The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

Arrived on time as described

Prof. T. E. Woods, Jr. has exposed some highly controversial points in American history. He shows how history books need to be carefully examined by right thinking Americans, and we need to stop allowing our kids to be taught by heavy, biased lefties and socialist bake sale haters of censorship, God, democracy, patriotism, Brooklyn, capitalism and California around L.A. Woods shows what happened to family values, revealing for the 1st time ever the hidden truth behind the liberal menace. The New Deal created great by revolutionaries like Thos. Jefferson and Dolly Madison to expose the wickedness of labor unions is here exposed--oiled up, objective and unvarnished.

All you need to do is read the one-star reviews to see why you should read this book. We get told by one reviewer that it's "inaccurate," but, SURPRISE, no actual examples. Another reviewer thinks he has an example of an error when he says Woods calls Jefferson a Republican, when he was a Democrat. Why I am even bothering to reply to such an idiotic misunderstanding I do not know, but Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, and his party was nearly always called the Republicans. No, it isn't the same Republican Party as today, but that WAS the name of Jefferson's party. Where do these doofuses come from? I like the criticism that Woods condemns Woodrow Wilson and his decision to enter WWI. Is there anyone around still defending that decision? Hilarious. I also like "Woods blames the Great Depression on liberal social programs." Woods actually blames the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression, and Hoover and FDR's interventionist policies for making it so long. So what that a zillion other scholars are now saying the same thing. To a liberal today, this is enough to make you an "extremist," regardless of the evidence you have in your favor or the credentials you can boast. I don't see any page on which Woods defends an abstract "right" to hold slaves. That would be a strange position for a libertarian like Woods to hold. But this is the kind of hysteria and irrationalism you can expect when you dare, like Woods, to ask serious and important questions. Even worse is that Woods is obviously quite prepared to ask and to answer these questions. He is a Harvard Ph.D. and holds his other degrees from Columbia. So instead of carefully answering Woods, he needs to be crushed, smeared, and destroyed. That is how these enemies of the truth operate. They hate their propaganda being exposed to the light. It seems to me you have three choices: you can passively accept the establishment version of American history, you can actively defend that establishment view, like a good robot, against anyone who dares to question it, or you can THINK FOR YOURSELF, and go wherever the evidence takes you. Woods has more than enough qualifications to guide you through. You can read about him at ThomasEWoods.com, though I don't know if he blogs anywhere.

As per the below, see Thomas Woods' response to "legitimate historian" David Greenberg (who doesn't have one-third of Woods' credentials or publications) at ThomasEWoods.com, where Woods has a whole page devoted to this book. Greenberg wants to peddle the same old nonsense about American history and can't believe the gall of someone who dissents (and who has obviously read much more widely than he has). Woods is an accomplished young scholar with impressive credentials. The very fact that certain self-described "legitimate historians" want to discourage you from reading his book is almost all you need to know about it. For what it's worth, I loved it.

I don't think anyone at Publishers Weekly actually read this book. Their review is dreadful. They claim that Woods is "utterly contemptuous of anything supported by Liberals or 'Intellectuals,'" that his view is "classically conservative," and that "diehard Republicans may find this book an inspiring corrective to supposedly Liberal-biased history texts.." How, then, do they explain the strongly anti-war arguments in this book? How many Republicans, diehard or otherwise, do you know who are anti-war these days? When I was in high school, I hated history. Now I love history, because I see how the ideas people hold are based, for better or worse, on their understanding of history. But so much of the common understanding of history is just plain wrong. When Publishers Weekly complains that this book is contrarian, what they mean is, Woods brings a certain point of view which differs from the *unbiased* history we have been taught all our lives. But that last part is completely false. *Every* historian brings a point of view, in the sense that historical data must be *interpreted* by *theories* of human nature. And the vast majority of history books have used *incorrect* theories and have been pro-statist. This book is one of the few exceptions. Woods often shows, not how the common understanding is off the mark, but completely upside down. Here is just one example (page 20): It is commonly believed that the Constitution's compromise to count each slave as 3/5 of a person resulted from Southerners (due to their racism) wanting slaves to count for nothing, and Northerners wanting slaves to count as a full person. But the truth is exactly the reverse! These counts were for the purpose of Congressional representation, and so the South wanted each slave to count as a *full* person, while the North wanted slaves to not count at all! How often have you heard that?? All in all, an excellent book, very easy to read, and full of surprises even for someone who thinks he or she knows a lot about US history.