From Columbus's Great Discovery to America's Age of Entitlement

A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on TerrorThe Patriot's History Reader: Essential Documents for Every American "A Patriot's History of the United States" is an excellent, comprehensive history book. Unlike many history books, it is not biased or "politically correct." This book can be used effectively as a student textbook (middle school and high school levels) and as a library reference book. The book is also enjoyable to read without it being a course requirement. I hope that it will be updated and reprinted so that many teachers will use it in their American history courses, librarians will add it to their reference and non-fiction collections, and the store (and other online sellers) will sell the hardcover, paperback, and e-book editions as in the past. The book's website is [...]. Update: "The Patriot's History Reader: Essential Documents for Every American," published since this review was written, is a companion book to the original "A Patriot's History of the US." Both books were written by Larry Schweikart, et al. Together, the books are well-liked gifts appropriate for readers age 12 years-adult.

I had written a review of this book previously and I came back to make a minor edit to that review only to find that it no longer exists. I contacted the store to ask why it had been deleted and they said that, because it included quotes by Abraham Lincoln, they had to delete it for copyright reasons. I pointed out that Lincoln quotes are not copyrighted and are a matter of public domain but, even I quoted someone else, that is not a copyright issue because of fair use laws and also because the quotes give credit to the original author. the store agreed and apologized profusely for their error. I won't try to reconstruct my previous rather lengthly review but I will summarize it by saying that allow this book reflects a refreshing viewpoint that is sadly missing these days, it is so riddled with factual errors that it is almost unbelievable. There are trivial to major errors on just about every page. I listed many of them in my previous review but I will only mention a couple in this review.

1) As unbelievable as it sounds, the author actually claims that John Wilkes Booth killed himself! I'm not kidding. He says that Booth "shot himself to death." Even a grade-schooler knows better!

2) He claims that Sherman hated Lincoln and he actually used the word "hated" and mentioned it several times in the book. That is absolute nonsense. It is true that Sherman was not impressed with Lincoln after his first informal meeting with him but he grew to have great respect as the war went on and he even acknowledge Lincoln's greatness. But the author claims that Sherman absolutely hated Lincoln! Pure nonsense.

3) The author actually claims that Lincoln was not only a Christian but that he became a reborn Christian later in life. Nothing could be further from the truth as anyone who knows anything about Lincoln knows. I have had an intense interest in Lincoln for most of my 63 years and among the literally hundreds of books I have on the subject are all the great biographies and not one respected authority on the subject would claim that Lincoln was a Christian, let alone a reborn Christian. I have even read every word of the Collected Works. Even Lincoln's own family, associates, and friends all confirmed that Lincoln was not a Christian. Lincoln even said so himself! In fact, he ridiculed Christian dogma. On the other hand, Lincoln was not an atheist but he most definitely was not a Christian. The author is clearly attempting to impose his own beliefs onto Lincoln. That is inexcusable.

This book contains a higher density of factual errors than any history book I can ever remember reading. What concerns me is not so much the errors themselves but the carelessness of an author who makes so many glaring errors. However, I do agree with the thrust of the book.

Larry E. Schweikart and Mike Allen are both professors of history. This 2004 book is intended to refute assertions in "mainstream" history textbooks about American "racism, sexism, and bigotry," the Great Depression/New Deal, the War on Poverty, etc.

They explain the justification of slavery by colonists who "convinced themselves that Africans were not really human beings... and thus legitimate subjects for enslavement." (Pg. 45) The rise of the cotton industry turned slavery from "a necessary evil to ... a positive good." (Pg. 47) He observes, however, "Northerners instinctively knew that ... if one group of people could be condemned to slavery for their race, another could suffer the same fate for their religious convictions, or their political affiliations." (Pg. 257) He argues that "The market, freed from interference by racist Southern state regulations, would have desegregated the South decades before ... the Civil Rights Acts." (Pg. 351)

They reject the purported fathering by Jefferson of children with his slave Sally Hemings ("DNA testing has proved only the strong probability that one of the Hemingses, Eston, was fathered by one of some twenty-four Jefferson males in Virginia at the time"; pg. 159). They argue that Lincoln was "a committed Christian" by the end of his life (Pg. 287), but had "presided over the most rapid expansion of federal power in American history ... (of which) much was little more than political pork barrelling..." (Pg. 323).

With monopolies such as Standard Oil, they assert "none of these arrangements ever achieved anything but the most temporary gains." (Pg. 451) The Great Depression was "a confluence of several dramatic shocks... which were made worse by foolish Federal Reserve Board policies and then rapidly accelerated into the abyss by government attempts to 'solve' the problems." (Pg. 534) Nonetheless, they conced that "There is no question that the WPA... produced benefits in the public sector," such as bridges and public buildings, storm drains and sewers, airfields, etc. (Pg. 565)

In discussing civil rights, they sympathetically note that states' rights "still represented a structural safeguard for all citizens of a state against direct federal action." (Pg. 665) They strongly maintain that President Johnson's War on Poverty produced "the first truly dependent class in American history." (Pg. 687)

An often fascinating history (although the discussion of WAR---particularly the Civil War and WWII---is far too extensive for my taste), and a useful alternative to, say, Peoples History of the United States, A : 1492 -- Present, Revised and Updated E, I wouldn't suggest this book as one's ONLY text for American history (for the same reasons I wouldn't suggest Zinn's).

Whew...some 1000 pages or 50+ hours of audio later....this is a hefty textbook. It is one of those books you can pick up multiple times and get something new after each reading. It offers a wealth of information on all eras of American history. Written with an America-centric point-of-view, it fills a void left by the traditional textbook. The audio book narrator is good.

J'accuse: I can just imagine Penguin books havng the attitude: "This book is trash, this idiot accuses liberals, just print the [...] thing any old way, and don't waste ink"

SO they set about to sabotage it by printing it in a font that is difficult to read. Look, I don't go around being paranoid or mistrustful of people's motives, but I was not born yesterday, and in my view the printing of this book was massacred on purpose.
I don't think publishers use a difficult to read font by accident. "Oh, we just printed thousands of copies with the wrong font. How careless of us." No.

And in truth, this book would have been given a pauper's grave had not the Oprah of the New Conservatives, Glenn Beck, not recommended it. Yet it is darn hard to read.

I hope to read some of it so I can comment on the actual content. What I am picking up from the negative reviews is that the writing, the intellectual approach is a bit careless. Like the printing? And the editing?

In all this, the subject is a crucial one, as Progressives have re-written history in a way which I can only describe as perfectly horrible, performing a forcible lobotomy on millions of people as they could learn about the greatness of their country and in the process achieve some personal power themselves. Instead what we get is a nation of students who are passive and docile, without much taste for risk or adventure. With the current health care bill, we went to sleep with a dream of hope, and woke up screaming.

I'm reviewing this on the basis of the book itself, not on whether or not I agree with it. (I am a professional historian.)

I agree with the number of commenters who have already discussed how this book gets factual errors wrong. I also want to point out that the primary sources the book bases itself on are thin and patchy, making it a suspect history (from a professional historian perspective) right out of the gate.

This book is also far more reactive than it is substantive. If you agree with the authors that all American history today is Leftist and anti-American, then you are certainly not reading the right books. As a result, this book reads like a talk show host's rant rather than a careful and thoughtful rundown of American history. This means that you get the authors' personal beliefs rather than analysis. For a conservative-leaning history that is far more respectful and respectable, try Paul Johnson's A History of the American People.

This book is really not suitable for reading on its own. It would be better off paired with a far Left book like Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" so that you can come to your own, more balanced, conclusion.

Of course, as a historian who is also conservative, I think this book is utter trash and intentionally ignores the history of the people who made America great - the working class, enslaved Africans, women, etc., etc. But an the store review won't change your mind if you think "great white men" are the only people who are important.

I homeschool my kids and use this as our curriculum. I must point out that every history text that I searched out before making the decision to use this had reviews stating that there are untruths included in that text.. Not one was perfect. We absolutely love Patriot's. We feel so proud to be Americans when we learn of our country from Patriot's. I found discussion questions on Patriot's History website to use as part of the course. This book has turned boring history into an interesting class.

Granted, a book recommended by figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is not going to go without criticism from those from the opposite end of the political spectrum. And to be sure, there will be those who slam this book simply for that simple association rather than deal with the contents. There have, indeed been valid criticisms of it made from older prints of Patriot's History (such as errors that Columbus called Cuba Hispaniola), but these certain errors have been corrected in the more recent editions.

One criticism of Patriot's History that is often made is that it is simply the history that students are taught in the average classroom. To an extent, this is valid, however there are several details presented in the book that are not taught often in class, whether in high school or in college. And there are actual improvements over what students have been taught...depending on which regions of the country you are from.

The chapters on the Civil War and Reconstruction are examples of such improvement. Larry Schweitkart and Michael Allen point out the myth of the "Lost Cause" and argue that it it simply that...a myth, and they point out bluntly that the institution of slavery was the long term reason for the war. Often times, some on the extreme Right Wing claim that those who make such claims are "liberals" or "statists." But since Schweitkart and Allen are both outspoken Conservatives, that particular claim can hardly be made against them.

The chapters of the Crash of 1929, the Great Depression as well as the New Deal are also an improvement over what is taught in some college courses. When I took U.S. History (1877 to the present), my professor taught us that Herbert Hoover just stood by and allowed it all to happen; my text book said the same. This too is false, and Allen and Schweikart and Allen point this out. They are not as thorough on this as I wish they were, but there are other more detailed works on the subject one can look into.

Now, as for my problem with the book:

As is indicated, I do think the book is a bit too nationalistic. There is, for example, an apparent determination to absolve Christopher Columbus of much blame of what happened to the Native Americans. In the first chapter, there is a shaded page with the heading "Did Columbus Kill most of the Indians?" The problem is that it's the wrong question to ask. The question should be, "Were many Indians victims of Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing?" (I would argue that they were) Columbus is certainly not responsible for the massacres at, say, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee since he was no longer alive. Columbus, however, is certainly responsible for the atrocities committed under his watch, and he was rightly arrested for them.

I found this book both interesting and ridiculous. The authors do present a version of US history, but it should be read with a critical eye. They seem to gloss over the seedier side of events and portray the people they want to promote as almost saintly. I had to laugh every time they disparaged other researchers for doing x,y, or z then immediately used the same x,y, or z to prove their own point. How can you trust anyone who guesstimates, by the way here's our guesstimate. Don't take this book as your only view of American history.

This book is nothing more than a book full of right wing propaganda. If you are looking for actual history, this is not the book for you. If you are looking for right wing talking points, then this is your book.
Good for right wing propaganda, bad for historians.

The author's commentary on the Civil War was very balanced. However, he has a major love affair with Columbus. The author makes reference to Columbus' journal where Columbus said he wished to convert them to Christianity. However, he did not reference where Columbus said that he could over take the entire population with just a few men. Nor did the author speak of horrid treatment of the natives by the hand of Columbus and his men. I about threw the book in the trash after I read the passage on Columbus. Not very good history work at all

A really brilliant book and a MUST READ for anyone interested in history. It's fascinating when you compare this to People's history and what insights can be gained from both. The number and *quality* of citations in this book is astonishing and stands in stark contrast to the resource-light, more subjective primary form of history contained in Zinn's opus.

Being a history and economics major at a top 10 university in the US, this book actually compares favorably/is better than most of the history (text)books I've read, which is surprising given the more modest credentials of the authors of Patriot's History. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for anyone interested in America: past, present, or future!

Consider your sources. These men teach at second-rate universities and this is the scholarly equivalent of political click bait. Even the title is wrong. Columbus didn't discover anything new and was a vicious conquistador, and patriotism doesn't come from blind acceptance. Do your homework. Read more primary source documents. If you like this, Texas has some textbooks you'd be into.

I’m using this book for a college course. It’s nice to have a required textbook this cheap that doesn’t read like a textbook. However, I’m trying to purchase the kindle version but all I can get is the sample....I just want to buy it and have the full book!!

The book is a right-wing American history to offset the left's anti-American history, written by two of the few right wing professors in academia. (By the way, I think something should be done about the left-leaning bias over our institutions.) They show how the media is dominated by democrats who spin the news against republicans, the military, and all things conservative. The authors are pro-business and are against big government. They have high praise for pro-business presidential administrations and insightful criticism of pro-government administrations.

Those who want government to grow often increase taxes, but these authors like the presidents who cut taxes for everyone, including the rich, because the rich are ones who mainly invest in business investments and expansions who give the rest of us jobs. Cutting taxes also stimulates economic growth which increases government revenue.

The wealth gap in the U.S. does not matter to them because they explain that U.S. entrepreneurs make a lot of money from their ideas and this indirectly creates a lot of wealth for society as a whole through job creation, even as it creates a larger wealth gap. A large wealth gap indicates a vibrant economy with lots of jobs available. A small wealth gap indicates a stagnant economy with few jobs and many people on the dole.

They are also not concerned about monopolies, claiming that antitrust suits are ineffective against them and monopolies do not raise prices, but regulations and taxes do. Sometimes you need large companies to be able to have enough capital to do things on a large scale efficiently. Besides, the minute government comes out with more regulations, businessmen are thinking of ways to work around the regulation to cut costs.

Don't call the business tycoons of the gilded age "robber barons", they are the heroes of capitalism, who greatly expanded U.S. wealth and gave away a lot of their money to charity, religion, or used it to save the economy from depressions. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan are great and moral men.

The mania for big government that would supposedly make our world a better place began with the Progressives over a hundred years ago. There has been a conflict between those who want more government, regulation, equality, and taxes and those who want less government, more liberty, less regulation and less taxes.

Reagan seems to be their favorite president and he gets a glowing review for jumpstarting the economy by lowering taxes and defeating communism by outspending the Soviets on defense. He used the capitalist industrial system to do so. Capitalism defeated communism because the industrial system created by capitalism could produce so much more wealth for more weapons of defense than the Soviet Union, which did not respect private property rights. But Reagan did not scale back the socialist programs of FDR or LBJ; he figured some other president would have to do that before entitlement spending bankrupted the government.

Just as a side note, I'll mention that they even like Poppy and Dubya's war on terror. Yes, Iraq had ties to terrorism. Yes, they had weapons of mass destruction. They love how the U.S. military went in there and got the job done without the war becoming another quagmire like Vietnam which was done half-heartedly and may have not have been a good war to get into.

One of the biggest problems the country has faced is slavery. Blacks were brought over in the early years of the American colonies because the colonies had a huge labor shortage. Land owners could not find enough whites for indentured servitude to grow and pick the crops. Blacks' indentured servitude gradually became considered a permanent, but necessary evil in the colonial days. By the time of Civil War, many in the south argued that slavery was a positive good. One part of the country wanted to condone and expand slavery and the other part wanted to abolish in every state, even in the South. These divergent views on the morality of slavery nearly tore the nation apart.

How to deal with Indians was divided into three camps. Romanticists believe that the Indians should be free to roam the land and live their lifestyle without encroachment from Whites. Assimilationists believed that the Indians should be civilized by teaching them the white man's beliefs and lifestyle. Exterminationists advocated genocide of the Indians due to their violence against pioneers and their supposed inability to assimilate into society. Extermination was a more popular viewpoint the closer Whites lived with Indians. A partial assimilation has occurred with many Indians living on reservations and some almost fully integrating into society.

No conspiracy theories please; the authors think that conspiracy theorists are paranoid. They say that conspiracy theories around the Kennedy assassination grew because the investigation of the death was never thoroughly done. They believe in the magic bullet theory as fact. They like Gerald Posner's book on the assassination, which is called Case Closed.

They probably don't like conspiracy theories because they are propagated by people who aren't trained historians, they disrupt class, and they contradict mainstream academic history. But maybe they are closet conspiracy theorists because they claim that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives and the media may contradict that by saying that they are actually objective. To make such claims of bias could be considered paranoid or conspiracy-minded. They also dabble with the idea that a Muslim may have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. So it comes down to what conspiracy theories that one likes.

They do not support the Federal Reserve conspiracy theory, saying that in different times in history, people have complained that there was a gold standard and decentralized banks and they have complained that there wasn't a gold standard and a centralized bank. If gold standards are gone, it inflates currency which helps people who are in debt, such as farmers. In the early 1900s, populists supported inflating currency to ease their debt load. Also, Andrew Jackson was not against a national bank per se; he was just against a bank run by a potential political rival.

They say that having women vote increases the size of government, especially women who are single mothers who use the government as a substitute husband, a provider and protector.

I may disagree with some of their more modern history especially. Some of their kool-aid was tasty and some of it had a funny taste.

And finally, we should be proud, patriotic Americans because (doggone it!) we Good People! We don't have half the human rights violations of Russia or China.

I found this book both interesting and ridiculous. The authors do present a version of US history, but it should be read with a critical eye. They seem to gloss over the seedier side of events and portray the people they want to promote as almost saintly. I had to laugh every time they disparaged other researchers for doing x,y, or z then immediately used the same x,y, or z to prove their own point. How can you trust anyone who guesstimates, by the way here's our guesstimate. Don't take this book as your only view of American history.

This book is nothing more than a book full of right wing propaganda. If you are looking for actual history, this is not the book for you. If you are looking for right wing talking points, then this is your book.
Good for right wing propaganda, bad for historians.

The author's commentary on the Civil War was very balanced. However, he has a major love affair with Columbus. The author makes reference to Columbus' journal where Columbus said he wished to convert them to Christianity. However, he did not reference where Columbus said that he could over take the entire population with just a few men. Nor did the author speak of horrid treatment of the natives by the hand of Columbus and his men. I about threw the book in the trash after I read the passage on Columbus. Not very good history work at all

A really brilliant book and a MUST READ for anyone interested in history. It's fascinating when you compare this to People's history and what insights can be gained from both. The number and *quality* of citations in this book is astonishing and stands in stark contrast to the resource-light, more subjective primary form of history contained in Zinn's opus.

Being a history and economics major at a top 10 university in the US, this book actually compares favorably/is better than most of the history (text)books I've read, which is surprising given the more modest credentials of the authors of Patriot's History. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for anyone interested in America: past, present, or future!

Consider your sources. These men teach at second-rate universities and this is the scholarly equivalent of political click bait. Even the title is wrong. Columbus didn't discover anything new and was a vicious conquistador, and patriotism doesn't come from blind acceptance. Do your homework. Read more primary source documents. If you like this, Texas has some textbooks you'd be into.

I’m using this book for a college course. It’s nice to have a required textbook this cheap that doesn’t read like a textbook. However, I’m trying to purchase the kindle version but all I can get is the sample....I just want to buy it and have the full book!!

The book is a right-wing American history to offset the left's anti-American history, written by two of the few right wing professors in academia. (By the way, I think something should be done about the left-leaning bias over our institutions.) They show how the media is dominated by democrats who spin the news against republicans, the military, and all things conservative. The authors are pro-business and are against big government. They have high praise for pro-business presidential administrations and insightful criticism of pro-government administrations.

Those who want government to grow often increase taxes, but these authors like the presidents who cut taxes for everyone, including the rich, because the rich are ones who mainly invest in business investments and expansions who give the rest of us jobs. Cutting taxes also stimulates economic growth which increases government revenue.

The wealth gap in the U.S. does not matter to them because they explain that U.S. entrepreneurs make a lot of money from their ideas and this indirectly creates a lot of wealth for society as a whole through job creation, even as it creates a larger wealth gap. A large wealth gap indicates a vibrant economy with lots of jobs available. A small wealth gap indicates a stagnant economy with few jobs and many people on the dole.

They are also not concerned about monopolies, claiming that antitrust suits are ineffective against them and monopolies do not raise prices, but regulations and taxes do. Sometimes you need large companies to be able to have enough capital to do things on a large scale efficiently. Besides, the minute government comes out with more regulations, businessmen are thinking of ways to work around the regulation to cut costs.

Don't call the business tycoons of the gilded age "robber barons", they are the heroes of capitalism, who greatly expanded U.S. wealth and gave away a lot of their money to charity, religion, or used it to save the economy from depressions. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan are great and moral men.

The mania for big government that would supposedly make our world a better place began with the Progressives over a hundred years ago. There has been a conflict between those who want more government, regulation, equality, and taxes and those who want less government, more liberty, less regulation and less taxes.

Reagan seems to be their favorite president and he gets a glowing review for jumpstarting the economy by lowering taxes and defeating communism by outspending the Soviets on defense. He used the capitalist industrial system to do so. Capitalism defeated communism because the industrial system created by capitalism could produce so much more wealth for more weapons of defense than the Soviet Union, which did not respect private property rights. But Reagan did not scale back the socialist programs of FDR or LBJ; he figured some other president would have to do that before entitlement spending bankrupted the government.

Just as a side note, I'll mention that they even like Poppy and Dubya's war on terror. Yes, Iraq had ties to terrorism. Yes, they had weapons of mass destruction. They love how the U.S. military went in there and got the job done without the war becoming another quagmire like Vietnam which was done half-heartedly and may have not have been a good war to get into.

One of the biggest problems the country has faced is slavery. Blacks were brought over in the early years of the American colonies because the colonies had a huge labor shortage. Land owners could not find enough whites for indentured servitude to grow and pick the crops. Blacks' indentured servitude gradually became considered a permanent, but necessary evil in the colonial days. By the time of Civil War, many in the south argued that slavery was a positive good. One part of the country wanted to condone and expand slavery and the other part wanted to abolish in every state, even in the South. These divergent views on the morality of slavery nearly tore the nation apart.

How to deal with Indians was divided into three camps. Romanticists believe that the Indians should be free to roam the land and live their lifestyle without encroachment from Whites. Assimilationists believed that the Indians should be civilized by teaching them the white man's beliefs and lifestyle. Exterminationists advocated genocide of the Indians due to their violence against pioneers and their supposed inability to assimilate into society. Extermination was a more popular viewpoint the closer Whites lived with Indians. A partial assimilation has occurred with many Indians living on reservations and some almost fully integrating into society.

No conspiracy theories please; the authors think that conspiracy theorists are paranoid. They say that conspiracy theories around the Kennedy assassination grew because the investigation of the death was never thoroughly done. They believe in the magic bullet theory as fact. They like Gerald Posner's book on the assassination, which is called Case Closed.

They probably don't like conspiracy theories because they are propagated by people who aren't trained historians, they disrupt class, and they contradict mainstream academic history. But maybe they are closet conspiracy theorists because they claim that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives and the media may contradict that by saying that they are actually objective. To make such claims of bias could be considered paranoid or conspiracy-minded. They also dabble with the idea that a Muslim may have been involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. So it comes down to what conspiracy theories that one likes.

They do not support the Federal Reserve conspiracy theory, saying that in different times in history, people have complained that there was a gold standard and decentralized banks and they have complained that there wasn't a gold standard and a centralized bank. If gold standards are gone, it inflates currency which helps people who are in debt, such as farmers. In the early 1900s, populists supported inflating currency to ease their debt load. Also, Andrew Jackson was not against a national bank per se; he was just against a bank run by a potential political rival.

They say that having women vote increases the size of government, especially women who are single mothers who use the government as a substitute husband, a provider and protector.

I may disagree with some of their more modern history especially. Some of their kool-aid was tasty and some of it had a funny taste.

And finally, we should be proud, patriotic Americans because (doggone it!) we Good People! We don't have half the human rights violations of Russia or China.

I have been using the book as part of our American History curriculum. I have very much enjoyed reading history from a much more informative and less distorted example than what I had when I was in high school. It has also kept my children interested and involved in discussion.

George Washington in a 1773 letter to a friend wrote:
"The ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, not to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power and wisdom, resignation, and, as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will is what we are to aim." And in "A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror" the reader finds a text that is friendly towards the Founding Fathers, Christianity, and absolutes.

Each American citizen should own an accurate volume on the history of the United States and "A Patriot's History of the United States" delivers the potent truth of the history of the USA guided by the providence of God. It discusses the Spanish and English landings in North America to the War on Terror in the 21st century.

The timelines are revealed and the dominant events and people are discussed in a lucid and plain writing style. The arrangement of the important events and people also includes a presentation of the achievements and difficulties of the matter being reviewed. Views of various historians are also included, yet the facts are presented as the truth bears out.

"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God" ( Benjamin Franklin).

I recommend this volume and stoutly advocate its use for Home Schoolers, Christian Schools, and public schools. It is an essential book for a minister and parent. It's huge (900+ pages) and makes a great gift (it's really cheap now on the store).

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity...I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God." (John Adams: June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson).

Endorsed by:
- Rush Limbaugh
- Glen Beck
- Wall Street Journal
- National Review.

This is an outstanding resource for kids, teens, parents, and young adults to use as a base in understanding America while the reader learns the important events and essential people involved in the founding, building, and progression of the best country in history viewed through the presuppositions of truth and providence. This work makes for a powerful and alluring one-volume history of the United States of America.

John Adams said in 1775: "We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"

-------
Review written by Mike A Robinson author of the Children's book: "Presuppositional Apologetics for Kids" ("Who Made Truth") found at the site: Mike A Robinson.

See the New Book that contends for the existence of God using moral absolutes by Mike Robinson:
There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies

This was a wonderful read, Being that I have my BA in History and worked on a MA (4 units and comps short) in History as well. I love to reread American History every few yeas. I have read mostly neo marxists works, well because most US Histories are written, unfortunately from that political viewpoint. In this one we get a conservative view in that the Authors like the USA. BUT I have to say this is a very balanced History, There is no covering up for the bad and no over glorification of the good, Its just the facts written on an easy to read format.

There is great coverage hear from our founding as a nation all the war to the war on terror.

I love the parts about our Founding fathers, there brilliance and bravery is so inspiring. When I read the founders writings, I think, how far we have fallen (I feel lie a moron compared to them). I really like the parts by the author hear about Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge, two presidents who are underrated. Cleveland came in, in a horribly corrupt time, and he cleaned house; and Coolidge came in, in a depression and ended it quickly with Supply side economics )if only our leaders would look to history and stop making the same mistakes).

I especially like his fair treatment of all of our presidents such as FDR, the author as as a conservative could have just bash away, but FDR is treated with much fairness in this book. The author levels some criticism at Roosevelt's New Deal big government statism, but its based on the newest research by economic historians, which show how FDR caused the depression to last much longer then it should have had. And the author spends some time praising FDR's pre-war diplomatic efforts with Japan, and debunks the conspiracy theories that FDR knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen to drag the U.S. into World War II. I learned allot hear, The books that claimed FDR did such a thing used spurious evidence or no evidence at all the the authors hear call them out. He also covers the cold war with great aplomb.

Give em Hell President Harry Truman is criticized for some of his domestic policies, but praised for his handling of the Berlin Airlift, while Eisenhower (a Republican) is criticized for perpetuating and even expanding FDR's progressive New Deal programs.

Kennedy, a Democrat, is credited for his handling of the Khrushchev letters during the Cuban Missile Crisis, while he is criticized for Cuba policies. Nixon, a Republican, is exposed as a big-government progressive spender, and yet he praised for his foreign policy achievements by opening the door to China and in his detent with the Soviet Union.

Its especially fun to and educational to read the parts that happen while I have been alive, from LBJ to The end of the Book with George W Bush and the war on terror. I am in total agreement.

For Example Republican president George H.W. Bush is praised for his coalition-building success in the first Gulf War, but is described as having a weak and having a "lack of political imagination" and also as having told a "bald-faced lie" (read my lips no new taxes). I love his treatment on Reagan and Clinton. Its spot on. I love them way the author weaves in social, political, and economic History. I wish every American knew the facts presented in this book.

The book displays the good, the bad and the ugly of all political figures and parties (and our country), everyone gets both praise and criticism where warranted. I love the way the author takes on Howard Zinn's "People's History," and other marxists historians and also the way he shows where conservative Historians have been wrong as well. He used the latest research to bring new light on many facets of our history. The author has the best coverage of the great depression that I have seen in any US History Survey.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone, If you read History before in school, chances are it was a marxist history and you did not get all the truth.

A Patriot's Guide to the United States tries way too hard to argue the conservative agenda. Because is it so far to the right, the well-reasoned conclusions it does make could be easily over-looked.

For example, when discussing the make work projects of the WPA, the authors lament the money spent on the construction of a few opera houses, but worthy projects such as the construction of Hoover Dam are virtually ignored. Also, the monopolistic practices of Standard Oil in the 19th Century or Microsoft in the 20th Century are praised as being good for consumers and are not the power grabs that they were.

Further reducing taxes is always seen as a cure all for a bad economy. Thinks this through, if $1000 revenue generates $200 in taxes, cutting the tax to 15%, means there would need to be $340 in additional revenue to avoid more debt, or a growth rate more than 10% a year for three years! An economy growing at 10% is an economy that is almost surely inflationary.

A Patriot's Guide does makes some powerful points regarding the use of military power. Most mainstream historians are in general agreement, that the bombing of North Vietnam brought North Vietnam to the negotiation table and the bombing of Libya was successful in preventing Kaddafi from hijacking any more airplanes. Everyone wants peace, but some on the far left forget that the application of military power is sometimes necessary.

Another well-made point is the deleterious economic effects of the increasing number of children raised without a father in the home. Government policies may or may not have contributed to these trends, but government policies certainly haven't done much to prevent them. Many on the left are not all concerned with dramatic rise of children born out of wedlock or that millions of children do not have a father actively involved in their life.

If you do buy A Patriot's Guide to the United States, also buy A People's History of the United States for some balance.

At first I was skeptical about the professors by the mass fixing history to their ideology of Anti - Americanism. I have seen videos hidden on students to prove that its a reality, not to mention I was kicked out of a class because I dared challange a Professor that talked about America being a land of Slave Owners and ignorant chistians and Quazi Captialists.

I have seen text books even in my high school being un accurate about history and its social implimintations (sorry if I spelled that wrong). This book has been long overdue but bettter late than never. I have learned events from the Civil to the First World war to the Modern War on Terror that my History Teachers nor Politcal Science and Economics teacher told me about in High School even today the Professors that lectures me about history do not know about. This is historical accuracy at its finest. NO this nation was not founded directly on slave owners, no this is not a nation of sexism. This is a nation that yes has a dark past but these pasts are not what really shaped the United States.

This is the ultimate response to these leftist professors and a response to the biased textbooks that try to interprit hisotry their way in their agenda. Why is it that history text books by the majority cannot be like this book. Maybe not in a conservative viewpoint but in its authentic accuracy. Only one may wonder.

This bok will make Howard Zinn, Noham Chomsky, Saul Linsky, turn on their grave

As neither a conservative or liberal, I can say that this was a refreshing, pro-American (for once) history of our awesome nation. I am also very sympathetic to the plight of native cultures as well, as some of my ancestors were of Indian heritage, but I also realize that I love America, and without the substantial efforts of so many in our history, my awesome life would not have been possible! I do also feel that a left-leaning point of view often seems a bit childish in it's emotional analysis, but I also recommend reading both "Patriot's" and "People's" histories to balance each other out.

P.S.: Hating America when you reap it's benefits is like hating your rich parents, until you grow up and realize that you love them.
P.P.S.: I am neither conservative nor liberal.

As a social studies teacher, this book has forced me to question much of what I've been taught and what I teach in my US history courses.

I appreciate the fact that history is more than what its been turned into by the liberal historians and liberal media of late. It isn't just about a bunch of rich white guys doing bad things.

I think this is the perfect book that should be used as a supplement to future history coursework. It is fair, comprehensive and well balanced

Quite a bias title; the writer consistently sets a theme of left and right; whereas, the author attempts to draw the assertion that the left does not believe in property rights and Liberty, however ironic, Liberty is the totem at which the left carries forth. Perhaps I'm far too much of a centrist, an independent, a Washingtonian, a moderate, a social-capitalist, a real Liberal, for material written by either side that seems to be written for the purposes of validating a contrive that enfeebles a portion of our nation from the rest. I have bitter distaste for people that don't adhere to the lessons passed down from Washington. Though I admire his understanding of the Founding Fathers intent to abolish slavery, but unable to do so as the Union was yet to have enough strength, nor would the Constitution had been ratified given it was a stipulation, or it would have been unenforceable, thereby setting the stage for a failing Constitution from the very beginning. Often times I find not enough emphasis is placed on aspects such as this, leaving people with an inaccurate conclusion. I would go so far as to mention the letters written by Washington and Franklin, along with the fact that Franklin was a "slave" (correctly, an indentured servant), during his early life.

Anyways, it would have been a 5-star if it weren't a self-validation piece; a cherry-picker.

A Patriot's History of the United States is a massive 829 page account of the nation from pre-nationhood status to post 9-11 21st century life. The book is written by two longtime history teachers who favor a moderate/conservative view of America. The book is well written and will give the reader many hours of pleasure and knowledge about our nation. The book is good for:
1. Briefly covering all of America's wars. It is especially fine in the coverage accorded the Civil War.
2. Giving short but detailed critiques of all the presidents and their administrations from George Washington through George W. Bush.
3. Economic history is a major topic of focus. This is so often an arcane subject which is neglected by textbooks which is not the case with this book.
4, The book is good in tracing the history of the African-American Civll Rights Struggle, the history of Native Americans and the role of immigration in American society.
5. The book gives us a picture of how the typical American lived and worked during the particular period being reviewed.
6. Diplmoatic history and foreign affairs are well covered.
While not agreeing with everything the authors said about certain presidents one does have to admit that this book makes you think and reconsider your previous assessments.
The book's editors should consider adding illustrations, photographs, maps and charts in future editions. A long and tough read but worth it!

I, like a whole lot of people, have discovered that I want to devour as much American History as I can get my hands on. I don't know about anyone else but my American History class in High School was seriously lacking. I was taught 15 years ago that our founders were a bunch of cry babies and the revolution was a huge temper tantrum, the end result being massive loss of life, theft and debt. Ever since I'd lived with the shame that this was my heritage. My ancestors fought in the Glorious Revolution after all. Relearning my history has been liberating and I'm glad to have started with this book.
As far as being fair, I think the authors are more than fair. For example: they don't just recognize George Washington for the amazing man that he was but reveal his faults...it's the details that matter! And this book is chalk full of details that make the history come a live in a way school texts just can't pull off. Example: What did I learn about the whiskey rebellion in school? The rebels were a bunch of whiners who were having a fit over a new tax on corn. However, a lot Americans who didn't live in cities didn't use currency. They bartered, and their most valuable commodity was whiskey. So when the tax collector came to collect taxes for their corn crops, the farmers had no currency to give them! Besides, if you've grown your own crops on your own land freely for years, how would you feel if all of a sudden the government says...we will allow you to grow corn on your property only if you pay taxes on it? Would your new government have sounded an awful like the government you just defeated in the Revolution? Why were newspapers invented? Where was communism first attempted in America? Details! Details make all the difference in making history interesting.
This is the way I feel about whether or not some of the facts are wrong...this book has been infinitely better than what I learned in school. And anyone who takes a particular text and makes it gospel is not studying history anyway so if something is wrong, to those people it won't matter anyway. It shouldn't be the only history you ever read. It won't be mine.

This book is a right wing throw-together to counter Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. Basic message of A PATRIOT'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES: If we could study history the way it was taught before desegregation, civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and all other rights gained within the past 50 years, we'd all feel much better.

We picked this book up a few years ago on the sale table at Barnes and Noble to serve as a reference to accompany historical studies in our homeschool. It ended up being the primary source for our younger son Jeremy's junior-year American history course. For the past thirty years, many historians and history professors, such as Howard Zinn in his A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, have allowed their leftist biases to distort the way America's past is taught, always emphasizing instances of racism, sexism, and bigotry in our history while downplaying the greatness of America's patriots and the achievements of "dead white men." A Patriot's History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart, conservative historian and professor of history at the University of Dayton, OH, and Michael Allen, professor of history at the University of Washington, Tacoma, seeks to correct those doctrinaire biases.

Beginning with the discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus in Chapter One, "The City on the Hill, 1492-1707," the book covers the history of this nation from its colonization and founding, through its trials and triumphs, down to Chapter Twenty-Two, "America, World Leader, 2000 and Beyond." While it doesn't gloss over the problems and mistakes of the past, it also doesn't fail to point out where we got it right! Of course no single book, not even one of 932 pages, which include copious footnotes and an index, can relate all the details of every important event in our nation's history, but this book provides a better overview than many others. Some people complained about a few factual errors in the original edition but said that they were corrected in the reprint. A former high school teacher and now a college History Professor in western NC wrote, "For home schoolers, this book is your dream. You left the system for so many reasons and this book will explain many of those reasons." Larry Schweikart, with Dave Dougherty, has also written A Patriot's History of the Modern World: From America's Exceptional Ascent to the Atomic Bomb: 1898-1945 (2012).

Buy this. I picked up the audio book because of time constraints and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Patrick Lawlor has a pleasant voice, and I appreciate his attempts at accents, and using "character voice" for various prominent historical figures.

Of course the authors have done an outstanding job on this volume. I'm going to assume that since it was recorded in 2007 that the errors mentioned in an earlier review by David Dougherty have been corrected? Since it's audio I have no way of flipping back to aforementioned pages to double check. Perhaps since he ammended his critique, he can speak to this question.

A fantastic perspective on the history of this unique nation that should be in the library of every home, or used as a textbook in American History classrooms. Replete with direct quotes, and balanced criticisms of political leaders and Presidents.

Memory is a gift. It reminds us who we are, where we've been, why certain choices were made, and what mistakes to avoid. If you feel as I do that the collective memory of America has been fading - consider this book a dose of ginko biloba.

The audio book is worth having for the extremely busy person who can enjoy it in the car.

Long term I will also be buying the paperback, so that I can highlight areas, and take notes.

Sweikhart and Allen rendered a heroic service with this encouraging view of American history--our heritage. We have much to thank God for in our national story--not to apologize for--and we have much to thank these two men for in their debunking of the liberal intellectual affront to our national worth and reputation. Armed with facts and emboldened by truth, these good-hearted men have danced right over the debilitated liberal academics that prostrate themselves to prevailing communal academic prejudices. These are real men, walking tall to give us a pity, sanguine American history--one with a backbone. God bless them!

While I generally liked this book (audio book), I was very disappointed in the authors' incorrect facts. In one glaring error, the authors' mention (three times) that the 82nd Airborne Division was trapped at Bastogne, France, in 1944. It was the 101st Airborne Division and the authors' should have known that as the Screaming Eagles (101st) are famous for that battle. If they miss that simple fact, how credible is the rest of the book? Another misstatement was that all three astronauts of Apollo 11 "set foot on the moon" but we all know that Michael Collins orbited the moon while Armstrong and Aldrin landed.

This book is great. It's enormous (over 900 pgs.) so it might have to be digested slowly but it's worth it. I'm a patriot and am glad to finally have a book that doesn't make me feel bad about being an American. This book actually shows the positive things our founding fathers did (a novelty compared to many of the other history books.) It contains all the information the other books have (minus the tendency toward revisionism) but goes beyond, including things the more left-leaning tomes avoid. Recommended as a gift for history buffs and home schooling. Children who read this will gain the information that is taught in public schools but will also learn all the things the schools omit. Highly Reccomended.

I'm reading this bit by bit, slowly, so as to digest it fully and better be able to share it with our 15-year-old son, whom I'm going to have read part of it this summer.

As I started the introduction and first chapters, I realized I was in dire need of a supplemental book - something with maps that would go along with the reading. And I realized I possessed such a thing: [...] The Hammond United States History Atlas, which I had to purchase my freshman year in college for a history class, which was never used in college and somehow survived to reside on our 15-year-old's book shelves (still never opened).

The Hammond book goes PERFECTLY (so far, anyway) with the Patriot's History. I recommend buying BOTH. (I have the 1984 Hammond paperback; I realize there is a newer edition, but I don't know if it's the same book or if it's been re-edited (liberalized) from the version I have.)

Enjoy!

Page 752, 1st paragraph... "Nevertheless, he (Quadaffi) got the message, and Libya dropped off the international terrorist radar screen for the remainder of the decade." Authors not only make false claim about Libya, they never mention the Pan AM flight 103 bombing in 1988 despite dedicating a lot of ink to terrorism.

On so many levels the authors demonstrate with historical facts that America's greatness is greater than the undeniable instances of racism, sexism and bigotry. The waves of immigrants that keep coming to this country must intuitively know, without benefit of these 825 enlightening pages, that the emphasis in this book is correct.
The following is a small sample of what you can get out of this remarkable and enlightening book:
"Character counts: Henry Clay, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton were skilled politicians but lacked character." The English part of North America grew faster than the Spanish part due to free markets. The Civil War "...gives lie to the modern notions that all serious differences can yield to better communications and diplomacy." Hoover was a big-government type who turned a bad cyclical recession into the nation's worst depression." "Eisenhower did not end the New Deal but he slowed the growth." Nixon had more in common with FDR than Reagan. Eisenhower was the last Republican President to receive favorable, or even balanced and fair treatment by the increasingly liberal mainstream media.
JFK was "...one of the most ruthless candidates...in the twentieth century.

The authors make it clear from the start that this is a Patriots Guide to the History of the United States. It is with this perspective that the work it written as much as a People's History of the United States is written by Communists. Each so long as they are taken in perspective are important, and powerful works. Both perspective are essential for intellectual discussion, and to decry such a well written work because it doesn't worship ones own world view is cowardice and hate of the most retarded manifestation.
This book is an intense look at the New World and the United States from the beginning, without shadow or apology. It describes the world as those times as every other history book brushes over as unimportant. But these are the details which describe the context of North America at the time.
I would not say that I agree wholly with every description, or conclusion of the book, but for the first time the public is presented with the other side of the story, the one the communists want burned.

I never thought I'd be excited to read a history book, but each time I had to put it down for some reason or another I found myself looking forward to getting more "me" time to go back to it. If they had this book in high school history class perhaps I would have been more excited to go to class too.

Loved the book. By its self this book will teach you more about history than you will get from any other book. If combined with other reading materials this book can be used to help you see the big picture as you study a specific point on the U.S. historical timeline. I see a lot of one starts that seem to be more concerned with politics rather than facts. This book covers history based on facts so if you are looking for a book that warps history to a specific point of view this book is not for you.

When the author prefaces the description of his objective as a wholesale sweeping generalization of more educated, more experienced, career historians as merely "biased", you know you're in for a wild ride of opinionated hyperbole. It goes without saying that conventional wisdom dictates history is written by the victors, and even traditional American history is overly favorable to the Americans who ran and controlled much of what they still do today. But there's a next-level of absurdity when confronted with the notion that even the common version of history needs to be corrected to further pander to the narcissistic tendencies of ultra-conservatives, who can't seem to stomach that anything positive in the sum-total history of the country could possibly be the result of liberals or democrats. And this is what you get, a re-written version of history further whitewashing the reality of our country in favor of shallow, pedantic, Fox News-style inaccurate talking points.

As one-volume histories of the United States go, this one fully measures up to another of my favorites, Paul Johnson's A History of the American People. However, reading some of the reviews of the book on, I can see that the authors' explicit purpose of countering Howard Zinn's Marxist interpretation of American history, A People's History of the United States, has backfired to some extent. Schweikart and Allen openly declare their intention of writing a history of America that emphasizes its "overwhelmingly positive contributions to civilization" - and, unlike Zinn, they do try to give the book a scholarly sheen with plenty of footnotes - but this "built-in bias" has doomed them to being dismissed by many people right off the bat. It's unfortunate, because there's plenty of fodder here for legitimate discussion and debate. As one might expect in a tome that "accentuates the positive" and generally takes a conservative tack, the Founding Fathers, Ronald Reagan, business entrepreneurs of various types, and Abraham Lincoln all come off well, while FDR, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton take a pounding. Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt get saddled with more blame than is customarily attributed to them for assisting in the growth of "big government," the gradual development of which serves as the book's "negative throughline." Libertarians will loudly disagree with the book's interpretation of the Civil War as being overwhelmingly about slavery and only tangentially about "states' rights." To their credit, the authors pay plenty of attention to the slavery issue, minority rights, and other black marks on America's cosmic score sheet, but they also emphasize the country's ability to ultimately deal with its problems and do not pretend that no progress has been made. There are several dreary stretches (mostly dealing with economic issues) and the writing seems to become a little rushed as we approach the last 25 years, but overall, this book is well-worth anyone's time and effort.

This is an amazing work, one that I wish I had been required to read in grade school. My wife and I have home schooled our 11 year old for a year now and have no plans to return her to the mess that is public education system. This is one of the sources of material we are using for American History. If you are looking for a thoughtful and well researched book that does not rewrite history to fit a liberal agenda, then this is your book. This is not the only one I've read, but it is definitely the best so far.

The negative reviewers here are pathetic and clearly have not actually read the book, and are providing only the pre-programmed responses they are taught to provide when confronted with the truth. If you truly have a mind of your own, pick up a copy of the book, READ IT, then make up your mind about it.

If you hate America--and we know millions do abroad and, sadly, here -- you'll hate the book.

After all, while it fully acknowledges our nation's setbacks over the years, it mostly summarizes why America is the last, best & only hope for those seeking liberty and freedom.

More than 1000 pages full of facts, analysis & comparisons, we'd have a wiser electorate if this dominated schools & media instead of the revisionism, lies & ignorance spread in text & film by our enemies, that gets our soldiers killed on the battlefield, and allows dangerous politicians to be elected.

As the authors reiterate: virtue, honesty & ideas matter. We don't expect university profs who live and "work" in ivory towers to understand.

Ask our Founders, the Homesteaders and Frontier families; ask immigrants like my grandparents and my wife; ask industry tycoons & military heroes who keep us safe & prosperous while liberating billions. We ask for nothing in return (aside from cemeteries to bury our dead)

A climate that rewards character, skills, integrity, talent & risk taking, unlike elsewhere, is a place to be admired by all who want to live.

If you seek or believe the opposite, then really, opposite why live here? Never an answer, often from those who take the most such as Michael Moore, George Soros, Barbra Streisand, Spike Lee and fellow hate mongers who receive billions for defaming the nation that blessed them. Actions carry loudest.

The content of Americans' character make us the greatest nation on earth, not the color of skin, our gender, ethnicity, lifestyle or any other divisive aspect that balkanizes us, yet is celebrated under the destructive term "diversity."

Authors make that clear early, but the book is simply a thorough and factual recap of 520 years of our history that, if required by schools in lieu of the current disingenuous, revisionist garbage (I taught history for five years) we wouldn't have such ignorant youths.

This is one of the greatest history books written of all time. It shows the true history of America. I think that everyone should read this book, no matter what your ideology is.
This book takes a while to read, but it is well worth your time.

Great book, something every American should own. It gives a general overview and honest interpretation of the history of the United States. Some of the critics seem disappointed that it doesn't go in depth into some events. It isn't meant to. It is meant to give you an honest and general overview, what do you expect from a book covering 500 years of history? Although it does not go in depth into every subject, it still gives you a general understanding and debunks the revisionist history that America is greedy, racist, sexist, and bigots. Great book to start with if you are into history. This book should be in the house of every American, or someone who wants to escape the liberal version of history and learn the truth

I finally finished reading this book nearly five months after I purchased it. Overall, considering the sheer volume of the material presented I found it both very informative and often maddening. It tends to briefly touch on a huge amount of information and does spend more time on certain topics and time frames while barely touching on others. The authors don't shy away from America's mistakes but the reader can clearly see that most of those mistakes were made with the best of intentions.
As the book runs a very thick 932 pages (including footnotes) it was clear that the authors couldn't spend much time on each and every era/topic/person which would have required at least 3 or 4 times that number of pages. I believe they (and their readers) would have been better served in a series of books covering every 50 years or so; but despite those minor complaints I found this to be the most fact filled book I have ever had the pleasure to read. I was stunned by just how much history (and I am a big American history buff) I was either oblivious to, or simply wrong on.
The book will both bore and fascinate the reader and I suspect that the boring and fascinating parts will vary with the tastes of its various readers but I know of no other book that covers so much history in fewer than 1,000 pages and which our failing education system (at least public schooling) refuses to properly address. I was especially fascinated with the rise of the American Progressive movement from about 1900 onward. Overall I give this book 5 stars and will re-read it again.
If you are one of those people who has had that feeling in your gut that both we and our children have not been getting the full story of American history then this is one of those books that you must read. American's need to restore their faith and pride in the tremendous accomplishments of the most wonderful nation on earth and this book certainly takes a step in that direction. I also plan on using this book as a part of my daughter's home schooling.
One BIG suggestion for those reading this book - keep an ample supply of high-lighter pens on hand. You won't regret it :-}

The stated premise cought my attention, that perhaps too much of our writing on American History carries a revisionist bias, and that a true perspective would give proper respect for purely patriotic and honorable motives. What surprised me the most was how extremely readible this book was. It is not dry history, it lives with fresh perspective and expression. There are many surprises in it, that are iconoclastic about certain times in our history and certain administrations. I have shared it with my daughters and grandchildren and friends who all agree with my assessment of it - excellent execution. You will enjoy this wonderful book.

Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen have written a history of the United States that is tremendously broad in scope, and monumental in its approach in our modern times. It begins with Christopher Columbus and proceeds through to current events, including 9-11 and its aftermath, the War on Terror and the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the re-election of George W. Bush.. The work covers over 510 years of history in 825 pages. There are over 70 pages of footnotes at the end of the book, detailing critical historical conditions and facts from each of the twenty-two chapters.

The best introduction to a review of this work that I could give regarding its approach the authors took, is from the mouths of the authors themselves in their own introduction:

"Is America's past a tale of racism, sexism, and bigotry? Is it the story of the conquest and rape of a continent? Is U.S. history the story of white slave owners who perverted the electoral process for their own interests? Did America start with Columbus's killing all the Indians, leap to Jim Crow laws and Rockefeller crushing the workers , then finally save itself with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal? The answers, of course, are no, no, no, and NO.

"One might never know this, however, by looking at almost any mainstream U.S. history textbook. Having taught American history in one form or another for close to sixty years between us, we are aware that, unfortunately, many students are berated with tales of the Founders as self-interested politicians and slave-holders, of the icons of American industry as robber-barons, oppressors, and of every American foreign policy initiative as imperialistic and insensitive. At least Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States, honestly represents its Marxist biases in the title!

"What is most amazing and refreshing is that the past usually speaks for itself. The evidence is their for telling the great story of the American past honestly-with flaws, absolutely; with shortcomings, most definitely. But we think that an honest evaluation of the history of the United States must begin and end with the recognition that, compared to any other nation, America's past is a bright and shining light. America was, and is, the city on a hill, the fountain of hope, the beacon of liberty. We utterly reject "My country right or wrong"- what scholar wouldn't? But in the last thirty years, academics have taken an equally destructive approach, "My country always wrong!" We reject that too.

"Instead, we remain convinced that if the story of America's past is told fairly, the results 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."

The authors then proceed to do just that, to show that despite the errors, mistakes, and shortcomings along the way, the telling of American history ends up being a story of unequaled faith, character, virtue, and moral clarity. They demonstrate how through the faith and goodness of most of the principle characters involved, as well as the majority of the settlers, colonists, and then citizens, a liberty was allowed to develop that was based on moral constraint and founded in Christian heritage. That liberty then allowed America to become the envy of the world. Not due to arrogance, selfishness or shortsightedness, though there was some of that at times, but due to the intrinsic foundational moral principles that those people based their lives upon which produced and then maintained that freedom and that prosperity.

It is a marvelous work that I cannot recommend highly enough. Every student of American history, every parent wanting their child to understand what truly has made this nation great, every home schooling parent should place this book in their library and make it readily available to their children. Better yet, they should sit down and read it together with them.

Now, you may find that because of the scope of the work that there are some particular details which you are personally aware of in history that do not get the attention you would prefer. I found this so with the phenomenal story of George Rogers Clark, older brother to the great explorer, William Clark of the famed Lewis and Clark expedition. George Rogers Clark, with a small band of less than 200 soldiers, during the Revolutionary War defeated and brought under American control, the entirety of the Northwest Territory at the time. A land mass that doubled the size of the United States. He did it through stratagem and through miraculous means that are a marvel to this day...and he did it without losing a man in combat. Because of his exploits, entire Indian nations at the time, who otherwise could have posed significant issue to the western expansion of America, and to the defeat of the British in the west, sued for peace with this great man, his very small band of soldiers, and the fledgling nation they represented. That his story was not covered was a disappointment to me because I had anticipated it. But, on the other hand, it gave me the opportunity to teach my youngest son about that particular aspect of the revolutionary war as we read the magnificent coverage of other more notable aspects of the revolution, and, which I might add, were in fact more germane to the ultimate victory over the British.

In a work of this scope, to pay that much attention to every detail would result in a work of ten or twelve volumes, which was not the author's aim. Through not becoming distracted, they accomplish their aim, as stated in the introduction, marvelously throughout the book, paying great heed to the pivotal points in history and the underlying political, cultural, and moral issues all along the way that contributed to them.

For remaining true to this, and remaining true to the actual conditions and intent of those of whom they write, the authors deserve our most sincere congratulations and their own scholarly notoriety. For having the courage and clarity to show how those events and those people used their faith, their determination, and their integrity and commitment to set the foundation for, craft, build, and then maintain and defend American liberty (including a true rendition of things like the Vietnam War and why it turned out the way it did) and its accompanying life style and prosperity, the authors deserve our undying respect and gratitude.

A lot of negative reviews here claim that important, but inconvenient, facts are omitted in this book, such as Iran-Contra affair. This is to prove that the book has a "Republican' bias. One of the reviewers, for example, supposedly a history teacher, named Pentz says:"[the book] Does Not Even Make Mention Of IRAN-CONTRA!" (sic)

The search function reveals that IRAN-CONTRA IS MENTIONED TWICE (using caps so the old lib professor can see it) on pages 721 and 761. Two-thirds of page 761 is devoted to the affair starting with: "A more serious reverse for the Reagan agenda came in November 1986 [...]" Even sounds pretty critical of Reagan...

Check for yourself. Page 761 is available for viewing here on the store.

Now, how can you believe a word of the rest of Pentz' story about the exchange he allegedly had with Prof. Schweikart, the author of this book? Pentz states: "I asked about this conspicuous omission and was told that he [Schweikart] didn't think IRAN-CONTRA was significant enough to make it into print." And this liar teaches our students?? Teaches them how to "detect bias"?! What is going on in this country?

A more general comment: I have been reading the store reviews for a long time now. Most of the one-star reviews that are critical of "conservative" (however you define it) books reveal complete lack of familiarity with the book or the arguments contained within it. A LOT of them are one to two sentences in length. They bring down the ratings but contribute nothing to the conversation.

Read this book. After years of liberal lies and distortions, it's your civic duty.

The authors have perfectly valid areas of focus. Character and honor were important to early Americans; the New Deal did have unintended consequences; the US is an important player on the world stage after WW II - and so on and so forth.

However...

The book is essentially the same sort of history I heard and read again, and again, and again, for the the first 20 years of my life. With the exception of some of the (few) factual errors in the book, there is nothing you wouldn't find in a standard text book in K-12 until the early 90s. Sadly, it has far less of the new research and documents that you would find in, say, a text book by Eric Foner. Character and honor (though defined differently at times) were important to a far broader spectrum of people than what we find in this book - and I suppose it is fine that they focus on what they do. What I object to is an introduction that treats this approach as if it were novel or new. Like Howard Zinn's book, this is not "new" or "hidden" history - just a different focus.

The only reason I dislike this book is because I know that the people who like it do so not because it introduces new knowledge or research, but because it is a more like a comfortable, well-worn, well-known shoe.

Not a bad read if you don't mind the Republicans portrayed as Saviors of the world and Democrats as spawn of the devil. A few interesting facts and lots of supposition. Its obvious in the latter chapters that the author has drunk too much Tea Party Kool-Aid, e.g., Limbaugh and Drudge saved the country during the Clinton administration, WMD's in Irag justifying the second war. Fun to re-live the timeline of history, just be careful not to succumb to the author's rhetoric.

This book was a fair history text, but not the best I have seen.

The writers spend very little time on the War of 1812 or the Mexican War, given the influence and significance they had on America as a world power. The coverage of Antebellum, the Civil War and the Reconstruction periods is also painfully short for the overall impact this period had on American history.

The New Deal is strongly criticized with the writers showing the impact programs had after 50 years. This is fine, but no citations are given explaining how the writers reached these conclusions.

This book is written from an obvious right of center bias and the writers are up front about such. But by writing in this manner, they leave out many important details and skew some other details in order to promote what they want to tell.

Its not a bad book, but enough information is left out, the cititaions are sketchy enough, and the style skewed enough for me to say that there are a fair number history survey texts out there that are better than this one.

My first thought, is this a review link or a political blog? It amazes me how the liberals hate to have their opinions confused with facts. All, those socialist and marxist that rated this book a one star, did so because they hated the way the book presented facts with references and foot notes that do not support their anti American campaign. Here is a question for all you liberal socialist: What county is better than the U.S. that is socialist or Marxist. Think of the answer to yourself - got it- good, now go move there and get the hell out of America if you hate it so much. Good by and good riddance. Now as for the book itself. If you are interested in learning what they probably never taught you in school then I suggest this book, so you have a clear understanding of how we got here and what we need to do as Americans to keep this country great. The book states facts with plenty of footnotes and references, does not present opinions like the liberal communist love to use as talking points. If you are truly interested in the history of this country read this book. If you want to hear the same song over and over and over, watch Katie Couric or MSNBC and get your talking points so you can gel your uniformed opinions that you can regurgitate over your double soy milk latte with your comrades.

What a contrast to the textbooks I was required to read in college! You get the facts of history without the liberal indoctrination and slant. I blew a fortune on a History degree when I could have just read this book.

I wanted to like this book. It's intent is to counter recent accounts of United States history which are overtly negative and left leaning politically. Unfortunately, rather than countering with a factual history the authors inject their own bias, especially in recent US history. While some bias might be forgiven, I also found many overt factual errors along with a number of highly questionable assertions, implying at best sloppy scholarship and at worst deliberate falsifications.

In many areas the authors do provide a reasonably balanced treatment of US history, describing both everyday people and the major events of the time. The history up to about World War I largely fits this description.

Unfortunately, as the authors describe recent history their text turns into a right wing stereotype. They are consistent in praising Republicans and conservatives, making excuses for Republicans who do something they with, while taking every opportunity to portray Democrats a corrupt and criminal. Illegal fund raising by Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns are repeatedly mentioned, but not a word about Richard Nixon's illegal campaign funds. Democrats are described twice as blocking George W. Bush's judicial nominees but not a word about Republicans blocking Clinton nominees.

most serious, in my opinion, are the factual errors in the book. I will give examples from two areas, one from the late 1700s and the other in the description of the computer and technology advances of the past forty years.

In the discussion of the Founding Fathers after the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton appears frequently, as one would expect given his prominent role in the early United States. But when discussing why Hamilton worked behind the scenes rather than attempting to become President the authors state it is because Hamilton was foreign born and ineligible to become President. Yet according to the US Constitution Hamilton was eligible to be President because any citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted was eligible, the natural born citizen requirement is only for those not a citizen when the constitution went into force. This error might be excusable (it's a common misconception) but the authors, by writing a history for "patriots", must surely be intimately familiar with the Constitution.

The second area full of factual errors is the description of the technology revolution, in particular with regards to Bill Gates and Microsoft. I have first hand knowledge of these areas, and the errors were blatent as I read the book.

This first technology error is in chapter 20 both in the time line at the start of the chapter and later. The authors write "BASIC computer language invented by Bill Gates." Wrong. Bill Gates wrote a BASIC interpreter for the early hobbyist microcomputers, but BASIC was invented in 1964 at Dartmouth University. I personally programmed in BASIC in 1971. I even checked the one footnoted source I have access to and it is correct, while this book is wrong.

Then in their later description of the anti-trust suit against Microsoft the authors claim that Microsoft was first investigated in 1993 for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. However, Internet Explorer wasn't even released until 1995 (Netscape, the main competitor, wasn't founded until 1994). While the book sort of gets the end result (Microsoft was penalized for bundling Internet Explorer) the details are wrong. Either the authors are ignorant of the facts (which appears likely) or in attempting to shorten the account (and maintain their bias against anti-trust legislation) they were too sloppy in producing a short enough account for this book.

Whatever the truth, I wonder how many other garbled accounts are contained in the book. Having found several blatant errors, how can I believe the other accounts.

My sincere graditude to Schweikart and Allen for their Herculean effort that is this book. Indeed America, while not perfect, is the "shining city on a hill" and "the last, best hope for mankind." Ours is the charge to be worthy of our heritage and, where we recognize imperfection, right our course.

Many have already commented on the balance struck in the Patriot's telling of the American story and rightfully so. No one is blindly adulated and no one is immune from criticism. But equally important for any good book is readability. A textbook this is not. It reads more like a novel as it draws you in. I particularly appreciated their ability to weave contemporary analogies into the past and past analogies into the present. The former offers understanding; the latter, perspective.

The is a biography of our country, written by two historians as a work of love. Oh, yes, the flaws are there for all to read, but the great contributions that the USA has made to mankind are on display, front and center. "A Patriot's History" is a much-needed corrective to most of the American History surveys that I have read - and I have read a number of college level and high school texts. Most of them reflect the "hate America" perspective that permeates today's community of history scholars.

Schweikart and Allen acknowledge alternative interpretations much more readily than the other texts, making for some interesting historiography. In connection with the endnotes, the serious reader can dive into controversies and take a "we report, you decide" approach to history. Perhaps most other texts don't take this approach (acknowledging interpretative controversies), because in their orthodox world, only a leftist slant CAN be correct.

If you doubt my observations, take the book for a "test drive". Read a chapter in "A Patriot's History" from an era that you are familiar with and then read the corresponding chapter from another survey text. You will quickly see a stark difference between the two, especially the chapters dealing with the last 70 years.

Schwekart, an economic historian at the University of Dayton, is especially strong in his discussion of economic issues and events. Economic history, especially from a capitalist perspective, has been largely ignored or marginalized by historians for many years. If you feel, as I do, that it is vital to understand the role of economics and capitalism in our capitalist society, then you need to read this book. No other survey text I have read approach's "A Patriot's History" in its coverage of those topics.

Finally, conservatives have an American History text that challenges the hegemony of the "looney left".

A comprehensive history of United States without the liberal spin that accompany many textbooks. I have read Howard Zinn's People's as well as "Lies my teacher told me" and they all have a place on the shelf for history buffs, but for anyone who wants to know the TRUTH, they should look for this book.

HIGHLY recommended, ignore any negative reviews as I guarantee they haven't read it.

After teaching at the college level for 25 years I don't think most people realize just how biased and liberal most universities today are. Unless you have been in department meetings you really have no idea. No matter how one sided and liberal you think colleges may be you are underestimating it. There is no discussion, no competing ideas.

Does it really make sense that textbooks on American history devote one page, if that, to Washington or Jefferson, and three to Salem Poor?

What really made me appreciate this book was that a lot of it was what I HAD learned before we hit the PC time warp. Its not that different ideas are presented, its that only the liberal ideas are presented, again, no discussion no competition. This book balances it out somewhat.

You'll never see this book used, I'm afraid, in most colleges though it is by far the most interesting, comprehensive history book I have ever read. Not dry or boring, but really makes you want to read the next page.

I do have to agree with a previous reviewer, it seems many of the negative reviews did not really read the book and just resorted to the usual name calling.

If a person were to purchase this book, a copy of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," and "Voices of a People's History of the United States," read all three while noting questions and did some research, THEN a person might begin to have a balanced sense of history. This book is the (flag waving and marching bands in the background) aren't-amazing-view; Zinn's is the let's-look-under-the-rug and include the unseemly side too, just to be more honest; and "Voices" are letters, speeches, diary entries, etc. from the people written about in the other two books. The cool thing to do is read "Voices" and then read the other two and see how the interpretations vary from the primary sources. (Kind of the equivalent of being at an event and then seeing the news coverage of it on Fox and CNN.)
By the way, for the reviewers on this page taking about how leftist history classes are, you do know that the majority of textbooks for our schools in the US come out of Texas, don't you?

How are we to learn from history if we are to be selective with the truth? This book should be added to the curricular in our high schools and colleges. The outstanding "A Patriots History" resolves many of the myths and half-truths I was taught in school. Take pride in being an American.

Schweikart and Allen takes us through our countries history, from the late 1400's with the early explores, to 9/11 and beyond, with a positive perspective and an honest evaluation. "At least Howard Zinn's 'A peoples History of the U.S.' honestly represents its Marxist biases in title". Colorfully written and heart warming; well detailed, down to the clothes worn and the food consumed. There are notes with extensive references. "Compared to any other nation, America's past is a bright and shinning light".

We learn about Democracy's greatest hour when the nation came together during W.W.II. We learn of the men who helped to build our country through capitalism and the free market. The chapter covering the myths of the 1929 stock crash is superb. The close calls: were it not for the lack of foresight by the Spanish, N. America may have fallen into their hands; Roosevelt naming Truman vise President may have saved our great land. Presidential opposition in the form of the media and political parties began with our first president. But it wasn't until the 60's when the media started to influence politics. It is hard to imagine the negative campaigning in the early 1800's made today's look tame.

"The old adage that 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, or stay home'"-----referring to the southern vote of secession--ring familiar? The labels we place on groups today are not applicable to that of 100 years ago--one only needs to look at liberalism and feminism of the 60's and 70's to see the impact.

"Where the spirit of the Lord is there liberty"

Wish you well

Scott

I greatly enjoyed this excellent counterpoint to Howard Zinn. If I were teaching a US history survey course, this would be the text I would use. Some reviewers have asserted that this book is for conservatives. Rather, this is for people who love America and are tired of reading history books written by those that don't. There is plenty of balanced history in this book and none of America's past problems are glossed over. I've recommended this book to all my friends and colleages.

I have never before penned a review of a literary piece. I usually brush off a poor purchasing decision to experience and make efforts to be more vigilant in the future. In the interest of full disclosure I am a conservative who finds the current state of affairs in the country incredibly troubling. I am also an amateur historian who has a deep and passionate interest in the Civil War and in particular the Battle of Gettysburg.

After I purchased the book and arrive home I quickly turned to the Gettysburg section and was shocked to discover an incredible number of factual errors. The errors themselves, in some instances are so blatant that a simple fact check would have easily found them. The first paragraph implies that the Battle of the Wilderness occurred prior to Gettysburg but in actuality it occurred 10 months later. Further on the authors note that JEB Stuart, Lee's cavalry commander was "scouting for Lee in the Pennsylvania countryside [and], crossed into Maryland on May fifteenth." Stuart was nowhere near Pennsylvania on May 15, 1863. He was in central Virginia during the time and may have even attended Stonewall Jackson's funeral which took place from May 13th to 15th. Later the authors note that General Meade marched his army "west into Maryland along the Taneytown Road." With all due respect to the authors, Meade would not have marched into Maryland along the Taneytown Road but out of Maryland into Pennsylvania and he would not have been marching west since the Taneytown road runs north and south between Gettysburg and the thoroughfare's namesake.
These are just three of the 5 to 10 factual errors I discovered in just the four pages on the Gettysburg Campaign. It pains me to think of other errors which are no doubt prevalent throughout the remainder of the work.

As I noted I am a right winger and always up for a good book that brings the truth to light regarding the liberal left in America. This book however seems to have been thrown together piecemeal in a hasty effort to counter Howard Zinn's left leaning piece. With books like "A Patriot's History of the United States" being touted by those who I consider the intellectual right and our children's history books being co-opted by the left, I wonder if anyone will ever know the truth about American History again. I now have a $25 dollar door stop for my library.

I found the book to be readable and thoughtful, but so biased as to be utterly false. I found the left-wing equivalent, by Howard Zinn, to suffer from the same problem. How sad that so many Americans have become such ideologues that they have forgotten that the real "American Way" is supposed to celebrate truth!

Calling this book "The Patriot's History" is like calling Bush's law "The Patriot Act." Whoever invoked the name George Orwell here was certainly correct.

The original Patriots were rebels! They were men so committed to freedom-- of action as well as thought-- that they were willing to fight for it. Today, many people calls themselves "Patriots" because they believe in the status quo-- and fight the rebels who raise questions. They have become their own enemy, but don't have the context to understand.

A real American Patriot is a person who wants both sides of the story, and fights for what's right, not what fits his or her ideology.

Actually, I feel that people who gravitate to simplistic, falsified views of history have sided with radical evil, and represent the gravest threat to Democracy that exists, whether they are on the left or the right.

The author has lots on interesting information, and he is even-handed about blacks and Indians, so I gave him two stars.
Some things I think you would conclude from reading this book:
Abraham Lincoln was probably a born-again Christian and Theodore Roosevelt was a great president although all of his domestic programs were wrong.
Democrats (except Harry Truman) have been solely motivated by politics. Seldom is this true of Republicans.
The heroes and geniuses of American history have been businessmen.
The solution to every economic problem is to lower taxes on the rich and remove government control of businesses. Probably doing away with all taxes on the rich and all regulation of businesses would be ideal.
Everything good that happened in the 1980's and the few good things that happened in the 1990's can all be attributed to Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton did nothing good and is evil incarnate.
The last fifty years (except for the Gipper's 1980's) have been mostly years of misery.

It is hard to understand how the author can be patriotic to the American people, who have been so constantly and easily duped by the press, the Democratic Party, and the mostly sex-crazed liars and dunderheads we have elected president most of those fifty years.
The book reminded me of a quote-"I wish I could be half as sure of anything as he is of everything."

Kudos to the author - good content from what I've read so far, but a pox on the publisher - a layout painful to behold with the eye. It's a history book with 932 pages of block text on newsprint paper with no illustrations, maps, or photographs, like it was pulp fiction. I would have paid twice as much to have a well-published history in two volumes.Thankfully, there are sub-heads and a few drop-caps that break up the visual desert but only with marginal success.

Written less with an agenda of presenting unbiased history and more as an exercise in grinding an ax with "leftists" who have "slanted" US history, I found this book too much a project driven by a grudge to have too deep a respect for it. I am not a fan of anyone trying to mold history to fit modern attitudes and outlooks, be that person on the political right or political left. I believe ideally an historian should let the information pass through him or her and let as little of his or her personal views affect the telling as possible. That was absent here. This was theme-oriented reporting, and despite its occasional good points, that turned me off and deprived this book of my deepest respect.

When reading this book you may make the fatal error that so many others have and assume that it is, in fact, a real history book. Unfortunately, it is not. "A Patriot's History of the United States" is a rather see-through attempt to rewrite American history in order to fit the political biases of it's authors, Michael Allen and Larry Schweikart. I would warn against wasting your money on this political author tract.

Since the early 1980's, texts dealing with the history of the United States have presented that history in a manner that falls under either of two forms: (1) Events that have led to the growth of the United States have been accomplished only by a conscious manipulation of and degradation of blacks, women, and Native Americans. and (2) the same as (1) but to which must be added that these events have been filtered through the economic lenses of Marxist historians who would rather call Marx a capitalist than to say even one kind word about George Bush or any of his Republican forebears.

In A PATRIOT'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allan have admittedly tried to and have succeeded in finding a viable middle ground between a jingoistic extolling of the virtues of a United States that shines as a beacon to the rest of the world and a Marxist view as set forth by Howard Zinn in his A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES who sees only a long and lamentable trail of the broken shards of American history that even now remain painfully embedded in the collective backs of any American who is non-white or non-Euro-centered.

Schweikart and Allan do not gloss over the many injustices done to Native Americans and other minorities who have not only suffered the injustice of being denied the most basic rights of life and liberty, but have further been denied their rightful place in our history texts. The authors make it clear that such injustices as genocide, slavery, and economic disenfranchisement were all too often the common order of the day. What the Marxist Zinn in his text sets out to do is to state that such injustices were not only the order of the day for one day but were so for every day beginning with the first day that Columbus stepped forth on Hispanola. What Schweikart and Allan counter with is that as wrong as it was to claim in an earlier age that the United States could do no wrong as far as its treatment of Native Americans and blacks were concerned, it is equally wrong to claim its opposite. The growth of the United States as it actually occurred was a normal and predictable result given the age and the mindsets involved. They do not--as Zinn relentlessly does--attempt to foist the current politically correct dogma of the United States as inherently evil now and in all centuries past. Rather, they portray the slow growth of the American republic, warts and all, but without losing sight of the eyes on the prize. American history, then, they depict is the combination of both good and evil. It is only those who still see past and current events through the now defunct critical lens of a failed Marxist dogma who continually cry out that Stalinist Russia and Castro Cuba are vastly a more preferable paradise than the United States of Schweikart and Allan.

I would rate this as a three star book, perhaps three and half. However, since every liberal and Marxist rates it as one star, whether they've read it or not, I figured I would play the game too.

Now, on to the book itself. First off, including an interview with Rush Limbaugh as a preface is laughable. It also really tainted my approach to the book, and I must say I bought it in -spite- of a Limbaugh interview, not because of it.

Since the book is well covered in other reviews, I will address only a few specific points of interest.

First, despite extensive coverage of Reagan, neither HIV nor AIDS appears in the index. It seems odd to me that you can cover Reagan's virtues without at least balancing that by mentioning his (lack of) reaction to the appearance of AIDS in America.

Perhaps for me one of the most annoying aspects of the book was the way in which the author(s) threw in unneeded little comments with exclamation points. While not quite the style of an Archie! comic, its still distracting. As an example, while refuting the lack of religion during the Confederation Congress, he thows in: "God was not only alive and well, He was quite popular!". Doesn't seem to me that's appropriate analysis for any history text. Just tell me the role of religion in that period, thanks, and don't editorialize on how great it was that religion played a role.

Their treatment of the Indians and the slaves does seem rather balanced. Again I could find no mention of Chinese labour building the railroads, only a brief mention of Teapot Dome (and -no- mention of soldiers being called in), so the history is at times quite selective.

I should throw out here that I am moderately religious, I'm not Chinese, and don't have AIDS, so these weren't personally passionate issues for me, lest you think I'm picking on pet peeves.

I really hope at some point someone writes a non-apologetic history that is non-judgemental and didn't have such bias in its selection of topics. I wish Stephen Ambrose was still alive... His treatment of Eisenhower was so eloquently balanced that I'd have loved it if he could have written a full US History. Maybe McCollough (sp?) will take a shot at one day.

Until then, it looks like you have to read Zinn, Johnson, and this one and sort it out yourself. Perhaps an obvious agenda is better than a hidden one.

This is an awesome book. I have learned so much about American history that I never knew before. My husband taught high school history for nearly 40 years, and I surprised him with facts about our country that he was unaware of. I would recommend this book to Americans of all ages. Learn about your country so you can help to preserve it as the greatest nation on earth.

This book tells the true history of America. You will not find a lot of the facts in this book anywhere. Liberals make it hard now to find out some of the things in this book, which is why everyone needs to read this. You need to know the true history of your own country!

Glad I only downloaded a sample from the store Kindle before making a decision to buy the book. I struggled to finish the Introduction and was wondering whether I was reading a propaganda of a right wing party rather than a history book.
This book certainly does, by no means, give an objective, factual and nuanced view of history, as a good history book should. According to the author this book is used now as the main work on teaching history in American schools and universities. That is deplorable.

Let me state it was interesting to see history by a skewed point of view. It gave insights to how some people think and obviously they believe it is better to skew the truth than tell the truth. One example, according to the book the WPA and CCC did nothing but waste money and nothing lasting came from it. They need to come to Duluth MN to see the truth. In 2012 a monstrous flood never seen before wiped out parts of Jay Cooke park created by The CCC and is being rebuilt today. This is just one of the many parks. Sewer and water systems still exist under out city. And this is just one example of the many inaccurate statements in the book. Don't read if you want the truth about history.

Whether one is conservative, liberal, or somewhere in the lazy, hazy "middle," this book is an outstanding and very necessary addition to the wealth of contemporary U.S. historical surveys. While the authors (both university professors with doctorates) are very clear that they espouse conservative political viewpoints, their scholarship is not skewed, by any means. On the contrary, their conservative foundation seems to steer them in a direction based far more upon direct assessment of historical facts and far less upon the egregiously interpretative latitudes so often taken by leftist and revisionist historians. The result is a balanced survey that springs from a healthy, sober admiration for the American "identity," without a blind eye to America's faults...or to its great successes! How refeshing. Obviously, the authors' delineation and assessment of the New Deal, for example, will meet with disdain from dreamy leftist historians, but the professors again tackle this moment in US history within the sphere of the factual, rather than the interpretative. The work is scrupulously well-documented; citations abound and are appropriate in frequency for a book of this scope. Moreover, the work is eminently well-written--it steadily navigates a tightrope upon which the academic and the accessible are balanced simultaneously for the modern reader, without ever falling into the deathly middle-ground that can sometimes bog-down ambitious tomes of this sort. Buy it for yourself or a loved one and enjoyably refresh the brain cells, particularly at this current, crucial juncture in our history. The book is a "must" for any conservative library, of course, but it's so well-delineated and balanced that historians of any slant would be able to utilize it to significant and compelling effect. That's the great thing about the truth.

What stands out about this book most is that rather than simply making authoritive-sounding claims without documentation, the authors constantly reference facts in many ways, including statistics, official documents, etc. The bibliography alone is impressive. It neither omits negative historical truths about the Republican party, nor does it take radical, revisionist positions, such as recent claims that FDR knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor beforehand. This text is an excellent companion to any non-revisionist history of the USA, and will stand the test of time because of its constant substantiation.

This is a pretty good history of the US, except for his overt talk radio level bias, which means he had to periodically attack leftist critics instead of just delivering the goods. He dedicated the book to Rush Limbaugh, instead of someone on the right who actually has an honest intellectual reputation, like WF Buckley, which Rush certainly lacks. Rush is a cheap demagogue who uses only facts that advance his causes and denigrates his ideological opponents with scorn, but if you are writing a conservative book he is the man to get on your side since his audience is pretty limited and loyal.

Like I said, most of it is good solid history, but there is always that angle he is promoting, the modern conservative, free enterprise agenda with a big dose of religion thrown in. At least he relegates most of his commentary to sidebars, which makes it easy to dismiss a lot of it.

For instance, he attacks the government involvement in the building of the transcontinental railroad after the Civil War, He bemoans the scandal and waste, then goes on to say that Great Northern got to the west coast without government money, which is so great(connecting Northern Minnesota & Wisconsin to Washington, neither very populous). What he failed to mention, in spite of the scandal involved, the UP and CP RRs paid the US government back for all the subsidy loans. Besides, that route was the most important and direct of all lines since it connected Chicago to San Francisco, the two biggest centers in the Midwest and Pacific Coast. Government involvement accelerated the timetable by at least a decade, and in the post Civil War era, 1866 up, it served as not only a unifying national project, but a hedge against the post war unemployment. His snipe about the shoddy construction is even flawed. The railroads suffered an utter lack of both native timber and even gravel along the route, for ties and ballast, so a quicky job was warranted to get the line built. Besides, changing technology mitigated a too intense investment in materials, in an age when iron rails were just starting to yield to steel. Once the line was built through with spur lines, later work crews came back with better materials and rebuilt the line. An economicist like him should know that but he let ideology triumph.

He also goes on about environemtalists and then trumpets private business peoples' contribution to the environmental movement, in short he wants to have his cake and eat it. Of course over generalizing about greedy, dirty big business is wrong, but making a case about some ranchers saving bison or some companies pioneering better techniques misses the point; without environmental laws all companies must abide by, what would be the financial incentive for the one company to invest in clean techniques if that raises their prices. That would make them non-competitive against companies who don't invest a nickel in clean technologies. Another is the A-Bomb controversy. While I agree it was justified because it probably saved more lives from an invasion and the intense brutality of the Japanese in China, just attacking some extreme leftists and pacifists blows over the crux of the issue. We killed over one million Japanese civilians in war time air raids, culminating in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as introduced famine through unrestricted submarine warfare. One of the rallying cries against the Axis in WW ll was that they bombed civilians and city centers and sank merchant vessels without warning. One can appreciate the wartime necessities of lesser evil yet have some compassion for the victims and dread and guilt about where strategic atomic bombing could lead us without being a traitor. Yet like his shoddy rationialization for Iraq War ll, he blows right by with the shallowest of militaristic jingoism. For a person who bellows about Christianity when it suits his social conservative agenda, that seems to be awfully hypocritical, but then again so are most of the militaristic theocons who admire Rush.

Then there is just plain petty spiteful stuff, Bush holding the Jesus figure during the 2000 debates, an anecdote that can't be proven like the even more contemptible snipe at Adlai Stevenson's. There is a rumor that the only book at Stevenson's death bed side was the social register. Even if that was actually true, there maybe be mitigating circumstances or simple explanations. Like Mr. Stevenson may have been too sick to read at all and hte book belonged to one of his caretakers. That was a cheap shot worthy of his master, Rush Limbo, not a man trying to be a responsible historian.

Well, whatever. I read the whole thing and while I did learn a lot, I have to say that his bias was just as bad as the leftist people biases he was consciously attacking throughout the book.

How did Christopher Columbus "discover" a place where people already lived? Also, Columbus never set foot on North America, so even the subtitle of the book is historically incorrect.
Just a gloss over for people who don't want to know the ugliness of European American history.

1st of all I agree with the author's basic premis that many of today's works of history have a horrible anti-American bias from left wing nuts who live off the government dole on tenur at our universities. This book started out ok but went down hill as one gets closer to the present. By the time one gets to Reagan and Clinton forget about any objective reasoning. The final 150 pages of this book can be summed up as Republican/ Conservative=good; Democrat/ Liberal= bad. If the author were to spend the last 50 pages merely repeating that phrase over and over again, he would fufill his purpose. I do not care to waste my time with a "history" written by either Micheal Moore or Rush Limbaugh.

This book, defined by popular culture and the author himself as the polar opposite of (or perhaps response to) Zinn's "A People's History," is not badly written and does a good job of what it sets out to do -- celebrate American history.

That is admirable, although using the word "patriot" implies Zinn's work is somehow "unpatriotic." On its face, then, it would appear Zinn's is actually the more patriotic book -- when I think of patriots, I think of critical thinkers willing to fight, not cheerleaders who stand on the sidelines. (Although to Zinn's credit he is critical of both democrats and republicans; I don't recall Schweikart writing anything positive about contemporary democrats or negative about contemporary republicans).

Fortunately, the author spells all of this out in the beginning. And generally he does not deny the existence of America's faults, although making excuses for those faults (like slavery) on the basis that at least we're not as bad as others (the Arab world's horrible track record on human rights) is problematic.

This book is worth reading, but seeing it as gospel will only provide you with a set of blinders. The most patriot thing you can do is read it -- and Zinn's -- with an open mind and realize that judging the United States is more than about being publicly proud of our ideals and accomplishments, but also recognizing and learning from our lapses in judgment.

As a professor of American History, this is probably the best written text on a survey of American History. If you are interested in the liberal left apologist revision of history or the ultra conservative right's America can do no wrong history this book is not for you. Read Howard Zin for that. But if you are interested in the History of the U.S. from a good historical perspective and well written then I highly recommend this book!

If you like American history and have a " free-market" point of view on economics you will agree this American history is worth every minute of your time. Gave it to my granddaughter and she's reading it.

I thought this was a good book... then I got to know Schweikert's personality and intelligence from his posts on public sites. NOT what I would expect from an educated supposed conservative type. I wouldn't trust anything from him now frankly. You do have to take outside information into consideration on whether to trust a source or not. Then I discovered factual errors too boot. Simple fixes that weren't. Tsk Tsk.. No thank you....

This book blows away all the politically correct, factually incorrect, self-hating style of modern American History text books. While very slighty written in conservative bias, it non-the less presents a much more accurate and fair portrayal of US History than what tragically is taught in most public schools today.

I am a history educator, and have taught AP and college level history (World, European & American) for over 10 years. I read lots of history from primary sources to modern interpretations. I consistently seek to truly understand. Based on what I can say without a shadow of a doubt that this book is garbage history. It is pure regurgitation of the lifeless history in our textbooks, but with some fancy words. There are so many leaps in logic, and crazy assumptions it is shocking to me that this book would ever receive a 5 star rating. My copy is laden with questions and notes about all the fallacies, and selective use of history. This book lacks good clear knowledge of history, and so its interpretation falls millions of miles short of anything a history educator should consider respectable. However, I must admit, that in an effort to promote the idea that history is dynamic and subject to interpretation I do use excerpts from this book along with Zinn's People's History, the textbook and primary sources to give my students PERSPECTIVE AND BALANCE, and to teach them to investigate but most importantly THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

I'm reading this book along with Howard Zinn's book, A People's History of the United States. Zinn's book focuses on examples of injustices towards people and communities from the time of Columbus to the present. I feel those are important topics to understand and discuss and Zinn does a great job shedding light on the darker side of government. I also feel it's important to understand the true greatness of this country, so I hoped this book would provide a good counterbalance and enhance my pride of this country. Instead, I find it rather frustrating at times. The best example is how these two books cover Columbus. Zinn portrays Columbus as a cruel murderer who cared only about money and power and considered the Natives as animals that could be slaughtered at will. Zinn did a very detailed assessment and it's impossible to argue with the facts. The guy was a murderer, plain and simple. It's like looking at a doctor convicted of murder and saying, "well, he killed people, yes, but he was a doctor. He saved lives. So we have to give him credit." No one looks at it like that. A murderer is a murderer, anything good they've done is irrelevant. The authors of this book instead describe Columbus as a great explorer who had the highest respect for the natives and wanted only to peacefully convert them to Christianity. They don't even mention the death of a single native, even though all reasonable estimates show that a true genocide went on. Yet, when describing the Aztecs, the authors portray them as bloodthirsty savages who ripped each other's hearts out during human sacrifices. Zinn acknowledges the violence of the Aztecs, but gives a much more balanced view of what was going on at the time. I don't understand why you can't be a Patriot and still also be able to acknowledge that some pretty awful things happened in the past. Anyway, it was the Spaniards who were the murderers, not the colonists or founding fathers. Is it because the Spaniards were Christians and the natives had no official religion that the authors chose to portray them in the best light?

As such, I have to say this book, rather than simply giving the other side, chooses to gloss over facts and give a distorted view of history. Zinn's book is much more intellectually honest. I wish this book was simply a counterbalance to Zinn's book, as it was advertised as, and showed American history from the point of view of government with the same sort of intellectualism and attention to detail, rather than being written almost like a manual meant to brainwash those with weaker minds and assure them that conservatism is the correct ideology. Still, if you can get past the frustration of reading a book that glosses over important facts in an attempt to make the Christians seem good and everyone else seem bad, this book is still full of historical facts, which I can only trust are well referenced, laid out in a simple to read format. So it does have some value.

After reading this book I felt like I had taken a series of Masters Degree courses in American History. I like hearing from the perspective of authors who believe that our country has blemishes on it's past, but is one of the greatest forces for good in our world.

I was so thoroughly impressed with A Patriot's History that I immediately adopted it as the standard text for my American History survey courses at the community college.

Finally a textbook about United States History that illuminates the enduring contributions of this great democratic-republican experiment to world history. Sweikert and Allen elevate the great principles upon which this great nation was founded, while acknowledging the exceptions in our practices as a people.

The authors have exposed the truth regarding Joseph McCarthy, FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, and Reagan's extensive contributions to America and the world. They have also reminded students that Washington and Jefferson were great men and brilliant leaders. They have easily debunked forty-five years of Marxist slandering of our American nation.

Thank God for this text. May our children actually learn of the greatness of our leaders, citizens, and way of life.

This is a truly wonderful book that shows just how the United States of America was founded and not based on racism, sexism or bigotry as the Progressive Liberals would like to have everyone believe - they have changed the the Education Systems's history books. So, read this book and get involved in the Education System whether or not you have kids in the System - America's Future Depends on it.

To wit, to counter the supposed "leftwing" or "anti-American" bias of Zinn's "People's History." I picked up the book and read the back cover, excerpts from the introduction. The authors suggest that Zinn has his "Marxist" leanings already apparent in the title, "A People's History..." That's odd. I recall another subversive document beginning in a similar way: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." It's called the US Constitution. Certainly, a litany of America's wrongs does not do justice to the full history of the United States. Ironically, Zinn's book itself was a counter to earlier US histories which effectively glossed over, ignored, repressed, or egregiously misstated real events in the history of this country. What was written then was incredibly biased! THAT was what Zinn was countering. My question, then: are the authors of "A Patriot's History" effectively challenging Zinn's version of events as he has catalogued them? Did the slaughter of Native Americans in this country not happen as described? I suppose the authors would like to see slavery as a "mistake" or "shortcoming," when in fact it is integral to what the United States was, and is. There was no mistake. The US wanted slavery, pure and simple, and it thrived economically because of it. Would the authors argue differently? That would be entertaining indeed...

It is axiomatic that there are at least two sides to every story, so when I stumbled across this book at my local library I was drawn in by the back-cover blurb that proclaims the author's purpose to counter what he describes as the blame-America-first revisionist history that predominates in modern scholarship, as epitomized by Howard Zinn. The reference on the front cover to the author's "Limbaugh Letter" interview made it clear to me what this author's perspective would be. This will be an automatic turn-off for many politically liberal readers, and explains the love-it-or-hate-it nature of most reviews. Notwithstanding the author's very up-front and unapologetic conservative perspective, I found this to be surprisingly (and refreshingly) balanced in its presentation. To dismiss this book as mere liberal-bashing or an ideological exercise is a gross mischaracterization.

By way of a few examples, FDR would be an easy target for a conservative ideologue to bash, but he is treated with surprising fairness in this book. Yes, the author levels some criticism at Roosevelt's New Deal statism, but a few pages later he praises FDR's pre-war diplomatic efforts with Japan (even while criticizing his handling of Hitler), and takes special pains to debunk the urban legend that FDR knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen to drag the U.S. into World War II. Similarly, Truman is criticized for some of his domestic policies, but praised for his handling of the Berlin Airlift, while Eisenhower (a Republican) is taken to task for perpetuating and even expanding FDR's New Deal programs. The author characterizes Kennedy, a Democrat, as "brilliant" in his handling of the Khrushchev letters during the Cuban Missile Crisis, even while ripping the ineptitude of JFK's broader Cuba policies. Nixon, a Republican, is upbraided for his big-government spending and welfare statism, but praised for his foreign policy achievements vis a vis China and the Soviet Union. Republican president George Bush (41) is praised for his coalition-building success in the first Gulf War, but is described as having a "lack of political imagination" and as having told a "bald-faced lie" to the American public with his broken "no new taxes" pledge. Even George Washington is not exempt from criticism, given his colossal military failures early in the Revolutionary War. In short, it is absolutely spurious to dismiss this book as a one-sided ideological hit piece.

The author unflinchingly displays the good, the bad and the ugly of all political figures and parties, alternately offering up both praise and criticism for each where warranted. A personality who is praised on one page is taken to task on the next, and vice versa throughout the book. That may seem like liberal-bashing to some, but that's just because they're unaccustomed to seeing their liberal brethren criticized in the history books, or seeing people from the opposite end of the political spectrum receive a fair shake. I think it's telling that many of those who condemn this book ostensibly because of the author's bias are nonetheless willing to praise Zinn's "People's History," which is far more lopsided in the other direction. To varying degrees, bias is inevitable in historical narratives because it is filtered through each author's experience and worldview. Some are better at restraining their bias, but to some extent it will always exist. Truth be told, the real issue for the critics isn't the existence of bias itself, but of a bias with which they disagree.

The book is not without its problems, however. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are a number of misprints or incorrect facts. For some examples: the date of the Burr/Hamilton duel is misstated in one place (but corrected elsewhere); Kasserine Pass could not be viewed as an Allied victory by even the most charitable assessments -- the Americans took a solid drubbing; on page 636 the author refers to Hitler when he meant to say Stalin, etc. Obviously there were some editorial lapses but, while these are mildly distracting to the attentive reader, they do not detract substantially from the overall quality and value of the book.

Returning to the question of the author's bias, it is clear that the reader is getting a different viewpoint than is usual. However, this normally comes out in challenges to the conventional wisdom backed by fresh analysis of the historical data. It is plain that the author has done his homework, as evidenced by some 70 pages of endnotes and citations. The author does occasionally slip into conservative editorializing, particularly toward the end of the book as he gets into his personal frame of reference, which is something that I find unacceptable in this or any other history book. Just the facts, please. Still, this volume provides some much needed balance to the historical debate that has been largely dominated by left-wing academics. After reading this book, it is fair to say with the venerable Paul Harvey, "now you know the REST of the story."

As a highschool history teacher, who has read the leading textbooks, and is in the process of finishing my masters degree, I can wholeheartedly recommend this volume. It does not gloss over the negative points of American history, but it shows them in the light of the their circumstances. We are taught not to judge the past by the morals of today, and the book holds to this therum. The authors do not demonize our Founding Fathers for the vices of the day, and we should not either.

Perhaps the most endearing fact of this volume, is that I have students reading it! Highschoolers, sophomores and juniors, reading and enjoying a book on American history, and not becasue they are being forced too. This is the easiest reading book of American history I have ever read, and my personal library is vast.

If you lean to the left, you might not enjoy this as much as those of us in the center to the right. If you want to read a history book that puts America in its proper light, click on the buy button now.

After reading this book I felt like I had taken a series of Masters Degree courses in American History. I like hearing from the perspective of authors who believe that our country has blemishes on it's past, but is one of the greatest forces for good in our world.

I was so thoroughly impressed with A Patriot's History that I immediately adopted it as the standard text for my American History survey courses at the community college.

Finally a textbook about United States History that illuminates the enduring contributions of this great democratic-republican experiment to world history. Sweikert and Allen elevate the great principles upon which this great nation was founded, while acknowledging the exceptions in our practices as a people.

The authors have exposed the truth regarding Joseph McCarthy, FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, and Reagan's extensive contributions to America and the world. They have also reminded students that Washington and Jefferson were great men and brilliant leaders. They have easily debunked forty-five years of Marxist slandering of our American nation.

Thank God for this text. May our children actually learn of the greatness of our leaders, citizens, and way of life.

This is a truly wonderful book that shows just how the United States of America was founded and not based on racism, sexism or bigotry as the Progressive Liberals would like to have everyone believe - they have changed the the Education Systems's history books. So, read this book and get involved in the Education System whether or not you have kids in the System - America's Future Depends on it.

To wit, to counter the supposed "leftwing" or "anti-American" bias of Zinn's "People's History." I picked up the book and read the back cover, excerpts from the introduction. The authors suggest that Zinn has his "Marxist" leanings already apparent in the title, "A People's History..." That's odd. I recall another subversive document beginning in a similar way: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." It's called the US Constitution. Certainly, a litany of America's wrongs does not do justice to the full history of the United States. Ironically, Zinn's book itself was a counter to earlier US histories which effectively glossed over, ignored, repressed, or egregiously misstated real events in the history of this country. What was written then was incredibly biased! THAT was what Zinn was countering. My question, then: are the authors of "A Patriot's History" effectively challenging Zinn's version of events as he has catalogued them? Did the slaughter of Native Americans in this country not happen as described? I suppose the authors would like to see slavery as a "mistake" or "shortcoming," when in fact it is integral to what the United States was, and is. There was no mistake. The US wanted slavery, pure and simple, and it thrived economically because of it. Would the authors argue differently? That would be entertaining indeed...

It is axiomatic that there are at least two sides to every story, so when I stumbled across this book at my local library I was drawn in by the back-cover blurb that proclaims the author's purpose to counter what he describes as the blame-America-first revisionist history that predominates in modern scholarship, as epitomized by Howard Zinn. The reference on the front cover to the author's "Limbaugh Letter" interview made it clear to me what this author's perspective would be. This will be an automatic turn-off for many politically liberal readers, and explains the love-it-or-hate-it nature of most reviews. Notwithstanding the author's very up-front and unapologetic conservative perspective, I found this to be surprisingly (and refreshingly) balanced in its presentation. To dismiss this book as mere liberal-bashing or an ideological exercise is a gross mischaracterization.

By way of a few examples, FDR would be an easy target for a conservative ideologue to bash, but he is treated with surprising fairness in this book. Yes, the author levels some criticism at Roosevelt's New Deal statism, but a few pages later he praises FDR's pre-war diplomatic efforts with Japan (even while criticizing his handling of Hitler), and takes special pains to debunk the urban legend that FDR knew in advance of the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen to drag the U.S. into World War II. Similarly, Truman is criticized for some of his domestic policies, but praised for his handling of the Berlin Airlift, while Eisenhower (a Republican) is taken to task for perpetuating and even expanding FDR's New Deal programs. The author characterizes Kennedy, a Democrat, as "brilliant" in his handling of the Khrushchev letters during the Cuban Missile Crisis, even while ripping the ineptitude of JFK's broader Cuba policies. Nixon, a Republican, is upbraided for his big-government spending and welfare statism, but praised for his foreign policy achievements vis a vis China and the Soviet Union. Republican president George Bush (41) is praised for his coalition-building success in the first Gulf War, but is described as having a "lack of political imagination" and as having told a "bald-faced lie" to the American public with his broken "no new taxes" pledge. Even George Washington is not exempt from criticism, given his colossal military failures early in the Revolutionary War. In short, it is absolutely spurious to dismiss this book as a one-sided ideological hit piece.

The author unflinchingly displays the good, the bad and the ugly of all political figures and parties, alternately offering up both praise and criticism for each where warranted. A personality who is praised on one page is taken to task on the next, and vice versa throughout the book. That may seem like liberal-bashing to some, but that's just because they're unaccustomed to seeing their liberal brethren criticized in the history books, or seeing people from the opposite end of the political spectrum receive a fair shake. I think it's telling that many of those who condemn this book ostensibly because of the author's bias are nonetheless willing to praise Zinn's "People's History," which is far more lopsided in the other direction. To varying degrees, bias is inevitable in historical narratives because it is filtered through each author's experience and worldview. Some are better at restraining their bias, but to some extent it will always exist. Truth be told, the real issue for the critics isn't the existence of bias itself, but of a bias with which they disagree.

The book is not without its problems, however. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are a number of misprints or incorrect facts. For some examples: the date of the Burr/Hamilton duel is misstated in one place (but corrected elsewhere); Kasserine Pass could not be viewed as an Allied victory by even the most charitable assessments -- the Americans took a solid drubbing; on page 636 the author refers to Hitler when he meant to say Stalin, etc. Obviously there were some editorial lapses but, while these are mildly distracting to the attentive reader, they do not detract substantially from the overall quality and value of the book.

Returning to the question of the author's bias, it is clear that the reader is getting a different viewpoint than is usual. However, this normally comes out in challenges to the conventional wisdom backed by fresh analysis of the historical data. It is plain that the author has done his homework, as evidenced by some 70 pages of endnotes and citations. The author does occasionally slip into conservative editorializing, particularly toward the end of the book as he gets into his personal frame of reference, which is something that I find unacceptable in this or any other history book. Just the facts, please. Still, this volume provides some much needed balance to the historical debate that has been largely dominated by left-wing academics. After reading this book, it is fair to say with the venerable Paul Harvey, "now you know the REST of the story."

As a highschool history teacher, who has read the leading textbooks, and is in the process of finishing my masters degree, I can wholeheartedly recommend this volume. It does not gloss over the negative points of American history, but it shows them in the light of the their circumstances. We are taught not to judge the past by the morals of today, and the book holds to this therum. The authors do not demonize our Founding Fathers for the vices of the day, and we should not either.

Perhaps the most endearing fact of this volume, is that I have students reading it! Highschoolers, sophomores and juniors, reading and enjoying a book on American history, and not becasue they are being forced too. This is the easiest reading book of American history I have ever read, and my personal library is vast.

If you lean to the left, you might not enjoy this as much as those of us in the center to the right. If you want to read a history book that puts America in its proper light, click on the buy button now.

At last, Americans can benefit from an honest, accurate history of our country. I have found this account to be exhaustive, informing, and refreshing. If one feels intimidated at the thought of reading this volume from cover to cover, it makes excellent reference material. My college-age son was very relieved to learn that the United States has not always been the villain. From one who considers herself somewhat middle-of-the-road, there is much to be gained by reading this book!

Year after year I have had liberal teachers telling me how rotten America is and how wrong the Europeans were to civilize the western hemisphere.

Now, reading this book I'm seeing for the first time in my 23 years what the TRUTH is about my American history.

It really makes me wonder how all these America hating ideologues came to take over the schools. It is sad that my generation was lied all these years by hard left radicals pretending to be educators.

Thank you Mr. Schwiekert and thanks Sentinel Publishing.

This book should be required reading in every High School in America.

As a former high school U.S. History teacher, I am delighted with this new book. It's even-handed research and writing rests easy in my hands and on my mind. I am tired of having years of the latest and greatest publications fail in that their pseudo-intellectual writers are trying to convert me to their political philosophy....thank you, but I will do my own thinking. Allen and Schweikart are refreshing in that they allow that in their readers.

Although I agree that Howard Zinn's History should be debunkedl, I question whether this overtly slanted the other way approach is the best way to do that. Given the subjectivity that pervades academia at this time, it is probably impossible to expect an historian to produce an objective History. Perhaps it is better to read histories written before passion overtook objectivity, such as Tindall's "America" (which leaves off at the 70's), and rely on compilations of contemporary news reports and competing Opinion pieces to expose students to the recent "history" of the past 20 years, which cannot be fully known or understood as all of the relevant diaries and "classified" papers have not yet been made public.

I feel compelled to begin my review of this book early - I've only read the foreword - an interview with the author by Rush LImbaugh. Just to see that as the foreword indicates what I'll be reading. The author, at Rushbo's urging, rants on about how "leftists" have ruined the educational system, and warped the reporting of history over the years. His contention that his masterpiece sets all that straight, within the confines of correcting all the the "leftist" (don't you just love that word? It's so cute, yet hatefully delivered) disservice done to our great country. I got this along with Zinn's book, and plan to try to read them simultaneously. I haven't started it yet, but the conservative wringing of hands over it's content indicate I'll probably think more of it than this one. However, one doesn't know unless one tries it personally. In this case, if the foreword is any indication, it will most likely continue to be the typical conservative criticism of "leftist" thought, rather than an actual reporting of events. However, this is still just a guess - maybe, for once while reading conservative "thought" I'll be surprised, and maybe enlightened. I'm not too hopeful (another "leftist" mindset). Most modern conservative books I've read typically are very long rants regarding the evil of liberal thought, with nary an original idea (or any idea, other than "liberals suck") included. Just a check of a few contemporary titles tells that story. One would hope that he objectively illustrates the many wonderful things that have happened in our history, in context with some of the horrors that happened along the way in the name of progress. That would seem to be an accurate, as well as a "patriot's'" history. We'll see. Once I do actually read this one,I plan to review it fully.

"For the past three decades, those writing history have allowed their biases to distort the way America's past is taught", reads the opening paragraph of the book jacket for "A Patriot's History of the United States", by Larry Schweikert and Michael Allen.

"As a result," it continues using a popular straw man argument of conservatives decrying the rampant political correctness they see as ruining any intellectual discussion, "more emphasis is placed on Harriet Tubman than on George Washington;".

It is an argument I have heard before. But this time, just to be sure of its validity, I decided to conduct my own very non-scientific survey, one that involved looking through book indexes of three American History texts in my personal library to see to what extent historians have elevated Harriet over George in our Pantheon of Heroes.

First I checked my own college history book, John A Garraty's, "The American Nation A History of the United States" , 3rd edition published in 1975. Washington is mentioned on 17 pages in the text with the index pointing to several subtopics of his life as general and president. Harriet Tubman is not even listed in the index (nor is she even mentioned in the brief discussion of The Underground Railroad). Of course, this book was written 30 years ago, and for an audience, college students and beyond, less susceptible to the indoctrination of the left than would be school age children, so I checked two other books, both written in the 1990's and aimed at younger students.

In "The Americans", by Jordan, Greenblatt and Bowes, a high school level text, published by Follet, George Washington's index entry takes up 1/3 of a column, with 14 sub listings and with references to nearly 40 pages. Tubman's entry refers to just two pages. In Prentice Hall's " The American Nation", a middle school level book, Washington is mentioned on nearly 30 pages, Tubman again only two.

The Father of Our Country can rest easily.

Apparently editing was not a prime concern for the authors as this book has quite a number of factual errors, questionable interpretations and careless mistakes left unedited. So the Time Lines, which appear at the beginning of each chapter, have Kentucky admitted to the Union in 1791 and Tennessee admitted in 1786 (they were admitted in 1792 and 1796 respectively), and William Henry Harrison's death and John Tyler's ascendancy to the presidency in 1840 (it happened in 1841). Franklin Pierce was a "Vermont lawyer and ardent expansionist". (He was from New Hampshire). Of the Buchanan administration's failure to defend Fort Sumter, "The leading Republican in his Cabinet, Lewis Cass resigned in disgust..." Cass was a Democrat and in fact had been that party's presidential nominee in 1848.

According to the book, after the humiliating XYZ affair the three American Ministers, John Marshall, Charles Pinckney and Elbridge Gerry, sent to France to negotiate a treaty refused to pay a bribe to the French Government, "and immediately returned home." While it is true that both Marshall and Pinckney disgustedly left immediately, Gerry stayed on for several months trying to negotiate a deal on his own.

Very unlikely is the authors' claim that James Cox, the 1920 Democratic nominee for President was "Woodrow Wilson's handpicked successor." First of all, Wilson had by then suffered a debilitating stroke while campaigning for US entry into the League of Nations. Secondly, one of Cox' main rivals for the nomination, William MacAdoo was Wilson's son-in-law and former Treasury Secretary, and while the two were not on close terms by 1920, Wilson was also known to have quite a disdain for Cox.

And the authors' contention that Wilson was a "Southern man of Northern Principals", is preposterous. Wilson, despite the northern veneer he had acquired through his years as the President of Princeton and Governor of New Jersey was a true southerner with southern principals, as backwards on racial issues as the typical southerner of his day. Even his progressivism on economic issues was in the southern populist traditions of politicians like Governor and Senator "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Senator (and later Supreme Court Justice) Hugo Black of Alabama, and long time House Banking Chairman Wright Patman of East Texas, and was based at least partly on the fear that left unregulated, the large banking and financial institutions of the northeast would destroy the livelihoods of the farmers in the rural south.

Still there is much to commend about this book; it is an easy to read American History text with an especially fine treatment of the Civil War era, including the period leading up to secession and war. The author's sympathies are unabashedly pro-union and without reservation against the wretchedness of slavery.

The author's contend that

* the passage of the disastrous Kansas-Nebraska act was little more than a political deal by Stephen Douglas to offer the south something in return for allowing the first transcontinental railroad to take a northern route to Chicago, the largest city in his home state, rather than through a route further south;

* despite some famous early victories, and, "for all his purported genius," Robert E. Lee's battles were enormously costly to the ultimate success of the south, as Lee lost a far greater proportion of his army than the losing north did, in victories like Chancellorsville; and

* while southern leaders made state's rights an issue in voting for secession, the real issue was only and always slavery and the wealth and "way of life" it produced for southern whites and the institution was not going to die quickly as some moderate northerners hoped and believed.

Conservative readers interested in a reasonably well-written history that covers its subject thoroughly, will enjoy this book. Liberals, will learn something too; they just might wind up yelling back at the TV.

Schweikart and Allen have written a unique and excellent book. I like it better than any U. S. history text that I have read. It is solid political history, but is valuable also in economic history--especially in persuasively explaining the rise of the U. S. to being a world power.

A Patriot's History is a most interesting and excellent book. It makes a refreshing change from all the other books of American history that i've read. This book reveals the truth behind many historical misconceptions such as the causes of the Great Depression and how early America became involved in Vietnam. There is no overt political bias and multiple views of events are acknowledged and rebutted.

However, some events were left out such as major natural disasters like the San Francisco earthquake of 1906 and the eruption of Mt Saint Helens. Also left out was anything about the OJ Simpson trial, the genius of Thomas Edison, and Charles Lindbergh. Overall though this is a great book that was hard to put down, and one that I will reread some parts of. It also had a nice "new book smell" about it.

This book is a revisionist version of American History. If you want to know the real truth of historic events and the socioeconomic consequences of our actions, there are several great books out there that will help you, but this is not one of them. This book is just pure propaganda written from a conservative standpoint. As a holder of a degree in History, I would avoid this book at all costs.

I am a college history professor who was recently made aware of this book by a student who unfortunately seems to have spent a great deal of time absorbing this mountain of right wing half truths disguised as history and accepting it as gospel. (And judging by some of the other reviews that I've read on this site, he is not the only one who has been duped.) Truth be told, I had seen this tome on bookstore shelves some years ago, when it first came out, but was put off by the title, which suggests that anyone who does not agree with its conservative interpretation of history is somehow not a patriot. Assuming that it was just another right-wing screed, I never gave it more than a passing glance. In order to better respond to my student's questions and classroom comments that were obviously inspired by this book, I finally bought a copy. After taking a much closer look (including taking 16 pages of notes), I quickly discovered that by and large, my initial impression was correct. Praise for A Patriot's History from Glenn Beck, who is quoted on the cover, and the inclusion of a lengthy interview with Rush Limbaugh, make it clear right from the beginning that this is not necessarily going to be the "honest review" of American history that the authors assert. If its ideological bias weren't bad enough, the book also contains a number of factual errors that may be the result of an over-reliance on secondary works instead of referencing primary sources. The complete omission of certain important topics and events and the shortchanging of others, such as the women's suffrage movement, are likewise troubling.

Some of the first factual errors that one comes across are in regard to Columbus, who, according to the authors, named Cuba "Hispanola," when in fact Columbus refers to Cuba in his logbook as "Colba," which was the native people's name for the island. In point of fact, it was the island that is today shared by Haiti and the Dominican Republic that Columbus named "Hispanola." Furthermore, a quote the authors ascribe to Columbus regarding the so-called "Indians" of Hispanola was actually in reference to the natives of Guanahani (or San Salvador, as Columbus so presumptuously re-named it), which is in the Bahamas. The authors' correctly state that Columbus did not "originate the idea that the earth is round." However, their subsequent declaration that "knowing" it "intellectually...and demonstrating it physically are two different things," seems likely to leave readers believing that proving that the earth was a sphere was Columbus' principal aim, whereas modern scholarship holds that it was not the shape of the earth that was in question in 1492 but rather its size. Columbus believed the distance from Europe to Asia was only about 3,000 miles (it's actually about 10,000), which led him to try to prove his theory by sailing west. Unfortunately, the authors of this book say nothing at all about any of this.

Some of the factual errors are perhaps of a trivial nature, such as the authors' having astronaut Michael Collins walking on the lunar surface in 1969 when in fact he remained in orbit in the command module while only Armstrong and Aldrin journeyed to the surface. Equally trivial perhaps is the authors' statement that when the slave states began seceding from the Union, "there was no popular referendum" on the matter "anywhere in the South" although there was in fact such a referendum in Texas, which followed the earlier secession convention in the state capital, Austin.

The authors' statement that "few [Southerners] believed that they were fighting to protect or perpetuate slavery" is not trivial, however, because not only is this assertion contradicted by evidence, it plays right into the hands of the neo-Confederates of today who cannot bring themselves to accept that the principal "states' right" their ancestors fought for was the right to hold other human beings in bondage. It is to the authors' credit, however, that they do state quite emphatically that slavery was the principal cause of the war, something for which there is likewise good evidence.

The authors unfortunately leave out a great deal, most of it information that would justifiably show the United States, or rather the Republican Party, in a bad light. There is no mention, for instance, of the Hawaiian people's protest of President William McKinley's determination to annex their islands whether they liked it or not. And although the authors do mention the McKinley administration's long and bloody war against the freedom fighters of the Philippines, they seem to hint that like McKinley, they think that the Filipinos were "unfit to govern themselves." Nor do they say much of anything about the partisan divide in Congress regarding either of these acquisitions. Could it be because the Republicans (who the authors quite obviously favor) were clearly in the wrong whereas the Democrats supported autonomy and self-determination for both the Hawaiians and the Filipinos?

The authors also do not play fair, seeming to take great delight in not only pointing out what they perceive as the economic deficiencies of liberal politics but also the sexual peccadilloes of Democratic presidents such as FDR, JFK, and LBJ, while completely ignoring Republican Warren G. Harding's two affairs, one of which was hushed up by the Republican National Committee, with the other reportedly resulting in the birth of an illegitimate child by a woman a great deal younger than the President.

Unfortunately, it might take another book of nearly the same length to adequately catalogue the scholarly shortcomings of A Patriot's History. Suffice it to say that taken on balance, this book just isn't (balanced, that is).

This is a wonderful book that tells the story of our great nation. If you are a proud American, you will appreciate it. It is everything that they don't teach you in the liberal biased education system.

And by that I mean a history of the United States from a purely right-wing ideology. The authors state their intentions as to recognize the flaws in America's history, and to reject the notion of "My country right or wrong."

This is fine and good, but it does seem rather funny to me that in this book, the Democrats get all the scathing attacks and the Republicans seem to get off scott free. Just an observation there...

For a book that seems like an obvious attempt to counter Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," all I can say is this: At least Zinn was very upfront about his intentions; in the first ten pages of his book, Zinn lays out exactly what his take on U.S. history is, and the perspective he is writing from.

The Republicans take a beating in Zinn's book, but the Democrats don't get off easy. Zinn is critical (very critical) of Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and even lobs criticism at FDR. That's more than you can say about this book's treatment of Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

I give this two stars because the writing is very good, but I would appreciate a little ideological honesty.

Basically, this book can be summed up in a word: silly. Everyone is entitled, I guess, to their own opinions, but when they mask as a rigorous history of the United States, more must be expected. Much of the book is standard high school stuff, but when he gets into such subjects as divorce, feminism, and regulations affecting business the screws come loose. Of course, like many right-wingers, he likes to wrap himself in the robes of patriotism. It's a "patriots" history. All other histories are, at worst, unpatriotic or at least suspect. All you need to know: the introduction, of sorts, is a glowing interview with that remarkable ego, Rush Limbaugh and like Rush and his ilk, the author is most interested in calling out the suspicious characters who have led this great nation astray. That is, away from God, flag, and money. Especially money.

The people who don't like this book are the ones with blinders on. I am a middle school history teacher who is quite "fair and balanced." So many teachers and books give a one sided leftist slant. The authors of this book are patriotic but not over the top. Is it so wrong to have a book balance out the mess that has been taught for so many years? Exhale and open your mind to the fact that America is not perfect but it is not that horrible either! Why is it accepted as a great work when an author takes apart American history but when a well backed up, substantial, book is written the knee jerk reaction is that..."oh my goodness, it must be propaganda?" So very sad!

Despite its serious looking cover, this book gets basic, non-controversial facts just straight wrong... There's definitely an audience for Schweikart's viewpoint, but A Patriot's History has a rushed-to-the-presses quality and would be more persuasive if more cautiously researched. I was excited to read this book, but in its looseness with facts undermined the core message.

Breezed through Bill Bennet's 'America: The Last Best Hope' part 1 last year, in hopes of reading an even-handed survey of our history. I'm tired of revisionist trash that distorts or ignores historical facts in order to serve some contemporary political agenda. I was left wanting -- Bennet is a lousy writer, mostly recounting the tales of others and being very redundant in the process.

So when I saw this book, written by actual historians, I was hopeful. And it is far better written -- better prose, real reasoning and analysis, and adequate citations.

But by page 600 or so I have found so many factual errors that I am genuinely concerned about the overall worth of the book. While these may sound minor, if these mistakes were overlooked by the authors and editors -- these simple facts -- what deeper, more complex issues are flawed?

1. The authors list the Battle of Kasserine Pass, in 1943, as an American victory, when in fact it was a stunning defeat for woefully under-trained and poorly equipped American forces.
2. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team (RCT) -- the famed Nisei who joined the Army from Japanese internment camps and became the most highly-decorated unit in US Army history while fighting in Italy -- is referred to as a 'division' -- last I checked, 3-5 regiments make a division; the terms are not synonymous.
3. The authors state that the 82nd ABN Division fought the Germans at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge...I'm pretty sure the veterans of the 101st ABN would take issue with this, since they -- and not the 'All Americans' of the 82nd -- were at Bastogne.
4. Teddy Roosevelt jr, who was the assistant division commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which landed on Utah Beach on D-Day, is mis-identified as having been a Lieutenant General at the time, when in fact he was two grades lower at Brigadier General. Oddly, they don't mention that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for her service on D-Day.

Okay, so I know my WW2, and it may seem like I'm nit-picking, but consider this: if these simple facts are wrong, what else did the editors miss? What else did the two authors get wrong, too? There were analyses and conclusions I read earlier in the book with which I disagreed or differed, but now I'm concerned about the bulk of the history covered that I don't know as well as WW2 -- what else did they get flat-out wrong?

It flows well, goes into adequate depth, and covers all the bases it sets out to...but I don't think I can trust it.

In some ways "Patriot's History" surpasses many college survey texts because it offers a clear, integrated interpretation. It's also readable, unlike dryasdust surveys, with an impressive amount of information. But it's hard to use, let alone rely on, because of an appalling number of errors. It averages perhaps 1 per page for long stretches, and with 900+ pages ... you do the math. Such sloppiness is simply embarrassing; it ranks among the least professional professorial works of recent years. Corrections would be easy because the mistakes are obvious: Burr killed Hamilton in 1804, not 1803; Edmund Ruffin is Virginian on p.299 and South Carolinian on 304; Henry and William James were brothers, not father and son. But authors and editors serve readers poorly. Can we truly trust any interpretation so weak on facts? Schweikart & Allen seem keen to force most of US history onto the Procrustean bed of their own assumptions, which read like Republican talking points. One result is a rather mean-spirited undertone, with perceived dissenters from free-market fundamentalism subtly but firmly dissed at every turn. Their stated goal is "correcting" H. Zinn, "People's History of the US" but the contrasts are instructive and fundamental. Zinn sometimes belabors his points, but since he provided balance (with greater accuracy) by including many obscure but vital voices, that effort is commendable. "Patriot's History" actually restores Imbalance. Considering progress made since the 1940s-50s primacy of Consensus History, this takes several steps backward. There's room for solid work from this perspective, but this isn't it. Proceed at your own risk.

I was not sure about buying this book, but after reading the ususal name calling liberal rants of a few readers, I knew I must have it! In fact, I brought copies for my two high schoolers as well, this will help balanace what they have learned in school so far (I type this last line with tongue firmly planted in cheek, for they have learned very little history. Imagine spending one day on WWII...now that is true learning).

It's great to see that true freedom of speech is alive and well, even if it's not the old P.C. type...right my pseudo-intellectual liberal buddies...

I was intrigued to read the reviews of this book written by men who quite obviously share a slightly different view point from my own. In response to the vitriol and bitterness that was spewed at Howard Zinn, I must say this. Can anyone, no matter your opinion of his work, dispute his facts? Can anyone truthfully say that he has presented a patently false version of the history of this country? How can we truly know the impact of Columbus' voyage without studying its impact on the Arawak Indians? If we do not study who we left out and who we had to go back and pick up along the way, how will we see those being left out right now, and yes even those we need to go back and pick up? History is not only about patriotism and national pride but also about who we are and what we are capable of. We are capable of driving a slave trade that killed millions. However, we are also capable of fighting a war and laying down hundreds of thousands of lives to fight that same injustice. Howard Zinn doesn't hate America, he just wants to see us do better.

The author presents himself in contrast to Howard Zinn and like Zinn admits his political and historical bias from the outset which I certainly respect. That said, however, admitting bias does not excuse misrepresentation of historical facts.

The author can write whatever he pleases. He can even call it 'history' if he wishes. And if his publisher lets him, he might even get away with it. But that does not necessarily make it so.

If you want to read a history of the US that will reinforce your conservative political views, this is the book for you. If not, well... not.

If you like facts. This is not the book for you.

If theres one thing that this wonderful book proves is that it only takes someone to wirte or comment about America in positive light for this country's america hating moron's to rear their ugly heads. It's bad enough that we have most of our European Allies trashing us (after we spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives liberating them from tyranny and asked little or nothing in return). But to have a bunch of dingbats who run our education system indoctrinate our children with howard zinn and other intellectual anti-american trash with tax-payer money is a travesity tatmount to spitting on the graves of fallen Americans who died to give these so called "American Liberals" thier right to hate this country. If you think that America's history is shameful, then I suggest you bone up on how Soviet Russia slaughtered millions of thier own people in the name of building a "soviet man"? Or better yet how about how Moa Ze-tung out did the soviets by killing off one third of China's population during the so called "great leap foward" of the 1950's? It was great leap allright, into the grave for 100,000,000 Chinese. But wait...theres more... how about how Pol pot of Cambodia killed off half of the native population in the name of building a perfect Communist society?...how North Vietnam expelled over a million South Vietnamese onto the open sea and left them to fend for them selves or how Slobadan Mislovich waged ethinc cleasning against muslims and Kosovars ( we stopped that by the way), how the Japanese muredered over a millions of chinese during thier invasion during WWII...how they sneaked this country and killed 3,000 americans...the batan death march, the bridge on the river Kwai..and i can go on and on and on and on about how rotten other empires, dictatorships and totalitarian states have abused thier own people, not even alluded to the idea thatindividual human beings have some sort of rights and threatened the world at large by trying to export thier tryanny and still find sympathy with idiots in this country. And of course, the grand finale ...NAZI Germany's facist take over of Europe and the millions of deaths that resulted. If your a liberal you proabably arent aware that America saved Europe and the world by defeating facsism and replacing it with democracy. Where were America's lubby dubby liberals when all these horrible episodes of human history occured? They were in the University's declaring that Communism and Nazism are the future...they were in the editorial pages of the press urging tolerance and appeasement of Hitler. They were on the college campuses burning Americans flags and waving vietcong flags while American pilots were being tortured and brave soilders being spit on. They were and are in the halls of congress comparing Iraqi insurgents and Al Queda to the Founding fathers of America!!!! The only time that liberals espoude concern for human life is when america takes it. Often this is in self defense(1812,Mexican War,WWI,WWII,Panama,GulfI,9/11). Or for the purpose of helping those who cannot help themselves ( Bosina, Kosovo,Somlia,Iraq,Afagnistan)If this does not disturb you then something is horribly wrong with you. It should now be regsitering on you that there are people in this country that, although they do not hijack airplanes conduct roadside bombings or kill American Soliders, they hate this country just as much as the terrorist do and seek to destroy us from the inside while terrorist do from the out side.If you are on the liberals i have just ripped to pieces and you hate this country so much, because we are a superpower, were captialist, we dont have national health care , bush is preisdent or whatever...please take advantage of this country's lax immigration laws and get out here and go live some where like Cuba, North Korea, Syria or China. Im sure they would be glad to have u come live there. You can even take up a living writing anti- american propoganda for them ......better yet....i hear that the iraqi insurgency is needing some recruits...you may not be a muslim terrorist,,,but you're an american liberal...and thats close enough!! That said and done...this is great country with a proud and great history as these two authors have illustrated and i will take that to the matt any day!!!!

I wish someone would have told me this; but you actually don't have to read this stupidity of a book. It suffices to have a look at the authors' pics on the the store web page. Well, at least I tried to go beyond my aesthetic preconceptions for a different view. All I met was ignorance. Well, I'm an optimist, and I will try to continue to broaden my perspectives - just not with these two hacks for guidance. Do they even now what "patriotism" means and what it has contributed to the world at large? Oh dear, the failure of learning from once own very history... here it is, printed and sold.

Just received my copy of "A Patriot's History of the United States". While thumbing through the 900 + pages I noticed that pages 486-518 are blank. What is up with that??

Also, the store did not put in any paperwork for returning the book. What is up with that?

I had hoped for an interesting read but looks like I have been ripped off. This is a poor printing job at the least. Haven't any idea if the content is worth a hoot. Buyer beware!

History is a study that naturally requires the historian to select certain facts that they think are most important. Schweikart and Allen seemed to have written this text in response to Howard Zinn. What is depressing that this history text, written in 2004 makes no more attempt to be "objective" than Zinns politically charged text of 1980. Both books gloss over serious issues in an attempt to push their agenda. For example, Schweikart and Allen, in an attempt to explain Western superiority over the Aztec in combat, makes great pains to associate it with Western cultural dominance. Stating, "Castilians fought from a long tradition of tactical adaptation based on individual freedom, civic rights and 'a preference of shock battle of heavy infantry' that 'grew out of consensual government, equality among the middling classes,' and other distinct Western traits." However, the rise of the middle class occurred long after 1521, and absolute monarchy is not generally a consensual government based on individual freedoms. Not only that, but to read the accounts of Spanish conquest written by a soldier, Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one does not find great and repeated mentions of civic duty, Diaz says most men were there because they sought adventure and a way to get rich quick. What Schweikart and Allen do include is well written and engaging, but their obvious and sometimes painful bias hinders their work as a whole. I personally recommend reading The People's History of the United States with this book. While both books are terribly flawed, they are flawed in similar respects. Often, things that Schweikart and Allen do not want to write about gets multiple pages in Zinn and vice versa. Neither book is a good history of the United States, and should absolutely not be thought as definitive in any sense.

Alot of the information is interesting, and the authors provide a nice balance to Zinn's "People's History" series.

However, making assertions that the south lost the Civil War because the Confederate government was too powerful and undermined the southern economy is just too far out. So is stating that the roots of today's Democratic party may be found in Hamilton and Washington.

Other gems like this throughout "Patriot's History" are almost funny. If you're from the right and want to see some arguments you like, great book. If you're from the left and want to train wrecks in logic (like watching Fox News Channel), great book.

But if you want an honest interpretation of the events that drove the development of the United States, look elsewhere. "Freedom Just Around the Corner" is an interesting alternative, "The Island at the Center of the World" is a new book on colonial (Dutch) New Amsterdam, "Alexander Hamilton" is a good book for the revolutionary era.

I guess I'm not surprised that the usual "Hate America First" crowd of clapped-out bitter Marxists have jumped on A Patriot's History and reviewed it from Michael Moore's and Ward Churchill's perspective. That's the only reason why it doesn't have a five star review across the board: bitter leftists, snarling and snapping even as they are being carried out in history's dustbin.

A Patriot's History is not a light read, but I suggest that parents purchase it for their college-bound high school students. They need to be armed with the truth when they arrive at the universities, so that they can effectively counter the radical leftist arguments of the America-hating Zinns, Churchills and Jensons who infest academia.

Matt Bracken
Author of "Enemies Foreign And Domestic" and "Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista."

I was predisposed to view the authors' approach favorably in that an antidote to the left-wing and Marxist textbooks currently in use in American public schools and colleges is sorely needed. In fact, there have been some studies that have shown many high school graduates to actually believe that the US is a dangerous aggressor nation, that capitalism is an evil, and that the only solution is socialism under a world government. Where did they learn this? In school, of course, and if they go on to college such absurd beliefs will be reinforced. One can only wonder where this will all lead.

The format of the book is to be commended, as well as the tenor of the writing. But keep your blue pencil out, because there are errors. For example, on page 78 the authors talk about Arnold's march to Quebec "Early in 1776" when it was actually made from September to November of 1775. There were not "many misguided" attempts to take Canada, but only two and it takes a lot of hindsight to label them "misguided." Canada was indeed the 14th colony, and although it seems today that efforts to incorporate it into the Continental government were doomed, it was nowise so certain at the time. Nor was Arnold's first attack on Quebec "repulsed" -- rather Arnold sent an emissary to demand the city's surrender which was refused since Maclean's Royal Highland Emigrant Regiment had arrived to defend the city. And saying that "Arnold staged a stubborn retreat that prevented British units under General Carleton from linking up with General Howe in New York" is a vast overstatement.

On page 79, Washington did not "pressed on to Princeton..." -- rather he went around Cornwallis to escape to winter quarters in northern New Jersey and collided with a British detachment at Princeton. The authors make it appear that Washington took Trenton, then pressed on to take Princeton. That was not the reality of the situation. The discussion of the various drafts of the Declaration of Independence is confusing and somewhat inaccurate -- the authors talk about the minor editing of the final draft, then go back to discuss the many revisions of the original draft, but missing Jefferson's railing at the Catholic Scots who were almost 100% Tories. Other errors include the equating of Howe's strategy of occupying the major American political and populations center with the American "strategic hamlet" policy in Vietnam that widely misses the mark. Categorizing most of the females among Burgoyne's camp followers as "prostitutes" is also simply incorrect. Nor did Burgoyne's foraging units even run into the "famed Green Mountain Boys commanded by Ethan Allen" -- poor Allen was a British prisoner in England at the time. Nor did the Americans march Burgoyne's men "...to Boston, where they boarded transports for England..." -- the negotiations fell through, and Burgoyne's troops spent the next six years in American captivity as the "Convention Army."

Okay, enough. The problem is that when authors are not entirely accurate with the details, should one believe the broader context? In this volume the answer is yes, but the errors in detail are simply jarring to an informed reader, and render the volume unusable in the classroom.

In addition, the authors miss the impact of Common Law as one of the pillars of American strength and individual freedom. The development of Common Law versus Civil Law needs to be incorporated in every history book so that the students can learn why the US is an exceptional nation. We are governed by a system of laws that are rooted in the opinions of the people -- the laws do not descend upon the people from the King, Emperor, supreme religious authority or any other remote law-giver. The people determine and make the law here in the US -- the only nation so organized in the world today if one discounts Great Britain due to its follies and political subjugation to the EU.

What is needed is for the authors to produce a second edition, one that has been carefully combed for factual errors, whether by actual statement or by inference. Yes, a volume that purports to present the truth in a uplifting and patriotic manner needs to be held to a higher standard than the Marxist garbage by Howard Zinn that is so favored by the academic community. One does not need to wonder about their agenda, and truth does have a way of ultimately coming out. The United States has done more good for the world than any other nation in history, and Americans can take pride in its history -- for all of its warts and fits. The authors are correct on this score, but let's reduce the errors so that those how oppose the US won't be able to discount this work due to its many errors.

Amendment (2/15/2010)

I wrote my review upon reading the hardcover edition of 2004.

The authors have indeed come out with a new printing that corrects most of the errors I tripped over. They are to be commended for addressing the criticisms of a reader and correcting their narrative. As a result I increased my rating from three to four stars. The authors are currently working on another edition that is intended to eliminate all errors, and upon seeing that edition in print my remarks will be changed to reflect the accuracy of the facts to five stars and I'll eliminate all of the above discourse on the detail errors I found. In addition, a 2nd Edition is in the works that will no doubt eliminate my remaining points and strengthen the book. Frankly, I hope it will come out sooner rather than later.

This is an important work that rights the wrongs done to our school children by Marxist textbooks, and should be present in every household.

Absolutely recommended most highly.

Dave Dougherty

Excellent book and serves as a nice counter-balance to the Howard Zinn, left leaning, America-is-always-wrong historical perspectives that have been the dominate narrative for years. I highly recommend this book.

This book is a must read for anybody. Larry Schweikart, and Michael Allen have a good understanding of American history and how it happened. This book is very interesting, I could not put it down. Anyone into American history should read this book.

I lost some sleep last night because I could not stop reading this book - and I consider myself well-read in history. The authors have performed a needed service, and I only wish I could somehow put this book into the hands of every high-school student in America. The book jacket blurb immediately made me think of a 5th-grade history text I read a few years ago - the purpose of which, it seemed, was to make my housemate's ten-year old daughter ashamed of her country. It seemed like every month the kid was writing yet another paper on either Harriet Tubman or the internment camps - and yet she had no idea how the United States was different from other all other nations at the time it was founded. I'm hoping that this book will make some dent in the despicable efforts of the America-hating Left to brainwash young Americans against their country. My 15-year old nephew asked me for a book on history for Christmas (believe it or not, he plays football too) and I got him "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History." Well, I'm getting him his own copy of this book too, and I'm not waiting til next Christmas.

Howard Zinn actually lived through and participated in WWII as a bomber pilot. He observed labor rallies in New York in the 1930's. He saw the civil rights movement unfold through the eyes of his students at Spellman College (a black college in Atlanta) in the sixties. Schwelkart pathetically tries to refute a true historian. I read both. Zinn's work is a better more historically accurate, and less biased choice.

This history is a good general history up until about the 1950s. From this point on, especially during the Reagan to Bush II years it is way too far on the right. This section would be a good are for students to read as an extreme version of history which one could use to critique. It would be interesting to see how the authors would relate the past few years since the book's publication. I would like to see how they paint $3.59 per gallon gas as a problem of the Clinton years. I would not use this as a regular text by any means.

Howard Zinn's Peoples' History is a flawed history, but at least it was written with the intent of giving a voice to previously unrepresented groups. This is right-wing myth passing itself off as history. Glaring inaccuracies abound, such as the New Deal did nothing to improve the economy and that the Spanish conquistadores triumphed because of their republican institutions. Outright editorializing (claims about Kerry's medals being unwarranted, Carter's pardoning of draft dodgers 'misguided') give away the authors' agenda. There are plenty of balanced texts out there. There are also good critical texts that argue for both conservative and liberal interpretations of American history. A text like this is meant for consumers of dogmatic Right-wing media with no patience for the nuances of the historical record.

I have been looking for an American history book that can give me the real scoop without the liberal spin-job history text books are feeding our children. I have found what I'm looking for in A Patriot's History... It's highly readable.

Check your concerns for reality or facts at the door and get ready for a wild-eyed radical ride with a right wing fantasist. I sometimes wonder if these people actually believe the crazy stuff they're saying and writing or if they're laughing they're heads off for being able to publish such a swindle...because that's what this is folks: a big swindle. That's right this book is so far out of touch with history it might as well have been written by a roomful of monkeys. But, it didn't take a roomful, nope, only one...one that has no idea how to do history. It should be obvious to everyone that this is a parody of Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of The United States' but for those who are unaware check it out. Right wing nuts have been seething about that book since it's publication and finally they have a book that attempts (but fails) to counter. Zinn's grounding in historical methodology is sound. This book could have been written by a sixth grader who had watched too many John Wayne movies and been driven to school by a parent obsessed with Rush Bimbo. If you want to 'learn' a bunch of arbitrary opinions about history read this. If you care about reality or facts caveat emptor.

I wanted to love this book, I really did. I agree with the central premise that American history has more to be proud of than our schoolchildren are learning in school. However, attempting to read this book reminded me of why I learned more history after leaving school than I ever did in it. The book reads like a textbook, with all that that implies. The new information I gleaned was not worth the effort to read the fine print of the pages, and there are an awful lot of pages. Perhaps it was a mistake to try to pack all of the information into one volume. This in itself would not be unforgivable, were it not for the factual errors. The biggest howler I saw (I confess freely that I could not finish the book) was the reference to Lewis Cass as "the last remaining Republican" in Democratic President James Buchanan's cabinet. (In fact, Cass was the 1848 Democratic Party nominee for President.) James Buchanan was a bitter partisan, and he would not have hired a Republican as a White House usher, let alone let one into his cabinet. Other errors have been pointed out by other reviewers.

I think this project would have been better as a two or three volume work. Releasing the material in three books would have allowed (I believe) more time for proof-reading and fact-checking.

We do need a book that reminds our people that American history is to be proud of, not ashamed of, but this book isn't it.

Look. This history book is very opinionated. It's very hard to find a history book that is unbiased and accurate. This is not one of those rare few accurate and reliable history books. It's basically a rant on paper.

Things I would label it as: Sexist, racist, classist, inaccurate, biased, ultra super conservative, very condescending and patronizing of other viewpoints, war loving, and too focused on politics and economics.

It almost always focuses on politics and democrats vs. republicans. There are barely any mentions of other monumental historical events such as the civil rights movement, suffrage, native american tragedies (trail of tears), pop culture, and various tragedies like the titanic. Any mention of these staples of history are fleeting, negative, and generally tied instantly back to politics. It might as well be called a government book.

tl;dr: just watch Fox News.

Do the authors actually believe leftists are fabricating how so called "Patriotric" causes will lead to our countries demise? Read any recent book by Chalmers Johnson....he's NOT a leftist, he's not a "hater" and guess what he says?..... Never mind you all just go ahead and keep believing that White Anglo Saxon Males and the U.S. Empire are the real victims.

This book caught my eye because of its bold title, and I knew before I even picked it up that it had been written at least implicitly as a counter to Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." I found it well-written and useful, a good book to have read once and then have on hand, but I would also echo the complaints of the other reviewers who gave it 2 stars or fewer. They have already said the specifics, so I'll say a few general things instead, and I hope this review will be helpful to those of all political stripes.

The authors say that America's history has been a shining example. I don't understand how this statement can possibly be substantiated--do those of you who have read this book or other history books really believe that America's history, in general, has been a shining example? Parts of it have been, just as parts of it have not. The Constitution and the separation of powers in the government were; some of the ways in which these documents were later used were not. Slavery was not; the overcoming of slavery was. Please realize that I am not trying to make the opposite case: America's history, in general, is not anything. In its specifics, it is many things, which is why history is such a rich and diverse field.

I thought Zinn's "People's History" was magnificent. It's really a sourcebook of oppression--and I believe Zinn is not trying to work his will on any of us or turn us into little Marxists. I think what's important, and hopefully what will appeal to more conservative readers, is that we find something redeeming to say at the end of books like Zinn's. After we learn of America's sometimes horrific past, we are in a position to help create a better future. If you read Zinn's history and give up on America then you've missed his point--but if you read "A Patriot's History" and feel that there is nothing to mourn for, that America's history was, except for a few speed-bumps, a shining example, then you'll never understand why things are the way they are today.

Is there any more fascist notion than the idolatry of one's own country? Loving your country is not easy, you have to understand that countries are made of people, and people make mistakes. America is not an exception, nor an exception to any rule. As every other country, it consists of a society, and again, there are better moments and sad moments in all societies. It helps forgetting the bad moments, I agree with you, one actually tends to glamorize its own past. But this is not what a historian does!
For you who are thinking about buying, think of this book as the American history written with Mussolini's revisionist view of Italian history. Or, the history of the USSR written by one of Stalin's colleagues. Understanding history is not anti-patriotic, as a matter of fact patriots are those who defend their country against those who want to change their country's history. If you don't like America and American history with all its triumphs and shames, victories and defeats, then you don't like the country you live in. Hardly a patriotic view, if you censure most of what really happened and wish for something else. If you don't believe me, please go ahead and read the Italian, German and USSR history books written in the 30's, and compare with your book. You may be surprised.

Since I first read "Og son of Og" 63 years ago and have continued reading ever since, picking up a PhD on the way, this is only the 2nd book I ever tore up and threw away. I wont mention the other cause I used to be friends with the author. Over 5000 titles, less than 200 being novels, and this is my only second waste can candidate....I fell for the title. Book formula is easy, decide on what you believe and write a history in which every interpretation directs you to your preordained conclusion. To read about this kind of logic see Lakoff's "How liberals and conservatives think". This book is mind poison, pick any topic they discuss, study that topic yourself and compare what you learn to what the authors say. You'll wag your head to and fro and say huh! so often your friends will call for help if you don't explain yourself.

The title of this book floors me. Are the authors suggesting that a historian or layman with a differing viewpoint is not a patriot? The fact that uncredentialed radio personalities like David Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were featured on the jacket endorsing this book suggests that's the case. I found the book laughable in it's factual errors and sophomoric view. A more accurate title would have been: "How everything America has ever done was virtuous and altruistic, and if you disagree you're an America hating liberal."
The section on the causes of the Great Depression under Hoover's administration (Smoot Hawley, the FED withholding an infusion of cash into the economy ie. quantitative easing) is simplistically handled in just a few paragraphs. The Spanish American War is glossed over with no mention of the Mugwump's and their noble resistance to America betraying her founding documents and becoming an Imperial power. Smedley Butler's admission of his involvement in said US Imperialism, and his accusation of a symbiosis between military power and US corporations, gets written off as coming from a disgruntled officer passed over for advancement, whose comments have been used by "lefties" ever since. The resistance to US Imperialism by the Filipino people, who felt betrayed by the United States for substituting US overlords for Spanish ones, is actually compared, by the authors, to the Iraqi insurgency. How telling!
This is history, if you can call it that, for the person who wants to have all of their jingoistic nationalism validated, and none of their prejudices questioned. There is no scholarly research to be found here, or serious, probing history, just a rehash of what one would hear on talk radio or watching television. This is history as John Wayne would have written it. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!

I’ve just taken a very quick look at the excerpt.
Chapter 1, page 4: “Columbus continued to Cuba, which he called Hispaniola.” … WTF?!? … WRONG!!! … Hispaniola is the island divided today between the countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The island as a whole is still called Hispaniola [...]
Well, if the authors' knowledge of history is as "thorough" as the knowledge they have in geography this book is a joke; a bad one, but still a joke. I'm a mere high school graduate and I know better, so I don’t even bother to read on.
This is utter bull****!
P.S.: “Columbus left Hispaniola on 24 April 1494, arriving at Cuba (which he named Juana) on 30 April.”[...]. Do your f***ing research before you start spreading lies!

First, I must point out that I am a 30-year critic of American academia, especially departments of humanities (or "Arts & sciences"). I am a former dual PhD candidate who left academia in 1980 and never looked back. I battled Political Correctness before it had a name.

There are few good scholars on our campuses, a fact that has not changed over the centuries. Less than 10% of tenured Professors publish anything beyond their dissertation, which may be a good thing. Of the more prominent of those who do publish, most of them and their "works" are forgotten before they retire (and the in-thing is to cash in on early retirement offers). Too often, students professors "know" to be mediocre or not cut out to be graduate students are actively recruited for graduate school, by graduate status professors.

As a group, professors treat graduate students like canon fodder. Why? In order to fill unfilled seats. Most state legislators cut funding for seats that go unfilled.

Professors have no intention of placing their reputation or status on a limb by trying to place mediocre graduate students. Many of them go on to be social misfits. Our public universities are not just diploma mills. Worse than than they manufacture misfits. Look around any large public university and you will find hundreds of people with graduate and PhD degrees working book store counters, pushing brooms down University halls, working stoop laborer joba in natural foods super markets or area distribution warehouses and clerking in snack outlets like Starbucks & Sushi Palace. More than a few become thorns for local employers and managers as over educated armchair "experts" who "know" better than management or owners how the firm should be run.

I have waited many years for a few honorable tenured professors to publish a truthful account of what I have outlined above. I still wait. I am delighted that two seasoned professors mustered the courage to write and publish a much needed criticism and corrective of what too often passes for academic history.

Believe me. It took courage to publish "Patriots History..." The authors will get much grief from many other academic historians for daring to write a real critique of American History writing. Other professors who agree with the authors will choose silence and a few will even criticize "Patriots History..." in vain attempt to be less hated by the left liberal academics they must interact with on campus.

I highly recommend that all literate or "educated" people read this book. It will balance your image of our past that you were likely force fed. I strongly advise that you pay no attention to those who trash this book and its authors. Keep in mind that when you read a history, you do not read scientific data about the past. That is impossible. What you read is writing based on written documents. A lot of judgement calls and opinion go into writing any history. The less broadly educated the author, the less value will be that authors attempt to reconstruct the past. Too many academic historians today never even attempt to reconstruct the past, which is supposed to be the historian's illusive craft. They let you think that is what they try to do but what too many of them do is try to use written documents and highly dense or very smooth prose to support their personal social-political ideology.
History writing is a form of literature. At its best, it is scholarly literature, which means most of it penned by academics is not worth reading. No one, for instance, should be awarded a PhD in American History who does not have a firm grasp on world history, a decent start in studying the Western Canon & general understanding of pre-Renaissance philosophy. Many PhD degrees in American History are awarded to people who do not know even one foreign language or have any interest in the world beyond the United States. One would think mastery of written Spanish, an easy language for an American to learn, would be a minimum requirement for any American History PhD candidate but it isn't!
Many allegedly "educated" people worship at the feet of Historian Howard Zinn. These ideologues will automatically attack "Patriot's History...". About them, I leave you with this thought. Zinn's major work, "A People's History of the United States" is highly selective in what it covers & it skips over the many issues that left liberal academics tend skip over. For instance, is American slavery the remarkable thing about our past, or is the fact that for the first time in history people rose and organized--in England and in America--against slavery and would not rest until they wiped it out all over the world. The Anti-Slavery Society remains active and it is a Western, white guy, organization. (by the way, I am not 'white') Why are there hundreds of books on Black Slavery but not one history of a larger group, the white indentured and bonded servants? Why are there no studies of how Americans came to drop white indentured servitude? They were cheaper than slaves. Why are American slavery studies done out of context? That is, why isn't slavery studied within its proper context, labor history? Why do labor historians ignore indentured servitude as well as slavery?

I do not suggest that "Patriot's History..." is a perfect book or that it contains the 'whole truth'. Neither do the authors.

I sit stunned after reading this, and that was after I was warned. If there was more than a shred of truth in this book (that wasn't twisted through the current right wing political machine), I guess I missed it. Not only is it a mouthpiece for Fox history, it fails to use any primary source documents to back up its propagandistic claims.

In addition, the "author" was so hell-bent on pushing a 21st century political agenda, that he couldn't even correctly relate basic historical facts. Examples? Well, the "author" (or his lowly paid right wint-nut interns) tells us Hispaniola and Cuba are the SAME island, which is odd because I'm pretty sure they are two separate islands. Or that American forces attempted to seize Quebec in 1776, when I'm pretty sure it happened in 1775. There are hundreds of examples of convoluted history but I won't include those because the "author" intentionally included those as a way to "prove" his agenda. Blah.

Uses for this book? Hmmmmm....Tough call. Maybe you could bring it into a classroom as an example of the hijacking of history to fit current political doctrine-based propaganda...but that's about it.

If you're into preparing yourself or your child for a world outside your gated community or trailer park, then don't preach this drivel.

Since I first read "Og son of Og" 63 years ago and have continued reading ever since, picking up a PhD on the way, this is only the 2nd book I ever tore up and threw away. I wont mention the other cause I used to be friends with the author. Over 5000 titles, less than 200 being novels, and this is my only second waste can candidate....I fell for the title. Book formula is easy, decide on what you believe and write a history in which every interpretation directs you to your preordained conclusion. To read about this kind of logic see Lakoff's "How liberals and conservatives think". This book is mind poison, pick any topic they discuss, study that topic yourself and compare what you learn to what the authors say. You'll wag your head to and fro and say huh! so often your friends will call for help if you don't explain yourself.

The title of this book floors me. Are the authors suggesting that a historian or layman with a differing viewpoint is not a patriot? The fact that uncredentialed radio personalities like David Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were featured on the jacket endorsing this book suggests that's the case. I found the book laughable in it's factual errors and sophomoric view. A more accurate title would have been: "How everything America has ever done was virtuous and altruistic, and if you disagree you're an America hating liberal."
The section on the causes of the Great Depression under Hoover's administration (Smoot Hawley, the FED withholding an infusion of cash into the economy ie. quantitative easing) is simplistically handled in just a few paragraphs. The Spanish American War is glossed over with no mention of the Mugwump's and their noble resistance to America betraying her founding documents and becoming an Imperial power. Smedley Butler's admission of his involvement in said US Imperialism, and his accusation of a symbiosis between military power and US corporations, gets written off as coming from a disgruntled officer passed over for advancement, whose comments have been used by "lefties" ever since. The resistance to US Imperialism by the Filipino people, who felt betrayed by the United States for substituting US overlords for Spanish ones, is actually compared, by the authors, to the Iraqi insurgency. How telling!
This is history, if you can call it that, for the person who wants to have all of their jingoistic nationalism validated, and none of their prejudices questioned. There is no scholarly research to be found here, or serious, probing history, just a rehash of what one would hear on talk radio or watching television. This is history as John Wayne would have written it. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!

I’ve just taken a very quick look at the excerpt.
Chapter 1, page 4: “Columbus continued to Cuba, which he called Hispaniola.” … WTF?!? … WRONG!!! … Hispaniola is the island divided today between the countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The island as a whole is still called Hispaniola [...]
Well, if the authors' knowledge of history is as "thorough" as the knowledge they have in geography this book is a joke; a bad one, but still a joke. I'm a mere high school graduate and I know better, so I don’t even bother to read on.
This is utter bull****!
P.S.: “Columbus left Hispaniola on 24 April 1494, arriving at Cuba (which he named Juana) on 30 April.”[...]. Do your f***ing research before you start spreading lies!

First, I must point out that I am a 30-year critic of American academia, especially departments of humanities (or "Arts & sciences"). I am a former dual PhD candidate who left academia in 1980 and never looked back. I battled Political Correctness before it had a name.

There are few good scholars on our campuses, a fact that has not changed over the centuries. Less than 10% of tenured Professors publish anything beyond their dissertation, which may be a good thing. Of the more prominent of those who do publish, most of them and their "works" are forgotten before they retire (and the in-thing is to cash in on early retirement offers). Too often, students professors "know" to be mediocre or not cut out to be graduate students are actively recruited for graduate school, by graduate status professors.

As a group, professors treat graduate students like canon fodder. Why? In order to fill unfilled seats. Most state legislators cut funding for seats that go unfilled.

Professors have no intention of placing their reputation or status on a limb by trying to place mediocre graduate students. Many of them go on to be social misfits. Our public universities are not just diploma mills. Worse than than they manufacture misfits. Look around any large public university and you will find hundreds of people with graduate and PhD degrees working book store counters, pushing brooms down University halls, working stoop laborer joba in natural foods super markets or area distribution warehouses and clerking in snack outlets like Starbucks & Sushi Palace. More than a few become thorns for local employers and managers as over educated armchair "experts" who "know" better than management or owners how the firm should be run.

I have waited many years for a few honorable tenured professors to publish a truthful account of what I have outlined above. I still wait. I am delighted that two seasoned professors mustered the courage to write and publish a much needed criticism and corrective of what too often passes for academic history.

Believe me. It took courage to publish "Patriots History..." The authors will get much grief from many other academic historians for daring to write a real critique of American History writing. Other professors who agree with the authors will choose silence and a few will even criticize "Patriots History..." in vain attempt to be less hated by the left liberal academics they must interact with on campus.

I highly recommend that all literate or "educated" people read this book. It will balance your image of our past that you were likely force fed. I strongly advise that you pay no attention to those who trash this book and its authors. Keep in mind that when you read a history, you do not read scientific data about the past. That is impossible. What you read is writing based on written documents. A lot of judgement calls and opinion go into writing any history. The less broadly educated the author, the less value will be that authors attempt to reconstruct the past. Too many academic historians today never even attempt to reconstruct the past, which is supposed to be the historian's illusive craft. They let you think that is what they try to do but what too many of them do is try to use written documents and highly dense or very smooth prose to support their personal social-political ideology.
History writing is a form of literature. At its best, it is scholarly literature, which means most of it penned by academics is not worth reading. No one, for instance, should be awarded a PhD in American History who does not have a firm grasp on world history, a decent start in studying the Western Canon & general understanding of pre-Renaissance philosophy. Many PhD degrees in American History are awarded to people who do not know even one foreign language or have any interest in the world beyond the United States. One would think mastery of written Spanish, an easy language for an American to learn, would be a minimum requirement for any American History PhD candidate but it isn't!
Many allegedly "educated" people worship at the feet of Historian Howard Zinn. These ideologues will automatically attack "Patriot's History...". About them, I leave you with this thought. Zinn's major work, "A People's History of the United States" is highly selective in what it covers & it skips over the many issues that left liberal academics tend skip over. For instance, is American slavery the remarkable thing about our past, or is the fact that for the first time in history people rose and organized--in England and in America--against slavery and would not rest until they wiped it out all over the world. The Anti-Slavery Society remains active and it is a Western, white guy, organization. (by the way, I am not 'white') Why are there hundreds of books on Black Slavery but not one history of a larger group, the white indentured and bonded servants? Why are there no studies of how Americans came to drop white indentured servitude? They were cheaper than slaves. Why are American slavery studies done out of context? That is, why isn't slavery studied within its proper context, labor history? Why do labor historians ignore indentured servitude as well as slavery?

I do not suggest that "Patriot's History..." is a perfect book or that it contains the 'whole truth'. Neither do the authors.

I sit stunned after reading this, and that was after I was warned. If there was more than a shred of truth in this book (that wasn't twisted through the current right wing political machine), I guess I missed it. Not only is it a mouthpiece for Fox history, it fails to use any primary source documents to back up its propagandistic claims.

In addition, the "author" was so hell-bent on pushing a 21st century political agenda, that he couldn't even correctly relate basic historical facts. Examples? Well, the "author" (or his lowly paid right wint-nut interns) tells us Hispaniola and Cuba are the SAME island, which is odd because I'm pretty sure they are two separate islands. Or that American forces attempted to seize Quebec in 1776, when I'm pretty sure it happened in 1775. There are hundreds of examples of convoluted history but I won't include those because the "author" intentionally included those as a way to "prove" his agenda. Blah.

Uses for this book? Hmmmmm....Tough call. Maybe you could bring it into a classroom as an example of the hijacking of history to fit current political doctrine-based propaganda...but that's about it.

If you're into preparing yourself or your child for a world outside your gated community or trailer park, then don't preach this drivel.

This book is factually erroneous and written with the intent of twisting historical events and figures to suit a modern conservative, white, evangelical viewpoint.

If you are a white, racist conservative this book is for you. If you want facts, look elsewhere.

I honestly thought that because some folks here gave such outstanding reviews, that there had to be something worth reading. I love reading about history, I love learning new facts, and viewing historic events through a new prism. I had high hopes that this book would offer some of that.

I was wrong.

Fox News viewers (a pejorative term, intended and expected to be pejorative) might enjoy it. It would confirm that their insular, fact-free, "America is #1" viewpoint is in fact, fact. If you are burdened by a lack of reasoning skills, if your schooling was incredibly fact free, and if you are of the mind that America is 100% correct, at all times, and under all circumstances, regardless of the real facts slapping you in the face, (ie, you watch Fox News religiously), then this is the book for you. Although some of the multi-syllabic words might be a bit much for you without a book that I doubt you own. It is called a "dictionary." It helps you understand those pesky words that are too long for you to pronounce, and contain ideas too complex to understand.

I recently came across this book and was intrigued by the idea of a book that would present U.S. history from an alternative point of view than the usual one. Unfortunately, upon reading it, I was deeply disappointed. Aside from all of the problems with dubious claims and with mishandling of source evidence, which many others apparently already documented (from my hasty perusal just now of other reviews posted here), the book seems to get easily sidetracked into anachronistic diatribes and gratuitous political commentary, unrelated to the historical interpretation of the topic at hand. Moreover, the pace of the writing is very uneven, with some important issues dismissed in a few sentences and other seemingly minor topics dwelled upon at great length. One gets the sense that, rather than going through the long developmental process that most U.S. history textbooks do, the authors have rushed this book into print without the kind of quality control and degree of revision for flow and balance that is required for a project like this. Perhaps they sensed a ready market for people who would eagerly devour such a book, regardless of glaring deficiencies, and that the quality bar would be low. In this calculation, they have apparently been proved correct. I suppose they will adjust and improve the book in subsequent editions, but it is hard to see it becoming a decent textbook without a major overhaul. The interesting thing is that a judicious and fair-minded conservative interpretation of U.S. history would be an interesting and pedagogically useful thing. But, unfortunately, this is a third-rate, pot-boiler of a product.

American unabridged PRIOPAGANDA at it's sexist, racist and ignoarantly-biased BEST!!! Trashed this cow manure after having read the first 100 pages which sickened me. Nice going, Larry, you pathetically-docile ALL-AMERICAN BOY!!!

I saw this in the book store recently and picked it up for a ultra conservative friend of mine. The title itself was obvious that it was a strike against Howard Zinn's book, which in my opinion was a great book, though also suffered the same problem that this book seems to suffer. Too much personal opinion mixed in with historical events. Zinn on one hand though always openly admitted that the People's History was a book that was his opinion and understanding of the facts of history of the US. It was well written and backed up with fact. But that is not what sold me on his book, what sold me was it showed the other side of history in the US. That was its intention, I am not that old, 37, but even I received the standard history account from school, which is all that I saw really while moving through the Patriots History book. NOthing new, no new perspective, it sounded like Fox news was giving me my history lesson. That's where I grew bored and started skimming through the sections. The People's history WHEN WRITTEN gave a historical perspective of our known history from the bottom up. With all our historical glory there have been failures as well, but more so, many of those glorious historical events were often times on the backs of regular people and minorities. Zinn gave you that, and had the guts to admit that he was giving you another perspective from America's history he was giving you history of the America that always got left out in your history books in school. Thats what makes his book a good read, ALONG WITH your standard history books as well. I think both of these books offers something as far as historical information, but this book will never make the foot print that Zinn did with his text simply because of their title alone. It will always be seen as nothing more then a angry bitter and biased conservative patriotic response to a book they dislike for giving the under belly of history of our great country. Ashame really, because they did include some great information in the text, which is rather large, but I'm sad to say the history they are pushing is nothing new, and riddled with right wing rhetoric, and offers nothing more then the standard history textbooks of American high schools and basic US history courses I took in college. I don't recommend buying this book, maybe a good flip through while sitting in a Borders Books,or a good gift for your Rush/Beck/Fox news conservative friends, but I do give it s solid 2 stars, because the content was mostly accurate aside from the additional conservative commentary and a great refresher of the standard elementary and high school history education. Just too bad they spent more time trying to insult Zinn's book and didn't spend more time writing a history book in itself.

I had to read this for a history class - absolute worse thing I ever had to stomach. As a liberal, this book made me want to puke a least 85% of the time. The other 15% was when he was listing facts and not explicitly talking. I wish I could get a full refund plus reparations for my mental health. This book would be wonderful for conservatives - the ones I run from.

Seriously, everyone - when's the last time a white straight guy got his due in history books? Schweikart says all of those historians who talk about racism against brown people are missing the point that the brown people ARE ALL DANGEROUS TO OUR [racist? economically exploitative? misogynist?] way of life as Americans... or at least, a threat to the white dudes and their wives that live on top. The book barely qualifies as revisionism - it's more like 'we're racist, so what' -ism. Because, as Schweikart tells us, it's not racist because history [written by whom?] has revealed the ways in which all brown people are evil.

If you need to rinse your mouth of the stupidity contained between these covers, I would suggest A People's History of American Empire - it has pictures, for all of you who don't like the pages filled with words and logic.

Having already read Zinn's book, I was curious about a Patriot's view. At our local bookstore, I located the book. Because my sister works at the Reagan Library, I turned to the book's index and looked for Reagan. What puzzled and disappointed me was that I could find no information directing me to the book's pages that reviewed Iran Contra. If that was the historical perspective the authors were providing, I decided not to buy or read the book since the authors appear to have ignored history. As to the objection to Zinn's title including People, the objectors are forgetting or ignoring that the framers in the Preamble of the Constitution refer to "We the People..." rather than "We the bankers, politicians, Wall Streeters, CEOs...."

I am glad that someone finally wrote a patriot's history of the United States. I was growing sick and tired of all the loyalist bias in American textbooks and classrooms. For years I have had teachers with a tory bias, always telling me that the Revolutionary War was a bad idea and that we should have stayed under the royal dominion of Great Britain. This book is a helpful corrective.