What do you think?
Rate this book
Give Me Liberty! An American History
The leading text in a brief, full-color edition. Clear, concise, integrated, and up-to-date, Give Me Liberty! is a proven success with teachers and students. Eric Foner pulls the pieces of the past together into a cohesive picture, using the theme of freedom throughout. The Brief Fourth Edition is streamlined and coherent, and features stronger coverage of American religion, a bright four-color design, and a reinforced pedagogical program aimed at fostering effective reading and study skills.
1104 pages, Paperback
Published February 14, 2014
429 people are currently reading
2872 people want to read
About the author
Eric Foner
189 books674 followersEric Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University, where he earned his B.A. and Ph.D. In his teaching and scholarship, Foner focuses on the Civil War and Reconstruction, slavery, and nineteenth-century America. His Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877, won the Bancroft, Parkman, and Los Angeles Times Book prizes and remains the standard history of the period. His latest book published in 2010 is The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery.
In 2006 Foner received the Presidential Award for Outstanding Teaching at Columbia University. He has served as president of the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Society of American Historians.
In 2006 Foner received the Presidential Award for Outstanding Teaching at Columbia University. He has served as president of the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Society of American Historians.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews
Read
May 5, 2021I don't really know how to rate this given that it was my textbook for my history class, but all I want to say is that it was the first (and hopefully only) time I've ever been told to read a textbook completely from cover to cover.
Also, John Green has an obsession with Eric Foner. I know. I've watched enough Crash Course videos this semester to tell.
Also, John Green has an obsession with Eric Foner. I know. I've watched enough Crash Course videos this semester to tell.
June 1, 2020
This is quite possibly the most biased history textbook I have read. Yes - I do not expect textbooks to be unbiased as that would be naive. However, this bias was obvious because the author repeatedly submitted his opinion by giving only negative examples of those he disagreed with and repeatedly using adjectives. Textbooks should not use adjectives but should provide the facts that allow students to form their own opinions. The worst example of this follows in this sentence: "Although it spoke of restoring traditional values, the Religious Right proved remarkably adept at using modern technology, including mass mailings and televised religious programming, to raise funds for their crusade and spread their message" (Foner 1053). Does this author hate this group of people so much that he is reduced to complaining that technology and traditional values don't mix? Traditional does not mean one only reads print newspapers. This is indeed a poor insult and rather pathetic on the part of the author. Again, one is free to have their own opinions and to disagree but a textbook is a place for facts and not for adjectives.
October 5, 2020
This is not an ‘American’ history. This is a very basic overview of various civil rights movements, specifically with regards to basic, American failures.
That is, the Reconstruction is mostly viewed as ‘South was mean to ex-slaves and blacks had to fight for their rights.’ Very little is made of the complex economic movements thereof. Heck, the improvement in agricultural technology between 1880 and 1915 is confined to about one paragraph and can be summarized thusly: ‘There were significant farming advancements made in the early 1900’s.’
Another example is in how Foner deals with the Panama Canal. Here are some details Foner doesn’t talk about: 1) The Panama Canal more than doubled the economy of Panama, 2) most countries of Europe benefited from the trade benefits of being able to cut through Panama, 3) the number of products on the market increased specifically due to opening that trade route. Here’s a detail Foner does mention: whites working on building the canal had better jobs than blacks working on the canal.
Not convinced? Other notches against this book:
- The guiltlessness of Sacco and Vanzetti is assumed and Foner doesn’t mention that they were connected to a terrorist organization that both almost assassinated FDR and bombed Wall Street.
- American business expansionism is connotated negatively, even though the economic influences that American businesses had on other countries was profoundly positive
- Foner does not mention any issues with the federal reserve, gives almost no lip service to conservative economists, and ultimately portrays Keynes and FDR as good guys without giving the counter-arguments.
- the Great Depression is portrayed as a failure of Capitalism despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was artificially inflating the economy in the 1920’s via the Real Bills doctrine.
- American intervention in the Vietnam War is seen as negative
- any opposition to the Social Security Act is labeled as being racist instead of focusing on the economic burden of such a policy in the wake of the Great Depression
- The Communists who ran the unions in the 1930’s are portrayed as good guys without any counter-arguments; in fact, Foner always portrays unions as good guys.
- Susan B. Anthony is listed as a hero, even though she actively fought against the 15th amendment and caused a rift in the woman’s suffrage movement, likely delaying the advent of women’s suffrage by twenty years or so.
- Margaret Sanger is claimed as a hero, despite the fact that she a) was in favor of eugenics, b) was funded by actual communists via the IWW, and c) had connections to the KKK, who loved her ideas so much, they begged to have her speak with them more often.
I could go on here, but I think the point is made. I have no issue with Foner holding to his own point of view, but a man who wants to actually portray history needs to be fairer and less biased in his portrayals of events. This is an absolutely pathetic attempt at a history. I can’t speak for too man textbooks out there, but you’d be better off finding all of Ian Johnson’s various histories of America and reading those. Whereas Foner views America as a fundamentally broken nation with potential, Johnson views America as a beautiful nation with flaws. The latter view is much more reflective of real life, as America, at least prior to 2008, has done far more good in the world than bad.
That is, the Reconstruction is mostly viewed as ‘South was mean to ex-slaves and blacks had to fight for their rights.’ Very little is made of the complex economic movements thereof. Heck, the improvement in agricultural technology between 1880 and 1915 is confined to about one paragraph and can be summarized thusly: ‘There were significant farming advancements made in the early 1900’s.’
Another example is in how Foner deals with the Panama Canal. Here are some details Foner doesn’t talk about: 1) The Panama Canal more than doubled the economy of Panama, 2) most countries of Europe benefited from the trade benefits of being able to cut through Panama, 3) the number of products on the market increased specifically due to opening that trade route. Here’s a detail Foner does mention: whites working on building the canal had better jobs than blacks working on the canal.
Not convinced? Other notches against this book:
- The guiltlessness of Sacco and Vanzetti is assumed and Foner doesn’t mention that they were connected to a terrorist organization that both almost assassinated FDR and bombed Wall Street.
- American business expansionism is connotated negatively, even though the economic influences that American businesses had on other countries was profoundly positive
- Foner does not mention any issues with the federal reserve, gives almost no lip service to conservative economists, and ultimately portrays Keynes and FDR as good guys without giving the counter-arguments.
- the Great Depression is portrayed as a failure of Capitalism despite the fact that the Federal Reserve was artificially inflating the economy in the 1920’s via the Real Bills doctrine.
- American intervention in the Vietnam War is seen as negative
- any opposition to the Social Security Act is labeled as being racist instead of focusing on the economic burden of such a policy in the wake of the Great Depression
- The Communists who ran the unions in the 1930’s are portrayed as good guys without any counter-arguments; in fact, Foner always portrays unions as good guys.
- Susan B. Anthony is listed as a hero, even though she actively fought against the 15th amendment and caused a rift in the woman’s suffrage movement, likely delaying the advent of women’s suffrage by twenty years or so.
- Margaret Sanger is claimed as a hero, despite the fact that she a) was in favor of eugenics, b) was funded by actual communists via the IWW, and c) had connections to the KKK, who loved her ideas so much, they begged to have her speak with them more often.
I could go on here, but I think the point is made. I have no issue with Foner holding to his own point of view, but a man who wants to actually portray history needs to be fairer and less biased in his portrayals of events. This is an absolutely pathetic attempt at a history. I can’t speak for too man textbooks out there, but you’d be better off finding all of Ian Johnson’s various histories of America and reading those. Whereas Foner views America as a fundamentally broken nation with potential, Johnson views America as a beautiful nation with flaws. The latter view is much more reflective of real life, as America, at least prior to 2008, has done far more good in the world than bad.
August 2, 2021
A history textbook with dry as dust writing and a dash of thinly veiled liberal bias. Basically, every conservative and conservative policy has brought about every evil this nation has seen. As you have probably guessed, not my cup of tea.
November 12, 2011
I learned a lot but I had to reread most of it for it to settle in for quizzes and tests. Also had to take a nap when ever I started reading it.
March 28, 2016
"Anti-Capitalist, oh communism and socialism aren't that bad" American History textbook. Borrowed for the class.
January 13, 2008
Read it for History 112 at SCCC, decent, but y'know, an American History textbook, so it's a little boring, especially to people like me.
May 21, 2020
I keep checking Wikipedia as Foner breezily refers to events then glosses over them. I feel like I'm reading a long-winded, especially condescending bedtime story.
July 4, 2015
I don't like this textbook as much as Roark's "The American Promise," but it's a lot more affordable and gets the job done. Foner stretches the themes of what liberty and freedom meant through the ages a little too much for me, but doing so is a teachable tool to make readers think about the lifespan of an idea. Ideologically zealous right wingers really hate Foner, but this textbook doesn't have a very strong political slant to it (maybe the Communism thing comes out more in vol. 2?) and I'm strongly thinking of assigning this book next semester.
December 8, 2016
Extremely dry information-and at times it felt it just cut off in the middle of the information. Like it would talk about "a person of importance" during "some date", and then completely trail off to another topic or not even trail off, sometimes it would just start a whole new topic when the one it was just talking about wasn't even fully finished-just had no coherency whatsoever. This book just lacked a sense of flow throughout the chapters.
August 9, 2022
An excellent overview of American history from European exploration to Reconstruction. Foner does an excellent job focusing on the positives and negatives of American history and includes a lot of quotes and examples that unite themes together throughout American history.
May 6, 2019
All finished and graduated :)
Read
June 29, 2022many thoughts were provoked.
December 31, 2025
I mean it’s a history textbook and was written well enough to read cover to cover (albeit in like 14 months) so it gets a 5. But it also gets a 5 because in my opinion it was pretty down the middle on its presentation of the country’s history. Some reviews of this book claim it to be biased against conservatism or the right but like sorry if conservative and/or racist policies and laws ended up having a negative effect on the country…that’s kind of to be expected. Idk if a basic history textbook makes you feel so called out in your beliefs then maybe you should reconsider your beliefs. Can’t wait to read volume 2!!!
January 29, 2023
best book of all time
August 19, 2014
Lincoln said, “Freedom is one thing to the fox and something entirely different to the chickens.”
Foner states, “increasingly, the idea of liberty lost its traditional association with privileges derived from membership in a distinct social class and became more and more identified with a general right to resist arbitrary government” (142).
The early North American natives had a different meaning of freedom than other early New England settlers. The natives believed that as long as they were not enslaved, they were free. For the early European settlers, freedom was closely aligned with rights, land ownership, slave ownership, and government. The Europeans came to America for economic opportunity, religious tolerance, and land ownership. For example, the early European settlers and the Native Americans had differing opinions on property ownership. The Natives believed in the communal use of property, while the European wanted to own land.
The Calvinist settlers identified freedom as religious tolerance and the ability to practice their religion without persecution. Many of the New England colonies were founded for the very purpose of seeking religious freedom, and promoting tolerance. After Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1636, he went on to create Rhode Island as a land for people to participate in religious activities of their choosing without government interference. William Penn created Pennsylvania for those fleeing religious persecution in Europe. He promoted religious tolerance and co-existence with the Native Americans in the Pennsylvania colony.
Abolitionism was a social movement of the pre-Civil war era that advocated for the immediate emancipation of the slaves and their incorporation into American society as equal citizens. Freedom to abolitionists meant freedom from slavery. This view was similar to that of the Native Americans. Abolitionists and Radical Republicans saw emancipation as necessary to weaken the South’s ability to sustain the war. Emancipation became the target of the Union war effort. Freedom of Women’s rights advocates meant equal ability to participate in the public sphere, and gaining the right to vote. Women voiced their opinions at the Seneca Falls Convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott.
Former slaves’ ideas of freedom were directly related to land ownership. Many former slaves insisted that through their unpaid labor, they had acquired a right to the land. Freedom as defined by former slaves held a similar meaning to that of white Americans. They equated freedom with self-ownership, family stability, religious liberty, political participation, and economic autonomy. Freedom “was an open-ended process for blacks, involving a transformation of all aspects of their lives and of the society and culture that had sustained slavery in the first place” (Foner 527). No matter what the definition of freedom, for whites it was a given birthright to be defended.
Americans envisioned freedom with the availability of open land in the West. John L. O’Sullivan coined the phrase “manifest destiny,” meaning Americans believed it was their divine right to occupy the entire continent and continually expand the area of freedom. “Those who stood in the way of expansion—European powers like Great Britain and Spain, Native Americans, Mexicans—were by definition obstacles to the progress of freedom…Like its predecessors, this generation of Americans believed that the United States had been selected by God for the greatest experiment in human history, the achievement of liberty, and that westward expansion was part and parcel of this destiny” (Foner 323-324). In the older states the population and the price of land were rising. Therefore the chances of a young man setting up a farm or creating his own artisan shop were dwindling. The West held out chances for the achievement of economic independence and freedom.
In the nineteenth century freedom was identified with economic opportunities, physical mobility, political participation, and slavery (Foner, 303). Freedom to the Democrats meant a weak central government and the preservation of states’ rights. The Federalists were supporters of Washington’s administration who supported Hamilton’s plan. They had close ties with Britain, did not believe in self-government, and deferred major decisions to authority. They feared too much liberty and unstructured government would result in anarchy.
Foner states, “increasingly, the idea of liberty lost its traditional association with privileges derived from membership in a distinct social class and became more and more identified with a general right to resist arbitrary government” (142).
The early North American natives had a different meaning of freedom than other early New England settlers. The natives believed that as long as they were not enslaved, they were free. For the early European settlers, freedom was closely aligned with rights, land ownership, slave ownership, and government. The Europeans came to America for economic opportunity, religious tolerance, and land ownership. For example, the early European settlers and the Native Americans had differing opinions on property ownership. The Natives believed in the communal use of property, while the European wanted to own land.
The Calvinist settlers identified freedom as religious tolerance and the ability to practice their religion without persecution. Many of the New England colonies were founded for the very purpose of seeking religious freedom, and promoting tolerance. After Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts in 1636, he went on to create Rhode Island as a land for people to participate in religious activities of their choosing without government interference. William Penn created Pennsylvania for those fleeing religious persecution in Europe. He promoted religious tolerance and co-existence with the Native Americans in the Pennsylvania colony.
Abolitionism was a social movement of the pre-Civil war era that advocated for the immediate emancipation of the slaves and their incorporation into American society as equal citizens. Freedom to abolitionists meant freedom from slavery. This view was similar to that of the Native Americans. Abolitionists and Radical Republicans saw emancipation as necessary to weaken the South’s ability to sustain the war. Emancipation became the target of the Union war effort. Freedom of Women’s rights advocates meant equal ability to participate in the public sphere, and gaining the right to vote. Women voiced their opinions at the Seneca Falls Convention organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott.
Former slaves’ ideas of freedom were directly related to land ownership. Many former slaves insisted that through their unpaid labor, they had acquired a right to the land. Freedom as defined by former slaves held a similar meaning to that of white Americans. They equated freedom with self-ownership, family stability, religious liberty, political participation, and economic autonomy. Freedom “was an open-ended process for blacks, involving a transformation of all aspects of their lives and of the society and culture that had sustained slavery in the first place” (Foner 527). No matter what the definition of freedom, for whites it was a given birthright to be defended.
Americans envisioned freedom with the availability of open land in the West. John L. O’Sullivan coined the phrase “manifest destiny,” meaning Americans believed it was their divine right to occupy the entire continent and continually expand the area of freedom. “Those who stood in the way of expansion—European powers like Great Britain and Spain, Native Americans, Mexicans—were by definition obstacles to the progress of freedom…Like its predecessors, this generation of Americans believed that the United States had been selected by God for the greatest experiment in human history, the achievement of liberty, and that westward expansion was part and parcel of this destiny” (Foner 323-324). In the older states the population and the price of land were rising. Therefore the chances of a young man setting up a farm or creating his own artisan shop were dwindling. The West held out chances for the achievement of economic independence and freedom.
In the nineteenth century freedom was identified with economic opportunities, physical mobility, political participation, and slavery (Foner, 303). Freedom to the Democrats meant a weak central government and the preservation of states’ rights. The Federalists were supporters of Washington’s administration who supported Hamilton’s plan. They had close ties with Britain, did not believe in self-government, and deferred major decisions to authority. They feared too much liberty and unstructured government would result in anarchy.
January 10, 2023
As I try to become a better history teacher, I read this textbook that takes readers through the American story from the pre-Columbian era through the end of post-Civil War Reconstruction in 1877. For the seventh edition that I read, Eric Foner worked with Kathleen DuVal and Lisa McGirr to take readers on that journey. The idea behind the book is to not only chronicle events across several centuries, but to interpret them through the theme of the liberties enjoyed by the diverse groups of American people across all of those years. The first section does this by examining the interactions between colonists arriving from Europe and Native Americans. The authors note that they have expanded their coverage of Native American notions of liberty in this edition compared to past editions. The second section carries on through the revolution from British rule, the formation of the United States Constitution, and the Market Revolution that facilitated the production of goods, transportation, and communication. The third section carries on through the dispute concerning whether slavery should expand into the western territories, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Now that I have gone through all of these eras, I have a better idea of the ways that white men, African-Americans, Native Americans, and women each agitated for their liberties and found their dreams either rewarded or denied. I commend the authors for writing such a comprehensive account and I look forward to introducing my students at CSU Pueblo to the online component of the book that features interactive learning activities.
December 6, 2014
This book really deserves a 2.5, but I'm being generous. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to be harsh. The information was factual and the book got my attention at times. AT TIMES, mind you. It's just, the way this book is set up is painful. I would rather have appendicitis, then have an appendectomy than read this again. Harsh sounding; I know. However, who has time to actually sit and read 40 plus pages of a dull book? Be honest; none of us do. It drags on and on for so long.
I had to read this for class and it's sad, but it's one of the few textbooks I just hated after the first chapter. Again, it drags on. There may be sections to it where you can take breaks, but I had to read this over the weekend for class Monday. That's on top of the various other errands I had to do (no, errands is not another word for party with friends. I have had next to no social life this semester whatsoever). So it is a killer to read all that. One chapter could have been summed up in a page or two.
Conclusion
If you're a fan of history, then I probably knocked a book you would enjoy. If you are not a history person or history major, be very wary when this is put on your syllabus as the class textbook. You will probably try to find someone who would be willing to make sparknotes for this thing, but it won't happen. So skim as fast as possible.
Bottom line: This thing should have been shorter and I am sure as heck not recommending it. Sorry.
I had to read this for class and it's sad, but it's one of the few textbooks I just hated after the first chapter. Again, it drags on. There may be sections to it where you can take breaks, but I had to read this over the weekend for class Monday. That's on top of the various other errands I had to do (no, errands is not another word for party with friends. I have had next to no social life this semester whatsoever). So it is a killer to read all that. One chapter could have been summed up in a page or two.
Conclusion
If you're a fan of history, then I probably knocked a book you would enjoy. If you are not a history person or history major, be very wary when this is put on your syllabus as the class textbook. You will probably try to find someone who would be willing to make sparknotes for this thing, but it won't happen. So skim as fast as possible.
Bottom line: This thing should have been shorter and I am sure as heck not recommending it. Sorry.
November 9, 2022
Based.
5 stars alone for the section on Los Tigres del Norte and “La Jaula de Oro”.
I was assigned this textbook for an online class, so it’s not a book I technically chose on my own. But because I spent so many hours reading Volume 2 of Give Me Liberty, you bet your ass I’m including it in my 2022 Reading Journey.
Because my book was digital, it included extras like videos and interviews with Mr. Foner. I love this guy! He’s definitely not unbiased, but he’s cool as hell. I thought it was excellent that he continually included the perspectives of the working class, women, Black, Indigenous, Latino, Jewish, and Asian people, the LGBT+ community, immigrants, union members, the disabled, etc etc - his telling of American history is the most well-rounded I’ve personally encountered in a textbook, and felt reminiscent of Howard Zinn’s The People’s History of the United States, a book I am also currently reading. Foner calls out so much overlooked bullshit in the nation’s history while simultaneously holding so much love and respect for it and its people. I thought the artworks, personal testimonies, speeches, song lyrics, etc. used to illustrate the points made in each chapter were quite well chosen.
Even though I enjoy reading history anyways, so many textbooks and teachings can be unfathomably dry. This one wasn’t.
5 stars alone for the section on Los Tigres del Norte and “La Jaula de Oro”.
I was assigned this textbook for an online class, so it’s not a book I technically chose on my own. But because I spent so many hours reading Volume 2 of Give Me Liberty, you bet your ass I’m including it in my 2022 Reading Journey.
Because my book was digital, it included extras like videos and interviews with Mr. Foner. I love this guy! He’s definitely not unbiased, but he’s cool as hell. I thought it was excellent that he continually included the perspectives of the working class, women, Black, Indigenous, Latino, Jewish, and Asian people, the LGBT+ community, immigrants, union members, the disabled, etc etc - his telling of American history is the most well-rounded I’ve personally encountered in a textbook, and felt reminiscent of Howard Zinn’s The People’s History of the United States, a book I am also currently reading. Foner calls out so much overlooked bullshit in the nation’s history while simultaneously holding so much love and respect for it and its people. I thought the artworks, personal testimonies, speeches, song lyrics, etc. used to illustrate the points made in each chapter were quite well chosen.
Even though I enjoy reading history anyways, so many textbooks and teachings can be unfathomably dry. This one wasn’t.
April 17, 2025
What follows is a bunch of concept definitions that I found rather interesting:
1. Indentured Servitude was the principal form of labor utilized in the Virginia Colony in early colonial America (Foner 78). This system of servitude was one in which people would voluntarily give up their freedom and become the property of another human being until they paid off their debt, in the form of labor, to their master so they could be released from their bondage and be considered free members of society along with receiving a form of monetary compensation called “freedom dues'' (61).
The Virginia Colony was essentially an outpost for wealthy investors from London, along with some of their servants, to search for gold; although prospecting for gold was not an official policy, it was what many took up instead of growing crops, thus leading to starvation and a population decline in the colony (72-73).
The survival of the colony depended on more laborers to work the fields, thereby prompting policy change in the form of the introduction of the headright system; this system essentially granted land to wealthy elites who brought with them a large number of servants to work said land (73). The increasing popularity of tobacco provided the Virginian colonial investors an alternative to gold that brought in droves of new investors to the colony to buy lands to grow the new cash crop; and with them came the increase in servants, most of whom were young male indentured servants (78). In fact, during the 1600s, the majority, around 75%, of all the immigrants who left Europe for Virginia came as laborers (78).
The significance of this system, besides providing a backbone to the colonial economy of Virginia, at the time, is that the expansion of this form of servitude coincided with the cultivation of tobacco as a land and labor-intensive cash crop, thereby laying the foundation for the plantation and slavery system that would eventually come to dominate the Southern economy in the near future (73).
2. Bacon’s Rebellion was an attempted uprising that tried to overthrow the colonial government of Virginia (Foner 104). This rebellion was started by a wealthy elite named Nathaniel Elite whose tensions with the rest of Virginia’s elites resulted in him attempting to subvert their power through an attempted coup, which he hoped to accomplish by appealing to the poor white servants of the Virginia colony (104). He appealed to the poor servant class of the colony by appealing to their resentment towards the general societal elites and the Native Americans, whose land the rebels and supporters of Nathanial Bacon lusted over (102). His appeal to the sensibilities of the servant class of the colony is spelled out in his “Declaration of the People” which he issued on July 30th, 1676; wherein, he spelled out the oppressive taxes and supposedly unfair policies the colony leadership had taken towards indigenous people, for which Bacon claimed to want to enact vengeance upon for various alleged despicable acts and crimes.
This rebellion took place in 1676 and was sparked by a conflict between colonists and indigenous people; What began as a series of massacres against indigenous people in the hopes of further annihilating them later developed into an active rebellion against the ruling elites of the Virginia colony (103-107). The rebellion was temporarily successful as Nathanial Bacon was, for a short period, made the ruler of the Virginia colony (107). But, this victory was short-lived as Bacon died of illness and the rebellion was quelled by English armed forces (107).
That being said, however, as a consequence of the rebellion, the ruling class of the Virginia colony implemented various reforms to deter future rebellions (107). To do so, they began the transition from white indentured servitude to racialized slavery, and the expansion of settler colonialism (107).
3. Quakers were a group or faction of the Christian faith like Puritans were (Foner 99). A fundamental belief of Quakers that set them apart from other Christian factions, such as the Puritans, was that they believed that all human beings had inherent goodness and divinity within them (99). Similarly to Puritans, Quakers also sought to establish their own settlement and they did so with the founding of Pennsylvania (97). Differing from Puritans, however, Quakers did not seek to establish a theocratic state for their specific brand of Christianity and built off settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans (97). On the contrary, William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, hoped to establish a place for those fleeing religious persecution to find refuge and be able to practice their religion freely and openly (97). Moreover, the establishment of such a settlement was to be done with the consent of the Native population, with whom William Penn sought to live in Harmony with (97).
As evidenced by the 1682 “Pennsylvania Frame of Government” by William Penn, the colony appears to have been, at least from a legal structural standpoint, extremely religiously open. Nowhere is there the mention of Christ or really anything specific to Christianity except for some secular laws based around Quaker values, and the mandate that those who settle in the colony must be monotheistic. This is significant since nothing like this had really been done before. Prior attempts at a “holy experiment” were, as stated before, by colonists to set up theocratic settlements or purely economic outposts that would later transform into slave societies (97-113). Not only did the Quakers not set up a theocratic settlement which seems to have had far-reaching religious tolerance embedded within its form of government, Quakers were also against slavery and worked to abolish it (96).
4. Slave Society is the term for a society or colony or set of colonies in which slavery is at the center of the colonial and societal economy. A slave society’s principal form of labor is slavery. In the case of the West Indies, this form of slavery was heavily racialized. All slaves were black Africans or of African descent.
Several factors led to the transition from white indentured servitude to racialized slavery (Foner 113). In the case of Virginia, a major factor was the agitation of the white indentured servants which led to Bacon’s Rebellion (113). Another reason was that it eventually became more economical to purchase a human being for life rather than having to deal with the possibility of having temporary ownership of another human being as, in theory, was the case of indentured servitude (113). That being said, that was not always the case, with regard to the economics of slavery, as originally it became unappealing to purchase someone for life since they had a high chance of dying and since they were more expensive than purchasing an indentured servant for a contractual amount of time (104).
The racialized aspect of slavery in the Americas is incredibly important. Black Africans, and those who descended from black Africans, were already seen as foreign and “alien,” thereby making their enslavement easier to stomach (103). But Virginia, nor any of the mainland American colonies, was the first to have a racialized slave society. No, that dishonor goes to the West Indies (113). Along with the perception that black Africans were seen as “alien” and foreign, they would also come to be seen as inferior as this would further help legitimizing their status in, what would come to be, a white supremacist society based around black subjugation (103).
A perfect example of the racialized inferiority of black slaves and their subjugation can be seen in the Barbados slave code. This slave code, for the island of Barbados, is from 1661 and it perfectly lays out a system in which Black people are clearly treated unfairly and as though they are inherently inferior. The language of the slave code frames Black people in a negative light with language like “(i)f any Negro or slave whatsoever shall offer any violence to any Christian by striking or the like, such Negro or slave shall for his or her first offence be severely whipped by the Constable.” In the context of the time, Christian can be interpreted as white, European, or good. By framing black people as though they are inherently unchristian and can never be Christian, they are automatically portrayed as bad and therefore deserving of mistreatment and enslavement. Corroborating this point further, as stated in the Barbados slave code, is the characterization of slaves, who are black, as “brutish” and therefore undeserving of due process for crimes or anything related to law or justice.
The significance of this specific brand of slavery and the racialized inferiority aspect of it is that while slavery would form the backbone of these many slave societies in the Americas, and thus forming the backbone of much of colonial America and the West Indies, the differences between slave societies and non-slave societies with regards to their different economies and stances on slavery would form a wedge that would eventually result in the attempted secession of Slave states, like Mississippi, as evident by the wording of the Mississippi Declaration of Independence in which the state leadership framed itself as “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.”
5. The Constitutional Convention was the gathering of 55 delegates in the year of 1787, from May 25th to September 17th, in Philadelphia (Foner 264; Foner 274). The purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to make changes to the Articles of Confederation, but the end result was the drafting of a brand new Constitution (274). This was, however, not without controversy. In fact the constitution was very controversial and did not become ratified with absolute unanimous support, at least not initially.
It is interesting and important to note that this, the Constitutional Convention, was meeting of elites; and that is to say that more than 50% of those who attended the meeting were college educated, attended meetings pertaining to interstate matters in the 1760s and 1770s at a time in which the vast majority of Americans had neither a college education nor had they attended interstate meetings (264). This is all to say that the U.S. Constitution was not drafted by means of the public arena, but instead by some of the most prominent Americans in United States history who came together in to engage in private, “candid” debate on how to change the Articles of Confederation and how to curb the supposedly excessive democratic nature of the Articles of Confederation (264).
Some of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention gave much-needed legitimacy to this event. George Mason was the author of the State of Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights; he attended the Constitutional Convention (264). Benjamin Franklin was a diplomat who played a key role in the 1783 Treaty of Paris; he attended the Constitutional Convention (264). George Washington was the commander of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and he played the role as the Constitutional Convention’s presiding officer, thus granting it much legitimacy (144; 264). These were just some of the prominent Americans who attended the Constitutional Convention; others like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams also attended the Constitutional Convention (264).
While debate did occur at the Constitutional Convention, the attendees of the debate, however, agreed with each other on several points (265). People were in general agreement that under a new frame of government, there should be three branches of government: a legislature, countrywide judiciary, and executive branch (265). Furthermore, the attendees agreed that the legislature, Congress, would be able to levy taxes without permission from the States and that this new government would be more representative of the people and that the States would not be able to infringe on people’s property rights (265).
There were, of course, disagreements and points of contention, as well. At the heart of what this convention was meant to achieve was a frame of government that would provide a middle ground between, what they considered, excessive democracy and a system of governance in which too much power was left in the hands of a small minority or any singular individual (265). How this was to be achieved was where the differences between the various individuals emerged since the contention between convention delegates pertained to what the power dynamics between the states and the federal government and smaller states and larger states ought to be under a new frame of government (265).
The Virginia plan, as it was called, was a proposal made by James Madison that called for the creation of a bicameral legislature with state representation being dependent upon state population, which scared smaller states with smaller populations (267). On the other hand, the New Jersey plan was a proposal that called for the creation of just a single-house legislature that had state representation being dependent upon a singular vote made by each state (267). Neither plans were sufficient in squashing the fears of either smaller or larger states, so a compromise was reached in which the establishment of a bicameral legislative body was to be the agreed upon design of the legislature. The bicameral nature of the legislature was instrumental because it was agreed that one house, the Senate, was to be composed of members elected by State Legislatures and serve for 6-year terms, while the other house, the House of Representatives, whose composition would be dependent upon the population of each state since each member constituency would be the same population and they would be voted in by the citizenry of their constituency for 2-year terms (267).
There were other aspects of the Constitutional Convention which made it incredibly important. In a manner of a few months, with much debate and compromise, the delegates, who were made up of representatives of practically every colony except Rhode Island, managed to construct a document which laid out a profounding new blueprint for a centralized government (265; 267; 269; 274). To quell fears of centralized tyranny, the delegates managed to design a system of checks and balances that was meant to keep the centralized government from infringing on the rights of states and individuals and their property rights (269). The design of a national judiciary was articulated in the Constitution, along with a more powerful Presidency. The division and separations of powers, as described in the Constitution, was meant to be part of the system of checks and balances (269). In theory, the Constitution said forth a frame of government in which each branch of government was able to be held accountable and perform their duties adequately and efficiently (269).
The significance of the Constitution is not only in that it help solve many of the problems attributed to the Articles of Confederation, like a lack of any court system to mediate disputes between states or the inability to raise an army or money, but also represented a meeting of many of America’s most important figures who came together not just simply to create a document which sort forth a new frame of government to replace an older document that set forth a, as it was a perceived, failed frame of government, but a document that could be changed and amended in a manner that did not require individuals to come together to outright replace it, thereby lending it longevity (265; 268; 273). This is evident in the fact that the Constitution of the United States is still used today, albeit with necessary additions and amendments.
6. The Boston Massacre was a brawl between American colonists and British soldiers that occurred on March 5th, 1770 (Foner 191-192). It is important to understand the build-up to this event in which five American colonists were killed. The fact of the matter is that the Boston Massacre was a pivotal moment in American history, particularly due to the propagandizing of it (192).
Boston was an incredibly important city during the American Revolutionary movement (190-192). Corroborating this point is the fact that the movement to boycott against British-made goods began, according to Eric Foner, in Boston, Massachusetts in response to laws like the Stamp Act and Townshend Act which taxed goods imported on American goods, upsetting some American colonists (189-190). Eventually, the protests turned into rioting and, in response, British soldiers were stationed in the city in 1968 (191).
Tensions between the American colonists and British continued, arguably worsened, after the stationing of British soldiers. This tension and animosity was worsened by the fact that British troops competed with colonists for jobs in Boston (191). Thus, it is understandable how this build-up eventually led to an all-out street fight like the Boston Massacre, in the short term, and the American Revolutionary War, in the long term (192).
Although propaganda, like a misleading engraving created by Paul Revere, by American colonists portrayed the Boston Massacre like a cruel one-sided attack by British troops onto supposedly innocent American colonists (192). In reality, the Boston Massacre was more akin to a street brawl due to the fact that American colonists were very much antagonistic towards the British troops and were throwing objects at them (191). Eventually, things took a turn when the British troops fired upon the crowd, resulting in the death of five American colonists; the first to be killed was a man by the name of Crispus Attucks (191).
In terms of short term consequences, 8 soldiers and 1 commanding officer were put on trial with only 2 being found guilty of anything, that being manslaughter (191). In long term effects however, Paul Revere’s engraving was widely circulated and sparked outrage among colonists against the British (192). For this reason, the Boston Massacre is considered a pivotal moment on the road towards American Independence from the British; by portraying the event as one in which innocent and completely unarmed American colonists were shot at by a line of British soldiers, American colonial anti-British propagandists were able to rattle the emotions and capture the hearts of colonists across the American colonies and invigorate the revolutionary movement against British colonialism (191).
I hope my analysis was rather interesting :)
1. Indentured Servitude was the principal form of labor utilized in the Virginia Colony in early colonial America (Foner 78). This system of servitude was one in which people would voluntarily give up their freedom and become the property of another human being until they paid off their debt, in the form of labor, to their master so they could be released from their bondage and be considered free members of society along with receiving a form of monetary compensation called “freedom dues'' (61).
The Virginia Colony was essentially an outpost for wealthy investors from London, along with some of their servants, to search for gold; although prospecting for gold was not an official policy, it was what many took up instead of growing crops, thus leading to starvation and a population decline in the colony (72-73).
The survival of the colony depended on more laborers to work the fields, thereby prompting policy change in the form of the introduction of the headright system; this system essentially granted land to wealthy elites who brought with them a large number of servants to work said land (73). The increasing popularity of tobacco provided the Virginian colonial investors an alternative to gold that brought in droves of new investors to the colony to buy lands to grow the new cash crop; and with them came the increase in servants, most of whom were young male indentured servants (78). In fact, during the 1600s, the majority, around 75%, of all the immigrants who left Europe for Virginia came as laborers (78).
The significance of this system, besides providing a backbone to the colonial economy of Virginia, at the time, is that the expansion of this form of servitude coincided with the cultivation of tobacco as a land and labor-intensive cash crop, thereby laying the foundation for the plantation and slavery system that would eventually come to dominate the Southern economy in the near future (73).
2. Bacon’s Rebellion was an attempted uprising that tried to overthrow the colonial government of Virginia (Foner 104). This rebellion was started by a wealthy elite named Nathaniel Elite whose tensions with the rest of Virginia’s elites resulted in him attempting to subvert their power through an attempted coup, which he hoped to accomplish by appealing to the poor white servants of the Virginia colony (104). He appealed to the poor servant class of the colony by appealing to their resentment towards the general societal elites and the Native Americans, whose land the rebels and supporters of Nathanial Bacon lusted over (102). His appeal to the sensibilities of the servant class of the colony is spelled out in his “Declaration of the People” which he issued on July 30th, 1676; wherein, he spelled out the oppressive taxes and supposedly unfair policies the colony leadership had taken towards indigenous people, for which Bacon claimed to want to enact vengeance upon for various alleged despicable acts and crimes.
This rebellion took place in 1676 and was sparked by a conflict between colonists and indigenous people; What began as a series of massacres against indigenous people in the hopes of further annihilating them later developed into an active rebellion against the ruling elites of the Virginia colony (103-107). The rebellion was temporarily successful as Nathanial Bacon was, for a short period, made the ruler of the Virginia colony (107). But, this victory was short-lived as Bacon died of illness and the rebellion was quelled by English armed forces (107).
That being said, however, as a consequence of the rebellion, the ruling class of the Virginia colony implemented various reforms to deter future rebellions (107). To do so, they began the transition from white indentured servitude to racialized slavery, and the expansion of settler colonialism (107).
3. Quakers were a group or faction of the Christian faith like Puritans were (Foner 99). A fundamental belief of Quakers that set them apart from other Christian factions, such as the Puritans, was that they believed that all human beings had inherent goodness and divinity within them (99). Similarly to Puritans, Quakers also sought to establish their own settlement and they did so with the founding of Pennsylvania (97). Differing from Puritans, however, Quakers did not seek to establish a theocratic state for their specific brand of Christianity and built off settler colonialism and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans (97). On the contrary, William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, hoped to establish a place for those fleeing religious persecution to find refuge and be able to practice their religion freely and openly (97). Moreover, the establishment of such a settlement was to be done with the consent of the Native population, with whom William Penn sought to live in Harmony with (97).
As evidenced by the 1682 “Pennsylvania Frame of Government” by William Penn, the colony appears to have been, at least from a legal structural standpoint, extremely religiously open. Nowhere is there the mention of Christ or really anything specific to Christianity except for some secular laws based around Quaker values, and the mandate that those who settle in the colony must be monotheistic. This is significant since nothing like this had really been done before. Prior attempts at a “holy experiment” were, as stated before, by colonists to set up theocratic settlements or purely economic outposts that would later transform into slave societies (97-113). Not only did the Quakers not set up a theocratic settlement which seems to have had far-reaching religious tolerance embedded within its form of government, Quakers were also against slavery and worked to abolish it (96).
4. Slave Society is the term for a society or colony or set of colonies in which slavery is at the center of the colonial and societal economy. A slave society’s principal form of labor is slavery. In the case of the West Indies, this form of slavery was heavily racialized. All slaves were black Africans or of African descent.
Several factors led to the transition from white indentured servitude to racialized slavery (Foner 113). In the case of Virginia, a major factor was the agitation of the white indentured servants which led to Bacon’s Rebellion (113). Another reason was that it eventually became more economical to purchase a human being for life rather than having to deal with the possibility of having temporary ownership of another human being as, in theory, was the case of indentured servitude (113). That being said, that was not always the case, with regard to the economics of slavery, as originally it became unappealing to purchase someone for life since they had a high chance of dying and since they were more expensive than purchasing an indentured servant for a contractual amount of time (104).
The racialized aspect of slavery in the Americas is incredibly important. Black Africans, and those who descended from black Africans, were already seen as foreign and “alien,” thereby making their enslavement easier to stomach (103). But Virginia, nor any of the mainland American colonies, was the first to have a racialized slave society. No, that dishonor goes to the West Indies (113). Along with the perception that black Africans were seen as “alien” and foreign, they would also come to be seen as inferior as this would further help legitimizing their status in, what would come to be, a white supremacist society based around black subjugation (103).
A perfect example of the racialized inferiority of black slaves and their subjugation can be seen in the Barbados slave code. This slave code, for the island of Barbados, is from 1661 and it perfectly lays out a system in which Black people are clearly treated unfairly and as though they are inherently inferior. The language of the slave code frames Black people in a negative light with language like “(i)f any Negro or slave whatsoever shall offer any violence to any Christian by striking or the like, such Negro or slave shall for his or her first offence be severely whipped by the Constable.” In the context of the time, Christian can be interpreted as white, European, or good. By framing black people as though they are inherently unchristian and can never be Christian, they are automatically portrayed as bad and therefore deserving of mistreatment and enslavement. Corroborating this point further, as stated in the Barbados slave code, is the characterization of slaves, who are black, as “brutish” and therefore undeserving of due process for crimes or anything related to law or justice.
The significance of this specific brand of slavery and the racialized inferiority aspect of it is that while slavery would form the backbone of these many slave societies in the Americas, and thus forming the backbone of much of colonial America and the West Indies, the differences between slave societies and non-slave societies with regards to their different economies and stances on slavery would form a wedge that would eventually result in the attempted secession of Slave states, like Mississippi, as evident by the wording of the Mississippi Declaration of Independence in which the state leadership framed itself as “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.”
5. The Constitutional Convention was the gathering of 55 delegates in the year of 1787, from May 25th to September 17th, in Philadelphia (Foner 264; Foner 274). The purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to make changes to the Articles of Confederation, but the end result was the drafting of a brand new Constitution (274). This was, however, not without controversy. In fact the constitution was very controversial and did not become ratified with absolute unanimous support, at least not initially.
It is interesting and important to note that this, the Constitutional Convention, was meeting of elites; and that is to say that more than 50% of those who attended the meeting were college educated, attended meetings pertaining to interstate matters in the 1760s and 1770s at a time in which the vast majority of Americans had neither a college education nor had they attended interstate meetings (264). This is all to say that the U.S. Constitution was not drafted by means of the public arena, but instead by some of the most prominent Americans in United States history who came together in to engage in private, “candid” debate on how to change the Articles of Confederation and how to curb the supposedly excessive democratic nature of the Articles of Confederation (264).
Some of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention gave much-needed legitimacy to this event. George Mason was the author of the State of Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights; he attended the Constitutional Convention (264). Benjamin Franklin was a diplomat who played a key role in the 1783 Treaty of Paris; he attended the Constitutional Convention (264). George Washington was the commander of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and he played the role as the Constitutional Convention’s presiding officer, thus granting it much legitimacy (144; 264). These were just some of the prominent Americans who attended the Constitutional Convention; others like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams also attended the Constitutional Convention (264).
While debate did occur at the Constitutional Convention, the attendees of the debate, however, agreed with each other on several points (265). People were in general agreement that under a new frame of government, there should be three branches of government: a legislature, countrywide judiciary, and executive branch (265). Furthermore, the attendees agreed that the legislature, Congress, would be able to levy taxes without permission from the States and that this new government would be more representative of the people and that the States would not be able to infringe on people’s property rights (265).
There were, of course, disagreements and points of contention, as well. At the heart of what this convention was meant to achieve was a frame of government that would provide a middle ground between, what they considered, excessive democracy and a system of governance in which too much power was left in the hands of a small minority or any singular individual (265). How this was to be achieved was where the differences between the various individuals emerged since the contention between convention delegates pertained to what the power dynamics between the states and the federal government and smaller states and larger states ought to be under a new frame of government (265).
The Virginia plan, as it was called, was a proposal made by James Madison that called for the creation of a bicameral legislature with state representation being dependent upon state population, which scared smaller states with smaller populations (267). On the other hand, the New Jersey plan was a proposal that called for the creation of just a single-house legislature that had state representation being dependent upon a singular vote made by each state (267). Neither plans were sufficient in squashing the fears of either smaller or larger states, so a compromise was reached in which the establishment of a bicameral legislative body was to be the agreed upon design of the legislature. The bicameral nature of the legislature was instrumental because it was agreed that one house, the Senate, was to be composed of members elected by State Legislatures and serve for 6-year terms, while the other house, the House of Representatives, whose composition would be dependent upon the population of each state since each member constituency would be the same population and they would be voted in by the citizenry of their constituency for 2-year terms (267).
There were other aspects of the Constitutional Convention which made it incredibly important. In a manner of a few months, with much debate and compromise, the delegates, who were made up of representatives of practically every colony except Rhode Island, managed to construct a document which laid out a profounding new blueprint for a centralized government (265; 267; 269; 274). To quell fears of centralized tyranny, the delegates managed to design a system of checks and balances that was meant to keep the centralized government from infringing on the rights of states and individuals and their property rights (269). The design of a national judiciary was articulated in the Constitution, along with a more powerful Presidency. The division and separations of powers, as described in the Constitution, was meant to be part of the system of checks and balances (269). In theory, the Constitution said forth a frame of government in which each branch of government was able to be held accountable and perform their duties adequately and efficiently (269).
The significance of the Constitution is not only in that it help solve many of the problems attributed to the Articles of Confederation, like a lack of any court system to mediate disputes between states or the inability to raise an army or money, but also represented a meeting of many of America’s most important figures who came together not just simply to create a document which sort forth a new frame of government to replace an older document that set forth a, as it was a perceived, failed frame of government, but a document that could be changed and amended in a manner that did not require individuals to come together to outright replace it, thereby lending it longevity (265; 268; 273). This is evident in the fact that the Constitution of the United States is still used today, albeit with necessary additions and amendments.
6. The Boston Massacre was a brawl between American colonists and British soldiers that occurred on March 5th, 1770 (Foner 191-192). It is important to understand the build-up to this event in which five American colonists were killed. The fact of the matter is that the Boston Massacre was a pivotal moment in American history, particularly due to the propagandizing of it (192).
Boston was an incredibly important city during the American Revolutionary movement (190-192). Corroborating this point is the fact that the movement to boycott against British-made goods began, according to Eric Foner, in Boston, Massachusetts in response to laws like the Stamp Act and Townshend Act which taxed goods imported on American goods, upsetting some American colonists (189-190). Eventually, the protests turned into rioting and, in response, British soldiers were stationed in the city in 1968 (191).
Tensions between the American colonists and British continued, arguably worsened, after the stationing of British soldiers. This tension and animosity was worsened by the fact that British troops competed with colonists for jobs in Boston (191). Thus, it is understandable how this build-up eventually led to an all-out street fight like the Boston Massacre, in the short term, and the American Revolutionary War, in the long term (192).
Although propaganda, like a misleading engraving created by Paul Revere, by American colonists portrayed the Boston Massacre like a cruel one-sided attack by British troops onto supposedly innocent American colonists (192). In reality, the Boston Massacre was more akin to a street brawl due to the fact that American colonists were very much antagonistic towards the British troops and were throwing objects at them (191). Eventually, things took a turn when the British troops fired upon the crowd, resulting in the death of five American colonists; the first to be killed was a man by the name of Crispus Attucks (191).
In terms of short term consequences, 8 soldiers and 1 commanding officer were put on trial with only 2 being found guilty of anything, that being manslaughter (191). In long term effects however, Paul Revere’s engraving was widely circulated and sparked outrage among colonists against the British (192). For this reason, the Boston Massacre is considered a pivotal moment on the road towards American Independence from the British; by portraying the event as one in which innocent and completely unarmed American colonists were shot at by a line of British soldiers, American colonial anti-British propagandists were able to rattle the emotions and capture the hearts of colonists across the American colonies and invigorate the revolutionary movement against British colonialism (191).
I hope my analysis was rather interesting :)
February 2, 2008
Takes us from the first European excursions to the American continent to the end of the Civil War. Takes the reader through the history of the United States with an emphasis on the evolution of ideas of freedom and how those ideas manifested themselves in the events and culture of the fledgling country.
Very concise and easy to read - it took me only a few days to run through its 500-plus pages. This book is marketed as a textbook, though, and as such, fails to carry the same organizational quality that one normally expects to find. There are timelines given in each chapter, but some of the dates from chapter to chapter overlap. There are many graphics, including maps that show some of the developmental aspects of the United States at different periods. These maps, however, are monchromatic, which makes it difficult to see some of the divisions that they are meant to point out.
The in-text resources were particularly lacking.
The special attention paid to slavery and Native American cultures is more evenhanded than some of the other histories I've read.
An interesting and enlightening read, but not what I would be using in a classroom.
Very concise and easy to read - it took me only a few days to run through its 500-plus pages. This book is marketed as a textbook, though, and as such, fails to carry the same organizational quality that one normally expects to find. There are timelines given in each chapter, but some of the dates from chapter to chapter overlap. There are many graphics, including maps that show some of the developmental aspects of the United States at different periods. These maps, however, are monchromatic, which makes it difficult to see some of the divisions that they are meant to point out.
The in-text resources were particularly lacking.
The special attention paid to slavery and Native American cultures is more evenhanded than some of the other histories I've read.
An interesting and enlightening read, but not what I would be using in a classroom.
July 15, 2024
Very liberal. This textbook has one point of view and one only. I can’t believe my school approved this for reading but it is 2024 and our school system is the most corrupt it’s ever been. I typically don’t review my textbooks but I felt compelled to give this a one star because this textbook is essentially a giant persuasion piece and not a history book. Bring back the history books that informed you of all views so you can form your own opinion.
If you want to write your opinion about historical events that took place hundreds of years ago, write a book about it - not a textbook so you can indoctrinate others who aren’t educated enough to realize that you’re feeding them your opinions and not history.
If you want to write your opinion about historical events that took place hundreds of years ago, write a book about it - not a textbook so you can indoctrinate others who aren’t educated enough to realize that you’re feeding them your opinions and not history.
March 5, 2019
Very dry and boring, adequately informative for how many years of history it covers. The organization is very confusing though. Within a single chapter over an era, it bounces back and forth through time and even presidencies, so it's difficult to really grasp the chronological order of events. A lot of slightly more complex events are simply mentioned and skimmed over, and the reader has to do further research to understand them. Potentially interesting events are made dry and the details omitted. Not a fun read, but a confusing one that delivers skeletal information that can be used to guide readers to additional works over certain events and eras.
September 30, 2022
This got 3 stars solely because I read the whole textbook and it was pretty easy to read. I liked the excerpts from notorious figures in the past.
As far as the American history goes, it didn’t cover as much as I hoped and glossed over many atrocities. But I’m not surprised anymore. Still disgusted of course.
I agree with many reviewers saying there wasn’t a strong stance towards anything- which actually is problematic in this case as this book is primarily discussing slavery, the Civil War, and emancipation.
As far as the American history goes, it didn’t cover as much as I hoped and glossed over many atrocities. But I’m not surprised anymore. Still disgusted of course.
I agree with many reviewers saying there wasn’t a strong stance towards anything- which actually is problematic in this case as this book is primarily discussing slavery, the Civil War, and emancipation.
April 19, 2021
Yay!!!! I just finished the last assigned chapter :) (there's one more unassigned chapter but I probably won't read it). Good riddance. This has been a tough semester with covid and online learning so I'm so glad to be in my last week of school and almost done with this history class. It was interesting though, seeing all the overlap between this history book and my government textbook. I felt like I learned several things twice. Or even three times when something happened to also be in my business professionalism textbook.
February 28, 2023
Foner is the most cited author on college syllabi for history courses, which is a travesty because he’s obviously well left of center. You can always tell an author’s bias when you read his take on the Civil War and Reconstruction. In this case, Foner is openly anti-Confederate and believes Confederate monuments should be taken down because they are symbols of white supremacy. That alone disqualifies him from being a reliable historian. Overall, this book is NOT a one-stop shop for a balanced history of the US because of its story told through the lens of identity politics.
August 25, 2014
I did not enjoy this book. History is one of my favorite subjects and I was looking forward to reading this book. However, I was sadly disappointed to find that this text is difficult to follow along and doesn't provide clarity to the information presented. I do appreciate the chronological presentation of events and certain aspects of the book. But overall, I unfortunately do not recommend the book.
December 6, 2016
1/5 stars. Had to read this for my history class, boring as hell. The author didn't go into any details about certain events in history, told rather than explained (and yes, there's a difference). Overall, I would not recommend this but for historians or academics, not as boring as T.H Watkins America in the 1930's, but still a snooze fest.
February 28, 2023
Foner is the most cited author on college syllabi for history courses, which is a travesty because he’s obviously well left of center. He infuses identity politics into practically every aspect of American history. There was a sense of despair in his writing of Ch. 26 “The Triumph of Conservatism.” Overall, this book is not a one-stop shop for a balanced history of the US.
June 24, 2019
Garbage. I have never read a history textbook that so obviously glossed over factual history in order to imply a narrative and impart an ideology. Professors who assign this text have ulterior motives and will not be teaching history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews