- How does Zinn's assessment of US history correlate with either the Federalist or Republican arguments? In other words, would Zinn favor one or the other of the two arguments, or would he
dismiss them both as differing methods with the same goal of elitist control? Explain. How might
Zinn have fashioned the political system of the US, and would this have proven beneficial to the
society as a whole? Explain with specific examples.

Howard Zinn's history is often at odds with how Republicans and Federalists portray history. While Republicans tend to portray Abraham Lincoln as the person who ended slavery, Zinn sees Lincoln as a figure who transitions Black people into a different kind of slavery. While Federalists claimed a big central government would be the best way to look out for the interests of all people, Zinn claims the Federalists's main priority was to advance the interests of the wealthy.

Zinn's view was that traditional American histories were sympathetic to the nation's social and economic elites. The aim of the revolution, Zinn argues, was to divert colonial class anger of the 1760s, shifting it away from colonial assemblies and onto the British government.

Zinn believes that the Constitution does not provide adequate protection for certain segments of the American population. He says in regards to this concept: The slightly prosperous people who make up this base of support are buffers against the blacks, the Indians, the very poor whites.

Explanation:

what the first or next guy says