Guapo, Arizona.  A political science conference held to reexamine the American Civil War has produced some surprising and controversial conclusions. At a news conference sponsored by Pultroon University, a spokesperson for the Office of University Affairs tried to assure reporters that the event was in fact a scholarly meetiong and not part of a political movement.  Meeting organizer and political science professor Udo Rotmensen spoke at the press conference and reiterated that this was not an anti-tea bag event, but rather a venue for professional discourse.

The subject of the controversy is a paper delivered by associate professor Edward Zaldibar, from Penninsular College in Wisconsin, entitled “Was Lincoln Wrong? Alternatives to Reunification.” In his paper, which is soon to be published in the Proceedings of the Sherman Society, Zaldibar explores alternate resolutions to the Civil War.  Zaldibar’s hypothesis is that the Confederacy was a genuine and organic political evolution fundamentally incompatible with the Union and democratic ideals. 

Where Prof. Zaldibar generated the controversy was the conclusion that the US should consider the merits of forcibly separating the former Confederate States from the Union, sans nuclear weapons, and begin negotiations on the merging of the Northern states with Canada.  

Amidst the outcry and shouting from the aisles, Prof. Zaldibar maintained that it was “obvious on its face” that these states should be let go in the interest of a peaceful and prosperous future. “After all”, the professor continued, “the Tea Party movement pretty much clinches my argument, doesn’t it? Its southern anti-federalism undercurrent combined with a penchant for ‘2nd amendment solutions’ for conflict resolution is a reincarnation of antebellum ideals.” 

After the meeting, Prof. Zaldibar was escorted past a gauntlet of outraged attendees and students. He remains in seclusion and declines to be interviewed.

Advertisements