It's exactly as bad as it sounds like it is.

Good overview of American History. There has always been corruption and inept leaders. Makes you wonder how our country has survived for as long as it has. This book provides a good starting point for more in depth study. Next I will be reading the Clarence Carson series on American History after I take a quick break to read a work of fiction.

Some interesting alternative view points of history but it really felt like the Tea Party's history of bashing big government. I am all for challenging the way we view history but some of the conclusions seemed flimsy at best. Some of the books your not supposed to read given through out the book are now added to me reading list though.

This book is pretty much a pile of hot garbage. By trying to be “edgy” and associate itself with the far right, yet also market itself as a sort-of textbook, it completely misses the mark. By focusing on refuting “PC” culture, which he never defines or explains why he so adamantly despises it, Woods falls into the same minefield of partisanship and logical slips that he accuses his opponents of. I recommend this book only if you want to have a good laugh or muse on how this man attended Harvard and Columbia. Quite frankly, this book is not as “revolutionary” as he claims (though I’m sure that much of his rhetoric was meant to sell books). In fact, this interpretation of American history is certainly the mainstream, general interpretation in Midwest circles. It adds nothing of value to political or historical discourse.

I will admit freely that I picked this book up to balance my much larger stack of liberal-leaning ones. That being said, I have read extensively from both perspectives on American history. I have read a great number of conservative-leaning history books and seen good research on both sides. This book, while making huge claims, does not substantiate those claims because of its many, many omissions. It speaks of the prosperity of the Roaring ‘20s yet fails to mention the conservative social policies that restricted any group falling outside of the white businessman circle. He tries to find fault with the Civil Rights movement simply because of its popularity with “the Left.” He seems to defend slavery and go the usual Southern route of “it was about states’ rights, not slavery!” Again, the stances he takes are not revolutionary in any capacity. He takes the usual white-centric, business-minded approach to American history. He breezily bypasses any mention of the struggle for marginalized groups to take hold of the rights promised by his precious founders. I would certainly appreciate a more-rounded approach to American history than this heap of crap.