tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23339829682431861852024-03-12T23:25:23.983-05:00Finck Philosophies<center>A history professor's perspective on current topics</center>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-87170686146710434022022-12-05T09:36:00.002-06:002022-12-05T09:36:07.474-06:00 Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about. <p><br /></p><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">First, I can’t believe Ohio State is being considered for the playoffs. I would much rather see a deserving 10-2 Clemson or even a 10-3 Utah. They at least won their conference. I would even rather see a one loss Southern Cal make the playoff. They at least played in their conference championship. I hate that Ohio State, the most overrated team in the past decade, can benefit from sitting at home while USC is penalized for <span style="font-family: inherit;"><a style="color: #385898; cursor: pointer; font-family: inherit;" tabindex="-1"></a></span>playing in a conference game. The playoff should be the top four conference winners. No more of who deserves it. No one deserves anything. If you want in, then win your conference, period. If they keep talking about who deserves it, that it should be the best four teams no matter the record than I can make a good argument for Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU being the four teams. Does anyone deny any of those four can beat any of the other teams in contention right now.</div></div><div class="x11i5rnm xat24cr x1mh8g0r x1vvkbs xtlvy1s x126k92a" style="background-color: white; color: #050505; font-family: "Segoe UI Historic", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div dir="auto" style="font-family: inherit;">My second take is on my least favorite athlete, LeBron James This week he threw a tantrum because the media did not ask him about the Jerry Jones scandal this week but plagued him with questions about Kyrie Irving last month, alluding that the media was racist. Here is my answer to James. Why should they? Who are you that you think we care about your opinion on everything? If you are unfamiliar with the story here is the breakdown. The media asked James about Irving who is a basketball player, the same sport that James plays. It was about an event that occurred last month when Irving posted his support of an antisemitic movie. James and Irving know each other well having played on the same team and lastly, James claims to be a social justice warrior, unless its helping people from other nations who buy his shoes, and the media wondered why James was not condemning Irving. As for the Jerry Jones situation, it deals with football, which I am pretty sure is not James’ sport. It was about a photo that was taken 65 years ago when as a 14-year-old boy he attended a rally to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending Central High School. It also involved a man who James is not familiar with. They never played together or run in the same circles. I don’t care if James wants to share his opinion, I certainly do, I just don’t understand why James feels he should be asked about the situation. Is he upset he was not asked about the social justice issues in Iran right now, probably not. By the way I am not saying the Jones is not a story, it is, if for nothing else we can use it to teach about nine incredibly brave teens who risked their lives to challenge segregation. I am just saying the story is not about James.</div></div>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-35425024045471165862022-12-03T10:32:00.003-06:002022-12-03T10:32:55.740-06:00<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about. </p><p class="MsoNormal">First, I
can’t believe Ohio State is being considered for the playoffs. I would much
rather see a deserving 10-2 Clemson or even a 10-3 Utah. They at least won their
conference. I would even rather see a one loss Southern Cal make the playoff. They
at least played in their conference championship. I hate that Ohio State, the
most overrated team in the past decade, can benefit from sitting at home while
USC is penalized for playing in a conference game. The playoff should be the
top four conference winners. No more of who deserves it. No one deserves
anything. If you want in, then win your conference, period. If they keep
talking about who deserves it, that it should be the best four teams no matter
the record than I can make a good argument for Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and
LSU being the four teams. Does anyone deny any of those four can beat any of
the other teams in contention right now.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My second take is on my least favorite athlete, LeBron James
This week he threw a tantrum because the media did not ask him about the Jerry
Jones scandal this week but plagued him with questions about Kyrie Irving last
month, alluding that the media was racist. Here is my answer to James. Why
should they? Who are you that you think we care about your opinion on
everything? If you are unfamiliar with the story here is the breakdown. The media
asked James about Irving who is a basketball player, the same sport that James
plays. It was about an event that occurred last month when Irving posted his
support of an antisemitic movie. James and Irving know each other well having
played on the same team and lastly, James claims to be a social justice
warrior, unless its helping people from other nations who buy his shoes, and
the media wondered why James was not condemning Irving. As for the Jerry Jones situation,
it deals with football, which I am pretty sure is not James’ sport. It was
about a photo that was taken 65 years ago when as a 14-year-old boy he attended
a rally to stop the Little Rock Nine from attending Central High School. It
also involved a man who James is not familiar with. They never played together
or run in the same circles. I don’t care if James wants to share his opinion, I
certainly do, I just don’t understand why James feels he should be asked about
the situation. Is he upset he was not asked about the social justice issues in Iran
right now, probably not. By the way I am not saying the Jones is not a story,
it is, if for nothing else we can use it to teach about nine incredibly brave
teens who risked their lives to challenge segregation. I am just saying the story
is not about James. <o:p></o:p></p>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-44750763295612176282022-11-04T13:51:00.004-05:002022-11-04T13:51:39.060-05:00Political Trends<p> </p><br />
<p class="MsoNormal">An article came out this week from conservative writer
George Will in the Washington Post that called for President Joe Biden and V.P.
Kamala Harris not to run in the next presidential election. Will, who has
opposed Trump from the beginning, basically said that the Republicans might
make the mistake of running a man who has proven to be unqualified for the
highest office and the Democrats need to protect the nation and not follow
suit. Will, who voted for Biden in 2020, believes Biden is too old as seen in
recent gaffs. It seems odd to not nominate a sitting president and Americans
have become used to most of our presidents serving a full eight years. Only
once in the 20<sup>th</sup> or 21<sup>st</sup> centuries has a party not
nominated a sitting president and over the past forty-two years only two
presidents have served only one term. Yet there was a time in our history when
this was quite common. A time when the nation experienced a string of subpar
presidents and went for twenty-four years without having a two-term president
or even nominating a sitting president.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking back at presidents, you can see times when parties
had long runs in power. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans basically
held power from 1800 to 1828, a twenty-eight-year run. The Republicans then
held the White House, with only two interruptions from 1860 to 1932, a seventy-two-year
run. Democrats came back with their own run and only one interruption from 1932
to 1968, a thirty-six-year run. It gets harder to tell after that. There could
be a mini-run of Republicans from 1968 to 2008, a forty- year run with two
interruptions, or maybe Clinton started a Democratic run in 1992 till today, a
thirty-year run with two interruptions. The other possibility is that we are
mimicking the one time we skipped when there were no runs. The parties went
back and forth. The time between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, 1836 to
1860, when only one sitting president was renominated and there were no two-term
presidents. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This time period started off with the one president that was
renominated. Martin Van Buren won as a Democratic in 1836 but his presidency
fell into shambles the following year with the Panic of 1837, one of the
largest depressions in American history. The same holds true in 1837 as it does
today. Americans vote first with their wallets. Van Buren did get the
Democratic nod in 1840, but Americans blamed him for their economic woes and
voted in the Whig, William Henry Harrison, good old Tippecanoe and his VP Tyler
too. Speaking of woes, Harrison gave a long-winded inaugural speech in the
cold, got sick and died a month later. It was no longer "Tyler too,"
but now Tyler alone. He really was alone. He had been a Democrat his entire
life but had switched to the Whigs to run on and balance the ticket. He was
never supposed to be president and was shunned by both parties. When his term
ended, he threw a party and announced to the crowd, “They cannot say now that I
am a president without a party.” Clearly the Whigs had no interest in him
running for a second term.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 1844 both parties ran new candidates. The Whigs ran their
founder and champion Henry Clay, while the Democrats ran an up-and-comer who
most reminded them of Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk. Being from Tennessee, Polk
even borrowed Jackson’s nickname and was known as “Young Hickory.” Polk was
responsible for arguably the most controversial war in American history, the
Mexican War, one that divided the nation along section lines. His presidency
was so stressful that he decided to not run again for health reason. It was a
good thing, too, or else he would have been the second president to die in
office as he did pass about a year after he left the White House. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 1848 both parties ran completely new candidates once
again. Whigs went with their favorite tactic of running a war hero, and after
the Mexican War there was none bigger than Zachary Taylor. Democrats, trying to
continue to keep the ghost of Jackson alive, ran his Secretary of War, Lewis
Cass. Even Jackson’s spirt could not help Cass, who lost to the very
charismatic and popular Taylor. However, the Whigs retained their bad luck when,
as with their last president, Taylor died, leaving the Whigs with the not as charismatic
or popular Millard Filmore.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not impressed with the Filmore presidency (no, I am not
making these names up, they really were all presidents), the Whigs continued
their trend and nominated the second most famous general of the Mexican War,
Winfield Scott in 1852. The Democrats also ran a new name with Franklin Pierce,
who won the day. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pierce got caught up in
the Bleeding Kansas debacle and might as well have been radioactive in the 1856
election, the way the Democratic Party threw him under the bus. The party
picked the least controversial candidate they could find, and it turned out to
be possibly the worst American president, James Buchanan. As there was no Whig
party to speak of, two other parties ran candidates. The Know Nothings, trying
to get Whig votes, dug up and ran the corps of Filmore, while the brand-new
Republican party ran John C. Freemont. The Republicans had enough Whigs in the
party to nominate a military hero. No surprise Buchanan won, being from really
the only major party in the race although he would go on to do nothing but
watch the nation crumble into Civil War.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then, of course, there is the 1860 election, where again
neither major party ran the same candidate. Democrats ran Stephen Douglas,
while the Republicans took a shot at a newcomer and nominated Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln
ended the run of new candidates when in 1864 he ran and won a second term. It's
hard to imagine the turnover in the presidents as it was between 1836 and 1860,
yet we can understand the back-and-forth. We have seen the presidency switch
parties after each president since George H.W. Bush in 1988. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What we can learn from this is that, if the pattern holds and
if Biden decides not to run, the Republicans will take over. We can also see
this as a warning. The years between 1836 and 1860 are some of the most
turbulent years in our history. It was during those years that things were
becoming so divisive that it led to Civil War. I can’t say whether it was poor
leadership that led to war or that even the best of our presidents could not have
held us together during those years. However, I am leaning on the side of poor
leadership. That means it's up to us now to choose leaders who can properly steer
our ship of state and honestly try to unite us instead of playing politics. I
am not saying that this is easy. Clearly, the last two presidents have failed,
and I have no idea what candidate can truly bridge the divide. All I know is I
hope we can find one soon and not suffer the same fate as they did the last time
we saw this trend. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. James Finck is a Professor of History at the University
of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and Chair of the Oklahoma Civil War Symposium.
To receive daily historical posts, follow Historically Speaking at
Historicallyspeaking.blog or on Facebook.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-13813300882534242952022-11-01T12:09:00.001-05:002022-11-01T12:09:43.717-05:00<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Hadestown<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With the traveling Broadway production Hadestown currently
crossing the nation, I thought I would make a few comments about the show. Most
of all I loved it, amazing production on all levels. Hadestown is a retelling of
the Greek myths of Hades and Persephone as well as Orpheus and Eurydice. Instead
of being all Greek columns the play is a modern adaption set in what seemed
like a 1920s or 30s New Orleans flophouse or bar which would fit easily on the
set of <i>Streetcar</i>. The style of the music is a perfect accompaniment to
the setting with <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the style of Dixieland,
jazz, and a good dose of blues all wrapped up in a Broadway sound. The music was
nothing short of amazing with incredible harmonies from the muses and rich
almost haunting melodies. Many of the song were playful, with plenty of
trombone, but also songs like, “All I’ve Ever Know” were as romantic and
powerful as any song on Broadway.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would say Hadestown was music driven, especially the first
act, the way a play like <i>Phantom</i> is where the music is stronger than the
story. The opposite is a play like <i>Come from Away</i> which the story is
stronger than the music. The set is very modern in that the orchestra is on
stage and often interacts with the characters. The set is also minimal and is
not really important to the show. There is only a slight change when going from
the bar to Hadestown and the only special effect is the rotating turntable on
stage that has become common with many recent plays. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I was familiar with Hades and Persephone, the tale about two
gods, Hades the god of the underworld and Persephone goddess of seasons, who
fell in love, but Persephone’s mother Demeter goddess of Agriculture could not
bare being without her daughter. A deal was struck that Persephone would spend
half the year with Hades and half the year with her mother. Hence spring and
summer she spent with her mother and fall and winter with Hades. I was not
familiar with the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. Without giving too much away
Orpheus was the son of Apollo and the muse of poetry. He had the gift of song
and could charm all things living and even inanimate objects with his voice. He
fell in love with Eurydice, a tree nymph. The play goes astray from the myth. In
the myth Eurydice is bitten by a snake on her wedding day and dies while in the
play she makes a choice to go to Hades. Either way Orpheus must save her from
the underworld. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Starting with the act one finale, a powerful song entitled
“Why We Build the Wall” the play does shift some towards the storyline and
takes on a political tone. I do not have issues with political undertones in
works of art. I assign novels each semester to my history classes with the caveat
that any great piece of literature worth reading has a message or moral for the
reader. My issue is that in our current environment of political correctness
all the messages from songs, TV, movies, and Broadway only have messages from
one side. Hadestown is no different. In one of the most intense songs of the
show Hades is in his realm singing to the people under his control. The song is
a call and response song where Hades sings, “Why do we build this wall,” and is
answered by the chorus “We build the wall to keep us free.” Hades then asks, “How
does the wall keep us free?” and they answer, “The wall keeps out the enemy.” Hades
asks why are they the enemy and the answer is “Because they want what we have
got.” In the production I watched Hades was played by a tall dark haired man
with an absolutely amazing baritone voice, but he might as well be played by a
blond with slightly orange skin and a tie too long.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While the play does seem to take the standard Broadway
liberal side, what is interesting is it was written in 2006, years before
anyone other than the Simpsons could have predicted the Trump presidency or his
signature slogan of “Build That Wall”. Also, it is interesting that if Hades is
serving as the antagonist then his convincing of Eurydice to come to Hadestown as
her only option for survival can only be seen as a rejection of big government.
Recognizing she is starving because she can’t find food in the winter Hades tries
to convince Eurydice to leave her love by singing:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white;"><span style="color: black; mso-color-alt: windowtext;">“</span><span style="color: #202124; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hey, little songbird, let me guess:<br />
He's some kind of poet and he's penniless?<br />
Give him your hand, he'll give you his hand-to-mouth<br />
He'll write you a poem when the power's out<br />
Hey, why not fly south for the winter?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: #202124; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Hey, little songbird,
look all around you<br />
See how the vipers and vultures surround you<br />
They'll take you down, they'll pick you clean<br />
If you stick around such a desperate scene<br />
See, people get mean when the chips are down”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hades convinces Eurydice that she will only be safe in
Hadestown where he can take care of her. Of course, once she decides to leave
the world, she is imprisoned like the rest who came to see Hadestown as their
only protection.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My advice is this, no matter your political leaning, see the
show. Know that there are some political messages, but don’t let that distract
you from a stunning musical. Turn off your political brain and focus on the
other messages, rekindling relationships that have struggled, or the power of
love and beauty. I thought Hades internal struggle of mercy verses control is
timeless both in politics and well as in relationships and definitely in
parenting. Then there is the final message of trust. How much do we trust those
we love especially with our own human weaknesses. Yes, I get tired of always
having to be the ones giving in to the left for art, but to let that stand in
your way of this show would be unfortunate enough to be a Greek tragedy. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-71839596790930759082012-10-11T12:03:00.002-05:002012-10-11T12:03:32.955-05:00Savasbeatie.com<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;">Dear
readers</span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;">I wanted to let you
know that my book, Divided Loyalitieswill soon be
published] by Savas Beatie LLC, an independent publishing house that has
produced many original and award-winning titles over the years. Savas Beatie
puts out an outstanding informational e-newsletter each month, Libri
Novus.</span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;">I would appreciate
your support of both my publisher and my book if you would kindly visit <a href="http://www.savasbeatie.com/" mce_href="http://www.savasbeatie.com/" target="_blank">www.savasbeatie.com</a> and sign up for
the e-letter. There is a sign-up box on the left hand side of the homepage where
you can enter your email address. Each newsletter includes interviews, excerpts,
book news, and much more. And of course, if you know someone else who
appreciates cutting-edge original military and general history titles, please
feel free to pass along these links to them as well.</span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;">Thanks for your
support!</span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div mce_style=" margin:0in; margin-bottom:0px; font-size:16px; font-family:Times New Roman; " style="clear: both; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; margin: 0in 0in 0px;">
<span mce_style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;" style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px;">James Finck</span></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-46758460658362189402012-09-14T14:59:00.001-05:002012-09-14T14:59:44.046-05:00Chapter 1 Excerpt from Divided Loyalties<b>Chapter 1: Kentucky’s Political System: 1840 to 1860</b><br />
<br />
In November of 1860, Kentucky, like the rest of the nation, gathered at the polls to elect a new president of the United States. However, this election differed from previous ones in that the very survival of the nation was as stake. Many Southerners saw the possible election of Abraham Lincoln as the ultimate betrayal of their rights and a justification for secession. Unlike the major parties during the antebellum period, the Democrats, Whigs, and Know Nothings, Lincoln and the Republican Party represented only the Northern half of the country. Southerners worried that Lincoln’s sectional views and his party’s free-soil tendencies could threaten the future of slavery. When Illinois Republicans nominated Lincoln as their candidate for the Senate in 1858, he had accepted their nomination with his now famous “House Divided Speech.” In his speech, Lincoln professed his belief that the nation could not survive half slave and half free, leading Southerners to believe that Lincoln intended to attack slavery once he took office. The platform adopted by the Republicans in 1860 even rejected the Dred Scot decision and called for the outlawing of slavery in new territories.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1 Avery Craven, The Coming of the Civil War (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957),<br />391, 417; David Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper & Row Publishers,<br />1976), 336-339.</span><br />
<br />
Kentucky, like many other slave states, had strong concerns about the election of Lincoln. Though Lincoln was a native son of Kentucky, his sectionalism and free-soil ideology were not accepted by the majority of the population. Slavery had been an institution in Kentucky since statehood. In the 1830s, Kentucky had one of the highest ratios of slaves to whites at 24 percent, and the number of slaves within the state grew further over the next thirty years. However, with the large influx of white immigrants, the percentage of slaves fell to 19, with a total slave population of 225,483 by 1860.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span><br />
<br />
Most Kentuckians in 1860 did not own slaves, and a small population within the state believed slavery to be morally wrong. However, for most people, whether one owned slaves was purely a question of expense. A slave in antebellum Kentucky cost an average wage earner about two years’ salary. Even with the high expense, 28 percent of Kentucky families did own slaves. This was a very high number compared to the rest of the South, with only Virginia and Georgia having a higher percentage of slave owners. The difference between Kentucky and the cotton states was the number of slaves a family owned. Only five families in Kentucky owned more than 100 slaves; most owned around five or six. The number of slaves in Kentucky was smaller mainly due to the fact that the state’s agriculture was not as labor-intensive. The shift in Kentucky’s economy away from labor-intensive crops led to the profitable business of selling Kentucky’s surplus slaves to the cotton states.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span><br />
<br />
With families owning fewer slaves but more families owning them, slavery<br />
tied the state to the rest of the South. The slave trade from Kentucky south only strengthened the bond. With the prominence of slavery and the importance of the slave economy, Kentuckians had no interest in supporting Lincoln or the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
While most Kentuckians generally disagreed with Lincoln, they also disagreed with the argument that Lincoln’s election was grounds for secession. The Louisville Daily Journal declared itself full of sorrow and anxiety over Lincoln’s possible election and prayed he would not be successful. However, the paper did not believe in abandoning the Union in its time of crisis, and insisted a legally elected president should be supported. It also maintained that the Congress, being controlled by the South, would be too strong to allow<br />
Lincoln to harm slavery in any way. The Journal saw no reason to fear a Republican president. Even one of Kentucky’s most famous and respected Kentucky’s Political System: 1840-1860 <span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span> statesmen, John J. Crittenden, tried to cool passions raised by the chances of Abraham Lincoln’s election. Crittenden delivered a speech in August of 1860 in which he questioned what would happen if Lincoln won while the South still controlled the Congress and the courts. Crittenden did not agree with Lincoln’s politics, but he knew him and believed him to be a good and decent man—and one smart enough to marry a Kentucky girl. Crittenden’s one complaint was not with Lincoln himself but with the Republican Party. Crittenden feared that Lincoln had to follow the ideology of the Republican Party, leading to more sectional agitation for the country; but this factor alone, he said, did not justify secession.<span style="font-size: xx-small;">4</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2 For the history of slavery in Kentucky, see Harold Tallant, Evil Necessity: Slavery and Political<br />Culture in Antebellum Kentucky (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003); Lowell H.<br />Harrison, The Civil War in Kentucky (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1975), 1;<br />Lowell H. Harrison and James C. Klotter, A New History of Kentucky (Lexington: University<br />Press of Kentucky, 1997), 167-168; William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at<br />Bay, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 2:132, 199.<br />3 Harrison, Civil War in Kentucky, 1; Barbara Fields, Freedom: A Documentary History of<br />Emancipation 1861-1867, Series I, 9 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 1:<br />493-194; Harrison and Klotter, A New History of Kentucky, 167-168.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">4 Louisville Daily Journal, October 8, 1860; John J. Crittenden, The Union, the Constitution, and the<br />laws: speech of the Hon. John J. Crittenden, at Mozart Hall, on the evening of August 2d, 1860 (Louisville:<br />Bradley & Gilbert, 1860), 6. </span>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-732162260643258812012-08-24T13:59:00.001-05:002012-09-14T14:49:58.621-05:00Interview for Divided LoyalitiesAn Interview with James Finck, author of <i>Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War</i>.<br />
<br />
An in-depth study of the twelve months that decided Kentucky’s fate (November 1860 – November 1861), <i>Divided Loyalties</i> persuasively argues that the Commonwealth did not support neutrality out of its deep Unionist sentiment. James Finck recently discussed his upcoming book with publisher Savas Beatie LLC. <br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>Why did you decide to write</i> Divided Loyalties <i>on this particular topic?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> While I was researching another project I read a book that inspired me called Reluctant Confederates by Daniel Crofts which explains how slave states in the upper south tried to remain in the Union, but were basically forced south. While reading I kept asking myself about states like Kentucky — it was a slave state, but was able to stay loyal to the Union. I was intrigued and upon further research I found that very little had been written about Kentucky’s secession movement. The last major work on the subject was written in 1926. There are many books about Kentucky in the Civil War, but the secession struggle is just a minor part. I decided this was a book worth writing. <br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>What makes</i> Divided Loyalties <i>different from other books written about Kentucky in the Civil War?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> There are many books written about Kentucky in the Civil War; what makes Divided Loyalties different is that I focus on one year and one subject. My only concern was why a slave state with so many ties to the South would remain in the Union. As I said before, in the books that deal with Kentucky, secession is only mentioned in passing, maybe a chapter at most, and never enough detail to understand the full situation.<br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>What kind of content can readers expect to find in</i> Divided Loyalties<i>?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> Most of the book deals with the Kentucky secession movement, and how many people in Kentucky supported the South and believed that the state should secede and join the Confederacy. Kentucky was very much a divided state between those who wanted to secede and those who wanted to stay loyal. <br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>What are some features of</i> Divided Loyalties <i>that you think readers will really enjoy?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> I am hoping readers will enjoy the small details, the stories of some of the major players and how they influenced and were affected by the secession debates. Men like Governor Magoffin; Presidential nominee John C. Breckenridge; political leader of Kentucky John Crittenden; railroad magnet James Guthrie; and even a young woman named Josie Underwood who had her world turned upside down.<br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>Why would readers not from Kentucky want to read</i> Divided Loyalties<i>?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> Even though this book is about Kentucky, I believe it has a wide appeal to anyone interested in the Civil War. The book demonstrates the difficulties that states found themselves in when the war began, especially in the upper south. They had to choose between their nation and their section, it was a difficult time for everyone involved. Understanding Kentucky sheds light on the other border states, i.e., Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas, because it cannot be a foregone conclusion they would secede. If it was, why did Kentucky not follow? It would seem Kentucky had as much at stake with slavery and their southern rights as the others, yet remained loyal.<br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>Would</i> Divided Loyalties <i>benefit researchers who wanted to know more about the state?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> I believe anyone interested in Kentucky politics would greatly benefit from the book. There were three major elections held during the twelve months I covered, including the 1860 presidential election. I broke down all three elections by county giving charts and maps of voting practices in the state. As far as I know this is the only published source where all this data is collected.<br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>Are there any new ideas about the secession movement that you found?</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> Yes, actually. I believe what I found completely reinterprets how people have always looked at Kentucky. Past historians have always just accepted that Kentucky was more loyal to the Union. What I argue is that they were much more loyal to the south than thought before, in fact, the strength of the pro-Union and pro-secession forces were equal in strength. States like Virginia called a convention to decide on secession, with the majority believing they would never secede. The voting backed this belief as pro-Union candidates dominated. In Kentucky, however, the Legislature blocked calling a convention, fearful that if a convention was called their state might leave the Union. Kentucky seemed to see a bigger threat of secession than Virginia. It was the Unionists who first came up with the idea of being neutral. If they thought it was a foregone conclusion that Kentucky would stay with the Union, then why did they support neutrality while the secessionists fought against it? It was only after the Union party won two important state elections, pushing neutrality, that the States Rights Party began calling for secession believing the Union party would carry them into the war fighting with the Union.<br />
<br />
<b>SB:</b> <i>Thank you for your time, we appreciate it.</i><br />
<br />
<b>JF:</b> You’re welcome. <br />
<br />
(All copyright laws apply to this interview. However, this interview may be posted digitally on the Internet or printed for use in newspapers, newsletters, magazines, and other similar uses, provided it appears in its entirety and that notice of its use is provided in advance to sarahs@savasbeatie.com. We allow partial edited use, with advance permission. Please inquire. Include our website www.savasbeatie.com and email address sales@savasbeatie.com with use. Thank you.)<br />
<br />The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-90648254391335041552012-06-21T09:32:00.001-05:002012-09-14T14:50:41.448-05:00New Cover<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vjZM5801czg/T-MwaTUKxmI/AAAAAAAACis/CigWljS-dJg/s1600/new+picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" rca="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vjZM5801czg/T-MwaTUKxmI/AAAAAAAACis/CigWljS-dJg/s200/new+picture.jpg" width="128" /></a></div>
My editor has changed the cover of the book, what do you think? I am hoping that it will still be released this summer. One major change is that William C. Davis has written a forward. He is an amazing historian and his name alone will help sell this book.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-16931373760140585362012-05-29T14:06:00.001-05:002012-05-29T14:13:21.678-05:00Divided Loyalities<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">As I said last time, this should be an interesting summer. My Chickasha book is being released on June 11, but shortly after will be my book about the Secession Crisis in Kentucky during the Civil War. I am excited about this release; I have been working on this project for several years now. I am including the back cover content to spark your curiosity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The title of the book is Divided Loyalties: Kentu cky's Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VCb-cHwj5Ms/T8UeAb-zHpI/AAAAAAAACbc/jfOc17s20OY/s1600/cover+picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" rba="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VCb-cHwj5Ms/T8UeAb-zHpI/AAAAAAAACbc/jfOc17s20OY/s320/cover+picture.jpg" width="214" /></a>On May 16, 1861, the Kentucky state legislature passed an ordinance declaring its neutrality, which the state’s governor, Beriah Magoffin, confirmed four days later. Kentucky’s declaration and ultimate support for the Union stand at odds with the state’s social and cultural heritage. After all, Kentucky was a slave state and enjoyed deep and meaningful connections to the new Confederacy. Much of what has been written to explain this curious choice concludes Kentucky harbored strong Unionist feelings. James Finck’s freshly written and deeply researched Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War shatters this conclusion.</div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
An in-depth study of the twelve months that decided Kentucky’s fate (November 1860 to November 1861), Divided Loyalties argues persuasively that the Commonwealth did not support neutrality out of its deep Unionist’s sentiment. In fact, it was Kentucky’s equally divided loyalties that brought about its decision to remain neutral. Both Unionists and Secessionists would come to support neutrality at different times when they felt their side would lose.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Along the way, Dr. Finck examines the roles of the state legislature, the governor, other leading Kentuckians, and average citizens to understand how Kentuckians felt about the prospects of war and secession, and how bloodshed could be avoided. The finely styled prose is built upon a foundation of primary sources including letters, journals, newspapers, government documents, and published reports. By focusing exclusively on one state, one issue, and one year, Divided Loyalties provides a level of detail that will deeply interest both Kentuckians and Civil War enthusiasts alike.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Kentucky’s final decision was the result of intrigue and betrayal within the Commonwealth while armies gathered around its borders waiting for any opportunity to invade. And it was within this heated environment that Kentuckians made the most important decision in their history.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
About the Author: James Finck was raised in Virginia where he developed a love of the Civil War. He received his undergraduate degree in history at the College of William and Mary, a master’s degree at Virginia Tech, and his Ph.D. at the University of Arkansas. Dr. Finck taught history at the University of Texas—Pan American. He currently teaches American history at the University of Arts and Sciences of Oklahoma. He lives in Oklahoma with his wife and three young children.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
I will keep everyone update when the book actually is released. The book is being published by Savas Beatie publishers, you can link to thier website <a href="http://www.savasbeatie.com/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-81605292158173922952012-05-23T15:00:00.002-05:002012-09-14T14:51:00.715-05:00Exciting Book News<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mv4_IdCq1UM/T71BvXADGeI/AAAAAAAACbQ/7kPV_3a9ewg/s1600/9780738597197.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" qba="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Mv4_IdCq1UM/T71BvXADGeI/AAAAAAAACbQ/7kPV_3a9ewg/s320/9780738597197.jpg" width="222" /></a>This should be an exciting summer on the publishing front; I have my first two books being published. The first one out is called Chickasha, and as the title suggests it is about Chickasha, OK. My second book is called Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
As I said, Chickasha will be released first; I believe its release date is still scheduled for June 11th. The book is being published by Arcadia Press and is part of their Images of America series <a href="http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/">http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/</a>. It is photographic history of Chickasha from its beginnings in 1892 through about the Great Depression. It is broken down into six chapters: Chapter 1: Transportation and Auxiliaries; Chapter 2: Business; Chapter 3: Culture; Chapter 4: Religious Life; Chapter 5: Education; and finally Chapter 6: the University of Arts and Sciences of Oklahoma.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The Grady County Historical Society is planning on having a kickoff party and book signing some day in June. I will keep everyone posted as to the date.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-19553713619812782582011-11-03T13:37:00.000-05:002011-11-03T13:37:55.051-05:00My New School<span style="font-family: Arial Unicode MS;">I know I need to improve my blogging, it’s been way to long since I made my last post. When I first began this blog, I posted on a regular basis and I need to get back to writing. I have been told by very wise men that the greatest way to improve your writing skills is to write something every day. Until I began blogging I never knew what to write, but with a blog I have a place. Many exciting things have happened in the past few months. We have moved to Oklahoma and have began teaching at my new position. I could not be happier at my new school. I have been asked about my school, so I thought I could fill everyone in. there are only two history professors so I have all the flexibility I could want. The other professor's field is Greece and Rome, so I get to teach all the American classes while he teaches everything else. I do teach the Modern Middle East, while he teaches ancient. I love the freedom I have here. Any American class I can think of I can teach it. I do have to teach one of the sequence classes each semester, which here are broken into four parts. There is a Colonial America class that goes to 1789; then a class from 1789 to 1877; one from 1877 to 1945, then finally a modern American class. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial Unicode MS;">The other class that I teach every semester is part of our IDS curriculum, which is what sets our university apart from most. All of our core classes are IDS or interdisciplinary studies. What is meant by IDS is that all our core or IDS classes are team taught by professors in different disciplines. The classes I teach are American Civ I and II. This semester I am teaching Civ I with an economics professor but next semester it might be an English professor, then maybe a philosophy, music, art, or poly sci professor. It is an awesome approach to teaching and learning from a truly liberal arts approach to allow students to learn subjects from different interpretations. I love teaching with the professor I am teaching with now, economic history is one of my weaknesses and I have actually learned a lot teaching with her. I think our students really enjoy they way we teach together, it is very informal like we are having a conversation between them and ourselves. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial Unicode MS;">So every semester I teach either Civ I or II and one of the history sequences and then I can choose any other class I want to teach after that. I love that I will have a variety and not just the same classes. I love the Civil War but even that can get old after a while. Next semester I am teaching Civ II, American History 1877 to 1945, The history of Presidents and Political Parties, and a reading seminar on early America history. I am excited about this class. We are going to read some of the most important historians each week and come together and talk about them. I have wanted to teach this class for some time. One reason is that there are some books I wanted to read for some time, that I have not found the time, now I will have to read them.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial Unicode MS;">Lastly, I really am enjoying my school, because of the people. I am at a small school, with about 1,100 students, so we have around 30 faculty. Because of the size, we are close. In Texas I only knew a few people outside the history department, here I work with everyone. I do not know everyone well yet, but there are several I have become friends with.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial Unicode MS;">This is enough for now, but I will be better at posting. I have more to say including the publication of two books due out this spring, so I will give information about these soon.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-85559656817383636242011-05-02T09:57:00.000-05:002011-05-02T09:57:45.711-05:00A Few Comments About bin Laden Death and Obama's SpeechI want to join with the rest of the nation as we celebrate the defeat of one of the most evil men of the past century. He stands there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The only difference between Bin Laden and these others was he did not have the ability to carry out death on the level as a Hitler, but his intent was just as horrific. It has been a long fight, and has hurt this nation as it tore it apart along ideological seems. This morning the nation seems united once more, in a similar if smaller version, of what we saw in the years after 9/11. I wish I was hopeful that this could start to be an end in our war against terror, but I am not. There is still a radical element within Islam that will not rest. I am encouraged by what I am seeing in the middle east, but I will write on that in a different post, but our war on terror will not end with the death of Bin Laden, others will set up to replace him. <br />
<br />
As excited as I was last night as I watched the news, I was equally disappointed when I watched President Obama give his address. I was not surprised, I have ceased being surprised, I fact I expected it. Obama, as expected, used Bin Laden’s death for political gain. I was hoping for a short statement, but instead he took credit. He also used the occasion to rewrite a bit of his own history:<br />
<br />
<em>“We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.”</em><br />
<br />
Obama knew how exited we would be and he wanted to celebrate with us, be one of us. He is correct that we united as a nation and were committed. Almost every Congressman and Senator voted to support President Bush and voted for a declaration of War. Almost every Senator, one of the very few who did not was Obama. He was not part of us then, in fact he was against it. He made his campaign that we were wrong and promised to end the war if elected.<br />
<br />
The President continued, <em>“Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort.”</em> Here he seems to be giving a nod to President Bush but in the next paragraph said, <br />
<br />
<em>“Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world. And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.”</em><br />
<br />
In other words, I did what Bush could not. I made Bin Laden a priority and so now we got him. I guess I feel for Bush, he fought an unpopular war to get bin Laden, yet Obama takes all the credit and gets American support, all the while retaining liberal support by saying this is a war we should have never fought. Throughout the speech Obama used rhetoric straight out of Bush’s speeches, the same rhetoric he condemned Bush for as grandstanding, he is now using.<br />
<br />
Lastly I was put off by his arrogance. He needed to tone down the use of “I”. The whole speech was I did this and I did that. Here a few examples<br />
<br />
<em>“I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation”</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation”</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.”</em><br />
<em><br />
</em><br />
<em>“These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.”</em><br />
<br />
I was getting prepared for him to say that he personally after making all the plans actually flew over there and led the mission and that he personally pulled the trigger for the kill shot.<br />
<br />
Just to be open, I am not a fan of the president. If you read old posts you will see I tried, I hoped he would be the man he wanted us to believe. So maybe I am just jaded, but in a moment of triumph I was disappointed that the President took the time to make a campaign speechThe Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-82081255834930108472011-04-08T14:53:00.000-05:002011-04-08T14:53:19.333-05:00Book Review-Team of Rivals<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ykgMtjNYC0A/TZ9nIIVFr6I/AAAAAAAAB_g/UonkDGvrjfY/s1600/team+of+rivals.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ykgMtjNYC0A/TZ9nIIVFr6I/AAAAAAAAB_g/UonkDGvrjfY/s1600/team+of+rivals.jpg" /></a></div>During my blogging hiatus I was fortunate to read a few really great books that I thought I would catch up writing a review on. I decided to read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Goodwin is a popular writer, but I have never read any of her books before, but because this one was on Abraham Lincoln I thought I would give it a try. I was pleased that I did. I found her analysis of Lincoln fascinating. I have read many books on Lincoln, but where this one made its mark was looking at how he dealt with other people. I came away from this book with a new appreciation of the man, and in fact I found that this book made me want to be a better person. Goodwin brilliantly documents how Lincoln had a knack of making enemies into friends. Instead of just getting angry at every slight towards him, and there were many; he found a way to get those making the slights to eventually support them. Bridges that most people would have burned down were not by Lincoln; so later in life he was able to cross them again for his own benefit. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I will give one example. Lincoln early on had difficulty getting along with his Secretary of War Cameron. Several times Cameron threatened to quite if he did not get his way, knowing Lincoln would never accept. Or so he thought. During one disagreement Lincoln accepted his offer by writing him a letter saying he had accepted and planned on nominating Cameron as ambassador to Russia. Cameron was crushed by the news and considered himself fired and worried what the public humiliation would do. Cameron had treated the President very badly while in office including publicly insulting him. Now that Lincoln had a chance for revenge, he did not take it. In letters to the press Lincoln set himself up for disgrace, taking all the blame on himself. He even brought Cameron in and asked his advice on his replacement. Cameron suggested Edwin Stanton, who Lincoln had already decided on, but let Cameron leave thinking Stanton was his idea. Cameron was a man who detested Lincoln, who was fired by Lincoln, yet as Goodwin writes, “Cameron would never forget this generous act. Filled with gratitude and admiration, he would become . . . one of the most intimate and devoted of Lincoln’s personal friends. He appreciated the courage it took for Lincoln to share the blame at a time when everyone else had deserted him. Most other men in Lincoln’s situation, Cameron wrote, “would have permitted an innocent man to suffer rather than incur responsibility.” Lincoln was not like most other men, as each cabinet member, including the new war secretary, would soon come to understand.” (Goodwin, 413)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This is just one example of the kind of man Lincoln was. He allowed himself to look foolish when it came to dealing with his leading General, George B. McClellan. As long as little Mac was the best man for the job, he would keep his job. It was not the constant insults that got Mac fired, it was his ineptitude on the battlefield. Lincoln was not a perfect man. In my own book and recent article I wrote about the Kentucky governor’s election in 1863, Lincoln restricted civil liberties to the point of being unconstitutional. It is hard to judge him, he was trying to save the nation. Goodwin bring to life this extraordinary president with her ability to tell a great story. The book is 755 pages, but reads easy and her writing style makes it easy to finish. In the end it was one of the more enjoyable book I have read. As I said it made me look at my own life and my dealings with people. If I could try to be more like Lincoln, life would be just that much easier. <br />
<br />
One exciting note is that I believe they are making the book into a movie, possibly staring Daniel Day Lewis. We are due for a good Lincoln book, but no matter how good it is you still need to read the book. There is no way any movie can cover all the information.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-14208421345905519272011-04-04T18:50:00.002-05:002011-04-04T18:50:06.629-05:00I'm BackNot that anyone but me cares, but I am back writing my blog. It has been much longer then I planned before starting again and I miss it. I have found blogging to be therapeutic, I feel like my brain is always on, never allowing any rest. What I have found is that if I write down what I am thinking I can move on. For anyone interested, let me explain why the long break. I graduated in 2008 and since then I have been on the job market. I have been a lecturer at my current University for the past five years. It has been an excellent opportunity to experience an entirely new culture in South Texas, but being a lecturer is only about one step up from slave labor at my University. While I have been on the hunt for a tenure tract position, I decided to stop blogging. It is unfortunate, but true that many in academia would not hire a new professor with conservative views. The bleeding heart liberal community of scholars who claim to be so open to everyone else’s views did not mean conservative views. I felt it was best to not advertise my political views.<br />
<br />
Now, however, everything has changed. This week I was hired as an assistant Professor at a liberal arts University in Oklahoma. My family and I are very excited about the move. It is a small town but I like small towns and we are only half an hour from the city which is perfect. What I am most excited about is how much they seem to love me. I had to give a sample lecture to a group of faculty and students while I visited the University on my interview. When I met with the VP of academic affairs afterwards he told me I gave one the best lectures he had ever seen. About an hour after I got home the next day I received a call offering me the position. I was surprised how fast it came, but I was told they were so impressed and it was a unanimous decision of the committee that they did not want to wait. I am not sure exactly when we are going to move, but I am excited about the next phase in my family’s life. Our journey has taken us from Virginia to Arkansas to Texas and now we will begin our next chapter in Oklahoma.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-26057945352744645792011-04-03T19:02:00.000-05:002011-04-03T19:02:36.256-05:00<div></div><br />
<div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/Sxhqr8_lAWI/AAAAAAAABlk/b_52wAADxk8/s1600-h/Thanksgiving+028.JPG"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411192255625363810" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/Sxhqr8_lAWI/AAAAAAAABlk/b_52wAADxk8/s320/Thanksgiving+028.JPG" style="cursor: hand; float: left; height: 320px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 240px;" /></a><br />
<br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div>I have had some requests to share my thanksgiving cooking experience. My family did something that I have wanted to do for many years, cook a full thanksgiving meal outside over the fire. Being in South Texas it is finally cool enough to be able to camp and with the kids having a few days break we decided to go camping. We drove five hours up to a state park <br />
<div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/Sxhqqy-KKLI/AAAAAAAABlU/jpcrP0-TRiM/s1600-h/Thanksgiving+025.JPG"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411192235755186354" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/Sxhqqy-KKLI/AAAAAAAABlU/jpcrP0-TRiM/s320/Thanksgiving+025.JPG" style="cursor: hand; float: left; height: 240px; margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; width: 320px;" /></a>called Enchanted Rock, named after the large rock formations. It was a great place to camp and the kids had a lot of fun, but the important part was the meal. We did not want to skimp on anything, so we planned the full thanksgiving spread. The turkey was excellent; because of limitations we did not do a full bird. Our friends who came with us marinated the turkey breasts in basically 7up and soy sauce and slow cooked it over coals. The flavor and moisture were excellent with a smokey flavor. They also made the sweet potatoes by boiling them and making them into a puree. Melissa made her grandmothers mouthwatering stuffing and we cooked it using a Dutch oven. We made mashed potatoes on the camp stove, cranberry sauce, and roasted corn on the cob over the fire. For dessert we made a peach cobbler in the Dutch oven. The dinner was perfect, I do not think we could have done a better job at home in our kitchen. It was one of the best thanksgivings I have ever had. The work was not too difficult and in fact it seemed less stressful than normal and the clean up much easier. We even had leftovers for thanksgiving sandwiches the next day. Add our dinner to the whole camping experience and it was a trip that I believe we will try again soon. </div></div></div></div>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-89266663137601212642009-10-29T14:05:00.002-05:002009-10-29T14:07:08.814-05:00Welcome Home Lt. Ellis<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/Sunnn0PUMeI/AAAAAAAABhs/-5aJ3_HEBNQ/s1600-h/Jason"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398100299604046306" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 300px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/Sunnn0PUMeI/AAAAAAAABhs/-5aJ3_HEBNQ/s400/Jason" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I just want to take a few moments to welcome home my cousin Jason who just finished a six month tour in Afghanistan. I am very glad he came home safe and am excited for his family who missed him greatly while he was gone. His wife writes a blog and has pictures of him surprising his kids at their school you can read it <a href="http://ellisfamilyadventuresontheeastcoast.blogspot.com/">here</a>. I have written about my cousins before, but I am very proud of them, both Jason and his little brother Cameron who is currently serving in Iraq. We pray for you both and I am glad to know you are doing so well. I do not get to see Jason very much anymore, but there was a time in our lives when we were very close. I still think of him often and cannot wait until we can hang out in the future. Thank you Jason for all you do.</div>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-60164062666608911052009-10-23T10:04:00.001-05:002009-10-23T11:37:32.507-05:00Book Review-Alexander HamiltonAlexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow<br /><br />After finishing Chernow’s brilliantly written book about Alexander Hamilton I want to endorse it to anyone who enjoys history or who wants to learn more about the founding of our nation. This book is so much more than a biography of Hamilton, but a biography of the early years of our nation. I have written before that I believe that Hamilton is the most important of our founding fathers when it comes to our government structure. John Adams was the brains of the Revolution, Jefferson the pen, and Washington the sword and father, but if we move past the Revolution and want to understand the forming of the nation then Hamilton is the man. The book describes Hamilton as “an illegitimate, largely self-taught orphan from the Caribbean, Hamilton rose with stunning speed to become George Washington’s aide-de-camp, a battlefield hero, a member of the Constitutional Convention, the leading author of the Federalists Papers, and head of the Federalists party. As the first treasury secretary, he forged America’s tax and budget systems, Customs Service, Coast Guard, and central bank.”<br /><br />With a man so important, why do we not know more about him? Why do we not heard candidates or political parties claim the legacy of Hamilton the way they do Jefferson? There are two answers, one that his party lost and when it did their legacy was removed, even though in reality it was Hamilton philosophies that that govern our nation today. Secondly, we do not like what he had to say, even though he was right in most cases.<br /><br />America’s first two presidents were federalists (though Washington would never refer to himself as such). With the election of Jefferson in 1800 the Republicans would come to dominate the White House by controlling it for the next 28 years during which the Federalist party would die away. With the Republican triumph and the Federalists demise, Federalists legacies would disappear over the next 30 years as leading Republicans would exaggerate their importance while diminishing the importance of Federalists. Of the three leading Federalists Adams and Hamilton will be largely forgotten, while Washington was too important to ignore and his own legends will grow. I am even convinced that most Americans today think Jefferson was the second president. We talk so much today about Washington and Jefferson and everyone forgets Adams was in the middle and as for Hamilton he was not ever a president and is ignored.<br /><br />The larger issue that no party will ever claim Hamilton as their predecessor was his philosophy of government. Hamilton’s problem was that his beliefs do not sound very American, not the kind of thing we put on government building walls. Hamilton believed in order for our nation to last it must be tied to the wealthy and elite, they had to have a rooting interest. In order to understand Hamilton you much understand how all the founders saw our nation, as an experiment. We today have over 200 years of experience and knowledge, we know our nation will be become a mighty and great country. They did not have that insight. Most of them saw the possibility of failure as probable. At their time not a single other government in the world was a democracy. In fact in the history of world only the Greeks and the Romans even tried a democracy and they both failed. Why would America be any different? Hamilton believed we had a greater chance of our little experiment failing then succeeding. The only way our government would make it is if the wealthy and elite wanted it to succeed. Who cared what the poor wanted, they did not have the time or the ability to guarantee the success of the Constitution, they were busy tried to keep their families from going hungry. If the poor supported the government but the wealthy and powerful did not, our government would not have stood a snowballs chance in hell of survival. Anyone who takes a few moments to comprehend this will know that Hamilton was correct; the problem is it does not sound good. We do not want to admit that Hamilton was right. Hamilton also had problems with democracy which does not endear him to modern politicians.<br /><br />The thing about Hamilton is that today we are a Hamiltonian nation. What created the first political parites in this country were different versions of what we should become. Jefferson and his Republicans wanted a land full of small farmers where everyone would own land. Land ownership in early America was essential for freedom, hence why the founders made land ownership criteria for voting. If you did not own your own land or were your own boss then you rented and were under the control of someone else. In the days before the secret ballot, if you did not vote the way your employer told you to, then you might be out of job or kicked off your farm. In other words land ownership made you free. With this in mind a nation of small yeoman farmers to Jefferson would make us the freest and greatest nation on earth. Jefferson also believed the federal government should be weak and that that state government should have most of the power.<br /><br />Hamilton and the Federalists however saw things different. Hamilton saw that England was the most powerful nation and wanted to model us after then. To be great Hamilton wanted America to become an industrial power. He believed our survival depended on a strong federal government that could protect American industry and growth. These two men and their parties fought viciously against each other with the understanding that if the other won, our national experiment would fail. Jefferson and the Republicans did win the elections, but as anyone who is reading this has to realize that Hamilton won the struggle. American is not a nation of small farmers, but the greatest industrial and most powerful nation in the world. We do not have time to cover this now, but Jefferson talked one way, but acted another. The Hamilton governmental policies he put in place during the Federalists presidencies were so effective that the Republicans did not dismantle them and actually built upon them.<br /><br />Jefferson will always be more famous than Hamilton, everyone loves a good sound bite and Jefferson had some of the best, but you really want to get to the heart of our government it is Hamilton not Jefferson who needed to be understood. Why I like Chernow’s book is because he gives a great history of nation building but in the medium of a biography. Instead of a straight forward history we have a story to follow, a story of love, betrayal, affairs, war, feuds, and a very famous death that capotes our attention. In the end we know a lot about the man, but through him we know a lot about the nation.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-66898984216860253492009-09-28T09:02:00.002-05:002009-09-28T17:48:04.654-05:00Obama's problem with IranI think Obama’s biggest issue in his presidency will not be health care, but Iran. He might find himself in the difficult position of either losing the trust of the American people if they feel he cannot protect them or isolating himself from his own party if he acts aggressively. This is a serious issue and so I hate to say I told you so, but I predicted his back in Oct of last year. Instead of hashing it out again, feel free to click <a href="http://jamesfinck.blogspot.com/search?q=kennedy">here </a>and read how what I said before he was elected might just come true. Dropping another nuclear weapon is closer than I think most people believe. I do not believe Israel will allow Iran to build a bomb. I think they will drop their own bomb first. I am not pro nuclear bombs, but I would not blame Israel. If Iran builds a bomb, they are in grave danger, for their own protection they may act first. Unlike our president, Israel does not ask what everyone thinks before they act, they act out of self preservation, they do not care about being popular.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-18486856871901021862009-09-16T09:35:00.002-05:002009-09-16T09:57:31.244-05:00Carter-America is racistWell it has finally happened; my only surprise is that it took so long. In an interview today on the Today Show, ex-President Jimmy Carter said the reason Obama is being criticized is because we are racists. There are two major points that need to be made, first Carter needs to shut up, and second this statement is absurd and offensive.<br /><br />First things first, Carter needs to shut up. There is an unwritten rule in politics that ex-presidents stay out of politics. You have not heard any of the other ex-presidents weigh in on this issue. We know how each of them stands; they do not need to be critical of those who took their place. Of all the people, they know how hard this job is, and so usually have dignity and leave their thoughts to themselves. Well until lately. Carter came out a while ago and began to bash Bush while he was still president. I wrote about it then how it makes Carter look classless. But now he is still talking and sounding senile. One reason Carter needs to remain quiet is well who is he to criticize anyone. In case anyone is reading this and do not know about the Carter Presidency, let me fill you in. Carter may be the worst president we have ever had. If you do remember the Carter years I will not have to tell you that. Even Democrats when they are honest have to admit he was ineffective. You might really love the guy, but he was not a good leader. What right does a guy like that have to criticize anyone else? The thing about Carter is that he has redeemed himself in the eyes of most Americans. He does a lot of good for many people, especially with organizations like Habitat for Humanity. He is seen now as that kind old Uncle who had some problems, but is old now and a nice guy and so we just forget about all the mistakes he made as president. If he does not stop making such stupid remarks, people just might start remembering why Reagan beat him 489 to 49 in 1980. Part of the blowout was Reagan was just that good, but a big part of it was that Carter was that bad. I actually have some respect for Carter. I do believe one of the reasons he was ineffective as President was that he had strong moral values, he was a very religious man. In fact he was so religious that he was not willing to make the kind of compromises Presidents are forced to make. You have to sell your soul to be the President today by making a deal somewhere along the way with someone bad. Carter never would and it cost him, I respect him for that. Yet I am quickly losing my respect for him, I may have to start teaching my students a different story about Carter, maybe he was a bit more calculated politically than I thought.<br /><br />The bigger issue is the actually statement. This is absurd, but expected. I wrote back during the election my fear of voting in a black president. Does an African American have the ability to lead, most definetly yes. Are they smart, I believe Obama has proven that. My fear was that the first time things went bad the race card would be played, and here we go. So the President has proposed a very radical plan. Now whether you support or oppose the plan you must agree that it is radical. As with every radical plan there are going to be many who have strong opposition to the plan. But yet when Obama purposes a radical plan and people fight it, they are racists according to Carter. So does he think that if a white man asked for government takeover of health care the entire population would openly embrace it? If it were a white president when he gave his press conference would he wink in the camera as a sign that it’s OK to vote for his, it’s OK (wink) I’m white. No, there would be as much resistance against this whether it is a white or black president. It’s not the president, it’s the plan. It is bad and even dangerous. How can he call us racists? The majority of this nation less than a year ago voted for a black man to be president, were we racist then? So when we vote for a black man it is fine, but when we disagree with anything he proposes we suddenly turn to a nation of racists. Carter’s statement would be funny if racism was not such a serious topic in this nation. He called the Rep for S.C. racist. That is the most damming accusation you can make in politics. You are better off being a drunk or womanizer (Kennedy is being honored everyday since his death) or a tax cheat (half of Obama’s cabinet is that) or even have it whispered you were involved in a murder or selling out your country (these may not be true but both Clintons were accused of such crimes), but call someone a racists and you might as well quit (ask Bob Dole who resigned as Senate Majority leader after making a slip about supporting Senator Strom Thurman during his 1948 presidential run where he supported segregation). Carter could ruin this man’s career for a statement where he had no proof other than his own crazy ideas.<br /><br />Carter made one more statement in a speech that I want to make one comment on. Carter said “The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect." I could not agree with him more, I just have to wonder where Carter has been the past four years, Oh yeah he was criticizing the president.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-5282624365860375802009-08-31T13:00:00.002-05:002009-08-31T16:39:38.820-05:00The Story of Obama's New Clothes and SocialismIt has been a long time since my last post. I kind of burned out and so took the summer off. We had a great summer traveling around the west and visiting AZ, NM, CO, and UT. Now I am back and starting a new semester and had an interesting conversation today. This year I am assigning Looking Backwards by Edward Bellamy. Bellamy was a socialist who wrote in the 1880. His novel was about a guy who fell asleep in 1880 and woke up in 2000. This new world in which he now lived was a perfect world according to Bellamy. The point of his novel was to compare all the problems of his day and contrasting them to this perfect society. What made the world in 2000 so perfect was that the government had taken over all business, so that everyone made the same amount of money and every just did whatever job made them happy. Bellamy spells out in detail how this new society works. What is interesting is that all my students realize that this would never work. That this guy in the 1880s had no idea about how people today think. What I find interesting is that these are the same kids who support Obama. I had to explain to them that Obama is trying to do just what Bellamy wanted, health care is just the first step. So when they read this novel they saw it as impossible when they took out the current political impact. If I said this book was written by Obama they would love it, but in its historical context they all criticized it, not one student thought Bellamy’s plan would work today, but most think Obama is right on tract. To me it proves that Obama’s plan is not practical, but political. This is why the founders so feared a dema-gog, or a president who wins solely on popularity and not his political views. For that president can put forth a plan with no merits and pass it based on his appeal. Our best hope is that more Americans can see though the Hollywood persona of Obama and finally realize once and for all that the Emperor has no clothes.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-72787250645799656712009-05-30T19:20:00.001-05:002009-05-30T19:20:58.693-05:00Lets Bring Back the Whig PartyI know it has been a very long time since I have written, but I have been so overwhelmed by our political situation that I have given up. I also did not want to be a basher of the President without giving him time to accomplish something. But he has had his 100 days now and I cannot remain silent. I have no idea where to start; Obama has hurt us so badly in such a short time that I do not want to list everything. If you think the same as me then you agree and if not I will not be able to convince you of anything. So instead I want to make a proposal.<br /> <br />The Democrats are taking the nation down a bad path. In a very short time they will own large amounts of some of our biggest companies such as Chrysler. There is only one word for this type of government and that is socialism. The Democrats deny that they want to be socialists, but by definition when the government owns the means of production they are socialists. Secondly, this week Obama has proposed a national sales tax similar to Europe and Canada. I am waiting to see how the public will take it. Obama promised he would cut taxes, but cutting taxes and raising sales to around 25% would be the greatest bait and switch ever. I would think the public would be outraged over this plan, but so far they are accepting it hook and sinker. There is no way that I can support the Democrats<br /> <br />So what is my alternative, the Republicans? Right now that does not seem to be a viable option for my political beliefs. The GOP is being divided into two wings, and neither side bring me any confidence. One wing is the Michael Steel side. Steel is the new head of the GOP and wants to build the party by being the big tent party. He has said if we do not make the party more “Hip Hop” then they will die. What he and other men like General Powell are saying is that we need to become more moderate, or open to different ideas and lifestyles. They are listening to the media that are saying if the GOP does not expand they will die. Why they are listening to the media, I do not know. Who in the press keeps giving the GOP advice, the Democrats. Why would the Democrats want to the help the Republicans, the answer is they do not, they just want the GOP to be more like them. My fear is that many Republicans are buying into this. All they hear is that the party is in real danger and needs to change. The problem is that yes the party is in danger. It is in danger of losing people and me who are truly conservative and will not support Steel. Why would anyone support a party that is liberal light when they can just be a Democrat and be real liberal? By the way why was Powell so upset when Cheney said we was no longer a Republican. If I remember right, Powell came out and openly supported Obama in the election. When someone campaigns for the Democrats I just assume he is one, but I guess not in Powell’s world.<br /> <br />The other wing of the party is not much better, the Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney wing. The thing about them is that I agree completely with their ideas. I do believe we can best grow our party by giving voters a true alternative, a real conservative voice. The Republicans have based their victories over the past 40 years on the silent majority. The reason they are called silent is because they don’t say much, but are conservative. I believe the party will come back if we stand for something, and stand up to Obama. The problem with this wing is the spokesman. I like Rush’s ideas, but I struggle listening to Rush. Rush will fight against the Democrats just because they are democrats whether or not the ideas are good or not (yes the Democrats did the same thing, but lets be bigger than them). For every good argument he has he spends hours ranting against minor things so you lose his more important ideas. I like Cheney, I trust him when he speaks. I trust him more than anyone I have heard in the past 10 years. He is unpopular, because he does tell the truth. But Cheney like Rush is very controversial. They will not have the ability to pull in new members, even if their ideas are sound. Yet no one else has stepped up.<br /><br />So what is the alternative, I have decided to leave the GOP. The Libertarians are too radical for me. I do believe there is a role for government oversight. As a 19th century historian I do not believe true Laissez-Fair government is the answer. You could follow the outline for the American dream, like work hard day and night for years, but in the age of the Robber Barons you could work as hard as you want and not make progress. Some government regulation is necessary. So if the Democrats, the Republicans, and the libertarians do not fit the only answer is to start a new party, or maybe bring back a new one. There have been some great parties in the past like the Populists, the Bucktails, or the Anti-Masons. Some have had great names like the Bull Moose Party, the Know-Nothings, or Loco-Focos. Each of these parties has good qualities, but also would not capture my beliefs. However there was one dominant party in the early 19th century that is perfect, the Whig party.<br /><br />In 1838 Andrew Jackson ran against the incumbent John Quincy Adams. An odd aspect of this election was that both men were running as Republicans. For the past ten years or so America had been in a political age known as the Era of Good Feelings when we had a one party system. The problems was even though by name they all agreed, in theory they were still divided. In 1838 the Jackson/Van Buren wing of the party began calling themselves Democratic Republicans to distinguish their beliefs (the Jeffersonian Republican ideas) from the Adams/Henry Clay Republicans. With the victory of Jackson in 1838, the American government would never be the same. It was Jackson who would make the president powerful. Jackson vetoed more bills in his presidency than the previous six had combined. Unlike the other presidents Jackson vetoed bills not because he felt they were bad for the nation, but simply because he was not in favor of it. Jackson took power for himself that many thought were dangerous. Those that opposed Jackson started calling him King Andrew. In England the party that opposed the King were the Whigs, so Henry Clay and all those who opposed King Andrew followed suit and began referring to them selves as Whigs. By the next election Jackson had dropped the Democratic Republican label for the just the Democrats while the other major party were now organized as Whigs. <br /><br />I believe it is time to bring back the Whig party. With King Obama taking more power for himself than any president has the right to, once again we need a party that will stand up to him. By standing up to King Obama, I mean more than just fight against him and his programs, but give voters a real alterative. I want a conservative party who stands for what Americans like me believe. A party that believe in families and conservative ideas. A party that will not fold to political correctness or toleration. The Steel wing of the Republican Party believes we need more tolerance, but I believe we should never tolerate what is wrong. As our nation goes down a dark path, I believe more Americans will ultimately crave someone or a party that will stand up for what they believe. <br /><br />So my call is to bring back the Whigs. We do not want old Republicans who do not believe and think like us, they can stay in the GOP. I do not believe there is anything wrong in saying that. Why do we want people in our party who do not believe like us? That does not make us bad people, we are not saying they can’t vote or join a party, just not join ours. Why would you want to be a member of the New Whig Party if you have different ideas then us? The Pope does not make Protestants or Jews Cardinals, that would not make sense and no one seems to have a problem with it. But if we don’t want pro-choice people in our party than we become closed minded and wrong.<br /><br />I have considered myself a Republican as long as I can remember, and it is not easy to leave my party, but our current third party system is the longest one in American History and needs a change. I am sure the first two American party systems—the Federalists and Anti-Federalist, or the Whigs and Democrats never thought their parties would die either. Yet they did and for the better, a new parties would always grown out of the old. I think it is time for the fourth American party system, the socialists and the Whigs. The Republicans and Democrats will not agree, but lets not ask them. We are a government of the people, not parties and I think the parties have forgotten that point. Unfortunately parties are a way of life, but we can take back the parties and make them represent us, they should fit our needs not us fit theirs.<br /><br />This will not be easy, but lets give it a shot. Start talking to your friends and see if we cannot get a grass roots movement. If we can get enough buzz for the right kind of change then we can try taking the next step.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-37262738421845768082009-03-26T09:22:00.003-05:002009-03-26T09:27:16.810-05:00Are people just getting dumberI had two funny things happen today in class while I was giving an exam, I thought I would share. One students came up to me after we handed out the test. She asked if she could give her test back and study a bit more and then start the test over. In the same class I had a student come up with a question about one of the questions. He said he was not in class the day we talked about the Constitution and so wanted me to give him help to answer the question. I guess if you don't ask you never know. But come on, are people just getting dumber.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-397915729131988382009-03-19T11:48:00.005-05:002009-03-19T21:56:20.013-05:00Remember Goliad<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4O45qkdI/AAAAAAAABT8/ZQM9mom9OT8/s1600-h/Goliad-Fannin+Memoral+2.JPG"></a><div></div><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4O5hwvFI/AAAAAAAABT0/80mp1cxo-Io/s1600-h/Goliad-Fannin+Memoral+2+(2).JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314942707606535250" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4O5hwvFI/AAAAAAAABT0/80mp1cxo-Io/s320/Goliad-Fannin+Memoral+2+(2).JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><br /></div><div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Kids at Fannin Memorial</div><div></div><div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BS-xz7I/AAAAAAAABTs/s_PmErkWAVA/s1600-h/Goliad-Fannin+Memoral.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314942473920958386" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BS-xz7I/AAAAAAAABTs/s_PmErkWAVA/s320/Goliad-Fannin+Memoral.JPG" border="0" /></a></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><br /><br /><br /></div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div>Fannin Memorial<br /><div></div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BY8g3WI/AAAAAAAABTk/hUEciwQE1go/s1600-h/Goliad+Precido+2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314942475522071906" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BY8g3WI/AAAAAAAABTk/hUEciwQE1go/s320/Goliad+Precido+2.JPG" border="0" /></a></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Church inside the Presidio La Bahia</div><div></div><div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BahTnjI/AAAAAAAABTc/wgB8RToEfYQ/s1600-h/Goliad+Precido.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314942475944828466" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BahTnjI/AAAAAAAABTc/wgB8RToEfYQ/s320/Goliad+Precido.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>KIds inside the Presidio La Bahia</div><div><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BHU0ZAI/AAAAAAAABTU/CbOAHs0aEFo/s1600-h/Goliad+Battlefield+monument+(2).JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314942470792176642" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4BHU0ZAI/AAAAAAAABTU/CbOAHs0aEFo/s320/Goliad+Battlefield+monument+(2).JPG" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Kids at The Battle of Coleto Memorial</div><div></div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4AiZv4cI/AAAAAAAABTM/duBT2PTfwrg/s1600-h/Goliad+Battlefield+Monument.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5314942460880740802" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 240px" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xjONc8b1pVw/ScJ4AiZv4cI/AAAAAAAABTM/duBT2PTfwrg/s320/Goliad+Battlefield+Monument.JPG" border="0" /></a>Being that it is spring break the family decided to go camping. I love camping and so does my oldest, but this was the first time for my youngest who is 19 months. We have been putting if off for a while, but decided we needed to get out. There is much more of our trip on my wife’s page, what I wanted to talk about was where we went.<br /><br />Three hours northeast of us is Goliad, TX an important spot when it comes to the history of Texas’s independence. When the Texas troops beat the army of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto they yelled Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad. However, most have seemed to forget the Goliad part. In 1836 when the Texans decided to break away from Mexican control two armies were formed, one at San Antonio under command of Lt Col William Travis. This group used a small church known as the Alamo as their headquarters. The other group took the more important position at Goliad under the command of Col James Walker Fannin. What made Goliad so important was the Presidio La Bahia, the only real fortification in Texas.<br /><br />When the Mexican dictator, General Santa Anna, decided to quail the rebellion in Texas he marched his forces up to San Antonio to deal with Travis. At the same time to protect his flank he sent General Jose Urrea up the coast of Texas to Goliad. Santa Anna arrived first, and most know that story. Not only was Travis defeated, but all his men including Davy Crocket and Jim Bowie. The story of the Alamo is an amazing one and deserves its place in American history, but I believe having celebrities die like Crocket and Bowie have made it so big that it has kidnapped the story of Texas and left the story of Goliad untold. When Travis sent for help when he realized his position was impossible, the main person he was hoping would come was Fannin. Fannin did leave the safety of the Presidio La Bahia and began the march towards the Alamo, but his poor planning made them leave late and shortly after they began the march they received news that the Alamo had fallen and that a large Mexican force was marching towards them. Fannin brought his men back to Goliad. With a large Mexican force arriving, Fannin sent out a detachment to assist settlers fleeing out of General Urrea’s path. When the first detachment did not return he sent out a second. What Fannin did not know was that both detachments had been captured and that all who surrendered where executed. On March 14th Fannin received word from the new supreme Texas commander Sam Houston that Goliad was isolated without the Alamo and that he and his men should burn the Presidio and fall back and join Houston. Fannin, not knowing the fate of his two detachments, waited for their return a little too long. He also, once again had logistical problems with leaving.<br /><br />When Fannin and his 350 men did leave, Urrea was only two hours behind them. When Urrea’s Calvary caught up with Fannin at Coleto Creek, Fannin decided to fight. The Texas army fought well and bravely all day against increasingly larger odds. The Texans knew they could break through the Mexican lines that night, but also knew they would have to leave their wounded, including Fannin. With a determination to stay and fight, the Texans began the next morning, but quickly realized that the Mexican reinforcements brought up over night were too large and that they were surrounded. The Texans asked for a parley and were given generous terms of surrender by Urrea, but reminded that the ultimate decision was up to Santa Anna. The Texans were promised to be treated as prisoners of war, medical care to their wounded, and eventual release to the U.S.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Fannin and his men, Santa Anna was not in a giving mood. Santa Anna order Urrea to execute all the surviving men. On Palm Sunday, 4 days from today, General Urrea marched the Texas out of their encampment in three separate groups in different directions and had his men shoot them down. Around 40 men were left and executed one by one at the Presidio, with Fannin being the last to die. In the end around 340 Texas soldier were massacred, adding to the legend of the brutality of Santa Anna. How this story is not more known I do not know. Again the story of the Alamo is inspirational, but 340 men surrendering, believing to be treated as prisoners is devastating. This story was not lost on the men who defeated Santa Anna’s army when they charged yelling Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad. We have all remembered the Alamo, unfortunately we have forgotten Goliad.<br /><br />My family and I had a great few days camping out, but what made it most memorable was visiting those historic places that helped shaped the story of Texas and his nation.</div><br /><br /><div></div></div></div></div></div>The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-71612453840920647072009-03-11T14:29:00.004-05:002009-03-11T17:12:54.138-05:00What can the Great Depression tell us about todayI had an interesting discussion today about possible social consequences of the current economic times. In class we are discussing the Great Depression and all the hardships that went along with it. I always like to look at culture during any time period, because I believe culture is influenced by the social and political events . What we see during the Depression is a major conservative backlash against the liberalism of the 1920s. The roaring 20s was a decade of decadence and a laxing of rules, but as the economy fell so did moral decay. This was clearly visible in Hollywood where they forced to censure their own work. The famous example of the shock of movie goers is at the famous line in Gone with the Wind, “I don’t give a damn.” Audiences were angered by swearing on film, something they could have gotten away with in the 20s. Another Hollywood example was the actress Hedy Lamarr who at a young age made the German film <em>Exstase</em> in which she appeard completely nude. The movie was a hit in Europe and won awards, but was completely banned in America.<br /><br />The question I was asked in class was if we continue to slip into a depression will we have a conservative backlash? My answer is I do not know, but looking at history tells me yes. There has been a constant flow between liberalism and conservatism over the past hundred years and the reasons for those changes are all different. The 1920s was a very liberal period, followed by a very socially conservative decade of the 1930s. The 1950s was very socially conservative but then the 1960s and 70s were extremely liberal. The 1980s were conservative, while the past 10 years we have been moving closer to Sodom and Gomorra. Note that I sometimes said socially conservative, because in the 1930s they were socially conservative , but FDR and his politics were anything but.<br /><br />It seems like cosmic forces makes sure we never get too far one way or the other. As a Christian I have to wonder what role God plays in all this. I am not one to make the claim that God created the Depression or our recession to humble us, but I am not one to say that he did not either.<br />If we do follow a similar pattern as the great depression, it could be good news for some Democrats. The liberal policies were very popular in the 30s. Though the people were conservative, many were economically liberal. With Obama throwing around money and playing to the sympathies of the people, if the recession continues or get worse, he may make another four years if he could convince the people he tried. FDR did not fix the depression and easily won reelection, twice. People were happy that he tried. Other Democrats like Pelosi will not be as happy. If the trend that I see follows, then most of the new Democrats elected will be conservative Democrats socially. They will want to help the poor but not throw all social values to the wind. These are the kind of the Democrats that will be elected during a depression. And so even though the Democrats may be able to keep the power, it would be a socially conservative Democratic party, which will allow Republicans to go even more conservative.<br /><br />As a historian I do believe we can predict trends from looking at the past. And from studying the Great Depression I predict that if the economy gets worst, we will become more conservative socially, but not economically and if the Democratic party can understand that they can win many more elections. If however their power base of old line liberals fight it, they could find themselves out of power.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2333982968243186185.post-14649303602278015282009-03-03T17:21:00.001-06:002009-03-03T17:24:11.699-06:00The Hip-Hop GOPI worry about the future of the Republican Party; I worry so much I am finding it hard to call myself a Republican. I felt this way during the primaries last year as McCain was able to beat the two conservative candidates and capture the nomination. But what I saw two nights ago I found even more disturbing. There were two different interviews being conducted at the same time, one on Fox news with Mike Huckabee interviewing Russell Simmons (founder of Def Jam Records) and on CNN with D.L. Hugely interviewing the new RNC chairman Michael Steele. Both parts of the interview that I saw were about the same subject, how Republicans need to bring hip-hop into the party. I believe there is nothing further from the truth. I have not seen the interview yet, but I believe that Rush Limbaugh and Steele even got into an argument over a similar argument. I do not always agree with Limbaugh, but I completely do on this subject. I have hated watching the Republican Party feel like they need to move away from their roots to capture future voters.<br /><br /> I believe moving away from what we believe will be the downfall of the party. Republicans controlled the white house for 32 of the past 44 years. They did it by standing for something better and attracting people towards them. If we lessen our principles to bring in new voters, or change our beliefs to fit current fads, we will lose many of the voters we already have. I know everyone is concerned that the GOP is too old and needs to attract younger voters, but it is impossible to mix conservative values with hip-hop. The two ideas are at polar opposites. Hip-hop is about being gangster and respecting no one but thugs. If you watch the videos and listen to the music they celebrate violence, drugs, and a pimp attitude towards women. I know rock-n-roll was seen as sex and drugs in its early years, but that is a far cry from a song I heard in the gym a few months ago where the singer was asking “where are my F**king N***ers at”, or how we need to slap a ho. The attitude of conservatives and the attitude of hip-hop can never truly blend. If the Republican Party wants in any way to go hip-hop, it will no longer be the party for me and other conservatives. <br /><br />I have talked about this before, but the current GOP got its start by courting what became known as the silent majority. In the 60s they were the ones who did not make a lot of noise, but turned out to vote. I believe the silent majority is still out there today. We do not hear from them because they are busy going about their daily lives, working and taking care of their families. There are plenty that still believe in traditional family values and want a party that supports those values. If the GOP tries to incorporate any type of hip-hop than we are not giving the silent majority any alternative to the Democrats. Instead go the other way, don’t be Democrats light, be conservatives. Why would anyone vote for Democrats light (like McCain) when you can vote for the real thing, a real Democrat? The Republicans need to be conservative. They need real conservatives to stand up and take the leadership. <br /><br />In the late 1900s, it is difficult to distinguish the differences between the Democrat and Republican parties. It took a third party, the Populists, to shake things up. The Populists stood for something completely different from the main two parties. Only after the success of the Populists did the Democrats, who had not won an election in years, change their political philosophy to capture voters. I wrote about the 1896 election back in November if you want to read more about it <a href="http://jamesfinck.blogspot.com/2008/10/top-five-most-important-elections-3.html">here</a>. I am not sure, but if the GOP keeps trying to move close to the Democrats, something like a new Conservative party may need to rise up. The Liberation party has the feel of the old Populists party. A small grass roots movement and over time had real followers. I do not agree with the principles of the Liberation party, just like most could not get behind the radical stance of the Populists, but when the Populists and Democrats merged, the Democrats took some of the good ideas and dropped the radical ones. We still have time to save the GOP, but if they keep going astray from conservative values, a fusion with the Liberations may be the only hope of victory in the future.<br /><br />In the end I believe the GOP needs to stand for its traditional values and not try to change itself to incorporate any new hip-hop values. I believe even many of the young will come to appreciate and respect these values. We should not change to meet new electors, but sway those electors that what we believe is correct.The Finck Fivehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956103982226476536noreply@blogger.com1