Via Robert Farley, a brilliant 1863 editorial by The New York Times on what they mistakenly believed to be the occassion of John C. Breckenridge's death. First sentence: "If it be true, as is now positively declared, that a loyal bullet has sent this traitor to eternity, every loyal heart will feel satisfaction and will not scruple to express it."
« Rocking the Boat | Main | Local Taxes Down »
Speaking Ill
31 Dec 2007 04:13 pm
Comments (12)
It's worth noting that Breckinridge (not Breckenridge) was a Confederate general whose division had been engaged in fierce fighting in Tenessee. The Times was not advocating political assassination.
The only good slaver is a dead slaver.
Would it be wrong to feel the same way about a Bill Kristol death? Or Dick Cheney? If so I guess I'm evil, cause I think those 2 are evil and are doing real harm to the world. Just ask the 100,000s dead Iraqis.
I like to say that George Bush is the worst American president since Jefferson Davis. It's a testimony to Dick Cheney's hard work that he's managed to give Breckenridge competition for the title of worst veep. (And if we restrict the judging to accomplishments while in office, doesn't Dick stand alone?)
And that's Tennessee, not Tenessee. Maybe I can manage to post this one only once.
"Would it be wrong to feel the same way about a Bill Kristol death? Or Dick Cheney?"
Reminds me of my reaction when Cardinal O'Connor died a few years back. I was a bit disappointed that it was only the second most evil man in New York City who kicked it. I'm saving a bottle of something special for when Giuliani goes in the ground.
Lieberman's death wouldn't make me cry, either.
While I won't mourn any of this crew, it's unseemly to appear to yearn for their deaths. Personally, I'd rather they live in disgrace for a long, long time, unable to appear in public for fear not of violence but of verbal abuse and spittle.
Besides, as Bloix points out (thoroughly!) Breckinridge was rumored to have died in battle. Despite all the battles they've engineered, none of these people will go that way (though Kristol's son is apparently in Marine ROTC, so at least one of them - or at least one of their progeny - isn't a hypocrite).
Kristol has a son? I'd always assumed from his funeral director's oleaginous manners that he was another Republican closet case.
I am not sure if I am parody trolling now or being sincere, but here goes.
Modern liberalism has displaced the liberal nationalism of them old days, but it is not capable of inspring and concentrating the same disdain for violent enemies as opposed to impotent bitterness about unliked political figures of the opposite end of the political specturm who are not at war with you. It thus only is reasonable that vavrious tribalisms have more appeal than they should.
"Would it be wrong to feel the same way about a Bill Kristol death? Or Dick Cheney?"
As a general policy, I think it's probably safer to err on the side of not wishing other people dead.
Also, John C. Breckinridge took up arms against the state. Bill Kristol writes opinion columns you don't like.
Also, the 1863 NYT is writing with the assumption that treachery is the most morally depraved of all actions -- think of Dante and the circles of Hell -- and especially treachery against the state, because, remember, this is the 19th century and we're all nationalists. And even if you wanted to credit Kristol or Cheney with single-handedly starting the Iraq war (which is untrue, particularly of the former) out of wholly wicked motivations (which is cartoonishly Manicheistic), neither is a traitor. I doubt the NYT would have allowed itself to feel righteous satisfaction at the death of any malefactor guilty of less than treason, and I'm not sure it's safe for us to either.
Comments closed January 14, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's worth noting that Breckinridge (not Breckenridge) was a Confederate general whose division had been engaged in fierce fighting in Tenessee. The Times was not advocating political assassination.
Posted by Bloix | December 31, 2007 4:28 PM