The Right Opinion

Tipping Our Fez to Egypt

By Burt Prelutsky · Dec. 31, 2012

In recent months, there were two presidential elections of historical importance. In Egypt, they had their first ever democratic election for president. It was won by Mohammed Morsi over Ahmed Shafiq.

Here in the United States, we had our 55th presidential election, and re-elected a man who had inherited a bad economy and made it worse; insulted our friends and coddled our enemies; and spent most of his time golfing, throwing parties and taking vacations. As if that wasn’t bad enough, he compounds his sins by insulting Republican congressmen for no better reason than that they’re Republicans and refuse to rubberstamp his fiats.

The reason I bring all this up is to point out the irony that in spite of the fact that Morsi defeated his opponent by 3.4%, whereas Obama only had a 2.8% advantage over Romney, and in spite of the fact that Egyptians are novices at this, when Morsi started behaving like a Pharaoh, the voters stormed the streets of Cairo and reminded him he was just another politician.

Here, Obama wins a squeaker, and immediately starts talking about having a mandate to raise taxes and pass another stimulus bill. And not only is he not talking about cutting spending, but wants to increase it by over a trillion dollars. Playing to his base of college freshmen, welfare recipients and New York Times columnists, he even tries to get away with vilifying those earning over $250,000-a-year as the super-rich. Not since the glory days of Joe Stalin has any national leader played the class card as blatantly as Barack Obama.

The way that Obama incessantly goes about dividing Americans along race, gender, religion, income and political lines, it’s as if he’s trying to incite a second Civil War. It merely highlights how naïve people were when they heard the candidate talk in 2008 about a future in which there would not be a blue America or a red America, but a united America, and believed he actually meant it.

Speaking of the earlier Civil War, I can’t help noticing that there seems to be a renewal of interest in Abe Lincoln lately. He is suddenly the subject of movies, books and TV specials. What confounds me is that he is invariably depicted as a saint. While it’s true that he talked a good game, and it always helps burnish a politician’s reputation to be assassinated, I frankly don’t get it.

For openers, he didn’t wage the war in order to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. And we’ve all lived to see how well that worked out. These days, we’re about as united as the two Koreas.

Not only was Lincoln not out to free the slaves, but he disciplined those generals who tried to liberate them in the four states that did not take part of the rebellion. They were Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland and Missouri.

I have no way of proving it, but I have never believed that the Founding Fathers would have approved of a war that pitted Americans against one another, even in order to preserve the Union they created.

In 1861, there were roughly 31,000,000 people in the U.S., four million of whom were slaves. When the War was over, roughly 700,000 Americans were dead. That doesn’t count the enormous number who had been maimed and mutilated. It is estimated that 10% of the North’s population of men between the ages of 18-29, were killed during those four years; 30% of the South’s.

Imagine comparable numbers today. Imagine a war that left seven million dead, all of them Americans. And yet in spite of those horrific facts, we all have to pretend that the man with all that blood on his hands was our greatest president, the conscience of this nation.

I can only imagine that because he looked like a biblical figure, especially once he grew the beard, and delivered decent, albeit self-serving, speeches, and was finally gunned down by John Wilkes Booth, he has become bigger-than-life, someone, who more closely resembles a legendary figure like Robin Hood, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, than a savvy politician, which is what he was, once you get past the Oz-like curtain.

Getting back to 2012’s most memorable contests, one thing worth noting is that in Egypt’s election, Morsi took 51.7% of the vote and Shafiq, 48.3%. That adds up to a nice, neat 100%. In our election, Obama got 50.6%, while Romney garnered 47.8%. That only adds up to 98.4%. Even all the cheating by Democrats doesn’t quite explain that odd discrepancy.

For me, as frightening as it is to realize that a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless, of the American electorate would vote for a schmuck like Obama, I can at least make sense of it. After all, between those who voted for him because they share his pigmentation, those whose votes were bought and paid for with our tax dollars and those who thought they were voting for Osama bin Laden, it figures he could eke out a victory. But how do you make sense of the nearly two million people who didn’t vote for either him or Romney?

Can you wrap your mind around the fact that those we might refer to as the bottom 1.6%, actually took the trouble of going out to vote for the likes of Gary Johnson (Libertarian), Stewart Alexander (Socialist), Virgil Goode (Constitutionalist) and Ron Paul (Last Hurrah), knowing full well that by doing so, they were actually helping Obama get a second chance to destroy our nation?

But as pathetic and irresponsible as those voters were, especially with the future of America and the Free World hanging in the balance, they are examples of mature and prudent judgment when compared to the 50,000 twits who voted for Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom).

One can only hope that those loons voted by way of absentee ballots, and were not running around loose, the result of somebody’s forgetting to lock the doors at the asylum.


Capt. Call in New Mexico said:

Roseanne Barr?? You've got to be kidding!! Or, are we truly down the drain already?

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Emcee: She got 50,000 votes and she didn't have to stuff the ballot boxes to get them.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming said:

Burt, the events of 1861 through 1865 was not a civil war but a Northern War of Aggression. A civil war is when two or more sides want to take over the government. The southern states only wanted secede as is their Constitutional right. I am still waiting for someone to show me which section of the Constitution says a state can not secede. As for the Emancipation Proclamation it only applied to the states that seceded. Lincoln thought the freed slaves would form a 5th column. Surprise, many joined their states forces. Also if the Emancipation Proclamation applied to the northern states, Lincoln was afraid of a revolt by the white citizens. Do they teach any of this in govmint skools. Maybe we should remove Lincoln from Mt. Rushmore? There is a bust of Lincoln on I-80 between Cheyenne and Laramie, that should be removed also. As for the Lincoln Highway (US 30) through Wyoming I would like to see it renamed the Davis Highway (as in Jefferson Davis). Do they also teach in govmint skools that Davis followed the Constitution much closer than Lincoln? A little piece of history trivia, Sherman built the Union Pacific Railroad through Wyoming. In fact the hill (more like a mountain as it is the highest point on the entire railroad) between Cheyenne and Laramie is named Sherman Hill. Sherman should have been tried as a war criminal because of his March to the Sea through Georgia.

Speaking of Barry, have no fear Boehner and the rest of the RINO's will go along with raising taxes on those making $250K and above. Can someone explain to me if we are all equal, why doesn't everyone pay the same exact amount of income tax? I am also not hanging by my thumbs waiting for a Republican to come out for the repeal of Income Tax Withholding and Estimated Tax. They were put in place by Joe Stalin's best friend FDR to pay for WW-II. It has only been over for 67 years. Say isn't that like the excise tax to pay for the Spanish American War, that only took 100 years to end. Imagine the outcry if everyone had to write a check on April 15. And the great unwashed can no longer say, I don't pay taxes I get money back. I better get off my soapbox before Barry sends the IRS and ATF after me.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 1:12 AM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:

Bravo Howard -- you can come back over to Georgia and help us anytime!

Burt, it is obvious that Obama is not going to cut any spending, and will be happy to take us over "the cliff". With that in mind -- I would be happy for Boehner to call on the President to simply admit that he is aware that the tax increase on the "wealthy" will only fund his government for about 8 days, and that it is purely a punishment for past inequalities.

If Obama would admit his understanding of the real math, and his intent to foment class warfare, then we can give him his economy and watch it hit the skids with his name all over it.

The economy will not survive Obama for 4 years so we may as well let him own it. And yes, America should be ashamed of itself for re-electing this guy.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:45 AM in sc replied:

Burt and Howard,

Happy New Year to you and all the wonderful people who comment on this site.

Howard, I have a question that I have not seen addressed anywhere---what is the status of the Federal Reserve since their 99 year lease ended on December 23, or 21, 2012 ?

I messed up my back again and my computer "time' is limited. However. my Best Wishes to all of you in the screwy year to come.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

SC JO, speaking of the Creature from Jeykll Island, tomorrow is the 100 anniversary of the year of infamy (to borrow a phrase from Joe Stalin's best friend FDR). 1913 gave us the FRB, 16th and 17th Amendments. Also what section of the Constitution authorizes the crooks and/or mental midgets in Washington to give away Congresses power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 to regulate currency to an un-elected board that meets in secret.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Howard: I suspect you mean that everyone should pay income taxes at the same rate, not the same amount. I happen to agree with you. The progressive tax only looks fair to those who pay nothing.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Burt, I mean the same amount and not the same percentage. I want a flat amount and not a flat percentage. This way no 1040 to be filed and what you make is no business of big brother. When people actually see how much the crooks and/or mental midgets are taking there will be a revolt.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Blairblaster3 in Illinois replied:

Your recollection of the facts of the war of northern aggression are spot on. As for Burt's "fears" of another Federal and unconstitutional act of aggression: we already have a tax code that the founders would have and did fight against, that they wield as a mighty weapon against half of us, make us pay into a Ponzi scheme at the threat of jail, keep the black population on the democrat poverty plantation and tell them that its the republicans that "want to put ya'll back in chains', and now they want the UN to be able to take our guns........... and if they do try and forcibly take our guns............. there will most assuredly be a second American Revolution and it will be far worse than the projected 7 million dead- but apparently that's acceptable to the fraud in the WH and his minions in the MSM. And yes Howard, you might want to be careful about what you say and where you say it. We all need to be careful.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 3:49 PM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia replied:

I too am perplexed by the reflexive adulation paid to Lincoln, whose freeing of the slaves was only expediency in the service of his almost fetishistic desire to preserve a Union that no longer desired to be united. He "talked a good game" as far as respecting his countrymen of the South, but he obviously had no respect for their heartfelt desire to go their own way, nor for the Constitution that did not disallow them, and the Declaration of Independence that pointed out the moral righteousness of their choice to do so.

That's not to say that I am not glad the nation was preserved; sometimes good ends can come of poor means, even if they are not justified by those ends. But had Lincoln lived to serve out a post-war term as president, I think history would not be as kind in judging the measures he might have taken.

Like Lincoln, obama speaks of being a "uniter" but unites the nation only by force. Under his "leadership" we are becoming as disunited today as we were then. The secession of some states would have already occurred were today's political dividing lines as geographically distinct as they were 150 years ago.

Only Lincoln's assassination prevented a more clear-headed analysis of his real legacy; similarly, if or when obama is assassinated he will be eternally enshrined in a halo of martyrdom. I am not advocating for that, of course, but should it happen I will not shed a tear. As Booth said, "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Old Desert Rat in Las Vegas, NV said:

No, I can't wrap my mind around the fact that that many people deliberately helped Obamanation be re-elected. But the ones who stayed home did the same thing. I am still mad and even more disgusted. Anybody who voted for Roseanne Barr needs a total mental and physical examination.....provided you can extract their heads from their ....oh never mind.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 1:13 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

ODR: Like you, I am far more upset with Republicans who stayed home on Nov. 6th than I am with the fools who voted for Obama. After all, they had been bought and paid for. It was only fitting that they should have shown their appreciation for free contraceptives, free health insurance, free cell phones and low-rate college loans.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Brian in Newport News said:

"For openers, he didn't wage the war in order to end slavery, but to preserve the Union." Actually Burt, that is not quite true. He provoked the war for... wait for won't believe Yup! When the southern states seceded, they immediately lowered their import tariffs. Guess where foreign countries decided they wanted to send their goods? Not to New York or Boston. There is an excellent book out on the subject and you can even read it for free online:

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 7:47 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Brian: I wasn't really out to deliver a lecture on the Civil War, but to cut Lincoln down to human size. I have grown sick and tired of people trying to pass this professional politician off as a saint in a frock coat.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Ct-Tom in NC said:

Still, the most astounding thing about the election was the fact that so many Republicans (or at least McCain supporters) stayed home. What a bunch of losers! And now they've made us losers, too.

The Barr phenomenon doesn't surprise me. They are the folks who think that The View is thoughtful political analysis.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"The View is thoughtful political analysis."

It isn't? Next thing you'll tell is that pro rassling is fake or obama's claim that he actually cut $1T of spendng in 2011 isn't so. Oh the humanity.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Gunny Carroll in Durham, North Carolina replied:

Kev, you are right on the money.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Ct-Tom: You're right on both counts.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:42 PM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia replied:

...and that John Stewart is a journalist.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Alex Torello in New Haven CT said:

Brian (VA): Thanks for the tip. Since reading Dr. Sowell's excellent piece questioning Lincoln's unquestioned status as America's sainted president, I've been fascinated to read more about this discussion.
Post readers are among the most intelligent and best informed political observers in America...and Burt's readers are the top of THAT pyramid.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Alex: Amen.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Gunny Carroll in Durham, North Carolina replied:

Alex, you are sooooo right on! Good one!

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

I just watched a movie about Lincoln made in 1930 by Cecil B. Demille. What a great proproganda bunch of baloney. No mention of suspension of Habeus Corpeus or the Emancipation Proclamation only freeing slaves in the states that were in rebellion and not in other states that had slaves. It did mention that the State of New York was considering secession because of the conduct of the war. It did not mention the number of people who wanted to let the South go their own way and get the North out of the war. I don't know if the Confederacy could have survived as a Nation but Howard is right about the Constitution not precluding any state from seceding from the Union. Those Republicans who stayed home and didn't bother to vote are just as responsible for Odumbo being re-elected as the idiots who actually voted for him. I wouldn't want one of them to complain to me about Odumbo because I might not be responsible for what would happen next.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Old Sarge: I'm with you. But I'm toting around a Louisville Slugger just in case I run into any of those boneheads.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Gunny Carroll in Durham, North Carolina replied:

This last election was like a kick in the gut. I couldn't agree with you more. The same thing happened when Clinton got elected twice. I can't believe the idiots that voted for Ross Perot, even after he was practically certified a nut, and then they stayed home and allowed him to serve a second term! I've lost confidence in the American Dream. I used to trust the American people to vote the right way. When there was a Democrat president sure to win, we voted a Republican Sentate and House to counteract that and vice versa. Not today. We can't depend on an undereducated, brainwashed citizenry any longer. We MUST do somehting about the education of our children if we are to survive as the country we grew up in.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Fellow CA Conservative in Red Dot, Blue State said:

Burt, You may not be able to prove the founding fathers would not have approved of the Civil War but those guys wrote following and it is all the proof I need. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." As many above have already stated, nothing the founders have ever written suggests that states are not free to leave the Union at will.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Lincoln himself supported a state's right to secede (before he was against it...where have we heard THAT before). In 1847 he stated:

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Fellow: It figures that Bill O'Reilly and Steve Spielberg would both go out of their way to canonize Lincoln in the same year.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:45 PM

JJStryder in Realville said:

I believe the renewed interest in Lincoln is the set up for what is to come in Obamas last term. Lincoln did some things considered unconstitutional but has been praised throught history because the result of the war was a union of slave states. By slaves I mean slaves to the central government. It was the beginning of the end for states rights. And the beginning of the Leviathan central government we all enjoy today.
The acts of Lincoln inoculates Obama from the firestorm of criticism as he continues his fundamental transformation of America. With the help of the ignorant. Goebbels would be a proud pappa. Happy New Year!

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

J.J.: Obama should take note of the fact that things did not end well for either Lincoln or Goebbels, or for Mussolini, Gaddafi or Hussein, come to think of it.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM

L.L. Smith in Savannah, Tn. said:

The Cherry Mansion here in Savannah, Tn. was General Grant's headquarters during the scuffle at Shiloh. He had two slaves as servants at that time.
So much for freedom.
In modern times anyone who committed the murders and destruction of personal property that Sherman did would be tried and hung.
So much for justice.
Those who stayed at home and did not vote and those who voted for anyone who had no chance of willing remind me of the young man who pulled his pistol. His girlfriend asked him what he was going to do. He replied he was going to kill himself. She laughed. He told her she had nothing to laugh about since she was next.
So much for common sense.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

L.L. Interesting about Grant and the slaves. But, then, the war wasn't being fought to free the slaves.

I liked the story about the suicide. Too bad Spengler and Lanza didn't follow his example.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Bob in Hattiesburg, MS said:

Thanks, Burt, for writing the truth about Lincoln. As is said, the victors write the history. And we have been fed the official line since 1865, if not before. While slavery was an issue in the war, the abolition of slavery did not become a Union war aim until mid-way through, and then primarily for political purposes. The Emancipation Proclamation was a farce, not to mention Union attitudes toward freed slaves in the South and free blacks in the North. While slavery is indefensible, the American people have been fed a monstrous distortion for 150+ years. Indeed, Reconstruction itself contributed to the poisonous atmosphere of race relations which endures to this day. However, until Obama came along with his "post-racial" presidency, race relations in the South were better than up North because Southerners were forced to work through the issue in ways they never have up North. Still, we are condescended to by self-righteous Yankee liberals who send their kids to all-white private schools and/or move around in virtually lily-white social circles. I have lived up North. I thank God that I was born a Southerner.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Bob: I have always said the same as you. Slavery was a sin, but America has paid for it over and over again. When you consider how much crime and violence urban blacks are responsible for and how much national treasure has been flushed down the toilet on inner city schools and welfare, it's the worst deal since Russia foolishly sold us Alaska for a few million dollars.

And in the end, what do we have to show for it? A Congressional Black Caucus that's an embarrassment to the nation and 40 million people who vote, about 96% of the time, for any bonehead with a (D) after his name.


Monday, December 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

Spot on, Burt. And a Happy New Year to you and yours.

Monday, December 31, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Thanks, Kevin. And the same to you.


Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:15 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:

Wow Burt! If you said that down here , with a Southern accent, you would be run out of town as a racist. The fact that you and I support and defend equal "opportunity", and treat every person individually and with respect, does not matter if we make such a true statement about-- the "Group Which Cannot Be Criticized".

Racism is not about skin color - it is about political philosophy. The progressive left has indoctrinated the black culture into dependency and support of the Big Government plantation. It is such a shame that 90% of blacks refuse to grasp the Liberty of personal freedom and opportunity.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Dr. Timms: As you've probably guessed by now, it's been decades since I cared what names I was called. By now, it could almost be said that I encourage the name-callers. At any rate, I don't flinch from them. As someone once said, whatever doesn't destroy you makes you stronger. I am pure of heart and I always make it a point to consider the source.


Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Gunny Carroll in Durham, North Carolina said:

Burt, I FOUND YOU! When you left the Fox News outfit, I lost track of you. I got to thinking today, how can I find old Burt? I googled "List of MASH script writers" and voila! I'm so glad you are still stirring the stuff and exposing the Obama charade for what it is. I'm that retired Marine that occasionally pestered you on Fox. Now that I've found my old friend, I'm going to stay with your witty and thoroughly engaging posts. I don't expect a reply, just glad to have found your fearless voice of reason again. Lynn Carroll

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Gunny: I am confused. On the one hand, I am delighted that you seem overjoyed to have tracked me down. On the other hand, I don't understand the references to Fox. I have, for reasons I can't fathom, ever been on Fox.
So they couldn't have let me go because they never had me.

Happy New Year.


Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 5:21 PM

rab in jo,mo said:

Good article, Burt.

I have long held Lincoln in less than low esteem. I find him to be one of the worst Presidents in our nation's history. Being educated in the North, I was never taught about the draft riots that took place in many northern cities during the Civil War (some of the worst being in my hometown of Detroit). My own personal research led to this knowledge. Lincoln's mis-handling of the southern States led to much unnecessary bloodshed on both sides. The Confederacy should have been allowed to stand or fall on it's own. Recognizing that one can't have a "union" if it must be maintained by force, many States refused to ratify the US Constitution unless the right of secession was recognized - this included several northern States. It is my belief that the Confederacy would have collapsed for economic reasons and the various States would apply for re-admission to the Union within a generation or so, but then, we'll never know, will we?

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

rab: No, we don't know. But what we do know is that about 700,000 men died and the ends in no way justified the means.


Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Richard J. Abbate of CT in Cheshire, CT said:

Burt, et al,
As a budding young scholar of military history, back in my HS daze (50+ years ago), I studied with great vigor the history of the War Between The States. The time was the early 1960's and the centennial was in full bloom. Being born in the industrial north, much of what was fed to me was, as I discovered, propaganda. I read many books and did some research (not so easy in those pre-internet days) and discovered many of the things that my fellow posters here have mentioned. I never quite saw Lincoln as the beatific being he is so often portrayed as. I respected him as a President, understood some of what he stood for, and disagreed quietly with much, (as was expected of a student in an all boys Catholic HS) and formed my own opinions.
Several of my classmates and friends even formed a group of like minded youngsters who called ourselves The Confederacy!! And wonder of all wonders our Vice-President was a fellow student whose dad was the son or a Buffalo Soldier and whose mom was a full blooded Cherokee!!! You can imagine the reaction that having that brown face amongst us provoked.
One of the books we read (light reading in this case, but intriguing) was a paper back entitled "If The South Had Won The Civil War". It posited a post bellum nation divided into three sovereign entities. The industrial north as the USA, a largely rural south as the CSA, and The Republic of Texas, re-born.
I don't recall all the details at this distance in time, but eventually the northern states came to dominate the western expansion, the south picked up one or two of the south western territories, Texas went its own way and fought another war with Mexico (and annexed a significant part of it). The CSA abandoned slavery by the early 1900's in favor of its own industrialization, and having a cheaper and more integrated labor pool available (no Reconstruction spawned KKK, or Jim Crow), began to match the north economically. Eventually due to foreign threats the whole body was reunited, and seemed to have lived happily ever after, having learned some valuable lessons our current construction never learned.
I doubt if it is in print today in our 'modern' PC world, but for a giggle it would be worth finding and reading in light of the mess we are now in.
Happy New Year to you Burt, and to yours, and all our posters here.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Burt Prelutsky in North Hills, CA replied:

Richard: I seem to recall the book, but never read it. But frankly, I think that any Union that requires that much bloodshed to survive does so at too high a price. Fighting foreign invaders is quite a different thing, of course.


Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 8:40 PM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia replied:

"Fighting foreign invaders is quite a different thing, of course."

That's exactly what the Confederates felt they were doing.

Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia replied:

Surprisingly enough Richard, there are 15 copies on Ebay right now, and seven more on Amazon: "If The South Had Won The Civil War" by MacKinlay Kantor.

It looks like the more recent editions are introduced by Harry Turtledove, who also wrote a series of "alternate history" novels in which the Confederacy won and went its own way. They tend to be quite a bit more science fiction though, as his first one, "The Guns of the South" postulated that Lee won the war after being supplied with AK-47s brought by racist South African Boer timer-travelers. After that fantastic premise, though, he follows a more down-to-earth literary path: Lee, elected president of the Confederacy, throws off the would-be puppetmasters, defying their wishes and freeing the slaves after all.

Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 9:57 AM

p3orion in Midland, Georgia replied:

My bad. Turtledove's "Southern Victory" novels do NOT follow from the strange events of "Guns of the South," which is described as a stand-alone sci-fi novel.

The "Southern Victory" series arises from a much more believable divergence from history: Lee's Special Order 191 is not found on the battlefield (wrapped around three cigars) by a Union corporal, but is instead retrieved by a Confederate soldier. Union General McClellen therefore never learns of Lee's troop movements, leading to a Confederate victory at Antietam.

Thursday, January 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM

GeorgePA in PA said:

"It merely highlights how naïve people were when they heard the candidate talk in 2008 about a future in which there would not be a blue America or a red America, but a united America, and believed he actually meant it."

Oh, he meant it all right. He wants us all united - in submission to him. He's a sick man.

Friday, January 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM