Title: Superficial History
Product review: Mr. Bennett's book is a good start for the beginning history student, but it is very superficial, and demonstrates that one cannot do a thorough job of discussing the period from Columbus to World War I in a single volume. At several points, the superficiality is extremely detrimental. For example, it glosses over Madison's changing views on the propriety of secession, fails to give the opposing view on Webster's "we the people" argument, takes a one-sided view on Andrew Johnson and Reconstruction, and sugarcoats the racism of Woodrow Wilson. At one point, the book is simply annoying. In one chapter, Mr. Bennett repeatedly uses the word "principal" when "principle" is the correct term.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
