Interesting, if a bit mainstream, overview of U.S. History
356369
Davis gives a highly readable account of U.S. History.  He covers an impressive amount of material for such a quick read.  This however limits the depth of the material.  Davis, an Editor at the publication with the largest circulation in the U.S. can't be expected to report anything more than the mainstream accounts of our history.  Those hoping for a liberal or progressive view will be sorely disappointed.  You might want to check out A Peoples History of the United States, by Zinn, although it has less coverage.
695486
Paul Johnson has written a 1,000-page book about various and sundry aspects of the years 1815-1830, years in which he rightly claims to find the origins of many aspects of the world as we know it today.  Johnson's chosen foci are certainly broad: he ranges from events in politics and law to music, science, and even opium use.  While almost every page is loaded with fascinating morsels of information that will certainly come in handy when you want to impress people at your next social function, Johnson's roving eye and pen can be disconcerting: he tends to shift topics very quickly and without warning.  Also, while the book claims to be about "world society," Johnson spends the largest part of his time talking about British society -- but he's found plenty of ways to range geographically from the "western" United States (like Kentucky) to China and Singapore.  Throughout, his prose is generally crisp and pleasant to read.

Overall, Johnson has given us what might be the ultimate in bedtime reading: a vast book that one can pick up, open nearly at random, and learn something interesting about the past but which retains significance today.
232783
Reading this from across the Atlantic ocean gave some interesting insights into the U.S. consumption and production of beer. It is rather slanted towards the beginning of the history, where it paints both broad and vivid pictures of the immigrant community and their roots.

The parts related to the prohibition seem a bit rushed, with some minor editing flaws. Which leads into a bit disjointed post war part. The book is packed with notes, bibliography and index (1/3 of kindle edition), and as such a good asset for the future.
717161
This is an interesting book that is easy to read and not at all academic in tone.  As stated in the introduction, this book was originally published (in a more condensed form than in this book) as a series of 13 articles for Fortune Magazine.  These articles were written in response to a request of a daughter of one of the editors of the magazine for something to counteract the "robber baron" depiction of American businessmen.  This book certainly does this, as it depicts American business history in terms of the inventiveness of Americans and how the inventions that they developed were turned into great businesses.

The book begins with pre-Revolutionary War America and goes up to the time of the books publication in 1974 (for the new and updated edition that this review is based on).  Since a period of over 200 years is covered in only 264 pages of text, the coverage of individual inventions and businesses is brief.  However, a  lot of interesting material is covered.  In addition to well known inventors and business men, such as Samuel Colt and Thomas Edison, the book provides a lot of information about much less well known men such as Fredric Tudor (who made a business of shipping ice from the ponds of New England to the tropics) and Dr. Wallace Carothers (who led the team that developed nylon for the DuPont company).

The book details the growth of the railroad, steel, electrical generation, oil and automobile industries (and many others), and the men who pioneered these businesses.  It also details the financial aspects of American businesses, particularly the impact of J. P. Morgan.  The end of the book gets a bit political, as the author is a staunch conservative who was at odds with much of the New Deal legislation.  Actually, I found his conservatism and anti-Keynesian position to be an interesting counter point to the Keynesian approach taken by most US textbooks, and while you may not agree with the author's views they are nonetheless interesting.
241883
This book is useful for quick references to lesser-known, yet significant events in American history.  For example, if one wants to know what the deal was between the US and Nicaragua or Grenada, one can take a quick look through chapter 21.
However, I write this review as a sort of sensible defense of the book.  I think that it does not necessarily bash the United States.  It does, as others have noted, point out our (we Americans) shameful moments when we did not live up to our own high-minded self-perceptions.  As the preeminent national power in the world, it is essential that the US take stock of its entire history that we should not be so arrogant and irresponsible with our power.  To dismiss this book as a polemic against the American way of life may fail to appreciate what this book has to offer.  To dismiss it as a Leftist screed is to bury one's head in the sand and ignore that American democracy does not ensure a just social outcome.  As no nation is perfect, as genocide has been carried out by nearly all nations at some time, so has the United States.
Contrary to some assertions, Zinn does not find that all white guys are bad.  There are many references in the book to those men and women who have championed the cause of justice and brotherhood.  They are as often white as American apple pie.  The more useful point is that "white guys" are no more saints than others have been throughout recorded history.  In fact, Zinn at one point is explicit about the score of humans sacrificed by the Aztecs (who consequently were not white).  So to suggest that Zinn is saying that all Caucasians are bad is to assume but one narrow point of reference.
Like others, I find that Zinn has his bias.  But what the heck, his is the counter to the bulk of history books out there that largely ignore America's unsavory and downright aggressive moments.  I would think that anyone who has been reading traditional history books should get a kick out of reading something so outrageous!  If people care anything for truth, they should take Zinn's book, than take a traditional (non-Zinn) text, and make some comparisons.  After reading the section on the Vietnam War (an unsavory moment to say the least) I wanted to get a hold of a copy of The Pentagon Papers to see for myself if Vietnam policy was as Zinn recorded it.  Nothing wrong with that is there?
At any rate, everyone has a bias no matter how many PhDs he has hanging on the bathroom wall.  To Zinn's credit, he is honest about it.
1378801
This book is an entertaining and informative look of some of the major fiascoes of American popular history. I have witnessed or at least heard about the majority of the mistakes displayed here. For example, I remember seeing the John Hancock Tower partially covered in plywood on childhood trips to Boston (although the book doesn't mention this, I believe that the surviving panes of glass went to Building #19, a locally famous salvage/overstock store here in the Boston area, for sale for the uses described by the authors). The authors do a good job in filling out the facts behind the fiascoes (I didn't realize that I wasn't the only one who couldn't stand Clippy). As a previous reviewer stated, the one problem that I did have with the book is a lack of a photo section, as items such as paper dresses, the Dodge LaFemme, the rockin' Tacoma Narrows Bridge & Flying Cars need to be seen. I also didn't care too much for the "receipe" section that ended each chapter. Despite this, I do recommend this book to be added to your own Dynamic File of Trivia.
168761
"The New York Times Disunion: A History of the Civil War" is a collection of opinion articles regarding the Civil War. It was a series put together by the New York Times that ran in the paper from 2011 to 2015. Editor Ted Widmer with Clay Risen and George Kalogerakis compiled the pieces to create this book. The format makes for accessible reading. The topics are interesting and uncomfortable relevant today. I had to remind myself that these are a mix of history and opinion but nonetheless, it is a way to learn about the Civil War from slightly different angles and not as covered topics. Each writer has their own style but it was still easy to move from one piece to another. Overall, this is a well done presentation with information that is both familiar and unfamiliar.
2432943
This analysis is quite a bit different from what I expected, due to my incomplete familiarity with the roots of Populism. I was expecting more emphasis on the American trends in the mid and late 19th century (mid-West farmers cooperatives, the Grange, unionism, "cross of gold," etc.), but author does say at one point that that is well covered already. His purpose is different, and therefore was very illuminating for me. He traces the roots of Populism from the Greeks onward, carefully describing the contributions of each step. Though there is some prescriptive suggestions for the future, most emphasis is on the tradition and how it differs from actual governance. So Jefferson and Vermonters are some of the main players? Interesting.

His analysis seems suitably painstaking, qualified, and comprehensive. Highly recommended.
1994353
Interesting insight into a little known segment of American history.
3603885
Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" makes it clear from the onset that the book's goal is to move away from the traditional telling of United States history from the perspective of the economic and political elite to the ordinary people whose stories are seldom ever retold or examined.  What emerges is a piece of history that is bold, unique, and a vast departure from the U.S. history curriculum that we have all waded through as students.  Unfortunately, it is the many shortcomings of Zinn's history that happen to derail what could be a seminal piece in American history literature, specifically its exclusive view of history -- in fact, it is a great irony of the book that it aims to steer away from the exclusive telling of American history through the oppressors and, instead, tells the history of American exclusively through the oppressed.  A somewhat tedious and formulaic style of presentation gives the book much weight behind some of Zinn's claims and arguments but it also makes the reading a bit of a drag, especially the oft repeated theme of evil, rich white men stomping vigorously over the saintly and helpless oppressed -- a theme that is by no means incorrect but a point that is easily enforced through a few hundred pages, let alone 700 or so.  Perhaps what I wish will come out of Zinn's splendid work of history is that it will give future historians more material to work with when holistically evaluating American history, in combination with the patriotic narrative we have all learned and the voice of the ordinary people whom Zinn sheds so much light upon.
3912618
The book is a good compliation of issues and events leading up to the Civil War, and during and after. However, if you are a Civil War buff or are a student of History, or a professional historian you might find the  book dull, because you probably already know it.  I would reccomend this  book to high school students, college freshman or anyone who feels their  knowledge of U.S. History lacking, (which unfortunatley is common in our  society.) I found my self skimming alot, already knowing the information.  The author gives a nice touch of primary source material by quoting some  appropriate words from someone from the era a chapter is discussing.  The  book is also nicely organized into questions that he answers, like  "What does the Constitution say about Slavery?"  I found some of  his conclusions strained however, for example "if there had been no  Lousiana Purchase there might not have been a Civil War."  It's that  kind of strained conclusions and sloppy logic that gives History a bad name  in our society.  Anyways, good book, informative, and well done.
2383059
Don't let the history title fool you.  This is not a difficult book.  A bright 5th grader writing a book report could handle it.  And it is short.  But, as the author points out in his introduction, it is the only history of its kind in print.  And, it is a useful reference.
For example, I found it useful to know that the American Humanist Association has its roots in the Unitarian Universalists who in turn have their roots in a single court decision made in Massachusetts about the then established Congregationalists church; while the American Ethical Union was formed by the son of a Rabbi trained as a Rabbi and initially was predominantly comprised of secular Jews.
He also presents some surprisingly strong evidenc for the influence of Epicurus and Democratis on Marx (Marx wrote his doctoral thesis on the differences between their philosophies), and for the influence of the Stoics on the Transcendentalists ( a group I wouldn't initally have considered part of the story of freethought in the U.S. at all).
The style can be too spare.  A bit more detail might have helped the subject come alive, and given more authority to the presentation.  But, how many people have time to read a 1,000 page history of Atheism in America?
The other weak part of the book is its discussion of the future of atheism and its analysis of why it hasn't gone further so far.  The logic here is shallow, and unlike the rest of the book (a recitation of facts where simplicity can make it easy to read), this section definitely suffers for its lack of a more nuanced analysis.
3579194
This small book is one in a large collection of similar books published by Oxford University Press.  The collection covers a wide range of topics, any or all of which should be of interest to any reader seeking to broaden his knowledge and understanding of the world.  I found this one --- the first in that series which I have read --- to be well researched and well written, interesting, and informative.  That's not to say, however, that I agree with everything the author has to say; but he certainly demonstrates the clear need for progressivism, or something much like it, toward the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century.  As a matter of fact: while reading this book, I sensed that if I had lived in those earlier times I, too, would have been a "Progressive." I like to think so.

The author, as he stated early in the book, is an acknowledged Progressive and proud of it; and this book clearly proves it.  In his view, it would seem that everything good that has been done in America has been done by Progressives while, on the contrary, everything done by non-Progressives, particularly "Conservatives" is either to be ignored or to be denigrated.  It must be kept in mind, however, that this book primarily addresses Progressivism from approximately the 1880s up to the early 1920s.  And, for that period of time, I would, for the most part, have to agree with him.  Some things simply had to change, and most of the changes made were definitely for the better.

Where the author and I part company is in those instances in the book where he makes a quantum leap from his primary period to more recent times wherein he continues this theme.  He doesn't seem to recognize that there is a considerable difference between the pre-1920s needs and the resulting "reforms" and today's conjured-up needs and the so-called "reforms or "changes" which have now been implemented or are proposed.  Neither does he seem to grasp the fact that whereas the much earlier Progressives always claimed that the people knew what was best; today's self-styled Progressives (aka Liberals, fascists, or whatever) proclaim that the people are too stupid to know what is best for them and that "reform" decisions must be made by the Liberal elitists --- i.e. them --- in the people's supposed best-interest.  He also seems to have a tendency to blame all the problems of today's America on Conservatism --- which he narrowly defines for his own purposes --- while in fact the vast majority of today's problems are in fact the result of Liberal leadership and Progressive programs --- e.g., the current state of the nation's economy; the housing bubble; the Federal Reserve, which earlier Progressives created, printing currency like it's going out of style; ObamaCare which was jammed down the throats of the American people; the energy crisis; the balance of payments deficit; activist judges; a Supreme Court which for the most part ignores the Constitution; and on and on.

Nevertheless, if one ignores the author's lapses of judgment and concentrates on the primary subject of his book: it is a great read and one which certainly aids in understanding much of today's political world.  Four stars.
190292
I found the book interesting, well written and moderately informative. It's arranged in six chapters that examine the legacies of Washington, Franklin, Abigail and John Adams, Hamilton, Burr, Jefferson and Madison in the establishment of our early republic.

'The Duel' is a fairly extensive analysis of the significance of Burr and Hamilton, culminating in their duel. There is a bit of amateur psychology applied to Alexander Hamilton's motivation for the duel.
'The Dinner' is a device to introduce collaboration between Jefferson and Madison in the 1790 compromise that established Hamilton's financial plan as a quid pro quo for a national capital close to Virginian interest on the Potomac river.
Most interesting and significant is 'The Silence' depicting the reluctance of the founding brothers to approach the slavery question. It does cover the Quaker's continuing objections.
'The Farewell' depicts Washington's significant role, culminating in his famous farewell address upon choosing not to run for a third term in 1799. The background points out that Washington lost more battles than he won. John Marshal wrote a definitive 'Life of Washington.' Interesting is the accusations, probably forged, of Ben Franklin Bache against Washington and then Jefferson.
'The Conspiracy' refers to A&J ganging up on poor Jefferson who misread Abigail's expression of sympathy on the death of his daughter in 1804. The section gauges the political influence of Abigail on John. It's ambivalent on whether she encouraged the Alien and Sedition Acts.
'The Friendship' refers to the friendly relationship between Adams and Jefferson, established during the revolution and constitutional convention, interrupted by political antipathy and resumed after retirement.  Both understood that they were writing for posterity as much as to each other. The correspondence is especially interesting concerning the Missouri question in 1819-20. The book shows Jefferson's ambivalence on both slavery and state's rights. It seems that he originated the ideas of nullification and right to secession so prominently carried on later by John Calhoun.
There's no chapter devoted to Franklin's role, but each episode credits his legacy with significant influence on the other founders.

Ellis thinks that our republican experiment has been a success. That's overly optimistic and premature.  It's not quite clear why Ellis changes the usual aphorism of founding fathers to brothers. The book does make the point of a brotherhood, but I think not strongly enough to justify the title. The title doesn't quite work as Burr's legacy doesn't entitle him to inclusion in any brotherhood. Abigail would likely appreciate a more feminist or humanitarian title.
4444036
Being a history nut, especially American history
1588916
Most accounts of the American Founding are filled with tales of prim and proper Puritans or unremarkable commercial men. Not so with Gouverneur Morris (1752-1816), a New York aristocrat whose ancestral roots in this country went back to Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam. His family owned much of the Bronx in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Morris had an astonishingly varied career. A friend of George Washington, Marquis de Lafayette, and Thomas Paine, Morris was the primary architect of the U.S. Constitution. He was a successful ladies' man, enjoying a succession of lovers before finally marrying in his late 50s. An expatriate in France during the French Revolution, he advised Louis XVI and wrote a constitution for that troubled nation. A senator from New York, he opposed the War of 1812 and advocated the secession of Northern states. Back in New York, while practicing law and tending to business interests, he found time to establish Manhattan's street grids and begin work on the Erie Canal. He started a family in his early 60s. Above all, he enjoyed life.
Observers make much of the fact that as a teenager Morris sustained severe burns to his right arm and later lost part of a leg in a carriage accident, but these are arguably the least interesting things about the man.
The one black mark on an otherwise admirable record was his anti-Catholicism. Brookhiser says little about it apart from arguing that Morris, a deist, wasn't as anti-Catholic as some of his Protestant colleagues. In other words, "Morris could have been worse," the author seems to say.
This is a quick and easy read. Brookhiser writes well. Still, it's not altogether clear why the author, a senior editor at the neoconservative National Review, would want to write about someone like Morris. It's not even clear that in the end the author finds him particularly appealing. Brookhiser's critical remarks about Edmund Burke and John Randolph of Roanoke, both of whom admittedly are more interesting figures, detract from the story and may turn off more conservative-minded readers.
Why is Morris important to us? America, especially New York, has changed considerably since Morris's time; some might say it has become decidedly less civilized. We live in an age of mass democracy, globalism, and consumerism where monetary values are held to be supreme, the sole measure of one's worth. The state of once-grand places like the Bronx, as Brookhiser shows in the concluding chapter, is a living symbol of this decline. If Morris was a rare enough individual in his own time, he would be inconceivable in ours. Yet, his rich life represents to modern Americans a model for a better way of living. Take heart from his cheerful fortitude, his aristocratic acceptance of life's vicissitudes, the sheer pleasure he got out of living according to God's plan. As Morris said: "To enjoy is to obey". Life is good.
3320743
Overall, it's interesting and reads well.  I'd relate this to an expanded Wikipedia page, which is not necessarily intended as an insult.  It's a great introduction and overview, but if you want in-depth analysis I'd keep looking.