What do you think?
Rate this book
A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror
For at least thirty years, high school and college students have been taught to be embarrassed by American history. Required readings have become skewed toward a relentless focus on our country’s darkest moments, from slavery to McCarthyism. As a result, many history books devote more space to Harriet Tubman than to Abraham Lincoln; more to My Lai than to the American Revolution; more to the internment of
Japanese Americans than to the liberation of Europe in World War II. Now, finally, there is an antidote to this biased approach to our history. Two veteran history professors have written a sweeping, well-researched book that puts the spotlight back on America’s role as a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. Schweikart and Allen are careful to tell their story straight, from Columbus’s voyage to the capture of Saddam Hussein. They do not ignore America’s mistakes through the years, but they put them back in their proper perspective. And they conclude that America’s place as a world leader derived largely from the virtues of our own leaders—the men and women who cleared the wilderness, abolished slavery, and rid the world of fascism and communism. The authors write in a clear and enjoyable style that makes history a pleasure, not just for students but also for adults who want to learn what their teachers skipped over.
Japanese Americans than to the liberation of Europe in World War II. Now, finally, there is an antidote to this biased approach to our history. Two veteran history professors have written a sweeping, well-researched book that puts the spotlight back on America’s role as a beacon of liberty to the rest of the world. Schweikart and Allen are careful to tell their story straight, from Columbus’s voyage to the capture of Saddam Hussein. They do not ignore America’s mistakes through the years, but they put them back in their proper perspective. And they conclude that America’s place as a world leader derived largely from the virtues of our own leaders—the men and women who cleared the wilderness, abolished slavery, and rid the world of fascism and communism. The authors write in a clear and enjoyable style that makes history a pleasure, not just for students but also for adults who want to learn what their teachers skipped over.
960 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
1226 people are currently reading
5878 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 349 reviews
June 3, 2008
I do like that it doesn't even pretend that it's objective. That's nice. But it's also about as historic as the movie Troy. The outright political agenda a la Fox News is so steaming from the political right it almost makes Howard Zinn look more balanced than revisionist. There are good points and there is value in creating a telling of American history that makes one simply feel proud of America and all its done. And there is indeed very much to be proud of in our great country. But to ignore the negatives is more than just simplistic and irresponsible, it's also disastrous and dangerous. We need to accept the good and the bad of our history and understand them both. I have this book on my shelf next to Howard Zinn because I think they show the simple truth that the idea of "objective history" is a myth; history is a product of its authors. This right wing paean to capitalist, suddenly non-genocidal, airbrushed American perfection is problematic to the nth degree, but it also points out that Zinn at times glosses over what's right about America. Still, it's in the wretched pile because it's such a blatant falsehood at times I had to watch my gag reflex.
P.S.: The "liberation of Iraq"? Really? Sigh.
P.S.: The "liberation of Iraq"? Really? Sigh.
December 4, 2013
Overall, a very biased book that pretends not to be; it was written as a sulk toward Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and it shows; while Zinn is open about his biases and actually reasonably objective, this book is not a history, but a collection of opinion pieces that glorifies the god that failed (democracy) and always abominates liberty in favor of it and jingoist nationalism.
Some particulars:
p. 50, false implication that the state has a right to some share of an individual's income.
p. 80-1, false attribution (editorializing) of belief to Jefferson that government was natural rather than artificial based on statement from the Declaration that says the opposite! (e.g., "instituted", "right" to institute new government, i.e., at their option, and only with consent of those wishing to be governed)
p. 88+ they generally do well explaining that Confederation was a good system and more free than the Constitution, which was carefully used by Hamilton - in Jefferson's absence - to begin aggregating and centralizing power (see DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse)
p. 90, the god of monarchy may have been displaced, but democracy turned out to be (in the words of Hoppe) a god that failed too, but the authors appear to be still blindly worshipping (see Hoppe, Democracy, the God that Failed)
p. 94, begins a reverence for "Whigs" that seems unsupportable given later events, particularly around the time of the civil war, where the Republican former Whigs (still loudly proclaiming their loyalty to Whig ideas), freed of Southern restraint, instituted a series of Whig programs to centralize government and allow it to control business and hence individuals through subsidies and massive regulation ("crony capitalism") (see DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln)
p. 95-96, more of the fallacy of government being "natural" being a position of the founders, especially Jefferson, a heresy he would have soundly rejected (see DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse)
p. 105, at least a (false) implication that state's-rights was a Southern-only position, and only to promote slavery (see Woods, Nullification)
p. 109, more bias toward Whig mercantilism by our authors
p. 110, the goals of the so-called "second phase of the American revolution", that is, centralization of power , were hardly noble
p. 112, the Constitution was never meant to be "an end to state sovereignty"; just delegation of some powers to a new agency; to claim so is to rewrite history, not retell it
p. 114, fairly laughable that right after correctly explaining the three-fifths compromise the authors state that it implied "designation of a human as only three-fifths of the value of another"; it was about representation, not value, and slaves didn't vote anyway: would it make slaves free or equal if each was counted as one person for representation?
p. 116, reference to nullification (of fugitive slave laws) without either the knowledge or honesty to name it as such
p. 116, well, it's nice to know that slavery wasn't an "important issue"
p. 116, the framers were certainly not "acting on the assumption that the Union was the highest good"; of them all, only Hamilton was to be of that opinion, and he didn't voice it in The Federalist, at least; authors insert their nationalistic cult editorializing again. Someone should tell them that "patriot" doesn't mean "lover of large centralized government"
p. 116, failed to note that the supremacy clause only applies to laws made in accordance with the constitution denotes continued flogging of the authors' nationalistic religion
p. 117, humility my (behind)
p. 120, history has shown Beard and the anti-federalists to have been correct in all their fears; since this book was writen in 2004, and not, as one might suppose from the professed naïveté of the authors, we see again distinct and distasteful bias toward the centralizers, increased government power, and hence increasingly infringed individual rights; and the claim that some signers of the Declaration or supporters or opponents of either Constitution or Confederation stood to lose out economically, or did so, does not remove the issue of self-interest, but merely rather shows it was not the only issue of importance for a few of them
p. 122, ah, the false and pernicious line that "we the people" meant that it was the people and not the colonies that separated; of course, that is entirely false; see DiLorenzo or Woods (or the Treaty of Paris) for further information
p. 124, Washington commits a false dilemma fallacy
p. 125, unfortunately any reader of DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse will see that the anti-federalists - Jeffersonians - did indeed lose the war, and the Hamiltons won and are winning
p. 126, hooray, he got something right - the 2nd amendment - but probably for the wrong reasons
p. 131-2, for "extraconstitutional" (notion of a cabinet), read unconstitutional, starting up the whole wretched empire of bureaucratic evil, pork, and avarice on the Potomac
p. 134, "Hamilton's foreign birth prohibited him from becoming president": thank God
p. 135, national "assumption" of state debts, no matter how unequal: the first socialist welfare program
Hamilton wanted a "permanent national debt", and despite the effects of said debt, the authors still worship him
p. 136, … used said debt to browbeat the rich of the day, and to create a national bank that eventually become the Federal Reserve, with all the wealth destruction so caused (95% of the value of the dollar since 1913)
"Hamilton had no illusions about the damages inherent in big government" - he just didn't care, or hoped to be the one holding the whip
Authors try to attribute the debt being paid down to Hamilton ("over 20 years…") when it took reversal of Hamilton by Jefferson and others to begin to pay down the debt! (more in Hamilton's Curse)
p. 137. "The public purse must supply the deficiency of private resources." (Hamilton). I.e., theft is OK when you don't get what you want. Fortunately that idiocy at least brought Madison over.
p. 138. Oh good, Hamilton's responsible for the whole implied powers nonsense, too. Why is the author defending him again?
p. 138. If the Whiskey Rebellion had been won, tyranny would have had to take a step back. Every war advances it; the War of Southern Independence being the next big one.
In general it seems Zinn tells the story, as objectively as he can, and Schweikart/Allen are writing one long editorial or position paper. It leaves a bad taste even when they're right.
p. 152. Authors make excuses for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Faugh!
p. 153. Those idiots then make a content-free false assertion that the Constitution "repudiated" the doctrines of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
p. 160. Authors still fellating Hamilton and crediting him for Jefferson's successes.
p. 168. Burr should have a monument for saving the Republic (for a little while) from Hamilton's machinations (see DiLorenzo's book Hamilton's Curse). Hamilton a "brightest light"? What a joke. This is why it's hard to take this extended rant of a book seriously: too much biased opinion, rather than facts from good sources and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.
p. 168. It's not "pre-emptive" (i.e., initiatory aggression) war to respond to actual attacks.
p. 174. Misspelling of Niagara ("Niagra"). Ouch.
p. 178+ - skimmed only; not really worth my time; nothing new to learn facts-wise, and the authors' opinions are frequently odious and always unwelcome.
p. 182. Demonstrates continued lack of understanding of the federal system in praising McCulloch v. Maryland.
p. 210-1. Another failure to understand federalism.
p. 250. Yes, morality is above law, especially law not consented to: and you can bet the slaves did not consent.
p. 260. Hey, they get one thing right: "Ultimately slavery could only exist through the power of the state."
p. 299, baseless assertion that the South meant to "violate the Constitution no matter what" without any sort of explanation.
p. 300, baseless driveby assertion that secession was evil (and that all the "good" people stayed home from the southern elections). Got one thing right, though: most Southerners fought to defend their state and nation and to uphold constitutional principles, not for slavery.
p. 302, it is not just an exaggeration but an outright lie to claim that the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War") was "only about slavery". Numerous historical facts must be ignored to make such a claim.
p. 303, as Block and others point out, secession is freedom of association and always available by right, even if those exercising their freedom are murdered by tyrants such as Lincoln.
p. 305, tyranny in Maryland, including arrest of state legislators and ignoring the supreme court; illegal creation of a new state from a state that Lincoln claimed never left the (hence involuntary) union
p. 312, Lincoln was not actually a good strategist at all; he tried to micromanage his generals, frustrating them exceedingly.
p. 313, whether called "hard war" or "total war", murdering, raping, pillaging noncombatants, and destroying their property, is evil; authors' whitewashing attempt fails.
p. 313, another whitewash: northerners did not go to war because "Southerners had broken the law" (as if the USA could define law in another nation), but to regain territory and tax revenue.
p. 324, O for the "good old days" when profligate murderous wars only cost $2 million per day!
p. 324, adding a tax to make people use the state's banknotes isn't "fixing a loophole"; it's just new theft; Lincoln and Chase can be blamed for much of the state's control of banking: a sad legacy
p. 326, desperation makes people stupid, sadly
p. 347, tried to gloss over Jefferson Davis not having done anything illegal either in war or independence
p. 347, finally, "Lincoln's Last Days"... the murderer and destroyer of liberty brought to justice!
p. 348, neither treason nor sedition make sense as accusation against CSA citizens who owed no allegiance to a foreign government
p. 349, certainly not; Lincoln shall life in infamy, not as a hero of any sort
p. 349, ah, the Lost Cause, which authors begin with slander ("perverted") and continue with slander ("Marxist", "Neo-Confederate")
To set a few things straight: it is not worth arguing whether secession was legal or constitutional; those concepts from inside the compact did not apply to a party leaving the compact.
Second, in the War of Northern Aggression (WoNA), there were many wrong parties and a few right. The Southern common soldiers, fighting to defend their homeland, were certainly in the right. One might also claim exception for draftees on either side, since they were threatened with death for desertion, depending on how practical it would have been for them to escape or if (for Southerners) they eventually came to fight in defense of their homes as well. Some of the Southern generals - Lee especially - were also clearly fighting to stop a foreign attack; in fact, I do not know if many or any were fighting to maintain slavery (that is not to deny its support among many of the politicians).
As to wrong, we have anyone in the north seeking to conquer, seeking to "teach a lesson" (as the redcoats tried to do but failed in the last American War for Secession), and so forth, to "maintain the union" as the euphemism had it, was certainly evil. It was also abundantly clear (e.g., in H. W. Crocker III's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War) that the northern soldiers and generals were fighting because they were told to, and certainly not to free any slaves; any suggestion of that motivation is stillborn. But we also have, of course, wrong on the side of the slaveholders and any who would fight for slavery rather than in defense of their country, whose numbers we cannot determine, except to realize that most soldiers would be poor and own no slaves.
p. 350, while slavery was not "irrelevant" as a cause of war, there were certainly other important causes, the tariff - the national tax of the time, chiefly inflicted upon the South for improvements in the north - being one of them
p. 351, it is not important whether the US government was more oppressive than the CSA's government; that either was oppressive is bad enough; morality is not a relative game
p. 351, another jewel in the pigsty: the government did indeed perpetuate Jim Crow, where the market would not
p. 351, they are right but not as intended that the WoNA was about freedom: whether a people had - as Lincoln himself claimed - the right to self-determination or no; and by force of arms they proved that this people in this time did not have the power, but the right remains for ever
p. 352, the WoNA destroyed the USA as a voluntary union
p. 515, mostly skimming now even through all the stupid things the authors write to absolve Wilson of purposefully and unnecessarily dragging the US into the war, but their defense of propaganda is pretty laughable, and weak too (the defense is that it was "obviously accepted and enthusiastically received", which, dimwits, is the goal, so all that's saying is that the propaganda was successful)
Same page: more rationalization of infringements to liberty (speech and press). This is what happens when people with no principles attempt to write a "history" based on what they wanted to have happened.
p. 517, they gloss merrily over the reinstitution of slavery, called euphemistically "the draft"; they scarcely criticized the income tax; and if a Republican had passed it, they likely would have cheered; another hazard of the unprincipled is that they look at who does something, rather than the nature of the act (cf. Bush vs. Obama bombing brown people)
p. 523, well, finally, some mention of Britain and France's culpability, but way too late; and of Wilson's punitive treaty (giving the Allies anything they wanted so long as they joined his pet League of Nations). At least strokes finally clobbered that useless idiot.
p. 565, almost gets it - "if a task was valuable, someone in the private sector would have paid to have it done" except they add the perfidious "or ... citizens would have imposed taxes on themselves"; no, just no: the first part is all; citizens do not "impose taxes on themselves" - if they want to pay for something they will pay voluntarily, so taxes are imposed on the unwilling under the auspices of "democracy"; taxation, as we know, is theft
p. 567, unclear if he is calling the NRA programs justified or saying that they would be claimed to be justifiable by their advocates; but it looks like the former is being claimed, which is of course inaccurate; they did not get "the nation" (the individuals therein) out of the depression; they generally lengthened it or did nothing (see, e.g., Folsom)
p. 591, "Americans had little appreciation for a society steeped in a tradition of extreme nationalism," (really? This is meant to be a joke, right?) "reinforced through indoctrination in its public education system" (yeah, that'd never happen in the US) "and replete with military training of children from the time they could walk" (well, one for three ain't bad; instead of military training, military worship is ingrained).
p. 592, you can just about take it as gospel that in this book terms like "absurd" mean "absolutely true".
p. 596, disturbing that they continue to use the term "isolationist" after admitting earlier that they mean "non-interventionist".
p. 596, if people were so hot to get into the war that they were sneaking in, why was conscription used?
p. 599, authors defending propaganda because the sweet little Americans weren't bloodthirsty by nature (forgot the War of Northern Aggression chapter after writing it, did we?)
p. 685, these are not "public accommodations" - they are private businesses, or should be (e.g., in the cases of government-run transportation), and the part of the "Civil Rights Act" that coerced their proprietors (forced association such as the EEOC) was an infringement on freedom of association, and hence individual liberty
p. 700, violating most laws (unrelated to actual harm) should have no negative connotations for anyone, although these groups did do harm by destroying property
p. 702, authors show support for banning of books and speech
p. 720, world meddler not world leader
p. 720, "1975: ... BASIC computer language invented by Bill Gates", haha
p. 735, social conservatives may rightly decry no-fault divorce, but it is better than the alternative, that is, the state forcing people to stay together - denying freedom of association, or even freedom to exit a contract (first settling debts, of course, in some reasonable way based on contributions)
p. 816, no mention of the "PATRIOT" act - an extremely inconvenient infringement on liberty for neocons - let's just ignore it
p. 829, they conclude with faith in majoritanism and infringement of individual rights, unfortunately - would they had promoted liberty
Some particulars:
p. 50, false implication that the state has a right to some share of an individual's income.
p. 80-1, false attribution (editorializing) of belief to Jefferson that government was natural rather than artificial based on statement from the Declaration that says the opposite! (e.g., "instituted", "right" to institute new government, i.e., at their option, and only with consent of those wishing to be governed)
p. 88+ they generally do well explaining that Confederation was a good system and more free than the Constitution, which was carefully used by Hamilton - in Jefferson's absence - to begin aggregating and centralizing power (see DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse)
p. 90, the god of monarchy may have been displaced, but democracy turned out to be (in the words of Hoppe) a god that failed too, but the authors appear to be still blindly worshipping (see Hoppe, Democracy, the God that Failed)
p. 94, begins a reverence for "Whigs" that seems unsupportable given later events, particularly around the time of the civil war, where the Republican former Whigs (still loudly proclaiming their loyalty to Whig ideas), freed of Southern restraint, instituted a series of Whig programs to centralize government and allow it to control business and hence individuals through subsidies and massive regulation ("crony capitalism") (see DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln)
p. 95-96, more of the fallacy of government being "natural" being a position of the founders, especially Jefferson, a heresy he would have soundly rejected (see DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse)
p. 105, at least a (false) implication that state's-rights was a Southern-only position, and only to promote slavery (see Woods, Nullification)
p. 109, more bias toward Whig mercantilism by our authors
p. 110, the goals of the so-called "second phase of the American revolution", that is, centralization of power , were hardly noble
p. 112, the Constitution was never meant to be "an end to state sovereignty"; just delegation of some powers to a new agency; to claim so is to rewrite history, not retell it
p. 114, fairly laughable that right after correctly explaining the three-fifths compromise the authors state that it implied "designation of a human as only three-fifths of the value of another"; it was about representation, not value, and slaves didn't vote anyway: would it make slaves free or equal if each was counted as one person for representation?
p. 116, reference to nullification (of fugitive slave laws) without either the knowledge or honesty to name it as such
p. 116, well, it's nice to know that slavery wasn't an "important issue"
p. 116, the framers were certainly not "acting on the assumption that the Union was the highest good"; of them all, only Hamilton was to be of that opinion, and he didn't voice it in The Federalist, at least; authors insert their nationalistic cult editorializing again. Someone should tell them that "patriot" doesn't mean "lover of large centralized government"
p. 116, failed to note that the supremacy clause only applies to laws made in accordance with the constitution denotes continued flogging of the authors' nationalistic religion
p. 117, humility my (behind)
p. 120, history has shown Beard and the anti-federalists to have been correct in all their fears; since this book was writen in 2004, and not, as one might suppose from the professed naïveté of the authors, we see again distinct and distasteful bias toward the centralizers, increased government power, and hence increasingly infringed individual rights; and the claim that some signers of the Declaration or supporters or opponents of either Constitution or Confederation stood to lose out economically, or did so, does not remove the issue of self-interest, but merely rather shows it was not the only issue of importance for a few of them
p. 122, ah, the false and pernicious line that "we the people" meant that it was the people and not the colonies that separated; of course, that is entirely false; see DiLorenzo or Woods (or the Treaty of Paris) for further information
p. 124, Washington commits a false dilemma fallacy
p. 125, unfortunately any reader of DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse will see that the anti-federalists - Jeffersonians - did indeed lose the war, and the Hamiltons won and are winning
p. 126, hooray, he got something right - the 2nd amendment - but probably for the wrong reasons
p. 131-2, for "extraconstitutional" (notion of a cabinet), read unconstitutional, starting up the whole wretched empire of bureaucratic evil, pork, and avarice on the Potomac
p. 134, "Hamilton's foreign birth prohibited him from becoming president": thank God
p. 135, national "assumption" of state debts, no matter how unequal: the first socialist welfare program
Hamilton wanted a "permanent national debt", and despite the effects of said debt, the authors still worship him
p. 136, … used said debt to browbeat the rich of the day, and to create a national bank that eventually become the Federal Reserve, with all the wealth destruction so caused (95% of the value of the dollar since 1913)
"Hamilton had no illusions about the damages inherent in big government" - he just didn't care, or hoped to be the one holding the whip
Authors try to attribute the debt being paid down to Hamilton ("over 20 years…") when it took reversal of Hamilton by Jefferson and others to begin to pay down the debt! (more in Hamilton's Curse)
p. 137. "The public purse must supply the deficiency of private resources." (Hamilton). I.e., theft is OK when you don't get what you want. Fortunately that idiocy at least brought Madison over.
p. 138. Oh good, Hamilton's responsible for the whole implied powers nonsense, too. Why is the author defending him again?
p. 138. If the Whiskey Rebellion had been won, tyranny would have had to take a step back. Every war advances it; the War of Southern Independence being the next big one.
In general it seems Zinn tells the story, as objectively as he can, and Schweikart/Allen are writing one long editorial or position paper. It leaves a bad taste even when they're right.
p. 152. Authors make excuses for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Faugh!
p. 153. Those idiots then make a content-free false assertion that the Constitution "repudiated" the doctrines of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
p. 160. Authors still fellating Hamilton and crediting him for Jefferson's successes.
p. 168. Burr should have a monument for saving the Republic (for a little while) from Hamilton's machinations (see DiLorenzo's book Hamilton's Curse). Hamilton a "brightest light"? What a joke. This is why it's hard to take this extended rant of a book seriously: too much biased opinion, rather than facts from good sources and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions.
p. 168. It's not "pre-emptive" (i.e., initiatory aggression) war to respond to actual attacks.
p. 174. Misspelling of Niagara ("Niagra"). Ouch.
p. 178+ - skimmed only; not really worth my time; nothing new to learn facts-wise, and the authors' opinions are frequently odious and always unwelcome.
p. 182. Demonstrates continued lack of understanding of the federal system in praising McCulloch v. Maryland.
p. 210-1. Another failure to understand federalism.
p. 250. Yes, morality is above law, especially law not consented to: and you can bet the slaves did not consent.
p. 260. Hey, they get one thing right: "Ultimately slavery could only exist through the power of the state."
p. 299, baseless assertion that the South meant to "violate the Constitution no matter what" without any sort of explanation.
p. 300, baseless driveby assertion that secession was evil (and that all the "good" people stayed home from the southern elections). Got one thing right, though: most Southerners fought to defend their state and nation and to uphold constitutional principles, not for slavery.
p. 302, it is not just an exaggeration but an outright lie to claim that the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War") was "only about slavery". Numerous historical facts must be ignored to make such a claim.
p. 303, as Block and others point out, secession is freedom of association and always available by right, even if those exercising their freedom are murdered by tyrants such as Lincoln.
p. 305, tyranny in Maryland, including arrest of state legislators and ignoring the supreme court; illegal creation of a new state from a state that Lincoln claimed never left the (hence involuntary) union
p. 312, Lincoln was not actually a good strategist at all; he tried to micromanage his generals, frustrating them exceedingly.
p. 313, whether called "hard war" or "total war", murdering, raping, pillaging noncombatants, and destroying their property, is evil; authors' whitewashing attempt fails.
p. 313, another whitewash: northerners did not go to war because "Southerners had broken the law" (as if the USA could define law in another nation), but to regain territory and tax revenue.
p. 324, O for the "good old days" when profligate murderous wars only cost $2 million per day!
p. 324, adding a tax to make people use the state's banknotes isn't "fixing a loophole"; it's just new theft; Lincoln and Chase can be blamed for much of the state's control of banking: a sad legacy
p. 326, desperation makes people stupid, sadly
p. 347, tried to gloss over Jefferson Davis not having done anything illegal either in war or independence
p. 347, finally, "Lincoln's Last Days"... the murderer and destroyer of liberty brought to justice!
p. 348, neither treason nor sedition make sense as accusation against CSA citizens who owed no allegiance to a foreign government
p. 349, certainly not; Lincoln shall life in infamy, not as a hero of any sort
p. 349, ah, the Lost Cause, which authors begin with slander ("perverted") and continue with slander ("Marxist", "Neo-Confederate")
To set a few things straight: it is not worth arguing whether secession was legal or constitutional; those concepts from inside the compact did not apply to a party leaving the compact.
Second, in the War of Northern Aggression (WoNA), there were many wrong parties and a few right. The Southern common soldiers, fighting to defend their homeland, were certainly in the right. One might also claim exception for draftees on either side, since they were threatened with death for desertion, depending on how practical it would have been for them to escape or if (for Southerners) they eventually came to fight in defense of their homes as well. Some of the Southern generals - Lee especially - were also clearly fighting to stop a foreign attack; in fact, I do not know if many or any were fighting to maintain slavery (that is not to deny its support among many of the politicians).
As to wrong, we have anyone in the north seeking to conquer, seeking to "teach a lesson" (as the redcoats tried to do but failed in the last American War for Secession), and so forth, to "maintain the union" as the euphemism had it, was certainly evil. It was also abundantly clear (e.g., in H. W. Crocker III's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War) that the northern soldiers and generals were fighting because they were told to, and certainly not to free any slaves; any suggestion of that motivation is stillborn. But we also have, of course, wrong on the side of the slaveholders and any who would fight for slavery rather than in defense of their country, whose numbers we cannot determine, except to realize that most soldiers would be poor and own no slaves.
p. 350, while slavery was not "irrelevant" as a cause of war, there were certainly other important causes, the tariff - the national tax of the time, chiefly inflicted upon the South for improvements in the north - being one of them
p. 351, it is not important whether the US government was more oppressive than the CSA's government; that either was oppressive is bad enough; morality is not a relative game
p. 351, another jewel in the pigsty: the government did indeed perpetuate Jim Crow, where the market would not
p. 351, they are right but not as intended that the WoNA was about freedom: whether a people had - as Lincoln himself claimed - the right to self-determination or no; and by force of arms they proved that this people in this time did not have the power, but the right remains for ever
p. 352, the WoNA destroyed the USA as a voluntary union
p. 515, mostly skimming now even through all the stupid things the authors write to absolve Wilson of purposefully and unnecessarily dragging the US into the war, but their defense of propaganda is pretty laughable, and weak too (the defense is that it was "obviously accepted and enthusiastically received", which, dimwits, is the goal, so all that's saying is that the propaganda was successful)
Same page: more rationalization of infringements to liberty (speech and press). This is what happens when people with no principles attempt to write a "history" based on what they wanted to have happened.
p. 517, they gloss merrily over the reinstitution of slavery, called euphemistically "the draft"; they scarcely criticized the income tax; and if a Republican had passed it, they likely would have cheered; another hazard of the unprincipled is that they look at who does something, rather than the nature of the act (cf. Bush vs. Obama bombing brown people)
p. 523, well, finally, some mention of Britain and France's culpability, but way too late; and of Wilson's punitive treaty (giving the Allies anything they wanted so long as they joined his pet League of Nations). At least strokes finally clobbered that useless idiot.
p. 565, almost gets it - "if a task was valuable, someone in the private sector would have paid to have it done" except they add the perfidious "or ... citizens would have imposed taxes on themselves"; no, just no: the first part is all; citizens do not "impose taxes on themselves" - if they want to pay for something they will pay voluntarily, so taxes are imposed on the unwilling under the auspices of "democracy"; taxation, as we know, is theft
p. 567, unclear if he is calling the NRA programs justified or saying that they would be claimed to be justifiable by their advocates; but it looks like the former is being claimed, which is of course inaccurate; they did not get "the nation" (the individuals therein) out of the depression; they generally lengthened it or did nothing (see, e.g., Folsom)
p. 591, "Americans had little appreciation for a society steeped in a tradition of extreme nationalism," (really? This is meant to be a joke, right?) "reinforced through indoctrination in its public education system" (yeah, that'd never happen in the US) "and replete with military training of children from the time they could walk" (well, one for three ain't bad; instead of military training, military worship is ingrained).
p. 592, you can just about take it as gospel that in this book terms like "absurd" mean "absolutely true".
p. 596, disturbing that they continue to use the term "isolationist" after admitting earlier that they mean "non-interventionist".
p. 596, if people were so hot to get into the war that they were sneaking in, why was conscription used?
p. 599, authors defending propaganda because the sweet little Americans weren't bloodthirsty by nature (forgot the War of Northern Aggression chapter after writing it, did we?)
p. 685, these are not "public accommodations" - they are private businesses, or should be (e.g., in the cases of government-run transportation), and the part of the "Civil Rights Act" that coerced their proprietors (forced association such as the EEOC) was an infringement on freedom of association, and hence individual liberty
p. 700, violating most laws (unrelated to actual harm) should have no negative connotations for anyone, although these groups did do harm by destroying property
p. 702, authors show support for banning of books and speech
p. 720, world meddler not world leader
p. 720, "1975: ... BASIC computer language invented by Bill Gates", haha
p. 735, social conservatives may rightly decry no-fault divorce, but it is better than the alternative, that is, the state forcing people to stay together - denying freedom of association, or even freedom to exit a contract (first settling debts, of course, in some reasonable way based on contributions)
p. 816, no mention of the "PATRIOT" act - an extremely inconvenient infringement on liberty for neocons - let's just ignore it
p. 829, they conclude with faith in majoritanism and infringement of individual rights, unfortunately - would they had promoted liberty
June 19, 2013
A fantastic way to get "true" American history. For such a thick volume, it reads incredibly well, even humorous in some parts. Refreshing after years in the institution of the university system.
July 25, 2012
A Patriot's History of the United States (APHotUS) is really two books; one of them pretty good another atrociously bad.
The book that is good is from about 1776 to about 1870. It describes in very positive but also sensible tones how incredible the United States was; what revolution meant and how the Founding Fathers shaped the world stage. The book starts with Columbus landing in 1492 (it glosses over his bad acts) and continues on to describe the colonies through the revolution.
Its here the book makes its first major error- it claims that the Founding Fathers were very Christian and wanted American to be a Christian Nation. There is almost nothing accurate about that assertion, but the book makes it. You literally have to keep your eyes from rolling out the back of your head while they claim that men like Washington, Adams and Jefferson were God fearing Christian men. You may experience nausea.
The book recovers by describing the tortured history of the US when it was half free and half slave. The book catalogues the desperate attempts by men like John Wilmont, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster and ultimately Abraham Lincoln to either end slavery or keep the Union moving without facing the issue.
Its at the brink of the Civil War that the book, I believe, flirts with greatness: the book systematically and effortlessly DEMOLISHES every single argument that claims that the Civil War was anything but a war against slavery and how SLAVERY- and no other reason -was why the South seceded from the Union. The book gives a point-by-point, logical and persuasive set of arguments that leaves one with no doubt that Slavery lay at the heart of Civil War and nothing else. Its factual, its elegant, and its powerful.
The book never comes close to this again.
From that point on the book is unreadable; a terrible book with terrible history and terrible research. Here are just some highlights:
* Claims that John Wilkes Booth shot himself to avoid capture. Not true.
* Claims that companies that violated the Anti-Trust laws were better for America and that those who opposed them were jealous.
* Never mentions the how the Government ended things like the 18 hour work day and child labor. Juts never mentions it.
And then we get to 1929 and the book just implodes. Its here that the book makes no pretense of being objective: the book basically says that Hoover caused the Depression by (wait for it) making the Government do too much. IO must stress that the books provides absolutely no evidence for this assertion, only bald-faced conclusions.
The book really hates its anti-logic stride when it gets to FDR and claims that FDR prolonged the depression (provides no facts for this); that had FDR done nothing private enterprise would have built the economy back up (like it had not done from 1929-1932); and how FDR was "lucky."
Let that sink in a minute. Yes.... because when I think of inheriting the worst economy in modern history and then facing Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan in a horrible war I think "That man is soooo lucky."
The book ramps it up:
*Claims Joe McCarthy was a great American.
*States that Watergate was the result of ... John Dean... not Richard Nixon (you have to be pathologically crazy to believe any of this);
*States that the Hippie, anti-war protesters were, in effect, "a bunch of whiners."
The book then hits its zenith: bashing every democrat after Truman and canonizing Ronald Regan and George W. Bush. It basically says that Ronald Reagan was brilliant - going so far to say that Regan was showing wit when he said (I swear to God he said this) that if the Ozone layer was being depleted then people needed to replace it. Wit.
The book goes so far as to say (you cannot take it seriously but it says it) that Clinton inherited the Ronald Reagan Economy. Now forget the fact that Reagan had been out of office 4 years when Clinton came in and that Reagan's last great economic reform was in 1986, because facts will not get in the way of a good story.
The book hits Clinton- even bringing up items that have been proven to be patently false: that Clinton fathered a child with an African American woman whom he had raped and when it gets to Vince Foster it says ... ugh... that Foster had "allegedly" committed suicide. Amazing.
And George W. Bush is a masterful statesman.
The book ends in 2003 which is hilarious because its in 2008 that everything this book has claimed- that the free market knows best- was exposed as being a fraud. But hey- at least we invaded Iraq...
I cannot give the book one star because its evisceration of the South's pathetic "It-wasn't-slavery-it-was-state's-rights-that-caused-the-war" argument was masterful. Other than that the book, to put it mildly, is very bad history, not properly researched and completely untrue. So, if you watch Fox News you will love it.
The book that is good is from about 1776 to about 1870. It describes in very positive but also sensible tones how incredible the United States was; what revolution meant and how the Founding Fathers shaped the world stage. The book starts with Columbus landing in 1492 (it glosses over his bad acts) and continues on to describe the colonies through the revolution.
Its here the book makes its first major error- it claims that the Founding Fathers were very Christian and wanted American to be a Christian Nation. There is almost nothing accurate about that assertion, but the book makes it. You literally have to keep your eyes from rolling out the back of your head while they claim that men like Washington, Adams and Jefferson were God fearing Christian men. You may experience nausea.
The book recovers by describing the tortured history of the US when it was half free and half slave. The book catalogues the desperate attempts by men like John Wilmont, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster and ultimately Abraham Lincoln to either end slavery or keep the Union moving without facing the issue.
Its at the brink of the Civil War that the book, I believe, flirts with greatness: the book systematically and effortlessly DEMOLISHES every single argument that claims that the Civil War was anything but a war against slavery and how SLAVERY- and no other reason -was why the South seceded from the Union. The book gives a point-by-point, logical and persuasive set of arguments that leaves one with no doubt that Slavery lay at the heart of Civil War and nothing else. Its factual, its elegant, and its powerful.
The book never comes close to this again.
From that point on the book is unreadable; a terrible book with terrible history and terrible research. Here are just some highlights:
* Claims that John Wilkes Booth shot himself to avoid capture. Not true.
* Claims that companies that violated the Anti-Trust laws were better for America and that those who opposed them were jealous.
* Never mentions the how the Government ended things like the 18 hour work day and child labor. Juts never mentions it.
And then we get to 1929 and the book just implodes. Its here that the book makes no pretense of being objective: the book basically says that Hoover caused the Depression by (wait for it) making the Government do too much. IO must stress that the books provides absolutely no evidence for this assertion, only bald-faced conclusions.
The book really hates its anti-logic stride when it gets to FDR and claims that FDR prolonged the depression (provides no facts for this); that had FDR done nothing private enterprise would have built the economy back up (like it had not done from 1929-1932); and how FDR was "lucky."
Let that sink in a minute. Yes.... because when I think of inheriting the worst economy in modern history and then facing Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan in a horrible war I think "That man is soooo lucky."
The book ramps it up:
*Claims Joe McCarthy was a great American.
*States that Watergate was the result of ... John Dean... not Richard Nixon (you have to be pathologically crazy to believe any of this);
*States that the Hippie, anti-war protesters were, in effect, "a bunch of whiners."
The book then hits its zenith: bashing every democrat after Truman and canonizing Ronald Regan and George W. Bush. It basically says that Ronald Reagan was brilliant - going so far to say that Regan was showing wit when he said (I swear to God he said this) that if the Ozone layer was being depleted then people needed to replace it. Wit.
The book goes so far as to say (you cannot take it seriously but it says it) that Clinton inherited the Ronald Reagan Economy. Now forget the fact that Reagan had been out of office 4 years when Clinton came in and that Reagan's last great economic reform was in 1986, because facts will not get in the way of a good story.
The book hits Clinton- even bringing up items that have been proven to be patently false: that Clinton fathered a child with an African American woman whom he had raped and when it gets to Vince Foster it says ... ugh... that Foster had "allegedly" committed suicide. Amazing.
And George W. Bush is a masterful statesman.
The book ends in 2003 which is hilarious because its in 2008 that everything this book has claimed- that the free market knows best- was exposed as being a fraud. But hey- at least we invaded Iraq...
I cannot give the book one star because its evisceration of the South's pathetic "It-wasn't-slavery-it-was-state's-rights-that-caused-the-war" argument was masterful. Other than that the book, to put it mildly, is very bad history, not properly researched and completely untrue. So, if you watch Fox News you will love it.
December 18, 2012
I find it humorous that people get all bent out of shape about historical bias. What? You were looking for a perfect world? Get real. I like this because it takes the liberal look at history (Revisiting America: Readings in Race, Culture, and Conflict, Susan Wyler; Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong James W. Loewen; and, of course, A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, Howard Zinn.) and turns it on its ear. I've had my students read from both sides of the track. And guess what? There's difference. And guess what? So what? If you don't like it, I suggest you go to a country where there's only one opinion, like Iraq, for example.
There is great advantage to reading both sides to build critical thinking skills. Actually, it's more important for students, and people in general, to build these skills than it is to stifle difference. Let difference ring! But let those with greatest egaletarian efforts culled from rigorous critical thinking lead this country with open-minds and open, caring arms. Peace!~
There is great advantage to reading both sides to build critical thinking skills. Actually, it's more important for students, and people in general, to build these skills than it is to stifle difference. Let difference ring! But let those with greatest egaletarian efforts culled from rigorous critical thinking lead this country with open-minds and open, caring arms. Peace!~
March 27, 2010
We have been lied to. Large blocks of vital history that makes us who we are today are maliciously absent from today's high schools and universities. We are products of a system that makes us inclined toward self-loathing as Americans. Informed, educated people know that the liberal left has taken over our public schools beginning in the early 70's. You don't have to be a right-wing conspiracy nut to know that history books were rewritten in order to indoctrinate our youth into believing that the United States as a republic is evil and that our system of government is a failure and therefore free enterprise , democracy and capitalism, along with the republic (a nation of laws) should be replaced by either communism or socialism. Informed, educated people know that the media (including TV shows and movies) is overwhelmingly dominated by leftist and that the news is no longer objective but selectively revealed to support leftist causes.
This book changes all that and gives you the real history of our great and proud country. It shows you integral parts of our past that remain untold in our schools to this day and explains the Progressive Movement which was begun by President Woodrow Wilson and perpetuated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Progressives believe that those who don't work to help themselves should get free money from those who have it and that the role of government should be to forcibly take it from them in the form of excessively high taxes. Progressives don't believe in the axiom "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and seek to expand the role of government like a control-freak parent. They see the splinters in other peoples' eyes, but ignore the beam in their own eyes.
If you believe that you should not only give a hungry man a fish through the act of voluntary charity (not forced) and that the hungry man should be taught to fish for himself, then this book is for you. On the other hand, if you don't believe in personal accountability and that the individual's problems are a result of "society" and that government is the answer to all problems (socialism, communism, fascism) then this book is not for you.
This book changes all that and gives you the real history of our great and proud country. It shows you integral parts of our past that remain untold in our schools to this day and explains the Progressive Movement which was begun by President Woodrow Wilson and perpetuated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Progressives believe that those who don't work to help themselves should get free money from those who have it and that the role of government should be to forcibly take it from them in the form of excessively high taxes. Progressives don't believe in the axiom "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and seek to expand the role of government like a control-freak parent. They see the splinters in other peoples' eyes, but ignore the beam in their own eyes.
If you believe that you should not only give a hungry man a fish through the act of voluntary charity (not forced) and that the hungry man should be taught to fish for himself, then this book is for you. On the other hand, if you don't believe in personal accountability and that the individual's problems are a result of "society" and that government is the answer to all problems (socialism, communism, fascism) then this book is not for you.
November 10, 2009
This book is like the last refuge of scoundrels. Garbage.
July 6, 2018
While I could have gone on until the end (I ended up only getting to 308 out of 867 pages) this book just put too much stress on me to continue bearing it. From the beginning, it’s a complete and utter whitewash of atrocities committed against minorities (the genocide of native Americans by Columbus and Cortez, treatment of African slaves) while boosting the podium for the white men who have always shone under the spotlight. There were times where I was intrigued by the material, but that was before the Tucker Carlson rhetoric completely turned me off from this book.
Comparing this to Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States (about whom these authors love to complain), I found that while Zinn acknowledges many times throughout his work that he has opinions and it influences what he’s writing (meaning he’s self aware that he’s subjective), these authors pretend that their writing is completely objective and only the truth is on the pages. This kind of pompous and self-righteous behavior from people who claim to be historians is utterly laughable at best, and at worst is insulting to those who take their jobs seriously.
Also, great job trying to convince your readers that Andrew Jackson was somehow a man of "big government," and that too much government overreach resulted in the Trail of Tears, while also diverting blame for the Panic of 1837 away from Jackson and instead putting it on the Mexicans. You almost had me fooled. I know very well that the Trail of Tears was a result of not enough government intervention into the atrocities committed by white settlers in places such as Georgia (which this book doesn't even bother to mention) and the Panic of 1837 was a result of Jackson destroying the National Bank that was keeping the entire U.S. economy in check. Basically Schweikart and Allen paint this fairytale delusion that big government has always been the reason for everyone's suffering and misery and that only conservatism and cutting taxes for the rich will save the day. These authors even has the gall to complain about Harriet Tubman getting a bigger spotlight than George Washington.
Basically, when you have people calling the Iraq War a “liberation” and slavery a “peculiar institution,” maybe their morals just aren’t quite in check with the real patriots of America.
Comparing this to Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States (about whom these authors love to complain), I found that while Zinn acknowledges many times throughout his work that he has opinions and it influences what he’s writing (meaning he’s self aware that he’s subjective), these authors pretend that their writing is completely objective and only the truth is on the pages. This kind of pompous and self-righteous behavior from people who claim to be historians is utterly laughable at best, and at worst is insulting to those who take their jobs seriously.
Also, great job trying to convince your readers that Andrew Jackson was somehow a man of "big government," and that too much government overreach resulted in the Trail of Tears, while also diverting blame for the Panic of 1837 away from Jackson and instead putting it on the Mexicans. You almost had me fooled. I know very well that the Trail of Tears was a result of not enough government intervention into the atrocities committed by white settlers in places such as Georgia (which this book doesn't even bother to mention) and the Panic of 1837 was a result of Jackson destroying the National Bank that was keeping the entire U.S. economy in check. Basically Schweikart and Allen paint this fairytale delusion that big government has always been the reason for everyone's suffering and misery and that only conservatism and cutting taxes for the rich will save the day. These authors even has the gall to complain about Harriet Tubman getting a bigger spotlight than George Washington.
Basically, when you have people calling the Iraq War a “liberation” and slavery a “peculiar institution,” maybe their morals just aren’t quite in check with the real patriots of America.
December 3, 2007
Remember being taught about the heroism of the battle of Iwo Jima? How about the moral compass of the founding fathers of the United States? What about the intracate reasons of why capitalism was not only adopted as the US's financial, but also the way it actually was used as the cornerstone to build the country from scratch? If you barely have vague recollections of these events, you probably grew up indoctrinated by public schools and Universities, being force fed the negative history of a country that enslaved, not a country that fought to end slavery, a country who's government spent it's citizens tax dollars trying to spy on it's own citizens, not a government who is the sole financial support of ailing 3rd world countries around the world.
This book was written by College History Professors that were fed up with the negative selective teaching of the academically approved history books. It Walks the reader through the US, shining a light on the forgotten moments and actions that made this country the shining light, and beacon of hope in the world.
This book was written by College History Professors that were fed up with the negative selective teaching of the academically approved history books. It Walks the reader through the US, shining a light on the forgotten moments and actions that made this country the shining light, and beacon of hope in the world.
November 26, 2011
The difference between "A Patriot's History" and other American History Books is that you can tell that Schweikart and Allen actually Appreciate and Respect the United States. Unlike Zinn's "People's History" book, which carries with it a palpable distaste for what the United States WAS and IS, the authors of "A Patriot's History of the United States" are clearly not rooting for a downfall of the United States. The facts remain the facts, and they are clearly outlined and sourced. The chapters are also segmented in a way that allows the reader to absorb the information by topic and in order, not just by date, but also by cause & effect. It is well written, easy to read, easy to understand, and respectful of our Nation's Leaders throughout. I would recommend it for readers of all ages, particularly teens & young adults, but also for older readers looking for clarity on the history that they were NOT taught in school.
November 24, 2010
This was an excellent, unbiased, and comprehensive history of the United States. I learned so much more from this book than I ever learned in history classes in school. Reading it chronologically really helped to see the big picture and the cause and effect of many different events. Although some reviews state that this is a one sided view, I would disagree. I felt the author showed the good, the bad, and the ugly of many political parties ( after all, in our nation's history there have been more parties than just democrat and republican, so it's a little tough for the author to be "biased" toward or against parties that no longer exist.) This book also tells the truth (backed up with almost 100 pages of footnotes and references) instead of sugar coating. I only wish he would add another chapter about the current mess we have ourselves in. This is a boom I will keep handy so I can refer back to it someday with our children.
December 25, 2010
From the publisher synopsis: "many history books devote more space to Harriet Tubman than to Abraham Lincoln; more to My Lai than to the American Revolution"
And we wouldn't want that, now would we?
And we wouldn't want that, now would we?
June 8, 2023
I can't in good conscious recommend this. I pride myself on reading all types of books, regardless of where I stand on ideologies, politics, morals, etc; if for nothing else than to try and expand my own personal horizons. And to give the book a bit of credit, it doesn't pretend to be objective. That being said, to call it a history of the U.S.....no. There is just so much that the book paints in one light that is just blatantly wrong, from Columbus to Slavery to Jim Crow and the new deal, all the way up to the war on terror, I mean at times it was just so hard to read and believe this. I definitely see this as a literary response to the late Howard Zinn's wonderful "A People's History of the United States" but it can't even hold a candle to that book, just no way. At over 800 pages though, it is more than a little bit hefty, to say the least.
June 12, 2010
Okay it really has taken me more than three months to read this 830 page book about what I should have learned in school. And it should have been a really boring read as I already knew the ending. But surprise surprise I have forgotten alot and never had been taught a bunch of it either. The greatest blessing is how it all weaves together in ways I never understood. What a great book and am more than glad I spent time reading this book.
April 19, 2023
IM DONE IM FREE
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
NO MORE HISTORY BOOK ESSAYSSSSSS
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
NO MORE HISTORY BOOK ESSAYSSSSSS
dnf
August 15, 2023dnf at page 505, may return someday but currently do not have the wherewithal...
April 29, 2011
I think it's fair to say that U.S. history as taught to my grandparents was at least somewhat whitewashed. The Founding Fathers were granted demigod status and America was perpetually the land of the free and the home of the brave. Some have called this the "My Country, Right or Wrong" approach. By the 1960s, however, the attitude towards American history underwent a complete revolution. Unfortunately, this new approach didn't offer a more accurate or balanced view; it was just as dogmatic as the old one (maybe even more so) but it reversed the narrative. Instead of the nation that could do no wrong, America could do no right. The Founding Fathers became hypocritical opportunists whose efforts at nation-building were motivated by the desire to benefit their social and economic class. They were branded as racists; intolerant and oppressive of the (invariably) peaceful Native Americans and all other races. Even those founding fathers who were anti-slavery were condemned as sellouts for tabling the issue at the Philadelphia Convention and signing a constitution that acknowledged the continued existence of slavery. This is the "My Country, Always Wrong" approach.
Although these attitudes have crept into a significant portion of the literature and text books on American history, the writings of Howard Zinn (who was outed as a communist shortly after his death) are among the most widely read. His most popular book, A People's History of the United States, is often used as a text book or is assigned reading in college American history classes. For those who are reasonably well versed in politics and history, the use of the term "people's" in the title of Zinn's book will immediately indicate that the text will have a certain lean to it ("people's" is often used in the names of communist nations or organizations; e.g., "People's Republic of China", China's "People's Liberation Army", the communist "People's Republic of Hungary" or the "People's Republic of Poland").
This brings us to A Patriot's History of the United States by historians Schweikart and Allen. The book is intended to be a remedy to the "My Country, Always Wrong" mentality while also trying to avoid the opposite extreme. The authors say this about their book:
Although the authors strive for balance, I believe that the philosophy that it impossible for an historian to be unbiased can clearly be seen in A Patriot's History. The mere act of determining what material will be included in an history, of deciding from what angle to approach the subject, or of selecting among contradicting historical accounts will always reflect the opinions or biases of the historian. In the case of Schweikart's and Allen's book, there tends to be an emphasize on the benefits of small government, the general virtue of the nation (while admitting that there are many flaws), and the beneficial effects of the free market. For example, in their discussion of the Trail of Tears (in which the Cherokee were forcibly driven out of Georgia and into Oklahoma), the authors point out that the Cherokee were evicted from their lands because President Andrew Jackson exceeded his Constitutional authority. Congress had not granted Jackson the right to displace the Cherokee while the Supreme Court had explicitly ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the Cherokee's land rights could not be legally violated. The authors emphasize that a) the Cherokee's rights were violated by a president who repeatedly expanded executive authority and b) that the tribe's land rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court, which obviously didn't hold the Cherokee's race against them.
While the authors generally defend America, they have little compunction in pointing out where America has fallen short of its promise or ideals, particularly with regards to slavery or racism. The most interesting idea presented in the book echoes a statement made by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams firmly believed that a free society of limited government couldn't exist unless its citizens practiced self-restraint. The authors suggest that the growth of the federal government and the associated reductions in personal liberty were often the result of the moral failings of the American people:
Although these attitudes have crept into a significant portion of the literature and text books on American history, the writings of Howard Zinn (who was outed as a communist shortly after his death) are among the most widely read. His most popular book, A People's History of the United States, is often used as a text book or is assigned reading in college American history classes. For those who are reasonably well versed in politics and history, the use of the term "people's" in the title of Zinn's book will immediately indicate that the text will have a certain lean to it ("people's" is often used in the names of communist nations or organizations; e.g., "People's Republic of China", China's "People's Liberation Army", the communist "People's Republic of Hungary" or the "People's Republic of Poland").
This brings us to A Patriot's History of the United States by historians Schweikart and Allen. The book is intended to be a remedy to the "My Country, Always Wrong" mentality while also trying to avoid the opposite extreme. The authors say this about their book:
[W]e reject "My Country, Right or Wrong," but we equally reject "My Country, Always Wrong." I think you'll find us quite critical of such aspects of our past — such as the Founders' unwillingness to actually act on slavery on at least three separate occasions; or about Teddy Roosevelt's paternalistic regulations and his anti-business policies. On the other hand, as conservatives, we nevertheless destroy the myth that FDR "knew" about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Instead, we try to always put the past in the context of the time — why did people act then as they did, and was that typical?It is the authors' belief that "if the story of America's past is told fairly, the result cannot be anything but a deepened patriotism, a sense of awe at the obstacles overcome, the passion invested, the blood and tears spilled, and the nation that was built." In short, the authors are trying to counter what they see as leftist distortions of the history of the United States while telling a more balanced story of the nation.
Although the authors strive for balance, I believe that the philosophy that it impossible for an historian to be unbiased can clearly be seen in A Patriot's History. The mere act of determining what material will be included in an history, of deciding from what angle to approach the subject, or of selecting among contradicting historical accounts will always reflect the opinions or biases of the historian. In the case of Schweikart's and Allen's book, there tends to be an emphasize on the benefits of small government, the general virtue of the nation (while admitting that there are many flaws), and the beneficial effects of the free market. For example, in their discussion of the Trail of Tears (in which the Cherokee were forcibly driven out of Georgia and into Oklahoma), the authors point out that the Cherokee were evicted from their lands because President Andrew Jackson exceeded his Constitutional authority. Congress had not granted Jackson the right to displace the Cherokee while the Supreme Court had explicitly ruled in Worcester v. Georgia that the Cherokee's land rights could not be legally violated. The authors emphasize that a) the Cherokee's rights were violated by a president who repeatedly expanded executive authority and b) that the tribe's land rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court, which obviously didn't hold the Cherokee's race against them.
While the authors generally defend America, they have little compunction in pointing out where America has fallen short of its promise or ideals, particularly with regards to slavery or racism. The most interesting idea presented in the book echoes a statement made by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Adams firmly believed that a free society of limited government couldn't exist unless its citizens practiced self-restraint. The authors suggest that the growth of the federal government and the associated reductions in personal liberty were often the result of the moral failings of the American people:
As with much of the history of slavery and racism in America, the desegregation of schools ultimately had required a perversion of the apparatus of the state in order to get people to act responsibly and justly. The Founders never imagined in their wildest dreams that federal courts would be determining the makeup of student bodies in a local high school, yet the utter collapse of the state legislative process to act morally — or at the very least, even effectively — pushed the courts into action. It was a cautionary tale. At every point in the past, the continued refusal of any group to abide by a modicum of decency and tolerance inevitably brought change, but also brought vast expansions of federal power that afflicted all, including the groups that initially benefited from the needed change.A Patriot's History of the United States is an excellent resource for anyone who is looking for a response to leftist depictions of America's past or who simply wants a general overview of U.S. history. Since the authors didn't set out to write a text book, A Patriot's History doesn't read like one; it is much more engaging than most books one may have read in an American history class. I have but one minor complaint; the text seems to be a bit too informal in places, which can make it harder to take the authors seriously.
April 25, 2023
OH MY WORD THIS BOOK WAS SO LONG. And it gets longer every day, that’s the funny thing. *not me over here realizing that every year kids who study history will have to study more than the kids the year before* but dang!!! Like 1,000 pages?! I should feel accomplished but since this was a schoolbook I don’t. 👍 3 stars. It was pretty mid.
August 5, 2022
If you're reading this review in order to determine whether to make your child read this book for school - do not make them do so.
As a student, a massive history buff, a voracious reader, a strong conservative, and a patriotic American, this book was simply a nightmare.
It was very boring, and I say this as somebody who reads thousand-page biographies for fun. The bias was irritating in the extreme and often led to unsupported assertions or snarky comments that detracted from the scholarship. The scholarship, by the way, is poor. The number of things they stated that are simply flatly untrue is worrisome. I'm not just referring to opinions with which I disagree, or conjectures I think unfair and unwarranted, both of which occur constantly throughout (and which are very often utterly unsupported by any citation) - they make literally historically false statements far too often for comfort.
Furthermore, despite the selling point of "we love America! Yay America! We highlight the good things about America!", the tone of the book felt strangely bitter toward America.
And the inconsistency of the authors' ideology was strange. They trashed Andrew Jackson, and then went on to praise Donald Trump to the moon and back, yet Donald Trump has named Andrew Jackson as his favorite president. They made all sorts of grand boasts about the uncontested transition of power and statements about the technicalities of the impeachment process that stand in ironic contrast to the later events of the Trump presidency and their own opinions on those subjects.
The writing also tended toward the grammatically incorrect at times.
I'd give it one star, but in the beginning third or so of the book there were some legitimately nuanced and insightful takes, plus there was the line "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Civil War was about slavery and, in the long run, only about slavery," which frankly I was pleasantly surprised by.
In all, I think the book is well-summed up by this: they spent several pages ranting about the negative effect of "The Pill" on society writ large (which I don't necessarily entirely disagree with), without ever explaining once during the entire book what The Pill was.
Did they really write the book to instruct a generation of students, or was it just a way for two angry guys to vent whilst indulging in a hobby they enjoyed? I'm inclined toward the latter.
As a student, a massive history buff, a voracious reader, a strong conservative, and a patriotic American, this book was simply a nightmare.
It was very boring, and I say this as somebody who reads thousand-page biographies for fun. The bias was irritating in the extreme and often led to unsupported assertions or snarky comments that detracted from the scholarship. The scholarship, by the way, is poor. The number of things they stated that are simply flatly untrue is worrisome. I'm not just referring to opinions with which I disagree, or conjectures I think unfair and unwarranted, both of which occur constantly throughout (and which are very often utterly unsupported by any citation) - they make literally historically false statements far too often for comfort.
Furthermore, despite the selling point of "we love America! Yay America! We highlight the good things about America!", the tone of the book felt strangely bitter toward America.
And the inconsistency of the authors' ideology was strange. They trashed Andrew Jackson, and then went on to praise Donald Trump to the moon and back, yet Donald Trump has named Andrew Jackson as his favorite president. They made all sorts of grand boasts about the uncontested transition of power and statements about the technicalities of the impeachment process that stand in ironic contrast to the later events of the Trump presidency and their own opinions on those subjects.
The writing also tended toward the grammatically incorrect at times.
I'd give it one star, but in the beginning third or so of the book there were some legitimately nuanced and insightful takes, plus there was the line "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Civil War was about slavery and, in the long run, only about slavery," which frankly I was pleasantly surprised by.
In all, I think the book is well-summed up by this: they spent several pages ranting about the negative effect of "The Pill" on society writ large (which I don't necessarily entirely disagree with), without ever explaining once during the entire book what The Pill was.
Did they really write the book to instruct a generation of students, or was it just a way for two angry guys to vent whilst indulging in a hobby they enjoyed? I'm inclined toward the latter.
July 12, 2011
This is an authentic history of "the greatest nation on God's green earth" ( Michael Medved). While certainly not a book to be read cover to cover, it is a wonderfully accurate history of this country without any made-up facts or "undiscovered" history. In contrast to Howard Zinn's book, I actually have confidence that this book is well researched , right back to the original writings. Keep this one handy to refute the many false claims out there concerning this wonderful land. We are not perfect but this is a blessed land.
October 17, 2025
First off: the majority of reviews on the first page are from the first edition. The 2014 edition (which ends in “America’s Age of Entitlement” instead of “the War on Terror”) seems to have fixed many of these errors and made a more conscious attempt at “neutrality,” just so y’all know. Now, with that out of the way, let’s talk about this behemoth, shall we? This was my American History textbook in my junior year, but at times, it did feel like a nice, nonfiction pleasure read instead of a dry tome. The writing style is breezy and concise but fairly engaging, and it’s the kind of book you’d pick up and flip to a random page to learn some interesting tidbits about our history. The scholarship, in general, is quite good (save for the section on Jackson, which seems horribly skewed and unfair to my knowledge), and I do appreciate that it, for the most part, presents theses and arguments instead of just presenting facts (avoiding the blatant lie that history can be presented as just “facts”). However, once it hits the 20th century, the book’s depiction of more recent politics is too often extremely rose-colored and inaccurate, totally sullied by neo-con fever dreams. I do wonder if the most recent edition has altered its outlook based on the great revolution of post-2016 conservatism.
August 18, 2012
Wow, what a great book to listen to while driving. So informative and great at giving you the sides to history that you don't hear. Everyone has heard the phrase that history is written by the winners, but in todays society history seems to be written by the politically correct and whatever the media wants us to "remeber". The parts about 911, the 80's, the great depression and the Civil War are excellent. This book reminds you that we are a great nation and we have so much to be proud of.
Read
April 22, 2024Was this a school book? Yes. IT WAS ALSO 866 pages of history 🫠 it counts
May 17, 2017
If you like Fox News you'll like this history of the United States. In Larry Schweikart and Michael Patrick Allen's Patriot's History, liberals are always doing the wrong thing, government is always making things worse, and even Republicans like Nixon and McCarthy get a positive makeover. A part of me is sympathetic with the authors' intent. Historians as a group are incredibly liberal, and an opposite point of view is perhaps necessary. However we learn from the past only when we truly understand it. When an author decides ahead of time what he wants the history to say and then cherry picks evidence to back up his preconceived views, the whole purpose of studying history is lost.
At times I was uncertain if the authors were purposely distorting reality or whether they were ignorant of it. One example is when they argued that James Madison clearly came out in favor of political parties in one of his Federalist essays. This argument conveniently justifies the partisanship of many extremists today, but is a misreading of Madison who only favored multiple and ever shifting factions and not a permanent two-party system. Liberal heroes like FDR and JFK are attacked with particular venom. Roosevelt is called a liar because he told the American people his policies were working, and Kennedy takes most of the blame for Vietnam.
I read this book because I wanted to get a different perspective, and I certainly did. I'm glad I read it, and I'm even more glad I'm done reading it.
At times I was uncertain if the authors were purposely distorting reality or whether they were ignorant of it. One example is when they argued that James Madison clearly came out in favor of political parties in one of his Federalist essays. This argument conveniently justifies the partisanship of many extremists today, but is a misreading of Madison who only favored multiple and ever shifting factions and not a permanent two-party system. Liberal heroes like FDR and JFK are attacked with particular venom. Roosevelt is called a liar because he told the American people his policies were working, and Kennedy takes most of the blame for Vietnam.
I read this book because I wanted to get a different perspective, and I certainly did. I'm glad I read it, and I'm even more glad I'm done reading it.
April 14, 2011
If you wondering by now looking through my books if I'm a nerd, yes I am. This is a fat history book. They might as well have made it the dimensions of a text book then it wouldn't have been so fat (900 pages or so). I really great book for all Americans to read. The most important parts of this book were the parts I never really studied in school. I learned more about all parts of our history but I already knew a ton about the Civil War, The Founding, and World War II because these are things I studied in depth in school. But I was so happy to learn more about the War of 1812, The Vietnam War, Spanish War. More about political battles of various presidents and where some of our customs and traditions come from. I thought I learned the most from the chapters from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of World War II.
For being a History book it has a good overall narrative. He generally writes from the attitude of America is a great country with some bad mistakes intertwined rather than America is bad and here is why.
For being a History book it has a good overall narrative. He generally writes from the attitude of America is a great country with some bad mistakes intertwined rather than America is bad and here is why.
March 27, 2016
Yiiiiiikes. I picked this up out of pure morbid curiosity, and my expectations weren't disappointed in the least. It's about as biased and inaccurate as the blurb would suggest.
Interestingly, it seems to follow exactly the same format as A People's History of the United States (though I didn't bother to double-check). Methinks someone was a little bitter over Zinn's take on US history...
Interestingly, it seems to follow exactly the same format as A People's History of the United States (though I didn't bother to double-check). Methinks someone was a little bitter over Zinn's take on US history...
May 13, 2010
This is a wonderful condensed history of the United States. My husband and I read this together and it prompted so many discussions on the history of this great Country! I find myself taking topics from this book and looking for orginal works to expand my knowledge. Every American should read this book. It should be used in classrooms to teach the correct History of the United States.
December 16, 2018
I'm a Republican and was very interested in reading this book. What a disaster! This is probably one of the most biased, incomplete, and partisan history books I've ever read (and I've read a lot of history books over the years). The only reason that it has two stars is that it caused me to keep reading to see what other events he was going to warp into matching his view.
August 12, 2011
The books commits two crimes. On the one hand it is partisan, and therefore poor history, but worst of all it is horribly written and disorganized. If you want an interesting conservative take on American history look into Russell Kirk, who knew how to craft a phrase.
July 12, 2016
I'm a conservative and I do not have a problem with history as seen through the eyes of others, but when I got to the Civil War section the biased history, not opinion this book espoused was too much. it's literally the only book I have ever thrown away.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 349 reviews