62 Chapter 3
the expenseof the wealthierclasses” (emphasisKidd’s). In a just socialsystem“the general
tendencymustbe expectedto be towardstateinterferenceand statecontrolon a greatly
extendedscale.. .”^54 If an unwaveringtrustin laissezfaireis the definingcharacteristicof
socialDarwinism,as RobertM. Reeschants,thenneitherKiddnor Pearsoncan justlybe
deemedsocialDarwinists.
Theequivocationsthentakea moresinisterturn.EdwinBlacktriesto holdSpencer
accountablefor a pro-eugenicistrulingby U.S.SupremeCourtJusticeOliverWendell
Holmes,Jr. (1841–1935).Thiswasin the 1927caseBuckv. Bell. In Holmes’s opinion,it was
constitutionalfor U.S.statesto enforcelawscoercivelysterilizingthe mentallyill and
theirbloodrelativesas well.Blackcraftsthispassagein orderto implythatHolmes’s
eugenicismwasshapedby an admirationHolmessupposedlyheldfor Spencer:“the
eighty-six-year-oldHolmeswasin manywaysdefinedby the CivilWarandethically
shapedby the nineteenthcentury.Whilerecoveringfromthe woundsof Chancellorsville,
his readingincludedSpencer’sSocialStatics, the turning-pointtractthatadvocatedsocial
Darwinism... Spencerarguedthe strongoverthe weak,andbelievedthathuman
entitlementsand charityitselfwerefalseand againstnature.Indeed,Holmes’ 1881lecture
seriesinThe CommonLawalsoassertedthatthe ideaof inherentrightswas‘intrinsically
absurd.”^55 Here,BlackinsinuatesthatHolmeslearnedfromSpencer’sSocialStaticsthat
because“the weak” deserveto be exploitedby “the strong,” “the ideaof inherentrights”
mustbe “intrinsicallyabsurd.” RecallfromBookTwomy quotationof EdwinBlack
falselyaccusingHerbertSpencerof opposingprivatecharity.Wereone to acceptBlack’s
accusation,onewouldlikelyinferthatSpencer’s ideashadinformedJusticeHolmes’s
bizarreexclamationthatphilanthropyis “the worstabuseof privateownership.”^56 Other
writershavebaselesslyfaultedSpencer’s teachingsfor Holmes’s eugenicism.CitingVer-
montLawSchoolhistorianSheldonM. Novick(b. 1941),GeorgiaStateUniversitylaw
instructorPaulA. Lombardoinaccuratelyassertsthat Holmeswasa closehewerto Spen-
cer’s doctrines.^57 Yet an actualreadingofSocialStaticsrevealsthatSpencerpledged
intransigentloyaltyto Locke’s theoryof individualrights.InSocialStatics, Spencerwrites
thatadults“musthaverightsto libertyof action”^58 —thatis, the freedomof peaceful
action.WereI soldon Black’s imputationthatSpencerconvincedHolmesthatthe strong
couldethicallyabridgethe rightsof the weak,thenit wouldbe difficultto reconcilewith
verbatimquotationsof Spencer.SocialStaticsdeclaresthat“the takingawayof a man’s
propertyagainsthis will,is an infringementof his rights...”^59 Spencermadeit extraordi-
narilyclearto anybodywillingto listento himthathe categoricallyopposedspoliation.
“Aggressionof everykindis hatefulto me,” he said.^60
AnyonewhocracksopenVolumeII of Spencer’sPrinciplesof Ethicsand bothersto read
it carefullywill discoverchaptersdetailing“the rightto physicalintegrity,” “the rightsof
free beliefand worship,” “the rightsof free speechand publication,” “the rightsof wom-
en,” and“the rightsof children.”^61 Morethansevenyearspriorto the debutofSocial
Statics, Spencerpromulgatedthatthe proper“officeof government” is “simplyto defend
the naturalrightsof man—to protectpersonand property—topreventthe aggressionsof the
powerfuluponthe weak—in a word,to administerjustice”^62 (emphasisadded).The previ-
ous quotationby Spencermeritsan immediatesecondglance.Again,Blackassertsthat
“Spencerarguedthe strongoverthe weak.”^63 Yet Spencer’s ownwordsare thatfor the
governmentto “administerjustice,” it must“preventthe aggressionsof the powerful
uponthe weak.. .”
Softeninghis unfairdenunciation,PaulA. Lombardoendsup relentingthatSpencer
“believedin a radicallibertarianismandfreedomfromstatecontrol” whereas“Holmes
did not.. .” Consequently,Lombardorealizesthat“Spencernevercalledfor the execu-
tionof the sociallydeficient,as Holmeslaterwould.In fact,Spencercondemnedthose
like Holmeswhodelightedin ‘passingharshsentenceon his poor,hard-worked,heavily