Rating: 
Summary: An outstanding piece of scholarship.
Review: Johnson makes U.S. history come alive. He brings a Brit's perspective and a warm, admiring view of America and Americans. He shows how our history undeservedly suffers from lack of respect among European historians. He does an excellent job of showing the antecedents for the seminal moments on our history and he shoots down more than a few shibboleths of prevailing liberal historians. First history of America I've read since college 40 years ago. Johnson's made me an American history buff with this fine work.
Rating:
Summary: Very comprehensive yet very readable
Review: First, I agree with an earlier reviewer who pointed out errors. As a Civil War buff, I also noticed that Johnson confused generals Albert Sidney Johnston and Joseph Johnston. Also, although extremely comprehensive, the book was not thorough on military history. However, the book covers political, social, economic, and religious history so well that there was little room for the history of great battles. One military campaign I thought he covered particularly well, however, is the Tet offensive which he pointed out was a tactical military victory turned into a defeat by a hostile press. Johnson has a very clear political point of view. That's OK, however, since he thoroughly and (for the most part) accurately covers historical events. Two examples of great in depth coverage are first: his treatment of the Great Awakening in the colonial period. This religious history far exceeds that of most (if not all) one volume surveys of American history. Secondly: Johnson provides a great survey of Black popular contributions to culture in the development of ragtime and jazz. Despite his almost unforgiveable "Johnston" error, I rate this book highly and recommend it without qualification.
Rating:
Summary: A review from neither left nor right, but from an American.
Review: This man is such a good historian, I loved the book even though there were mistakes. (Are there such things as editors nowadays?) Mr. Johnson may be excused for his worship of the current American Right--he did, after all, grow up in socalist England which would have been enough to gag any intelligent man.Like many non-Americans, though, he fails to see (or report) what "conservative" or "liberal" really means here. He does, I believe, note that most Americans are really conservative in the true connotation of the word. The Constitution is so strong that political issues really break down to the question of what to do with the underclass that our attempt at freedom must, of necessity, create. This is very unplesant news to the electorate obviously. This causes both political parties to take moral postures which, of course, have nothing to do with the government and about which someone in a national office can do absolutely nothing. (This is the "for motherhood and against sin" platform of both parties.) This is safe and an increasingly ignorant population is none the wiser. One wonders why Mr. Johnson who loves whipping up on the liberals--certainly an easy target--fails to mention that the "conservatives" who howl greatly over government interference in family life, were the rude and vocal supporters of federal laws on divorce which suited their moral posture, and which, as they well knew, would have been illegal and didn't have a chance in hell of being passed. How can a "conservative" want to gut the Constitution of The United States? What they are into conserving is the status quo which is exactly what the liberals are into. The argument is over how to appear the most the moral in the doing of this. Our puritan culture is amazing. (It's called cultural sucicide in other countries.) The wealthy are, as usual, the most painfully aware that underclasses have a history of killing off the establishment if treated too badly. Ask the Spartans. Ignorance and moral posturing are our kings here, Paul, don't get caught up in it yourself. It does feel great one has to admit, but it won't stand the light of logical thinking. Every one should read this book and Paul Johnson's other books. The man has got the right idea: Look at the data and get one's mind off the moral soapbox. Tony Conwill
Rating: 
Summary: If you're seeking a general history of the United States
Review: This book covers the history of the United States, from its conception to its present state. It is not, as one would expect, detailed in its narration of specific events such as the Civil War. Nevertheless, I was please by the global view it gave of U.S. History. I would recommend it to all.
Rating:
Summary: A readable, inclusive in the classical narrative style
Review: Paul Johnson's "History of the American People" recalls the narrative historical style of Herodotus. Without such a classical approach, any attempt to write on such a broad topic as three hundred years of American history would be doomed to pedantry; as it is, Johnson has created a powerful, readable work that recognizes the importance of many strands of American life -- not simply politics, but art, industry, architecture, music, and religion. With this in mind, the few factual errors of which so much has been made say more about the sloppiness of the editor than the abilities of the historian. I've read a number of reviews complaining that this book only focuses on America's leaders. Either these readers have never actually read the book or the capability of politically correct True Believers to see only what they believe exceeds even my fevered right-wing-conspirator's imagination. My reaction upon reading this book was that here, finally, was a history that realized the liberal historian's dream of "history with the politics left out." Does a political history devote two pages to Tiffany glass? Does a chronicle of Dead White Senators rhapsodize endlessly on Scott Joplin or Louis Sullivan? Senator Ted Kennedy once remarked that in America, all change begins at the ballot box. While acknowledging the power of democracy, this book suggests that the most significant changes in out national life have begun elsewhere, when free citizens are left free to invent, to build, and create. That said, even I have to admit that as Johnson's narrative takes him to the period which he himself has experienced, his partisanship shows a bit -- not nearly as much as an ostensibly "objective" textbook might, but conservatives are rightly held to a higher standard. Where much is given, much is expected. Even so, however, what partisanship does creep into the narrative is nowhere near as sharp as some of the above reviewers (who seem only to have encountered Johnson's book in photocopied handouts in Washington State University's remedial history class) would have us believe. Wilson and especially Truman are given far too easy a ride, in my opinion, although I might ascribe this to a Briton's gratitude at those presidents' role in saving Europe. Johnson's treatment of Reagan, while ultimately positive, does make more of his weaknesses than would a true hagiographer. Johnson, like Walter McDougall and Stephen Ambrose, is a readable treasure among historians. We should encourage him. Buy two copies!
Rating: 
Summary: Sketchy historical research leads to author mistakes.
Review: Although the book clearly displays much work and effort on the part of the author, the Civil War period contains glaring factual errors which proper research would have easily uncovered. For example, the author confuses Confederate General's Joe Johnston and Albert Sydney Johnston. His description of 1st Bull Run and Shiloh clearly show that he believes that both Johnston's were the same person. The way it reads, he has Joe Johnston at Bull Run getting killed as A.S. Johnston at Shiloh. In a second example, he has Robert E. Lee taking over the A.N.V. after (A.S.?)Johnston's death. In fact, Lee took over before the seven days battles due to Joe Johnston's incapacity. This is shoddy history. My personal interest in the Civil War made it easy to pick up the mistakes, but the errors make me question other parts of the book which I may not be so knowledgeable about. Also, the author should lay off the religion. large portions of the book are engrossed in describing and over emphasizing religious movements as historical turning points at the expense of more important social events. Nevertheless, if you are historically informed enough to see through the mistakes and opinions, most of the book is interesting and informative. His description of Abraham Lincoln as a "Moral Genius" is right on point.
Rating:
Summary: A book on history everyone should read.
Review: This book covers topics, people, and places that a person should have learned in high school but never did. A best buy.
Rating:
Summary: Marvelous, Simply Marvelous
Review: The book is written clearly and, refreshingly, not from the typical left-liberal perspective so common among academics today. This should be mandatory reading in American History courses, if for no other reason than to make up for the overwhelming liberal bias in the historiography.
Rating:
Summary: Best American History Book on the Market
Review: Every high school student in the country should be required to read this masterpiece of American history. In an age where books with titles like "American History: All You Really Need to Know" reach best-seller status, Paul Johnson's book dares to reveal that which you probably don't NEED to know, but rather focuses on the interesting and hence more memorable aspects of American history. The book is full of interesting bits of trivia and well-researched biographies of various Americans. A definite must-read for any aspiring historian for its content and style.
Rating:
Summary: Great through 1875; Very disappointing 20th Century
Review: Bought this without reading reviews or knowing reputatin of author, becuase I wanted a general survey type of history. First half was very interesting. Gained many new insights on the founding, settling of America. The author very nicely traces the development of the slavery issues, even during the periods when it was not the foremost political issues. However, when the author gets to the 20th century, his political orientations are so blatant and obvious, that the sense of major themes being developed is lost. The last 50 pages of book are disgustingly racist, sexist, et al. I will not read any more history by this author.
|
