A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror (Hardcover)

~ (Author), Michael Patrick Allen (Author) "God, glory, and gold-not necessarily in that order-took post-Renaissance Europeans to parts of the globe they had never before seen..." (more)
Key Phrases: United States, New York, South Carolina (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review

In A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen remind us what a few good individuals can do in just a few short centuries . . . . A fluid account of America from the discovery of the Continent up to the present day. (Brandon Miniter, The Wall Street Journal)<br /><br />No recent American history challenges the conventional wisdom of academics as aggressively as Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States. (Daniel J. Flynn, Front Page Magazine)<br /><br />There are a thousand pleasant surprises and heartening reminders that underneath it all America remains a country of ideas, ideals, and optimism—and no amount of revisionism can take that legacy away. (John Coleman, Humane Studies Review)<br /><br />A welcome, refreshing, and solid contribution to relearning what we have forgotten and remembering why this nation is good, and worth defending. (Matthew Spalding, National Review --The Wall Street Journal

Review

In A Patriot’s History of the United States, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen remind us what a few good individuals can do in just a few short centuries . . . . A fluid account of America from the discovery of the Continent up to the present day. (Brandon Miniter, The Wall Street Journal)

No recent American history challenges the conventional wisdom of academics as aggressively as Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States. (Daniel J. Flynn, Front Page Magazine)

There are a thousand pleasant surprises and heartening reminders that underneath it all America remains a country of ideas, ideals, and optimism—and no amount of revisionism can take that legacy away. (John Coleman, Humane Studies Review)

A welcome, refreshing, and solid contribution to relearning what we have forgotten and remembering why this nation is good, and worth defending. (Matthew Spalding, National Review --This text refers to the Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 944 pages
• Publisher: Sentinel HC (December 29, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1595230017
• ISBN-13: 978-1595230010
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.6 x 1.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.8 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (106 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #156,987 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

72 of 80 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A surprisingly balanced history, but not without its flaws., August 1, 2008

By	No one of consequence (Maineville, Ohio) - See all my reviews

This review is from: A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror (Paperback)

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."

21 of 25 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars An Excellent Approach, But Too Often Factually Incorrect, November 21, 2008

By	David M. Dougherty (Arkansas) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror (Paperback)

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, the errors come fast and furiously. 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, so I could go on and on. The problem is that when authors play fast and loose with the details, should one believe the broader context? In this volume the answer is yes, but the many 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 it 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.

28 of 36 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Interesting, but flawed, June 13, 2007

By	Alberto Dominguez - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror (Paperback)

The approach is novel. It's good to see a book without the usual liberal slant (even if it slants the other way).

However, I cannot give the book five starts because of the obscene number of factual errors. As early as page 4, the book states that Columbus gave Cuba the name Hispaniola. In fact, Columbus named Cuba (the name given to it by the natives) "Juana" after Princess Juana of Spain. That is not a widely known fact, BUT I am nevertheless amazed by the authors' mistake since I did not think there were any educated people (let alone two professors of history) who did not know that Hispaniola was the name of the island that comprises the present-day countries of the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

The authors confuse James I with Charles I, give the wrong year for Washington's inauguration as the first President, incorrectly claim that John Harvard founded Harvard College, give conflicting dates for the invention of the cotton gin, and claim that Alaska became a state in 1958 rather than 1959.