Brion McClanahan

I'm having trouble putting my finger on why I struggled so much reading this short book. Its idea is a very important one—illustrate how far away we've gotten from the Constitution as ratified. Clearly our federal government is far larger and more powerful than our founders intended.

There were multiple times throughout the book where I found myself having to re-read sections. I don't think author Brion McClanahan is a bad writer; I just think he didn't go about presenting the material in a clear way. He quotes founders constantly, which is fine, but I think the book would have been better served if McClanahan had paraphrased a bit more, as the 18th century wording and context was sometimes difficult to grasp.

There were also multiple quotes that used the word "he" when it wasn't clear who "he" was. In most cases, I assumed the speaker was referring to himself, and maybe McClanahan, in providing the quote, used "he" instead. Here's an example:

"George Mason remarked that 'five states may make a treaty; ten senators—the representatives of five states—being two thirds of a quorum. These ten might come from the smallest states...His principal fear, however, was not that five, but that seen states—a bare majority—would make treaties to bind the Union.'"

So whose principal fear are we talking about? Mason, or the person Mason was talking to? This exact thing happens over and over again; making for oft-confusing reading.

Another parallel point the book tries to make is which current party's view of the Constitution is more accurate? Is it limiting, as Republicans espouse, or is it a living document as often suggested by Democrats? Clearly McClanahan is conservative, but when he offers examples of how presidents and politicians have overstepped the Constitution, he goes into little or no detail. Maybe that would have made the book too long or veered too far from the main subject, but I often found myself wondering how these people could have gotten away with these transgressions. (Although after eight years of the Obama administration, I can see how easy it is for an executive to do as he damn well pleases when the press helps and the "opposition" doesn't oppose with any strength.)

This subject, in the hands of a more gifted, organized writer, would have made for a much better, and more impactful, book.… (més)

The political agenda overwhelms the history. What might have been an informative and compelling look at some prominent figures in American history is essentially ruined by ideological bias. I found it very disappointing.

I was hoping for something that was more of a well rounded treatment of some of the people who helped shape this country instead of an ideology based whitewash that goes so far overboard in its effort to rehabilitate the names of these "real" American heroes (apparently tainted by politically correct "revisionists") that it swerves precariously close to the realm of fairy tale.

In fairness it does contain some good basic historical information, but it seesaws back and forth between providing useful historical information and engaging in obsessive (and tedious) musings of a famous person's "manliness", "ruggedness", "morals", "traditional values" and "independent spirit" and other things which in the author's estimation are exemplary examples of true American values and spirit. In doing so, it's full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

One career soldier's habit of recklessly disobeying orders (Geo. A. Custer) is the embodiment of what makes America great, while another soldier's reluctant compliance with orders he did not particularly like (Winfield Scott) make HIM the embodiment of what makes America great. While there is something to be said for both methods, the author's tendency to deal in absolutes means these positions must be seen as contradictory at best.

A few things that stuck with me:

In the forward the author states that The United States cannot rightfully be considered a nation of immigrants as many of the Founding Fathers were the 3rd or 4th generation of their respective families to be born in America. Later he maintains that "the United States was built on the backs of those who were willing to risk all on the open seas" including "those commoners who...took the chance to sail to the New World and start over." Were these people who took to the seas not immigrants?

Tesla "while not a Christian" was "very moral." The fact that morality and Christianity are not mutually inclusive seems to escape the author in more than just this one instance.

While George Armstrong Custer's glory in the Civil War (or the author's preferred term the War Between the States) is given plenty of space, Custer's most well known battle - the one that resulted in his death - is barely mentioned since it is the author's stated opinion that "no one actually knows what happened on that fateful day in June 1876 other than the bare facts." That is not entirely true as there is quite a bit that is known leading up to the battle if not the actual battle itself, including the testimonies of several Indian scouts of the 7th Calvary who did not participate in the battle.

In the author's traditional world women have no need for public office or working life outside the home since they, in their womanly glory, are the backbone of society. The book celebrates the belief that "Women should use their strength and intelligence to mold future generations by their actions at home". It also seems intent on reinforcing the notion that women are equal to men but should know their place.

The author portrays Stonewall Jackson as the embodiment of the Christian soldier but throughout his biographical information neglects to even mention Jackson's first name. (It's Thomas, Thomas Jonathan Jackson). Later, in essays praising Winfield Scott and General George Patton he mentions Jackson (who served under Scott and was admired by Patton) only as Thomas Jackson with no indication of who Jackson might be.

Perhaps the greatest example of willful blindness to all but his own agenda is shown in the way the author rants against modern society's tendency to qualify entertainers, musicians, sports figures and celebrities as heroes and figures of admiration. He does this in the Introduction of the book, later in the final Conclusion section at the end of the book, and even has a condensed version in the description provided on the back cover of the book. Yet, displayed prominently on the back cover, the front cover and the preliminary pages of the book are endorsements by Ted Nugent who is, primarily, a musician and entertainer! Even if it's just the publisher's doing it's still funny.

Making an unintentional joke even funnier, given Mr. Nugent's recent activities as a political spokesman and activist, is the inclusion in the final pages of a quote from `70s rock star Alice Cooper, "If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are."

Would I recommend this book? Well... if you have a Christian fundamentalist view of what constitutes "traditional values" and your vision of a real American runs heavy towards the John Wayne cliche then this is probably the history book for you. If you deviate from either of those positions to any great degree then you may want to give this particular book a pass.… (més)