Do you think that Lepore succeeds in presenting a cohesive chronicle of American history within a single volume? Why or why not? Compare Lepore’s experiment to that of other historians, particularly those who have written histories as civics books. How does Lepore’s volume expand upon those other works? What does she overlook?

Since the emergence of Nikole Hannah-Jones’s 1619 Project, there has been recurring debate on the presentation of American history, with conservatives arguing that history ought to be regarded as a collection of fixed artifacts, while liberals argue that primary historical sources are materials through which we should continually re-examine our understanding of historical events. Which position do you think Lepore takes? Support your answer with examples from the text.

Consider the intellectual debate that simmered between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for much of their lives. Can you think of examples of other political figures, particularly in the present day, who have similar ideological debates in public?