Anyone who wants to get a better understanding of the evolution of the Green movement in the United States will find this short, concise book a worthwile read. The book covers the first three decades of the movement, which essentially began when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962. Environmentalism really established itself quickly after the publication of this book; the threats that Carson discussed struck a nerve with the American people. This growing concern led to the establishment of a number of organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, as well as forcing politicians to start paying attention to environmental issues. But as Sale points out, the environmental movement has experienced numerous setbacks. First off, the political establishment has persisted in its resistance to legislating truly effective environmental policies. Second, there has been a considerable backlash from big business. Thirdly, many of the idealistic organizations of the 1960s and 1970s have essentially sold out in their effort to play hardball with the big boys, thus diluting the revolutionary aspect of environmentalism and, hence, giving rise to "radical" environmentalists. All in all, this is a good book, very well and clearly written and bountiful in relevant information for those wanting a better understanding of the environmental movement in the United States.

An easy to read historical book dealing with the origins of the Civil War. Dr. Levine is succinct and thought-provoking in his analysis. Imploying political, economical, and social factors, Levine explores attitudes and conditions in both the North and South. Professor Levine's concentraion on social aspects and their effects on the "average" American is refreshing. I had the pleasure of studying and being instructed in this subject with Professor Levine while a student at the University of Cincinnati, while he still taught at that institution. This is an excellent book for this subject. I would also reccommend in this area: "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Man," by Eric Foner; and "James Henry Hammond and the Old South, A Design for Mastery," by Drew Gilpin Faust.

In this book, originally published in 1976, Stewart provides a basic history of the abolitionist movement beginning with the period of the American Revolution. While most think of abolition as a 19th-century movement, Stewart demonstrates that this period is also important in examining this movement. Many states, primarily in the North, found that the institution of slavery conflicted with the ideas of republicanism that they were using to defend their own rights. During the years following the Revolution, the Northern states abolished slavery either immediately through court decisions as in Massachusetts, or through gradual programs as in New York. The ideas of the Revolution also played an important role in antislavery movements throughout the 19th century.

In examining the 19th Century movement, Stewart focuses most of his book on the Antebellum period and shows the importance of religion and moral suasion in the movement. Stewart also examines how, as time progressed, the movement expanded into the political realm through third parties such as the Liberty and Free Soil parties and how the ideas of the abolitionists influenced the formation of the Republican Party in the mid-1850s. Divisions emerged over the extent to which the abolitionists should become involved in politics and parties corrupted by slaveholders.

The main weakness of this book, in my opinion is that the Civil War years are only briefly covered. It was during these years that the abolitionists were able to put the most pressure on the federal government to take action against slavery. It was also during these years that many of the goals of the abolitionist movement were met. While racial equality was not obtained during Reconstruction, certain rights were guaranteed through Constitutional amendments. Abolitionists played roles in turning the Civil War into a war merely to preserve the Union into a war to create "a more perfect union." This role should be more fully examined in a history of the abolitionist movement.

Foner dilligently attempts to describe post-slavery America and Carribean Islands. Bravo Eric!

This is a fine scholarly work, well researched and very informative. Normally, this is not the type of book I read, but I was pleased to have done so. I highly recommend this book to the public in general, and in particular to those fans of American history. It will make an excellent text for college level courses in Women's Studies and Early American History.

Early American women, be they slave or free, had an incredibly hard life, with few civil or property rights. This book recalls some of the bold and brave women that stepped forward, against difficult odds, and demanded something be done. These women started the long and hard struggle to advance the cause of women and better their lives; a battle that is still being fought today. In addition to the burden of having and raising families, American women did much of the backbreaking work of clearing land, planting and harvesting, and filling the sweatshops of early industrial America. These women earned everything they got and then some. We could never have built our great country without their labors.

I have taken for granted many things about women. This book was a real eye-opener and gave me much to ponder. Read the book guys, and learn something.

Ken Smith, USVeterans.com

I found this book to be more informative and unbiased than I expected. Since Rosenberg approaches her subject from a revisionist standpoint, I feared there would be a politicized undercurrent that would turn me off. Rosenberg's thesis is well-stated and clearly explained. She examines America's economic and cultural expansion in the period between 1890 and 1945 (although she dips rather significantly at times into the late 1940s). What she discovers is a steady progression from private activity to government-led efforts to expand America's influence in the world. At the heart of her study is an ideological concept she calls liberal developmentalism; this uniquely American thinking was, she posits, pervasive in American government and culture by 1890. Americans believed their system was the best in the world and that the export of the American system (free trade, free enterprise, the free flow of information) throughout the world would guarantee America's economic preeminence while building up weaker nations and ultimately securing world peace. American motives were quite selfish, as expansionism seemed to hold the only solution for the depression of the 1890s, but Americans also truly believed the world would benefit by Americanization. She identifies three distinct eras: a "promotional state" from the 1890s up until World War I, in which the government took a hands-off approach to diplomacy while American entrepreneurs and investors worked hard to expand their business to foreign markets; a "cooperative state" in the 1920s, in which government publicly appeared to stay out of diplomatic wrangling but behind the scenes sought to guide investment that would benefit the United States, even if it involved monopolies or American-dominated cartels; and a "regulatory state" in the 1930s and beyond, in which the government actively began to seek the means by which to control the world economy that had fallen into depression as a result of the long-term failures of the cooperative approach. The Great Depression and spread of fascism convinced Roosevelt and others to seek the reins of the world economy.

Rosenberg points out the contradictory nature of American policy. While espousing free trade and free access, America continued to employ protectionist tariffs and did not mind the lack of free access for other nations in American-dominated zones of interest. She clearly explains how de facto diplomacy by private businessmen, while successful in the short-term, was helpless to stop the terrible descent into economic bad times. She easily shows that America was far from isolationist during the first three decades of the twentieth century despite appearances to the contrary. The subject I found most interesting in the book had to do with the export of American cultural values. Rosenberg provides an enlightening discussion of movies/radio, communications, philanthropy, and missionary work in spreading the American way of life to other countries. While this is a rather dry book at times, the discussion of cultural issues is a fascinating examination of a topic often overlooked by authors in this field of study.

The historian in me does frown upon Rosenberg's lack of footnotes. While she does provide a helpful bibliography at the end of the book, the lack of distinct, verifiable citations robs a little bit of the authority so eloquently expressed in her thesis. All in all, though, the book presents a compelling and forceful argument and provides a valuable new insight into the history of post-1890 American diplomacy.

I had bought this book because I wanted to learn more about Tom Paine. Paine is one of those historical characters who keeps popping up on the edges of discussion, and about whom I knew very little. I became a lot more aware of him through my media studies, given that he was one of the first radical figures to use media effectively as a weapon.

In any case, this isn't a biography of Paine, and assumes that the reader already knows (or isn't interested in) many biographical details. The book is more about Paine's reception by the society of the time, with a focus on issues such as the role of artisans, balanced government, republicanism, and free markets. It tracks how Paine was received as political pamphleteer not only in the revolutionary US, but also in the UK and revolutionary France.

I think that the book would have meant a lot more to me if I'd already had more background, but the chapter notes did a good job of pointing me to the best books for further reading.

This books seemed to be based on two assumptions about history writing that are outdated and superficial. The two problems come up right at the begining with Farber's description of new year's eve in 1959 and what the three famous people (Ike, head of catholic church in USA, and MLK) were doing that evening. This book falls into the trap of looking at the sixties independent of its context as well as taking a top down perspective that ignores the local political movements that really move history. He redeems himself slightly with a nod to the fifties and the local activists in the 60's that really led the way to social change but it is too little too late. I have not seen a synthetic view of the 60's that is able to adequately show this overall context as well as give due credit to the underlying social movements. (John Dittmer does do a great job of this for the civil right movement in Mississippi in his book "Local People")

The age of great dreams turned into the age of great nightmares, which America has still not awakened from. David Farber shows us where it all began in his history of the 1960's. The back cover says Farber teaches history at the University of New Mexico and is also the author of some other books on the 1960's, specifically "Chicago '68." I have not read any of his other books, but this one is well written and provides a good overview of the turbulent age of rebellion.

Farber starts his book with a quick overview of the 1950's, essential for studying the 1960's. Farber shows how economic, social and political conditions laid the groundwork for the 1960's. Some of the conditions of the 1950's fairly well known: the baby boom and suburban growth were the fuel for the fire in the 1960's. Farber also writes about the conditions of blacks in the 1950's, as well as the growing omnipresence of television and advertising. Farber titled this chapter, "Good Times," but many problems lay under the surface, ready to explode at the slightest spark.

The rest of the book deals with almost every aspect of the 1960's. From Kennedy to Nixon, Farber misses few opportunities to bring to light both the good and the bad. He covers everything from LSD to the Bay of Pigs, from SDS to the sit-ins. His major theme is how the 1960's started out with Kennedy's vision of a "New Frontier," where anything seemed possible for an America rich in resources. By the end of the book, Farber shows the dawning realization that it can't all be done, that possibilities are not limitless. It took a mess of assassinations, a spoiled generation of brats, a huge war, and the Great Society programs of LBJ to show America that there were limits on what the country could do.

This is a good book that will certainly introduce anyone who reads it to the major themes of the 1960's. Focusing on the 1960's is important because it helps us forget about the 1970's, with pet rocks and the clothes my Mom made me wear predominating the memories of that decade. This was the main book for the class I took on the 1960's, and it was a good choice.

How can college students today understand the passions, complexities, and puzzles of the 1960s? This lucid and accessible survey illuminates the connections between the emerging consumer culture, social movements, and political tensions from 1960-1974. Written by a Barnard College historian for undergraduate students, this multi-dimensional shows the often conflicting factors and personalities behind critical events from Kennedy's election and the Cuban Missile Crisis to sit-in demonstrations and assassinations (JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK) and the escalating Vietnam War. Avoiding the glib and superficial conclusions that mar too many books on the 60s', this informative synthesis combines insider memoirs, oral histories, popular TV shows and census data in an engaging account. An excellent selection for American Studies, Cultural Studies, and modern American History courses.

"Who joins [the Populist movement], and why, and, conversely, why do others similarly situated not join?" This is the question, Robert McMath contends in American Populism: A Social History, 1877-1898, "that has preoccupied scholars who have studied the movement." (9) While acknowledging the work of previous scholars of the 19th century populist movement (Hicks, Woodward, Hofstadter, and Goodwyn), McMath connects the Populist's story to the "social history of rural America." He relates Populism to the "rhythms of family and community life" of the rural Plains, South and Mountain West, where this movement took root in the "social and economic networks of rural communities, not, as some would have it, among isolated and disoriented individuals." (17) In this unromantic study, McMath insists that the Farmers' Alliance and later the Populist Party grew in areas of hard-pressed agriculturalists, not secluded yeoman far from towns or railheads. Populism sprung from the "movement culture" that gave individuals and agricultural communities an avenue to make history and address their own economic and social needs, and rose from older traditions of rural cooperation and radical republicanism.
Despite this seedbed of support for the rise of cooperative alliances and, later, populist political parties, McMath shows that old allegiances to the Democratic Party in the South and a more recent adherence to the Republican Party elsewhere dissuaded many farmers and laborers from carrying the Populist banner, which prevented the new party from achieving lasting gains. "In the end," he laments, the Populist movement "failed to bend the forces of technology and capitalism toward humane ends." (211) He also concludes that the base of the movement was too limited geographically to carry a presidential election, and suffered from being "caught in the cross fire between" the two major, institutionalized political parties by the late 1890s. (208)
McMath successfully makes his case that Populism was the inheritor of earlier "movement" traditions of anti-monopolism and unionism, part of "cultures of protest." In the New South, for example, "old habits of mutuality, old relations between people on the land, were being transformed into new and more distinctly capitalistic relations...[nevertheless] old times there were not forgotten." (29) He shows that the men and women who supported the Alliance and the Populist party were ardently egalitarian in their republicanism and producersim. McMath lucidly demonstrates, however, that these farmers were never anti-capitalists who sought to return to a romantic "golden age" of Jeffersonian agrarianism. They wanted fairness and opportunity, credit and control of their lives and communities.
McMath effectively depicts the Populist movement as one of protest originating in rural America among people with legitimate economic and social grievances against monopolistic, capitalist forces. His use of a succinct narrative approach to portray this story in a "rise and fall" style shows the change over time between 1877 and the presidential election of 1898 that doomed chances of electoral success for Populists. McMath holds that initially farmers formed cooperatives and alliances for economic advantages, so-called "pecuniary benefits." By the late 1880s, he shows that the consolidation of labor and rural agricultural groups into "a permanent cooperative movement and labor party" was very much a possibility. (83) The great debate that followed was one over the decision to form a new political party or to lobby within and as part of the major parties (fusion). In the end, Populists tried both, and though some elections were won and limited political gains made, failure was the ultimate result. Many Southerners refused to leave their sacred Democratic party, while the Republicans successfully campaigned against incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland, and attracted "populist" votes in the process. McMath shows that after 1892 populism changed its character as the silver issue "crowded out" other reform concerns, and reduced reform politics to the "lowest common denominator." Lamentably for McMath, whose sympathies lie unabashedly with the populists about whom he writes, by the 1890s the populist cause-turned-political party inevitably ran "headlong in to the sobering realities of American politics. (170) Still, he argues, the reformers "fashioned a space within which Americans could begin to imagine alternative futures shaped by the promise of equal rights," a legacy "waiting to be fulfilled." (211)
McMath's straightforward account of the promise of reform and its ultimate political failure is a successful introduction to the study of American populism of the late 19th century.

First of all, this is a textbook. Be aware of that. Though I am not of sufficient knowledge to critique the excellence of Mr. McMath's argument, I can say with some authority that his writing style needs work. The work bounces around from subject to subject. It lacks any narrative feel. It comes across as a long essay written as a doctorate dissertation, not as book meant to be read by anyone. It lacks personality, only occasionally bringing up the stories that make history interesting. Instead it focuses on a very broad, social history that is very dry for most readers.

As has been said of the role of "Hamlet," every era gets its version of Populist history. To Hicks, they were the forerunners of the New Deal. To Woodward, they possessed a fleeting opportunity at biracial coalition. To Hofstatder, they were proto-fascists. To Larry Goodwyn, they possessed a vision of a just society. To Michael Schwarz, they were radicals whose strength lay in direct action, not electioneering. The last word on the movement is far from being written and this book can only keep the reader current on the history and present state of research and interpretation. This it does wonderfully well, as well as presents a clear account of the emergence, rise and decline of the movement which synthesizes and recapitulates virtually all available histories on different aspects of the movement. I have to dissent from the reviewer below and say that I found McMath a clear and brisk writer--not in C. Vann Woodward's league, perhaps, but then...who is?--who brings the movement alive and elucidates its dynamic masterfully.

If you have the least bit of curiosity about the movement, this is the first book you should read. The one significant criticism I have is that the author cuts off the narrative at 1898. In this manner, he avoids many--but by no means all--of th e more troublesome aspects of the movement and its participants. It would also seem that an additional chapter on populism's legacy through the twentieth century would be in order, encompassing as it does such diverse figures as Wright Patman, Huey Long, and George Wallace.

Finally, to all who are interested in the issues surrounding the new global economy: Read this book! Study the Populists! You will gain much insight into the process of "development" since WWII and the struggles of people throughout the "less-developed world" for their livelihood.

Indeed, I fancy that the ghosts of Tom Watson and Mary Lease were with those in Seattle marching against the WTO last year and in Washington against the World Bank and the IMF this year!

"Who Owns History" is a interesting and informative collection of essays by Columbia History professor, Eric Foner, that never quite answer the question posed by the book's title. In the book's preface, Foner points out that history has been and always will be rewritten by different generations of people to answer questions posed by the issues of their times. This is especially true when present problems closely resemble those of a past era. During the Civil Rights struggle in the 1950s and 60s for example, new historical interpretations of the Reconstruction era began to emerge, largely because the political and ethical issues practically mirrored each other. Foner launches into the book by stating that History is simultaneously owned by everyone and by no one. But while the chapters that follow are interesting and worth reading in their own right, they never really examine the ideological struggle between various interests to control historical discourse. Some of the more interesting essays are described in the sections below.

SOCIALISM
In his essay entitled "Why Is There No Socialism", Foner examines issues such as the diverse background of the working class that ostensibly contributed to racial, social, and political conflicts, the narrowness of the American electoral system, government oppression. Foner concludes that while all of these factors played an important role in preventing the rise of socialism in America, none of them were the deciding factor. In comparing the development of class consciousness in Europe and America, Foner argues that the comparative basis of the question itself may be flawed since it is possible after all, that socialism has been on the decline in Europe. Foner concludes that time will tell whether the United States is behind Europe in the development of socialism or ahead of Europe in recognizing its decline.

AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP
In his essay, "Who Is An American", Foner examines how the definition of American citizenship has evolved throughout the nation's history. American citizenship wasn't clearly delineated, according to Foner, until shortly after the Civil War. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to all people born in the United States (except native Americans) and defined the rights of citizenship regardless of ethnicity. The subsequent failure of Reconstruction, however, reinforce the racial concept of citizenship among White leaders, particularly in the South who successfully overturned many of the rights spelled out in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. During the great migrations at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the power elite came to identify citizenship with wages. Those who made money were Americans, and those who were willing to work for slave wages (Eastern Europeans, Irish, Italians, and other "undesirables" according to the attitude of the times) were not. Subsequent historical events including the Cold War, the expanding economy, and the Civil Rights Movement added a civic definition to what constituted American citizenship. An American was defined as any freedom loving individual willing to work and to defend democracy. Foner concludes that citizenship is not a Whiggish progress toward greater and greater freedom, but a more complex and dynamic one in which gains are made and lost depending on historical circumstances.

BLACKS AND THE US CONSTITUTION
Foner's essay "Blacks and the US Constitution details how an increasingly conservative Supreme Court has gradually rolled back many of the civil rights gains made by blacks particularly in areas like equal treatment in the workplace. Ironically, many of the conservative Supreme Court justices do this for the sake of preserving the "original intent" of the founding fathers with respect to the Constitution, while ignoring the fact that they deliberately structured the language of the sacred parchment to enable modification as unforeseen critical circumstances arose. Foner indicates that to restrict civil rights and other forms of egalitarian legislation in fact has little to do with the "original intent" of the founding fathers so much as the ideological intent of conservative judges.

"Who Owns History" will appeal to anyone who is interested in how historical interpretations change according to the requirements of different generations. It will also interest anyone with an interest in progressive issues such as labor, race relations, and the development of different ideologies. This book will probably not appeal to those who believe that history should be taught as a uniform and immutable set of ideas used to guide students to a "correct" understanding of their country and its values.

Foner is not one to beat around the bush. He tackles pressing social and political issues head on. In this remarkable collection of essays, he has taken aim at several key issues which define contemporary society. The most compelling essay is probably "Blacks and the U.S. Constitution," in which he examines the motivations behind the conservative desire to read the Constitution in terms of its "original intent."

As Foner notes, this is more a political than a historical argument. By narrowing the interpretation of the Constitution to its "original intent," conservatives hope to avoid addressing the more thorny issues which the later amendments attempt to address. He views the current decisions by the Supreme Court as part of an overall drive toward "Redemption," similar to the period of readjustment, in which states nullified much of the Civil Rights legislation which was enacted by the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. This eventually led to the notorious era of Jim Crow.

Foner views history as a continuum, not a set of isolated events, which can be referred to to bolster one's political arguments, whether they be conservative or liberal. Like his mentor, Richard Hofstadter, Foner rebels against consensus opinion, asking readers to form minds of their own. The essays are gritty and compelling and serve as a reminder of the intellectual prowess of one of the foremost historians of our time.

I had the pleasure of reading Foner's 'Reconstruction' almost contemporaneously with this book, although this is a much more delightful read. Foner's history of Reconstruction is the best on the subject I have read, and the most authoritive. And this book looks at the role that politics and society have not just in making history, but in reshaping it, burying it, reviving it, reliving it, and oftimes ignoring it or running from it. Certainly Foner's expertise on the Reconstruction period provides a crucible for him to look at how historical events can be interpreted, misinterpreted, and twisted from various political and ideological perspectives.

We are watching the Civil War reopen again with the rebel flag wagging in the South again, and the title of Foner's book hits that situation right between the eyes.

"Who Owns History?" is a great question, and the book provides a thought provoking answer.

Of course, in true professorial style, the answer is just more questions, and different perspectives. But interesting ones.