Tom, I was especially taken with the NYT’s two-word description of your book in their list. There was your book name and then the following was added: A conservative interpretation. Conservative = biased, stupid, partisan, unscholarly, and probably racist. Interpretation = biased, imagined, invented, non-objective, non-factual. Indeed, if it were only a “conservative interpretation” it would not be worth reading. Thankfully it is not. It is analytically rigorous, which is why it ends up as (my three word review follows) revisionist, radical, and sweeping.