This was an historical weekend. Not that we made history, but we touched it, a little. My wife and I, along with another couple, attended a Civil War re-enactment; specifically, the replaying of the Battle of Perryville. Fought in October 1862, Perryville is said to be a tactical victory for the Confederacy, but a strategic loss for the South. Of the combined 38,000 soldiers, Union casualties totaled 4,276 (894 killed, 2,911 wounded, 471 captured or missing). Confederate casualties were 3,401 (532 killed, 2,641 wounded, 228 captured or missing). Of course, the re-enactment featured only a small representation of the numbers in the original battle, but the effect was profound. Observing techniques and tactics, and watching how such battles were conducted, gave me a much stronger appreciation for the sheer brutality of life and war in earlier times.
The other brush with history was about a time a few hundred years earlier, in England this time. No, we didn’t travel there, rather we watched a movie about Oliver Cromwell. Through his leadership and single-handed focus, the English people rose up in revolt, culminating in the be-heading of its king, Charles Stuart, in 1649. Oliver’s goal was for Parliament, elected by and representing the people, would rule under a democratic framework. To achieve this, he eventually replaced the aristocratic generals leading his side, and became general of the rebel military. As such, he quickly defeated the king’s armies.
Post-king parliament, was so befuddled by how to govern without the monarch, that they asked Cromwell to be king. Oliver refused, and challenged Parliament to step up to the challenge, and rule. It took only a short time, and Parliament had turned to nepotism, arrogance, and self-serving policies. Cromwell literally shut down Parliament, sending them all home. As he brought troops into the failed and despotic post-king Parliament, and sent them home, he accused “weeds and nettles, briars and thorns, have thriven under your shadow, dissettlement and division, discontentment and dissatisfaction, together with real dangers to the whole.” He then became the Lord Protector of England for a few years. In his attempts to build a democracy, he realized that it takes a moral leadership for democracy to survive and thrive.
As I heard that accusation, I thought of our own Congress, and how these same accusations could be leveled. We need elected officials who see themselves as servants of the people, not the other way around. We need leaders who truly put “country first”. So far, I’ve seen little of that, lately. Interesting how over 350 years have passed since Cromwell’s efforts shifted the tide of English governance, yet some of the same complaints about leaders are found. Morality and accountability are essential for the survival of our Constitution. That morality and accountability must originate in the individual citizens.
We, the people, must accept the burden of freedom and democracy. That is to say, we must choose, act, and accept the consequences of our actions. When we demand that someone else take responsibility for the consequences of our actions, we loose the right to be a democratic society. Our government was established to create synergy and efficiency in the things that a society needs, but would be redundant for every citizen or state to duplicate—armies, money, trade rules and measures, etc. In the rest, we should be fiercely independent. If we have complaints about our Congress or President, perhaps we should look at ourselves, first. In the context of the quality of our government and elected officials, this is one of the few times I agree with the Hollywood crowd, when accused of producing garbage for entertainment. Their claim is they are only giving the people what they want. Perhaps our government and elect officials are only giving us what we are asking for.
11 years ago
