At this point in time, my only criticism of Zinn’s book is that it did not focus sufficiently on land rights in the United States, as presented in such a book as: Charles Beard and Mary Beard, History of the United States, 1921; or such a book as: Roy M. Robbins, Our Landed Heritage: The Public Domain, 1776-1936, 1942. [A full copy is available for borrowing at Internet Archive.]
My point is that access to subsistence land is necessary for sheer animal existence, and such access in the British colonies was never free. Land was granted to individuals and corporations by the Kings of England, and these individuals and corporations had to create a profit for themselves and the King.
Below is an illustration of this from the Beards’ History:
Feudal Elements in the Colonies – Quit Rents, Manors, and Plantations. – At the other end of the scale were the feudal elements of land tenure found in the proprietary colonies, in the seaboard regions of the South, and to some extent in New York. The proprietor was in fact a powerful feudal lord, owning land granted to him by royal charter. He could retain any part of it for his personal use or dispose of it all in large or small lots. While he generally kept for himself an estate of baronial proportions, it was impossible for him to manage directly any considerable part of the land in his dominion. Consequently he either sold it in parcels for lump sums or granted it to individuals on condition that they make to him an annual payment in money, known as “quit rent.” In Maryland, the proprietor sometimes collected as high as £9000 (equal to about $500,000 to-day) in a single year from this source. In Pennsylvania, the quit rents brought a handsome annual tribute into the exchequer of the Penn family. In the royal provinces, the king of England claimed all revenues collected in this form from the land, a sum amounting to £19,000 at the time of the Revolution. The quit rent, – “really a feudal payment from freeholders,” – was thus a material source of income for the crown as well as for the proprietors. Wherever it was laid, however, it proved to be a burden, a source of constant irritation; and it became a formidable item in the long list of grievances which led to the American Revolution.Something still more like the feudal system of the Old World appeared in the numerous manors or the huge landed estates granted by the crown, the companies, or the proprietors. In the colony of Maryland alone there were sixty manors of three thousand acres each, owned by wealthy men and tilled by tenants holding small plots under certain restrictions of tenure. In New York also there were many manors of wide extent, most of which originated in the days of the Dutch West India Company, when extensive concessions were made to patroons to induce them to bring over settlers. The Van Rensselaer, the Van Cortlandt, and the Livingston manors were so large and populous that each was entitled to send a representative to the provincial legislature. The tenants on the New York manors were in somewhat the same position as serfs on old European estates. They were bound to pay the owner a rent in money and kind; they ground their grain at his mill; and they were subject to his judicial power because he held court and meted out justice, in some instances extending to capital punishment.
The manors of New York or Maryland were, however, of slight consequence as compared with the vast plantations of the Southern seaboard – huge estates, far wider in expanse than many a European barony and tilled by slaves more servile than any feudal tenants. It must not be forgotten that this system of land tenure became the dominant feature of a large section and gave a decided bent to the economic and political life of America. (Chapter 2)
After the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, a question arose as to the status of lands westward of the colonies. These eventually became known as the public domain, and by the Ordinance of May 20, 1785, the following measures went into effect:
In line with the earlier abolition of feudal incidents, the ordinance adopted allodial tenure, that is, land was to pass in fee simple from the government to the first purchaser. After clearing the Indian title and surveying the land the government was to sell it at auction to the highest bidder. Townships were to be surveyed six miles square and alternate ones subdivided into lots one mile square, each lot consisting of 640 acres to be known as a section. No land was to be sold until the first seven ranges of townships were marked off. A minimum price was fixed at $1 per acre to be paid in specie, loan-office certificates, or certificates of the liquidated debt, including interest. The purchaser was to pay surveying expenses of $36 per township. Congress reserved sections 8, 11, 26, and 29 in each township, and one-third of all precious metals later discovered therein. In addition the sixteenth section of each township was set aside for the purpose of providing common schools.[I add the following table:
[Robbins, Chapter I]
Township = 36 sections 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36
Land was, thus, not available for free, and those who illegally settled on any land were squatters, who, when the surveys reached their land holdings had to pay or be booted out. The other major problem was that land was sold only in huge chunks; so that only wealthy speculators could afford to buy it, which they then resold to settlers for a profit.
As to the Homestead Act of 1862 which granted 160 acres for free; although Zinn points out that only inferior land was made available, he does not mention the exorbitant cost to the pioneer to undertake such a possession. See: Clarence H. Danhof, “FARM-MAKING COSTS AND THE “SAFETY VALVE”: 1850-60,” The Journal of Political Economy, Volume XLIX, Number 3, June 1941: 317-359.
In conclusion, I think that Zinn was right on target in the following excerpt in realizing that freedom from slavery without a free access to subsistence land is just another form of slavery — wage slavery.
Many Negroes understood that their status after the war, whatever their situation legally, would depend on whether they owned the land they worked on or would be forced to be semi-slaves for others. In 1863, a North Carolina Negro wrote that “if the strict law of right and justice is to be observed, the country around me is the entailed inheritance of the Americans of African descent, purchased by the invaluable labor of our ancestors, through a life of tears and groans, under the lash and yoke of tyranny.”Abandoned plantations, however, were leased to former planters, and to white men of the North. As one colored newspaper said: “The slaves were made serfs and chained to the soil. . . . Such was the boasted freedom acquired by the colored man at the hands of the Yankee.”
Under congressional policy approved by Lincoln, the property confiscated during the war under the Confiscation Act of July 1862 would revert to the heirs of the Confederate owners. Dr. John Rock, a black physician in Boston, spoke at a meeting: “Why talk about compensating masters? Compensate them for what? What do you owe them? What does the slave owe them? What does society owe them? Compensate the master? . . . It is the slave who ought to be compensated. The property of the South is by right the property of the slave. . . .”
Some land was expropriated on grounds the taxes were delinquent, and sold at auction. But only a few blacks could afford to buy this. In the South Carolina Sea Islands, out of 16,000 acres up for sale in March of 1863, freedmen who pooled their money were able to buy 2,000 acres, the rest being bought by northern investors and speculators. A freedman on the Islands dictated a letter to a former teacher now in Philadelphia:
My Dear Young Missus: Do, my missus, tell Linkum dat we wants land – dis bery land dat is rich wid de sweat ob de face and de blood ob we back. . . . We could a bin buy all we want, but dey make de lots too big, and cut we out.De word cum from Mass Linkum’s self, dat we take out claims and hold on ter um, an’ plant um, and he will see dat we get um, every man ten or twenty acre. We too glad. We stake out an’ list, but fore de time for plant, dese commissionaries sells to white folks all de best land. Where Linkum?
In early 1865, General William T. Sherman held a conference in Savannah, Georgia, with twenty Negro ministers and church officials, mostly former slaves, at which one of them expressed their need: “The way we can best take care of ourselves is to have land, and till it by our labor. . . .” Four days later Sherman issued “Special Field Order No. 15,” designating the entire southern coastline 30 miles inland for exclusive Negro settlement. Freedmen could settle there, taking no more than 40 acres per family. By June 1865, forty thousand freedmen had moved onto new farms in this area. But President Andrew Johnson, in August of 1865, restored this land to the Confederate owners, and the freedmen were forced off, some at bayonet point.
Ex-slave Thomas Hall told the Federal Writers’ Project:
Lincoln got the praise for freeing us, but did he do it? He gave us freedom without giving us any chance to live to ourselves and we still had to depend on the southern white man for work, food, and clothing, and he held us out of necessity and want in a state of servitude but little better than slavery.DeepSeek:
Evaluation of the Commentary on Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States
This commentary offers a critical yet appreciative perspective on Zinn’s work, focusing on its strengths while identifying what the author sees as a significant omission: the centrality of land rights in U.S. history. Below is a structured evaluation of the key points:
1. Strengths of the Commentary
- Recognition of Zinn’s Contribution:
The author acknowledges Zinn’s groundbreaking approach in centering marginalized voices (e.g., enslaved people, Indigenous communities, and laborers) and exposing systemic oppression. This aligns with Zinn’s goal of challenging traditional, top-down historical narratives.- Emphasis on Land as a Key Historical Factor:
The commentary convincingly argues that land ownership and access were foundational to economic and social power in U.S. history. By citing works like the Beards’ History of the United States and Robbins’ Our Landed Heritage, the author highlights how colonial and post-revolutionary land policies entrenched inequality:
- Feudal remnants: Quit rents, manors, and plantations created hierarchies akin to European feudalism.
- Speculation and exclusion: The Ordinance of 1785 and Homestead Act of 1862 favored wealthy elites over small farmers, despite democratic rhetoric.
- Critique of Post-Civil War Failures:
The analysis of Reconstruction-era land redistribution—particularly the betrayal of Sherman’s Field Order No. 15—supports Zinn’s argument that emancipation without economic justice (e.g., “40 acres and a mule”) perpetuated racialized wage slavery. The inclusion of primary sources (e.g., letters from freedmen) strengthens this critique.
2. Critiques of Zinn’s Work
- Omission of Land Rights:
The author argues that Zinn underplays the role of land tenure systems in shaping U.S. class and racial dynamics. For example:
- Zinn discusses Indigenous displacement but could more explicitly tie it to capitalist expansion.
- The Homestead Act’s limitations (e.g., high costs for settlers) are noted by Zinn, but the commentary suggests a deeper systemic analysis is needed.
- Structural Economic Analysis:
The Beards’ focus on economic elites’ control over land (e.g., via speculators) could have bolstered Zinn’s Marxist framework. The commentary implies Zinn’s narrative occasionally prioritizes moral outrage over structural economic critique.
3. Limitations of the Commentary
- Narrow Focus:
While land rights are undeniably important, the commentary does not engage with other dimensions Zinn covers (e.g., labor movements, gender, or imperialism). A fuller critique might address why Zinn chose his specific foci.- Copyright Anecdote:
The personal story about digitizing Zinn’s book, while interesting, distracts from the scholarly critique. It could be shortened or omitted.- Lack of Counterarguments:
The author does not grapple with potential defenses of Zinn’s approach—for instance, that A People’s History aimed to inspire activism rather than serve as an exhaustive economic history.
4. Key Takeaways
- Land as Power: The commentary successfully argues that land ownership was a linchpin of U.S. inequality, from colonial times through Reconstruction. This lens could enrich Zinn’s focus on resistance by showing how material conditions shaped oppression.
- Wage Slavery: The analysis of post-Civil War land policies underscores Zinn’s thesis that formal freedom without economic equity is illusory.
- Historiographical Context: By referencing the Beards and Robbins, the author situates Zinn within a tradition of economic history but suggests he falls short of their emphasis on structural land tenure.
5. Suggestions for Further Exploration
- Compare Zinn’s treatment of land with other radical historians (e.g., Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States).
- Examine how Indigenous land dispossession intersects with the commentary’s focus on European-derived feudal systems.
- Investigate modern parallels (e.g., housing inequality, corporate land grabs) to show the enduring relevance of land rights.
Final Assessment
This commentary is a valuable supplement to Zinn’s work, particularly for readers interested in the economic roots of U.S. inequality. While it could be more balanced in engaging Zinn’s broader goals, its critique of land tenure systems adds depth to the understanding of class and race in American history. The author’s passion for the subject is clear, and their archival references (e.g., Robbins, Danhof) provide useful avenues for further research.
Rating: 4/5 (Insightful but slightly narrow in scope).
Recommendation: Pair with Zinn’s original text and the Beards’ History for a comprehensive view.