The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past

by Jarrett Stepman

The War on Our History

Confederate memorials toppled . . . Columbus statues attacked with red paint.

They started with slave-owning Confederate generals, but they’re not stopping there.

The vandals are only pretending to care about the character of particular American heroes. In reality, they hate what those heroes represent: the truths asserted in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution. And they are bent on taking America down and replacing our free society with a socialist utopia. All that stands in their way is Americans’ reverence for our history of freedom.

Which is why that history simply has to go.

Now, Jarrett Stepman, editor at The Daily Signal and host of Right Side of History, exposes the true aims of the war on our history:

The war on America: World history is full of conquests and suffering indigenous peoples. Why target Christopher Columbus? What they really want to tear down is America.
The war on Thanksgiving: World history is full of colonists. Why target the Pilgrims? What they really want to tear down is American freedom and prosperity.
The war on the Founding: World history is full of slavery. Why target Thomas Jefferson? What they really want to tear down are the rights endowed by our Creator.

The war on the common man: World history is full of victorious generals and populist politicians. Why target Andrew Jackson? What they really want to tear down is democracy.
The war on the South: World history is full of civil strife. Why target Confederate heroes like Robert E. Lee? What they really want to tear down is respect for America’s past and the reconciliation that renewed our Union.

The war on patriotism: World history is full of national pride. Why target Teddy Roosevelt? What they really want to tear down is the idea of American greatness.
The war on the American century: World history is full of bloody wars. What they really want to tear down is America’s defeat of totalitarianism.
If America is to survive this assault, we must rally to the defense of our illustrious history. The War on History is the battle plan.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History

256 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2019

About the author

Jarrett Stepman is a conservative pundit, columnist, and author, a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast.

Reviews

[Blaine DeSantis · Rating 2 out of 5]

A tedious read. While I may agree philosophically on the main premise of the book, this book would be much more effective if the chapters were shorter and the total book came in at about 100 pages. Way too much excess material. The author makes his point and then beats us over the head with his analysis to the point where a it becomes a long, hard slog of a book. A shame because the premise is good, but like so many political books the authors refuse to believe that less is more!

[Erin · Rating 1 out of 5]

A book-length rant against liberals, this is Stepman's defense of the white males of history who deserve our protection. He overlooks facts, like that Christopher Columbus was considered a violent and cruel man even by his contemporaries. Stepman blames those with liberal leaning for, well, everything. This reader is likely what Stepman would call a liberal but I am inclined to believe we are trying to overwrite history rather than accept and learn from it. But this book turned me off with its hatred fueling every chapter. Instead of ideas, he just tosses around blame. No thanks.

[Audrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75 stars

This book was apparently written in response to statue-toppling protestors who believe America needs to be completely torn down because people in the past were not perfect. While I don’t agree with all of his conclusions*, he makes some excellent points.

The writing is an easy-going, engaging style that makes reading quick. I still found some typos.

The author brought up some points that I don’t think are taught much in history classes:
– Do most people today know that indigenous tribes were not united but often warred with each other? They viewed European settlers as just another tribe and would take different sides in colonial conflicts.
– Do people today assume that the indigenous tribes would have lived peacefully in the West without westward expansion? In reality, if Americans had stopped expanding west, other countries would have taken the land instead and wiped out the tribes completely. This worried Americans, who nearly lost sovereignty in the War of 1812. President Jackson wanted them to assimilate and become Americans. Those who preferred not to ended up with the reservation system, which is today plagued by poverty and corruption. At least the Americans tried a solution that didn’t involve total extermination even if it still sucked.

Each chapter features a specific time in history with an associated ideal and a historical figure who represents both. We can appreciate people who did great things even if they were imperfect and did things that are frowned upon by today’s standards. America’s history has been subjected to revisionists (including Zinn) who have been warping history and reality to fit a worldview obsessed with grievances. In reality, America is a pretty nice place to live. If you can complain about your country publically and not be jailed and tortured, you’re not that oppressed.

•Christopher Columbus – how he became an American hero and why he still deserves respect
•Thanksgiving – Pilgrims vs. Puritans and their actual relation to indigenous tribes.
•Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution – how they paved the way for the abolition of slavery
•Andrew Jackson – proof that anybody can be successful in America
•Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee – How they represented reconciliation and forgiveness
•Teddy Roosevelt and patriotism – How unity is better for the country than division
•America as a superpower – How America defeated tyranny in world wars and beyond

(*I believe Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt permanently weakened the Constitution)

Clean content

====================================

There is a spreading belief that the men who built this country were oppressive and their values irredeemable. ... These militant and self-righteous activists have instilled in their fellow citizens a fear of being labeled bigots and have cowed the silent majority into inaction.

Past Americans found a way to expand their heroic pantheon, to include more heroes instead of tearing down others. This, in fact, is why many Columbus statues were erected in the first place. In the first half of the twentieth century, American citizens were eager to celebrate a man who not only undeniably contributed to the eventual creation of our country but also was a particular source of pride for assimilating Italian-Americans, who had been on the receiving end of discrimination for a generation. Erecting new statues of Christopher Columbus did not necessitate bulldozing statues of, for instance, Samuel B. Morse, whose image still stands in Central Park. Like Columbus, the famed inventor of the telegraph changed the world. Unfortunately, he also wrote angry, nativist screeds against Catholic immigrants. Nobody called for his statue to be removed and replaced with the one of Columbus. American had room for many heroes. It was a more tolerant age.

What is never explained is why so-called indigenous people are worthy of celebration if Columbus is not. Pre-Columbian civilizations from Mexico to Peru were nearly all responsible for brutal violence on a large scale long before Columbus arrived on the shores of the New World—including human sacrifices, even of children, sometimes by tearing out the victim’s still-beating heart.

Whatever can be said of the colonists who followed him, Columbus was a man who tried to act justly under complicated circumstances. It is fair to say that Columbus was mostly benign in his interaction with native populations. Few men, especially of his time, would have acted better than he did dealing with the people he met. Many Spaniards behaved badly in the new world, wantonly killing peaceful natives and committing other crimes and atrocities that embarrassed the Spanish crown, but these acts weren’t carried out by Columbus. In a world in which ruthless conquest and enslavement was commonplace, Columbus at least attempted to foster benign relations between European arrivals and native populations.

Life in the New World before Columbus’s arrival could hardly be characterized as one of health, peace, and justice, and it’s silly to think that, when Columbus arrived in the Bahamas, he somehow introduced mass violence and slavery to a benign Garden of Eden.

If the Spaniards and other Europeans who arrived in the New World are guilty of genocide, then so were the natives themselves. It wasn’t just one or two militant tribes in the Caribbean and Central America that engaged in the destruction and subjugation of their neighbors. Violence, plundering, and forced bondage on a large scale had been practiced throughout the Americas long before outsiders showed up. If we must condemn Columbus and the Spaniards to the ash heap of history, then we must condemn the natives as well. More sensibly, the savagery that was part of everyday life should be considered before condemning Columbus or any other leader of the time.

The original thanksgiving was actually more of an Indian celebration than an English one. ... “Instead of an English affair, the First Thanksgiving soon became an overwhelmingly Native celebration when [Indian chief] Massasoit and a hundred Pokanokets (more than twice the entire English population of Plymouth) arrived at the settlement.” [Nathaniel Philbrick] The Pilgrims have sometimes been portrayed as charity cases at the original Thanksgiving, being helped along by the good graces of local Indians. This is a misinterpretation. Both sides found that cooperation suited their interests. the Pokanokets saw the Pilgrims as a valuable ally to counterbalance the Narragansetts, a much larger and more powerful local tribe. And the Pilgrims needed local allies and tutors in survival in the New World.

William Bradford: The failure of this experiment in communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men, proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, —that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice. ... This feature would have been worse still if it had been men of an inferior class. If (it was thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among men, it did at least greatly diminish the respect that is so important should it be preserved amongst them. Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw another plan of life was fitter for them.

What made our Revolution one of the very few successful revolutions—arguable the only one—in the history of mankind? Progressive thinkers in the early twentieth century attribute the American Revolution to economic factors, using quasi-Marxist historical interpretations to claim that the Founders were just wealthy men trying to protect their interests. These leftists promoted their vision of the Founders as anti-Democratic to justify upending the institutions the Founders created, and they had some success in doing so. But historians in the later twentieth century, like Gordon Wood and Forrest McDonald, reexamined the progressives’ history and found it wanting. Reducing the Founders’ motivations to mere economics was wildly off base. Ideas, not base interests, motivated the men who founded the United States. A simplistic economic narrative was inadequate to the complicated history of the American rupture with England.

+ A growing majority of [college] students now believe that America invented slavery and that the institution had no history outside the United States. Worse, slave ownership seems to be just about the only thing students know about the Founders. “On one quiz, 29 out of 32 students responding knew that Jefferson owned slaves, but only three of the 32 correctly identified him as president,” according to a College Fix article about [Duke] Pesta’s quizzes. “Interestingly, more students—six of 32—actually believed Ben Franklin had been president.” (84)

At the time of America’s creation, most of mankind was in one form of bondage or another. Grinding poverty and repressive governments were the norm; they were accepted as the simple reality of human existence. That the “peculiar institution,” as slavery was once called, lingered and festered for the nearly ninety years it took from the Founding of the United States to Emancipation is certainly lamentable. But it was the exceptional creed of America, written into its DNA from infancy, that allowed slavery to be wiped out in the Civil War.

In Jefferson’s day, there were many obstacles to and few avenues for personal or general emancipation. Despite these barriers, in the years immediately after the War of Independence, many slaveholders, even in the South, released their slaves in order to stay true to the principles of the American Revolution. For a while, slavery was seen as the unfortunate legacy of British colonial policy—in fact, it was an abuse that an early draft of the Declaration of Independence had laid at their feet. But that window was short-lived, as Virginia and other states, increasingly paranoid about slave rebellions, created law that made it difficult to free slaves within the state, especially for slaveholders with considerable debts, which Jefferson certainly had.

It is easy for a man to condemn a sin he knows he will never commit, easy for modern Americans to chastise the slaveowners of our nation’s past. But it is far harder to condemn a sin we ourselves are guilty of, one pervasive and common among our neighbors. And yet Jefferson did that because he believed that, as deeply entrenched as slavery was, it could not survive forever in a country dedicated to the principles he had expressed in the Declaration.

As Americans pushed West, they came into direct conflict with the peoples already living in those lands. The citizens of other nations such as France, Spain, or Mexico became citizens of the United States or simply left. But the situation of the Indian tribes was much more complicated. While the United States often purchased land from these people too, those purchases were made more convoluted by the fact that tribes typically had no central authority to hold their people to the terms of the treaty and often little concept of property rights. In addition, squatters, immigrants, and ruffians often barged in without government permission and took over.

Robert Remini: It has been asserted that Andrew Jackson hated the Indians and that racial annihilation was his real objective. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jackson neither hated the Indians nor intended genocide. For a slaveowner and Indian fighter he was singularly free of racial bigotry. He killed Indians in battle, but he had no particular appetite for it. He simply performed his duty. Moreover, Jackson befriended many Indians; dozens of chiefs visited him regularly at the Hermitage. He adopted an Indian orphan boy (Lyncoya) and raised him as a son. He sanctioned marriages between whites and Indians. He believed citizenship inevitable for the more civilized Indians, and he argued that Indian life and heritage might be preserved (and should be preserved) through removal. (127)

Jackson’s complicated role in Indian affairs is hardly his greatest legacy—though it is now, increasingly, the only thing young Americans know about our seventh president. However, before we get too high on our horses about Jackson’s treatment of Indians in his time, it should also be noted that few today concern themselves with the plight of numerous Indian reservations, which suffer with ineffective and obnoxious government paternalism, crippling poverty, and shamefully terrible schools.

Today, Robert E. Lee’s detractors are committed to ripping up the reconciliation that bound the United States together after the Civil War. They deplore racial harmony. They are doing all they can to increase hostility between Americans, black and white. And they betray their true agenda by tearing down not only the heroes of the Confederacy but those of the Union as well.

Beyond the Dakota war, one of the protest leaders actually said that Lincoln had owned slaves. “Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let’s be real: He owned slaves, and as natives, we want people to know that he ordered the execution of native men,” said one of the protestors. This is nonsense. Lincoln never owned slaves. Ironically, slave ownership was quite common among Indian tribes, and many joined with the Confederacy. ... In less than six months, the movement to topple statues moved from Robert E. Lee to Abraham Lincoln. Its descent was so rapid it can hardly be called a slippery slope; it’s an untethered elevator hurtling toward oblivion. The march to erase history—iconoclasm with no apparent rhyme or reason—continues.

Unlike the radicals of his day, Lincoln believed that slavery could be driven to extinction in America only under the Constitution, and the careful path he trod to that end was the wise statesmanship of principles prudence, not evidence of evolution or flip-flopping on slavery. ... Lincoln knew that liberty, for the slaves and everyone else, was not possible without the Union and the Constitution. And Lincoln freed the slaves—while these vandals have done nothing more impressive than tear down statues of great Americans.

It’s easy for modern Americans to be moral absolutists about the past—given our separation from the world in which slavery was the reality and the lack of consequences for taking any extreme position. Naturally, today’s Left prefers the most radical abolitionists to Lincoln. But if emancipation had depended on those extremists, there would likely be no United States—and there might possibly still be slavery in the Americas today.

That spirit of reconciliation is now under attack. Though we are now much farther removed from the bloody conflict of the Civil War than the Americans—both North and South—who unashamedly venerated Lincoln and Lee, we have embraced the idea that forgiveness is unacceptable. Americans must take up old grievances, argue with the past, and once again be at war with on another. Mutual respect and acceptance are gone with the wind. Racial conflicts and resentments over the history of slavery and must [sic] be carefully guarded and fanned into new flames, never forgotten and forgiven.

Roosevelt offered an inclusive vision of American nationalism. This, even more than the statues and monuments built to honor Roosevelt, is what the Left is attempting to tear down—they see the “cultural imperialism” that demands immigrants assimilate to the country and flag that they live under offensive. Until recently, there was a common consensus about immigration. Immigrants were allowed in based on what was good for the country as a whole. In addition, there was the strong expectation that new arrivals would attempt to conform to American culture, learn English, and assimilate to their new country. Today, the very term “melting pot” is considered a “migroaggression” on some college campuses; the idea of assimilation borders on hate speech.

Teddy Roosevelt: What is true of creed is no less true of nationality. There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as anyone else.

Social commentators denounce America as intolerant and xenophobic—a nation devoted to “white supremacy” at its core. But they couldn’t be farther from the truth. Yes, there were m any moments of ugly nativism and racial prejudice in our history. At times, there was even targeted violence against ethnic and religious minorities. But there were the exceptions, not the rule in the United States. Prejudice, oppression, and violence have been more or less universal across all civilizations and peoples on this earth from the dawn of human civilization. Liberty and justice are rare gifts.

CONTINUED IN COMMENTS

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Full disclosure: I was contacted by the publisher because I wrote a review of one of their other books. I received a complimentary copy in exchange for writing a review upon reading the book. My review contains my own honest thoughts and is not influenced by the publisher.)

Jarrett Stepman writes a compelling case about the progressive-left's blatant attempt to - as the subtitle clearly denotes - rewrite America's past. He carefully and meticulously chronicles the absurd attempts by so-called "social justice warriors" and radical liberals in trying to find fault with the United States, its history as well as current customs.

From the vilification of Christopher Columbus to the contempt for the Pilgrims to the unbelievable misguided outrage over the Founding Fathers to the bewildering antagonism towards Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and on and on, this book lays out its case by using historical analysis to bolster its perspective. In fact, if there is a minor flaw, perhaps it leans a little too much on citing an overwhelming amount of history and not enough time disabusing the current state of politically-correct complainers, disruptive agitators, and otherwise miserable troublemakers who feel the need to unfailingly blame deceased central figures to our past. Importantly, applying contemporary ideals and moral shaming from the 21st Century to these significant individuals from centuries ago is not only grossly unfair, it's also untenable. While it's not advisable to hero-worship our icons, and to his credit, Stepman, never veers into this thorny area since he also points out the obvious human flaws and shortcomings they possessed; moreover, he continually reminds the reader that these individuals, warts and all, lived in a different time period than our own. A matter of perspective is needed before a rush to judgment.

Going back to, in my estimation, a perhaps tad overemphasis of the historical retelling, this book differs from James S. Robbins's "Erasing America: Losing Our Future By Destroying Our Past." The contrast is sharp: Robbins seems to spend more time in the contemporary than the past while Stepman does the opposite. Neither is necessarily wrong in their approach; it's just a different way of forming their thesis and asserting it with the facts presented. The parallels of both authors and books are nevertheless intertwined, encapsulated, and presented with cogent precision.

The last chapter, "The War on the American Century" was inspiring and fitting for the conclusion of the book. Standing up for America and its economic system of capitalism in sharp contrast to communism, the author highlights on page 241 how this country is the land of opportunity and has people from all over wanting to come here but the naysayers and grievance demographic won't leave themselves despite their preposterous claims that this country is evil. It's an interesting bit of irony.

The last chapter also touches on the radical and violent leftist group, Antifa, which exposes their disdainful and shameful thuggish behavior more akin to the Communists of Germany in the 1930s, as mentioned on page 210. I only wish Stepman expanded further on this menacing and masked group that purports to fight fascism yet resorts to the same tactics they claim to be fighting. The author rightfully points out the outrageously insulting and ridiculous comparison some are trying to push that this alt-left fringe group is cut from the same cloth as our brave D-Day Allies invading Normandy to defeat the Nazis during World War II. Nothing can be further from the truth and Stepman makes that point very clear debunking this bizarre yet laughable attempted resemblance.

This book is splendidly written, researched, documented, and eye-opening. I recommend it to all readers who are concerned with the direction this country is going in terms of radical groups attempting to rewrite and erase our past in order to atone for our collective sins. There are a handful of typographical errors, though, that escaped the proofreaders but it doesn't dilute the important message of the book. Once you read how complicit and insidious these iconoclastic and misguided groups are, you will gain a better understanding what is at stake here, and that is preserving the cherished history of America and all the good it offers and provides despite what the rabble-rousers might viciously spew.

A companion book to read, if not read yet, is the aforementioned and outstanding "Erasing America: Losing Our Future By Destroying Our Past" by James S. Robbins and also from the same publisher.

I look forward to a sequel by either or both authors to further shine the light on this disturbing conspiracy. I'm happy to own this book and I'd like to extend a big thank you to the publisher, Regnery, for the opportunity to review it.

[Peter Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Ministry of Truth and the rewriting of history


The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past by Jarrett Stepman

https://www.amazon.com/War-History-Co...


Although Leftists have been rewriting history for decades, the project of anti-American historical revisionism burst into public awareness only recently, particularly with the 2020 race riots where statues of historical figures - initially Confederate statutes but later historical figures like Abraham Lincoln and Father Junipero Serra – were attacked, vandalized, destroyed, or removed from public squares.

Leftist Orwellianism has sparked a reaction among historians. Many historians are fighting back by contesting the tendentious, fictional, reductionist, popular Orwellian revisionist history that has flooded the public mind by a host of Leftist institutes, think tanks, and academics. The sad part is that they might be shoveling against the tide. If history is a set of lies agreed upon, then the agreement is in the hands of the cultural elites who are not afraid to use their power to fire dissenters or suppress opposition. And, then, there is just the problem of getting people to read the defense when the Ministry of Truth merely has to repeat its lies over and over again until it becomes common sense.

The War on History by Jarrett Sepman falls into the Defending History genre. Sepman’s book was written in 2019, before the War on History went truly asymptotic. Since 2020 acts as a kind of discontinuity when Leftist dysfunction really broke out into the public mind, this book is a reminder that things had been swirling down the toilet for a reasonable time before 2020.

Sepman organizes his book into chapters involving the various fronts in the Orwellian war on history. These are the wars on Columbus, Andrew Jackson, Robert Lee, and America’s prosecution of World War II. I listened to this book as an audiobook and I found myself being inspired by a lot of what I heard. For example, I had never been particularly interested in Andrew Jackson but now I get – I understand – why he was important in transitioning America to a mass democracy and why he upset the powers that be that entrenched themselves in power during the “Era of Good Feelings.” I am an amateur historian, and I learned stuff. I can only imagine that others would benefit from this survey of American history without the hate for America.

Here are excerpts I found interesting.

Concerning the Pilgrims:

But although some on the far left have peddled a “National Day of Mourning”—a “holiday” based on racial grievance and animosity—in order to rebuke Thanksgiving as a kind of celebration of white supremacy, the original thanksgiving was actually more of an Indian celebration than an English one. “Countless Victorian-era engravings notwithstanding, the Pilgrims did not spend the day sitting around a long table draped with a white linen cloth, clasping each other’s hands in prayer as a few curious Indians looked on,” according to Nathaniel Philbrick. “Instead of an English affair, the First Thanksgiving soon became an overwhelmingly Native celebration when [Indian chief] Massasoit and a hundred Pokanokets (more than twice the entire English population of Plymouth) arrived at the settlement.”24 The Pilgrims have sometimes been portrayed as charity cases at the original Thanksgiving, being helped along by the good graces of local Indians. This is a misinterpretation. Both sides found that cooperation suited their interests. The Pokanokets saw the Pilgrims as a valuable ally to counterbalance the Narragansetts, a much larger and more powerful local tribe. And the Pilgrims needed local allies and tutors in survival in the New World. This joint celebration between very different kinds of Americans was appropriate, given the holiday’s meaning to our E Pluribus Unum nation hundreds of years in the future.

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 48). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

This discussion of how Daniel Webster implanted the idea of the Pilgrims as a symbol for America made me want to look up this speech:

For an hour and a half, and mostly without notes, Webster delivered one of the greatest patriotic speeches in American history. He began by noting that the “Pilgrim Fathers” had left their descendants an incredible legacy, then called for his own generation to offer future ones “some proof that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion to civil and religion’s liberty, in our regard for whatever advances human knowledge or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin.”46 Webster made the case for commemorating history: “Human and mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without relation to the past or the future. We live in the past by a knowledge of its history; and in the future, by hope and anticipation.”

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 61). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

This is depressing, but not surprising. (Although it makes me wonder why we are spending billions on public education.)

After passing out short quizzes to test the general knowledge of his students for over a decade, college professor Duke Pesta of the University of Wisconsin—Oshkosh has observed a worrying trend. A growing majority of his students now believe that America invented slavery and that the institution had no history outside the United States. Worse, slave ownership seems to be just about the only thing students know about the Founders. “On one quiz, 29 out of 32 students responding knew that Jefferson owned slaves, but only three out of the 32 correctly identified him as president,” according to a College Fix article about Pesta’s quizzes. “Interestingly, more students—six of 32—actually believed Ben Franklin had been president.”31

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 84). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

On the War of 1812:

The late-nineteenth-century American statesman and historian Carl Schurz explained that “if war is ever justified, there was ample provocation for it” in the actions of the British toward Americans on the world’s oceans. “The legitimate interests of the United States had been trampled on by the belligerent powers, as if entitled to no respect. The American flag had been treated with a contempt scarcely conceivable now.” Americans had to ask themselves whether they should simply allow themselves to be wantonly abused by Old World superpowers—not only “robbed, and maltreated, and insulted,” but also “despised.” All this “for the privilege of picking up the poor crumbs of trade which the great powers of Europe would still let them have.” Ultimately, Schurz wrote, “When a nation knowingly and willingly accepts the contempt of others, it is in danger of losing also its respect for itself.”13 The United States had to go to war for the sake of its own dignity. Inconsequential nations lay down to take the abuse, but while America was outmatched by any objective assessment, it was not created to be an inconsequential nation. Failure on the battlefield would be far less destructive than the crisis that the fragile nation would face if it allowed transgressions to continue with no military response. Young patriotic Americans were having none of it. They would fight regardless of the disparity in power between Great Britain and the United States. They would take their lumps and defeats, for sure, but they would show that abusing the rights of their countrymen would come at a price. And no man personified the “Don’t tread on me,” belligerent underdog ethos better than Andrew Jackson.

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 110). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.
This parallel to modern times was interesting:

When Jackson was swept into office in 1828, he stunned the American political establishment, which had dismissed him as an unserious ruffian at best, a dangerous proto-Caesar at worst, and likely some combination of the two. But they had been blind to some very serious problems that had taken root in Washington, D.C. Following the collapse of the Federalist Party after the War of 1812, one-party rule had developed into a cushy, back-scratching affair among those in power. This era has sometimes been called the “Era of Good Feelings,” but, as historian Robert Remini pointed out, it really deserves to be called the “first Era of Corruption.”

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 131). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

Robert E. Lee is vocally condemned, but his role in preventing America devolving into an endless round of hatred and reprisal, as we see in other countries, deserves to be remembered:

Though he was a general and not the president of the seceded states, late in the war, Lee was the Confederacy, the man who had the most power to sway the minds of the Southern people. And Lee’s example to a defeated South was almost unique in human history. When some Southerners wanted to keep fighting a guerilla war, he urged them to accept defeat, reconcile with their fellow countrymen, and to abandon animosities and “make your sons Americans.”34 As one writer for the Atlantic Monthly wrote in 1911, “What finer sentence could be inscribed on Lee’s statue than that?” Lincoln, too, was a proponent of reconciliation. He waged the war in a spirit of “malice toward none” and “charity for all,” in the moving words of his Second Inaugural Address.

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (pp. 161-162). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

Teddy Roosevelt was a mensch. People forget that 1915 was an era of anti-Catholicism as the Ku Klux Klan was in the middle of its 20th century revival. For Teddy to go to the KKK and give a speech tells you how much he was committed to America:

No speech better sums up Theodore Roosevelt’s philosophy than one he delivered on October 12, 1915, to the Knights of Columbus. As we have seen, the Knights of Columbus was no ordinary fraternal organization. Because it was Catholic, groups such as the Ku Klux Klan frequently attacked it as un-American. Hostilities between Protestants and Catholics in that day were far more intense than our own. So it was noteworthy that former president Roosevelt, a fervent Protestant, would make an appearance before the group.29

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 195). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

In 1894, Teddy Roosevelt offered this observation on the “deal” offered to immigrants:

Roosevelt then quoted the German-born representative Richard Guenther, who had explained to his fellow immigrants, We know as well as any other class of American citizens where our duties belong. We will work for our country in time of peace and fight for it in time of war, if a time of war should ever come. When I say our country, I mean, of course, our adopted country. I mean the United States of America. After passing through the crucible of naturalization, we are no longer Germans; we are Americans. Our attachment to America cannot be measured by the length of our residence here. We are Americans from the moment we touch the American shore until we are laid in American graves. We will fight for America whenever necessary. America, first, last, and all the time. America against Germany, America against the world; America, right or wrong; always America. We are Americans.43

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (pp. 202-203). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

And how did we get here? Mario Cuomo offers an insight into the leftwing mindset which has metastasized into a cancer:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great,” said New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on the campaign trail in late 2018 to an audience of mixed cheers and groans. “We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” It was a revealing moment. Cuomo backtracked after making the comment, acknowledging that perhaps America was great but had failed to meet his laundry list of ideological demands. Despite his later flip-flopping, it’s clear that Cuomo originally thought his line questioning American greatness would resonate with voters. And with some, it probably did.

Stepman, Jarrett. The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America's Past (p. 237). Gateway Editions. Kindle Edition.

This should give the reader a sense of where this book is coming from.

I recommend it as a solid survey of history.

You should read it now before history disappears.

[Michelle · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn’t finish this one. It is nothing more than an opinion piece with little to back up the material beyond the basic history we were taught in school.

[Dan Bouchelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Defensive and unimaginative restatement of American exceptionalism. It minimizes and at times seeks to justify America’s sins while using the sins of other nations to justify our aggressions against them. I downloaded it because it was free on Audible and I felt I needed to take in something to balance all the books I’ve read recently which are critical of America. But this was largely unhelpful. If you want to counter extreme liberal rejection of western civilization and Americanism, it would be more helpful to concede our weakness and then argue for retaining the best of the American heritage despite our worst moments. There is a war on history, but this book is an enemy combatant along with the PC left-wing west haters. Restating the myth of American exceptionalism is hardly helpful as seek to preserve what has been good about American culture in a moving forward in a more just and honorable way.

[Timothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I almost never use a quote from a book I've read in my review but this line from page 242 is worth the exception; "Deep down, perhaps, what these statue topplers are rebelling against is their own failure to accomplish anything of note." Ha !!! How true. How true.
This book is a great lesson in history. I mean, I guess Jarrett Stepman could've written hundreds of pages discussing the Social Justice Warriors' sad attempts at erasing our history. He obviously does address that, but he takes a lot more time to detail our real national heroes of our past. BRAVO !!!

[Stacey Turner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it! It inspired me to want to read more about US Presidents. Fascinating!

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall I think this is an excellent book. It soundly refutes many leftist narratives that have tried to undermine and subvert actual history and twist what really happened. For a short read, the book gives an excellent factual overview of several important key points/events in US History (i.e., Columbus, Puritans/Colonies, Thanksgiving, the Civil War, and several presidential administrations) that sadly, far too many of the younger generation either don't learn, or don't care about any longer. It uses history to draw lines to the absurd attacks on historical statues and the degradation of historical figures we've seen over the last few years.

My only criticism of the book is in the final chapter with the Pollyannish telling of the US involvement in WWII and the slight white-washing of our alliance with Communism and a regime that killed more people than any other power of the time. It reads like someone reading from a book called, "The Good Guys and Bad Guys of WWII, written by, The Victorious Good Guys." A gentle touch when dealing with the evil Stalin regime and a hyperbolic caricature of National Socialist Germany, and we end up with more of a fanciful summary as told by the victors that doesn't quite comport with the reality of what happened, but rather sounds like 1940s war propaganda. But otherwise, the book is an excellent short read and I'll pass this one along to my kids for some Summer reading material.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great example of how the same event can be seen differently depending on interpretation of facts and upon the weight given to pluses and minuses of people’s lives. The left would have us judge historical figures based upon the most negative possible interpretation of facts and the application of today’s points of view on historical behavior. They have demonized historical figures including the founding fathers and have made a generation of young people believe that America was and is a scourge on the world. No country could stand up to the woke interpretation of history. The native britons were conquered by the saxons then the normans. They went on to conquer others around the world. The Germans were conquerors as were the romans , the French, the mongols and many other peoples. But the current generation completely dismisses the contributions of America and its leaders. They are wrong. Good book that won’t be read by the people who need it most.

[Matt "The Bibliognost" · Rating 5 out of 5]

Deciding whether to read, or not read this book?

The reader reviews are largely split between “love it” and “hate it”… Wonder why?

If you are over the age of 40, identify to the right of the median on the political spectrum, were taught a traditional view of American history in the days before most university professors identified as liberal, then you will largely appreciate this book.

If you are a Millennial or younger, were taught a revisionist version of history in primary school, or identify as a Democrat, you will hate this book.

Simple as that.

Overall, it’s well researched, well articulated, and well written. Interesting conversation starter regardless of your political ideology.

[Jim Kilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great little read on the modern attack on our nation's history. It doesn't deny our failings, but it also doesn't baselessly attack the aspects that are favorite whipping dogs of the historical presentism obsessed modern scholars and commentators, I especially appreciate how he handles the legacy of Andrew Jackson.

[Lady Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is a great review of American history, with a few hidden gems and reminders that may have gotten lost in our modern so-called progressive education. It is a chastisement against the modern movement to destroy historical monuments and rewrite history. In the current American climate where so much of history is in the process of being destroyed, rewritten or deleted, a book like this one was a perfect reminder of all that is at stake.

While much of the book was a history review, it also contains many eye-opening revelations that may have gotten buried under the rubble of time and leftist editing. One of the most shocking discoveries for me was learning that the Ku-Klux Klan also fought to get rid of Christopher Columbus celebrations and statues, to replace them with Anglo-Saxon heroes in the same way that BLM and Antifa are fighting to replace him with heroes and celebrations of color. Is it not the same atrocity, simply in reverse color? History truly repeats itself, especially when we erase it and cannot learn from it.

Another thing I found interesting is that one of Christopher Columbus's earliest critics was Bartolomee De las Casas, the first priest ordained in the New World. His problem with Columbus, unlike modern critics, was that he didn't convert enough Natives to Christianity. He also denounced the enslavement of natives by some of Columbus's partners, when it would've been much more preferable to import more slaves from Africa, according to De Las Casas. Native souls were needlessly lost, according to him, because they were alienated this way.

The author also talks about Thomas Jefferson, who gave our country ice cream and of course, as we all know, planted the seeds for what allowed all this freedom to begin with. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt are all remembered positively in this book in spite of the flaws that human beings naturally have in common because it is simply part of our nature. These men knew about the flaws inherent in human nature, which is why they framed the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights as they did. It is these documents that progressives always turn to as the basis of their movements, and they repay the framers by vandalizing their statues and judging their morals by our ever-changing standards.

These men are now under flagrant attack for the things they couldn't accomplish in one generation, instead of being celebrated for their conception of these ideas that paved the way for perpetual improvement. In what other country would rioters and protestors be the only ones allowed to congregate while beaches and restaurants are closed due to the pandemic? It is in this country, conceived by great men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others who initiated the great American experiment that allowed for this blessing and this curse.

[charles Wahtola · Rating 5 out of 5]

What every American should know

This is an extensively researched, balanced and thorough presentation of the essence of America as it can be explained and understood by analyzing the contributions of key historical figures. It provides a compelling refutation of the anti-American sentiment so common in today's culture.
It will be an eye opener to any person under 40 who is open to a scholarly analysis of these individuals that includes an appreciation of the different cultural context they lived in.

It will be valuable to every American who wants to regain a sense of our shared identity in this "one nation under God."

[Don Jenkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read book

This is a remarkable look at American history and the threat it faces today. It focuses on a relatively few historical individuals whose legacies are under attack today. It examines their accomplishments and their failures in equal measure, and makes a convincing argument for their continued honoring, in spite of their very human failings. It also includes information about them not commonly taught or known which enhances the readers understanding of them as men and adds context to what they said and did. Highly informative, entertaining, and thought provoking. If you love America and value her history, you need to read this book.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent review of history from the perspective of how revisionists have tried to skew the past. Is America a perfect country? Nope. No one ever said it was, but it's also not an evil empire, nor is it the author of either slavery or a variety of other problems that the left tries to claim.

Understanding history isn't based on modern mores nor on made up facts. Looking at primary sources and documentation is what allows someone to understand what actually happened. This author did a great job of eliminating the "noise" that you hear a lot of the time from academia...
Highly recommend this book.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a fascinating book. I wish this kind of stuff was focused on more in school. Like noting that Jefferson didn't free his slaves but that there were reasons and context behind that. Or the background behind the Cherokee Trail of Tears.

But yeah, the book does a good job of digging into the background of different foundational figures in American history like Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Robert E Lee and the context behind their actions.

And that's important to do. The good someone does isn't wiped out by the bad and we ought to understand how we're becoming a more perfect union.

[Jacob Fritsch · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this book makes some interesting points about not judging the past by today's standards, it is so mired in circular arguments and exaggeration that it is tough to read at times. Additionally, it was clear to me(as someone with a history degree) that Stepman is a journalist and not a historian. He does not always support his points well and argues more about perception than about history. I bought this book knowing that it would have a strong bias, but the constant criticism of the Left got old by the end of the first chapter. Overall, an interesting read, but not one that I enjoyed much or thought was well-written.

[Reid Brooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an outstanding book. The people who are critical of it are generally biased hacks who are unhappy with the fact someone uses a comprehensive analysis of all the facts to conclusively undermine their pre-determined worldview that everything is horrendously unfair and they are victims by inheritance. If you have an open mind, and are skeptical of the more radical claims made by political pundits regarding history, you could get a decent background on the insidious tactics by reading this book.

I read 60-70 history books a year and this is a nice topical introduction to the poisonous issues associated with Zinnism and biased, scholarly perversions of fact to pursue agenda.

[Kyle Kiekintveld · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's good but it's held back by trying to be the counter point to the modern revisionist movement. It needs to stop focusing on the Left, Antifa and SJWs and stay committed to it's message. Even as a Libertarian who is fairly counter culture I got bored of it. I also thought the Columbus chapter the weakest in the fact I don't see what's exceptionally good (or bad) about him. The book didn't sway me in that regard. The other chapters are good to excellent filled with stuff I didn't know and challenging perspectives to reframe historical figures and events.

[Todd Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Audible Book. The focus of the author was on American history and the attempts to re-write the past. I thought he did a good job finding the balance between appreciating what men have done, and the contributions they have made, without putting them up on pedestals. Anyone who has been paying attention in the last four years knows how easy it is for those in charge to re-write history in real time. We need to remember that the heroes of the past were but fallen sinful men, and at the same time God uses sinful men for his purposes.

[Page · Rating 1 out of 5]

Lying liar who lies (see his tweet about magically receiving a voting ballot when ballots won’t be mailed for a month 😂) spews racist white supremacy diarrhea in a poorly written, historically inaccurate rant.

[Ayn Bland · Rating 1 out of 5]

Considering the theme of the book, I theoretically should like it, but the author's background in JoUrNaLiSm and not history is obvious. A sophomoric hagiography, this probably would make a great gift for whatever is the Ben Shapiro-loving equivalent of the Cool Wine Aunt.

[Douglas Reedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading the thoughts and ideas of this author. More people need to read this book. The only issue that I saw was the author's repeated comments on Trump. I have no problem with a person's belief, but it shouldn't be included on a subject he wasn't involved in.

[Darrell Keller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was published in 2019 and everything he predicted came true in 2020. It is truly sad what has happened in this country, especially since Jarret Stepman warned us it was coming.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, I think the best part of this book was that it inspired me to read a lot more history!

[Vernon Fueston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good info

Great material a sizable nowhere else. Liked it enough on kindle unlimited, I bought it. Worth having in your library.

[Alex Dimaio · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish some of the radical left kids would dive into this book.

[JoDee Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Disturbing but so true.