1. Reagan Conservatism: Reagan, PBS – Major Speeches – NY Times Articles – Presidential Library

2. The Iran-Contra Affair: Reagan, PBS, Iran Contra – Iran/Contra from the National Security Archive – The Secret Government (Iran/Contra Affair) Video – Time: The US and Iran

3. US/Soviet Relations:

4. Reaganomics

5. Woman’s Rights

6. Environmentalism

7. The Persian Gulf War

8. The LA Riots

9. NAFTA

10. Clinton Foreign Policy

11. The 2000 Election

12. September 11, 2001

13. The Computer & Internet

14. Multiculturalism

15. Poverty & Wealth

16. The Iraq War

17. The Afghanistan War

18. Bush Foreign Policy

19. The Great Recession

20. The Stimulus Plan

Here are some suggested research links for the atom bomb:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/index.php

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomic.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm

http://chalk.richmond.edu/education/projects/webquests/wwii/

and the Nuremberg Trials:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Nuremberg_trials.html

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/

Here’s a copy of the Atom Bomb packet.

Here’s a copy of the rubric for the roles of lawyers, witnesses and jury members:

A – Lawyers conduct extensive research and present copies of their findings (in their own words, typed) to the judge.  Lawyers present their case by beginning with a clear, well written and well practiced opening statement.  This opening statement uses background information on current immigration issues, previous immigration laws, relationships between immigration and global politics, world economics and international multiculturalism, as well as civil and human rights.  The cross-examination questions asked of each witness are extremely thoughtful and planned in advance.  Copies are submitted to the judge.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigrant rights and law in the United States.  Lawyers also present hypothetical questions to the witnesses in addition to their provided testimony.

B – Lawyers present their case by beginning with a clear, well written and well practiced opening statement.  This opening statement uses background information on immigration laws and current issues as well as the impact on civil and human rights.  The cross-examination questions asked of each witness are very thoughtful and planned in advance.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigration rights and law in the United States.  Lawyers also present hypothetical questions to the witnesses in addition to their provided testimony.

C – Lawyers present their case by beginning with an opening statement that is clear but uses only a few historical references.  Their opening statement also makes arguments that do not fit well with their witnesses’ statements.  They cross-examine witnesses well and ask probing questions, but fail to take advantage of logical arguments and other opportunities.  Their concluding remarks use historical references, tie in statements made by witnesses, and present a clear factual and ethical argument for their case for or against immigration issues and law.

D – Lawyers present their case and use background information but don’t connect it to their arguments.  They question witnesses but don’t use their testimony in their concluding remarks.  They do some brief research but have gaps of knowledge that the other lawyers exploit.

F – Lawyers present their case with little background information and nothing to sustain their argument.  They poorly question witnesses and make quick introduction and concluding remarks.

A – Witnesses who want an A as a grade will prepare everything for three different characters.  They will also act out each of these during the trial.  Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have an excellent understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a great job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  They also appear in the dress of their roles.  Witnesses submit their affidavits (full biographies) to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.  Witnesses also submit their research on their role in a three page typed report.

B – Witnesses who want a B as a grade will prepare everything for two different characters.  They will also act out both of these during the trial.  Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have an excellent understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a great job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  They also appear in the dress of their roles.  Witnesses submit their affidavits to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.  Witnesses also submit their research on their role in a two page typed report.

C – Witnesses conduct research on their character, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have a good understanding of the events, people and issues affecting immigrants and US law concerning them.  Witnesses also do a good job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned and cross examined by the lawyers.  Witnesses submit their affidavits to the judge containing all their information, their positions on the issues (explained fully) and their trial interviews (transcripts) with their lawyers.

D – Witnesses conduct research on their characters, including full details about themselves and their situation.  They have a good understanding of the events, people and issues concerning immigration.  Witnesses also do a good job of acting out their specific roles while being questioned by the lawyers.

F – Witnesses conduct some research on their characters, including brief details about themselves, but only have a basic understanding of the content.

A – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a three paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take superb notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will rewrite these notes into transcripts that tell the whole course of the trial.  They will write a three paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content, current circumstances and the events and issues of the trial itself.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  They will verify (check) historical facts used in the trial for truthfulness and write a one page report on the use or misuse of such facts in the trial.  Jury members will also give an extensive statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each in detail.

B – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a two paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take superb notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will rewrite these notes into transcripts that tell the whole course of the trial.  They will write a two paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  Jury members will also give a statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each.

C – Jury members will study the history of immigration issues, policies and laws within the United States.  They will submit a one paged summary of statistics, events and conclusions concerning their research.  Research assignments will be assigned by the teacher.  Jury members will take very good notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will write a one paged opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.  Jury members will also give a brief statement to the court on their opinions, explaining each.

D – Jury members will research and write a one paged summary of immigration issues in United States history.  Jury members will take good notes on the opening statements, the testimony and the concluding remarks.  They will write an opinion of the trial that is closely based on historical content.  This opinion of the trial must be in essay form and well explained.

F – Jury members will take notes and write an opinion of the trial that is only somewhat based on historical content, the witness’s testimony and the arguments of the lawyers.

Finally, here’s some awesome student work on the Atom Bomb Trial from our prosecution and defense opening statements.

DEFENSE: OPENING STATEMENT – Good morning to all in attendance here in the courtroom today. On this day we gather here for the trial of Mr. Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States. President Truman is brought before us today for false accusations of war crimes committed against the people, and former enemies of Japan. This decision in question was that of the one my client made, as commander in chief to drop an atomic bomb of both the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today the prosecution is going to try to sway your opinion against my client by providing you with the destruction that the atom bomb caused, and the civilian toll that it took. Although they may decide to call it inhumane, war laws determined at the Hague Conference, along with others, will prove that my client is innocent of the charges placed against him. You will hear evidence today on such law that allows for this type of warfare as long as military interests were in its decision, and not just barbarity of killing civilians. Today you will hear statistics of the thousands of civilians who died due to this specific bombing, that it was over one hundred thousand; however it is important to note that during World War II, approximately 26,163, 700 civilians died, some of them at the hands of Japanese bombers and in bombs themselves, six thousand of them being American. So are we here today to argue the obvious need and necessity of the atom bomb’s dropping, or just the fact that it was the most powerful bomb to ever be dropped in warfare in the world’s history? Today, my goal as President Truman’s Counsel will be to convince you of both the true necessity and justification of the said bombing that we sit in this courthouse today for. You will hear submitted evidence as well as testimonies proving such need and justification. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, first and foremost saved American lives and ended this war in unconditional surrender, which had been the policy set by the previous administration under the late President Roosevelt. A piece of evidence from General MacArthur himself, will display his concern that possibly one million American men may have lost their lives if an invasion of the Japanese mainland were to take place as an alternative to this bombing, for although Japan may have been economically crippled, it still did have strong military capabilities. In addition in order to prove this, you will also hear from one Japanese official himself, with reference to another, who will testify that Japan had no intention on surrendering, and therefore that the war would continue with its numerous costs to the United States. This therefore concludes that by just simply dropping one of our atom bombs on a deserted island to prove our strength would fail in forcing the Japanese to surrender considering the fact that they refused to surrender even after these economic difficulties had plagued them, including the dropping of the first atom bomb, and the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. This therefore as through evidence will also show that the atom bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end this war, for it sent a message to the Japanese that we would defeat them and with the lives of our military at hand, decided to drop these bombs. But let it be known as well that both cities bombed did in fact have significance. Hiroshima itself was the Second Command Japanese Headquarters which controlled all of Southern Japan. This is important for the United States held Okinawa, just to the South of Japan and its bombing could potentially destroy Japan’s defense of the Southern tier of its mainland. Nagasaki was also of significant importance for it was Japan’s most significant sea port, and being economically crippled was vital to Japanese survival in the war. Finally along with other arguments supporting the acquittal of my client, you will hear from him himself. It is also important to note, that bombings had caused much greater civilian death toll in the past, making this one no more different, as seen by the War Department. In addition, President Truman will take the stand tonight and explain to you his interests in ending this war, saving American lives, and was advised by numerous committees, and even had the support of the bombs’ creator, in dropping these bombs. President Truman had no intentions or interests in these bombs, except to ensure this country’s victory and the retrieval of unconditional surrender from Japan. In closing, I ask of you to listen to the facts presented to you tonight, and decipher what really is barbaric and what is necessary. Barbarism is the unnecessary torture put on prisoners and civilians by the Japanese; necessity was the military actions that my client took in order to defend his country, which as President, he is sworn to do under the Constitution of the United States. Thank you.

PROSECUTION: OPENING STATEMENT – The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral, unnecessary, unjustifiable, and a blatant war crime. President Harry S. Truman’s actions wreaked havoc on a country that was already deteriorating at a rapid pace; Japan was crumbling, both literally and figuratively. American air forces had already destroyed over sixty major Japanese cities by the use of conventional bombing, and due to the embargoes and insufficient amount of food and artillery it would have been impossible for Japan to remain immersed in open warfare for much longer. It is safe to state that the atom bomb is the most technologically advanced weapon on earth, light-years ahead of any other weapons that are currently in circulation today. The effect of a single atom bomb is devastating, but the combined effects of two atomic bombs are more catastrophic than we here in this courtroom can fully comprehend. That is, with the exception of two Japanese women who sit among us today, two women who have lived through this harrowing ordeal and have been kind enough to submit their testimonies to this case. Their stories will be added into the comprehensive books of historical records, of the world, albeit situated within one of the darkest chapters of human history mankind have ever had the misfortune to have orchestrated. Mr. Truman’s own generals Mr. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur, and William Lahey, three of the brightest military minds of our generation, all met with Mr. Truman three days before the atomic bomb was dropped over Hiroshima; the decision between the generals was unanimous; it was unnecessary to drop the atomic bomb and there was no military need to employ such a devastating bomb at this late stage of the war. Over two billion dollars was spent on the creation and development on an atrocity with the power to decimate whole cities in a single blow and kill hundreds of thousands on impact. The atom bomb is indiscriminant; it does not know the value of an innocent; men, women, children, babies; ALL are enemies.  The ratio of civilians to military personnel in the star-crossed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was six to one at the time of the drop. SIX TO ONE! This statistic speaks volumes; this attack was not “solely a military target”. Over 135,000 died in Hiroshima and 64,000 died due to the bombing in Nagasaki, most of which were uninvolved women and children; schools, hospitals, homes; blown off the face of the Earth by either “Little Boy” or “Fat Man”. We as a nation must collectively realize that when we dropped these bombs with the hope of ending the war, we were also waging a war on generations of future Japanese citizens, and humanity itself. The radiation caused by the blast permeates everything; the soil, the water, even the cells and genetics of the indigenous peoples. The “black rain” which immediately followed the blast fell for over an hour, covering broad expanses of land with radioactive debris. In the next few months and years the world we will be able to watch as a pattern emerges:  the civilians who survived the atom bomb itself will begin succumbing to cancers and injuries caused by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The employment of these atomic bombs is also a clear and distinct violation of existing aerial codes, including the Law and Custom of War on Land (Hague,H). It states, Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing…… (QOUTE IS ON PAPER). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to petrify the Japanese people into submission; a gilded euphemism for something darker and more valid: terrorism.

And…

Here in AP US History, we are going to explore his work in a multi-part project. For examples of how this project worked with my students in 2009, 2008 and 2007, please click on the links.  There is some very creative and well-researched student work there.

Part I:

Text Analysis: Describe 10 Facts & Research a Topic [Read, Describe, Choose, Research, Post & Respond] Students will 1) read Chapter 24 in The American People (The Great Depression and the New Deal, Part One and Part Two) and AMSCO: Chapter 24: The Great Depression and then 2) describe ten facts (or statistics, events, individuals, issues, etc.) that represent some of the main ideas of your reading.  Students will then 3) choose one topic from their reading to research.  This topic may reflect any of the issues, events or individuals related to the political, economic or cultural aspects to the Great Depression or FDR’s New Deal.  Students will then 4) use the Internet to research their topic and then 5) post a descriptive essay concerning their findings (primary sources are encouraged and all sources must be cited).  Finally, students will be asked to 6) respond to another student’s post by explaining what you learned either a) from their essay or b) from their sources concerning their topic.  Your 10 facts and research topic will be worth 40 points each [80 total] and your question/comment will be worth 10 points.  Finally, your detailed response to a student’s post will be worth 10 points.

Part II:

Cast: Lewis Andreas | Dorothe Bernstein | Sam Heller | Jerome Zerbe | Robin Langston | Louis Banks | Emma Tiller | Buddy Blankenship | Jim Sheridan | Eileen Barth | Bob Stinson | Evelyn Finn | Dorothy Day | Max Naiman | Oscar Helein | Cesar Chaves | Doc Graham | Peggy Terry | Mike Widman | Arthur Robertson | John Beecher | Jane Yoder | Aaron Barkham | Earl Dickinson | Ed Paulsen | Vincent Murray | Larry Van Dusen

People: Write a brief (1 page) biography based on your interviews and your understanding of the personal experiences of your character.  You may use ‘artistic license’ to add information as long as you don’t change the historical context of your character or the events/issues of the times. [Example: I am a 25 year old woman living in western Oklahoma whose husband left the farm two months ago in search of work.  The dust blows so hard at night that we have to cover our windows with wet towels…] [20 points]

Events: Describe the historical events that have influenced your life during the Great Depression.  You may write a description in paragraphs or compile a list explaining the connections to your personal experiences.  Connections may be direct (personally experienced) or indirect (affecting the scenario around you). [Example: When the Federal Farm Board was established, we thought we could continue to grow more food to pay our mortgage, but no one was buying.  Prices plummeted.  We overproduced and were left with rotting crops.  Things even got worse when the Farmer’s Holiday Association tried to sabotage our food from going to market…] [20 points]

Issues: How have any of these issues below affected you?  What is their relationship to the events you are connected to?  Explain in detail by analyzing the relationship between your experiences, historic events and these issues.  Choose a minimum of four of the issues listed here. Justice | Patriotism | Racism | Politics | Economic Power | Rights | Prejudice | Gender | Equality   [Example: Hoover seems to want to protect the large farmer-owners and not the small ones. (Economic Power) Doesn’t everyone deserve to be protected from poverty in this country? (Equality)] [20 points]

Story: Randomly select groups.  Introduce yourselves and then create a story involving yourself and two others.  You may decide to either write a short story (4-5 pages) or outline a skit and then act it out in the class (10 minutes).  The objective of the story is to describe and explain the political, economic and social impact of the Great Depression through your collective experiences, but remember to have fun creating and/or acting out your story as well!] as well as adding feedback to each other’s stories for accuracy and context. [40 points]

Part III:

Dear Mrs. Roosevelt – Letters from Children of the Great Depression
Source: http://newdeal.feri.org/eleanor/index.htm, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/
Assignment: Imagine yourself as Eleanor Roosevelt.  You’ve toured most of the country, visiting injured factory workers, climbing down mine shafts, ate dinner with dispossessed sharecroppers and listened to countless stories of unemployed and homeless Americans.  You return to the White House late at night from another trip abroad to a small mountain of letters.  You notice they are all from children.  You begin to imagine the Depression through their eyes as you read their letters… Choosing three of the letters available on the website, write a response for each in detail both to the child and to the parent explaining your efforts & feelings. [50 points]

Photo Essay of the Great Depression
Source: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/photoessay.htm
Assignment: Imagine yourself a photographer during the Depression.  You’ve been given a position working for the government documenting the effects of the economic crisis.  Your supervisor visits you one day completely disheveled and speaks to you in a hurry.  You have been asked to bring your photos to the President himself.  He wishes to know more about your work and how it may help him create policies to help the nation.  You have to select ten of your best photos and explain why they are symbolic of the times.  Visit the website and choose ten images.  Explain what message each image tells and why it is important to remember. [50 points]

http://local.aaca.org/bntc/slang/slang.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~dlarkins/slang-pg.htm

http://tucsoncitizen.com/retroflections/2009/07/31/spiffy-slang-from-the-1920s/

It’s already time for the March/April AP US History calendar!  March is that great big dry month in the middle of two vacations, but it is also the time of a lot of interesting learning in 20th century American history.  I know you’ll enjoy it, even with all of the work.  There is one mistake on the calendar… I forgot to take out March 23rd as a school day.  That is a professional development day, and so YOU won’t be there, but I will.  Here’s the link to the calendar.

So, B block asked to do a debate about to what extent the Great War, the Treaty and the League was a victory for democracy. We broke the work down into the three tasks that made sense in writing a DBQ: 1) creating a thesis statement, 2) gathering primary sources (from the PDF file and outside sources) and using them to support your thesis and 3) gather a list of outside information and again, use it to support the thesis.

So let’s see some work! My B blockers said they would get most of the work done in the first weekend, but now that the fire is lit – let’s get some debatin’ done!

Here’s the link for the online discussion forum: here, as well as some good links for research here, a great debate from the Harvard Gazette here, and finally some Congressional testimony here.

Early draft of the Constitution found in Phila.

By Edward Colimore

Inquirer Staff Writer

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: “We The People. . . .”

They had been scribbled upside down by one of the Constitution’s framers, James Wilson, in the summer of 1787. The cursive continued, then abruptly stopped, as if pages were missing.

A mystery, Toler thought, until she examined other Wilson papers from the Historical Society’s vault in Philadelphia and found what appeared to be the rest of the draft, titled “The Continuation of the Scheme.”

The document – one of 21 million in the Historical Society’s collection – was known to scholars, but probably should have been placed with the other drafts, said constitutional scholar John P. Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution in the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“This was the kind of moment historians dream about,” said Toler, 30, a lawyer and founding president of the Constitutional Sources Project (www.ConSource.org), a nonprofit organization, based in Washington, that promotes an understanding of and access to U.S. Constitution documents.

“This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution’s history,” she said of her find in November. “It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling.”

As other researchers “realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room,” Toler said. “One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end.”

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson’s hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said “The Continuation of the Scheme,” including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

She “found a document that was sort of buried in its right place, but not taken out by an archivist for special treatment,” said Kaminski, the constitutional scholar. “This is a valuable document. It is in Wilson’s hand, and it was in Wilson’s papers, where it should have been.”

With so many historical documents “going online, you don’t have that kind of discovery in an archives,” he added. “I can understand why [Toler] would be excited.”

For Nathan Raab, a member of the Board of Councilors of the Historical Society, the documents are reminders “of the great depth of the archives there and the emotional power of holding a piece of history in your hand.”

“The Continuation of the Scheme” and countless other documents had been evaluated by scholars decades ago before being carefully filed away at the Historical Society at 13th and Locust Streets.

“Perhaps this one should have been placed with the other drafts,” said Lee Arnold, senior director of the library and collections at the Historical Society. “We may do that, but no decision has been made.

“We want to look at it more thoroughly,” he said. “In the end, though, [the document] is perfectly fine.”

The drafts of the Constitution in Wilson’s hand were removed from his other papers and placed in Mylar and acid-free folios and have been occasionally displayed.

“The Continuation of the Scheme” document “was safe and preserved, but not given the prominence,” said Kaminski, chief editor of the book The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.

“Wilson was a great man and one of the great founders and should be respected for that,” he said. “We owe him our gratitude for the role he played.”

Wilson, who lived in Philadelphia, was selected July 24, 1787, with four other members of the Constitutional Convention to serve on the Committee of Detail.

The committee – which also had John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, and Oliver Ellsworth – used 28 resolutions passed by members of the convention to flesh out the Constitution.

They finished their work and presented it Aug. 6, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention. It included Wilson’s famous “We the People” beginning.

Seeing the framers’ drafts and thought processes leading up to that point was especially thrilling to Toler, who is studying at Oxford University, where she is seeking a doctorate in U.S. history and specializing in constitutional legal history.

“The Constitution may be the most important document written in modern history,” said Toler. “It is the longest-standing written constitution and the basis for most of the constitutions in the world.”

After finding the draft, “I felt like an actor in the movie National Treasure, but [actor] Nicolas Cage was nowhere to be found,” Toler added.

“However, what I found was a national treasure – the real national treasure.”

Howard Zinn, historian who challenged status quo, dies at 87

Chomsky added that Dr. Zinn’s writings “simply changed perspective and understanding for a whole generation. He opened up approaches to history that were novel and highly significant. Both by his actions, and his writings for 50 years, he played a powerful role in helping and in many ways inspiring the Civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.”

For Dr. Zinn, activism was a natural extension of the revisionist brand of history he taught. “A People’s History of the United States” (1980), his best-known book, had for its heroes not the Founding Fathers — many of them slaveholders and deeply attached to the status quo, as Dr. Zinn was quick to point out — but rather the farmers of Shays’ Rebellion and union organizers of the 1930s.

As he wrote in his autobiography, “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train” (1994), “From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than ‘objectivity’; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble.”

Certainly, it was a recipe for rancor between Dr. Zinn and John Silber, former president of Boston University. Dr. Zinn, a leading critic of Silber, twice helped lead faculty votes to oust the BU president, who in turn once accused Dr. Zinn of arson (a charge he quickly retracted) and cited him as a prime example of teachers “who poison the well of academe.”

Dr. Zinn was a cochairman of the strike committee when BU professors walked out in 1979. After the strike was settled, he and four colleagues were charged with violating their contract when they refused to cross a picket line of striking secretaries. The charges against “the BU Five” were soon dropped.

In 1997, Dr. Zinn slipped into popular culture when his writing made a cameo appearance in the film “Good Will Hunting.” The title character, played by Matt Damon, lauds “A People’s History” and urges Robin Williams’s character to read it. Damon, who co-wrote the script, was a neighbor of the Zinns growing up.

“Howard had a great mind and was one of the great voices in the American political life,” Ben Affleck, also a family friend growing up and Damon’s co-star in “Good Will Hunting,” said in a statement. “He taught me how valuable — how necessary — dissent was to democracy and to America itself. He taught that history was made by the everyman, not the elites. I was lucky enough to know him personally and I will carry with me what I learned from him — and try to impart it to my own children — in his memory.”

Damon was later involved in a television version of the book, “The People Speak,” which ran on the History Channel in 2009, and he narrated a 2004 biographical documentary, “Howard Zinn: You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train.”

“Howard had a genius for the shape of public morality and for articulating the great alternative vision of peace as more than a dream,” said James Carroll a columnist for the Globe’s opinion pages whose friendship with Dr. Zinn dates to when Carroll was a Catholic chaplain at BU. “But above all, he had a genius for the practical meaning of love. That is what drew legions of the young to him and what made the wide circle of his friends so constantly amazed and grateful.”

Dr. Zinn was born in New York City on Aug. 24, 1922, the son of Jewish immigrants, Edward Zinn, a waiter, and Jennie (Rabinowitz) Zinn, a housewife. He attended New York public schools and was working in the Brooklyn Navy Yard when he met Roslyn Shechter.

“She was working as a secretary,” Dr. Zinn said in an interview with the Globe nearly two years ago. “We were both working in the same neighborhood, but we didn’t know each other. A mutual friend asked me to deliver something to her. She opened the door, I saw her, and that was it.”

He joined the Army Air Corps, and they courted through the mail before marrying in October 1944 while he was on his first furlough. She died in 2008.

During World War II, he served as a bombardier, was awarded the Air Medal, and attained the rank of second lieutenant.

After the war, Dr. Zinn worked at a series of menial jobs until entering New York University on the GI Bill as a 27-year-old freshman. He worked nights in a warehouse loading trucks to support his studies. He received his bachelor’s degree from NYU, followed by master’s and doctoral degrees in history from Columbia University.

Dr. Zinn was an instructor at Upsala College and lecturer at Brooklyn College before joining the faculty of Spelman College in Atlanta, in 1956. He served at the historically black women’s institution as chairman of the history department. Among his students were novelist Alice Walker, who called him “the best teacher I ever had,” and Marian Wright Edelman, future head of the Children’s Defense Fund.

During this time, Dr. Zinn became active in the civil rights movement. He served on the executive committee of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the most aggressive civil rights organization of the time, and participated in numerous demonstrations.

Dr. Zinn became an associate professor of political science at BU in 1964 and was named full professor in 1966.

The focus of his activism became the Vietnam War. Dr. Zinn spoke at many rallies and teach-ins and drew national attention when he and the Rev. Daniel Berrigan, another leading antiwar activist, went to Hanoi in 1968 to receive three prisoners released by the North Vietnamese.

Dr. Zinn’s involvement in the antiwar movement led to his publishing two books: “Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal” (1967) and “Disobedience and Democracy” (1968). He had previously published “LaGuardia in Congress” (1959), which had won the American Historical Association’s Albert J. Beveridge Prize; “SNCC: The New Abolitionists” (1964); “The Southern Mystique” (1964); and “New Deal Thought” (1966).

He also was the author of “The Politics of History” (1970); “Postwar America” (1973); “Justice in Everyday Life” (1974); and “Declarations of Independence” (1990).

In 1988, Dr. Zinn took early retirement to concentrate on speaking and writing. The latter activity included writing for the stage. Dr. Zinn had two plays produced: “Emma,” about the anarchist leader Emma Goldman, and “Daughter of Venus.”

On his last day at BU, Dr. Zinn ended class 30 minutes early so he could join a picket line and urged the 500 students attending his lecture to come along. A hundred did.

“Howard was an old and very close friend,” Chomsky said. “He was a person of real courage and integrity, warmth and humor. He was just a remarkable person.”

Carroll called Dr. Zinn “simply one of the greatest Americans of our time. He will not be replaced — or soon forgotten. How we loved him back.”

In addition to his daughter, Dr. Zinn leaves a son, Jeff of Wellfleet; three granddaughters; and two grandsons.

Funeral plans were not available.

Other articles: Howard Zinn Dies at 87, How Zinn Made Our Lives Better,  HowardZinn.org, A Memory of Howard Zinn, Historian Howard Zinn Dead