin
Cast: Louis Calhern (Oliver Wendell Holmes), Ann Harding (Fanny Bowditch Holmes), Eduard Franz
(Judge Louis Brandeis), Philip Ober (Owen Wister), Edith Evanson (Annie Gough).
BW-89m. Closed captioning.
(Source: http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article...)

Note: I have added the trailer to our videos.

I was intrigued by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s test of faith following his first wound in the Civil War. Because of his future as a moral skeptic, I can understand why he wanted to document and preserve this moment in his life, as well as why the Civil War continued to be such a large part of his identity for the rest of his life. "He had gone off to fight because of his moral beliefs, which he held with singular fervor. The war did more than make him lose those beliefs. It made him lose his belief in beliefs. It impressed on his mind, in the most graphic and indelible way, a certain idea about the limits of ideas." (Page 4)

Was his "leap of faith" one that embraced his transcendentalist convictions or a move to atheism? Menand states that "He had found that he did not require a religious faith" (pg. 37) which sounds like atheism to me, however, Holmes' writing seems to fall more in line with the little I understand about transcendentalism. He believed his actions were honorable and good, and therefore did not fear going to Hell simply because he did not believe in an organized religion. What do you think?

I think the author was comparing doing one's duty and living up to a certain code gave him more comfort when he was wounded than believing in the after life of spiritual needs. During the war - I think he lost hope - remember the quote:

"The war seemed not just a failure of democracy, but a failure of culture, a failure of ideas, "the civil war discredited the beliefs and assumptions of the era that preceded it."

The old ideas that underpinned the first generation of this new republic had clearly failed. Into this vacuum seeped the new pragmatic ideas that mark the birth of modern America.

Pragmatism is an idea about ideas, that ideas are tools, like forks, knives and microchips, that people devise to cope with the world in which the find themselves. Ideas that are useful and promote success in the real world are correct, they are useful tools."

Holmes was tested.

He did have a faith but it had turned into a "soldier's creed".

He saw in soldiers an ethical life and he believe that they were all moral beings who fought ethically, selflessly and blindly - and that a soldier had the greatest faith when he was willing to throw away his life for an ideal.

Transcendentalists like Emerson believed that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—ultimately corrupted the purity of the individual. They had faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community could be formed.

Bentley wrote: "I think the author was comparing doing one's duty and living up to a certain code gave him more comfort when he was wounded than believing in the after life of spiritual needs...

He did have a faith but it had turned into a "soldier's creed".

He saw in soldiers an ethical life and he believe that they were all moral beings who fought ethically, selflessly and blindly - and that a soldier had the greatest faith when he was willing to throw away his life for an ideal..."

This is same the impression I had. War, it turned out, was just about war, not about causes or belief systems or patriotism. To Holmes, the war became about the soldier next to you, who behaved courageously and honorably in spite of the hot mess the war and all those in charge had made of it. I don't think I've ever seen it (war, and soldiering) so clearly before, and I have to give Menand credit for this new clarity.

Exactly Janice - war became a grim reality to them all and not a "romanticized version" and what a "hot mess" they had made for the soldiers.

Yes, I was thinking about that as I read it too. All Quiet on the Western Front came close; but that was a novel.

by Erich Maria Remarque

These are such complex terms (but simple words)! "Faith" can be in so many different things: "God" (in any of a huge variety of conceptions), oneself, one's fellow humans, reason and so on. And, faith in any of these things can mean different things as well. It can vary from a simple belief to an ironclad sureness.

And from person to person - well put Peter.

I suspect that the thoughts that went through Holmes and the rest of his friends before going into battle is not much different that of soldiers today. Whether or not they have such strong well grounded beliefs in the religion they profess or whether they have always had grave doubts comes to the forefront when faced with ones immanent death. There is a huge difference between what one shows outwardly in their day to day lives in regard to religion but another thing when you really look at what you really believe. A soldiers life has been described as being 99% boredom and 1% terror is very true. Most of the time is spent in reflection while that 1% is to filled for one to give much thought to anything. As Holmes, I think, finally come to the conclusion that in the end we can not know but can only do what we think is right and our duty. The ideas proposed by the everyday scientific world come into such conflict with what is taught by religion and what one feels as being correct on the inside are always at odds with each other. The ever lasting questions of what "I" was before my birth and what "I" will be after my death are question that few think about. Holmes I believe was not a religious man as such but was a very spiritual person with questions about his own mortality. He had seen to much death and life to be an atheist. The over coming of religious mores is a very difficult thing. I am not sure if even those who profess to be atheist are really not great believers who are in a such rebellion against worldly religions that they somehow miss the point of being spiritual and just go around being angry at the world. Hope this is not off the subject and I am making myself clear. I doubt it but I still try.

Yes, I imagine when you are facing death - the what you have done or not done with your life comes into full view. I think you are right Clayton - he really believed in the soldier's creed.

This is a very powerful thought Clayton:

The ever lasting questions of what "I" was before my birth and what "I" will be after my death are questions that few think about.

I agree I do not believe he was an atheist either. No we are talking about Holmes and an extention of his beliefs so it is fine and welcome.

Interesting how Holmes' thinking evolved in a short period. He went from peaceful abolitionist to signing up for military service (indicating acceptance of the use of violence) to disillusionment about war.

After Holmes was wounded at Antietam, he felt that the Northern leaders' constant mismanagement of the war would never defeat the South. Furthermore, if, as his father thought, civilization and progress (as represented by the North) would eventually conquer all, then why have a war?

After Antietam, Holmes could not reconcile with the idea that civilization was a justification for killing those who didn't agree with your view of the world.

But I wonder if the North had better leaders and strategy, resulting in a faster victorious end to the conflict, would Holmes have come to this conclusion?

Mary - actually he went from being a Unionist - to a very mild version of an Abolitionist.

Holmes changed during the war and it is true that he could not reconcile forcing your point of view on somebody who thought they were equally blameless.

You raise an interesting question - the poor man was wounded three times and wished to be rid of his obligation because of the horror he saw and the needless death and suffering; but at the same time was determined to "carry on" as an good soldier would do otherwise and despite his secret urges.

Mary wrote:

"After Holmes was wounded at Antietam, he felt that the Northern leaders' constant mismanagement of the war would never defeat the South. Furthermore, if, as his father thought, civilization and progress (as represented by the North) would eventually conquer all, then why have a war?

After Antietam, Holmes could not reconcile with the idea that civilization was a justification for killing those who didn't agree with your view of the world.

But I wonder if the North had better leaders and strategy, resulting in a faster victorious end to the conflict, would Holmes have come to this conclusion?"

I don't know enough about Holmes to attempt to answer Mary's 'what if' question but I think it is correct to say that the dispute between Lincoln and McClellan, the poorly managed battles, loss of personal friends, his own wounds and southern unity led Holmes to conclude that war was not a good tool for producing consensus within a democracy. When Holmes wrote to his father and said that if civilization was opposed to slavery, and he thought it was, then civilization would achieve its ends in peace better than it would in war. To quote Louis Menand: "This is not a political judgment. It is moral judgment. It is a rebuke to people (like Dr. Holmes and John Motley) who believe that their idea of civilization is a justification for killing those who decline to share it. Of course civilizations are aggressive, Holmes says, but when they take up arms in order to impose their conception of civility on others they sacrifice their moral advantage. Organized violence at bottom, is just another form of oppression." (p.45) I would only add, this was not a skeptical conclusion for Holmes, rather, it was a shift in belief to another view based upon his experience.

I do not think that Holmes felt that anything was a justification for killing people if there was any other any way to produce consensus within a democracy. He became as opposed to war as anybody else even though he chose to still do his duty as a soldier - Other than that I agree with the above.

I am enjoying learning more about OWH, jr. as I read through this chapter . . . I've only had a glimpse of him from other readings so far . . .

I see a 17 y.o. idealistic student radical evolving into a pragmatic adult honed by the wheel of experience from his time as a soldier. His 3 brushes with his own mortality during his service had left it's mark on his concept of the meaning and purpose of life.

And considering the years he served on the Supreme Court . . . it will be interesting to see what life experiences were involved in creating his views about the law.

Yes Tomerobber I agree and he was not a young man when he got that opportunity either.

I had always thought of the South as the side invoking "state's rights" as code for their defense of slavery, but it is clear from the Dred Scot case to the Fugitive Slave Laws discussed in this chapter that the Northern States were the ones who were feeling their sovereign rights violated.

Slavery was tolerated when it happened "down there," but became intolerable when the Northerners felt it was being shoved down their throats by making them move from tacit acceptance to active participants.

I think we make mistakes when we generalize.

There were fierce opponents of slavery in both the south and the north; there were also many in both regions who tolerated slavery and, increasingly over time since colonial days, those who actually believed it to be a positive good. The proportion of people with the different views varied across regions, as did the amount of power each had.

But few indeed, anywhere in the country, were arguing that Blacks and Whites were equal in ability or rights.

Peter wrote: "I think we make mistakes when we generalize.

There were fierce opponents of slavery in both the south and the north; there were also many in both regions who tolerated slavery and, increasingly o..."

I totally agree with you about generalization on the issue of slavery. There was a large swath of land that lay along the Appalachian Mountain range that was pro Union. North Georgia, Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia and parts of Easter Kentucky were strong Union bastions. My great grandfather and two of his brothers died for the union cause. They were from eastern Tennessee. Chattanooga played a large part in the war in the west and it was a pro union town as well. I could tell anecdotes about this area and its rebellion against the south but this is not the place or time for that.

I'd like to hear a few of those anecdotes.

If one has any doubt that the Civil War was not just a war on slavery, then this episode helps:

(p 39) "After the battle at Ball's Bluff, General Stone had ordered his troops to round up any slaves who had taken refuge behind Union lines and to return them to their owners."

From the South's perspective, the Civil War was clearly about retaining the right to maintain slavery.

For the North's perspective, the Civil War had multiple causes, the most direct of which was that the South attacked a federal installation at Fort Sumter. Others included maintaining the union after the illegal secessions, assertion of federal authority over invalid assertions of authority by the states, and preventing the spread (for some) and elimination (for others) of slavery.

As the text makes clear, General Stone's actions were neither standing orders from above, generally accepted by his peer, or taken as acceptable actions by his troops.

Stone was not fighting to end slavery, but Holmes was. And both of their opponents were fighting to preserve slavery.

Kai wrote: "I was intrigued by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s test of faith following his first wound in the Civil War. Because of his future as a moral skeptic, I can understand why he wanted to document and pr..."

Transcendentalism is not atheism. Seems to me that Holmes, Jr.'s first brush with death was similar to anyone's. In other words, immediately after, he contemplated his raison d'être, as do most. But, he soon realized that life is a precious and self-serving idea.

That brings me to my favorite line of section 2, once again by Menand. "Our reasons for needing reasons are always changing." (C. 2, S. 2, p. 38). To me, that shows Holmes early venture into Pragmatism via Transcendentalism.

Dale, I thought that line was especially telling also.

In re message 32

March 13th 1862 the United States Congress passed "An Act to Make an Additional Article of War" which prohibited return of slaves to their former owners.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed and observed as such:

Article —. All officers or persons in the military or naval service of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under their respective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service or labor, who may have escaped from any persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by a court-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from the service.

Clayton wrote: "Peter wrote: "I think we make mistakes when we generalize.

There were fierce opponents of slavery in both the south and the north; there were also many in both regions who tolerated slavery and, ..."

The other variable in the equation is that ongoing political and military events changed opinions and what people believed at the start of the war often changed substantially by the time it ended. There are obviously many examples of this, but in the first volume of 'Civil War, A Narrative' historian Shelby Foote credits the Emancipation Proclamation with fundamentally altering the tide of opinion in England and France on the crucial issue of recognizing the Confederacy. 'Now that Lincoln had spoken out..support for the South was support for slavery and they (the people) would not have it so (pg. 709)'. Slavery, it appears, did not square with nation-building.

by

I was struck by this from pages 26 and 27. "He believed, like Emerson, that a scientific view of the world was not incompatible with moral beliefs, and that a finer morality was possible outside organized religion than inside it."

I have a little trouble with "finer morality" as I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean if your morals come from what your religion tells you what to do they aren't as good as being moral because it is what you tell yourself to do?

I think there was a lot of disillusionment from both sides about the conduct of the war. Lincoln had sought 90 day volunteers which raised a false expectation. One Rebel can whip ten Yankees was quickly proven untrue and there didn't appear to be any quit in the Union leadership which the South had expected to give up quickly.

I was struck on page 43 with the story of Abbott on the bridge where he acted "heroically" despite knowing the the order to advance was stupid, and despite a complete antipathy toward the cause in whose name was for all he knew he was about to die.

I really have a hard time understanding this (though it is quite common in war for the majority of the troops to have no real concept of what they are fighting for) how can "war" overcome all the other philosophy and morals that people normally live by?

Great questions to ponder, Patricrk.

I have read that Emerson did not believe in organized religion. But for me, his beliefs are a bit hard to nail down exactly.

And I agree that war is a disillusionment for most people. At least those in the trenches. "What are we fighting for?" often simply becomes, "Let's try to survive this."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Patricrk - you stated the following:

I was struck on page 43 with the story of Abbott on the bridge where he acted "heroically" despite knowing the the order to advance was stupid, and despite a complete antipathy toward the cause in whose name was for all he knew he was about to die.

I really have a hard time understanding this (though it is quite common in war for the majority of the troops to have no real concept of what they are fighting for) how can "war" overcome all the other philosophy and morals that people normally live by?

I could not have agreed more - and wondered at how Abbott could have volunteered for this duty which he knew could very well result in his death but the death of his men. I could not understand that act myself. And I agree with your second paragraph as well. Sometimes I think folks sign up for a glorious and romanticized version in their head of what it means to be heroic and noble and then the reality sets in of what war is all about and the true horribleness of what that entails. Very different concepts - one an unrealistic scenario versus the other which is stark reality.