Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about.

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.

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.

 

Two sports-takes that probably no one cares about. 

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.

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.

Political Trends

 

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^th or 21^st 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

 

Hadestown

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 Streetcar. The style of the music is a perfect accompaniment to the setting with  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.

I would say Hadestown was music driven, especially the first act, the way a play like Phantom is where the music is stronger than the story. The opposite is a play like Come from Away 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.

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.

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.

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:

“Hey, little songbird, let me guess:
He's some kind of poet and he's penniless?
Give him your hand, he'll give you his hand-to-mouth
He'll write you a poem when the power's out
Hey, why not fly south for the winter?

Hey, little songbird, look all around you
See how the vipers and vultures surround you
They'll take you down, they'll pick you clean
If you stick around such a desperate scene
See, people get mean when the chips are down”

 

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.

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.

 

Savasbeatie.com

Dear readers

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.

I would appreciate your support of both my publisher and my book if you would kindly visit www.savasbeatie.com 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.

Thanks for your support!

James Finck

Chapter 1 Excerpt from Divided Loyalties

Chapter 1: Kentucky’s Political System: 1840 to 1860

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.1

1 Avery Craven, The Coming of the Civil War (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957),
391, 417; David Potter, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper & Row Publishers,
1976), 336-339.

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 1860.2

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.3

With families owning fewer slaves but more families owning them, slavery
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.

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
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 3 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.4

2 For the history of slavery in Kentucky, see Harold Tallant, Evil Necessity: Slavery and Political
Culture in Antebellum Kentucky (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2003); Lowell H.
Harrison, The Civil War in Kentucky (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1975), 1;
Lowell H. Harrison and James C. Klotter, A New History of Kentucky (Lexington: University
Press of Kentucky, 1997), 167-168; William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at
Bay, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 2:132, 199.
3 Harrison, Civil War in Kentucky, 1; Barbara Fields, Freedom: A Documentary History of
Emancipation 1861-1867, Series I, 9 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 1:
493-194; Harrison and Klotter, A New History of Kentucky, 167-168.
4 Louisville Daily Journal, October 8, 1860; John J. Crittenden, The Union, the Constitution, and the
laws: speech of the Hon. John J. Crittenden, at Mozart Hall, on the evening of August 2d, 1860 (Louisville:
Bradley & Gilbert, 1860), 6.

Interview for Divided Loyalities

An Interview with James Finck, author of Divided Loyalties: Kentucky’s Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the Civil War.

An in-depth study of the twelve months that decided Kentucky’s fate (November 1860 – November 1861), Divided Loyalties 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.

SB: Why did you decide to write Divided Loyalties on this particular topic?

JF: 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.

SB: What makes Divided Loyalties different from other books written about Kentucky in the Civil War?

JF: 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.

SB: What kind of content can readers expect to find in Divided Loyalties?

JF: 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.

SB: What are some features of Divided Loyalties that you think readers will really enjoy?

JF: 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.

SB: Why would readers not from Kentucky want to read Divided Loyalties?

JF: 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.

SB: Would Divided Loyalties benefit researchers who wanted to know more about the state?

JF: 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.

SB: Are there any new ideas about the secession movement that you found?

JF: 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.

SB: Thank you for your time, we appreciate it.

JF: You’re welcome.

(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.)

New Cover

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.

Divided Loyalities

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.  The title of the book is Divided Loyalties: Kentu cky's Struggle for Armed Neutrality in the  Civil War.  


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 here.

Exciting Book News

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.

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 http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/. 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.

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.

My New School

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Few Comments About bin Laden Death and Obama's Speech

I 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.

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:

“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.”

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.

The President continued, “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.” Here he seems to be giving a nod to President Bush but in the next paragraph said,

“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.”

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.

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

“I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”


“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”


“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation”


“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation”


“Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.”


“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.”

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.

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 speech

Book Review-Team of Rivals

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.




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)



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.

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.

I'm Back

Not 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.

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.

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

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.

Welcome Home Lt. Ellis

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 here. 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.

Book Review-Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Obama's problem with Iran

I 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 here 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.

Carter-America is racist

Well 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.

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.

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.

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 Story of Obama's New Clothes and Socialism

It 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.