Joseph Ellis

Joseph Ellis is one of my favorite historians.  He taught at Mt. Holyoke, but arrived after I graduated from Amherst.  (MHC is about 10 miles south, on Rte. 116, from AC.  Rte. 116 borders both campuses.)  He has written brilliant biographies/histories of the Founding Fathers:  Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and some general, but period specific books.  I've read most of his books and enjoyed each of them, learning a lot.  If you've not read anything by Ellis, try Founding Brothers to start.  I suspect you won't stop at that one.

I also remember a lesson I learned from him, not directly, some years ago.  He was sitting on a panel of historians.  One of the others made a point and Ellis stopped, thought a few seconds, and said, "I didn't know that."  What a lesson that was for me!  Joseph Ellis admitting he didn't know something about early US history--and he knows everything about early US history.  I have remembered that or at least tried to remember it.

Ellis has a new book out, which I'll have to buy.  (Maybe that will be on my very short Christmas or birthday list!)  It's an attempt to examine what Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison (all Founders and Superstars!) would think of the divisive  issues of today.  (Please pronounce divisive's second syllable with a long, not a short i, as in "duh vy siv."  I know, I know......)  It's an interesting concept and use of history, one that helps to explain why it is important to study.  Yet, the high regard I have for Ellis hasn't precluded me from taking exception to or at least questioning some of the ideas in his book, ones he presented in an interview.

He claimed our current problem/issue with divisiveness stems from how the US has grown.  "It's a size problem."  He cited the original population of the US (three to four million) vs that of today (325 million) and trying to do something original, something that has never been done (or even attempted) before, to "create a fully and genuinely multiracial society in a huge nation."  Well, maybe.  I'm not sure what he meant by "multi-racial" and, besides, I thought we were aiming for a post-racial society.  That is, shouldn't the goal be to get beyond race, where it doesn't matter any more?  Perhaps that is what he meant and I misinterpreted his comment--perhaps.  

I think he left out something, an important factor in our current divisiveness--technology.  It has exacerbated (I had to use that word; how often do I get to use it?) the problem.  Without a long treatise on it, think "social media" and how it has opened many forums for even the most dreadful of ideas, often ones that, because they are in print/online, are taken as legitimate by millions of people.  "I saw it online" or "I found it on the Internet."

In discussing the Founders, he cited that "We the People" didn't refer to blacks, Native Americans, and women.  Of course he is right.  But then he added that is going to "disappoint" Americans.  Maybe not.  The Founders were brilliant.  Look what they created, with no model from which to work, to emulate!  Of course, they weren't "our better angels."  They were humans and, despite their foresight, products of their times.  Also, they were compelled to compromise to achieve much of what they did.  Maybe today we are sophisticated to recognize that.

"The Electoral College has got to go," Ellis said.  He noted that the Founders would want us to see our Constitutional system as something organic, that we "have to make adaptations."  Of course we do.  How very different the late 18th Century was from today!  Could the most brilliant and far-sighted of the Founders, say Franklin, Jefferson, or Dickinson, have contemplated automobiles, jet airplanes, the Internet, etc.?  Surely not.  The Electrical College [sic] was created for a purpose and I think that it still serves that purpose.  One might disagree with it, but care must really be taken before we might make it "go," with a Constitutional amendment.  Methinks Ellis's problem with the Electrical College is that his candidates lost in 2000 and 2016.

He missed a point, a big one, in claiming reasons for Americans' distrust in their government.  In the '60s, 80% of us "trusted" our government, namely the federal government.  That changed within a couple of decades, a distrust still holding today, perhaps as great as ever.  Fewer than 20% of us now trust our government to do the right thing(s).  Correctly, I think, Ellis cited the deviousness and lies surrounding the Vietnam War.  But then he also claimed that the civil rights movement "alienated whites in the Confederacy" (a poor choice of words) and that Roe v Wade "alienates all evangelicals."  NO!  NO!  NO!  He omits an important factor or two.  

First, he didn't make the connection between the falling degree of trust  and the growing size of government.  "Big Government," the one that ordered, deliberately, the poisoning of American citizens during Prohibition, is seen as an enemy by many Americans, especially those in the middle and lower middle classes.  Second, if the civil rights movement "alienated" people, it wasn't just Southerners in "the Confederacy."  And it wasn't the civil rights movement, per se, not in the long run.  (The civil rights movement was a great episode in US history.  People like Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks--"Rosa, you know they'll kill you," pleaded her husband--and others showed remarkable courage.)  It was what emanated from the movement.  One example is affirmative action, necessary to some, but resentful to many, especially white males.  

I think Ellis, in his answers to the interview questions, revealed a little of the arrogance of liberal academics described by David Gelernter.  Note his use of "the Confederacy" and "the evangelicals," deplorables all.  Such use sure seems a derogation.

I'd love to have a discussion with Ellis about this.  First though, I should read his book, which I plan do do.  I'm very certain I would learn a lot from him.

Hold on to your seats!  I'm going to take a hard left (or right, it doesn't matter; it's not political) turn now.  Late last week, I think as an introduction to one radio talk show or another, I don't recall which one, I heard something really, really cool.  It was a symphonic version of Eric Clapton's Layla.  I was very impressed.  It sounded great!  Then a few days later there was the Stones' Paint It Black, symphony-style, with strings and horns and all!  I'll have to look online to see if there are CDs of such hits played by symphonies.  There must be.  Remember Procol Harem and Conquistador with the Edmonton (Canada) Symphony?

Why They Hate Trump?

I was sent an online article, "The Real Reason They Hate Trump."  The author, David Gelernter is a computer science professor at Yale.  That he's quite the conservative makes me wonder how he's still at Yale?  (Remember the law school there canceled classes so students could protest Brett Kavanaugh.  Whatever happened to students protesting on their own time?)   I've heard him on the radio and read some other things by him.  He's one intelligent man, very smart.

I agreed with much of his article, but not all of it.  In fact, maybe my dissents aren't really disagreements at all.  He points to the arrogance of those to "hate Trump," citing many "leftists," "Democrats," the lamestream media, most academics, etc.  It's not hard to guess those he singles out.

And he points to their arrogant elitism, that they, more than any others in the US, know what's best for everyone.  Surely they know what's best for the "unwashed masses," the "deplorables," far better than they know themselves.  Gelernter then makes a case that Trump is detested by all of these arrogant elitists because he's one of them, one of the "unwashed masses."  Trump is one of them, a "deplorable," only an exaggerated one due to his wealth.  He has "no constraints to cramp his style" because "he is filthy rich."  But Trump is not, as Gelernter asserts, "a typical American," not by a long shot.  If he is, I think we are doomed, rather sooner than later.

In large part, I think Gelernter is right.  But I think the elitists of the left (and for that matter many Establishment Republicans who exhibit their own brand of arrogance) "hate Trump" not because he's Trump per se, but because the "deplorables," the "great unwashed" elected him instead of their hand-picked candidate.  Had, say, Mitt Romney been nominated again to run against H. Clinton and won, does anyone think there would be such opprobrium against Romney--or any other Establishment Republican?  Oh, they wouldn't have liked the outcome, but the vituperation would have been absent.

Taking a theme I was writing two years ago, right after Trump was elected, I don't think the hatred is really about him.  Oh, he's an easy person to dislike, even hate.  He's crude and coarse.  He treats many people, especially women, shamefully.  He's never learned that humility is a good quality to possess.  I've said in the past that I don't like Trump, would never vote for him, although I guess I can tolerate him.  Let's put it this way:  I won't give back my tax cut.  (As I wrote two years ago, I don't know if I would have been equally or more distressed and dispirited had Hillary Clinton won.)  But I understand why so many people did and it's not, as the self-anointed American intelligentsia claim.  The elitists still, apparently, don't recognize the reason(s).  The "average Americans" that Gelernter cites (and Trump is not one of them) finally were sick and tired of being dumped on or, at the very least, their perceptions that they were being dumped on.  The government, in their views, helped the poor and, if needed, the rich (or at least gave them breaks in the game).  But those in the middle, the "average Americans," perceived that their government was there for everyone but them.  They were sick and tired of it and of the Establishment candidates who were always presented to them--candidates who didn't speak for them, didn't represent them, and didn't do anything for them.  We might argue whether this perception was, in fact, true, but perception is reality and that's what the Average Joe believed.

Regardless if Trump is one the "deplorables," the elitists resent Trump because of who elected him.  And as I noted above, maybe this is a difference without a distinction.

Gelernter also raises other insightful points.  I'd certainly agree that, if the Democrats are "intellectually bankrupt," (which is different, I think than "intellectually dishonest"), so are the Establishment Republicans.  That I think so is hardly a ringing endorsement of Republicans.  He writes , "Americans, left and right, are ashamed of [Trump]" for his treatment of women, adding "as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton."  Are Americans really ashamed of "St. John?"  I hardly think so.  Most "average Americans" still think Kennedy was a great President, despite a preponderance of  evidence to the contrary.  (In discussing this, "great Presidents," with my classes, I address this.  Kennedy has his admirers.  In the end, when I ask for evidence to support "great," I get little, if any.  "So," I ask them without trying to be morbid, "Kennedy is 'great' because he was assassinated?"  Sometimes I ask further, "Does that also make Garfield and McKinley 'great?'"  OK, that's not a fair question as many/most students, college students, never heard of either.)  Ashamed of JFK?  I don't think so.  And are they ashamed of Clinton?  That's laughable.  Although he might not be "St. Bill," even in the midst of the Lewinski affair, Americans were overwhelmingly in his corner.  "Leave him alone," one Average American told me, "the economy is good."  Do Americans give people they are ashamed of hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak?  Do they invite him to endorse candidates?  (Shouldn't the endorsement of such a shameful person be reason enough not to vote for a candidate?)

One other point Gelernter makes that I think is well worth considering.  Many people who hate Trump are proud of it.  Yes, it's a point of pride to hate!  It seems that, in many circles, to be accepted, to be cool, one must hate Trump.  Think about that for a while.  I'm not sure that. as Gelernter claims, the typical "Trump-hater truly does hate the Average American...[and] America, too."  But those elitists do believe they are smarter and believe that in an arrogant manner.  They certainly would take exception with Gerlernter's last important insight, that "this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all--by plain citizens."  Tell that one to an elitist!  "...amateurs" and "plain citizens," indeed!  Don't you mean "the great unwashed" and "the deplorables?"

Forgive any typos and other errors.  I'm too tired (lazy?) tonight to proofread.

Hidden Taxes?

The Democrat candidate for Michigan governor has repeated this.  The condition of the roads which leads us to pay for auto repairs is, she said, a "Republican road tax."  (And, yes, we've had blown tires and damaged rims, too.)  Maybe.  Maybe not.

I wonder if she considers the huge increases in my health insurance premiums, along with the higher co-pays and deductibles, to be a "Democrat health care tax."  After all, Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote in Congress.  So, obviously, the Democrats own it.  "Republican road tax?"  "Democrat health care tax?"  I know, I know.  "But that's different."

Relative to Michigan's Proposal 2, which I will vote against, I am reminded of Obama's words.  "Elections have consequences......"  Why, then, is it so wrong for those who win elections to draw up district boundaries?  Isn't that a consequence of winning elections?  I know, I know.  "But that's different."  By the way, do we really need more unaccountable, that is they never have to face voters, bureaucrats making decisions for us?  Haven't we learned our lessons?

Adding to my post of last week about "Free," the freebies and handouts to which many people feel entitled and which many politicians promise in their bids to get elected, was an article I read the other day.  Young folks, ages 19-35, by sizable majorities want those freebies, such as free health insurance and free college education.  I guess nobody should be surprised.  I wonder if, though, all those young folks realize that none of the freebies are really free.

I tried, I really did.  I turned on the Detroit Lions game this afternoon.  I told Karen I was going to just "veg out" and watch the game.  The game remained on the boob tube for its entirety.  I'll estimate that I watched, at most, 11 or 12 plays.  It just held no interest for me.  I know a lot of people live and die with professional sports.  I don't happen to be one of them.  And I didn't watch a single down of either MSU or UM yesterday.  I did mange to catch the last quarter of the Amherst game on my computer.  There were technical difficulties and I couldn't watch the first part of the game.  I'm sure all will be happy (at least I am!) that the Lord Jeffs held off the Jumbos, 19-13, and are now 7-0 with two games to go.  The Purple Cows come to Amherst in two weeks.

I just finished The Switch by Joseph Finder.  It's a thriller and I enjoyed it.  More so, it fed into my fears of Big Government, more and more unrestrained, and what it can do to citizens.  Another book I read a few weeks ago had these gems:  "How can one plan a book about lying without including politicians?"  and  "How [are we] to distinguish between the politician who is lying and the one who is just stupid?"  Of course, despite the punctuation, they are more statements than they are questions.

If you are looking for a good book, try Nelson De Mille's Gold Coast.  One reviewer called it an updated Great Gatsby.  I wouldn't go that far, but I really enjoyed it.  The characters were sound, both flawed and heroic, and the writing was very good.  De Mille even managed, like Mario Puzo in The Godfather, to turn a Mafia boss into a sympathetic character!  What to read next?  I think I'll catch up on a pile of magazines I've not yet opened.

OK, I have to get this off my chest.  I gave midterm exams in all of my classes last week.  In one of my Michigan history courses, two students misspelled "Michigan," multiple times and all misspelled the same way(s).  Plus, "Michigan" was splattered all over the exam itself, from a title to individual questions.  I was tempted to just put a big F on the papers.  Some years ago, I questioned an elementary teacher about why spelling isn't taught in the lower grades any longer.  Back when, it was part of every academic day, grades one through six, with spelling textbooks, etc.  Anyway, this elementary teacher said the theory was students "would catch on to spelling eventually."  Well, many of them obviously didn't.  Who could possibly think that?  (Well, I know who, but......)  If spelling doesn't count, isn't emphasized, why would students care about it?  Again obviously many of them didn't and don't.  It's like no longer requiring things like math flash cards and tables--addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.  I was reminded of that during my last stop at McDonald's.  I paid my $2.59 with 7 quarters, 6 dimes, 4 nickels, and 4 pennies.  It took the guy about five minutes to count the change.  I even wondered if he just finally gave up and put the coins in their proper tills.  His calculator didn't help him much that night, did it?  Still, nobody listens to me about the schools.

"Free!"

I wrote this one back in August, but apparently forgot to "publish" it.

Who can resist "Free?"  What's not to like about getting free things?  "You mean, I don't have to pay for them?"  Nope.  But somebody else does, often involuntarily.

A few weeks ago I upset some people when I said during a conversation, "I don't think I could vote for a Democrat, any Democrat."  After a brief hesitation, I added, "At least not until Democrats change their values."  Of course, those who know me also know I have a hard time voting for many Republicans, those of the Establishment variety.  And I usually don't.  But, for today, back to the Democrats.

I read some of the profiles of the Democratic candidates for governor in Michigan.  One word that kept jumping out at me was "free."  "Free" was all over the place.  Each one promised free this and free that, from community college education and child care to job training and health care.  Maybe I exaggerate the "free" stuff, but I don't think by much.

The problem is nothing is "free."  Someone pays for it.  I suppose if it's the next guy, we don't care--as long as it's not us.  We should be able to spend our money the way we want.  The other guy?  Well, we, not him, should be able to determine how he spends his money through taxes and fees.

"Free" must be a tactic to win votes.  Several candidates for the US House and state legislature are also running on "free" this and "free" that.  Sooner or later maybe I'll ask, "Where do I sign up?"

I had to laugh.  A few weeks ago, when I was doing some necessary driving, gasoline prices were well above $3.00.  I think when I filled up the tank then, I paid $3.19 a gallon.  I haven't needed gas and noticed a couple of stations with lower prices, down to $2.79.  I'm getting close to an empty tank again and, just today, driving past two stations 10 miles miles apart, the price was back up to $3.09.  We have a running joke, call me to find out when to buy gas.  Don't buy it when I do.  Wait a while, after I fill up.  Inevitably the price will decrease.

That is like red lights at traffic signals.  I am always stopped, well, it seems like always.  The joke is, even if I'm a passenger in the front seat, the lights see me and turn to red.  This AM, I had a short drive, with three traffic signals on the route.  Yep, I was stopped at all three of them.

I have two online weather sites I frequent.  Yeah, I know that's often silly since they are so very often wrong.  A few weeks ago two days called for rain all day, the percentage of likelihood ranging from 70% to 100%.  It rained neither day.  But I like to check, maybe a day in advance, to see about my plans for running, biking, tossing BP, etc.  Today was one of those funny days.  Yesterday, both sites called for "Thunderstorms," with a likelihood of 100% most of the morning and early afternoon.  This AM, one was calling for 100%while the other was down to 20-35%.  By late afternoon, both were down to about 10%.  Good!  We can go out for some BP.  Not so fast there, Bozo.  About ten minutes before we were to leave, it started to rain.  Sometimes it's just funny.

Autumn 2018

At this time of the year, especially this year, I am reminded of the Sumerian legend that sought to explain the comings and goings of the four seasons.  Ishtar, the goddess of fertility among other things, loses her husband, Tammuz, each fall.  To resurrect her deceased Tammuz, Ishtar bribes the other gods, ransoming the beauty of the land.  This is winter.  In the spring, Tammuz is reborn and the summer represents the renewed enjoyment of life between Ishtar and her husband.  In a way, that's how we characterize the seasons.

I wrote "especially this year."  I really enjoy riding my bike.  I'm purely a recreational rider, nothing fast and nothing particularly long.  This summer I'd guess my longest ride was 15-16 miles or so, but most were between 6 and 12 miles.  Regardless, I like my summer rides.  This autumn, like Ishtar, I am saddened.  Due to, mostly, the weather, but also my schedule, I've cut back on riding far too soon.

Karen claims that here in Michigan, "We don't have spring any more.  We go right from winter to summer."  Although not precisely true, it does seem we get the 20- and 30-degree days, with snow, followed by only a few weeks of more moderate temperatures, and then the 80-degrees hit us.  I think in mid-April, after Karen returned from a week in Florida, we had a snowstorm; 5-6 inches were dumped on us.  Within weeks, if I recall, we were experiencing mid- and upper-80 degree days, with high humidity.  I think our first summer baseball game was played in 90 degrees with stifling humididity.

Two weeks ago from yesterday, Carrie and I ran and it was in the upper 80s.  Since, the temperatures have fallen.  Today's high was forecast to be 52, but so far hasn't come close.  It was 26 degrees when I ran in the dark this AM.  We're stuck at 45 degrees.  Several days on my bike it's been in the 30s.  I dress warmly, but with the constant steady breezes that seem to swirl from all directions, the rides are not comfortable.  A couple of the days I wimped/whimped out and came home after a mile or two.  The cold seemed to penetrate what I think were sufficient layers of clothing.  And the wind took a lot of effort to fight.

I'm going to try to ride as late as I can (last year after Thanksgiving), but I'm not encouraged.  Perhaps I can "ransom the land" and bribe the weather gods into bringing an early (and warm!) spring.

The elections are in two weeks, less actually.  I've had several folks ask (in person and by e-mail) what I thought about them, the candidates and the proposals.  I wrote to them, "I know it's hard to imagine me becoming even more cynical than I already am, but......"

I've stated in previous elections that I refuse to "hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils."  I won't do that.  Evil is evil; bad is bad.  No, I'm not, in essence, giving my vote then to the "other party."  If a party wants my vote, give me candidates worth considering.

We do have one, I think.  Running for the US Senate is John James.  I like much of what I read and hear about him.  He will get my vote, perhaps one of the few mainstream (Democrats or Establishment Republicans) candidates to do so.  Yet, his is an uphill battle, which is a shame.  His opponent, running for her fourth term in the US Senate, should never have been elected in the first place, 18 years ago.  And she's done little to prove worthy of the seat.  But the advantages of incumbency in raising money and name recognition and union support (for the bobble heads who blindly vote for the candidates hand-picked by their union leadership; that includes teachers) are often too much to overcome.

I can't fathom voting for candidates whose proposed policies (at least their political histories) would indicate a return to those eight years of economic malaise in Michigan.  Now that the state's economy is humming, I guess voters don't think about it; the economy isn't an issue.  Having short memories can be very dangerous.

(At the same time, I am very cautious about selling my soul--my vote--to the devil.  Economic issues are very important, but at what cost/expense?  I am reminded of the defense of Mussolini in Italy, "He makes the trains run on time."  He actually didn't and there was a great deal of economic strife, but people believed it.  The buffoon's other serious faults were overlooked because, well, "He makes the trains run on time.")

Each of the proposals in the state bears problems for me; I can't vote for any of them.  Locally, I can't vote for any incumbent school board members, not after they stabbed employees and children in the back on school closings.  (It would be hilarious if not so pathetic.  The rumor is the school board and administration next spring are going to ask for a millage/bond issue to enlarge some of the elementary schools, the ones where the students from the closed school were sent.  So, now, barely a year later, there is overcrowding?  Gee, why close a school in the first place--and then not really close it, but use it for other purposes?  Where are the savings, which by the way were not ever confirmed--$300,00?  a million dollars?)

I have class tonight and I'm off to prepare.  Please overlook/excuse any typos or other errors.

L'Affaire Kavanaugh

It's hard to believe my last post was more than a month ago.  I know I've been pretty busy, with three classes, fall baseball, my physical fitness activities, and other writing.  I've been trying to get in more reading, too, but I haven't been overly successful.  Still, September 4?

Yesterday Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by two votes in the US Senate to become the 114th justice to serve.  (If I recall correctly, only Frank Murphy has come from Michigan!)

Some folks might think (hope) that this will help bring an end to the idiotic partisan bickering.  I am not one of those people.  Both parties have demonstrated again and again how stupid they are, how they are more concerned with themselves than with the health of the US, etc.  Democrats and Republicans each have exhibited behavior, many times, of which they should be very ashamed.  Of course neither party is ever ashamed.  They are never humbled by their idiotic behaviors.  That's because, as I've noted many times in the past, the parties are led by arrogant elitists, who know far better than we do what's best for us.

And the "Me Too" movement, if that's what it's called, continues to do irreparable harm to itself and to women who have been raped and abused.  I do not minimize the crimes of rape and sexual abuse.  Those who know me also know what I'd do, for instance, to some guy who abused my granddaughter.  But to give blanket acceptance to each and every accusation does the movement and real victims no good.  Think, too, about the irreparable harm done to the falsely accused.  Proof is required!

Kavanaugh's accuser (I just never remember her name) claimed in her Senate testimony that she "was nobody'd pawn."  I beg to differ.  I think, wittingly or otherwise, she was a pawn.  And for that matter, I think Kavanaugh was a pawn.

Mostly, I believe this had little to do with Kavanaugh.  It had everything to do with President Trump.  Many people have demonstrated they would go to extremes to "get Trump."  The Kavanaugh candidacy showed those extremes.  I don't know for certain if Kavanaugh did what she claimed.  I do know I don't believe this accuser.  Again, something might well have happened; I am not in the least convinced something did.  Yet, how many people, millions, already had Kavanaugh tried and convicted, with no evidence, no witnesses, no corroboration to the accusations?  All it took was an allegation.

It's not hard to find false accusations.  Again, I'm not minimizing sex crimes, not at all.  Online, start with "Tawana Bradley," "Duke Lacrosse," and work from there.  It appears when it's "He said/She said," "She" is always believed--or that is what many people seem to think. 

I don't think the accusations were important, that Kavanaugh was important.  It could have been anyone Trump nominated.  The point was to prevent confirmation, to prevent a Trump success.  "Get Trump!"  Do anything to stop him!

Those protesters would have a whole lot more credibility with me if they demonstrated against Bill Clinton (or a number of others we all could name).  I don't remember hearing anything from Hillary Clinton on this.  She might have said something and I just didn't hear/see it.  But I can't recall any statements.  Maybe she was too smart to voice an opinion?

History That Never Happened

I've always wanted to teach a course in Historiography.  It would explore the "stuff" of history:  types of sources and their reliability, bias in recording and writing history (and it's not always "bad"), the influence of factors such as geography and personalities, etc.  But that will never happen.  For one reason, what students would take such a course?  For another, I don't want to do the paper work. There's always paper work that is required.   (When the former dean at one of the colleges discovered I was teaching Michigan History at the other college, she asked if I'd teach it there.  I balked, saying, "I don't do paper work."  She must have really wanted the course to be offered; she did the paper work herself and rushed its approval through the administration.  I've taught it every semester since.)

But, if I did teach it I wouldn't have a textbook per se, but, like my Amherst courses in history (and most other courses) we'd use a half dozen or more books.  One might be "History According to the Movies."  Others would be "George v George:  The American Revolution as Seen from Both Sides" and "The Geography Behind History."  Certainly I would include, "History That Never Happened."  It is subtitled, "A Treatise on the Question, What Would Have Happened If?"  When I discuss this book in class, I joke with students, "I have enough trouble getting students to read history that did happen.  How will I get them to read history that didn't happen?"  Regardless, the book offers some really great opportunities for meaningful discussions.

For instance, Winston Churchill was named, even in many American polls in 1999, the "Person-of-the-20th-Century."  I have no quibbles with that, but won't go into right or wrong choice.  But in the early 1930s, Churchill was leaving a play in NYC.  Heading out, he stepped into the street.  But he looked the wrong way for traffic.  (Remember, in Britain they drive on the wrong sides of the roads.)  He was nailed by a car he didn't see.  He was injured severely, vertebrae broken, pelvis shattered, and other fractures.  He almost died.  OK then, what if he did die after that accident?  What happens to the Second World War, that is, its outcome?  Many believe he helped forge an Allied victory by sheer dint of his personality.  (Again, I won't go into my views of that, but that's why even in the US he received "Person-of-the-Century.")  If Britain negotiated a peace treaty (likely an unfavorable one from a position of either near defeat or appeasement) with Hitler's Germany, then what?  Where does that leave the rest of Europe, namely the Soviet Onion?  And, after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the US a few days later, what about any US involvement in Europe?  Bases?  Perhaps the US wouldn't have felt a need (pressure from Churchill to divert some US forces from the Pacific and Japan?) to fight at all in Europe?  Does the USSR then fall, making Germany the unquestioned master of Europe and all the evil that would have entailed?

In 1833, Britain abolished slavery in the Empire.  That's 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation and, two years later, the 13th Amendment and Northern victory in the Civil War.  But let's go back to 1775 or so.  What if, both in the colonies and London, cooler heads (such as John Dickinson and Edmund Burke) had prevailed and there'd been no revolt?  Everyone kissed and made up and the colonies continued on as, well, British colonies.  In 1833, the British  abolition of slavery (although it was a gradual emancipation/abolition) in the Empire would have meant the American southern colonies would lose their slaves.  Or would they?  Would they, as they perceived matters 20-some years, resisted and fought to preserve the "peculiar institution?"

Had the southern colonies chosen to go to war with the British over this in 1833, how would the northern colonies have reacted?  Would they have joined their fellow Americans to the South?  If not, would a Southern colonial victory have resulted in an earlier Confederate States of America?   Those who say, "Surely they North wouldn't have aided the South to preserve slavery" ignore some factors.  The abolitionist movement in the North at the time was very fledgling, no Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (since no American government and almost two decades hence), no Uncle Tom's Cabin yet, etc.  And, although gradual emancipation laws were passed in the Northern states earlier, effective abolition didn't come in many of them until the 1840s and "the badge of slavery" existed beyond then.

In the end, some might argue, such mental gymnastics is fruitless, even frivolous.  I don't think so.  In examining what happened and what might have happened "if," we are granted insight into our options and how they might result in different outcomes.