A History of the American People

by Paul Johnson

The prize winning classic work on the post Civil War period which wrenched American society, now with a new introduction by the author.

"The creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures," begins Paul Johnson’s remarkable new American history. "No other national story holds such tremendous lessons, for the American people themselves and for the rest of mankind." Johnson’s history is a reinterpretation of American history from the first settlements to the Clinton administration. It covers every aspect of U.S. history—politics; business and economics; art, literature and science; society and customs; complex traditions and religious beliefs. The story is told in terms of the men and women who shaped and led the nation and the ordinary people who collectively created its unique character. Wherever possible, letters, diaries, and recorded conversations are used to ensure a sense of actuality. "The book has new and often trenchant things to say about every aspect and period of America’s past," says Johnson, "and I do not seek, as some historians do, to conceal my opinions."

This is an in-depth portrait of a great people, from their fragile origins through their struggles for independence and nationhood, their heroic efforts and sacrifices to deal with the 'organic sin’ of slavery and the preservation of the Union to its explosive economic growth and emergence as a world power and its sole superpower. Johnson discusses such contemporary topics as the politics of racism, education, Vietnam, the power of the press, political correctness, the growth of litigation, and the rising influence of women. He sees Americans as a problem-solving people and the story of America as "essentially one of difficulties being overcome by intelligence and skill, by faith and strength of purpose, by courage and persistence... Looking back on its past, and forward to its future, the auguries are that it will not disappoint humanity."

This challenging narrative and interpretation of American history by the author of many distinguished historical works is sometimes controversial and always provocative. Johnson’s views of individuals, events, themes, and issues are original, critical, and admiring, for he is, above all, a strong believer in the history and the destiny of the American people.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, American, Historical, Reference

1130 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

Paul Johnson works as a historian, journalist and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst School in Clitheroe, Lancashire and Magdalen College, Oxford, and first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. He has also written for leading newspapers and magazines in Britain, the US and Europe.

Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).

Reviews

[Phil · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an excellent general history of the US, one which accents the cultural development of this nation. It is an antidote to the puerile trash "People's History"(Howard Zinn), a book unfortunately used as a textbook in some school districts. Now that it seems that America's journey toward freedom is being abandoned in favor of the Marxist EuroTrash Megastate favored by the PC- Howard Zinn crowd Paul Johnson's history, a history that sees the tradition of freedom and enterprise as benefiting humanity and offering an unparalled opportunity to rise from poverty, is a book that tries to keep alive the unique dream that made this country stand out among the nations of the Earth. When you're huddling in your unheated, candle-lit shack waiting for your unemployment check and your Food Stamps to arrive in the regime of Clinton III you can read this book and remember what once was.
This book is extremely well written and Johnson creates a seamless narrative. He starts from the first settlements and quite a lot of the book focuses on the early development of culture and technology before the Revolutionary War. Technology and culture are accented in this book, as he makes the point that freedom and the dynamic expansion of the country led to a flowering of both. For a broad understanding of the development and growth of this country this is an excellent book to read.

[Ethan Rose · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is more of a right wing conservative christian fairytale than a history book. The idea that we got out of the great depression because Roosevelt followed a plan that Hoover put into place before leaving office should come with some corroboration and support. Also, I don't think pro choice advocates are equivalent to antebellum slavers. All histories are biased, I accept that, but some verification and cogent arguments would be appreciated. This was obviously written to sway the ignorant masses.

[Pete Sikora · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is proof that modern conservatives never have to actually justify their opinions to publish. A movement primer, the book shakes loose the bonds of fact and consistency to produce a narrative Kissinger describes on the book jacket as "majestic in its scope".

Most of Paul Johnson's opus is great-man theory of history. The adoring descriptions of historical giants are fun. There are 2 problems: 1. writing history like it's determined by handfuls of powerful actors ignores the rest of us millions of people, and 2. he makes shit up to doll up his favorites.

Calhoun gets Johnson's best great man BS. In just one paragraph (p.314 in the hardcover), Johnson describes Calhoun's family and background as "poor", despite holding 1,200 acres of land. Admittedly, large land holdings in the 18th century didn't guarantee wealth... yet just 3 sentences later, we learn that Calhoun's father was a tax collector, elections supervisor, and 30-year member of the State Legislature who owned 31 slaves. He died when Calhoun was 17, but the family wealth was sizable enough to finance a college education for the son.

As he moves into modern times, Johnson loses his mooring as internal self-contradictions and unsupported opinion become increasingly blatant. The right-wing Vietnam narrative emerges: if only we had taken it hard to the North Vietnamese.

This is a crucial update of the stab in the back for the modern conservative... if the liberal media and military-loathing protesters had let the American public fight the war like it should have been, then well, we would have won. Of course, it's impossible to deny a hypothetical historical situation, forcing us sensible types to argue that had the US invaded North Vietnam, then China would probably have intervened just like in Korea... and we would definitely have lost, and at a far higher cost.

Yet Johnson, reliable hack that he is, embraces the "Vietnam should have been won" thesis hard. But he manages to totally contradict himself just 50 pages later. On p. 879: "America should have... responded to aggression by occupying the North". Pages of stab in the back narrative follow. And then on p. 929, Johnson blithely admits Vietnam was un-winnable, writing on the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan that "they became involved in a Vietnam-type guerilla war which they could never win".

This kind of internal self-contradiction requires true movement-conservative grit. Us limp-wristed liberals would get all wimpy self-reflective if we wrote stuff like this. We aren't built like Johnson. We need sterner wills to be as un-self-conscious as He.

The only thing I really like about this book is its snooty English guy tone. Great men come from "good stock". Educated French phrases like pari pasu are tossed about. I don't even know what that means... heck, I'm probably spelling it wrong, but I likes.

There's also an eye-opening throwaway line: the average American drank 10 gallons of alcohol each year in the 19th century. If that's true, sheeeeeit.

Johnson's a decent writer. Keeping it relatively lively for a 1000 page history book is not easy. It's a kick save to 2 stars.

The end is a truly lame wind up. It's all babbling nonsense about contemporary America. Half-assed opinion where PC professors and the living hell of Affirmative Action emerge as the most important socio-political developments in America.

The jacket writer, who probably avoided reading the book, had to strain to avoid writing the obvious: this is history meant to indoctrinate and validate the conservative movement. The jacket quotes the author - Paul Johnson - explaining that he does not seek to "conceal my opinions".

No shit, buddy... your pseudo-intellectual, fact-free bullshit helps grease the wheel of the movement. In return, you get published and hyped. The bloggers call it "wingnut welfare"... and like all great welfare queens, Paul Johnson will never want for an audience and a job.

I don't know why I even read this stuff, except to learn the other side's assumptions. I should never have bought the damn thing, even if it was cheap used. Took me almost a year to slowly read... what a waste of time.

[Julie Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a long haul as I just picked it up now and then. And I will be honest I didn't finish it all because I didn't care about the more modern history. Been there, done that ... the advantage of having a substantial number of years under my belt.

What fascinated me, and kept me coming back, was Paul Johnson's obvious understanding of the American psyche. As he pointed out, the United States is a country with a definable beginning so we can trace the elements which went into making us who we are today. That in itself is something that never occurred to me before.

Time and again he pointed out seminal individuals or events and the way they define an aspect of the American character which I find myself completely agreeing with. It is fascinating to see how these things meld and build upon one another to create the people we are today.

Altogether fascinating.

[Sean Chick · Rating 1 out of 5]

Filled to the brim with inaccuracies, borrowed analysis, and right-wing rhetoric that clouds his interpretation of America after 1960. Johnson's book is mostly an insult to history, but it is better then the drivel he wrote about Napoleon.

[Gordon Howard · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book as a recommended "antidote" to A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn. It is certainly a very different book, and is better in many ways, but, like Zinn's book, it ultimately it is an interesting failure.

First the good points - Johnson is an excellent writer, and this is a very well-written long-winded narrative history. Johnson makes many points that I agree with, and provided brief explanations of some events that hit the spot. A good example of the latter is his discussion of the economic factors leading to the Great Depression, which in a few pages explained things that hundreds of other pages and many other books had left me scratching my head.

And now the criticisms:

1. The book has at least a few minor, but nagging errors. I noticed probably a dozen or so based upon my limited knowledge of history, so I'm sure there are others too. Examples include mis-identifying Zachary Taylor as a Democrat (Johnson gets it right in another part of the book), identifying a major San Francisco street as "Kierney," (it is "Kearney"), and stating that McGovern earned only 29.8% of the vote in the 1972 election (he earned almost 40%). These are minor quibbles - Johnson, for example, doesn't engage in the wholesale plagiarism of Stephen Ambrose, but they are quibbles and annoying nonetheless.

2. Johnson's political and moral conservatism leads him into significant errors of analysis. The most outrageous is his complete whitewashing of Richard Nixon, who is unrecognizable as he and his life events are described by Johnson. He all but accepts as fact that Nixon had the 1960 election stolen from him, a theory which is not much more plausible than "grassy knoll" theories of Kennedy's assassination (which Johnson categorically dismisses). He claims that Nixon lost the 1962 California Governor's race to Pat Brown, a weak candidate and "the worst governor in California history." That's news to anyone with any knowledge of California's history, as during Brown's 8 years as governor the state massively expanded its then-magnificent public university system, built massive and needed transportation infrastructure, and planned and built the California Water Project (all projects that Brown was not a passive observer of). And he pooh-poohs Watergate, claiming it was massively blown out of proportion by a media obsessed with eliminating Nixon almost to the point of advocating a coup.

Another major error of analysis is Johnson's claim that religion was meant to be entwined in American political life from the start (Christian religion, of course). He provides little factual basis for this claim, which is highly dubious at best.

3. Most importantly, Johnson's title is a lie. For the most part, this is not a history of the American people. It is a history of America's political and cultural elite. Johnson wastes many pages on personal vignettes of various American presidents, even their wives (although, interestingly, he ignores Nancy Reagan, duplicitous wife of one of his heroes). The mass of American people don't show up in this book.

For all of its faults, Howard Zinn's history is indeed one of "the people," which Zinn unfortunately perverts into his own far-left ideology. Johnson's book, despite its title, is not an answer to Zinn's book, but a more standard "big trends and famous people" history. The real "answer" to Howard Zinn's book remains to be written.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

British historian Paul Johnson makes clear in the preface to A History of the American People his motivation for writing this book: “This work is a labor of love.” Indeed, this love for America shines through the massive tome, and ought to put native-born Americans to shame.

Johnson presents a well-organized overview of American history, from 1580 to 1997. He covers most of the major events, although in such an undertaking some are bound to get overlooked (the most notable being the Japanese internment during World War 2). He delves into some detail, as well, providing rich and colorful anecdotes.

Take, for example, Patrick Henry, of “Give me liberty or give me death” fame. Henry, a “born ham actor” has Proposed to the burgesses that Virginia should raise a militia and be ready to do battle. What was Virginia waiting for? Massachusetts was fighting.

'Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have?' Then Henry got to his knees, in the posture of a manacled slave, intoning in a low but rising voice: ‘Is life so dear, our peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!’ He then bent to the earth with his hands still crossed, for a few seconds, and suddenly sprang to his feet, shouting, ‘Give me liberty!’ and flung wide his arms, paused, lowered his arms, clenched his right hand as if holding a dagger at his breast, and said in sepulchral tones: ‘Or give me death.’ He then beat his breast, with his hand holding the imaginary dagger.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember learning it that way in school.

Another refreshing aspect of the book was the lack of deference given to normally worshiped figures, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt ("FDR’s lies are innumerable and some of those on the record are important.") and John F. Kennedy (Kennedy biographer: "No national figure has ever so consistently and unashamedly used others to manufacture a personal reputation as a great thinker and scholar" and this gem: "the one respect in which Jack carried on his father’s traditions not merely dutifully but with genuine enthusiasm was in his pursuit, seduction and exploitation of women.").

Although Johnson covers the political history quite well, he does not neglect, as most general histories do, the cultural aspects of American history. We learn, for example, that Hollywood was a "stuck-up religious place, founded in 1887 by two Methodists, Horace and Daeida Wilcox, who hoped to turn it into a Bible-thumping district." The town actually banned liquor and movie houses when it incorporated in 1903. Hollywood ran out of water, though, and in 1910 incorporated into Los Angeles, and in 1913 the first movie, The Squaw Man, was filmed there. That same year, a group called Conscientious Citizens gathered 10,000 signature to ban movie-making in Los Angeles, claiming that the movies would bring immorality. "Were they so far wrong?" Johnson asks.

Johnson also gives religion its proper due in the country’s history, calling the Great Awakening "the proto-revolutionary event, the formative moment in American history, preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible." Fittingly, he closes the book lamenting that religion, through the banning of prayer in schools and displaying Christmas symbols in public places, is being driven from the public square. He is one of the few modern historians to recognize the salient role religion, specifically Christianity, played in the founding and development of America.

Johnson’s admiration for the American people makes this more than a dry history – it is a compelling and enjoyable narrative of, as he puts it, "the greatest of all human adventures." It is well worth the time and effort required to slog through it.

[Jack Hrkach · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the last year I have read two histories of the US, and they couldn't have been more different. Howard Zinn's People's History is a very liberal, socialist take on the country. Today I just finished Paul Johnson's book on the same subject. I tend toward the liberal view, and I know Johnson is a conservative, but I read his Birth of the Modern and found him a strong writer and good researcher. You'll note that I found it in my heart to give this book only two stars.

I should have been warned, for in his preface Johnson states, "I do not seek, as some historians do, to conceal my opinions." He certainly does not! His writing and research serve him well in the early history of America, but I began to notice a lack of sympathy almost immediately for the plight of the American Indian, and later on the awful conditions in which people toiled in the 19th century, particularly the forced immigrants, African slaves, but also of child labor, immigrants such as the Chinese (nary a mention of them!) who did the dirty work on railroads etc. By the time he got to the 20th century I realized that far from an objective study, which he also claimed in the preface to have engaged in, he out-parties the Tea Party! His heroes include Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon (!) and of course hero-in-chief Ronald Reagan. His villains are Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK and Bill Clinton. I write heroes and villains on purpose, as this history becomes a melodramatic rant on the values of business and conservatism and the evils of the "socialist" state.

I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I read, but I lasted it out, read to the end, and will probably never pick up a book by Paul Johnson again.

I want to add that I read this as a Kindle Book - for a fairly expensive title it was really poorly "kindled" if I may - misspellings, numbers particularly large ones (and there are many as he compares populations etc) a mess - periods for commas (and he was using American form, so I know they were mistakes), letters or numbers that looked like a the correct letter/number instead of the correct one. The only times I have found an abundance of these kinds of errors has been on free Kindle Books - more expected in those than in this one!

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is so long I paused between chapters to read other books. This has been the longest and most informative book I have ever read. Johnson knows how to tell a good story and depict colorful characters. He has a special affinity for dramatic incident, and his discussion of Andrew Jackson reads like a treatment for the greatest historical film never made.

After starting the book I gave it five stars, but upon finishing I demoted it to four. It seemed the more I knew about the period Johnson was writing about the less I agreed with him. My political consciousness begins with Watergate, and his characterization of it as a "witch hunt" against Nixon struck me as absurd. Johnson's defense of burglary as a White House policy was also not convincing.

As the book proceeds through the 1960s it become less like a history book and more like an extended editorial in National Review. I didn't mind his savaging of FDR and JFK--his opinions are backed by facts--but his summaries of other issues are occasionally light on facts--or facts relevant to more than one side of an issue.

On page 895 Johnson quotes from William Safire's book "Before the Fall,"

"As one powerful editor put it, 'There's got to be a bloodletting. We've got to make sure that nobody ever thinks of doing anything like this again.' The aim was to use the power of the press and TV to reverse the electoral verdict of 1972 which was felt to be, in some metaphorical sense, illegitimate..."

This quotation smelled a little fishy to me right away. It is the only quotation used as direct evidence of this supposed press war against Nixon.

I checked the quote for myself on Google Book Search. For starters, Johnson, combines two separate quotes into a single sentence--a minor failure of form. Unfortunately, the editor remains unidentified--but I trust Safire that the quote is accurate.

Johnson omits that when the editor said this he resembled, according to Safire, what Nixon aide John Haldmeman looked like when seeing protesters on the horizon. Safire's point is that both Nixon and the press were in a bad mood, while Johnson puts all the blame on the press.

It's not clear what the editor meant by "anything like this" but Johnson's spin is not convincing. More likely, based on Safire's account, the editor was objecting to Nixon's activities towards the press, which at the time included the wiretapping of four reporters and sending a detective to check up on another. If this is what the editor wanted to make sure never happened again I don't blame him.

Safire, much closer to Nixon and more balanced in his reporting, cites Nixon's hatred of the press as part of the problem, whereas Johnson claims a totally unjustified rage on the liberal press's part. All in all this is not the best use of a quotation--Safire actually undermines the theme for which Johnson uses it.

Johnson claims that the post-Brown vs Board of Education Affirmative Action imperium was so discriminatory and onerous that whites excluded by quotas were powerless. But he completely ignores the 1978 Bakke case, in which the Supreme Court decided in favor of Bakke and outlawed quotas in admissions to professional schools. As Johnson relates, affirmative action was institutionalized by a 1971 Supreme Court case--so quotas didn't stand unchallenged for very long, which isn't clear in Johnson's account.

Johnson cites President Reagan for being "...decisive and masterful in his adoption of the Strategic Defense Initiative..." (p.927) But Johnson never mentions that the system was never actually built. Development and testing of interceptor missiles have proceeded since the Reagan era, with mixed results. Interceptor missiles have been installed in Alaska while more are slated to be installed in Poland.

It's doubtful that the system Reagan envisioned could work. Even if it did it would've bankrupted the government. At best, SDI was a canny bluff, a useful Cold War bargaining chip, a sci fi boondoggle that was mostly, thankfully, abandoned when it served its purpose.

A very good book nonetheless.

[Carol Bakker · Rating 5 out of 5]

1/17/21 An astonishing volume. This overview of America touches not only on political or military history, but religious trends, architecture, philosophy, music, art, agriculture, technology, industry, entertainment, and language. I highly recommend it.

It was fun to read, fun to flag, fun to commonplace. [My latest strategy for reading my personal library is to find audio versions of books on my shelves. I listen while I walk and work, and flag a sentence which captures my interest.]

Johnson's language is vivid:
a masterly piece of humbug;
his frame was chipped and scarred by the marks of a violent frontier existence;
cola wars [Coke v. Pepsi] were essentially battles between rival churches;
Coolidge ~ a supreme exponent of masterly inactivity
oscilating between the convivial and the solitary


12/8/20 Bravo, Paul Johnson! My thoughts will be forthcoming...

[Huw Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

I married an American. How is that for a confession? Having done so I thought I had better learn a little more about her country's history and she recommended this book (which i had already secretly bought second hand so we now have two copies). It is long, very long and in places hard going. It does not run with dates and sequences of events and, often, his chosen characters' timelines overlap. I was seriously daunted by the number of pages but is well written, researched in depth and absorbed me from beginning to the end. Now we come to the "but".

I found this book increasingly disatisfying as I read it, for a curious reason. The early days of the USA I know nothing about and found it easy to watch his view of things unfolding with a lack of passion until the early twentieth century. About this I know rather more and I found his position increasingly difficult to tolerate. His overiding summary of the Twentieth Century is that the Republicans were right, if misunderstood, and the Democrats were all crooked and plain wrong. He even argues that Nixon did nothing wrong in the Watergate Scandal and that he only resigned due to pressure from the left wing press barons. Quite how he would interpret current events in the US with P45 I do not know, but I suspect he would be on the side of the "fake news" alt-right. Inevitably when writing any history there is interpretation from your own perspective; you only have to read Eric Hobsbawm to see that his entire timeline is seen through the prism of Socialism/Communism, even though Communism was not around for the majority of that time. Johnson's prism appears to be much more right wing creating an observer bias in its own right. By the time we add in my own observer bias, apparently being of a different political persuasion, it became very frustrating. About the only new thing I learned about American politics in the Twentieth Century was that corruption was endemic. This should not come as any surprise to a cynic like me but the scale of it was breathtaking.

Enjoy the writing, enjoy the history within the book; do not allow the presentation and perspective to put you off. It is fascinating. Has it helped me understand my wife any better? Time will tell.

[John Winterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Johnson gives a splendid, very readable overview of the history of the United States. Almost every page has a fact that is probably unknown even to most well-educated readers or a new way of looking at a more familiar episode.

Some of his assessments may be challenging to those unused to wading outside the historical mainstream, but they are generally sound and always thought-provoking.

He is at his best on the roles of religion and personal autonomy in American culture. He proves his thesis that they are at the root of American exceptionalism.

His is let down by occasional errors of fact, perhaps inevitable in a book as broad as this. His brief summary of the American Civil War is particularly disappointing. He is a great political historian and an interesting social historian, but no military historian.

He can also be a bit one-sided in his judgements. If he dislikes a President, he will say little good of him. If he likes him, he really likes him.

This is most apparent in his treatment of Lincoln where it is especially depressing that a historian prepared to question conventional wisdom chose not to depart from the traditional hagiography. Lincoln was indeed a great man, as Johnson shows very eloquently, but it would be worth at least asking if he was such a great President. After all, it is hardly great presiding to start a Civil War and then fight it badly. Of course, Lincoln is not solely to blame for either but he was the man in charge.

Such reservations aside, this is the perfect book for a Briton or European seeking to understand how and why America is different, or for an American prepared to take a little peek behind his country’s self-image.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book took on a lengthy period of history (nearly 400 years). Johnson recounted history with pithy insights into reasons for America's greatness and weaknesses. He wasn't afraid to call out our mistakes as well as laud our successes. Two of my favorite insights were seeing America's greatness in our religious zeal; and seeing our spirit to face our problems with resolute determination to overcome them, even when they were embarrassing and sometimes disgraceful (think American Indian relations, civil war, slavery, political corruption, prohibition, and gender equality). America is truly the greatest country for freedom, including the self-reflective kind.

As for presidents, I now love Calvin Coolidge for his determination not to pander to public opinion, but to accept the mandate given by the electorate, and then rule by principles and law. However, I now detest John F. Kennedy for purchasing the presidency, being a fraudulent scholar, and a serial philanderer.

Thank you Paul Johnson for helping me understand the power of capitalism in the hands of moral, religious people. May we ever be a godly, free nation who serves and loves others.

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I listened to this 1,100+-page book on Overdrive. Over 48 hours long, and due in two weeks, so I sped it up a little and made it through. What a fascinating overview of the history of the United States, written by a British historian (who loves America) in 1997. I especially loved his quick biographies on every single US president and many other noteworthy Americans. Johnson was very honest in his writing and pointed out the good and bad of people and events in a factual (not biased or emotional) manner. This would be a great replacement textbook for many of the revisionist history books in today’s schools.

Quotes:
“This book is dedicated to the people of America--strong, outspoken, intense in their convictions, sometimes wrong-headed but always generous and brave, with a passion for justice no nation has ever matched.”

“The whole stress of Washington’s presidency, underlined by his farewell, was on the absolute necessity to obey the Constitution. As he said on many occasions, he did not seek or want any more power than the Constitution gave him; but, when needful, he did not want any less either. It should be obeyed in letter and spirit. America was the first major country to adopt a written constitution. That Constitution has survived, where so many imitations all over the world have failed, not only because it was democratically constructed and freely adopted by the people, but precisely because it has been obeyed—by both government and people.”

“Lincoln could easily have used the excuse of Seward’s incapacity to avoid consulting him at all. But that was not his way. He invariably did the right thing, however easily it might be avoided. Of how many other great men can that be said?”

[Eric Morse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Johnson’s ‘History of the American People’ is, as the author would have it, a salute to a people that he loves. It is a great work of history that only a true admirer of Americans could produce. And any lover of the American spirit will enjoy this book and hold onto its ideas as a central reference.

This is not to suggest that Johnson’s preconceived notions of Americans hinder the survey in any way, but rather that they allow for a more engaged and therefore engaging narrative. Only someone who truly loves his subject matter can delve into the thoughts and actions of that subject as freely as Johnson does in this book. The result is a thorough and insightful history. To use a quote from the text: "A book upon politics, morals or religion, containing no party or sectarian views, will be apt to contain no distinctive views of any kind, and will be likely to leave the mind in a state of doubt and skepticism, much more to be deplored than any party of sectarian bias."

Being a book about the American people, Johnson dwells on the most prominent of those people, those being American statesmen and especially American presidents. This is somewhat ironic because, of all the countries in the world, America is perhaps the least reliant on and most disdainful of its leaders.

But there are many good reasons for this tack. To begin, the author is a British citizen and so will have a natural inclination to view a country’s characteristics through its leaders, royal or otherwise. Any foreigner is obliged to view a country’s people through its ambassadors, and that is especially true for one in a politically kindred nation like the U.K. The effect is to see the people as would an outsider, a faithful companion.

It is also true that the United States has bred some of the greatest figures in national politics, as Johnson points out, from the Founders to the very present. As such, it is essential for any history to focus on their lives and accomplishments. Though Johnson does not make the case, one could argue that the American presidents comprise the greatest and most competent leaders of any country in all of history.

And finally, if there is a country in which its political figures best represent the public at large, it is the United States. It is perhaps the very fact that America’s leaders have always been elected by the people that make her presidents so outstanding and capable, and so describing those leaders seems to be a valid and effective way to describe the people.

Granted, there is much more to the American people than the lives and accomplishments of their presidents. In the late 20th century, especially, it could be said, there has been a growing disconnect between America’s leaders and her people. Johnson shows this in some ways, and yet still depends on the stories of the presidents to convey the story (the assassination of Kennedy, the Nixon Watergate scandal, and the Clinton scandals being the prominent examples). In these sections, it seems as though the author sacrifices a view of the American people for one of some rather un-American events and personalities.

Despite the predominant focus, however, Johnson’s vantage is powerful and comprehensive. The variety of information and the kind of topics covered is quite astounding. The reader learns of every major thread in the American fabric, from the Puritan and plantation foundations to the struggles with Indians and African slaves; from the Great Awakening to Manifest Destiny; from the war between the states to the rise of the central government and the Welfare State; from the robber barons to the automobile; and from jazz to the Golden Age of Hollywood.

If there is a single omission in this sprawling document of Americana, it is that of baseball, which is only mentioned twice in passing. All of sport is rather overlooked which is regrettable, and this is especially true for baseball, whose stories and themes are undeniably entwined with the American spirit. I would tend to agree with Barzun that “Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball.” At least it would be useful to know why presidents throw out the first pitch of notable games.

All in all, this is a phenomenal work and should be embraced by all Americans and anyone who loves them.

[Benjamin Clow · Rating 5 out of 5]

British raconteur, journalist, historian, right-winger Paul Johnson takes his legendary hot-takes and uncompromising approach to America with a 1000 paged long epic, specifically designed I feel, as an alternative to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. (I'm struck by the fact that Zinn, the complete opposite to Johnson, graciously reviewed the book and allowed his quote to appear on the back cover. Johnson adheres to the great man theory of history, and rather than focusing on American People, as the title says, rather focuses on the big movements, and big names. He only really talks about the "average American" when discussing statistics. That being said, I do enjoy the large scale approach to history, by the end of the book he pretty much just jumps from Presidential term to Presidential term, and it becomes a History of the Government. And it's Johnson's unique perspectives that are refreshing here: Kennedy is stripped down as a Mafia style family member, propped up by his corrupt father and pragmatic overstepping media. Nixon is described compassionately without being whitewashed, with Watergate being described within the context of on-going Presidential Espionage and corruption which existed since the 1930's. The liberal media, in a moment of horrific selective morality, knew about and suppressed in regards to Democrat favourites such as FDR and JFK.
Politics aside, this is a great read, and although it's a big read, it's best read in the shortest amount of time as possible, jump in quick, and get a feel to the themes and figures that Johnson describes with such energy and wit. I particuarly appreciated how he described the on-going unrest leading to the Civil War.

[Alexander Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

2nd reading 2026

This book is a very well written overview of American history. He avoids the modern fad of overlooking all the good and capitalizing on anything evil that can found or invented. Yet he doesn’t sugar coat over the foibles, sins, and inconstancies that also make up our history. Like any history book you’ll find things you don’t agree with, but I have found Paul Johnson a reliable, fascinating, and readable narrator of our national story.

[Evan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is pretty solid when it comes to history before 1900. But the author goes on a huge conservative tirade when dealing with the 20th century. Fair and balanced? I think not...

[William Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best American history I have read, and written by a Brit! I loved this book.

[Daniel Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Johnson's aim with this book is ambitious: to condense 400 years of American history into 1,200 pages.

Overall, he does this well. He chooses importance as his organizing principle. As a result, they have extracted the section on the Civil War into its own book. And Alexander Hamilton gets about an equal amount of pages as Franklin and Jefferson.

I noticed a couple of omissions. First, Johnson omits the Spanish Flu. I feel this needed to be there as the Roaring Forties arose not only from the aftermath of the Great Depression, but a world bouncing forward after the pandemic.

Second, Johnson does not mention gun ownership. Given the importance of this issue politically and the consequences on society, I felt it deserved a decent discussion.

One other thing that bothered me was Johnson also made the mistake of attributing economic success or failure to the president in power. Why this is a problem is that you can find the foundations of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis in Reagan's presidency.

Despite these criticisms, and thus the reason I've rated the book 4 stars, it's easy to read and get through despite its daunting size.

America was the global superpower of the twentieth century and this book is for anyone who wants to follow a concise but comprehensive telling of how all the parts of its story fit together.

[Mark Stacy II · Rating 5 out of 5]

At 976 pages, this colossal work by Paul Johnson was my toughest reading challenge yet. You will not find a more thorough, balanced, well researched book on American history. It was a pleasure to read.

[J. Dunn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed his “Birth of the Modern” book, about world history 1815-1830, and how that time and the personalities who made it were pivotal in the the birth of the modern world as we know it, so I thought I would check out his take on US history. I knew from the previous book that he was conservative, and had his biases(pro free-market, pro religion, pro-individual) but that was fine with me… I liked that he was opinionated and I liked getting a good devil’s advocate argument for the other side from what seemed to be a pretty honest broker.

And that held up for most of this book. He made a great case for why those values were integral in making America a great nation, and he told the story up to about FDR with balance and verve.

Post New-Deal though, it just turns into a bitter screed, and loses all sense of balance. FDR and Kennedy were corrupt charlatans(sure, they definitely had their major flaws, but that is all he looked at), Vietnam would have worked if only we had been willing to wage total war(probably would have, but that doesn’t make that a good idea), Nixon got a raw deal and Watergate was nothing but a witch-hunt, as was Iran Contra. Political correctness and affirmative action were creeping authoritarianism as opposed to well-meaning and ultimately pretty insignificant efforts to continue down the road of the civil rights movement that went a bit overboard. Moral equivocation of the anti-abortion movement with the anti-slavery movement. Praise for The Bell Curve, and breezy dismissal of the likes of C. Wright Mills, David Riesman, etc. And so on.

I realize he doesn’t like a lot of the postwar trends in the US and Europe, but he also makes no effort to engage the historical forces that caused and shaped them, or the good that came out of them(he spends very little time on the civil rights movement, for example.) He does things like applauding the US for engaging the world and taking its rightful place as a superpower postwar, and then turning around and criticizing the inevitable expansion of the bureaucracy that resulted from that, without connecting the one to the other. Or like saying that things like the EPA and the Clean Air act were probably necessary and desireable, even though they slowed the economy, but then praising Reagan’s economic genius in rolling them back. Feh. He just fails to engage the complexities and ambiguities and compromises that are a necessary feature of the postmodern, globalized world. He’s very good at writing history about the times when WASPS ruled the earth, before everything got complicated by race, gender, sexual orientation, colonialism, and on down the line. He acts like these are invented abstractions, as opposed to social and political realities and changes that were being grappled with in very nasty and difficult ways throughout the latter 2/3rds of the 20th century.

So, disappointing in the end. But, if you want a good lively, opinionated, sympathetic history of the US up to about 1929, you can’t go wrong with reading the first 3/4 of this. Even better, read it together with A People’s History of the United States, and compare/contrast. You should get most of the story between the two of them.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book and a must read! I'd recommend A History of the American People be included in our college curriculum (ignoring the problem that it is too long to read through in a semester). In my view, it's the American History text book of choice. Each page is a pleasure to read and deserves some contemplation. I'm going to have to read it again -even slower.

Four hundred years of history is a lot material to cover, but all in all the detail and perspective Paul Johnson provides is clear and often profound. Some of my views were challenged and I learned throughout. This tome is no mere superficial survey of American History. While the author has his biases - fore most includes his unapologetic love for America - he clearly delineates his own views to the readers attention and provides support for them. You can take his view or leave it and still benefit. Also his British point of view is really interesting; for example his indictment of the abilities of the British government at the time of the Revolution is honest and painful, answered some of the questions I had about how Britain and the Colonies came to armed conflict. Then there are the fascinating personal anecdotes from knowing key people like Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Here the reader benefits from the author's experience and age.

Criticism of the book lies on two fronts. The first: Johnson is labeled a "conservative" which immediately shuts the minds of many in our Universities off; however if you sift through the noise of negative reviews - I do not recommend this - you will find that that thoughtful self identified liberals do recommend his book.

The second area of criticism lies in the incomplete handling of the the period 1960 - 1997. I tend to agree, and I found this part incomplete; however, this portion of the text does include a fascinating analysis of the rise of pop culture and diminishing of the statesman. So while there are omissions, there are keen insights into the events of the last 40 years.

Throughout the book, Johnson takes a hard look at our presidents. Some fare better then they have in other accounts (e.g. Harding) and some fare worse (e.g. John F. Kennedy and George H. Bush). At times this analysis very painful to hear.

I would really like to see Johnson complete and addendum covering 1997 to 2010 but alas this may be too close for a clear historical view.

The paperback is out, and reasonably priced this book needs to be on your shelf and more importantly under your nose. It's the handbook of American History written by a British subject.

[Tracy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Originally a gift of my friend Albert Dominguez, I can't say Paul Johnson's A History of the American People originally would crossed my sights had he not given it to me for Christmas one year; I had not heard of Johnson, previously, and really my exposure in those terms was mostly limited to general history texts from high school and college.

However, my reading of this book was revelatory. It puts those other, 'official' texts to shame. From the earliest origins of what came to be the nascent American Republic through the Clinton Administration in the 1990's, Johnson's History is absolutely comprehensive and eye-opening. Fully 10% of the book's 1100 pages of minute print consist of exhaustive footnoting and references that of themselves are worthy of reading and following up with. In a world and especially in a subject area that is rife with the infection of political correctness, Johnson unapologetically lays out ALL the details in engaging prose full not only of the facts of our history but also interesting anecdotal evidence and details. And everything - EVERYTHING - is fully supported by generous historical research provided as previously noted.

While this was a LONG read - I was several months in the effort, highlighting and footnoting for myself important points and details - it was highly enjoyable and worth every moment. Since then, I have positively recommended this book to everyone I know who is interested in reading in the topic of U.S. history. And someday soon, I will have pick up another copy of this work, so that I can read A History again and update this review with further details; you see, much as happened for me, I in turn gifted this massive volume to an history teacher associate of mine in the summer of 2005.

[Lili P · Rating 3 out of 5]

For a school textbook, this was hard to read and get information out of.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the great things about this book is that Paul Johnson, being British, is an outsider looking in. He did not learn American history growing up or even in his college studies, so many of the preconceptions most historians of American history have are absent. His outsider status also allows him to point out a lot of the ugly truths we have to face about our country (e.g. the social security and debt problems).

He focuses largely on presidents in the post Revolutionary War part of the book, and his view of each president is fascinating. Many times he paints a negative picture of presidents that are revered in public opinion polls (FDR and Kennedy) and gives a positive defense of some that have gotten a bad rap.

His account of the Great Depression era was scary as it sounded like he was writing about the last decade of the American economy.

Great book.

[Rob · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm biased on this, because Johnson is my favorite historian, but I thought this was a fantastic review of American history. It isn't strictly chronological, as Johnson deals with certain social issues independently, which allows for a better understanding of some of the social, political and cultural issues that have shaped America. He ends with a diatribe against political correctness and an indictment of judicial activism that are well-considered and persuasive. As with most of his stuff, the writing is crisp and often humorous. Great read (or, in this case, listen).

[Steven P.R. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A History of the American People is a well written and detailed book that covers the history of the United States. Paul Johnson's writing is absorbing, and he explains history as if he were telling you a story. He also examines the major players in history, and does what should be necessary for any book on history: explain the causal events so that they make sense to the reader and do not seem like random events that happened spontaneously.

This is a very good book if you want to brush-up on your knowledge of history and want to get some insight in to historical events.

[Kevin Keating · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had never heard of Paul Johnson before. But this history, read by Nita ___ was really very good. Some wit and humor that reminded me of authors from the old days. Very good writing. Only makes it up to 1998 but it was still worth it. Long book but very good read. Actually appears to be written from a mildly conservative perspective, which is refreshing.

[Dietrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People is a big ambitious book I enjoyed reading. Not all scholars have Johnson’s knack for producing works that can appeal to the educated lay reader. To focus momentarily on just one of his many talents, Johnson’s short and lively biographical sketches are often fascinating, and have stimulated many readers into further historiographical excursions. He covers a broad range of figures, primarily politicians, but also creative practical geniuses and several artists and literary types. Of course, Johnson is a politically conservative scholar, and some readers, even some who generally admire this book, take issue with Johnson for politicizing history. However, in my experience, most history writing has a particular political slant, understandably so, and at least Johnson is up front about his. The notion of “objective” history, like “objective” news reporting, is problematic. The consumer in both instances is best advised to sample a variety of different sources. So, Johnson’s text is well worth reading, regardless of one’s political persuasion. Because conservatives are underrepresented in academia, AHOTAP will provide politically liberal readers food for thought with a scholarly account of the American past they might never have seen articulated before. This might conceivably change a few preconceptions. And even if one disagrees violently with Johnson on just about everything even after reading his book, his sustained attack on so much “conventional wisdom” might at the very least spur one to refine his/her historical arguments by seeking out specific scholarly works with which to contest some of Johnson’s claims. Conservative readers will obviously feel more “at home” here than their liberal counterparts, and will find this book a useful resource. They too will be given much to think about, not least because Johnson is his own man, and has provided a “conservative” interpretation of America that is difficult to pigeonhole.

One of Johnson’s great themes is the failure/undesirability of social engineering. He weaves it into his account from the beginning, pointing out the failure of top-down planning schemes in the English colonies, and arguing that the salutary neglect from England ensured that the colonies were more dynamic and vital than the colonies of other Old World powers, where designs/straitjackets from on high were more thoroughly and “successfully” implemented. Prohibition in the early 20th century was a spectacular failure of social engineering that well illustrated what Johnson, following Popper, calls “the law of unintended effect.” Of course, most of Johnson’s critique of social engineering deals with liberal policies. He spends much time arguing that the depression was prolonged precisely by attempts to intervene in the business cycle rather than letting it run its course, and he is skeptical of Keynesianism generally. He also is suspicious of much governmental business regulation, and gives historical examples of how it has had many unintended and unwanted effects, including actually hurting constituencies the regulation was ostensibly supposed to protect. He notes that the welfare state has spiraled out of control financially (and suggests that keeping down inflation is the best form of social security), and argues that it has subsidized various forms of unhealthy behavior. He also laments the influence of Gunnar Myrdal in terms of judicial activism on behalf of affirmative action/social justice. Myrdal’s legacy, says Johnson has been the undermining of the rule of law, an undercutting of the notion of equality before the law, and a failure of the judiciary to meet the general social aims for which its activism was launched and for which so much else has been sacrificed. If anything, says Johnson, judicial activism has simply created new injustices. As should be apparent by his historical critique of liberal social engineering, Johnson emerges as a defender of capitalism, limited government, and judicial restraint.

AHOTAP is also a book very appreciative of religion and its role in American history and American life. The Great Awakening brought the colonists together, providing unity without which the notion of independence would be inconceivable. The Great Awakening also championed the “inner light” and evinced millennial yearnings, and ultimately set the stage for the general acceptance of Jefferson’s valorization of individual rights and popular sovereignty, both rooted in the divine plan and with the American Revolution as the eschatological occurrence. Johnson thus argues that the revolution was a religious event, and that our politics is historically rooted in a moral and religious consensus (a rather ecumenical consensus, of course, not limited to Protestants or even Christians generally.) Johnson argues that until fairly recently, it was universally understood and acknowledged that religion was essential for maintaining the Republic, and he offers a historical understanding of the religious aspects of the first amendment that differs from much recent jurisprudence. Johnson also links flourishing religion with flourishing commercial endeavor in America, and further sees the Second Great Awakening as instrumental in leading to the ultimate eradication of the sin of slavery. (Johnson also sees parallels between the religiously inspired abolitionists and the pro-life movement.) Johnson laments the rise in recent decades of an intellectual stance in America that treats religion as the enemy of political freedom, and he worries that it threatens the moral and religious consensus at the foundation of our politics. He also thinks today’s anti-religiosity is precisely the wrong message given the increasing societal and personal decay in America that religion could help counteract. Johnson also discusses the secularization/liberalization of mainline Protestantism, and contrasts the precipitously declining membership of mainline denominations with the relative health of Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism.

AHOTAP also stresses America as a force for good in the world, most importantly during and after WWII. Defeating the Nazis, containing communism, helping Europe get back on its feet with the Marshall plan, the staggering amount of foreign aid we have supplied generally, the SDI push that helped facilitate the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is much that America can be proud about, thinks Johnson. A related theme Johnson emphasizes is the importance of a strong executive branch to allow for effective and timely decisions, and strong Presidents to make those decisions and to boost national morale.

Because Johnson’s book is so vast in scope, and because much of what he has to say is controversial, any reader is bound to disagree with at least some of Johnson’s arguments. Rather than chiming in with my own likes and dislikes, I wish instead to draw attention to several inner tensions involved in Johnson’s outlook. For one, Johnson wants to limit the scope, size, and profligacy of the State at home, yet simultaneously wishes America to remain an active and benevolent superpower. On some level, these agendas seem at cross-purposes. And given Johnson’s celebration of America as a supporter of freedom on the world stage, it also would have been interesting to see Johnson take a clearer position about what he thinks of the exportation of democracy abroad, especially given that he grounds American politics in an Anglo-Protestant culture. At any rate, there is a tension between even the vaguely defined hope that Johnson thinks America offers the world, and the specific historical conditions that Johnson thinks made America distinctive in the first place.

Another tension in Johnson’s account involves the acceptance of high-minded national ideals on one hand, and a “leave well enough alone” opposition to top down reform on the other. One very distinctive aspect of Johnson’s history is that he combines a Northern view of the Civil War with a Southern view of reconstruction. Johnson valorizes Lincoln, the great champion of Union and Emancipator of slaves, and denies that Lincoln somehow derailed the Constitution. Johnson here celebrates a strong and righteous America led by a strong and righteous Executive. However, Johnson immediately goes on the offensive against Congressional reconstruction, viewing it in part as misguided idealism, and in part as vindictive, unconstitutional and self-serving. Johnson thinks Lincoln would never have gone along with it, expresses some sympathy with the defeated South, and thinks that Congressional reconstruction ensured that the South treated blacks worse than they otherwise would have. (Admittedly, thinks Johnson, they would have been treated poorly in any event.) In effect, says Johnson, the North fought for a righteous cause in the Civil War, but what to do for Blacks in the aftermath of the war was not clear-cut at all, and certainly arm-twisting and bullying states and white citizens in an attempt somehow to “move forward” was wrong and counterproductive. On the face of it, this is a rather abrupt shift in his analysis. One national sin is immediately replaced by another. Johnson is trying to steer between the Scylla of vilifying Lincoln and (by extension) the post 1865 Union, and the Charybdis of sanctioning liberal social engineering on behalf of a nation devoted to a proposition. This attempted feat is fraught with difficulties, especially when Johnson, like Lincoln, embraces the importance of the Declaration. For instance, Johnson unsurprisingly chooses not to valorize the mid-20th century civil rights movement, which has been used to give a halo of legitimacy to judicial activism and affirmative action. He does not denigrate it, as he does with Congressional reconstruction, but he downplays it, mentioning it as if in passing. The Civil Rights movement for Johnson was ultimately a step along the road leading to pernicious social engineering. Fair enough. But if we are as Johnson claims, a nation animated by ideals articulated in the Declaration, it is difficult to treat MLK (and others) as merely a step along that road. By his own understanding of American idealism, Johnson might well lionize much of the civil rights movement, but given his opposition to the liberal judicial activists, Johnson feels this is clearly the wrong thing to do. Such is the inherent tension brought about by his various commitments.

This is a well-written book that provides much to ponder on.