Howard Zinn’s unique perspective on American history and the beloved American heroes makes for an interesting story. His book, A People's History of the United States, paints history in a whole new light. The ninth chapter of his book, “Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom” discusses the abolition of slavery in America and its effect and ulterior motives; it benefitted the elite, while not strictly freeing the slaves. He uses other like-minded historians, key people, and key events to prove his claims. His claims that the government’s support of slavery was due to practicality, and by ending it there was a safe and profitable reconstruction, rather than a radical one.
Zinn uses the support of both respected and like-minded
…show more content…
And, while this happened the government stood by doing nothing to enforce the law. Zinn goes on to describe the peoples’ fight against slavery including slave rebellions such as those led by Prozser, Vesey, and Turner, and even Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859. However, despite this the government still did nothing since the time was not yet right for a profitable intervention. Though the government remained passive, Hammond, a slavery supporter, spoke up and said that if not for the violence threatening slavery the slave owners would not be able to reconcile the idea of giving up “a thousand millions of dollars in the value of [their] slaves, and a thousand millions of dollars more in the depreciation of [their] lands” by setting free their slave …show more content…
Zinn then goes on to mention overseers discussing dealing with their “problem slaves”. One said that when they resist to be taught, one “ ‘must kill them’ ” as simple as that. This is important because it proves that it was easier for plantation owners to just get rid of the “troublesome” slaves rather than wasting time trying to break them. They would much rather take the easy route in hard situations, thereby highlighting Zinn’s thesis that the elite ended slavery because it was easier for them and towards their own agendas. Genovese adds to this idea of benefitting the whites with a quote from his study of slavery, Roll, Jordan, Roll, about fear and rebellion in the community. He stated that slave owners believed that “non-slaveholders would encourage slave disobedience…out of hatred for the rich planters and resentment of their own poverty.” This again supports Zinn’s claim that slavery’s abolition was for the benefit of the elites as it showed the widening divide between the rich and the poor. The rich clearly had more say due to their wealth, proven by the strict police measures against mixed race fraternity during this time period, and due to this strong voice it was important that the governmental changes regarding slavery satisfied them. Not only the police, but as Zinn states, after the
Book Critique “Worse Than Slavery” by David M. Oshinsky Yamilex Diaz Stockton University GSS 3204: Incarceration in American Society Dr. Christine Tartaro Historian David M. Oshinsky (Worse Than Slavery) draws on materials throughout the book the history of race and it’s relationship through prisons in the South where the “first circle” was located, the United States own gulag, the Mississippi’s Parchman State Penitentiary. Where the researcher built on others historians studies of emancipation, reconstruction and the post-reconstruction, Oshinsky established Mississippi’s Parchman prison farm as a sharecropping, lynching, convict leasing, and the segregation that replaced slavery. Not only was slavery replaced, but it was shown that
James Boler author of “Slave Resistance in Natchez, Mississippi (1719-1861)” the website: “Mississippi History Now” from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, “Slaves often rebelled against the cruelty of their white masters, cruelties such as branding, cutting off ears, whipping, and torture. The urges for freedom, and the desire to escape inhumane treatment, were the motives for slaves to rebel against their slaveholders. Signs of this resistance caused slave owners to fear insurrection, especially when slaves outnumbered whites.”
When viewing the history of slavery in America, it becomes clear that violence toward slaves was truly a horrific kind of glue binding together the social construct of slave societies. The role of violence in a slave society can be more clearly understood by an examination of a several rebellions throughout history. Specifically, the rebellions of Gabriel Prosser, Nat Turner, and Denmark Vessey. A closer look at these rebellions gives insight into how violence controlled the dynamic of slave societies.
The novel Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia written by Woody Holton is a compelling book that breaks down the revolutionary history of the state of Virginia. This book provides insight into the lives of the enslaved African American population along with the Native American during the revolutionary period in American History. Referred to as the forced fathers, Holton’s explains how the Virginia gentry effected the independence movement in Virginia from 1763 up until 1776. By expressing the relationship between the gentry and the various other classes of the area, Holton is able to demonstrate just how the free people of Virginia were able to be successful in the independence
The institution of slavery that existed in the United States before the Civil War is notorious for the abuse of African-American slaves. James Henry Hammond’s account on the slavery system of the South misrepresents the institution because it fails to acknowledge the callous treatment, negligence, and subjection of African-American slaves, which makes his argument biased. The omission of the slaves’ poor conditions allows for Hammond to embellish the institution of slavery with the false portrayal of generous slaveholders. James Henry Hammond states that slaveholders, including himself, “treat [their] slaves with proper kindness” because it is “necessary [in order] to…
He expected to display the history from the viewpoint of the normal natives, rather than from the point of view of understudies of history or government authorities. "Zinn 's rule purpose behind making his book is...not to be supportive of the executioners, however to uncover understanding into the side of the distinctive people and social orders who were slighted or eradicated from history lessons. So to speak, Zinn needs to relate the account of the underdog, the men and women who have been concealed amidst the talked and made expressions out of others." As showed by Zinn, diverse books portray Columbus as pretty much a brilliant character who was conquer enough to trek towards peculiar waters, taking a risk with his life to go into the
This combination helped to define the chattel slavery in the United States. Despite the cheap labor provided by the African slaves they were still being mistreated. Racial segregation and prejudice existed at the time and Africans were segregated from the rest of the community. They were mistreated and made to do hard labor with little pay or none at all. The slaves began to defy the white’s rules and hard labor (Davidson, 56).
“In that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees…” (Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, pg. 10). Society as a whole expects historians to be impartial, to report the events of the past as they happened, without incorporating their own thoughts into these events. We choose to believe that they are politically neutral, that they have no bias, and that they report history fairly and that everything occurred the way they say. However, as historian Howard Zinn points out in A People’s History, most historians have succumbed to the disturbing trend of glossing over and sugarcoating some of history’s most horrific events, excusing them as necessary for “progress,” and then moving on.
Worse than Slavery, by David Oshinsky, is a novel about post-Civil War America, and the life it gave free African Americans in Mississippi and other parts of the South. Oshinsky writes about the strict laws and corrupt criminal justice system blacks faced after they were freed, and while the contents of the book are not typically read about in history textbooks, it is important to understand what life was like for the freedman. Anyone interested in reading his book would profit from it. With the end of the Civil War came the destruction of the old system of slavery. Many white Southerner’s were outraged, but were forced to accept the newly freed blacks.
In the year of 1776, when the founding fathers confirmed their commitment to the inalienable rights of life and liberty, they opted to ignore the question of how slavery would piece into those newfangled ideals. Eventually, however, it became impossible to ignore the blatant violations of humanity in a country that was founded upon the principles of freedom. Tensions between the oppressive South and the opposing North rose to a point that the nation had become one that was divided against itself and threatened to break apart. The response to this national crisis was a revolutionary new type of literature with the objective of overthrowing slavery. The authors of these anti-slavery texts used logical, ethical and emotional rhetoric to confront their audiences with the cruelty and destructiveness of
During the post-civil war era, most “colored people did not know how to be free” (Houston Hartsfield Holloway). The abolishment of slavery was a major event that led blacks to desire fulfillment in life. Zora Neale Hurston demonstrates this through Janie’s life and the people she encounters. Each character provides a different outlook on life and their values are distinct from Janie’s. The novel questions what true happiness is via Janie’s quest to find love and her influences.
In his fourth chapter titled "Tyranny is Tyranny," of his book A People's History of the United States, author Howard Zinn presents a ground breaking interpretation of motives for the American Revolutionary War. Zinn asserts that the leaders of our nation found, by creating their own nation, "they could take over land, profits and political power" held by the British Empire. What's more, the founding fathers could subdue rebellions in their own land and create "popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership." In other words, though the history books have always taught that, through the revolution, America overthrew the tyranny of the British privileged ruling class, Zinn is asserting America really only created its own new privileged class.
On September 2nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln famously signed the Emancipation Proclamation. After that, there’s been much debate on whether Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation truly played a role in freeing the slaves with many arguments opposing or favoring this issue. In Vincent Harding’s essay, The Blood-red Ironies of God, Harding argues in his thesis that Lincoln did not help to emancipate the slaves but that rather the slaves “self-emancipated” themselves through the war. On the opposition, Allen C Guelzo ’s essay, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America, argues in favor of the Emancipation Proclamation and Guelzo acknowledges Lincoln for the abolishment of slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation.
Introduction: During the 1800’s, Slavery was an immense problem in the United States. Slaves were people who were harshly forced to work against their will and were often deprived of their basic human rights. Forced marriages, child soldiers, and servants were all considered part of enslaved workers. As a consequence to the abolition people found guilty were severely punished by the law.
During World War II, the soldiers overseas were exposed to a much different world—a world where racial segregation was not the norm. This upside-down world abroad had an astounding effect on the black soldiers who returned home after the war to the segregated society they had left behind. This effect, the growth in NAACP membership, and the development of a southern black middle class helped to motivate African Americans to demand a dramatic change that would put an end to their oppression. Thus, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s emerged, and blacks were determined to revolutionize American society. The two historians, Howard Zinn and Alan Brinkley, focused on this movement in their book’s A People’s History of the United States