Scan barcode
sld1's review against another edition
1.0
I had heard some negative things about David Barton's writing, but I decided to read through it with an open mind. What I discovered really disappointed me. It was even worse than I had heard.
1. Before even discussing the content, I will say that the structure is awful. 138 pages with no clear divisions, like one long disjointed article. It's just one paragraph after another, and it doesn't always follow a clear chronological or topical progression.
2. The overall premise. I incorrectly assumed by the cover, introduction, and a paragraph on the back that this book would be about African-American political involvement. As it says on the back, "'Setting the Record Straight' reintroduces this generation to the forgotten heroes and untold stories from our rich African American political history." While it does include some references to actual African American leaders, that's not its main focus. By "forgotten heroes," Barton means good Republicans who helped civil rights, and by "untold stories," Barton means explaining the terrible history of the Democratic party. In essence, the entire premise is Republicans v. Democrats, not African American history.
3. Yes, Barton includes a lot of facts and backs them up with sources. However, he cherry-picks the facts and omits other facts that might be contrary to his views. I agree that a lot of wrong was done by Democrats in the Civil War era/Reconstruction era, and I'm not even addressing his conclusion. I'm simply disappointed with his unethical way of getting to that final point. If you don't fact check everything he says, most of it sounds really good, but really isn't. For example:
a. On page 66, speaking of African Americans being elected to political offices, Barton says, "Significantly, the first three black U.S. Senators--Revels, Bruce, and Brooke--were all Republicans. Carol Moseley-Braun (of Illinois) was the fourth black American to serve in the U.S. Senate, but only the first Democrat; and Barack Obama (also from Illinois) was only the second black Democratic U.S. Senator)." This statement is completely accurate. However, the way that statement is written makes it sound like the Democrats are way behind Republicans historically in terms of racial diversity amongst U.S. senators. At the time of the writing of this book, only five African-Americans had been elected as a U.S. senator--three Republicans and two Democrats. Seeing that in perspective diminishes the impact that Barton was intending. In addition, the current total of African-Americans who have served as U.S. senator is nine--four Republicans and five Democrats. Here's how Barton would word that if he were a Democrat: "In the past 130 years, Republicans have only had two African-Americans serve as U.S. senator. Not only has the Democrat party had five African-Americans serve as U.S. senator in the last 20 years, but also one of those is the only female African-American senator and another went on to become the first African-American president of the United States." That statement would also be correct, but it improperly skews the perception of true historical reality.
b. On pages 88-89, Barton points out that Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 was a reinstatement of the education desegregation that Republicans had fought for back in 1875. He then continues to hit Democrats by speaking of the Southern Democrat backlash against the Supreme Court's decision. Again, Barton makes it seem as if Republicans were solely responsible for the desegregation of education and that Democrats were the only ones opposed to it. Perhaps he should have also mentioned that the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was a unanimous 9-0 decision by six Democrat, two Republican (one, Warren, was Chief Justice), and one Independent justices.
c. Around pages 120-127, Barton writes on the civil rights acts in the late 50s through the 60s. He speaks glowingly of President Eisenhower's contributions to civil rights acts while diminishing any reference to the civil rights views of Democrat Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. He indicates that all of the civil rights acts were only passed because of the strong support of Republicans in spite of the fierce opposition by Democrats. He points out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a Republican support rate that was nearly 20% higher than the Democrat support rate. This statistic clearly shows Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right? Well, let's take a look at two different ways to look at the numbers for support of the Civil Rights Act. First, you can look at it by party voting. In the Senate, the overall vote was 73-27. Democrats voted 46-21 (69% in favor), and Republicans voted 27-6 (82% in favor). In the House, the overall vote was 289-126. Democrats voted 153-91 (63% in favor), and Republicans voted 136-35 (80% in favor). According to this way of looking at the numbers, this confirms Barton's point of view. However, the second way to look at the numbers is voting by region--Northern and Southern states. For this point of view, the Southern states are those states which seceded and the Northern states are all others states. In the Senate, Southern Democrats voted 1-20 (5% in favor) and Southern Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). However, Northern Democrats voted 45-1 (98% in favor), while Northern Republicans voted 27-5 (84% in favor). In the House, Southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7% in favor) and Southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0% in favor). However, Northern Democrats voted 145-9 (94% in favor) and Northern Republicans voted 138-24 (85% in favor). Overall, Northern Democrats voted 190-10 in favor while Northern Republicans voted 165-29 in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Southern Democrats voted 8-107 against while Southern Republicans voted 0-11 against. Looking at the numbers from a regional perspective gives a much more accurate view. When you look at it from this perspective, you should realize that David Barton is falsely portraying reality--it wasn't Democrat v. Republican like he wants to deceive you.
4. David Barton is somewhat hypocritical in his book. On page 125, he calls out the DNC because their website leaves out their history from 1848-1900. He states, "Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900? Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about--perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website." Do I think that's an accurate statement? Yes, I think there could definitely be legitimacy to that statement. But while Barton calls out the DNC, he commits the same mistake. He spends nearly the entirety of the book going over racist Democrat policies from the Reconstruction Era in the South. Near the end of the book, he finally gets into civil rights in the 1900s, but he only spends roughly 16 pages out of 138 on any time period outside of 1848-1900. Why would Barton skim over that history? Perhaps because that's not the kind of civil rights history that reinforces the heavily biased points he's trying to convey. In the 16 pages discussing non-Reconstruction Era civil right, he only has weak, baseless attacks on Democrats like the points I've already explained in 3b and 3c.
5. My last main frustration with this book is that making civil rights a Democrat v. Republican issue just turns into an endless, pointless debate. Barton's book doesn't achieve anything; it just panders to one side. According to MLK Jr (who Barton barely even mentions), "Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights." That roughly 70 word statement by MLK Jr. encapsulates more truth on Democrats v. Republicans regarding civil rights than the amount of correctly portrayed truth in the entirety of Barton's 138 page book.
1. Before even discussing the content, I will say that the structure is awful. 138 pages with no clear divisions, like one long disjointed article. It's just one paragraph after another, and it doesn't always follow a clear chronological or topical progression.
2. The overall premise. I incorrectly assumed by the cover, introduction, and a paragraph on the back that this book would be about African-American political involvement. As it says on the back, "'Setting the Record Straight' reintroduces this generation to the forgotten heroes and untold stories from our rich African American political history." While it does include some references to actual African American leaders, that's not its main focus. By "forgotten heroes," Barton means good Republicans who helped civil rights, and by "untold stories," Barton means explaining the terrible history of the Democratic party. In essence, the entire premise is Republicans v. Democrats, not African American history.
3. Yes, Barton includes a lot of facts and backs them up with sources. However, he cherry-picks the facts and omits other facts that might be contrary to his views. I agree that a lot of wrong was done by Democrats in the Civil War era/Reconstruction era, and I'm not even addressing his conclusion. I'm simply disappointed with his unethical way of getting to that final point. If you don't fact check everything he says, most of it sounds really good, but really isn't. For example:
a. On page 66, speaking of African Americans being elected to political offices, Barton says, "Significantly, the first three black U.S. Senators--Revels, Bruce, and Brooke--were all Republicans. Carol Moseley-Braun (of Illinois) was the fourth black American to serve in the U.S. Senate, but only the first Democrat; and Barack Obama (also from Illinois) was only the second black Democratic U.S. Senator)." This statement is completely accurate. However, the way that statement is written makes it sound like the Democrats are way behind Republicans historically in terms of racial diversity amongst U.S. senators. At the time of the writing of this book, only five African-Americans had been elected as a U.S. senator--three Republicans and two Democrats. Seeing that in perspective diminishes the impact that Barton was intending. In addition, the current total of African-Americans who have served as U.S. senator is nine--four Republicans and five Democrats. Here's how Barton would word that if he were a Democrat: "In the past 130 years, Republicans have only had two African-Americans serve as U.S. senator. Not only has the Democrat party had five African-Americans serve as U.S. senator in the last 20 years, but also one of those is the only female African-American senator and another went on to become the first African-American president of the United States." That statement would also be correct, but it improperly skews the perception of true historical reality.
b. On pages 88-89, Barton points out that Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 was a reinstatement of the education desegregation that Republicans had fought for back in 1875. He then continues to hit Democrats by speaking of the Southern Democrat backlash against the Supreme Court's decision. Again, Barton makes it seem as if Republicans were solely responsible for the desegregation of education and that Democrats were the only ones opposed to it. Perhaps he should have also mentioned that the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was a unanimous 9-0 decision by six Democrat, two Republican (one, Warren, was Chief Justice), and one Independent justices.
c. Around pages 120-127, Barton writes on the civil rights acts in the late 50s through the 60s. He speaks glowingly of President Eisenhower's contributions to civil rights acts while diminishing any reference to the civil rights views of Democrat Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. He indicates that all of the civil rights acts were only passed because of the strong support of Republicans in spite of the fierce opposition by Democrats. He points out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a Republican support rate that was nearly 20% higher than the Democrat support rate. This statistic clearly shows Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right? Well, let's take a look at two different ways to look at the numbers for support of the Civil Rights Act. First, you can look at it by party voting. In the Senate, the overall vote was 73-27. Democrats voted 46-21 (69% in favor), and Republicans voted 27-6 (82% in favor). In the House, the overall vote was 289-126. Democrats voted 153-91 (63% in favor), and Republicans voted 136-35 (80% in favor). According to this way of looking at the numbers, this confirms Barton's point of view. However, the second way to look at the numbers is voting by region--Northern and Southern states. For this point of view, the Southern states are those states which seceded and the Northern states are all others states. In the Senate, Southern Democrats voted 1-20 (5% in favor) and Southern Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). However, Northern Democrats voted 45-1 (98% in favor), while Northern Republicans voted 27-5 (84% in favor). In the House, Southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7% in favor) and Southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0% in favor). However, Northern Democrats voted 145-9 (94% in favor) and Northern Republicans voted 138-24 (85% in favor). Overall, Northern Democrats voted 190-10 in favor while Northern Republicans voted 165-29 in favor of the Civil Rights Act. Southern Democrats voted 8-107 against while Southern Republicans voted 0-11 against. Looking at the numbers from a regional perspective gives a much more accurate view. When you look at it from this perspective, you should realize that David Barton is falsely portraying reality--it wasn't Democrat v. Republican like he wants to deceive you.
4. David Barton is somewhat hypocritical in his book. On page 125, he calls out the DNC because their website leaves out their history from 1848-1900. He states, "Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900? Perhaps because it's not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about--perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website." Do I think that's an accurate statement? Yes, I think there could definitely be legitimacy to that statement. But while Barton calls out the DNC, he commits the same mistake. He spends nearly the entirety of the book going over racist Democrat policies from the Reconstruction Era in the South. Near the end of the book, he finally gets into civil rights in the 1900s, but he only spends roughly 16 pages out of 138 on any time period outside of 1848-1900. Why would Barton skim over that history? Perhaps because that's not the kind of civil rights history that reinforces the heavily biased points he's trying to convey. In the 16 pages discussing non-Reconstruction Era civil right, he only has weak, baseless attacks on Democrats like the points I've already explained in 3b and 3c.
5. My last main frustration with this book is that making civil rights a Democrat v. Republican issue just turns into an endless, pointless debate. Barton's book doesn't achieve anything; it just panders to one side. According to MLK Jr (who Barton barely even mentions), "Actually, the Negro has been betrayed by both the Republican and the Democratic party. The Democrats have betrayed him by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the Southern Dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed him by capitulating to the blatant hypocrisy of reactionary right wing northern Republicans. And this coalition of southern Dixiecrats and right wing reactionary northern Republicans defeats every bill and every move towards liberal legislation in the area of civil rights." That roughly 70 word statement by MLK Jr. encapsulates more truth on Democrats v. Republicans regarding civil rights than the amount of correctly portrayed truth in the entirety of Barton's 138 page book.
melisscharber's review
5.0
Excellent read! Wow I learned so much about history in the book. Full of sources to reference. Truly a shame this part of history is hidden and not taught in schools or shared anywhere. If it were I believe many would think differently about the political parties we have today.
drbetteridge's review
1.0
Should have investigated first.
I’m disappointed that I didn’t check out the author’s reputation before buying this. Regardless of how this book reads, it is a well known fact, though unknown to me, that this author has little credibility with legitimate historians. If there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the history we’ve grown up with, and we are searching for the truth, it is especially important to be able to trust an author’s reputation. This person has a known agenda, and little authority on the subject. Before devoting any more time to this book, I will try to find an expert in the field. I’m after the truth, whatever it looks like.
I’m disappointed that I didn’t check out the author’s reputation before buying this. Regardless of how this book reads, it is a well known fact, though unknown to me, that this author has little credibility with legitimate historians. If there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the history we’ve grown up with, and we are searching for the truth, it is especially important to be able to trust an author’s reputation. This person has a known agenda, and little authority on the subject. Before devoting any more time to this book, I will try to find an expert in the field. I’m after the truth, whatever it looks like.
More...