U.S. History Book Review Instructions
What is the main argument of the book? What are some key supporting arguments? Did
the author prove the main argument? Why or why not? 750-1000 words.
You have been asked to compose a book review in this class. This sort of assignment
requires you both to report the main arguments and evidence of a book, AND evaluate
the book’s arguments and use of evidence. Your paper should follow the standard
requirements of a college-level thesis statement and should be about 750-1000 words
long.
Your paper should cover the following elements: first, a clear identification of the
author’s main point, or THESIS; second, the DEVELOPMENT, or the manner in which
the author proves the thesis; finally, your CRITIQUE of the work.
1. The thesis is the unifying principle of the whole book. It is the central argument that
the author intends to unpack and prove. Although most good authors make numerous
arguments in a history book, there is typically one central, defining idea that ties
everything together. You will need to identify and thoroughly communicate the author’s
central thesis in your own words. If you find a sentence that you believe directly
identifies the thesis, that’s fine! However, do not merely put the thesis in quotes. You
must use your own words.
2. The development is how the author goes about elaborating upon and backing up his
thesis. Here is where you identify the historian’s use of sources. Here also is where you
consider the conclusions the author draws from the sources he is using. Although you
will need to summarize the major points made by the author as you describe the book’s
development, you will need to go beyond merely reporting what the author says and
moving into the realm of analyzing and critiquing what he or she says. Consider the
nature of the historical evidence used. Consider the organization of the book. Consider
the topics addressed, as well as the topics left untreated.
3. The critique is not a criticism of the book. Instead, it is your evaluation of the book’s
thesis, use of evidence, organization, overall effectiveness, and contribution to the
study of history in general. In your critique, you will consider whether a particular point
of view (normally a neutral necessity) and/or a particular bias or prejudice (normally an
avoidable negative) shaped the author’s arguments and use of evidence. You will also
consider whether the book is well-written and useful for the student, the general reader,
or only the advanced specialist.
You will need to be careful about your tone as you discuss your critique. You need to
avoid gushing (if you loved it) or ranting (if you hated it). Although you should freely
express your overall assessment of it (and the reasons why you are assessing it as such),
use even-toned, academic language (generally meaning avoiding “I” statements). You
are making a scholarly argument and should approach your topic (and your readers) with
scholarly respect.
Remember that plagiarism is utterly unacceptable and will result at least in a zero for this
assignment, and potentially a failure in the course and a report to appropriate authorities.
Any sort of cutting and pasting or presenting someone else’s work as your own is
plagiarism.
Of course you will be using quotes from the book to back up your ideas. However, make
sure your paper uses quotes sparingly, and only when the author’s particular words are
useful to cite in your paper. It is usually better to rely on summarizing (in your own
words), because that demonstrates to me that you really do understand the material, and it
allows for a smoother reading experience. Follow Turabian format for in-paper citations
Although there is no one way to write a book review/analysis/critique, you may want to
follow the following structure:
Introductory paragraph: Orient your reader to your topic. Lead up to, and state, the
author’s central thesis. Provide a general ‘map’ for how the rest of your paper will be
structured. State, in general, your own final assessment of the book’s overall
effectiveness
Body: Focus on the development of the book, being sure to consistently refer back to the
author’s central thesis as you unpack his or her sub-arguments and use of evidence. Note
instances of especially insightful contributions and/or instances of bias or poor
argumentation. The body will be a combination of a summary of the author’s work and
your analysis of the different pieces of his work – his arguments, evidence, structure,
point of view, etc.
You can structure your body a couple of different ways: you can follow the ‘arguments’
all the way through the book in one paragraph, then go on to his ‘use of evidence’ all the
way through the book in the next paragraph, then his ‘structure,’ then his ‘point of view,’
then your notes of ‘insightful contributions,’ etc.
OR, you can spend the first part of your body (several paragraphs-worth) summarizing
the key arguments and use of evidence in the three different parts of the book. While
providing this summary, you can intersperse your more analytical comments as you go,
remarking on how a particular argument used evidence well, or how a particular
argument seemed to express a certain negative bias, or how the ordering of arguments
followed (or did not follow) a good structure. This way is harder to write well, but will
make a better paper, since you are weaving different elements together rather than
treating every single element in isolation. However, if you follow this second structure,
you should still write several paragraphs beyond the primarily ‘summarizing’ paragraphs,
making more concentrated notes on use of evidence, structure, overall effectiveness, etc.
(My suggestion – take many notes while you read, and as you take notes and think
through what structure for your paper will best serve your purposes, you will discover the
best structure. Starting with a structure/outline written in stone and trying to make the
parts fit in often doesn’t work as well).
Conclusion: Here is where you focus your critique of the work overall. Referring back to
the author’s central thesis and the important observations you had already made in the
body of your paper concerning your analysis of the development of the book, write a
concluding paragraph that offers your overall evaluation of this book’s contribution to the
study of the history of whatever subject the book is about. If you have positive
statements, make sure they are backed up. If you have negative statements, make sure
you offer possible alternatives. (For example, if you think the structure of the book is
ineffective, be sure to posit what you believe would be a better structure). If you think
the author did not effectively support his or her thesis, be sure to propose what sort of
evidence and argumentation you would have needed in order to feel more comfortable
with the author’s central thesis.
Although conclusions are traditionally one paragraph long, you may discover you need
more than one paragraph to effectively offer your full critique and conclude.
Helpful Hints on Writing Book Reviews from Indiana University Bloomington
A book review tells not only what a book is about, but also how successful it is at what it
is trying to do. Professors often assign book reviews as practice in careful analytical
reading.
As a reviewer, you bring together the two strands of accurate, analytical reading and
strong, personal response when you indicate what the book is about and what it might
mean to a reader (by explaining what it meant to you). In other words, reviewers answer
not only the WHAT but the SO WHAT question about a book. Thus, in writing a review,
you combine the skills of describing what is on the page, analyzing how the book tried
to achieve its purpose, and expressing your own reactions.
READING THE BOOK
As you’re reading or preparing to write the review, ask yourself these questions:
What are the author’s viewpoint and purpose?
The viewpoint or purpose may be implied rather than stated, but often a good place to
look for what the author says about his or her purpose and viewpoint is the introduction
or preface.
What are the author’s main points?
Again, these will often be stated in the introduction.
What kind of evidence does the author use to prove his or her points? Is the
evidence convincing?
Why or why not? Does the author support his or her points adequately?
How does this book relate to other books on the same topic?
Is the book unique? Does it add new information? What group of readers, if any, would
find this book most useful?
Does the author have the necessary expertise to write the book?
What are the most appropriate criteria by which to judge the book? How successful
do you think the author was in carrying out the overall purposes of the book?
Reviewers get to the heart of their writing—their evaluation of the book. In this section,
reviewers discuss a variety of issues:





how well the book has achieved its goal,
what possibilities are suggested by the book,
what the book has left out,
how the book compares to others on the subject,
what specific points are not convincing.
It is important to carefully distinguish your views from the author’s, so that you don’t
confuse your reader.
There is, of course, no set formula, but a general rule of thumb is that the first onehalf to two-thirds of the review should summarize the author’s main ideas and at
“To locate the most direct causes of the American Civil War…, one must look at the
actions of government officeholders in the decades before that horrific conflict. Their
decisions and the impact of those decisions are the subjects of this book.” (xiii)

“the decisions were crucial because they did so much to deepen distrust and intensify
animosity between the white populations of the North and South” (pg 5)
The Civil War was not due to the issue of slavery’s existence, but rather the spread of
slavery. Popular sovereignty was overhyped as cause.

Kansas-Nebraska Act: popular vote decides (free or slave state)
o Bleeding Kansas: feuds between pro and anti-slavery activists in the proposed
state
Argues that politicians divided the country, drove it to split





Texas annexation: free or slave state?
o Pro annex: (James Polk[dem]), Anti annex: (Van Buren[dem] and Clay[whig])
o Admitted as slave
Do I agree?
It was inevitable, politicians could have restrained/taken greater care, but it would
never have prevented the War
The divide was too deep
“Democrats ‘waged for the extension of slavery’ ” (pg 18)
Slavery eventual made its way from “necessary evil” to “morally sound”

Fugitive Slave Acts and Dred Scott Decision
o Drove Northerners to act (forced to partake in slavery)
o