The Founders were WHAT? NOPE!
929645
Details how this Nation was REALLY founded and makes LIARS of reporters and politicians alike. A great read if you don't want to be bamboozled by the "story tellers" that call themselves EXperts....
235396
Turned out to be a little about the invented and nothing about the so called secrets the government were hiding.
Said to be banned from US television, What a joke! Just hype!
2896920
I have been researching the origin of Christianity since I left the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and became Atheist. I am well read in Ancient Egypt. The title of the book interested me because anyone with any interest in Jesus is curious about the missing 30 years.

Tricia McCannon is correct about Jesus is Egypt, but as far as the rest is concerned, no. I have been to Glastonbury Abbey and know all the legends about King Arthur. I saw no irrefutable evidence of Jesus ever being there. The Celtic legends are fables only, not fact. Even the "Ley Lines" are fables. I know enough about science to know there are no such things as "Ley Lines" or "Energy Fields".

The name "Jesus" mght have been taken from the Celtic God Hu-Hesus by Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine I when he founded the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea 325 CE as the official Religion of the Roman Empire.

I won't go into McCannon's ideas about Jesus in India. Again they are  pure fables. There is no irrefutable evidence Jesus ever went to India.
To me this book as a believable as the worst book of fiction ever written the "Holy" Bible
2700812
I appreciate bringing back the founders, but spending an entire book repeating over and over the history??? If weve stuck around for 60 books, we know who we are reading about. How about giving us an actual story?
2603990
This book presupposes that the foundation of the American Revolution apparently resembled the pretentious Jacobin egalitarianism of the French Revolution. With its highbrow aurora of seriousness and countless pages, it purports that the 1776 Revolution was about woman's suffrage and black liberation. It than shows that these 'evil dead white guys' (e.g. the founding fathers) came along and somehow betrayed all of this. Tise just regrets that the Jacobin fervor that befell colonial Haiti didn't hit home in America.
What is more striking to me is the fact that right-wingers who read books by Thomas Fleming and Patrick Buchanan are apparently buying this book as indicating by the related purchases. They need to do their homework and read some reviews before throwing away [money] on this book. You could, at least peruse this book at your library if my warning doesn't suffice. You'll see that this tome is little more than shallow politically correct revisionism in the spirit of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which rewrites American history and mythologizes the Second Amendment through fraudulent scholarship, hyperbole and fanciful conjecture.
2537874
Let me preface this by saying that I largely agree with the book's overall premise, that French political elites have an irrational fear of American political hegemony.  That said, I am extremely disappointed in the book's opening chapter.

The authors' treatment of the wars between the British and French North American colonies is extremely one-sided and misleading.  They would have you believe that the British colonists were a passive bunch who acted in self-defense against French aggressors and their vicious Indian allies.  This is laughable in light of the facts that 1) the British colonies had literally 20 times the population of the French ones; 2) the British made it their explicit goal to conquer the French territories, as they had done to New Netherland and 3) the British made good on their claim, invading and conquering New France in 1759.

The authors mention the Deerfield massacre of 1704 while conveniently overlooking similar slaughters that occurred in Quebec, Port Royal and Montreal at the hands of the British.  They also gloss over the expulsion of 10,000 Acadians from their colony (now Nova Scotia), something the French never did in territories they captured.

The authors acknowledge that the French made far more native allies than the British, but never pause to examine why this was the case.  Whereas the British effectively wanted to create a reconstituted European state and push the natives out of the way, the predominantly fur-trading French colonists attempted to assimilate themselves into Native culture as much as the opposite.  When the British attempted to expand their colonies, they met the fierce opposition of Native tribes, who did not want to see their French allies evicted.  The authors ignore these details and instead treat the Native Americans as almost sub-human, even comparing them to weapons of mass destruction.  And to top it off, they chide the French colonial rulers for "exploiting" the natives!  This is ridiculous.

There is no reason for such a lopsided account of these events.  I'm afraid that the authors' personal biases have clouded their judgment when it comes to covering the colonial wars.
3228064
The book's entire small, unimpressive layout with so few photos is wrong for a book that deals with the actually fascinating subject of the birth of the great US Army. This book should have larger in texture and size like one of Michael Wood's books on the Conquistadors with giant photos too. Next, I'm turned off with Chadwick's flat use of common men in the Revolutionary War too. These 18th century average Joes have no right to be dealt with in any depth. There's no room for them in this. They're taking up space that could be better filled by important Colonial government leaders. The birth of the US Army is a story better told if they just stick to such leaders and the new army's organization. Another problem the book has it's too much about african-americans. Sure in today's politically world Chadwick absolutely had to give them credit too but he goes too far all the same. Their part in the birth of the US Army was indeed rather insignificant and for that I criticize Chadwick for shoving them down the reader's throat a little too much. On this last one I criticize Chadwick but the in least amount because he doesn't deal with them so much that the book becomes almost all about them.

To answer a couple of critical reviews about my review I add this bit on. To the guy on here who says he was in the US Army and identifies with the common soldiers in this book beware. You were the army more than 150 years after these Revolutionary War zeroes. You have little identification with them as the army you served in was very, very different than the one they did. The US Army was different in the 1700's than anytime less than 60 years ago. look everyone, good soldiers are one dime every two dozen. Good leaders like generals and colonels are way harder to comeby. The generals especially are way more important than the soldiers.
3932443
There are many many books that have the same ideas and concepts as this book.  I would recommend "Miracle at Philadelphia" and "1787: The Grand Convention" to read instead or in addition.

I think, if anything, this book proves that these men were not just "plain, honest men."  The founders who had the most influence on the debate were those who were far from plain.  If indeed they were "plain" then boy we sure have went down the crapper.
4625450
That says it all.  153 bucks, 78 for used copy.  That's how much somebody doesn't want the real history of the Scots in America known.  To actually have people know how many Scots who came through Ulster truly made America---- that would be a new vision, wouldn't it?  Sadly, many especially in the american south know nothing of the country's Scottish roots, as it was withheld from them in this way.  Who can afford such a book???  A true travesty.  When the Ulster-Scots, the "Scotch Irish" FOUGHT the American Revolution and much more, and get nothing except crapped on as colonists, with all the crappy movies about appalachians and the southern people by the current elites.  (It is so important, that important, to make it seem that that they were all like people from the movie Deliverance.)  The real roots of the country cannot be taught.  No, no one will read this book, b/c it is 158 bucks for a paperback!!
4138282
Some 15 years ago, this reviewer was speaking with a prominent Irish author at the Irish American Historical Society in New York.  This worthy gentleman has some 17 (!) books for sale on amazon.  The guy opined that he didn't agree with Father McManus because "he was not part of the solution". Based on that sketchy comment, this reviewer dropped his support for the Irish National Caucus.  That was then.  This is now!

After reading "My American Struggle", there is no doubt that Father McManus is very much a part of the solution in bringing some semblance of justice to Catholics in the gerrymandered state of Northern Ireland. It is true that Father McManus had help from some unexpected sources.  Prominent among them were an Italian Congressman from the Bronx, Mario Biaggi, and a Jewish Congressman from upstate New York, Ben Gilman. The assistance rendered by those men is very gratifying.

Far more distressing were those opposed to the concept of justice in the North.  These are the shameless Castle Catholics including: Congressman "Tip" O'Neill (D-MA), Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Governor Hugh L. Carey of New York and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY).  One could always count on those guys to show up on Saint Patrick's Day, but not when their country needed them! How many Irish bars in New York had a picture of the former Governor over the bar?  And didn't O'Neill like to tap kegs of beer at the Dubliner, across from the Capitol? Worse than that group was the string of Irish Governments which were so afraid of "offending London". What about offending their fellow Irishmen?  Worst of all was the Catholic hierarchy who for years tiptoed around the subject of justice for members of the very flocks they were supposedly sheparding? Father McManus had to contend with all of these sunshine patriots, nay sayers and craven white feathers.  Folks like that reminded Father Sean of blacks who would not speak out against apartheid in South Africa or stand up for the Sullivan principles.  One expects the British, wrong as they are, to support their narrow self interests.. Yet what of the men who fail to stand up for their own kind?

This review may be misleading.  It is a good deal more emotional than "My American Struggle" itself.  Father Sean is amazingly coolheaded in recounting his long struggle. It wasn't always easy.  Even Bill Clinton had to be outfoxed into signing the McBride Principles. Had Father Sean been as emotional as this reviewer-and he must have been vexatiously tempted- nothing positive would have been accomplished.  MAS is a classic of maneuver and counter maneuver in the halls of Congress. He prevailed through it all. Any Irish- American with the remotest interest in Northern Ireland owes it to him/herself to read MAS. We may be preaching to the choir, but judging by the string of preceding 5 star reviews, readers will be glad they set aside the time to do just that.
4483416
I wanted to give this a 4 or even a 5 because of his discussion of why he does not like the nine who "screwed things up." But I disagreed with the author's premise, namely, that any President who did not behave like a majority of the framers envisioned a President would behave in 1787, violated his oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Now it's true, that a president in the early years before 1828, was not supposed to be too "active" , or be an advocate for a particular policy while performing his job duties.  This is because Congress was to make policy and "lead the Federal Government."  Furthermore, the early president's would only veto unconstitutional laws, they did not veto merely bad "policy" type bills that he happened to personally disagree with.  Finally ,no 18th or early 19th century president would "represent" "the people" or do anything more than the 18th century concept of government would countenance. Finally, the 18th century constitution would not be or should not be changed to meet current needs of American citizens.
  The author forgot that the framers inserted Article V in the Constitution of 1787 precisely because our founding fathers met in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 to "fix" the Articles of Confederation [which had no provision for amendment].  They ended up writing a whole new document to address the current needs of the citizens of each state.  And the founding fathers foresaw that at some point in the future, the constitution they wrote would become "out of date" for the well being of the vast majority of American citizens.  So it would need to be fixed, as well.  Therefor, they provided a legal and constitutional means for American citizen/ voters to do so.  But I still want all citizens to read this book because they need to understand the author's point of view, even though I disagree with some of it.  Unlike the author, I think our constitution needs to be amended to address current and future needs of our citizens and to add certain additional checks and balances in place of the old ones which failed to address the ambition and overreach of federal and state elected officials and federal judges.  I also agree with the reviews of the following persons:  Amazon customer 1 * , sgt_maddog 1*, krh, 1*, conmanshea 3*, kenneth L 3*, and Rick S 3*.
2270659
Brother, the Mouse Company must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel of idiotic/moronic (not to mention downright STUPID) substitutes for genuinely new, creative ideas these days, if this is the best they can do!  Really, Mouse Company, is THIS the best you can come up with?  Like the endless sequels and spin-offs aren't tedious and done-to-death enough as it is?  Now you have to do spin-offs based on...the OFFSPRING of the villains of the classic movies??  And some genius (no doubt at the corporate level who never had a single original thought in his life, probably) honestly thought THIS was such a brilliant, inspired idea?!?  Sheesh!  It reminds me of the kind of retarded, cheesy trash that Hanna-Barbera and Filmation used to crank out for Saturday Morning television, back in the cheesy, trashy 70s!!  (Geez, and I thought the endless stream of stupid "Buddies" movies they keep endlessly cranking out were lame!)

Proving once again that, if it weren't for their Pixar subsidiary, the Mouse Company would be dead in the water these days, in terms of creativity and coming up with new ideas!!  And if this is the best they can do, then they've clearly had it!  The best days of the Mouse Company are clearly way, way, WAY behind them!
2426351
Mr. Shulman's revisionist history presents Glenn Hammond Curtiss, early aviation pioneer and inventor, as a series of opposites.  He alternately describes the man as shy, sheepish, and unassuming, and then as a master public relations man, always taking time to entertain the press reporters to keep them hanging around his "shop."  He regularly describes him as the beloved son of Hammondsport, NY, while telling how frightened and angered the townsfolk were with his exploits of racing motorcycles around town at breakneck speed or testing noisy contraptions.  He describes him as an honest and upstanding citizen who started a commercial company selling airplanes in violation of patent laws for the "greater good" of mankind (ignoring that Curtiss got his information from Augustus Herring, who betrayed the Wrights and first tried unsuccessfully to sell the knowledge to the more ethical Langley).  He describes him as an inventor of nearly everything important to modern aviation while explaining that until 1904 he considered anyone attempting flight as a "crank."  Yes, the man is a conundrum, a paradox, a riddle.

Unfortunately, he remains so after forcing myself to keep reading this book.  If you're looking for an interesting and informative biography, this isn't it.  If you're looking for criticism that seldom lets up on attacking the Wright brothers (constantly referring to them as "bicycle mechanics"), or that embarrassingly idolizes Glenn Curtiss, this is the book for you!  Other reviews here have documented many of the inaccuracies in this book undermining the author's credibility (I took the time to verify only some of them).  Shulman downplays the 64 modifications required to get the Langley machine to fly, describing them as "minor" and "inconsequential," in an obvious and shameful attempt to discredit the Wrights (for which the Smithsonian later apologized).  He also ignores that the Curtiss engine used on Baldwin's dirigible at the St. Louis World Fair was far inferior to the one constructed by the Wrights, instead trumpeting it as an enormous accomplishment and victory over the Wrights.  And the constant name-dropping of Curtiss' list of associates and acquaintances (no matter how remote) is ridiculous.  Also, the lack of any logical timeline is annoying, starting out with Langley's failed 1903 attempt, then bouncing to 1914, then 1906, then 1904, then 1907...

There's no doubt that the Wright Brothers were publicly stiff and perhaps even odd, and that their legal attempts to protect their rights were counter-productive to developing an aviation industry in the US.  There's also little doubt that Curtiss was a colorful and interesting personality, even if his personal ethics were a bit wanting.  But that's the Curtiss that would have been fun to learn about.  Instead of trying to present an objective history or biography and his many contributions to aviation, Shulman's addition is little more than a shrill and error-filled condemnation of the Wrights, seemingly taking it as a personal affront that they tried to profit from their labors.  There's little to learn from this book, if you can force yourself through it.
3724793
I am SO thankful contorters like Barton are being exposed.  And Chris Rodda has the new support of a very respected historian.  I heard a recent review of Barton on a podcast by Clay Jenkinson, one of the first winners of the nation's highest award in the humanities, the Charles Frankel Prize.  When commenting on the historical accuracy of the founding fathers, Jenkinson stated, "Well the worst is this fellow from Texas named David Barton, who has written a book about original intent in which he has gone through and falsely combed the founding fathers to get their most Christian sayings and compiled them in this book, out of context - to the exclusion of their broader way of seeing the world, and saying, see - they were all Christians and ... Jefferson was a Christian, and Madison was a Christian, and Franklin was a Christian, and do you know what?  He is just plain wrong and a fraud.  And he has been shown to be a fraud."  Jenkinson concludes by saying Barton's work "is false, malicious, and irresponsible and it has to be countered.  We have to tell the truth about history."  Thank you Chris Rodda for fighting for the truth.
2485530
When I read this book I was so disappointed at the author's attempt to paint Patriots as the bad guys!  She has written a "politically correct" story of the Revolutionary War.  Is there anyone out there who actually believes the British should have won, or retained control of the colonies?  When I pointed out to my son's teacher the not-so-subtle message in the book, she removed it from the classroom.  My advice:  READ THESE BOOKS BEFORE YOU BUY THEM.
2893939
Revisionist history at its finest. Yes, the Bible is falsely described as white, but that doesnt mean that Ashkenazi and Sephardic Hebrews are not authentic in their bloodline. Very selective research was done, trying to make another part of history appear in err to favor another. Pathetic, and a low blow.
Its worth mentioning that Dalton is not a Germanic name as the author states, and the Berling Conference he refers to is the Berlin Conference. He had enough time to rewrite history but not to check for typos. Dont waste your money. Instead, learn about the actual plight of the African people in tandem with the plight of the diaspora Jews.
1200722
When Dniken, and defenders of the theory of the ancient astronauts have talked about their beliefs that the ancient gods were aliens, Ok, as an atheist and physicist I think I can digest this.

But when we watch some of them on History Channel saying that the aliens were created by some kind of god too, oh come on, this is laughable to say the least.

To me, some of them(the dumb ones including Dniken) are trying to replace one empty faith(what means religion) by another one even worse.

Sincerely, I'm not going to waste my time with Dniken and all the others weird guys anymore.