Questions About A People’s History of the United States: 1492 - Present

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about A People’s History of the United States, please sign up.

Answered Questions (9)

I'm planning to read this book in order to understand its what its influence has been and with the many critiques of its subjectivity in mind. Can anyone recommend another book that is either a better example of the "people's history" idea or just a good counterweight to this book? I'm not looking for something equally biased on the other side but rather something along these lines but without the flaws. Thanks

Natalie Fitch From a historian: There is a debate in historiography (the study and writing of history) as to whether the key players in history are the leaders, the…moreFrom a historian: There is a debate in historiography (the study and writing of history) as to whether the key players in history are the leaders, the followers, or the oppressed (that's a really simplistic way for me to put it). If we don't remember their name are they important? For example are both Adolf Hitler and the post-WW1 German people worth studying? They were interdependent; some argue that Germany would not have fallen for such a destructive party if it weren't for their charismatic leader, but Hitler would have never been elected without such a following. There are thousands of books on Hitler, but one of my favorites about the people is Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men, which looks at the specific men who executed mass killings of Jews. They were truly ordinary, but Hitler couldn't have done it without them. Another example is Jill Lepore's Book of Ages, which is a narrative based on the life of Jane Franklin (Benjamin Franklin's sister). It lays out the juxtaposing lives of the famous printer who discovered electricity and his domesticated housewife of a sister who just wants to learn to read. Zinn's work aims to uncover the story of the oppressed; people who were just as much Americans as JFK and Elvis, but were oppressed by their government. I would argue that they are just as important to the history of the United States as any President. Without someone to step on, no group would flourish.(less)

flag

How do so many people hate this book?

Anne Cupero No one wants to believe how truly powerless they are. I was raised to love everything about America and after living abroad for a short time, found ou…moreNo one wants to believe how truly powerless they are. I was raised to love everything about America and after living abroad for a short time, found out that not everything is wonderful. Not EVERYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING is wonderful. That is a trite, simple answer. We, as a country, have done so many things wrong, and we are not inclined to admit any of it. I feel cheated, truly cheated, that I was not taught SO MANY THINGS about the world, or taught outright lies. Now, in my fifties, I am trying to read all I can to fix that. (less)

flag

How does Zinn argue that the Civil War was not really fought over the moral issue of slavery, but rather the economic issue of slavery?

Porter Broyles I haven't read the book yet, but I am a huge Civil War buff.

I do not think many historians would argue that the war was fought for "moral reasons". Th…moreI haven't read the book yet, but I am a huge Civil War buff.

I do not think many historians would argue that the war was fought for "moral reasons". This would imply that people in 1860s America were fundamentally different than people at any other time or place.

One of the best books on the period leading up to secession is Elizabeth Varon's Disunion!

But to give it a quick overview.

First, the South seceded starting in December 1860---within a month of Lincoln's election. When they seceded there was a great amount of debate in America about the legality of secession. The South, particularly the Deep South, was afraid that Northern states would either make slavery illegal or infringe upon the expansion of slavery. During the Douglas-Lincoln debates, Lincoln conceded that in light of Dred Scott that the states might not be able to make slavery illegal, but they could pass laws making it uncomfortable. But I digress, the Deep South was afraid that they would have to give up their slaves. In the 1850s, slaves were one of the biggest assets Southerners had. They had invested millions of dollars in slaves and did not want to lose that investment.

Second, in April of 1861, the South fires the "first" shots of the Civil War at Fort Sumter. Some have argued that Lincoln gave the South little choice, but the "first" shots were fired. I put those in quotes because shots had been fired previously, but Lincoln used those shots as a rallying cry. He issued a proclamation calling for all of the states to send troops to preserve the Union. While the South seceded because of slavery, Lincoln knew that the North would not fight to free the slaves---he needed another cause. His cause was preservation of the Union.

But economics was a major factor. The term "millionaire" was coined in the South because of "white gold" (aka cotton). One of the reasons that industrialization did not occur in the South was because agriculture (cotton) was a more valuable use of land! It made more sense to grow and harvest cotton in the south, and then ship the cotton north or overseas than it did to build factories! If the South left, then that source or revenue might dry up.

Third, at this point the Upper North (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) vote to secede. With the exception of North Carolina (which was pro-Union), each of the other three states had rejected secession already. They changed their stance AFTER Lincoln called for troops to prevent the Deep South from seceding.

For the first year and a half of the war, Lincoln dispenses with the notion that the war is about slavery. He very carefully avoided that claim. This often caused him to act or say things that disappointed abolitionists or black leaders (e.g. Frederick Douglass.) Literally days before he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he sent Horace Greeley a famous letter wherein he stated that if he could save the Union by freeing the slaves, he would do so. If he could save the Union by keeping the slaves, he would do so.

In 1862, he issues the Emancipation Proclamation. The E.P. was essentially an executive order (similar to DACA). But it was limited in its breadth to areas in rebellion as of January 1, 1863. The E.P. DID NOT free a single slave! It only freed those slaves in areas that did not recognize Lincoln's authority. When Lincoln issued it, he did so as a war effort. Most American scholars believe that it was issued to create a wedge between the Confederacy and England/France (Amanda Foreman's book A World on Fire disputes its effectiveness).

Northerner's reacted differently. Entire northern units returned home because they were not fighting for the slaves, they were fighting for the Union. Many were upset with Lincoln, but the E.P. turned out to be a turning point in why the North was fighting.
(less)

flag

What time periods does this book cover?