A review by zena_ryder
A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn
1.0
Politically, I'm sure I would share many of Zinn's views. Which is partly why this book is dangerous for someone like me. It would probably be easy to read it, and just go along with the comfortable narrative that no doubt 'fits' much of my worldview.
However, I planned to start with reading just the part of the book directly related to the Civil War, but I had to stop reading, because the book was so disappointing.
First, there are not proper notes. I wish I had noticed that before I bought it. For me, that's a cardinal sin and I wouldn't have bought it. You cannot give a legitimate interpretation of history without proper references. All Zinn does is list a bibliography for each chapter.
Second, the writing is sometimes too journalistic, in a teasing way that implies something without explicitly stating it — and so avoiding a need to defend an actual claim. For example, after giving a little bit of back story about black abolitionist, David Walker, Zinn says, "One summer day in 1830, David Walker was found dead near the doorway of his shop in Boston" (p. 180). And that's it. Zinn then moves on to talk about Frederick Douglass. There's no mention of how Walker might have died, just a teasing sentence that leads one to suspect that he was murdered. No evidence is presented, no references are given. (On Walker's Wikipedia page, it says, "rumors suggested that he had been poisoned, most historians believe Walker died a natural death from tuberculosis, as listed in his death record".)
Third, Zinn repeatedly over simplifies the political situation that Lincoln had to deal with. I understand and appreciate the urge to criticize Dead White Men, who are often unjustly revered. However, the following is both unfair to Lincoln and also a misrepresentation of the history:
"[W]hen Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base as Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded." (p. 189)
Lincoln was very keen not to initiate a war with the South. If war was to come, he was determined that the South would start it. Fort Sumter — a federal base, with federal soldiers — was in South Carolina. The SC government said that Sumter had to be evacuated. What was the federal government to do? To evacuate would look weak and set a bad precedent. For the fort to take military action to protect itself would be an aggressive act and the beginning of war. (It would also be doomed to fail because the fort was isolated, unfinished, and not situated to defend itself from inland attacks.) Lincoln's solution to this was to seek to provide needed provisions to Fort Sumter, neither evacuating nor initiating hostilities (nor "trying to repossess the federal base" as Zinn says). The first shots of the war were fired by SC on the civilian steamship which was bringing supplies from the North to the fort.
There are other examples along these lines where Zinn misrepresents the history in an apparent effort to disparage Lincoln. With his general thrust, I agree. Of course, Lincoln was racist. It would have been incredibly surprising if he hadn't been. And for many readers, it would be eye-opening to read some of the racist things that Lincoln said. And of course the North did not go to war in order to abolish slavery. Lincoln was not on a moral crusade, along with the rest of the North, to abolish slavery. Perhaps this is also news to some readers. But that disappointing reality is no excuse for misrepresenting or oversimplifying the political situation to fit a preferred narrative. Lincoln was an astute politician and while the modern mind boggles at how abolitionism could ever have been an extreme position, the fact is that it was, and an abolitionist had no chance of being elected at that time. Lincoln was the right person in the right place, at the right time. He hated slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. (He was vehemently against the spread of slavery, and also hoped for a gradual extinction of slavery in the places where it already existed.) Arguably, only someone with such a combination of views had any chance of actually getting elected in the first place, and having the will and the political skills to find a way to ultimately abolish slavery.
Given that I know how this book misrepresents history in the few pages I read, I have no trust in its other pages and it's pointless to read any more of it.
However, I planned to start with reading just the part of the book directly related to the Civil War, but I had to stop reading, because the book was so disappointing.
First, there are not proper notes. I wish I had noticed that before I bought it. For me, that's a cardinal sin and I wouldn't have bought it. You cannot give a legitimate interpretation of history without proper references. All Zinn does is list a bibliography for each chapter.
Second, the writing is sometimes too journalistic, in a teasing way that implies something without explicitly stating it — and so avoiding a need to defend an actual claim. For example, after giving a little bit of back story about black abolitionist, David Walker, Zinn says, "One summer day in 1830, David Walker was found dead near the doorway of his shop in Boston" (p. 180). And that's it. Zinn then moves on to talk about Frederick Douglass. There's no mention of how Walker might have died, just a teasing sentence that leads one to suspect that he was murdered. No evidence is presented, no references are given. (On Walker's Wikipedia page, it says, "rumors suggested that he had been poisoned, most historians believe Walker died a natural death from tuberculosis, as listed in his death record".)
Third, Zinn repeatedly over simplifies the political situation that Lincoln had to deal with. I understand and appreciate the urge to criticize Dead White Men, who are often unjustly revered. However, the following is both unfair to Lincoln and also a misrepresentation of the history:
"[W]hen Lincoln was elected, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Lincoln initiated hostilities by trying to repossess the federal base as Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and four more states seceded." (p. 189)
Lincoln was very keen not to initiate a war with the South. If war was to come, he was determined that the South would start it. Fort Sumter — a federal base, with federal soldiers — was in South Carolina. The SC government said that Sumter had to be evacuated. What was the federal government to do? To evacuate would look weak and set a bad precedent. For the fort to take military action to protect itself would be an aggressive act and the beginning of war. (It would also be doomed to fail because the fort was isolated, unfinished, and not situated to defend itself from inland attacks.) Lincoln's solution to this was to seek to provide needed provisions to Fort Sumter, neither evacuating nor initiating hostilities (nor "trying to repossess the federal base" as Zinn says). The first shots of the war were fired by SC on the civilian steamship which was bringing supplies from the North to the fort.
There are other examples along these lines where Zinn misrepresents the history in an apparent effort to disparage Lincoln. With his general thrust, I agree. Of course, Lincoln was racist. It would have been incredibly surprising if he hadn't been. And for many readers, it would be eye-opening to read some of the racist things that Lincoln said. And of course the North did not go to war in order to abolish slavery. Lincoln was not on a moral crusade, along with the rest of the North, to abolish slavery. Perhaps this is also news to some readers. But that disappointing reality is no excuse for misrepresenting or oversimplifying the political situation to fit a preferred narrative. Lincoln was an astute politician and while the modern mind boggles at how abolitionism could ever have been an extreme position, the fact is that it was, and an abolitionist had no chance of being elected at that time. Lincoln was the right person in the right place, at the right time. He hated slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. (He was vehemently against the spread of slavery, and also hoped for a gradual extinction of slavery in the places where it already existed.) Arguably, only someone with such a combination of views had any chance of actually getting elected in the first place, and having the will and the political skills to find a way to ultimately abolish slavery.
Given that I know how this book misrepresents history in the few pages I read, I have no trust in its other pages and it's pointless to read any more of it.