reactionary - adj - Of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.
That describes me fairly enough, although I'm in favor of major social and political change. I started out as a New Leftist, evolved into a standard liberal Democrat, and then into a conservative Republican. I now favor a sharp about-face and march backward. Let's see if we can find the point where we went wrong. It's probably too late, but I may be wrong.
Here's a trivia question. Name the United States president who started a war without congressional approval, suspended habeas corpus without congressional approval, imprisoned literally thousands of suspected traitors and opponents of the war (without charges and without legal representation), shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, prevented at least one state legislature from convening, attempted to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, saw his cakewalk war turn into a prolonged bloodbath, and generally treated the Constitution as though it had been printed on perforated tissue. (See my comment for the answer.)
My latest Exquisite is William Bougereau's Little Gourmet (1895). Yes, I know she's just a little girl, but she's all the more exquisite for that. (I'm not at all embarassed to admit that I enjoy looking at pretty girls. The female of the species is intrinsically more attractive than the male. If that be sexism, make the most of it.)
3 comments:
Abraham Lincoln.
On April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 90-day volunteers to suppress the "rebellion" of seven Southern states. Four years and 620,000 corpses later, the Union had been preserved and the Federal leviathan under which we now live was off to a roaring start.
Lincoln sent General George B McClellan with an army detachment to prevent Maryland legislators from reaching the state capitol. He feared they would vote to seceed.
Lincoln wanted to arrest Chief Justive Roger B Taney (Tawney), but was persuaded that he might be pushing his luck.
Unfortunately for Mr. Lincoln, he chose (one of) the worst general in our history. McClellan wasn't much better than a administrative bean counter and had no stomach or spine for combat. The war between the states could have ended (several times) had McClellan acted. On the other hand Lee was a brilliant combatant and one of this nations greatest leaders.
Related to your question, I would have guessed the current President, who has committed similarly egregious acts.
I think most people would have picked Bush. In that sense, it was a trick question.
As for McClellan, I've always thought it took real talent (of some sort) for him to botch the battle of Antietam as badly as he did. Lee wound up with about 15-20,000 men and his back to the Potomac on September 15, 1862. McClellan showed up the same day with about 60,000 men. He then dawdled away the rest of the day, spent the next day studying the position (while Lee had time to bring up about 20,000 reinforcements), and finally attacked on the 17th. In spite of McClellan's manpower advantage, Lee fought him to a bloody draw. The Union V Corps stayed in reserve the entire day, spectators at the Bloodiest Show on Earth! The Civil War might have ended at Antietam; instead it dragged on for two and a half years.
I share your high opinion of Robert E. Lee.
I'm not trying to start an argument, but what do you think of Bush? I'd really like to know.
Post a Comment