To the authors and editors of the AMSCO AP US History book

To the authors and editors of the AMSCO AP US History book,

My name is Alden Sykora. I am a junior attending General Douglas MacArthur High School, and in my matriculation in the AP United States’ History course, I had the rather beleaguering task of reading your textbook in the hope that it would aid my studies.

When I enrolled in this course, I wanted to be a part of an ideological revolution characterized by vivid polemacy, and deliberation over the trials and tribulations of our great nation. However, considering my rigorous involvement in politics since the age of twelve (which has been marked by frequent indoctrination and censorship), I expected exactly the opposite, which is quite ironic given your publisher is called “Perfection Learning.”

Even further, my expectations met the circumstances. This observation comes through no fault of my teacher, who at many points in class directly contradicted your book’s ethos. Which leads me to my final conclusion upon reading the last page of the book. 

I find your textbook to be nothing other than a disingenuous, revisionist, amalgamation of utter and incomprehensible slop. 

In examining this book throughout the class, I had to come to one of two conclusions about the authors and editors of the book, in turn: that as authors and editors of this book, you were cunning in your rhetorical strategies, or that your exceptional imbecility led you to the point that you believed reality would conform to anything you conjured in the vicissitudes of your minimal brain sulci. In your response to this letter, I expect you to clarify which group you believe yourselves to reside in. 

I am always apt to give the benefit of the doubt, and so, I have decided to temporarily side with the more benevolent idea that you are practically braindead, as I do not want to accuse you of malicious intent. In the meantime, I do not wish to smother you with more propaganda, albeit from the other side, but I wish to expose you to pure fact. Among your numerous typos, grammatical errors, and (probably ignorant) misspellings of simple words, there are myriads of misleading and completely false accounts of basic historical developments. 

Firstly, I feel the need to address your absolute defamation of Mr. John D. Rockefeller’s character and entrepreneurship, specifically your accusation that he “extorted rebates” to further oppress his competition. It is true Rockefeller used rebates to his advantage, however it was only by his merits that Vanderbilt happily agreed to the record-high sixty-carload-a-day offer when discussing rebates for transportation. If, being such the horrible thing you hold it to be, Rockefeller was limited at this point, he would be punished for his efficiency. Less effective (government funded) powers were not as efficient as Rockefeller, Vanderbilt refused to give them a rebate of an equal value at this unfortunate time. Where you seem to confuse extortion with efficiency, I see it as a business getting rewarded for its success and hard work. Rockefeller did not want to eliminate all competition, as corroborated by his assistant, Charles Pratt’s comment concerning it: “competitors we must have, we must have…” Before you turn to your book to revise it, I highly suggest you further educate yourselves with the following books: 

The Myth of the Robber Barons by: Burton Folsom Jr.

John D. Rockefeller: a one-volume Abridgement by: Allan Nevins

With this, I pray you learn how to think like historians, and balance both sides of the discussion. 

Although I maintain my assumption that this book is a culmination of your ignorance as opposed to malicious intent, I was almost convinced into believing the opposite by your sly coverage of the Sacco and Vanzetti debacle. The case of Sacco and Vanzetti, of which I had known about prior to reading your commentary, is not a case of communist hysteria taking on two innocent people. If I am wrong in my presumption, you may already know that one major component of the trial (which you conveniently left out) was the uniqueness of the lethal bullet, of which the only replicas still available belonged to Sacco, such that the court itself could not properly recreate the situation in a ballistic test.

Admittedly, your rhetoric is clever, and a student who may be hearing of this case for the first time would certainly not stop to consider the partiality in which you approach the case, the accusers, the defenders, and the execution. However I did. 

A cornerstone of the AP curriculum is to teach history’s nuances, and avoid the idea of simplicity. In your ineptness, your selectivity of the sides you cover does not qualify as nuanced, although that does lie in the hands of The College Board, considering they have found your book worthy of their recognition.

When responding to me concerning your state of mental capacity, I also suggest you specifically answer my question of why you included Liberal’s arguments about the targeting of two “poor Italians and anarchists” and conveniently left out the striking truth about the unique nature of the bullet used to kill Berardelli.

Again, before you turn back to editing your book upon learning this new information (as any well-intentioned, ignorant soul would), I recommend you entertain the other side of this issue. Two appropriate sources would be:

The Ivory Tower by: William F. Buckley Jr. 

The Fordham Law Review: Volume 29 Issue 2 Article 6 by: Fordham Law

As for the last, and most egregious miscalculation, I would like to provide some historical context: I was very much alive for this event, so not only can I research this event, and find the evidence that contradicts your claims, but I can also remember what it was like to watch it happen through the screen of my computer, sitting at my desk, right before I was called into the kitchen for dinner. I was in seventh grade, and I remember my social studies teacher professing the “utter violence” that had occurred the evening prior. Come to think of it, you sound quite familiar with him in your book. 

Anyway, other than the repulsive manner in which you smear President Trump’s legacy, lacking context in many of your descriptions of his first term, declare the “attack on the capitol,” and equate it to the British’s successful arson of the same building more than 200 years prior, I find most offensive your coverage of January 6th, 2021. Again, I was nearly convinced to ascribe a motive to your authorship of this book, as this small paragraph serves as an affront to everything from your readers’ intelligence, to the family of the one true victim and the other four people whose deaths you are dragging through the mud in the name of partisan propaganda. 

Aside from the fact that the only two sources I could find that specifically stated that 5 people died as a result of this “attack” were Wikipedia, a Turkish news publication and a Tweet from Bloomberg Originals (both of which have been proven to be mere mouthpieces for the leftist movement), it is concerning that you, in your imbecility, seemingly only put 30 seconds of work into researching this highly controversial topic. 

Other than Ashli Babbitt, who was killed as a result of a capitol officers’ neglect of the use-of-force continuum, all four other people named in the two sources were proven to have died from causes completely unrelated to the “attack” itself. And out of concern that the only thought you will put into this from here on out is reading this letter, I want to briefly touch on all four people’s cases. 

Brian Sicknick: Probably the most known “January 6th non-victim.” Yes, he was at the capitol the day of the “attack,” but his death the next day was proven by his autopsy to have occurred from a stroke, leading his death to be ruled natural.

Benjamin Phillips: A family man who happened to be in DC for Trump’s rally suffered from hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at around one o’clock in the afternoon, hours before the “attack” began. 

Rosanne Boyland: I will let the authorities speak for themselves: “What killed Rosanne wasn't anything that happened in the tunnel on the west front of the Capitol, it was drugs she'd taken. Now, amphetamine here doesn't mean methamphetamine, the street drug, but the active chemical ingredient in ADHD medications like Adderall, which Rosanne had been taking by prescription for more than a decade. The implication was that she'd taken too much of her prescription meds and it killed her.”

Kevin Greeson: Directly opposed to your claim of his death, Greeson was as innocent as one could possibly be, leading up to his death. Talking on the phone, his wife confirmed that in the middle of the sidewalk, Greeson suffered a heart attack after a history of high blood pressure.

This is not so much about the number of deaths itself, but the people behind them. These are four people whose legacy you corrupted in the eyes of thousands (if not millions) of students either in the name of stupidity or Liberal partisanship. No matter your motive (which, again, I hope you assure me of in your response), both reasons are morally abhorrent, and show your lack of genuine concern for the truth. Before you continue to revise your book, I once again suggest these non-partisan readings covering the causes of death for the four people I discussed:

Brian Sicknick Death Determination by: Cheryle E. Adams

Official Obituary of Benjamin J. Phillips by: The Phillips Family

American Radical: Cause of Death by: Ayman Mohyeldin

DC medical examiner confirms causes of death of 4 who died in Jan. 6 Capitol riot by: Kelli Dugan, Cox Media Group National Content Desk

Additionally, surrounding the nature of the incident itself, I would advise you to research the mystery behind Ray Epps, a name which many elitists shudder at. Although we have yet to obtain the truth as to who he was, people as powerful as the former FBI Director himself have been hesitant to reveal anything about him, even on live TV to a sitting US Senator who specifically asked who he was, and where he is now. 

In the end, the AP curriculum encourages us as students to weigh the good and the bad, and consider why we believe what we do, and where we get our information from. I do not write to you today because I want to be difficult, standoffish, or show off my historical thinking skills. I write to you because I believe in the truth, and the importance of teaching nothing but the truth in an institution centered on learning. There were many more things that I had come across in your mess of a book, which I do not have time, or your attention span to cover. However, I sincerely wish you stop and consider why you feel the need to write about a subject you seem to know so little about, or why you felt such a need to throw all your time, effort, and energy into something as important as history itself if you planned on thwarting it all to indoctrinate the future of this country. I come at all my arguments with great intellectual honesty, and I hope that all my interlocutors honor my efforts by reciprocating the action. If you believe in any kind of higher power, how would you defend yourself when He asks you why you dirtied the legacy of so many great men whose accomplishments you rely on today, disproportionally defended the (potentially) guilty by failing to include the arguments of their prosecutors, dragged the legacy of four people through the dirt, and among all, did so for an audience or equally ignorant children. 

In an effort to appeal to your historic interests, I compel you to consider the story of Strom Thurmond, the only leading Dixiecrat to publicly repent for his misgivings, switch to the Republican side even when it was unpopular to do so, and teach himself how to see the humanity in the people he once brutally shunned. It is not too late for you. 

Sincerely, Alden Sykora of American Symposium