Changes

:::::I really think from AP US History experience, that it is impossible to find a textbook that is free from liberal bias. The American Pageant slams McCarthy, Kaplan has a large section of personal opinion. I think, writing our own would be best. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]^{[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]} 19:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I really think from AP US History experience, that it is impossible to find a textbook that is free from liberal bias. The American Pageant slams McCarthy, Kaplan has a large section of personal opinion. I think, writing our own would be best. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]]^{[[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]]} 19:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

As very superficial, but broad based overviews that can serve to identify key areas of bias, the Politically Incorrect Guide by Dr. Thomas E. Woods has much noteworthy information.  He does go overboard in his portrayals of Wilson and FD Roosevelt, presenting a clear isolationist stance without any counterbalance, and the same is true in other areas (especially his anti-Federalist stances at the beginning of the book - and later on he even goes a bit too hard on LBJ), but other parts are fascinating.  In any case, it's a good place to start for info on some topics, especially  on the communist infiltration of the last century and the effect it has today.   

Some books identify a number of areas of bias in US history teaching.  The Politically Incorrect Guide by Dr. Thomas E. Woods only gives a cursory overview of US history, but it has much noteworthy information and points out the areas that are mistaught.  Woods does go overboard in his portrayals of Wilson and FD Roosevelt, presenting a clear isolationist stance without any counterbalance. The same is true in other areas (especially his anti-Federalist stances at the beginning of the book - and later on he even goes a bit too hard on LBJ), but other parts are fascinating.  In any case, it's a good place to start for info on some topics, especially  on the communist infiltration of the last century and the effect it has today.   

Other good starting  points from which more info can be gathered are the Wall St Journal's Presidential Leadership (some of the essays, especially those of the more "trashed" presidents who tried to keep the Union together through diplomacy or who opposed the League of Nations) and anything by Richard Brookhiser (he is uniquely Federalist and it seems to me that if we had gone that route we'd have had more government intervention at first, but not in a way that would have grown significantly as it did as a counter to some of the more imperialistic policies of the Jacksonians, etc).--[[User:Irpw|Irpw]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Other good starting  points from which more info can be gathered are the Wall St Journal's Presidential Leadership (some of the essays, especially those of the more "trashed" presidents who tried to keep the Union together through diplomacy or who opposed the League of Nations) and anything by Richard Brookhiser (he is uniquely Federalist and it seems to me that if we had gone that route we'd have had more government intervention at first, but unlike the imperialistic policies of the Jacksonians it would have been limited intervention and in the end, would have left us with a smaller government).--[[User:Irpw|Irpw]] 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)