Virtue and Responsibility in Policy

Research and Advice 1st Edition Berry

Tholen (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/virtue-and-responsibility-in-policy-research-and-advic
e-1st-edition-berry-tholen-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Volume

2: Policy and Practice 1st ed. Edition Matjaž Mulej

https://ebookmass.com/product/social-responsibility-and-
corporate-governance-volume-2-policy-and-practice-1st-ed-edition-
matjaz-mulej/

The Future of Think Tanks and Policy Advice Around the

World 1st Edition James Mcgann

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-future-of-think-tanks-and-
policy-advice-around-the-world-1st-edition-james-mcgann/

Wishes and Wellingtons Julie Berry [Berry

https://ebookmass.com/product/wishes-and-wellingtons-julie-berry-
berry/

The Science of Virtue: A Framework for Research Fowers

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-science-of-virtue-a-framework-
for-research-fowers/
Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Volume
2: Policy and Practice Matjaž Mulej

https://ebookmass.com/product/social-responsibility-and-
corporate-governance-volume-2-policy-and-practice-matjaz-mulej/

Virtue and law in Plato and beyond First Edition Julia

Annas

https://ebookmass.com/product/virtue-and-law-in-plato-and-beyond-
first-edition-julia-annas/

Resilient and Sustainable Cities: Research, Policy and

Practice Zaheer Allam

https://ebookmass.com/product/resilient-and-sustainable-cities-
research-policy-and-practice-zaheer-allam/

Crime and Carpetbags Julie Berry

https://ebookmass.com/product/crime-and-carpetbags-julie-berry-2/

Crime and Carpetbags Julie Berry

https://ebookmass.com/product/crime-and-carpetbags-julie-berry/
 VIRTUE AND
RESPONSIBILITY
IN POLICY
RESEARCH
AND ADVICE

Berry Tholen
Virtue and Responsibility in Policy
Research and Advice
 Berry Tholen

Virtue
and Responsibility
in Policy Research
and Advice
Berry Tholen
Institute for Management Research,
Department of Public
Administration
Radboud University Nijmegen
Nijmegen, The Netherlands

ISBN 978-3-319-65252-8 ISBN 978-3-319-65253-5 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-65253-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017949213

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © saulgranda/Getty

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

In recent years, values and virtues in scientific practice appear to have

been rediscovered. Within and outside academia, concern about scien-
tific fraud, data manipulation, plagiarism and the like has increased enor-
mously. In all disciplines, in all faculties, and in all institutes for academic
research, new measures have been initiated—for example, workshops on
research ethics, hot lines to report abuses, special courses, codes of con-
duct, more transparency, and stricter systems of peer review. Some blame
the typical career system, which demands publications and visibility,
for the (alleged) increase in fraud, data trimming, and the like. Others
refer to the perverting effects of the need to attract external funds to do
research and the quick results that commissioning parties demand. All
appear to agree, however, that some ethical reveil in science is in place;
the relevance of values and virtues must be reconfirmed and elaborated.
This book agrees with this latter conclusion, but for a completely differ-
ent reason.
The concern here is not about doing methodologically sound research
or about what might possibly threaten that activity. The subject of this
book is the relationship between science and politics, between scientist
advisors and policymakers. According to many observers, this relation-
ship has been changing lately. Some identify a scientification of policy-
making, that is, an increase in technocratic thinking on political issues.
Others note a politicization of science by which they mean that politi-
cal or other partisan interests ever more determine scientific practice
and outcomes (e.g., Jasanoff 1990; Letsch & Weingart 2011). Both

v
vi Preface

types of commentators agree, however, that there is a problem of one

side intruding upon the sphere of the other. These critics of contem-
porary developments maintain that each sphere should be able to func-
tion autonomously, following its own type of rationality. Policymaking
belongs to the sphere of value-deliberation; it should not be forced into
the mould of technical reasoning. Science, conversely, should be free
from values and politically neutral.
In this book, the ideal of a value-free science will be contested. It is
argued that to be a good scientist, more is needed than avoiding fraud
and data manipulation and knowing how to create valid knowledge.
Good scientists are also involved in making social and political value-
judgments. They must in fact possess a certain virtue at doing so.
Within the fields of Public Administration and Policy Analysis, the
concern for values in research and in scientific advice is not new. The
issue has been addressed, in one way or another, as part of a variety of
subjects. It arises in discussions about the type of knowledge these dis-
ciplines can provide (e.g., in the Waldo-Simon debate). It is often active
in the background of debates on interpretive versus positivist research. It
was at issue in particular comments of mainstream Public Administrative
research (as in the Minnowbrook Manifesto). Many more examples can
be given. Here, the ideal of a value-free science and scientific policy
advice will be addressed head-on. To do so, findings from policy analysis,
the philosophy of science, and ethics will be brought together. The for-
mal position of scientific advisors, and therefore their dependency upon
the political agent they advise, can take many different forms. The advi-
sor might be a completely independent (university) researcher, a con-
tract researcher, a partner in a think tank, or a government employee.
The particular type of relationship might bring all types of particular
problems and opportunities (see for instance Bijker et al. 2009; Vining
& Weimer 2017; Letsch & Weingart 2011). In this book, these typical
principal-agent issues will be neglected. It focusses instead on the general
aspects and complications of the relationship between scientific advisor
and policymaker.
In addressing these issues, the argument of this book connects to an
older research-tradition that encompasses Plato, Machiavelli, Weber, and
many others who have analysed the relationship between knowledge
and power or between science and politics. Its intention is not to offer
a chronological overview of classical authors; nor does it want to draw a
complete picture of all the issues and positions in this field. It focusses on
 Preface vii

a particular problem and tries to address it systematically. Of course, that

does not mean that Weber and the others do not turn up in the argument.
This book is not a report of an empirical investigation. There is no
attempt to verify reported trends (such as those on an increase in scien-
tific fraud or the politicization of science); nor is there any intention to
explain such phenomena. In this book, arguments and positions are dis-
cussed; it questions presuppositions and investigates logical consistency.
The focus is not on what actually occurs, on what scientists do or on
how that can be explained but rather on the question of what good sci-
entific policy advisors should do.
In its intention, this book, at least in one aspect, resembles critical
analyses of dominant discourses. It tries to bring into the light aspects of
scientific advice that are often neglected, things that currently appear to
be overlooked in the self-understanding of many scientists. Contrary to
critical approaches, however, this book does try to unveil hidden power-
positions or processes. Furthermore, the argument in this book does not
challenge the scientific ambition of creating valid knowledge about the
empirical world. In fact, it endorses that ambition.
A word on scientific knowledge. In this book, no particular scientific
epistemology is defended. It merely presupposes, without further argu-
ment, that knowledge of the observable world is possible. More pre-
cisely, it takes as given the possibility of distinguishing better from worse
beliefs about how the observable world actually is. These beliefs might
concern causal theories or interpretations of meaning. Arguments for
a radical scepticism or relativism about the possibilities of science, or
knowledge in general, are neglected in this book.
The issues that this book addresses are of relevance for scholars that
are involved in policy advice, but also for students and policymakers.
Members from these different audiences might be more accustomed
to some elements of this book than with others. For readers who are
already familiar with the arguments that are made in the first part: the
second part of the book can be read independently.
I want to thank Ringo Ossewaarde, Patrick Overeem, Sandra van Thiel,
and Pieter Zwaan for the discussions we had on issues that found their
way into this book and for their comments on (parts of) this book. They
have contributed to its strengths; its flaws remain my responsibility. Also
the participants in the Netherlands Institute of Government Ph.D.-course
on responsibility in research and advice that I have been teaching over the
past three years must be mentioned here: their enthusiasm, curiosity, and
viii Preface

critical questions have stimulated and helped me to hammer out the argu-
ment of this book. I also thank Oxford University Press for its kind per-
mission to adapt, in Chap. 7 of this book, elements of my article “The
Value of the Issue Context Approach for Scientific Policy Advice”, which
appeared in Science and Public Policy 43(2016)2: 101–114.

Nijmegen, The Netherlands Berry Tholen

References
Bijker, W., Bal, R., & Hendriks, R. (2009). The paradox of scientific authority.
The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Letsch, J., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2011). The politics of scientific advice.
Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. (2017). Policy Analysis: A valuable skill for pub-
lic administrators. In J. C. N. Raadschelders & R. J. Stillman II (Eds.),
Foundations of public administration (pp. 162–176). Irvine, CA: Melvin &
Leigh.
 Contents

1 The Ideal of Value Neutrality in Policy Research and

Advice: Some Inconvenient Observations 1

2 Setting the Stage: Epistemological and Social Values for

Scientific Research and Advice 11

3 Deciding What Is Worth Knowing 21

4 Deciding on Tools and Risks 31

5 Deciding on the Advisory Role 39

6 Addressing Non-Epistemological Issues 49

7 Solving the Issue by Distinguishing Types of Problems 57

8 Solving the Issue by Bringing in Democracy 65

9 Solving the Issue by Introducing Principles

and Procedures 77

10 Solving the Issue by Bringing Virtue Ethics into Play 89

ix
x Contents

11 Conclusion: Scientific Policy Advice and Ethical

Judgment 99

Epilogue 107

Index 109
 CHAPTER 1

The Ideal of Value Neutrality in Policy

Research and Advice: Some Inconvenient
Observations

Abstract  For many scientific policy advisors, as for most critics of con-
temporary scientific advisory practice, value freedom or political neutral-
ity is the guiding ideal. Max Weber is often presented as the champion of
this position. On closer inspection, however, this championship of value
freedom becomes puzzling. Weber’s claims on intellectual honesty, on
studying what is worth knowing and on presenting inconvenient truths
to policymakers urge investigation of the ideal of value neutrality. What
type of value decisions must an expert advisor make, and how can he best
address those issues?

Keywords Max weber · Value freedom · Neutrality · Inconvenient

truth

1   Introduction
Below are two random examples of scholars who react in disbelief and
even feel offended when they are accused of taking a political or ethi-
cal side in their research. The fierceness of their reaction shows that they
feel their integrity as scientists is being questioned. More precisely, their
understanding of what scientific integrity means is questioned:

A set of anthropologists and sociologists studying Muslim communities in

western countries find themselves criticized as being ‘Islam-friendly’ and

© The Author(s) 2018 1

B. Tholen, Virtue and Responsibility in Policy Research and Advice,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-65253-5_1
2 B. Tholen

even as ‘useful idiots’. One critic claims, for instance, that these scholars
neglect the anti-democratic discourse of Salafism in their studies of the
meaning that religion has for Islamic people. One of the accused research-
ers reacts in astonishment: ‘These critics want me to make normative
claims.’ She explains that it is the task of a scientist to set aside his own
judgments. He must try to understand why people act as they do and what
motivates their choices, not judge them. (NRC Handelsblad 2016b)

A legal scholar has performed a study on the possibility of legalizing the pro-
duction and sale of cannabis under international law. Some of his colleagues
claim that his study, given its particular research question, is bound to sup-
port the political position of government. A different research question
might have delivered results that are far more critical of the government’s
policy. The scholar, in defence, replies that it absolutely is not his intention
to choose sides in the political dispute. He simply accepted the research
assignment and presented a thorough study answering the given question
according to the best scientific methods. (NRC Handelsblad 2015)

For the scholars in these examples, doing research does not involve mak-
ing political value decisions. It is about applying the technical methods
of your trade, whether they are the methodological instruments of legal
analysis, interpretive study or theoretical explanation. Scientists can pro-
vide empirical knowledge that is useful for policymaking, but they them-
selves should refrain from taking any political position or making any
ethical valuation.
The usefulness of this type of politically neutral science is forcefully
advocated by critics of ‘fact-free politics’. Thus, these commentators
demean policymaking based on unchecked or shallow empirical claims.
Policymaking could be much improved if politicians and other policy-
makers actually considered the factual empirical knowledge that scien-
tists provide. As impartial outsiders, these expert advisors can offer input
for policies that can effectively solve problems. When their knowledge
remains neglected, there is a risk that policies become mere symbolic
devices. Scholars should therefore ensure that their input is considered
(NRC Handelsblad 2016a; Die Zeit 2016).
The leading ideal in these examples is the political neutrality of sci-
entists as policy advisors. It is an ideal that most likely is broadly shared
among scientists. However, this ideal is not unchallenged, as the exam-
ples show. Can scientists, and scientist advisors more particularly, really
 1 THE IDEAL OF VALUE NEUTRALITY IN POLICY RESEARCH … 3

be politically and ethically neutral? If not, what does that mean for the
position of the scientist as a critical but non-partisan outsider? To address
these questions, we will initially turn to the work of Max Weber. Weber
offers a classical argument for the ideal of an apolitical or value-free social
science (Fischer 1980: 21).

2   Weber’s Intellectually Honest Social Scientist

and Advisor

Max Weber developed his advocacy for an ethically neutral or value-free

social science in an ongoing debate in the early years of the twentieth
century in the German Sociological Association. The central issue of this
discussion was how, and to what extent, scientific findings could sup-
port societal ideals and particular social policies and institutions. Some of
Weber’s colleagues maintained that social science could and should sup-
port judgments on the desirability of particular social policies and institu-
tions. Some of them explicitly advocated socialist, communist, or more
right-wing politics, suggesting that such value positions could be given
a scientific grounding. They opted for a wertende Soziologie (normative
or ethical social science). Weber agreed with his colleagues that science
could offer a useful contribution to policymaking. However, against the
advocates of a wertende Soziologie, Weber defended an ethically neutral,
value-free social science.
Scientists, Weber maintains, should not suggest that value-judg-
ments—that is, practical evaluations of phenomena—can have a base in
science. They should completely refrain from political or ethical position-
taking in the classroom (Weber 1948a: 145; 1949a: 2). In public debate,
they should be clear when they are giving their personal opinions and
(not scientifically supported) value-judgments. As Weber himself states,
“What is really at issue is the intrinsically simple demand that the investi-
gator and teacher should keep unconditionally separate the establishment
of empirical facts […] and his own practical evaluations, i.e., his evalua-
tion of these facts as satisfactory or unsatisfactory” (Weber 1949a: 5, 11).
The argument that Weber provides for abstaining from value-judg-
ments in science is that scientists should not suggest doing what they can-
not do. It is logically impossible to decide on purely scientific grounds
what value, which ideal end-state, or what political ideal is of the highest
value and should prevail over others. Empirical science can present to us
4 B. Tholen

the state of facts in the world (how the world is). Answering normative
questions (how the world should be) is, however, a completely different
affair. These two issues are heterogeneous problems that belong to differ-
ent categories, and each one demands its own approach. Deducing evalu-
ative statements from strictly empirical ones is logically impossible. It is
a matter of the intellectual honesty and integrity of a scientist to respect
this fact-value distinction. Although it might occasionally be difficult to
uphold this contrast, it should always be a guide in lecturing, research,
and in giving advice (Weber 1948a: 146; 1949a: 1, 2, 9).
Weber concedes that scientists value doing research; without such a
motivation, hardly any scientific enterprise would be undertaken. The
results of this work, moreover, have their significance for us. Every sci-
entific discipline is underpinned by some notion of what is of value. The
general supposition of the medical scientific enterprise, for instance, is
that its main tasks are maintaining life and diminishing suffering. The
historical and cultural sciences presuppose that it is worthwhile to know
and understand social phenomena. However, given its logical limitations,
science cannot justify why these things are ‘worth knowing’ and why
investigating them should be its task (Weber 1948a: 142–145).
The above does not mean, however, that a scientist cannot study val-
ues. Weber emphasizes that values, and value-judgments for that matter,
are social or cultural phenomena that can be described and investigated
empirically. An example might be a study of the values that guide police
officers in their daily work and explain the choices they make. Values and
value-judgments, then, are understood as objects of empirical study, just
like policy outcomes or the working procedures of bureaucrats. For the
social scientist, values are phenomena that can be counted and meas-
ured or described and interpreted. Their existence in a particular time
and place might be an independent factor for explaining other social hap-
penings. Moreover, their form and occurrence at any particular time and
place can be the subject of an explanatory theory or a value-interpreta-
tion (Weber 1949b: 143). However, scientists should refrain from mak-
ing value judgments about the cultural phenomena they study (Weber
1949a: 1). They should remain ethically neutral.
Occasionally, the position a scientist takes might appear to express the
ideal of ethical neutrality but in fact does not mirror that ideal. One of
Weber’s examples concerns a scientist who associates himself with the
values of the powers that be or the dominant interest groups. A second
 1 THE IDEAL OF VALUE NEUTRALITY IN POLICY RESEARCH … 5

example concerns the scientist who opts for a value-position somewhere

between competing ethical or political positions (a ‘middle ground’). In
both cases, the ideal of ethical neutrality is not realized. (In the latter
case, what makes taking the middle ground in any dispute the best or
neutral position?). In fact, each case shows partisanship for which—logi-
cally—no scientific ground can be provided (Weber 1949a: 6, 10).
Real ethical neutrality in science does not mean, however, that the sci-
entists’ work cannot be of help for policymakers or that it cannot be of
importance for students’ value-formation. Scientists, as academic teach-
ers and as policy advisors, can and should present inconvenient facts to
their audience, Weber maintains. These facts are inconvenient for their
policy or party opinions. Empirical scientific findings might imply val-
ued aims or desired end-states as infeasible or imply that they can only
be realized by certain aims at high costs and with undesired side effects.
Confronted with these inconvenient truths, policymakers might be per-
suaded to re-evaluate not only the means of their choice but also their
aims. Knowledge of feasibility and consequences, then, can bring about
a reorientation of priorities of values. “Each new fact may necessitate
the re-adjustment of the relationships between ends and indispensable
means, between desired goals and unavoidable subsidiary consequences”
(Weber 1948a:151; 1949a: 23, 24). For example, policymakers, advised
that the legal instruments they wished to employ to reduce the trade in
soft drugs would not be effective, might decide to focus instead on try-
ing to realize a decrease in the use of the drugs.
Providing inconvenient facts is not simply a possible role of a scien-
tific advisor or teacher. Weber views the scientist’s task as compelling an
audience to accustom itself to the existence of such facts. He even calls
it a moral achievement of advisors if they succeed in doing so (Weber
1948a: 147). A scientific teacher, Weber maintains, “stands in the ser-
vice of moral forces; he fulfils the duty of bringing about self-clarification
and a sense of responsibility”. That aim is also served if scientists provide
concepts and frameworks that define and organize diffuse phenomena
into clear and consistent wholes. They can introduce, for instance, ideal-
types and models for this purpose. By developing and using these sci-
entific techniques of systemization, abstract, and complicated items such
as ‘bureaucracy’ or ‘syndicalism’ can be practically addressed. Organizing
complicated phenomena in a simple and consistent conceptual form
advances their study them and gives policymakers a better understanding
6 B. Tholen

of the policy issue under consideration (Weber 1948a: 151–152;1949a:

20, 24).
Summarizing, we may conclude that Weber builds his ideal of scien-
tific neutrality on the logical distinction between factual statements and
evaluative judgments. Intellectually honest scientists honour this distinc-
tion and refrain from value-judgments in their teaching and in scien-
tific advice. That does not preclude them, however, from contributing
to policymaking. They can systemize the diffuse concepts that are often
involved in policymaking, and they can note the limitations and (unin-
tended) consequences of policy instruments that are under considera-
tion. It is the duty of Weberian scientific policy advisors, moreover, to
present these findings to policymakers as inconvenient truths to make
them reconsider their policy positions critically.

3  Some Inconvenient Observations

This Weberian position has the quality of simplicity and clarity—a clear
fact-value distinction that parallels the difference between autonomous
and politically neutral scientist-advisors on the one hand and policymak-
ers in their political value sphere on the other hand. Examining Weber’s
position more closely, however, gives rise to a series of questions:

1. A particular aspect of Weber’s own view is obviously not value-

free. Weber notes what a scientist and advisor should do and what
he should not do. The demand to refrain from certain value-
judgments, and living up to that demand, itself involves employ-
ing certain values. Weber also mentions intellectual honesty and
integrity and the moral task to enlighten policymakers about their
blind spots. The question arises of how, exactly, such value-judg-
ments and virtues relate to the ideal of ethical neutrality and value
freedom.
2. As we have noticed, Weber notes that scientists are motivated by,
and that scientific practice in general is guided by, the idea that
this type of activity is valuable. Science as a vocation involves more
than only having a (well-paid) job. In earlier days, scientists studied
nature to honour God’s greatness; today, they might want to make
the world a better place, Weber acknowledges. Furthermore, he
maintains that all scientific disciplines are guided by some under-
standing of what is worth knowing (e.g., medicine has life and the
 1 THE IDEAL OF VALUE NEUTRALITY IN POLICY RESEARCH … 7

reduction of suffering as its core values, and cultural studies have

the value of existing cultural phenomena). Weber does not appear
to think that these observations are at odds with his ideal of ethi-
cal neutrality or value-neutrality or the distinction between science
and politics. However, can this separation really be maintained?
The fact that cultural sciences such as sociology or political science
must value cultural phenomena as such and think it worthwhile to
study them might not bring these sciences into the field of politics.
They must decide, however, what particular phenomena they want
to investigate. Should they study, for instance, the influence of
gender on working routines in governmental bureaucracies? If they
do, they might have research findings, possibly inconvenient facts
that they otherwise would not have had. The evaluative choice of
what is worthy of study determines on which issues and on what
factors policymakers might be critically addressed. That statement
appears to imply that the choices that scientists make, for instance
in formulating research questions, actually do have consequences
for policymaking. The issue again is, what do these consequences
mean for Weber’s elegant differentiation between science and
politics?
A similar point concerns the clarifications of concepts that scientists
can provide for policymakers. Is systemizing and simplifying vague
and complicated concepts such as ‘democracy’ or ‘effectiveness’ or
‘free market’ or ‘bureaucracy’ merely a technical and strictly value-
neutral matter? Weber himself presents a much-used ideal typical
concept of ‘bureaucracy’ that, as he acknowledges himself, empha-
sizes the value of effectiveness. Building models and formulating
ideal types appear to involve, therefore, making choices that prior-
itize certain values. Here, again, there appears to be reason to ques-
tion the neat division between science and politics.
3. A third issue concerns Weber’s stance on what a scientific policy
advisor should do. Inconvenient facts should be presented to poli-
cymakers. However, what would that imply in practice? Does it
mean that advisors should provide insights only when their input
is requested? Should they actively try to obtain access to policy-
makers and confront them with their findings? Or should they take
the role of a public activist and try to influence media and public
opinion to make policymakers consider their findings? In short, can
‘presenting inconvenient truths’ be done neutrally? When scientists
8 B. Tholen

decide how they wish to be involved in the political process, does

this not imply making political judgments?
These observations impel us to investigate the ideal of value free-
dom in the position of the scientific policy advisor. Can ethical
neutrality and the distinction between science and politics be main-
tained, as Weber posits? What, exactly, are the lessons we must draw
from these complications? Should we set the ideal of value freedom
aside and opt for a different one?

4   What to Expect in This Book

This critical overview of Weber’s position on ethical neutrality leads to
the following central question: what type of value decisions should expert
advisors make, particularly in the fields of Policy Analysis and Public
Administration, and how can they address these issues? To answer this
question, several steps will be taken in this book. First, central terms
must be clarified and defined, most importantly, ‘value’ and ‘valuation’.
In addition, an overview of types of decisions and types of values will
be given (Chap. 2). The next chapters are concerned with the chal-
lenges that a position of ethical neutrality in policy advice, such as the
one Weber presents, must face. Here, the inconvenient observations that
were made above will be further elaborated (Chaps. 3, 4, and 5). It will
be established that scientists inevitably must address value-judgments
(Chap. 6). In the following set of chapters, the focus is on how a scien-
tist might address these challenges. A variety of answers is distinguished
and assessed (Chaps. 7, 8, 9, and 10). In the concluding chapter, the
findings of this survey of arguments are then combined.
Now more than ever, a concern for the diminishing status of scien-
tists and sciences in general can be witnessed. In particular, the role of
scientific policy advisors is increasingly questioned—not only in politics
but also or even particularly so in public opinion. Scientific claims on cli-
mate change and its causes are questioned. Some people express serious
doubts about scientific claims on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines.
In addition, the political neutrality and disinterestedness of economists
and other social scientists giving policy advice are not taken for granted,
particularly when their expertise is in areas of political controversy. In
critiques such as these, it is suggested that scientists in fact serve some
special interest (of pharmaceutical companies, for instance) or a politi-
cal partisan ideal (socialist, environmentalist, or any other). A reader
 1 THE IDEAL OF VALUE NEUTRALITY IN POLICY RESEARCH … 9

expecting in this book a study of the causes and consequences of this

growing distrust of science, or even a remedy, will be disappointed. It
does not go into such empirical questions. That does not mean, how-
ever, that the investigation that is performed here is of no relevance to
that topic. It, in fact, addresses an issue that is basic to the contempo-
rary discussion. Most of those who criticize current practices in scientific
advice appear to rely on the same ideal as do those who are concerned
about science’s diminishing status. Both parties presuppose an ideal of
the ethically neutral scientist. For both positions, it is crucial that the dis-
tinction between science and politics can somehow be upheld. Thus, fea-
sible answers to both of the challenges mentioned above are essential.
Scientific advisors, of course, work in all types of institutional settings.
Some are employed in universities, some in privately owned consultan-
cies or in think tanks, and others in official advisory bodies. All encoun-
ter in their roles as expert advisors particular problems; the tension
between research and politics for each will imply particular challenges.
This book does not address this diversity of typical problems. Rather, it
focusses on an issue that is fundamental for all of them.
A final note on the place of Weber in this book. In this chapter,
Weber’s work proved very helpful in presenting a picture of the ideal
of ethical neutrality in scientific policy advice and of some of the ques-
tions that accompany that ideal. We could further investigate the issue
of value-freedom in science by delving deeper into Weber’s argument of
the fact-value-distinction or by analysing its relationship to his distinc-
tion between the scientific and the political value spheres (Weber 1948b.
For such an investigation see, for instance, Strauss 1963: chap. 2). This
book, however, does not intend to be a textbook or a critique of Weber.
It therefore pursues a different path. However, Weber’s example here is
not a randomly chosen position, and we will regularly return to it.

References
Die Zeit. (2016, July 14). Hört auf die Experten! Retrieved January 9, 2017, from
http://www.zeit.de/2016/30/fachwissen-experten-schwierige-zeiten-loesungen.
Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, values, and public policy: The problem of methodology.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
NRC Handelsblad. (2015, April 11). De feiten zijn geheel naar wens. Retrieved
January 9, 2017, from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/11/
de-feiten-zijn-geheel-naar-wens-1483345-a1238207.
10 B. Tholen

NRC Handelsblad. (2016a, August 20). Nee meneer de politicus, mijn

statistieken zijn niet links. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from https://
www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/08/18/nee-meneer-de-politicus-mijn-
statistieken-zijn-niet-links-3838884-a1516993.
NRC Handelsblad. (2016b, October 7). Oorlog in de Islamologie. Retrieved
January 7, 2017, from https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/10/07/
oorlog-in-de-islamologie-haters-tegen-wegkijkers-4682112-a1525595.
Strauss, L. (1963). Natural Right and History. The University of Chicago Press
(London).
Weber, M. (1948a). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.),
From Max Weber. Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Weber, M. (1948b). Religious rejections of the world and their directions. In H. H.
Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber. Essays in sociology (pp. 323–359).
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Weber, M. (1949a). The meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in sociology and econ-
omy. In: E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch (Eds.), The methodology of the social sciences
(pp. 1–47). Glencoe, ILL: Free Press.
Weber, M. (1949b). ‘Objectivity’ in social science and policy. In: E. A. Shils
& H. A. Finch (Eds.), The methodology of the social sciences (pp. 50–112).
Glencoe, ILL: Free Press.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 and Lieutenant Church, of Company E, was killed while
encouraging his men by words and deeds.
The above is respectfully submitted.
Your most obedient servant,
R. F. Taylor,
Colonel Commanding Thirty-third N. Y. S. V.

General Davidson, in his report of the affair, said:

“The Thirty-third N. Y. Volunteers, Colonel Taylor, of my Brigade,
then on picket, in conjunction with the Forty-ninth Pa. (two
companies), Colonel Irwin, had the honor of repulsing the enemy
most handsomely. The conduct of the Thirty-third N. Y., Forty-ninth
Pa., and Seventh Maine, under this terrible, concentrated fire, which
took us completely by surprise, was all that could be desired.”
 CHAPTER XIV.
The Retreat Commenced.—The Thirty-third one of the last Regiments to Leave.
—Savage’s Station.—Destruction of Property.—General Davidson Sun-
struck.

Our army was now in full retreat, the right wing following the left,
and both sweeping away to the James. The rebel capital beleagured,
pressed, girt round about by a living wall, and just within our grasp,
once more breathes freely. The siege is raised, the tide of war rolled
back from her gates, and the black flag of rebellion waves in triumph.
It was a sad and humiliating day for our brave boys, when
gathering up effects and shouldering muskets, they turned their
backs on the city. For weeks they had regarded it as their prize.
Their young Chief had told them it should be theirs, and in him they
firmly placed their trust. Bitter were the anathemas heaped upon the
Washington authorities, through whose mismanagement they
believed victory was being turned into defeat. Whatever may have
been the truth of the case, they and they alone were held
responsible that we were now marching away from instead of
towards Richmond. The route of the right wing lay along the west
bank of the Chickahominy to Savage’s Station, White Oak Swamp,
and thence to Harrison’s Bar. General Smith’s command did not
begin to move until the troops, crossed from the other side of the
river, had passed by.
Saturday night, June 28th, the right wing of the Thirty-third was
again detailed for picket duty, the third night the men had been
without sleep. In obedience to orders from Gen. Davidson, Captain
McNair, taking a squad of men, destroyed the camp equipage of the
entire Brigade. Before morning the destruction of everything of value
was completed. Cos. C, D and I remained on picket until 1 o’clock A.
M., when they were relieved by A and F. The line stretched away to
the left for half a mile, connecting on with General Gorman’s. The
reader can imagine what were the feelings of these men, who were
left to deceive and hold in check the enemy while the remainder of
the troops withdrew. Regiment after Regiment disappeared in the
distance, until they alone remained. Moments lengthened into hours,
but their eyes were greeted with no signal to retire. Through the gray
mist of the early morn, the rebel pickets could be seen, their line
advanced already to within speaking distance, and their forces in the
rear preparing to throw themselves headlong on our retreating
columns; still no orders for withdrawal came.
It is a brave and noble thing when a soldier, burning with love of
country and cheered on by the presence and sympathy of comrades
in arms, rushes into the conflict, and at the cannon’s mouth breasts
the storm of death; but braver and nobler far, when the picket guard,
knowing that each moment lengthens the distance between him and
friends, and makes more certain his slaughter or capture by an
insolent and cruel foe, stands calmly waiting his fate, rather than
betray his trust and compromise the safety of an army. Gen. Smith
had said to them before going out, “It is the duty of the few to
sacrifice themselves for the safety of the many,” and they murmured
not at the decision which had made them the victims.
After all hope of being withdrawn had gone, they were, to their
great joy, signalled to return, which they did rapidly, under cover of a
dense fog, and soon joined the Regiment.
The Division marched two miles Sunday morning, keeping on the
high lands which skirt the Chickahominy, in order to protect the right
of the army. On arriving at Trent House, they were massed for a
short time, during which Gen. McClellan rode by.
Again resuming the march along the river, they halted about one
mile to the right of Savage’s Station, and, after remaining in line of
battle a few moments, fell back to the Station, a large clearing in the
forest, of two thousand acres or more. The pioneers of the Thirty-
third were detailed to assist in the destruction of the immense war
material which had accumulated here. Of all the pyrotechnic displays
which our military authorities have gotten up during the war, this was
the most costly and magnificent, if such a melancholy spectacle can
be styled magnificent.
Scattered over a large surface of ground were heavy supplies of
provisions and ammunition burning and bursting, filling the air with
smoke and embers, and adding to the already oppressive heat of the
day. As the flames reached fresh piles of commissary stores, they
would burst forth anew, lighting up the country for miles, and
imparting a terrible grandeur to the scene. The forage, which had
been sent from the North, and collected from the surrounding
country, burned rapidly, creating dense volumes of smoke, which
slowly drifted along to the westward. Great numbers of torpedoes,
prepared for signal purposes, were shooting in every direction,
displaying through the murky atmosphere the red, white and blue
colors. Occasionally a box of cartridges would explode, sending the
balls whizzing among the tree tops, to the great annoyance of some
of the men, who did not care to be picked off in this style. A large
number of agricultural implements sent down from Washington to aid
in harvesting the crops of the Peninsula, were thrown together in a
promiscuous heap. The torch applied, nothing soon remained of
them but a mass of blackened shafts and wheels. Though burning so
fiercely, the flames were found inadequate to complete the
destruction. A long train of cars was accordingly run up, and after
being loaded with material, and set on fire, was started towards the
Chickahominy, the engineer swinging off after having “let on full
steam.” Along it sped at a fearful rate, until reaching the river, when
the engine exploded, as it careened over the bank, and the cars
were precipitated into the water below, lying piled one upon another,
a mass of ruins. The explosion of the engine, which was heard for a
long distance, caused the rebels to hastily decamp from the opposite
side of the river, where they were drawn up to prevent our retreat in
that direction.
A General Hospital was located at the Station, and contained, in
addition to thousands of sick, the wounded from the late battles, who
had been sent here after the retreat was decided upon, presenting
an indescribable scene of suffering and woe. To add to the gloom
and unhappiness of their condition, they were now informed that all
who could not join in the march would be left behind, no ambulances
or transportation being furnished. A large number of the poor fellows,
determined not to fall into the hands of the enemy, started bravely
out, and through all the retreat, their weak and emaciated forms
could be seen struggling along the weary way, with limbs just
amputated, or undressed wounds bleeding at every step. But with
spirits all unconquered, and hope yet whispering words of
encouragement, many of these unfortunates reached Harrison’s Bar,
and have since recovered to recount experiences of suffering and
brave endurance, rarely fallen to the lot of human beings.
Of this number was Philip Smith, of the Thirty-third, whose case
presents a striking instance of that fortitude which brought many sick
and wounded through that long retreat, while many strong men were
compelled to succumb to the fatigue and become prisoners. He was
wounded through the elbow at the battle of Golden’s Farm. The
wound was severe, and such as would ordinarily require amputation.
He was immediately conveyed to Savage’s Station, where the
surgeons determined to remove the arm. Smith resisted, but was
forced upon the operating table. It became necessary for the
surgeons to leave the subject for a moment, when he sprang from
the table and hurried away from the Hospital. He followed the
moving army from day to day, much of the time unable to obtain
food, his arm frightfully swollen, and every moment becoming more
painful. After four days he arrived at Harrison’s Landing, and found
his way on board of one of the transports, his wound still undressed.
He was carried to Baltimore, and placed in the General Hospital
there. Here, too, the surgeon in charge, determined upon
amputation, and declared he could not live ten days in that condition.
“Then,” said Smith, “I will die with two arms.” For several days the
surgeon refused to dress the wound at all, and at length was about
to force the operation, when the Chief Surgeon, after a careful
examination, remarked, that as the young man appeared to have an
excellent constitution he might bear up under the excruciating pain,
and perhaps recover without losing the limb. The wound was now
dressed for the first time, and although months of pain and sickness
followed, Smith finally recovered his health, with the consolation that
his obstinate endurance had saved his right arm.
After remaining two hours in the woods round Savage’s Station,
Davidson’s Brigade marched two miles further to the rear, when a
halt was ordered. Several large boxes of Quartermaster’s stores
were found here, having been left for want of transportation. The
men helped themselves freely to clothing, doffing their old garments
for entire new suits. After resting for a few moments, the Brigade was
ordered back again to the Station, to support Gen. Brooks, who had
become engaged with the enemy. Proceeding back at a double
quick, Brooks was found driving the enemy in fine style with his
Vermont Brigade, after having punished them severely. The battle
lasted until an hour after sunset, when a brilliant cavalry charge
totally routed and put to flight the rebels. Gen. Brooks was, however,
wounded. The Vermont troops fought nobly, sustaining the reputation
which they had previously won at Lee’s Mills and in other
engagements. While the conflict was raging fiercely, a member of the
Forty-ninth Pennsylvania stepped out in front of the line of battle,
and, unmindful of the bullets which were whistling around him,
delivered a very solemn prayer. The effect was most impressive on
the hearers.
Parties, including one often men from the Thirty-third, detailed to
bury the dead, were nearly all taken prisoners. The Brigade
remained until ten o’clock in the evening, the men falling asleep in
their tracks, when it again moved to the rear, on the road previously
taken, towards White Oak Swamp. Gen Davidson, who had been
sun-struck during the afternoon, was borne along for some distance
on a litter by members of the band. On being temporarily left by the
road-side, the General stepped into a house close by, and a
straggler happening along took his place. The men returning, took up
the litter, and carried the straggler nearly a mile before discovering
their mistake. They were very much chagrined over the “sell,” but
thought it too good a joke to keep.
 CHAPTER XV.
A Tedious Night March.—White Oak Swamp.—Sudden Attack by the Enemy.—
Narrow Escape of General Smith.—A Cowardly Colonel.

Col. Taylor succeeded to the command of the Brigade. The

distance to the bridge was represented as being inconsiderable, and
the troops plodded wearily along, congratulating themselves that
they should soon reach a resting place; but hour after hour of the
long night passed, and no bridge appeared. Owing to the darkness
and confusion, the commands became mingled together, Regiments
losing their Brigades, and soldiers their Regiments.
It was now the fourth night the men had been without sleep, which,
together with the fearful excitement through which they had passed,
exhausted their strength, and one after another sank down by the
road side, knowing that the enemy would soon be along.
An hour before day the Brigade reached the bridge which crossed
White Oak Swamp, when a scene ensued which baffles description.
The structure was very narrow, and each Regiment pushed ahead
pell-mell, in order to get over first. A Maj. General stood on the
bridge and kept repeating: “For God’s sake hurry up men.” The
enemy were pressing closely behind, and might make their
appearance at any moment, rendering escape impossible. Already
guards stood, with torch in hand, waiting the first signal of their
approach to fire the structure, and thereby save those who had
already crossed.
After anxiously waiting an hour, the Thirty-third succeeded in
effecting a crossing, but many were found to be missing. A placard
was posted up by the road-side directing such men as might
afterwards come up, to the spot where the Regiment was located.
General Smith temporarily established his headquarters under a fruit
tree, and sent out aids to hunt up his various Regiments. Those of
Colonel Taylor’s Brigade being got together, moved up, about six
o’clock, on their way from the swamp, taking the road to Harrison’s
Landing. They proceeded, however, only a short distance, over the
crest of a hill, and halting, formed in line of battle.
No signs of the enemy being visible, arms were stacked, and the
men scattered in various directions—some to pitch tents, others to
bring water or bathe themselves. Nearly all the stragglers had now
got over, and about eleven o’clock the bridge was in flames. When
the Thirty-third were receiving rations they were suddenly startled by
the roar of fifty cannon and the appearance in their midst of shot and
shell. Under cover of the dense wood on the opposite side of the
swamp the enemy had planted their batteries, in close proximity to
us, and obtained perfect range of our forces. So accurate was their
aim that the first shell burst in the dwelling occupied by General
Smith, cutting the gray-haired owner in two just as he was leaving
the house. The same shell disabled Lieutenant Long, knocked down
Lucius Beach of Company C, and killed a Southern laborer who was
standing close by. General Smith was changing his clothes at the
time, and lost his watch. He coolly walked away from the house, but
one of his aids, darting away from him, ran bareheaded through the
Regiment like mad, and getting behind a tree, hugged it closely
during the rest of the cannonade. A momentary panic followed this
sudden attack of the enemy, and it required the most strenuous
exertions on the part of officers to restore order in the ranks. Those
who fled to the rear were brought back at the point of the bayonet. A
Regiment stationed in front of Col. Taylor’s was thrown into the
greatest confusion, and, following the example of their leader, rushed
back headlong, sweeping down those who impeded their course.
Exasperated at this conduct, the officers of the Thirty-third
threatened to shoot down the entire Regiment if they did not return.
Their Colonel, who so ignobly deserted them, came and sat down
among the privates of the Thirty-third, when one of them said to him,
“Don’t your Regiment need you? we have got all the officers we want
here.” Upon this he picked himself up and hastened to a hospital
near by. He was afterwards compelled to resign. The Regiment did
some splendid fighting at Antietam, under a new leader. The soldiers
all fell flat on the ground, thereby escaping the shells, which
ploughed through the top of the crest, or, clearing it, struck in the
marsh beyond. Occasionally one would burst directly over their
heads, causing some loss of life. After remaining under this fire for
half an hour, Colonel Taylor withdrew his Brigade to the edge of the
woods, and formed them in line of battle. Maj. Platner, who was now
in command of the Regiment, was ordered to report to General
Hancock, who stationed him on the extreme right of the line,
remarking as he did so, “Major, you have the post of honor; hold the
position at all hazards, and add new laurels to those already won by
the Thirty-third.” The firing still continued very heavy, the enemy
making several attempts to cross the swamp, but they were repulsed
each time. The bridge had been burned before their arrival. Several
cavalrymen, however, succeeded in getting over. Lieutenant Hills,
who had been sent to the top of the crest to watch the movements of
the enemy, observed one of these horsemen capture five Union
soldiers. They were lying behind a fence, and when he rode up and
ordered them to surrender the cowards yielded, though having guns
in their hands. The daring trooper likewise rode fearlessly towards
Lieutenant Hills, and shouted to him to surrender. Let the scoundrel
come on if he wants to, said Captain Cole, who had come up, which
remark intimidated him, and he galloped rapidly away. The
cannonading continued until after night had enveloped friend and foe
in darkness. General Smith appeared frequently riding along the line,
regardless of the shells which were bursting all around him, and
exhibiting as much nonchalance as if the occasion were nothing
more than a militia training. Halting at one time in front of the Thirty-
third, he said to them, “You are doing nobly; stay where you are until
you get different orders.” He afterwards remarked that the Regiment
had “sustained its former reputation.” While the battle was
progressing a fierce engagement was also going on at Charles City
Cross-Roads. The cheering of friend and foe could be easily
distinguished as either side gained any advantage.
About half-past eight o’clock in the evening the enemy’s fire
slackened, and preparations were made to resume the march. The
Division stealthily withdrew, and were massed in a large field. The
men were not permitted to return to the hillside and secure their
knapsacks, which contained letters, likenesses, &c., but were
speedily and quietly hurried away.
 A picket line was left to deceive the enemy by making them think
that we still remained. In half an hour’s time all preparations were
completed, and the troops commenced marching. It was a most
solemn and impressive scene as the long column moved away,
winding over hill and through dale. The officers delivered their
commands in a whisper, and the men were not permitted to speak.
The artillery was drawn away by hand; one single Napoleon being
left to fire upon the crossing, kept booming, booming all night long.
The woods adjoining the swamp were set on fire at our departure,
casting a lurid flame over woodland and plain, and lighting up the
country for miles around. An attack was expected every moment,
and the snapping of a twig or cry of a night bird was sufficient to
create an alarm. But no enemy appeared, and the solemn, noiseless
march was continued. Colonel Taylor, in his report of this
engagement at White Oak Swamp, said: “Major John S. Platner, and
Captain Cole, of Company C, and Captain McNair, of Company F,
rendered themselves conspicuous in their efforts to get the men into
line of battle and under arms, where they nobly stood until relieved
by the order to fall back.” The following is an extract from a report
subsequently made by General Davidson: “In compliance with
special order No. 42, from 6th Army Corps, to forward any
recommendations for promotion, and the names of the officers and
men deserving reward for distinguished services, I have the honor to
report as follows: Major John S. Platner, Captain James McNair,
Company F, and Captain C. H. Cole, Company C, for gallant conduct
at White Oak Swamp. Owing particularly to the efforts of these
officers, the men were formed in perfect order, and enabled to hold
their position under the terrific fire of the enemy.”
 CHAPTER XVI.
The Enemy Out-generaled.—Arrival at Malvern Hills.—The Thirty-third assigned
to Picket Duty.—Battle of Malvern.—Arrival at Harrison’s Landing.—General
McClellan’s Address.—Building a Fort.—Slashing Timber.

So successfully had the pickets, who were left to cover the

withdrawal, performed their part, that it was not discovered by the
enemy in time to pursue. Before morning, however, a fresh danger
encountered the Division, which now constituted the rear of the
army. Another portion of the enemy, under Huger, had gained
possession of the road ahead of us, thereby cutting off the retreat.
Some, nearly exhausted by the arduous labors of the four days
previous, were well nigh discouraged on receipt of this intelligence.
But General Smith was equal to the emergency, and instead of
pressing forward, as some of his officers advised, and attempting to
cut his way through to the river, seven miles distant, he turned off,
and making a circuit of twenty-two miles, completely eluded the foe.
In a conversation which occurred a few days afterwards, at Liberty
Hall, between General Jackson and Surgeon Dickinson, of the
Thirty-third, who had remained with his sick and wounded, Stonewall
remarked, that “Huger ought to be court-martialled for permitting
Smith to escape, and Magruder shot for his drunkenness and
mismanagement at Malvern.” They were both subsequently shelved.
Jackson added, further, that Gen. McClellan had out-generaled
them, escaping with his army when it was just within their grasp.
After debouching from the main thoroughfare a halt was ordered,
and the men, sinking down by the road-side, were soon fast asleep.
But they were immediately roused from their slumbers, and springing
to their feet, prepared to resist the enemy’s cavalry, who were
reported to be advancing on a charge. The alarm, however, proved
to be groundless, having been occasioned by some horses, which
had got away from their sleepy riders, dashing through the ranks.
When the panic created by this circumstance had subsided, the
Division again moved forward rapidly, many of the soldiers being so
exhausted as to fall asleep, and mechanically move along, until a
halt in the line would throw them headlong against their comrades in
front. The memories of that fearful night march can never be effaced
from the brain of those who participated in it. An hour after daylight
the head of the column reached Malvern, when the boys, mistaking
some dead pines ahead for ship masts, gave vent to the wildest
demonstrations of joy, supposing that the river had been reached. It
was, however, but a short way off. Moving on a little distance further,
the troops were massed by Regiments in a large clearing, and
permitted an hour’s sleep. At the expiration of that time the Thirty-
third was ordered on picket in the woods at the right of Malvern Hills,
where a portion of the army was drawn up to receive an attack.
Major Platner, still in command of the Regiment, deployed all the
Companies as skirmishers, every other man being permitted to
sleep.
Directly in the rear, the Vermont Brigade were employed in
slashing timber, and constructing a formidable abatis, behind which a
line of battle was formed, No openings were left, or other provisions
made for the escape of the Thirty-third, should the enemy appear,
but they were told to fire off their guns, and make their way back
through the slashing as best they could. The night was intensely
dark, and the men, unable to see or converse with each other, had a
decidedly dreary time of it. About three o’clock in the morning
(Wednesday) an Aid appeared and ordered them in. Owing to the
darkness and obstacles some did not get back for several hours.
The fierce battle of Malvern Hills was, in the meantime, being
fought. The line of battle was formed about eight o’clock in the
morning (Tuesday), General Franklin having the right, Generals
Keyes and Heintzelman the centre, and General Porter the left.
General Sumner’s Corps was held as a reserve. Our batteries were
planted on the hills in commanding positions. About nine o’clock the
pursuing enemy made their appearance and immediately opened a
heavy artillery fire, which was replied to by our guns, the gunboats
Galena and Jacob Bell assisting. The artillery duel was kept up until
three o’clock in the afternoon, when the enemy charged in solid
column upon our batteries, but were repulsed with terrible slaughter.
Again and again they renewed the charge, but were as often beaten
back. Despairing of dislodging us with shot and shell, or of storming
our guns, they now advanced their infantry, who opened a musketry
fire, and the engagement became general along the whole line. For
three long hours the battle raged fiercely, neither side gaining any
material advantage. But at the end of this time reinforcements
arrived to the number of four Brigades, and decided the fortunes of
the day. The enemy were everywhere beaten back and put to flight,
many of them not stopping until they reached their defences. Some
were at the time, and have since been, of the opinion that our
victorious forces could have followed them into their capital. But
when we consider the distance intervening, the condition of our own
troops, and that this was only one wing of the rebel army that had
met with defeat, it is scarcely reasonable to conclude that the
success could have been followed up by the capture of Richmond.
This terminated the series of engagements connected with the
retreat. Like Massena fleeing before Wellington, General McClellan
had again and again turned upon Lee, and as often checked him in
the pursuit.
After being ordered in from the picket line, the Thirty-third was
permitted a few hours’ rest, and then sent to the front to support
Ayers’ battery. The men had hardly taken their position behind the
guns, before they were ordered to move on, which they did in a
furious storm. Reaching a large wheat field, a portion of the army
was found drawn up, in a hollow square, with the trains in the centre,
expecting an attack. The troops were marched and counter-
marched, and arranged to meet the enemy, but they did not make
their appearance. The Regiment here joined the others of the
Brigade under Colonel Taylor, and proceeded on towards Harrison’s
Landing. The water was in many places from six to eight inches
deep, the streams very much swollen, and various other
circumstances conspired to make the marching slow and tedious.
The Thirty-third, however, reached the landing about two o’clock in
the afternoon, which was on the old Harrison estate, and reminded
the men very much of White House Landing.
 HARRISONS LANDING

The river was full of gunboats and transports of every description.

Many of the boys were so famished that they did not wait for the
commissary, but swam out to the boats, and, clambering up the
sides, procured something to eat. Others were so exhausted that,
without delaying for food or shelter, they sank down in the mud, and
were soon fast asleep. Notwithstanding the excessive heat and
innumerable number of bugs and flies of every description, they
found no difficulty in wooing Morpheus after the severe and terrible
exposures and hardships of the seven days previous. On the next
day, which was the 4th, General McClellan issued the following
address to the troops:

Headquarters Army of the Potomac, Camp near

Harrison’s Landing, July 4th, 1862.
Soldiers of the Army of the Potomac:
 Your achievements of the last ten days have illustrated the
valor and endurance of the American soldier. Attacked by
superior forces, and without hope of reinforcements, you have
succeeded in changing your base of operations by a flank
movement, always regarded as the most hazardous of
military expedients. You have saved all your material, all your
trains, and all your guns, except a few lost in battle, taking in
return, guns and colors from the enemy. Upon your march
you were assailed, day after day, with desperate fury, by men
of the same race and nation, skilfully massed and led. Under
every disadvantage of number, and necessarily of position
also, you have, in every conflict, beaten back your foes with
enormous slaughter. Your conduct ranks you among the
celebrated armies of history. No one will now question that
each of you may always with pride say, “I belong to the Army
of the Potomac.”
You have reached the new base, complete in organization
and unimpaired in spirit. The enemy may, at any time, attack
you. We are prepared to meet them. I have personally
established your lines. Let them come, and we will convert
their repulse into a final defeat.
Your government is strengthening you with the resources of
a great people. On this, our Nation’s birthday, we declare to
our foes, who are rebels against the best interests of
mankind, that this army shall enter the capital of the so-called
Confederacy; that our National constitution shall prevail; and
that the Union, which can alone insure internal peace and
external security to each State, “must and shall be
preserved,” cost what it may in time, treasure, and blood.
GEO. B. McCLELLAN.

This stirring address was received with immense enthusiasm by

the army. During the day a national salute was fired at the
headquarters of each Army Corps, and immediately after the bands
played various national airs. General McClellan likewise visited all
the troops in the afternoon, and they paraded before him.
The position here was one of great beauty, the country being
open, rolling, and skirted with large and variegated forests. Beautiful
country residences, belonging to aristocratic owners, were seen in
every direction.
Saturday morning, 5th, Smith’s Division was sent back on the
Charles City Cross-roads, two and a half miles, to the support of
General Shields’ forces, which had been attacked by Texan cavalry.
The rebels were repulsed, and fled, leaving one gun in our
possession. The Brigade remained here, and pitched their tents in a
very commanding though unhealthy position. The water was
frequently so stagnant that fish could not live in it, floating lifeless to
the top. The men immediately commenced earthworks on the
highlands in the vicinity of the Landing. The Thirty-third assisted in
the construction of an extensive fort, mounting several 32-pounders.
When completed, it presented a very formidable appearance. An
immense amount of slashing was also performed. It was a fine sight
to see a whole forest rapidly disappear before the sturdy blows of a
thousand choppers. While one Regiment used the axes, another
was posted in front to prevent the enemy’s sharpshooters from firing
upon them.
The men learned, with much satisfaction, soon after reaching the
Landing, of the capture of their old acquaintance, the Teaser, which
surrendered to the Union gunboat Mantanzas.
Much sickness prevailed among the camps, owing to the
unhealthy surroundings and impure water. Many died, and many
more were taken North, not, however, before the seeds of death had
been implanted in their constitutions. Each Company of the Thirty-
third provided itself with a well, and afterwards enjoyed the luxury of
pure water. Everything pertaining to a soldier’s living was furnished
in abundance, after affairs became settled, sweet bread, in addition
to many other things, being added to the bill of fare. While here,
General Smith was confirmed as a Brigadier General of Volunteers.
He was likewise nominated for a Major Generalship. General
Davidson, recovering from the effects of the sunstroke, resumed
command of the Brigade, and Colonel Taylor returned to his
Regiment. One reconnoissance was made by him in the direction of
Richmond.
 CHAPTER XVII.
Arrival of Reinforcements.—Visit of President Lincoln.—Attack by the Enemy.—
Reconnoissance to Malvern Hills.—A Deserter drummed out of Camp.—A
change of base decided upon.—Return March to Fortress Monroe.—Scenes
by the way.

Reinforcements began to come up the river, so that in a few days

the army numbered one hundred and twenty thousand men.
On the morning of the 8th President Lincoln arrived unexpectedly
from Fortress Monroe, and was welcomed with a salute of thirty-two
guns. After spending a few hours at Headquarters, he proceeded to
review the various commands, accompanied by General McClellan.
As he rode along the lines, and observed the thinned ranks and torn
and tattered flags, he exhibited much emotion. The review was not
completed until 9 o’clock, the moon shining brightly, and a cool, fresh
breeze blowing from off the water. General Halleck likewise made his
appearance on the 24th, and inspected the army.
The enemy soon began to show themselves on the opposite and
higher bank of the river, and in the course of a few days increased to
the number of several thousand. About midnight, on the 31st, they
opened a vigorous fire from three batteries on our shipping and
camps. Many of the shells struck in the vicinity of the Thirty-third.
Our gunboats returned the fire, and, with the assistance of the siege-
guns, drove them away, at the end of two hours. Only two men were
killed, and twelve wounded, by this night attack.
On the following morning eight hundred troops crossed the river in
boats, and burned all the buildings, and cut down the trees in the
vicinity.
Monday, August 4th, a force consisting of infantry, cavalry and
artillery, under General Hooker, proceeded back to Malvern Hills,
and after a brief engagement re-occupied them, the enemy
retreating. They remained here until Wednesday, and then returned
to camp. On the following Friday, great rejoicing was occasioned in
General Hooker’s Division, on the reception of the news that he had
been promoted to a Major Generalship. The troops assembled en-
masse at his headquarters, and cheered vociferously for “Fighting
Joe,” while various bands discoursed national airs. Several hundred
lighted candles were fixed in the surrounding trees, imparting a
beautiful effect to the scene. The same day Colonel Taylor left for the
north on recruiting service, taking with him Lieutenant Corning and a
Sergeant from each Company. Gen. Davidson also departed, having
been ordered to the Department of Missouri. Lieutenant-Colonel
Corning, being now senior officer of the Brigade, assumed command
of it.
A soldier who had run away from the Golden’s Farm fight, was
paraded before the Division with his head half-shaved, and a placard
marked “Coward,” suspended upon his back. He was also sentenced
to forfeit all back pay, and spend the remainder of his time of
enlistment at the Tortugas. All the Regiments were drawn up in line
of battle, and the culprit marched back and forth before them, while a
band played “the rogue’s march.”
Owing to the movements of the enemy in front of General Pope,
unhealthy location of the army at Harrison’s Landing, and because
they had come to regard the Peninsula route to Richmond
impracticable, and lost confidence in General McClellan’s capacity,
the military authorities at Washington decided, early in the month of
August, to recall the army from the Peninsula. General McClellan
was strongly opposed to this, declaring to them that if fifty thousand
reinforcements were furnished him, he would yet enter the rebel
capital. His wishes, however, were not complied with, and
preparations for a “change of base” were commenced. Smith’s
Division received orders to be in readiness to march at daylight,
Thursday, August 14th. It did not move, however, until the following
Saturday. All the necessary preparations were conducted with
secrecy and dispatch; wooden guns were planted on the fort which
the Thirty-third had assisted in building, and sentinels of straw were
posted a few feet apart on the ramparts. All day Thursday and
Friday, other portions of the army marched by, the artillery and
wagon trains proceeding at night. Generals Porter’s, Keyes’, and
Sumner’s Corps proceeded by the Charles City Court House, and
General Heintzelman’s by the Cole’s Ford route. The object of the
previous movement to Malvern was now explained, it having been
made to mislead the enemy, and cause them to think that another
advance was intended.
About four o’clock Saturday afternoon, Smith’s Division took up
the line of march. As the troops moved away, the enemy who,
apparently for the first time, had discovered the movement, drew
near and fired for some time at the sham pickets or sentinels,
occasioning many humorous remarks from the soldiers, such as,
“They won’t drive them,” “Why don’t you drop him, Mr. Rebel.” “How
are you, sharp-shooter,” &c., &c. The column was forty miles in
length, General Porter, who was at the head, having then reached
Williamsburg. The Thirty-third proceeded by the river road, and
marching five miles the first night, encamped on a deserted
plantation. While halting by the way, General McClellan appeared,
and after addressing the men a few encouraging words, urged the
necessity of marching as rapidly as possible. The moon shone
brightly, but the air was chilly, and many who had thrown away their
blankets suffered from the cold and heavy dew. The following day,
Sunday, the march was resumed at six o’clock, and continued until
three in the afternoon. The Regiment marched seventeen miles,
crossing the Chickahominy near its mouth on a pontoon bridge—the
longest ever constructed in this country—consisting of ninety-six
boats, anchored about twenty feet apart.
Among other craft lying here was the steamer Matamora, which
had conveyed a portion of the Thirty-third from Alexandria to
Fortress Monroe. The troops encamped in a wheat-field on an
elevated spot about one-fourth of a mile back from the river. All
danger of an attack from the enemy was now past, and they slept
soundly after their long and wearisome march. The country for miles
back in the interior was very flat, almost on a level with the river’s
bank, and abounded in swamps and marshes. Evidences of ruin and
decay were seen all along the route. The orchards had frequently
been so neglected that a second growth of trees had sprung up and