tv Lectures in History Peter Kastor on U.S. From Reconstruction to the... CSPAN August 22, 2018 4:50pm-5:49pm EDT
people can be governed in the public interests, rather than through faction. that is mobs that favor self-interest rather than the public good. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> our lectures in history his class is about 50 minutes. >> i want to begin today by talking about the international exhibition of arts, manufacturers and products of the soil and mine. you all want to go to that, don't you? to any of you know what this actually was? it was also referred to as the centennial international exhibition, it was held in
philadelphia from may through november 1876, it was supposed to celebrate the centennial of american independence. and ideally it was supposed to celebrate the reunion of the nation. following the civil war. it's really the first world's fair. but in the midst of the celebration there was terrible news. it was terrible news, i will spleen to what it was, i think it's a very useful moment when the northern plains and the delaware valley, two of the five reasons -- regions we have looked at that often seem so far from each other were in fact closely connected. what i want to do is use this moment, 1876 through 1877 to reflect back on what we have been doing this semester and give you a sense of where things will be going, to talk about continuity and change in the 19th century.
because right before the exam i was emphasizing a lot of changes, in 1877 the last federal troops in theory reconstruction had come to an end, all the states in the union are once again in the union, self-governing, federal authority prevailed throughout the united states, as i mentioned last week, reconstruction or more specifically the reconstruction amendment to the u.s. constitution seem to have redefined what it meant to be american. what it meant to be a you a citizen, that is a convenient way of thinking about it. that the civil war and reconstruction constitute the logical halfway point to you is history and it's kind of a fulcrum. before the civil war and after the civil war and if you are a civil war historian believe me, it's like before the civil war and after the civil war, here's the way we tend to talk about it. there is a notion that there was a u.s. before the civil war reconstruction and a different
one afterwards. you're probably taking classes for the civil war was right in the middle. it would be a logical point to for example schedule a midterm exam, and in fact at many universities where you is history is two semesters, the first semester ends in 1865 or 18 77. don't get me wrong, the civil war and reconstruction important. they change things. they change things a lot. most importantly for the enslaved african americans who gained their freedoms as a result of the civil war only to find that freedom was in some way constrained in the years that followed. what i want to do today is put the civil war and reconstruction, locating in time -- context. both chronological and spatial. i want to situate the civil war and reconstruction alongside other events that preceded it but also consider what the
civil war and reconstruction might have meant for the united states as a continental nation. the war wasn't fought throughout all of the united states, and reconstruction only apply to certain states. i want to revisit some of the major themes, and i want to move beyond the sites of battle between north and south. because when we do this you get some really important continuity. last week, before i talked about changing, today i want to talk about continuities and changes. continuities that were already, well in place during the 19th century and changes that began before the civil war, continued after the civil war and were caused entirely by it. i want to do that by moving far afield from the places where most of the battles were fought during the civil war. i want to move to the northern plains. let me ask you a question, the
last time we talked about the northern plains, when was it, what was going on, what do you remember? anyone? come on. yes, front row. the expedition had moved westward and they had made some contact. >> absolutely. what was the impact of the lewis and clark expedition on the people who lived in the northern plains? >> they were able to trade for more goods. true, but the long- term impact is limited. lewis and clark and the people competing them come and go. but the systems of power and settlement in place didn't change. what else? anyone else? no? don't let the microphone in front of you -- so be it.
one of the points you mentioned is the lewis and clark expedition arrived. but when we talk about the northern plains, especially in 18th-century i emphasized the real action was between the native people who live there and they engaged in their own winning of the west, their own relations their own conflicts. that has remained the case much of the 19th century. this began a change in the third quarter of the 19th century is united states decided it was going to settle matters in the west once and for all. in june 1865 right after robert e lee surrendered, william sherman did not get a vacation. he was reassigned and returned here to st. louis where he lived before to assume command of a military department the extended the mississippi river to the rocky mountains.
let's return to sherman, we talked about it a few weeks ago. that middle name should tell you something. you remember where he was born? what state he was born in? yes? very close. your super close. ohio. good job. sherman was born in ohio, why would white settlers in ohio in 1820 named their son after an indian leader who fought against white settlers? anyone want to take a guess? you want to try? >> that's a great point. it's different from st. louis where there are mixed-race children, but it is very much part of the regional culture, part of the way that people living in the old northwest lay claim to the territory.
they will say, our history here was connected to our interaction with in conflict with indians. and what i want to emphasize is the fact that he was called william tecumseh sherman does not mean he had any great love for native people. he lived here in st. louis, when ulysses grant became president, he succeeded him as general of the army, they both supply -- despised opposition to federal authority which was on display during the civil war. we talked about the way grant saw the opposition reconstruction as an assault on federal authority. the same applied when they looked at the west. more specifically, at the way indians remained self-governing policies in the the northwest and southwest. they engage in a policy to change this. it's a policy that is led in
many ways by veterans of the civil war. war constructed to save the union. a war with an army that eventually liberated enslaved african americans while the same army would be engaged in extending federal sovereignty onto the west. one of the best examples of that was a difficult young officer, like grant and sherman he was born in ohio, he was also -- the civil war give him a chance, but grant and sherman, the war re-created opportunity for them, they were struggling in private life before the war began, this young officer had graduated last in his class at west point. but by the end of the civil war he was a general. he became a general at the age of 23. when the war was over, he was reduced in rank to captain and it was a big humiliation and as he headed west he sought as an opportunity to erase his humiliation.
what was his name? anyone want to take a guess? yes? george armstrong custer. now custer served instruments army. i don't mean the army sherman led during the civil war, rather the army that sherman commanded. commanding general. in the late 1860s and early 1870s. awaiting custer and other veterans of the civil war like him was the native american society undergoing its own profound changes. to understand those changes let's focus back on ogallala dakota. they were powerful residents of the missouri valley. the head i'd the united states with some degree of concern and suspicious. they sought is the role to control the trade route the connected the lower missouri to the osage and the french settlers in st. louis to the upper missouri and throughout
much of the 18th and early 19th centuries they had sought to establish and preserve their own authority and their own autonomy. many -- much of their diplomacy and negotiation and conflict in the 19th century was with their native neighbors. but, in the final decades of the 19th century, they will face new challenge from the united states, from an army led by men like george armstrong custer. one of the leaders of the ogallala dakota was ogallala dakota and his father was brutally indian. in early life he became a chief. he became a war chief but much of this was in conflict with other indian groups on the northern plains, part of an elaborate traumatic situation. but then the united states arrived. increasingly attempted to
assert its authority, its sovereignty. the result is a war between the united states and the ogallala lakota. as red cloud and other leaders like him face the entire might of the u.s. at first the indians are winning. it's land they know, they are better organized, there better medicated -- automated and have much better local knowledge. this is very much like the circumstance i described in the 1790s as the united states recently organized by the constitution came into conflict with the indians of the eastern woodlands who themselves had recently organized in response -- in response to the threat from the u.s., and in that the u.s. suffered initial defeat. bless you. you're welcome. only to organize resources and
mobilize all the authority of the federal government to achieve victory. that is eventually what happens to red cloud. in the same way the u.s. constitution enabled the u.s. to beat the pan- indian movement of the 17s and 90s, the structure has gone during the civil war and to a certain degree during reconstruction enabled the u.s. to field an army that could defeat red cloud. in 1868 red cloud was one of the indian representatives who signed onto the treaty of fort laramie which was one of several landmark treaties that created the modern reservation system in the west as we know it. the crucial features of that was that native americans would live on land that was supervised and governed by the federal government. in many ways it would be transformed from free-agent, from self-governing autonomous
nations into domestic dependence. some indians accepted this, others did not. the conflict was not resolved. while the civil war had come to an end, the struggle over sovereignty in the west had not. throughout the 1860s and 1870s indians continue to resist the united states and the northern plains. in 1873 george armstrong custer arrived in the northern plains part of the military presence in the united states that was supposed to subdue native nations. one of his principal opponents was a man who in some ways would replace red cloud is the leading indian military and political figure in the region. that is sitting bull. one of the few indian leaders who most americans, u.s. citizens learning about. sitting bull like red cloud
took advantage of both the motivation of the men and women who were with him, took advantage of his knowledge of the region, to maintain an ongoing conflict with united states. he scored his greatest single battlefield victory in 1866. it's again george armstrong custer. in june he distorted -- destroyed custer at the battle of little big corn. a devastating loss to the white citizens of the united states. who thought there was no way they could lose to the indians on the northern plains, after all, the united states army had just won a civil war. against the confederate army. and here was this defeat in the west. it was news of this that arrives at centennial exhibition in philadelphia. it was so upsetting to the people who heard it. united states responded as would be expected.
grant and sherman in the final years of the grant administration dispatched more troops to the northern plains. eventually putting sitting bull and those who served with him on the defense. sitting bull eventually fled to canada and in 1881 he returned to the united states and surrendered. while all of this is going on, there is a similar process at work in the southwest. and that is the other region have looked at. where other indian leaders are trying to maintain ongoing resistance, to the efforts by the federal government to assert its sovereignty over the land it claims. and ends in a similar manner. in the same way that sitting bull surrendered in 1881, the indians in the southwest eventually were subdued by federal forces. what do you think would be some of those indian groups? who has been the dominant political forces in the southwest? >> the comanche and the apache.
absolutely. very different culturally. from the oglala lakota , but facing a very similar diplomatic and military circumstance. which is that an emboldened more empowered u.s. army is attempting to make its claim to sovereignty a reality. in a way they had never been able to do in the decades before. indians remained in the united states, but they were forcibly removed areas where the united states -- federal government wanted them to live and they were supposed to occupy status as domestic dependence. but not fully emancipated citizens. this is hardly happy, we get to begin today with a delightfully unhappy story. welcome back from break, this is just what you needed to hear. but i actually think this story
is very important for civil war reconstruction and context. in the west, we see a federal government holding true to one of its founding principles. to establish federal sovereignty. that is with the government is supposed to do. to establish sovereignty over the land it claims. but also to establish and preserve racial supremacy. that had been the long tradition of the federal government, especially in the west. but in the east, particularly in the southeast, right before the exam we considered how the federal government had explored with the policy of racial equality during reconstruction. but it had been unable to convert that into reality. what this should remind you of is that this is not what the federal government had been created to do. it had not been created to promote racial equality. of the great questions we need to answer is, how and why over the century that follows the federal government would assume a mantle for itself of establishing and sustaining racial equality.
whether it does so successfully are not, it doesn't matter. what matters is why and how with the government come to assume that this was its role? what we make of all of this? i am emphasizing racial inequality. does equality have no meaning in the 1870s? it's a great question to put to you after an exam in which you were thinking about citizenship and freedom. i have been emphasizing inequality so far today. okay. what were the roots of equality in the 1860s and 70s? or the years before that? let me put that question to you. what are the forms of equality we can talk about? when we discuss the u.s. in 19th century. >> the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. >> and i promise you i will. trust me.
you can certainly talk about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. what is the other quality we have emphasized? yes? >> going back to talk about the democratization of the government -- >> universal male suffrage, jacksonian america, absolutely. i'm connect what you said what you said. i know you didn't plan this but it's great points. anybody else? what are the other forms of equality that we have talked about? you are talking about the equality among individuals. yes? >> the equality between state and -- >> center periphery and center equality, something we take for granted. but during the era of the civil war of reconstruction this
process remains ongoing. in fact the end of the mexican war reconstruction, 10 new states enter the union. most of them in the west. and these continue this process to which the united states claims and sustains a system where inequality has several meanings. first of all, they're supposed to be special equality between states. second, there is supposed to be individual equality between citizens. your beloved 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. 13th amendment, what does it do? abolish slavery. does the 14th amendment due? >> guarantees citizenship -- >> what is your answer? >> citizenship. >> is he right? >> this is your lucky day. what was the 15th amendment? >> americans can vote. >> voting cannot be denied by
race. >> excellent. in some ways these were very much reconstruction amendments. the 13th amendment, the elimination of slavery. the 14th and 15 amendments emerged as a logical extension of the way americans had come to understand and practice freedom and citizenship in the decades before civil war. your 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, let's put the 14th and 15th alongside your reference to jacksonian democracy and universal male suffrage. one of the emerging assumptions about citizenship is that citizenship and suffrage should be connected. of course in the 1780s and 1790s that wasn't the case. what did citizenship me and then? at the dawn of the republic? think back to when you read the constitution. yes? yes.
representation. today many of us assume, we very much believe in the 15th amendment that citizenship brings a guarantee of suffrage. but the constitution didn't guarantee that. guaranteed representation, it guaranteed in the bill of rights certain basic individual rights and certain expectations of citizens. but over the course of the 19th century, americans had argued that citizenship should bring with it suffrage. that had begun in the 18 teens and 20s estates revised constitutions to give greater access to suffrage. by the time the 15th amendment comes around it's an extension of a debate that predated the constitution. excuse me, that predated the civil war and reconstruction. but as we have also discussed, citizenship might be a set of
laws but citizenship is also a set of social practices. one of the questions is who is going to get access to these rights? the 15th amendment is a great case in point. the 15th amendment says, all citizens should have -- will have access to suffrage. how does that play out in real terms? yes? >> didn't they control? who is that they? by the way, excellent way, you avoided the passive voice but i still don't know who did what. state government. state governments control voting requirements, election processes, yes, after the end of reconstruction, this is a point we will get to next week, state government creates an elaborate structure that deny
access to the suffrage on the basis of race. that is a way in which citizenship becomes a social practice. what else? who else doesn't have access to suffrage? >> women. >> thank you. roughly half the population. one thing we have emphasized the semester, especially in the period after the declaration of independence and after the constitution is that citizenship is proceeding with a real friction, in two different directions at once. at one point it is proceeding in a direction whereby all citizens are supposed to be uniform with equal rights, they are supposed to be similar to each other, it doesn't matter what state you live in because all states are equal to each other. at the same time that citizenship is limited, it's different and it's experienced different primarily as a result of race and gender. another ingredient i'm going to throw into this stew isn't just
what rights and opportunities citizens had in decades surrounding the civil war, but also of course how people became citizens. there were three ways to become a u.s. citizen. in the 19th century. what were they? yes? >> to be born u.s. citizen, to be an immigrant that is naturalized and -- >> what would be the third one? >> to be freed as a slave. >> there is kind of job the falls in the third category. one of the ways as you said to become a citizen is to be born a u.s. citizen, to be born in the united states and be a citizen at birth. the other was to go through the naturalization process, the third included emancipation but
it's not only that. there other people become citizens through other mechanisms. this is a tough question, i know. yes? >> is it being a woman married to the citizen? >> you can acquire it that way -- as i said women have a nebulous citizenship, they can also lose their citizenship by marrying foreign men. yes? >> the modern way is to be born u.s. citizen to parents in foreign countries. >> that would be similar to being -- it's the identical, born u.s. citizen. ted cruz is an example. that is the case with him. anyone else? yes? >> if you live in a territory the becomes estate. >> if you live in an area
acquired by the u.s. if you were born in louisiana in 1780, if you were born in new mexico in 1820, if you were born in one of these territories acquired by the u.s., there are various ways, they are usually part of the treaty through which we acquire that land, that is how you become a citizen. it would say that all the residents will become citizens as quickly as possible. but let's look at the first two. people who were born in the u.s. in the second example you gave. immigrants who naturalized. that's what people now associate with the process through which people become citizens. the u.s. is exactly acquiring territories. we are not invading canada anytime soon and converting canadians into your citizens, i don't think they would necessarily enjoy that. we tried it in 1812 and it didn't work. we are not doing that now but there is an ongoing process of naturalization. as i said, the u.s. path the
naturalization law in 1790. if you want to understand what's going on in the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s you need to look at the large number of immigrants who started arriving in the united states in the 1840s and 1850s. immigrants had arrived before them but there is a sudden arrival of new immigrants. i want to discuss the implications and consequences of that. what were some of the principles of naturalization? yes? people need to learn about the government before the become citizens. anything else you want to add to the naturalization process? yes? >> if you're naturalized you have full rights. >> once you're naturalized you are a citizen on par with all others. but that comes after a waiting period in which the principal change is supposed to be the
you are supposed to learn the american political runcible's that as an individual like estate you will be cold while others. this is very much on the minds of the immigrants began arriving in the u.s. in 1840s and 1850s. in these decades they were arriving principally across the atlantic, in later lectures i will talk about migrants arriving across the pacific. they are coming from a lot of places. but where were the largest numbers of immigrants coming from? do any of you know? >> germany and ireland. >> spot on. of course there is no unified country called germany in the 1840s. but there were german-speaking people who came from the places that became germany. a large number of them came to united states and also a large number of irish immigrants. i want to look at them and situate them in this. i want to do this through a few examples. first, the germans.
as he's immigrants arrived from germany and ireland they transformed neighborhoods and local culture. one of the things striking about them is they have tremendous opportunity in american citizenship. one example is a guy named george schneider who came to st. louis in 1852. he opened the of the berean brewery -- bavarian brewery and thus begins our bear -- beer history. what you may not know is that before this time the u.s. wasn't producing much beer. this being a grab -- a matter of great importance to many undergraduates. the u.s. produced a lot of spirits, or spirits? what were distilled spirits? you don't know your alcohol? whiskey. gin. whiskey is the big product that the u.s. produces in spirits.
many americans don't have the technology or the expertise to produce beer. there were a lot of german brewers who show up. he opens the bavarian murray in 1852. -- brewery in 1852. another immigrant, anheuser purchased it in 1860 from schneider. the brewery does well. one of the guys he goes into business with was a man named adolphus busch who arrived in 1857. what do you know about adolphus busch? or more specifically how many of you saw that ad in the super bowl? now the hands go up. based on that ad, tell me about adolphus busch. >> he was basically rags to riches. >> rags to riches, yes! >> the american dream. >> the american dream, it is an
american dream. a guy who immigrates from another country, comes to the u.s., acquires citizenship, enjoys all the opportunities to go with that and achieves extraordinary things and has great opportunity. and i emphasize this to kind of offset the narrative i was using at the start of the class. both of these go together. limitation on those who are excluded from citizenship in the opportunities for those who have access to it. there are some more details to the rags to riches story. that is mostly fabrication in that ad, that's why i love it. you carefully -- you clearly didn't study the ad. do obsess about bags -- ads like all others do? or did you focus on the game. right it was a good game. what else happens and that ad? anybody? do you remember? what happens to him on the ship?
you do not study advertising closely enough. you clearly are studying when you should be watching tv commercials. remember, he is on the ship, he gets in a fight and the guy tending to him says i want to brew beer. and he arrives in new york is a newly arrived immigrant and nativeborn americans treat him obnoxiously, he later -- when he crosses the atlantic it looks unpleasant. is on a steamboat that catches fire and he jumps off into the river and he is on this ship, there's an african-american man there, we don't know if he is a slave or free, we -- he arrives at a bar in st. louis and anheuser comes up and gives him a beer. if only life was really like this. adolphus busch was born into a pretty prosperous family.
his passage to the united states was relatively comfortable. he went, he wanted to go into the brewery business and he did what so many americans had done before him. he shared something very important with thomas jefferson and george washington. you know it was? >> he married well. >> he married the daughter of anheuser. and they went into business together. in the 1860s. to them, both of them, immigrants who acquired u.s. citizenship, citizenship brought with it extraordinary opportunity. they had not been born in the united states. by becoming citizens they enjoyed equal legal status with legal born citizens. the united states in general and st. louis in particular
became a land of opportunity for them. this is what many immigrants will find. one of the reasons is that the germans in general faced less antagonism than the irish. let me emphasize i think the experience for any immigrant is difficult. to arrive in a new country, people may not trust you. may not speak the same language, it's always difficult. and then there are matters of degree. why had so many of the irish emigrated to the united states? in the 1840s and 1850s? >> the potato famine. >> one of those events everyone knows about. i would also say you need to understand that in a larger history of 19th century ireland. a lot of pushers that would make the irish immigrate. there appears to be economic opportunity and the promise of equality for citizens. citizenship is a legal status but it's also a cultural practice.
what happens to the irish when they arrive? they face a lot of ethnic chauvinism from the anglo english majority for many reasons. one of them is religion. many of the irish immigrants are catholic. many anglo- americans are protestant. most anglo-americans are protestant and they are deeply concerned about catholicism especially in the 1850s and 1860s because the united states has just acquired territory from mexico are much of the population is also catholic. there are also long-running disputes between the irish and english. and the challenge is, what are people like the irish and the germans going to do to overcome these challenges? they work hard, they take advantage of the opportunities they have is you is citizens. but one of the things that will become increasingly clear that will make their experience is
naturalized immigrants different in the example you mentioned, of emancipated former slaves, is that race will play again a crucial role in who enjoys the benefits of citizenship. one of the things the irish and the german do is to convince the majority that surround them that they too are white. the group that really has to struggle for this is the irish. that may come as a surprise to you. because the classic stereotype of the irish that they are pale. the overwhelming stereotype of them. yet in the 1800s, in 1750 were many english who said the irish are a different race. the term they used rather broadly. but what the irish do, the irish immigrants do this, the german immigrants do this, other immigrants do this, if they can convince a white majority in the united states
that they too are white, they can establish their claims to whiteness. a term i'm using again this semester. they have made an enormous leap and crossed a threshold that enabled them not to just get equal legal citizenship but also to enjoy the benefit of citizenship as a cultural rectus. so by that -- practice. so by the time the civil war erupts, white men are claiming the boundaries of citizenship between them are unnatural. that argument has been around. but immigrants increasingly punctuated that argument believing that all naturalized citizenships -- citizens should be treated the same. it might explain why they would support amending the constitution to say that all citizens should enjoy equal rights and that all citizens should have access to the suffrage. at this moment to step back. i have been discussing in
general terms a series of developments and changes related to citizenship that occurred in the era of the civil war. some of these exist separate from the civil war. at the start of class i said, the civil war and reconstruction are not necessarily the midway point of u.s. history. and i will be really interested to see how u.s. history is taught 20 or 30 years from now when you have to cover a lot of stuff after the civil war. but i do find the year of the civil war a useful time to take stock, especially now. you just past the halfway point of the semester and have taken a midterm exam. i know you are trying to forget the fact that you took an examiner trying to get that out of your head. what i want to do is go to the regions that we have been looking at periodically the semester to consider how they had changed and how they were
the same. between when we last looked them systematically in 18th- century. i want to talk about the delaware valley, virginia tyler waters, northern plains, southwest, and last, st. louis. how have they changed and how are they the same? let's start in the delaware valley. in the moment of centennial exhibition. that's how i started the lecture today. the centennial exhibition wasn't just to celebrate a -- a century of american independence. it wasn't just supposed to celebrate the reunion after the civil war. it also gave philadelphia a chance to celebrate itself. according to the 1870 census live healthy it was home to 674,000 people. when the census was taken 20 years earlier in 1850, the population was 121,000. you do the math.
because i'm lousy at math. how many of you are taking calculus the semester? how many of you are taking math? you are taking calculus? is a small potatoes. you better not get it wrong. 121,000 in 1850, 674,000 in 1870. clock is ticking. >> five or six times as much. >> good job. a fivefold increase in population. what accounts for this? like other areas of the eastern seaboard, this is partly the result of a natural increase, partly the result of the growth of the city, urbanization and rise of early industrial manufacturing. all had been fueled by the immigrant boom of the 19 century. majority of immigrants started in cities. many scattered into the countryside but many would
start and stay in cities. ports of entry. like philadelphia, new york, or st. louis which was a port of entry. you have a question? >> when they arrive on the coast how did they get to st. louis? >> philadelphia it was a port of entry, it was literally leave the ship on the dock in philadelphia and start there. in some cases you'd have people who would arrive in new orleans and by the 1850s and 1860s take a train to st. louis because they heard that is a place of opportunity they would take a steamboat the river. but that is why a lot of them stay along the coast because that is where they leave the transatlantic point. one of the things we see in the city, and one of the things of change is a large population. philadelphia has undergone a demographic revolution and its
numbers but it's still the same kind of city that we saw in 1800s. a multiracial appellation. mostly of european or african ancestry where white residents are often competing, feel like they are competing with jobs for african american residents and african-american residents feel like they are squeezed out by white commercial networks. what political party you think most of the residents of philadelphia would have been in? will be the majority political party? >> publican. >> they are actually split. there's a real democratic strength among the urban working class but now it's competing with the new republican party. the change that's going on in american politics. now let's shift to the region connecting the tidewater to the
piedmont. in theory this was a region that should've undergone the greatest change. in some ways it was. the civil war ended enslavement , the basis for the regional economy and social order. we spent weeks talking about how that system came into being in the beginning of the 17th century. for two centuries this is how things operated in virginia. and it comes to an end as a result of the civil war. so there was a clear break. we need to talk about this region in different terms, but there are limits to the differences. in certain ways the region remained unchanged. richmond was an emerging city but this is an overwhelmingly rural area. immigration was far more limited than it was to the northeast. it remains far more of a nativeborn population, mostly white and black.
and well african-americans had made important games in the immediate aftermath of emancipation, white virginians were mobilizing to restore their authority. in some ways greatest changes have come in points farther west. on the northern plains and in the southwest. a major theme i have emphasized is we have the story of use history with u.s. acquires the louisiana purchase in 1803. acquires the mexican secession in 1848 and you would think the u.s. governs there in daily. of course it didn't. native people continue to be the governing authority much of the american west throughout much of the 19th century. that changed and changed quickly in 1860s and 70s. that was the story i opened with in class today. this will have profound changes for the region. this is partly then the story of how native americans find themselves stripped of their
sovereignty and opportunity. but it's also the story of how white settlers find opportunity. that is the fundamental tension we have been looking at all semester. if you want to understand the opportunities, i want to tell you about nannie alderson. nannie alderson was the vanguard of white settlement into the northern plains. she was like so many people we look at the semester, born in virginia, 1860. in 1883 she married and with virginia, with virginia behind her she and her husband moved to a ranch in montana. she soon wrote to family and friends and eventually recorded when she published a memoir that quote -- "everyone it seems was making fabulous sums of money or so it seems, and
for the next year my husband and i were to breathe the air of optimism and share the expectations. " her experience was similar to that of many immigrants. excuse meet many migrants. in the same way that immigrants find in you is citizenship tremendous opportunities, migrants will find extraordinary opportunities. some of these immigrants are also migrants. we talked earlier in the semester about how land ownership is the foundation in many cases for prosperity and independence. that is what nannie alderson's family would find in a ranch in montana, but that comes at the price of the people who had lived on that land before. who had been forcibly removed. finally, let's come to the confluence region, st. louis. st. louis, like philadelphia was an urban center. in 1800 st. louis was the home of about 2000 people.
its numbers took off during the 1820s and 1830s and expanded even more as a result of the immigration waves of the 1840s and 1850s and as white settlers moved farther west st. louis would become crucial for stopping off point where they outfitted themselves. there was a manufacturing base that would produce materials that they would take with them. these developments i talked about will set the stage for what follows. as i said nannie alderson was at the vanguard of a wave of settlements, the great plains, the rockies and the southwest. likewise, in urban centers like philadelphia and st. louis, the manufacturing economy will become an industrial economy. this combination of widespread migration, early industrialization and a whole new wave of immigration in the 1880s and 1890s will further transform the way americans
think about their country. this new wave of immigration which i will talk about next week will just come across the atlantic. it will come across the pacific or the rio grande. the last thing i want to do is finish up the story of everhart anheuser and adolphus busch. that takes us back to 1876. in 1876 the city of st. louis separated from st. louis county. i want you to remember this moment. the city separated from the county because city leaders thought the county was going to be a drag on the city. for those of you who know st. louis, you know how things have changed. but that is because they thought the future was in the city. at the moment we will return to it later. it is a change that would have far-reaching consequences for st. louis. another change that would have far-reaching consequences, at the same time the brewery first
established by george schneider, acquired by anheuser and later run by anheuser and his son-in- law adolphus busch start producing a new beer. what do they call it? you better know the answer to this if you live in st. louis. thank you. you said budweiser. are you from st. louis? they start producing budweiser. i get the clothes lecture today by talking about here. but also saying, for bush and anheuser this is their american dream. this is the way that immigration and naturalization create the foundation for their opportunities in an era in which achieving opportunity and losing opportunity is going on the same time. i went a few minutes over. i am sorry. have a great day. i will see you all next monday.
>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television company. in today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> today on american history tv we are showing you history lectures on reconstruction. coming up, how african- americans handled reconstruction following the civil war and the issues they had to deal with. that's followed by a look at the different ways historians have explained reconstruction and why. and later how reconstruction changed of the u.s. was evolving up to the earliest 20
century. american history tv is normally seen only during the weekends on c-span three but while the u.s. house is on a month-long break we are expanding it through the week they. if you miss any of this week's american history tv programs you can find them anytime online in the c-span video library at c-span.org. mirkin history tv weekdays will continue until labor day. on friday the fight for civil rights in the u.s. from the zoot suit riots to the women's movement. next week on the presidency, monday we take it to visit museums on george washington, harry truman and ford. tuesday a look at designers and stonemasons who worked on the white house. wednesday, how presidents have dealt with the media and press coverage. this weekend during our regularly scheduled american history tv programming a college class on post-vietnam war refugees. university of michigan professor melissa teaches a class about
southeast asian migration to the u.s. following the war. she looks outlaws in public opinion have changed over the past five decades. emphasizes the difference between immigrants and refugees. that is saturday night at eight and again at midnight eastern. unreal america series showing historical films, why we fight from 1943. a team of film industry veterans and army technicians show how the british defeated hitler's air force at the cost of more than 40,000 civilians and vast destruction on the ground. saturday night at 10 pm, and sunday it's oral history. this weekend we continue our week series of interviews with former congresswoman helen who served in the u.s. house of
representatives from 1985 to 1995. a republican from maryland, she was a member of the -- she talks about her career for the baltimore sun covering maritime issues and her appointment as chair of the federal maritime commission which made her the highest ranking woman in the nixon administration. oral history, sunday morning at 10 am eastern. american history tv every weekend starting saturday morning at 8 am eastern through monday morning at 8 am. sunday night on afterwards, economists discuss the book edge of chaos. why democracy is failing to deliver economic growth and how to fix it. she is interviewed by jason furman former chairman of the council of economic advisors during the obama administration. >> you wrote a book about politics and political science. why? >> the most important thing in terms of writing the book, it's born out of frustration and i talk about this in the book.
my interest in academic background or in economics, but if you think about the global economy today there are a host of very deeply structural long- term problems that the economy has to contend with. i imagine will get to them in a moment. things like demographic shifts, the impact of technology, concerns around productivity and debt, that overhang, and policy, something that was never discussed what i was doing my phd and it's now one of the big issues on the policy agenda. is her long-term structural problems and yet the people charged with overseeing the regulatory and policy environment, are very short- term. and myopic in their frame. >> watch afterwards sunday night at 9 pm eastern. >> the c-span bus is traveling
across the country on our 50 capitals tour. it's on its 39th stop in honolulu. asking folks, what's the most important issue in hawaii? >> you see with me the young girls, one of the big issues is will they have a place to live? will they be able to afford to stay in the home of their birth? we have a huge homeless situation going on right now. we are looking for ways to take them off the streets. i think the problem is going to get worse if we don't take care of it now. >> i am liz and i am from honolulu, hawaii. born and raised here. one of the important issues i feel we are facing here in hawaii is trying to manage worklife balance. i work full-time, my husband works full-time, plus part-time jobs and we have three young children and are trying to take care of everyone. >> i think right now more than
ever for hawaii, we need to continue the spirit which is itself a life form and a loja -- a loja means kindness. ages humility and a means patient. if we can all promote live within this spirit, we could all be in a better place, not only in the state of hawaii but across the nation. >> be sure to join us october 6 and seventh when we feature our visit to hawaii. watch hawaii weekend on c-span. c-span.org. or listen on the c-span radio at. -- app. african americans during reconstruction after the civil war, from our american history tv lecturing history series,