A History of the American People

This book should be taught in colleges. All aspiring for presidential office should be publicly questioned on different US historical events, which so thoroughly discussed in the book. I guess that such quest would find who is qualified to be included to primary competition for presidential candidacy.

My daughter read this for Ambleside Online Year 9, and was supposed to continue reading it for year 10, but did not. The primary reason she gave for asking for a change was what she described as the tabloid and hastily opinionated nature of the narrative. This became apparent to her as she compared Johnson's writing style to David McCullough's. Of course, all history is viewed and narrated through the lenses of personal belief, but she did not consider it a very trustworthy nor magnanimous telling, and perhaps rather like second-hand popular knowledge.

The book is OK for an introduction into American History.

The reason I give this book a 3 star is because Paul Johnson does not seem to put the least bit of effort to keep the book from being unbiased, with blatant opinions - rather than facts - about the history of the United States.

A few things to keep in mind when reading the book:
- Johnson nearly entirely ignores Jefferson's presidency, stopping only to mention he was a weak leader for opposing central banks.
- Johnson praises central banks as a de facto good institution with little to no discussion on their weaknesses and extravagant overdramatization of their good will.
- The author paints most anti-federalists as evil men who were misguided and/or bad willed.
- The author entirely ignores most of the imperialistic position America took against many Central American and other small nations.
- Johnson stay inches away from referring to the 1960s movement as "dirty" hippies.
- Johnson blatantly disregards Watergate as media hype and writes with all the words that Nixon was the best president in American History.

It must be noted also that, as we approach the second half of the 20th century, Johnson's bias becomes more and more apparent. He can not disassociate himself from the conservative right or make unbiased statements about history rather than his opinion on it.

I would absolutely not suggest this book to anyone who wishes to improve their understanding of the founding and progress of America.

While I wouldn't recommend that my students read only Paul Johnson's work on US History, I would definitely recommend that they read it in accompaniment to their texts. Johnson is rightly to be credited for providing a more balanced and optimistic view of the American people/government than is prevalent in the majority of publishing firms today. He does not shy away from criticism where it is due, but neither is he afraid to assert honor where honor is due--even if it means offending some politically correct ears.

While I agree that he can be classified as a conservative, I would also note that this is not a "conservative's conservative" book. By that I mean that people who are unabashedly Republican, Religious Right, etc., will not find unscrutinized support for their revisionist accounts of history. While Johnson does overlap with certain conservative appraisals of historical events and figures, he does so on a case-by-case basis, always aiming to support his evaluations with fact. In many instances, these facts are not widely known because they have been cut out from liberal textbooks. They are not, however, smelling of the party line.

Indeed, Johnson's book is fascinating for his historical scholarship, research, and deep analysis. His coverage of "forgotten" spans of time (i.e. Grant, Arthur, Hayes, Garfield) is welcome, as is his deft treatment of figures who are normally expansive in coverage (i.e. Lincoln, JFK). I found the 1860-1900 chapters to be personally most enlightening.

Johnson is especially great at noticing overarching themes in government and economic life. He is not a social or sociological commentator, which will relieve some of his more liberal readers. And in fact, I believe most people--liberal or conservatve--would gain an awful lot from his research and presentation if they read with an open mind.

An intelligent and well written book that helped me to understand the rationale behind much of the right wing rhetoric that I usually find so mystifying. However, his arguments may only ring true to those who agreed with him before picking up his book. Perhaps that is a universal truth about such books; we all see the world from different angles in different lights.

I am still idealistic enough to hope for a history that presents both sides fairly but know that the objectivity of the writer and the reader are always lost as the information sifts through our cultural filters and is sorted according to our personal system of values. But, as this history reaches the twentieth century this book starts to feel more like a redundant and one sided argument. He presents his opinions openly as facts and uses dated statistics to convince us they are gospel.

Paul Johnson stands behind Adam Smith in an existential hell arguing with Karl Marx and a select group of religious zealots and liberal Democrats. The author seems to see utopia as a society based on a version of meritocracy where those with the means and good fortune to "have" should keep and prosper and those with less should work harder to get more or accept the status quo... resistance if futile.

The message I read is that the capitalists should be left to rule this planet as they see fit and the governments should either help them or ignore them. It is a comforting lullaby for those who chose to ignore that 30,000 children on this planet die from lack of sustenance And very disturbing to those with a sense of social justice or who agree with most scientists that we are, in fact, destroying this planet to feather a few overstuffed beds.

I wonder if he has ever walked across the campus in Cambridge or Oxford and gotten the opinion of the science department about how the greediest people on earth are managing our little planet.

If your view of American culture leans towards the paintings of Norman Rockwell and you believe in the trickledown theory in an age when American money produces almost nothing in America, you will love this book. And may God help us.

An excellent history until Johnson reaches about the 1960's where he begins to be partial. Probably a casualty of closeness. Granted it must be hard to write objectively about a moment in time he is living through...Otherwise the book is very good.

This is a history of the American people, and, not a history of a bunch of hyphenated-Americans. It is exactly what is needed in a time of insane, ahistorical, and for the very most part, adulterated historical self-hatred in The United States. I highly recommend Paul Johnson. He seems to pick up where Will Durant left off.

.
I have recently discovered that this book is vastly overrated. In fact, I would now label it "trash."
It sat mostly unopened on my shelf since its publication, until a footnote in another book I was reading caused me to follow its reference to the Johnson book. Writing about Thomas Jefferson, Johnson says:
... From claret to concubinage, there was no delight
... he did not sample, or rather indulge in
... habitually. (p. 242)
... So Jefferson's wife was in intimate daily contact ...
... with her husband's concubine. (p. 242)
... Jefferson's expensive tastes might not have proved
... so fatal to his principles had he not also been an
... amateur architect of astonishing persistence and
... eccentricity. (p. 244)
... It is just as well that Jefferson had no sense of
... humor: he constitutes in his own way an egregious
... comic character, accident-prone and vertiginous, to
... whom minor catastrophes accrued. (p. 246)
... As originally built his bedroom [at Monticello]
... accorded him no privacy at all, a curious oversight
... considering he had a passion for being alone and
... unobserved. Thereafter the search for privacy became
... an obsession in the many changes of design ...
... Contemporaries assumed they were there so his alleged
... mistress, Sally Hemmings, could slip in and out of his
... chamber unobserved. (p. 247)
Now whatever one thinks of the supposed affair between Jefferson and Hemmings, and I believe it to be complete and utter BS, it is hard to get around the fact that Jefferson's wife died when Sally Hemmings was not yet nine years old. Suggesting that Martha Jefferson was in "intimate daily contact with he husband's concubine," is alone sufficient to disqualify Johnson as a serious historian. I tried to follow some of Johnson's footnotes, but found them either irrelevant or dead ends for me. (My personal library does have its limitations.) As for the "contemporaries" description of Jefferson's quarters, I would offer:
... His apartments had no private entrance not perfectly
... accessible and visible to all the household. No female
... domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when
... he was known not to be there, and none could have
... entered without being exposed to the public gaze.
This is from a letter written in 1858 by a Jefferson granddaughter. ...
Regarding the snide comments like "amateur architect," well I guess Johnson never visited the University of Virginia. Why would he have wanted to? There are scholars there.

Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People is a big ambitious book I enjoyed reading. Not all scholars have Johnson’s knack for producing works that can appeal to the educated lay reader. To focus momentarily on just one of his many talents, Johnson’s short and lively biographical sketches are often fascinating, and have stimulated many readers into further historiographical excursions. He covers a broad range of figures, primarily politicians, but also creative practical geniuses and several artists and literary types. Of course, Johnson is a politically conservative scholar, and some readers, even some who generally admire this book, take issue with Johnson for politicizing history. However, in my experience, most history writing has a particular political slant, understandably so, and at least Johnson is up front about his. The notion of “objective” history, like “objective” news reporting, is problematic. The consumer in both instances is best advised to sample a variety of different sources. So, Johnson’s text is well worth reading, regardless of one’s political persuasion. Because conservatives are underrepresented in academia, AHOTAP will provide politically liberal readers food for thought with a scholarly account of the American past they might never have seen articulated before. This might conceivably change a few preconceptions. And even if one disagrees violently with Johnson on just about everything even after reading his book, his sustained attack on so much “conventional wisdom” might at the very least spur one to refine his/her historical arguments by seeking out specific scholarly works with which to contest some of Johnson’s claims. Conservative readers will obviously feel more “at home” here than their liberal counterparts, and will find this book a useful resource. They too will be given much to think about, not least because Johnson is his own man, and has provided a “conservative” interpretation of America that is difficult to pigeonhole.

One of Johnson’s great themes is the failure/undesirability of social engineering. He weaves it into his account from the beginning, pointing out the failure of top-down planning schemes in the English colonies, and arguing that the salutary neglect from England ensured that the colonies were more dynamic and vital than the colonies of other Old World powers, where designs/straitjackets from on high were more thoroughly and “successfully” implemented. Prohibition in the early 20th century was a spectacular failure of social engineering that well illustrated what Johnson, following Popper, calls “the law of unintended effect.” Of course, most of Johnson’s critique of social engineering deals with liberal policies. He spends much time arguing that the depression was prolonged precisely by attempts to intervene in the business cycle rather than letting it run its course, and he is skeptical of Keynesianism generally. He also is suspicious of much governmental business regulation, and gives historical examples of how it has had many unintended and unwanted effects, including actually hurting constituencies the regulation was ostensibly supposed to protect. He notes that the welfare state has spiraled out of control financially (and suggests that keeping down inflation is the best form of social security), and argues that it has subsidized various forms of unhealthy behavior. He also laments the influence of Gunnar Myrdal in terms of judicial activism on behalf of affirmative action/social justice. Myrdal’s legacy, says Johnson has been the undermining of the rule of law, an undercutting of the notion of equality before the law, and a failure of the judiciary to meet the general social aims for which its activism was launched and for which so much else has been sacrificed. If anything, says Johnson, judicial activism has simply created new injustices. As should be apparent by his historical critique of liberal social engineering, Johnson emerges as a defender of capitalism, limited government, and judicial restraint.

AHOTAP is also a book very appreciative of religion and its role in American history and American life. The Great Awakening brought the colonists together, providing unity without which the notion of independence would be inconceivable. The Great Awakening also championed the “inner light” and evinced millennial yearnings, and ultimately set the stage for the general acceptance of Jefferson’s valorization of individual rights and popular sovereignty, both rooted in the divine plan and with the American Revolution as the eschatological occurrence. Johnson thus argues that the revolution was a religious event, and that our politics is historically rooted in a moral and religious consensus (a rather ecumenical consensus, of course, not limited to Protestants or even Christians generally.) Johnson argues that until fairly recently, it was universally understood and acknowledged that religion was essential for maintaining the Republic, and he offers a historical understanding of the religious aspects of the first amendment that differs from much recent jurisprudence. Johnson also links flourishing religion with flourishing commercial endeavor in America, and further sees the Second Great Awakening as instrumental in leading to the ultimate eradication of the sin of slavery. (Johnson also sees parallels between the religiously inspired abolitionists and the pro-life movement.) Johnson laments the rise in recent decades of an intellectual stance in America that treats religion as the enemy of political freedom, and he worries that it threatens the moral and religious consensus at the foundation of our politics. He also thinks today’s anti-religiosity is precisely the wrong message given the increasing societal and personal decay in America that religion could help counteract. Johnson also discusses the secularization/liberalization of mainline Protestantism, and contrasts the precipitously declining membership of mainline denominations with the relative health of Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism.

AHOTAP also stresses America as a force for good in the world, most importantly during and after WWII. Defeating the Nazis, containing communism, helping Europe get back on its feet with the Marshall plan, the staggering amount of foreign aid we have supplied generally, the SDI push that helped facilitate the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is much that America can be proud about, thinks Johnson. A related theme Johnson emphasizes is the importance of a strong executive branch to allow for effective and timely decisions, and strong Presidents to make those decisions and to boost national morale.

Because Johnson’s book is so vast in scope, and because much of what he has to say is controversial, any reader is bound to disagree with at least some of Johnson’s arguments. Rather than chiming in with my own likes and dislikes, I wish instead to draw attention to several inner tensions involved in Johnson’s outlook. For one, Johnson wants to limit the scope, size, and profligacy of the State at home, yet simultaneously wishes America to remain an active and benevolent superpower. On some level, these agendas seem at cross-purposes. And given Johnson’s celebration of America as a supporter of freedom on the world stage, it also would have been interesting to see Johnson take a clearer position about what he thinks of the exportation of democracy abroad, especially given that he grounds American politics in an Anglo-Protestant culture. At any rate, there is a tension between even the vaguely defined hope that Johnson thinks America offers the world, and the specific historical conditions that Johnson thinks made America distinctive in the first place.

Another tension in Johnson’s account involves the acceptance of high-minded national ideals on one hand, and a "leave well enough alone" opposition to top down reform on the other. One very distinctive aspect of Johnson’s history is that he combines a Northern view of the Civil War with a Southern view of reconstruction. Johnson valorizes Lincoln, the great champion of Union and Emancipator of slaves, and denies that Lincoln somehow derailed the Constitution. Johnson here celebrates a strong and righteous America led by a strong and righteous Executive. However, Johnson immediately goes on the offensive against Congressional reconstruction, viewing it in part as misguided idealism, and in part as vindictive, unconstitutional and self-serving. Johnson thinks Lincoln would never have gone along with it, expresses some sympathy with the defeated South, and thinks that Congressional reconstruction ensured that the South treated blacks worse than they otherwise would have. (Admittedly, thinks Johnson, they would have been treated poorly in any event.) In effect, says Johnson, the North fought for a righteous cause in the Civil War, but what to do for Blacks in the aftermath of the war was not clear-cut at all, and certainly arm-twisting and bullying states and white citizens in an attempt somehow to “move forward” was wrong and counterproductive. On the face of it, this is a rather abrupt shift in his analysis. One national sin is immediately replaced by another. Johnson is trying to steer between the Scylla of vilifying Lincoln and (by extension) the post 1865 Union, and the Charybdis of sanctioning liberal social engineering on behalf of a nation devoted to a proposition. This attempted feat is fraught with difficulties, especially when Johnson, like Lincoln, embraces the importance of the Declaration. For instance, Johnson unsurprisingly chooses not to valorize the mid-20th century civil rights movement, which has been used to give a halo of legitimacy to judicial activism and affirmative action. He does not denigrate it, as he does with Congressional reconstruction, but he downplays it, mentioning it as if in passing. The Civil Rights movement for Johnson was ultimately a step along the road leading to pernicious social engineering. Fair enough. But if we are as Johnson claims, a nation animated by ideals articulated in the Declaration, it is difficult to treat MLK (and others) as merely a step along that road. By his own understanding of American idealism, Johnson might well lionize much of the civil rights movement, but given his opposition to the liberal judicial activists, Johnson feels this is clearly the wrong thing to do. Such is the inherent tension brought about by his various commitments.

This is a well-written book that provides much to ponder on.

This book is a classic one volume American History. Perhaps the best single volume American History ever written. The kindle edition is however hobbled by numerous typos that often are cringeworthy. The person who types this has a problem with numbers. Most likely it was scanned and never proof read. Get the print edition. Avoid the kindle.

Johnson is generally considered a conservative historian. This means he doesn’t feel communism is generally successful and its leaders tend to be murderous thugs – so pointing out the obvious makes him a conservative.

Modern Times takes us through the personalities of our leaders from World War I through the modern day. I personally relished Johnson’s defense of Harding and Coolidge as well as his portrayal of the Roosevelt and Hoover debacle – Harding successfully avoided a financial collapse and Coolidge lead a dynamic economy. Hoover facing similar circumstances, grossly expanded government and Roosevelt continued the policy, resulting in 12 years of economic stagnation.
Overall I enjoyed the book very much, and in regards to another reviewers recommendation of Howard Zinns anti-U.S. drivel, well I read that also and I only wish I was able to regain the total waste of time spent on Zinn and his obvious, blatant agenda.

I read in a couple of reviews that Johnson supposedly confused Confederate Generals Albert Sidney Johnston and Joseph E. Johnston. In my paperback copy J.E (Joseph Eggleston) Johnston is referenced on pages 474 and 475 as being at the battle of First Bull Run, which he was. A.S. (Albert Sidney) Johnston was referenced on the page 475 as being at Shiloh on April 6-7, 1862, which he was. I don't see any confusion here. They are written of as two different men. Paul Johnson correctly states that A.S. Johnston was wounded at Shiloh on page 476 but doesn't mention that he died as a result of that wound, though he wrote that he was lost. Johnson also places J.E. as a commander in 1865 when he was fighting Sherman (page 494), which is also correct. I will also note that Joseph E. Johnston is in the index but A.S. is not, at least in my copy. In the main I really enjoyed this book. Johnson does write from a decidedly conservative perspective but I find this refreshing as it is an antidote to the many histories written from a liberal perspective.

Paul Bede Johnson (born 1928) is an English journalist, popular historian, and author; he has also written books such as A History of Christianity,A history of the Jews,Intellectuals, and Modern Times Revised Edition: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties (Perennial Classics).

He notes early on that "This belief in divine appointment was to become an important factor in American as well as English history... At the origin of the myth was the widely held belief that the Christian faith had been brought to Britain directly by Joseph of Arimathea, on the express instructions of the Apostles." (Pg. 10) In the colonies, he recouts, "Individualism did assert itself... Potential settlers were warned they would have to depend on their own skills." (Pg. 68)

He emphasizes that "England never had a written constitution... All the English had were precedents... Written constitutions were subsequently adopted by all the colonies. It is vital to grasp this point. It was the constitutions as much as the assemblies themselves which made the colonies unique." (Pg. 104-105) He later observes, "The essential difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution, in its origins, was a religious event, whereas the French Revolution was an anti-religious event." (Pg. 117)

He suggests that the words 'slave' and 'slavery' were deliberately excluded from the Constitution, because "As Madison himself said... it would be wrong 'to admit in the Constitution the idea that there would be property in men.'" (Pg. 188) He notes that "There is no doubt that if the United States Constitution had been drawn up in 1687 it would have had a religious framework... (but) the actual language of the Constitution reflects the spirit of its time, which was secular." (Pg. 205) Later, he adds, "The wall of separation between church and state, then, if it existed at all, was... between the federal government and the states." (Pg. 211)

He notes, "It is a notable fact that whereas Americans took naturally to capitalism, which places the whole stress on individual effort, they have been markedly inept at creating and sustaining trade unions, which demand that men subordinate their individuality to the collective interest." (Pg. 566)

One need not agree with ALL of Johnson's conclusions to appreciate this very readable and engaging history.

How does this guy do it? No other historian packs as much information... for the most part in a very accessible style...into each page! From politics, to music, to art...Johnson can segue from a presidential election to specifics of the popular culture that lead up to it without missing a beat.
What I don't understand is the assault he gets for being 'conservative' in his judgments. The critics who accuse him of being a right wing ideologue must have missed the sections about Presidents Lincoln and Truman (both men he credits with being the best American leaders of their respective centuries).

Paul Johnson is not an author for the faint hearted, especially those with just the slightest left-wing sensitivities. But then neither is he an ordinary historian, and certainly no ordinary writer.  Above all he is a storyteller of extraordinary power and skill, making even the dourest subject a fascinating, encyclopaedic experience.
History of the American People carries that Johnsonesque trait of being a story about people. His eye for a good tale is already apparent in the title, where a less savvy author might have discarded any reference to humans.
Only Johnson has the intellectual dexterity required for this particular style - to throw a blanket over any period of history, and then examine the men and women who make up the primary threads of its fabric. He focuses on prominent and not so prominent individuals, telling their life stories in such fine, but expansive detail, that you come away after each chapter with a massively enriched appreciation of the United States's journey to greatness.
In this way, Johnson exploits all too well the real universal interest in the United States - what makes it different, successful and powerful? Always, he manages to artfully juxtapose America's achievements against its grubby, conceited and banal side.
While the historical minutiae are all there, relativism is the outstanding feature to look out for. It's a recurrent theme in all Johnson's books, where moral ambivalence is exposed and skewered. He gets to grips with American intellectuals who were great social schemers. Invariably, they were rogues and fakes who led less than exemplary lives were ill-equipped to preach about social change.
To illustrate where lefties might get queasy, he does a brilliant job of rehabilitating the robber barons. Their contributions to a more complete society are simply staggering, even when measured in today's money.
A revulsion for history is soon cured by Johnson, and History of the American People is *the* place to start if you're a novice to the author or his craft, which is about understanding the cycles of life.

The reader will find that Johnson avoids many errors of standard texts, such as the depiction of famous persons as saints or scoundrels. When Johnson discusses someone at length, he presents good and bad aspects, along with whimsical details that point to the person's humanity. Although optimistic, Johnson does not cast history as uninterrupted social progress. He (mostly) does not engage in the exaggerated language that textbooks use to hold uninterested students' attention. He does not concern himself about being consistent with the standard interpretations. He gives CITATIONS! Overall, this is a fine primer in U.S. history that breaks the mold.
I would like to address the comments from the folks in Pullman, WA. These reviewers obviously posted at some person's direction, unless you believe that so many of them mentioned the list of Washington's personal belongings by accident. It is alleged that Johnson (a) talks too much about politicians and the "elite" (b) ignores women before the 20th century (c) ignores black Americans and Native Americans (d) does not adequately treat slavery. A prospective reader should hear a second opinion:
(a) Hardly surprising, since (as any leftist will surely admit) these people dominated the lives of their contemporaries.
(b) I made a list of influential American women and looked them up. I found: Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, Anne Hutchinson (very untraditional acccount), Emily Dickinson, Betsy Ross. I did not find: Willa Cather, Sojourner Truth, Hetty Green, Helen Keller. Harriet Tubman and Helen Jackson are mentioned, and much is made of Harriet Stowe's role in the abolition movement. The sections on religious awakenings have several mentions of women.
(c) I found: WEB DuBois, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, Benjamin Banneker, Scott Joplin, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Sacajawea, Sitting Bull. I did not find Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, G.W. Carver, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, Hiawatha. Johnson discusses at length the black influence on 20th century music. He devotes 11 pages to the conflict between Jackson and the Indians, and 4.5 to the wars of the homestead era (whites and Indians were, mostly, in conflict).
(d) How many ways does Johnson need to say "abomination"? He discusses the development of black slavery in the colonies. He chronicles the early 19th century legal battles ("compromises") leading to the war. He describes the North's awakening to the harshness of southern slavery. If he does not discuss slavery to some people's satisfaction, it should be noted that the antebellum North generally gets more space than the less prosperous South.
Far from being an "opposite" of Howard Zinn's "People's History," Johnson's "History" is a is a middle ground between Zinn and the standard texts -- by an author whose disdain for leftist intellectuals like Zinn is well-known.

Long ago,some wag said that prolific author Isaac Asimov was writing "Asimov's History of Everything." One gets the feeling that Historian Paul Johnson could write that book too. He knows a staggering amount of information not only about American history but about history in general. Plus, it is so refreshing to read a volume by a writer who is not anti-American or, alas, politically correct. If Johnson has any bias, it's pro-American, and that's rare today. But when you combine his staggering intellect and his breezy, informative way of writing, the result is a great history book. There are some (minor) flaws in the book but, all in all, a fascinating read. Don't pass it up.

Earlier this week I was perusing a fascinating novel but stopped my reading to pick up Paul Johnson's 1995 "A History of the American People." I was hooked by the elegant prose, interesting anecdotes and characters of the American experience and enthralled by this magisterial work of a master historian! One week later I have completed the huge volume of 1088 pages (976 pages of narrative in small print) better informed about my native land's history!
Paul Johnson (1928-) is the distinguished British journalist/historian who has written such important volumes as "Modern Times"; "A History of Christianity"; "A History of the Jews"; "Intellectuals"; "Creators"; "Heroes" "Churchill"; "Napoleon" and "Jesus." He is a Roman Catholic and a conservative.
Johnson is strong in this book on limning brief but incisive pen sketches of the great Americans of the past from George Washington through Bill Clinton. Every presidential administration is discussed as well as social and economic history through the centuries. Johnson is strong in his coverage of economic history. He is critical of the New Deal and FDR's expanding federal government culminating in President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, His heroes are Eisenhower and the founders of the American experiment in democratic government.
The book's weakest section is on the American Civil War. Johnson is hazy on the topic as is evident by such whoppers as confusing Albert Sidney Johnston with Joseph Eggleston Johnson; stating that Stonewall Jackson was wounded in the back and calling the Confederacy the "Confederation." His battle coverage of America's wars from the Revolution to Vietnam and the Middle East are short and negligible to our understanding. He is much better at covering political and diplomatic history.
The book is a treasure trove of information which can be read from cover to cover or dipped into for looking at a particular era in our American story. It would serve well as a college textbook in American history.
Johnson ends his great book by a memorable quotation: "The great American republican experiment is the still the cynosure of the world's eyes. It is still the first, best hope for the human race. Looking back on its past, and forward to its future, the auguries are that it will not disappoint an expectant humanity." (page 976).

I am a student at Washington State University in Pullman, WA. This was one of two books that were assigned for reading in my History 110 class. This particular history class recalls American history from 1492 and up to 1877. In class we would discuss the readings from the night before, and in my class, Johnson always seemed to get bashed on a lot for what he talked about in his reading. I bashed on him too because of the way that he throws certain stuff in that doesn't seem too important. For example, Johnson lists everything that George Washington's father owned when he past away. Down to how many napkins he had. Stuff like this was written throughout the book. Johnson really only touches on the major names in American history such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Andrew Jackson, etc. I have learned of these people in my High School history classes and only these people. It would be nice to hear more depth in a book like this. This book is called "A History of the American People" so it would be nice to read more about the history of the "little" people. Johnson does not get into the oppression of women and the fight against slavery and other issues concerning the everyday person. More should have been written about stuff like this. Johnson seems to paint a pretty picture for American history by giving examples of the people that prospered but leaving out the ones who suffered. All in all this book in my opinion does not deserve to be called "A History of the American People" due to fact that it seems to be more of a history of the elite people in the United States.

This book is an excellent counterpoint to most high school and college texts. Too many times they want to focus on minor events and present how the "big bad USA" has done mostly wrong.
Yes the USA is not perfect. But how many societies have allowed so many elements, such as academics, to criticize the system? How many, despite some intolerance, are so open to different religions, immigrants, etc?
Perhaps the best contribution of Mr. Johnson's book is that it presents the importance of religion in America's founding and focuses on the major themes of the country's development.
While some say that there is much left out, that is a blinding flash of the obvious. Not all details can be included. But to his credit, Mr. Johnson includes much that is not discussed in many academic history books. (Not many critical challenges to those statements in the one and two star reviews.)
While I personally found the chapters on the Civil War and Problem Solving, Problem Creating America not up to Mr. Johnson's normal standards, the book is still a good read. In fact, the last chapter is the most controversial. It challenges the established legacy of JFK, the Social Security program and other social programs. While I personally can not agree with all his assessments, such as the anti-abortion being on par with the abolition movement, he challenges us with other interpretations of the past.
Perhaps the best recommendation for this book is that one university's history class decided to submit multiple critiques. The book must obviously have some merit to receive such good academic spite.

To try to encompass the entire American experience in one volume is an example of hubris in historical writing taken to an extreme. Yet Paul Johnson has a track record of undertaking similar gargantuan projects and producing remarkable results. The present work nonetheless suffers in comparison with some of his earlier works. Errors of fact compound an interpretation of relatively modern events which suffers from the same (rightist) lack of objectivity that he ascribes to earlier (leftist) historians. (Surely FDR could not have been all that bad as a president, and still fooled more than one generation of analysts as to his greatness?) Still, revisionist history is somewhat in vogue now. (Churchill, for one, is an example of a larger-than-life figure who seems to attract modern detracting biographers like a plague of locusts!) And revisionist history is useful if only to stir the pot of mummified thought and make us re-evaluate what is truly "great" (if we are allowed to use that word) about a country, leader, or whatever. The trick, of course, in any book such as this, is to exclude the valid from the invalid; to (in somewhat coarser terminology) "pick the flyshit from the pepper". If you can do that successfully in this instance, you are left with a wonderfully ambitious and entertaining treatment of a great nation.

Like other reviewers here, I was inadequately forwarned by the hints on the dust jacket, about Johnson's downright quirky--even reactionary--take on recent American history. The chapters before the 20th century, however, provide powerful perspective and sweep. Johnson has written a massive and very readable book about American history up to the Roaring 20's, with a wealth of lively stories about the fabric of American life.
But then comes the 20th century, with some astonishing historical interpretations by the author. To name a few, Professor Johnson finds Coolidge and Hoover to be among our finest presidents, while he can scarcely conceal his contempt for FDR. Truman was decent enough; how in the world did he ever come to be a Democrat? Kennedy and Johnson were mountebanks, and Carter a pathetic blunderer, while Nixon and Reagan were shining principled leaders, tragically misunderstood by liberal snipers. President Bush (the first) was an underappreciated footnote. Most recently, Clinton's administration should be remembered mainly for its "corruption" in Johnsons' view, a view which in this case is adumbrated by very little historical detail.
Despite the plainly political slant, I found an awful lot to like in the book, and plenty to be amused by. The book is a wellspring of anecdotes. It triggered many lively conversations among my friends--just as it apparently has among my fellow reviewers. Overall, this book is worth reading, if only to give your jaw-dropping muscles some exercise.

To all the tenured radicals libeling America as the enemy of humanity, this book is a decisive refutation: America _is_ humanity. This book follows the familiar Johnson formula of telling history: An adverbial phrase summing up a generation's attitude here, a half-page biographical sketch illustrating a trend there, and so on, with plenty of astringent value judgements inviting further investigation. Yes, there is "bias" here, but it is a corrective one. Of course he goes overboard in spots--one can agree that Nixon was unfairly smeared by liberals his whole career without excusing him entirely of wrongdoing, as Johnson does. But it was news to me that many of the people baying Nixon's heels themselves covered up wrongdoing by Lyndon Johnson in the '60s. And it's good to have it made plain that there was indeed a Kennedy conspiracy--to get him into office, not out. Throughout, many of the ills we deplore nowadays are shown to have been with us since the beginning--the endless Presidential campaign is as old as the early 1800s, for instance. And Johnson's ventures into mass-psychologizing are funny. Or unsettling, depending. Particulary novel in a modern history book is the way that agitators and radicals are nearly absent here. Instead, pride of place is given to ordinary working people and the industrialists and inventors who drove the astonishing engine of progress and innovation that America became after the Civil War. Johnson well understands that complainers are present in every age, but that such a sunburst of accomplishment is a rarity. All in all, an informative, entertaining and inspiring read.

Johnson's long-awaited US history volume is more like his earlier "A History of the English People" than the ultra-comprehensive "Modern Times," in the sense that he offers insights and thematic overviews rather than creating the most complete and richly detailed portrait. (To do the latter would have required twice as many pages, and this is NOT a short volume.)
Among the many treats are refreshing views of many of the Founding Fathers (Washington especially), as well as underappreciated players (e.g. Henry Clay, Jesse Jones) and the historically overrated (Woodrow Wilson and FDR, to name two). Probably most surprising is his praise for Warren Harding, but his argument is well-buttressed and worth reviewing. Johnson also treats Coolidge kindly, but rips into Hoover from the right (i.e. the Great Engineer was the real "father" of the New Deal). He also lauds Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan generally, and credits Margaret Thatcher with stiffening Bush Sr.'s backbone on Iraq in 1990, leading to the Gulf War.
There are some factual mistakes that disappoint (e.g. completely missing the fact and significance of Reagan's primary challenge to Ford in 1976). The existence of these has led some critics to dismiss the book entirely. This is both unfair and wrong.
Johnson is always a cracking read, but his handling of the Civil War years and the latter half of the 19th century was somewhat thin. One could have wished for more use of incisive statistics (but those Johnson does use are telling). He notes that America is the first major nation whose entire history and origins are known and written down for all to review, and Johnson's review has been comprehensive and objective, with surprises for conservatives and liberals alike. Don't miss it.

Paul Johnson is a conservative historian who is a serious scholar. His history is definitely partisan in spots. However, he backs most of his assertions with a solid backing of facts. Johnson covered a variety of subjects in this ambitious work. He covered cultural, political, social, and artistic topics in the book. Johnson comes across as an erudite intellectual and a respected member of the academic commuinty.

Johnson is not someone who blindly accepts common interpretations of historical figures. He is an independent figure who departs from conservative orthodoxy from time to time. He presents important presidents like Calvin Coolidge in a more positive light than many liberal scholars. This counteracts the hatchet-job that some radical left wing historians engage in during some evaluations.

Johnson's assertions before 1960 are more credible than his commentaries of more recent times. He is more willing to editorialize when it comes to evaluating the events of recent decades. That being said, Johnson is a serious historian, his scholarship is generally sound, and he points out some interesting facts that are often ignored and neglected by liberal and conservative historians alike. His books are worth reading, although the reader may not embrace all of his conclusions along the way.

I resubmit this review, to link with my current list.
To all the tenured radicals libeling America as the enemy of humanity, this book is a decisive refutation: America _is_ humanity. This book follows the familiar Johnson formula of telling history: An adverbial phrase summing up a generation's attitude here, a half-page biographical sketch illustrating a trend there, and so on, with plenty of astringent value judgements inviting further investigation.
Yes, there is "bias" here, but it is a corrective one. Of course he goes overboard in spots--one can agree that Nixon was unfairly smeared by liberals his whole career without excusing him entirely of wrongdoing, as Johnson does. But it was news to me that many of the people baying Nixon's heels themselves covered up wrongdoing by Lyndon Johnson in the '60s. And it's good to have it made plain that there was indeed a Kennedy conspiracy--to get him into office, not out.
Throughout, many of the ills we deplore nowadays are shown to have been with us since the beginning--the endless Presidential campaign is as old as the early 1800s, for instance. And Johnson's ventures into mass-psychologizing are funny. Or unsettling, depending. Particulary novel in a modern history book is the way that agitators and radicals are nearly absent here. Instead, pride of place is given to ordinary working people and the industrialists and inventors who drove the astonishing engine of progress and innovation that America became after the Civil War. Johnson well understands that complainers are present in every age, but that such a sunburst of accomplishment is a rarity. All in all, an informative, entertaining and inspiring read.

Paul Johnson's A History of the United States, can be thrown into the enormous pile of history books devoted to glorifying the `great men' of American history while dismissing the lives and struggles of the people. Johnson asserts that "...writing a history of the American people, covering over 400 years...can be accomplished only by the ruthless selection and rejection of material." (Johnson xv) Johnson attempts to `ruthlessly cull' for relevant information, and in the process, leaves out, for the most part, the struggles of the working class, Native Americans, African American slaves, and of course one half of the population: women. Johnson writes history as if it is a mere list of `historically important' white males, declarations, wars and conflicts, and treaties. For example, when Johnson writes about the economic prosperity of the nation during the industrial revolution, he neglects to go into detail about the struggles and conditions of the men and women working in the factories. Class struggles and economic stratification are briefly addressed and `tokenized' as economic trends so that their is more `space' to ramble on about the physical characteristics of our founding fathers. Johnson writes a history of the United States while leaving out the conditions of the middle and lower class. Throughout the text Johnson rarely credits the accomplishments of women and infrequently addresses the social and economic struggles of women. Johnson seriously neglects to identify with the lives of a majority of the society. Little credit is given to the common man and little challenge is given to the reader. If you are simply interested in the `great' accomplishments of the rich white males, read this book, or the thousands of other books which assert this exclusionary philosophy.

An exceptionally well trained professional historian provides factual support for what people in the Tea Party Movement are trying to accomplish and it's timely even though the book was published in 1999. The book traces the religious roots of America's founding, and the evolution of the peoples' inherent belief that smaller government is better and is almost always a wise political position to take. Before I read this book I thought the best one-volume history of America was "A Patriot's History of the United States" (see my the store.com review of Schweikart's and Allen's book, dated October 6, 2008), but now I'm not sure. You have to read them both. They mainly differ in what is emphasized.
P.S. This book could have had more editing. For example, on page 436 "South California" was confused with South Carolina twice.

A History of the American People, by Paul Johnson, is an optimistic work that is designed to show the moral lessons that America has presented to the world. However, I found that this optimistic attitude displayed by Johnson throughout the book is, although desirable, often maintained at the expense of truth. He focuses on the lives and achievements of the great figures of American history and brings them vividly alive to the reader but often glosses over the trials and struggles of the common people of a given era. He continually fails to adequately recognize the condition of the poor and the oppressed portions of the populace. Religion, one of his specialties, is one of the notable exceptions to this. I found Johnson's exploration of the "Great Awakenings" and other religous issues and events in history informative and provocative. The narrative shows American morality's tendency toward extremism as well as providing fascinating hints concerning the reality of life among the masses of early America. However, throughout the book the reader must endure Johnson's excessive detail and occasionally ridiculous fallacies that result from his zeal for the topic. For instance, he drones on for pages about numerous incompetant and unimportant British administrators during the time of the American Revolution to contrast them to America's geniuses and belabors a point that could have been made in several paragraphs. One notable example is found when Johnson purports supposed evidence that the moderate climate of what became the United States is ideal for the highest "mental activity" and that this allowed the English colonies to thrive. Johnson, at his best, is eloquent and focused but he often strays on tangents that, although interesting and drawn from his copious research tend to distract from and dilute the points that he is trying to make. Thus, a choppy tone ensues between the more succinct points and his ramblings. While the book has fascinating commentary on many inportant formative events the conclusions drawn are sometimes tenuous and misleading given that the vast array of detail, with which Johnson deluges the reader, is not easily resorted into a clear sectional thesis. Overall, Johnson provides excellent profiles of national leaders and informative commentary on important trends and events, but tends to burden the reader with unimportant or unsupportable material. But, if such things do not bother you and you want a good, conservative view of American history; add a star to my rating and give it a shot.

I actually enjoyed this book for the first 850 pages or so. Mr. Johnson is obviously much more politically conservative than I am and a few of his remarks made me flinch, but that was ok. In general I found it quite refreshing to read a history of the US that did not portray us all as savage murderers and slave barons. It was an enjoyable read. However, beginning with his treatment of the Kennedy administration and from that point on, Mr. Johnson loses it, abandons nearly all pretense to even a modicum of historical objectivity and launches into a wild screed reminiscent of the sort of hogwash one reads in ultra-conservative publications like the American Spectator. For example, the juxtaposition of his brutalizing of the Kennedy's while simultaneously extolling the absolutely angelic virtue of Richard Nixon is hysterical. And there is all kinds of the usual ultra-conservative tripe about how the "east coast media" has screwed up the country and how everything has gone downhill since the mixed-up '60s, etc. etc. Ultimately, Mr. Johnson's book ends up with the same tired right wing clap trap and complaining that we've been subjected to for years now. In short, the book ends up on an extremely sour note after a promising beginning. Don't bother.

Paul Johnson's "History of the American People" recalls the narrative historical style of Herodotus. Without such a classical approach, any attempt to write on such a broad topic as three hundred years of American history would be doomed to pedantry; as it is, Johnson has created a powerful, readable work that recognizes the importance of many strands of American life -- not simply politics, but art, industry, architecture, music, and religion. With this in mind, the few factual errors of which so much has been made say more about the sloppiness of the editor than the abilities of the historian.
I've read a number of reviews complaining that this book only focuses on America's leaders. Either these readers have never actually read the book or the capability of politically correct True Believers to see only what they believe exceeds even my fevered right-wing-conspirator's imagination. My reaction upon reading this book was that here, finally, was a history that realized the liberal historian's dream of "history with the politics left out." Does a political history devote two pages to Tiffany glass? Does a chronicle of Dead White Senators rhapsodize endlessly on Scott Joplin or Louis Sullivan?
Senator Ted Kennedy once remarked that in America, all change begins at the ballot box. While acknowledging the power of democracy, this book suggests that the most significant changes in out national life have begun elsewhere, when free citizens are left free to invent, to build, and create. That said, even I have to admit that as Johnson's narrative takes him to the period which he himself has experienced, his partisanship shows a bit -- not nearly as much as an ostensibly "objective" textbook might, but conservatives are rightly held to a higher standard. Where much is given, much is expected.
Even so, however, what partisanship does creep into the narrative is nowhere near as sharp as some of the above reviewers (who seem only to have encountered Johnson's book in photocopied handouts in Washington State University's remedial history class) would have us believe. Wilson and especially Truman are given far too easy a ride, in my opinion, although I might ascribe this to a Briton's gratitude at those presidents' role in saving Europe. Johnson's treatment of Reagan, while ultimately positive, does make more of his weaknesses than would a true hagiographer. Johnson, like Walter McDougall and Stephen Ambrose, is a readable treasure among historians. We should encourage him. Buy two copies!

I have read Paul Johnsons previous books and enjoyed them all. When I heard he was writing a history of America I looked eagerly forward to finally reviewing my country's history in a new context. Having grown up a child of immigrants in NYC in the era of FDR and LaGuardia I was destined to believe that American history began with the New Deal. Certainly the recently transplanted adults felt this way. And certainly enough history has been compressed between then and now to encourage this belief. The deficiency has been that I did'nt really understand or appreciate what it was to be an American. The elements of this understaning have always been alusive. The terror of the depression and the War stunted appreciation of the richness of our beginnings, for me. I feel that in many important ways America has never recovered from the depression. It was with the anticipation of discovery that I approached Paul Johnsons book, and I was not disappointed.

I always hated American history classes in high school and college. It just seemed like one damned political argument after another...tarrifs, acts, bills, administrations...blah, blah, blah. My opinion changed after reading this highly entertaining and fast paced account of our history. There it is: warts and all. But how splendid and magnificent. It is not generally understood just how wealthy this nation was right from the beginning. As far back as 1750, the American standard of living was pulling ahead of the rest of the world, especially among yeoman farmers. The cast of characters is also very lively. You know the names, but their individual behaviour is marvelous to behold on the canvas of history. My biggest complaint is that Johnson gets his facts wrong in many places, especially when it comes to the War Between the States. He gets General Albert Sidney Johnston confused with General Joseph Johnston...with Old Joe getting killed at Shiloh!! Egad. He then states that R. E. Lee was of wealthy descent. Patently untrue. Lee's father left his family destitute and the young R. E. Lee was shuttled about between relatives. When he was sixteen, he had to seek a military career because he had no other means to support himself. There are other irritating details that flaw this book throughout, but on the whole his superb portraits of Lincoln, Jackson, Truman and other presidents along with men of culture like Emmerson is a skillfully accomplished measure of the writer's craft. His incisive portraits of post-World War II presidents are highly entertaining and informative. Those of us who lived through those years don't realize how much we missed. Johnson, an Englishman, gives us an unusual and absorbing glimpse into the great history of a mighty nation.

Paul Johnson is an author that tries terribly hard to try to show that the upper class and the rich created this great country and their minds are the minds that invented every structure to this country. His total forgetfulness of the under class or the truly poor people and how they made a impact on this country is unforgiveable. The Revolution in which gave America its freedom, and in which was won by the sweat of the poor, was only explained by Johnson by saying how the rich property owners benefitted, and gives no inclination of the affect the poor made. That also is not forgiveable. He seems to feel they were just unimportant to America's history, unlike Zinn, who takes just the opposite view point. Johnson seems to think us as intellectual readers would rather want to read what kind of spoons and forks Washington used, or what kind of whores hung out at the corner, or what kind of temperature is the best studing temperature, than hearing important facts on the whole. Johnson seems to have a understanding of the history of America, but I feel does a terrible job at portraying it in a way that gives the most open and honest explanation of that history. To my best opinion, if you want to truly read a book that best describes the way America's history was throughout the last 200 plus years, and how each and every class precisely affected the outcome of events in this coountry, it wouldn't be this book.

This novel is on of great thought and insight. When you read it you can tell that it was thought out for a long time. The thing that I really like about it is that it makes American History fun. History is a very boring to lots of people and U.S. history usually makes those ideas start. The thing that Paul Johnson does that is different from most history authors is that he does not linger on one subject to long and his ideas are ones that are very intersting. I read all kinds of history books and this one has to be the best American History book I have ever read. Paul Johnson also touches on subjects that most people don't really think about. One of the ones that I found most interresting is that of the influence of jazz on America. Paul Johnson is a great writer and historian and I recommend him to any person looking for a good history read.

By and large, this is a good overview of American history, and should certainly be a starting point for any budding American history buff. The book is not only endearing to me for ideological reasons (because, finally, it gives FDR and JFK the judgments they actually deserved), but because it tells the entire American story (I couldn't think of one major event in US history which has been neglected). Unfortunately, though, 1100 pages is not really enough to tell this story. Especially in the 20th Century, the reader might feel that Johnson is giving little more than a basic account with a greater focus on his own opinion. But this is not entirely a bad thing: the inherently concise nature of the book gives us eminently understandable accounts of great periods in our history, especially his excellent explanation of the Civil War.