Why We Won The American Revolution – Through Primary Sources, by John Micklos Jr.

The Story of America: Slavery In Early America, by Barbara M. Linde

As there is much in common with these books, especially the fact that both cover mostly early American history, are very short books (about 40 pages or less of fairly large text with a lot of pictures), and are geared at the same audience, either very serious-minded historically inclined grade schoolers or their parents and teachers. Given this context, I figured it would be best to give a comparative book review that included both of these books, as they are the sort of material that would be appropriate to show as examples of contemporary historiography designed for those at the beginning of their study of history, revealing for their worldview, for what they leave out as well as what they include.

Both books, for example, show the strong influence of our contemporary political mindset and the way in which indoctrination starts about American history. The volume on slavery, for example, discusses at least some elements of slavery that are considered as appropriate for children (namely the slow development of law about slavery, the ambiguous status of indentured servants, the shortage of labor and tension between the ideals of American freedom and equality and the reality of slavery and discrimination, and even some of the horrors of the Atlantic passage, the breakup of families, the hard working conditions, the different classes within those who are slaves, as well as particularly notable slaves and former slaves in colonial America), showing the widespread nature of racism (especially in the South) as well as the fact that it was northern states that were the earliest to fight against slavery. It also presents the “good” side of Jefferson’s opposition to slavery and not his own later backsliding or anything about the Sally Hemmings affair. Notably, the book omits discussion of the seedier sides of slavery, like the “fancy” trade of forced concubinage, or the widespread rape and sexual exploitation of slaves, presumably because such matters are not considered appropriate for children.

Likewise, the volume on the American Revolution includes a notable bias towards the professional army of Continentals and their French allies and against the fierce militias that won such battles as Cowpens and Kings Mountain (which are not even discussed in this volume, nor are the parts of the American Revolution that deal with the worldwide imperial conflict of Spain, France, and the Netherlands against England nor the war dealing with American Indians and the Midwest and Appalachia. What is striking, in terms of the ideological bias of the book, is that the book focuses on George Washington and his European associates (like de Grasse, Lafayette, and Rochembeau) to the exclusion of the many other leaders that aided in the cause of American independence. Likewise, the book also omits the widespread belief of early Americans (including Washington) about the aspect of divine providence in the successful efforts of American independence, in keeping with the secularist bias of contemporary historiography.

Despite these striking similarities between the two works, though, there are some differences between them. Ironically, the volume on slavery includes far more primary sources (namely historical maps, woodcuts, and personal ads about slavery) in its few pages than the volume on the American Revolution that ostensibly deals with studying the American Revolution from primary sources but includes very few primary sources at all aside from the reproductions of paintings within its pages. Both books contain a large bibliography. Likewise, the volume on the American Revolution is much more narrative in nature, while the volume on slavery, while it follows a generally chronological form, is much broader and more thematic in its organization. Both books are mercifully short, but worthy of interest for what they omit as well as the slant to which they put on what they include, demonstrating just how early the process of politically biased presentation begins in the study of American history.