tv Lectures in History Peter Kastor on U.S. From Reconstruction to the... CSPAN August 22, 2018 10:10pm-11:05pm EDT
i want to begin by talking about the international exhibition of manufacturers and products of the swill and mind. you want to go to that don't you? do you know what this actually was? it was also referred to as a sentential -- centennial international exhibition. it was held in 1876 and supposed to celebrate the centennial of independence and it was supposed to celebrate the reunion of the nation following the civil war. it is the first world's fair. in the midst of the celebration, there was terrible news arriving from the northern plains pet was terrible but useful moment when they northern plains and the delaware valley, two of the five regions we have looked at that seem so far from each other
were in fact, closely connected. what i want to do is use this moment in 1876 and 1877 to reflect on what we have been doing to give you a sense of where things will go to talk about continuity and change. the 19th century. right before the exam i was emphasizing changes. in 1877 the last troops left the confederacy in theory. reconstruction came to an end. all of the states in the union where in the union once again. self-governing and federal authority prevailed to the united states. reconstruction or the reconstruction amendment to the constitution seem to redefined what it meant to be an american
and a u.s. citizen picked that is a convenient way of thinking about it. the civil war and reconstruction constitute the logical halfway point u.s. history and is a before the civil war and after the civil war. if you are a civil war historian it is before the civil war and after the civil war. there is a notion that there was a u.s. before the civil war and a different one afterward. you probably have taken classes where the civil war is put in the middle. it would be a logical.to schedule a midterm exam. in fact at many universities where the surveys are two semesters, it ends in 1875 or 1876 or 1877. the civil war and reconstruction are important. they changed things a lot. most importantly for the enslaved african americans who
gained their freedom only to find the freedom was in some way constrained in years to follow. what i want to do is put the civil war and reconstruction located in context. it is chronological and spatial. i want to situate the civil war and reconstruction alongside other advanced -- events but also consider what it might've met for the united states as a continental place. reconstruction only apply to certain states. i want to revisit themes we have explored this semester and i want to move beyond the sites of battle because when we do this you actually have continuities. last week i talked about changes. today i want to talk about continuities and changes. continuity that we had in place
in the 19th century and changes that became the civil war and after the civil war and were not caused entirely by it. i want to move far from the places that most of the battles were fought. i want to move to the northern plains. that me ask you a question. the list time we talked about the northern plains, when was it, what was going on there? what do you remember? anyone? , one. yes. front row.>> it had moved westward. >> absolutely.>> what was the impact of the lewis and clark expedition on the people who lived in the planes? >> the long-term impact is
limited. lewis and clark and the people come and go but the system of power and settlement did not change. what else? anybody else? you don't want the microphone in front of you? so. . one of the things you mentioned was the lewis and clark expedition arrives. i emphasized that the real action was between the native people who lived there and they engaged in their own wenning of the west and relations and conflict and that was the case for most of the 19th century. this changed in the third quarter of the 19th century at the -- as the united states settled matter -- matters in
the west once and for all. and -- william did not get a vacation. will -- william was reassigned. he assumed command of a military department that extended from mississippi river to the rocky mountains. we talked about sherman if you weeks ago. do you remember where sherman was born? what state he was born in? >> very close. super close. >> ohio. good job. sherman was born in ohio. why would white settlers name their son after an indian leader who fought against white settlers? take a guess. do you want to try?
>> they were more integrated with native americans.>> that is a great point. it is different from st. louis where there is mixed race but part of the culture and part of the with the people living in the old northwest lay claim to the territory. they will say the history here was connected to our interaction and conflict. what i want to emphasize it -- is the fact he was called william sherman does not mean he had any great love for the people. >> he lived here when& s grant. they despised opposition to federal authority.
that was on display during the civil war. we talked about the way grant saw the opposition to 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 northwest and southwest. they engage the policy to change. a policy that is led by veterans of the civil war . were constructed to save the union. a war with an army that eventually liberated enslaved african americans in the same army would engage in extending federal sovereignty to the west. one of the best examples of that was a difficult young officer. grant sherman was born in ohio. it give him a chance. for grant and sherman the were re-created
opportunities. they were struggling before the war began. the young officer graduated last in his class but by the end of the civil war he was a general. at the age of 23 he was a general but when the war was over, he was reduced to captain with a big humiliation for him and as he headed west he saw this as an opportunity to erase his humiliation. what was his name? take a guess? yes. >> george armstrong custer. custer served in sherman's army. i don't mean the army he led to the sea during the civil war but the army he commanded. the commanding general in the late 1860s and 1870s. awaiting him was a society undergoing his own changes. to understand the changes let's focus on the oakland -- they
were powerful presidents of the missouri valley. they had i'd the united states with concern and suspicion. they saw it as their role to control the trade work that connected the lower missouri and the settlers in the upper missouri and throughout much of the 18th and 19th century they sought to establish and preserve their own authority and their own autonomy. many of their diplomacy was with their native neighbors. in the final decades of the 19th century, they will face a new challenge from the united states and an army led by men like george armstrong custer. one of the leaders was a man named red cloud.
he became a chief. he became a war chief but much of that was in conflict with other indian groups on the northern plains as part of an elaborate diplomatic situation in the area. then the united states army arrived attempting to assert its authority and its sovereignty. the result is a war between the united states and the lakota that lasted from 1866 to 1867. as red cloud and other leaders face the entire i army -- army and a first the indians are winning. this is land they know and where they have lived. they are better organized and motivated than united states and much better knowledge locally. this is like the circumstances i described in the 1790s as the
united states reorganized by the constitution came into conflict with the indians of the eastern woodlands who organized in response to the threat they saw from the united states and in that they suffered defeats. only to reorganize and eventually mobilize all the authority of the federal government to achieve victory pick that is what happens to red cloud. the same way that the constitution enabled the united states to defeat the movement in the 80s and 90s the structural changes to the government that had gone on during the civil war and during reconstruction enabled the united states to field an army that could defeat red flag. red cloud was one of the union
-- representatives that signed on to the treaty that created the modern reservation system. the crucial features of that was it that the native americans would live on the land that was supervised and governed by the federal government. in many ways they would be transformed from free agents and self-governing autonomous nations into domestic dependence. some indians accepted this and others did not. the conflict was not resolved. the civil war had come to an end in 1865 but the struggle over 70 in the west had not. throughout the 1860s and over the 1870s they resisted the united states in the northern plains. in 1873 george armstrong custer arrived in the northern plains and part of the military presence of the united states
that is supposed to subdue the native nations. one of its opponents was a man who would replace red cloud as the leading indian military figure. that is sitting bull. most americans grow up learning about. sitting bull like red cloud took advantage of the motivation of the men and women who are with them and took advantage of his knowledge of the region to maintain an ongoing conflict with the united states. 's greatest vehicle -- victory wasn't 1866 against custer. he destroyed custer's force at the battle of little bighorn. this was a devastating loss to the white citizens of the united states who thought there was no way that 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. news arrived in the centennial expedition in philadelphia and it was so upsetting to the people who hurt it. the united states responded as to be expected. grant and sherman in the final years of the grant administration dispatched more troops to the northern plains putting sitting bull and those who sat with them on the defensive. he returned to canada and returned and surrendered. all of this is going on and there is a similar process at work in the southwest. the other region we looked at where other leaders are trying to sustain ongoing resistance to
assert its sovereignty over the land exclaimed. it ends in a similar manner. the same way that the 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 had been the dominant political forces in the southwest? >> the comanche and apache absolutely. very different culturally. facing a very similar diplomatic and military circumstance. more empowered united states army is attempting to make its claim to sovereignty a reality in a way they have never been able to do in the decades before. indians remained in the united states. they were forcibly removed to areas where the federal government wanted them
to live and they were supposed to occupy a status estimate -- domestic dependence but not fully emancipated citizens. this is hardly a happy story. i get to begin with a delightfully unhappy story. welcome back from break. this is just what you needed to hear but i actually think the story is important to set it in context. in the west, we see the federal government holding true to one of its founding principles to establish federal sovereignty. that is with the government is supposed to do. establish sovereignty over the land it claims but to establish and preserve racial supremacy. that was a long tradition of the federal government in the west. in the east, the southeast and before that we considered how the federal government explored with racial equality during the
reconstruction. unable to convert that into reality this is not with the federal government have been created to do. it was not created to promote racial equality. one of the questions and answers is how and why the federal government would assume racial equality. whether it does it successfully or not is a different matter. why would it come to assume that this was its role? what do we make of all this? i am emphasizing racial inequality. there is equality that has no meaning in the 1870s. a great question to put to you after an exam in which you are thinking about citizenship and freedom. i have been emphasizing any quality so far today.
what were the roots of the quality in the 1860s and 70s? for the years before that? what are the forms of equality that we can talk about what we discussed the united states in the mid-19th century? >> you can discuss the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment.>> i will. trust me. you can talk about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment pick what are the other forms we have emphasized? >> you talk about andrew jackson.>> the rise of -- i know you did not plan it but it is good plans.
anybody else? what are the other forms of equality that we have talked about? the quality among individuals. >> the equality between state equality and the center is something we take for granted. this process remained ongoing. from the end of the mexican war to the end of reconstruction, 10 new states entered the union. most of them were in the west. these continued the process. equality has several meanings. there is a -- spatial equality between states and there is supposed to be individual equality between citizens. the 13th 14th and 15th amendment. the 13th amendment. what does it do? abolish slavery.
the 14th? >> citizenship to everyone? >> no. >> what is your answer? >> citizenship.>> is he right? >> this is your lucky day. >> african americans can vote.>> excellent.>> in some ways these were reconstruction amendments. the 13th amendment is the elimination of slavery. the 14th and 15th amendments emerged from the way americans had come to understand and practice freedom and citizenship the decades before the civil war. let's put the 14th and 15th amendment alongside your reference to jacksonian democracy and universal male suffrage.
one of the assumptions about citizenship was that citizenship and suffrage should be connected. in the 1780s and 1790s that was not the case. what did citizenship mean then that they don't of the republic? think back to when you read the constitution.>> yes. >> representation. >> many of us assume that citizenship brings a guarantee of suffrage. the constitution did not guarantee that. guaranteed representation and a guaranteed in the bill of rights basic rights and expectations of citizens but over the course of the nine century -- 19th century americans argued that citizen -- citizenship should bring suffrage.
states revise their constitution to give greater access. by the time the 15th amendment comes around that is an extension that predated the constitution. that predated the civil war and reconstruction. as we have also discussed, citizenship may be laws but also a set of social practices. who is going to get access to the 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? >> who is they?
you avoided the path and it was an excellent job. >> state government.>> state government controls voting requirements and processes. after the end of reconstruction, state governments create elaborate structures that deny access to the suffrage on the basis of race. that is away in which citizenship comes the social practice. what else? who else does not have access to suffrage? >> women.>> thank you. half of the population. one thing we have emphasized this is -- semester is that citizenship is proceeding in two different directions at once. want.it is proceeding in a direction whereby all citizens
is supposed to be uniformed with equal rights and similar to each other . it does not matter which state you live in. at the same time the citizenship is limited. it is different and it is experienced differently as a result of race and gender. another ingredient and i will throw it into the stew is not just whites -- rights and opportunities they had but also how people became citizens. there were three ways to become a u.s. citizen pick in the 19th century. what were they? yes.>> to be born a u.s. citizen. to be an immigrant that is naturalized. to be free of
slaves.>> that is a third category. one of the ways to become a citizen was to be born a u.s. citizen. the other was to go through the naturalization process. the third included emancipation but it is not only that. there is other people that become citizens through other mechanisms. this is a tough question i know. yes, back oro.>> you can acquire it that way. women have a nebulous citizenship. they can lose their citizenship by marrying foreign main. -- men.>> that would have been
similar to the identical legal status. you were born a legal citizen. ted cruz is an example. anybody else? >> the territory becomes a state.>> if you live in an area acquired by the united states. if you were born in louisiana in 1780 four new mexico were one of these territories that were acquired by the united states. various ways that are part of the treaty where the u.s. acquired that and. it would say this person and all the residents would become citizens as quickly as possible. let's look at the first pick people born in the first
example. immigrants who naturalized. the u.s. is not exact -- exactly invading canada any time soon and converting canadians into u.s. citizens. we tried that and it did not work. we are not doing that now but there is an ongoing process of naturalization. the naturalization law was passed in 1790. if you want to understand what was going on you need to look at the large number of immigrants who started arriving in the united states in the 1840s and 50s. immigrants arrived but there was a sudden arrival of new immigrants. i want to discuss the implications and consequences. what were some of the principles of naturalization? yes.
people need to learn about the government become -- before they become citizens. anything else you want to add? when you are naturalized, you are on par with others but that is after a waiting period in which the principal change is you need to learn the american principles. as an individual, you will be equal to others. this is on the minds of the immigrants that arrived in the united states. they are arriving across the atlantic and later i will talk about them arriving across the pacific. they are coming from a lot of places. where were the largest numbers of immigrants coming from? do any of you know? >> germany and ireland. spot on expect 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 came to the united states and a large number of irish. i want to do this to a few examples. first of the germans. the immigrants arrived from germany and ireland and transform neighborhoods and culture. they see tremendous opportunity in american citizenship. one example was a guy name george schneider who came to st. louis in 1852. he opened the bavarian brewery in downtown st. louis. that begins the beer history of american history. you may not know that before this time the u.s. was not
producing much beer. this was a matter of great importance of many undergraduates. the u.s. produce spirits. what were spirits? what were distilled spirits? you don't know your alcohol? >> whiskey, gin. whiskey is a big product that the u.s. produces and spirits. many americans do not have the technology or expertise for bears. german brewers show up. bavarian brewery was opened in 1850 two. another immigrant purchased the paris from schneider in 1860. the brewery does well. one of the guys he goes into business with was a man who arrived in st. louis in 1857. what do you know about adolphus busch? 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 doing a rags to riches sort of thing.>> yes.>> the american dream. >> it is an american dream. he immigrants -- acquires citizenship and acquires the opportunities and has great opportunities. i emphasize this because it is offsetting the narrative i was using at the start. both of these go together. the limitations of those that are excluded and the opportunities for those who have access. there are more details to the rags to riches story. that is mostly fabrication.
you clearly did not study very carefully. don't you obsess about super bowl ads like all other folks do? you actually focus on the game? it was totally a good game. what else happens? 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. he is on the ship and he gets enough fight. the guy says i want to brew beer and he arrives in new york as this newly arrived immigrant. native born americans treat him obnoxiously. when he crosses the atlantic he is later on a steamboat that catches fire and he jumps off into the river and he is on the
ship. there is an african-american man multicultural population. he arrives in st. louis and he comes up and gives him a beer. if only life is like this. adolphus busch was born into a comfortable family. he went and he wanted to go into the brewery business and he did what so many americans had done before him. he shared something important with thomas jefferson and george washington. do you know what it was? he married well. he married the daughter. they went into business together.
now to them, both of them, immigrants who acquired u.s. citizenship and it brought extraordinary opportunities. they had not been born in the united states but by becoming citizens they enjoyed equal legal status with native born citizens. the united states 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. i think the experience is difficult. you arrive in a new country and people may not trust you. you may not speak the same language and it is difficult. matters of degree. y had so many irish immigrated to the united states? does anyone know?
>> the potato famine. i would say you need to understand that with a larger history. pretty measurable. a lot of pushes but a major pull of the united states. there appears to be economic opportunity and the promise for equality. citizenship is a legal status but also a cultural practice. what happens to the irish. they face chauvinism for many reasons. one of them is religious. many are catholic and many americans are protestants. most are protestant and deeply concerned. the united states has acquired territory from mexico where much of the applicant -- population is also catholic.
long running dispute between the irish and english and what are people like the irish and the german going to do? they work hard and take advantage of the opportunities. one of the things that becomes increasingly clear making their experience as naturalized citizens different from emancipated slaves is that they will play a role in who enjoys the benefits of citizenship. one of the things the irish and germans do is to convince the majority that surrounds them that they are white. the group that has to struggle is the irish. that may come as a surprise because the stereotype is that they are pale. the overwhelming stereotype but
in the 1800s there was many english said the irish is a different race. a term used broadly. what the irish do is that if they can convince the white majority in the united states that they too are white, they can establish their claims to whiteness. a term i will use again. they have crushed the threshold that enabled them not to get legal citizenship but also to enjoy the benefits of citizenship as a cultural practice. by the time the war erupts white men are climbing the boundaries of citizenship between them are unnatural. that argument was around but the immigrants punctuated the argument believing that all
naturalized 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 all citizens should have access to the suffrage. at this moment i want to step back. i have been discussing in general terms a series of developments and changes related to citizenship that occurred in the error of the civil war. some of these exist separate. at the start of class said the civil war and reconstruction are not necessarily the midway point of u.s. history and i will be interested to see how it was taught 20 or 30 years from now when you have to cover a lot of stuff after the civil war. i do find it useful time to
take stock. especially now because we have just past the halfway point and you just took the midterm exam. you are trying to get it out of your head. i want to go to the regions that we have been looking at periodically to consider how they changed and how they were the same. the moment when we last looked in the 18th century and talk about the delaware valley and the northern plains in the southwest and west, st. louis. hell did they change and how are they the same? let's start the delaware valley in the moment of centennial exhibition. that is how i started today. the centennial exhibition was not just to celebrate one century of independence. it was not supposed to celebrate the reunion after the civil war.
it also gave philadelphia chance to celebrate itself. according to the 1870 census filled if he was up to 674,000 people. when the census was taken 20 years earlier in 1850, the population was 121,000. you do the math. i am lousy at math. how many are taking calculus this semester? you are taking calculus. this is small potatoes. you better not get it wrong. 121,000 and 674 and 1870. the clock is ticking. >> good job. that is a five fold increase in population pick what accounts for this? like other areas of the eastern
seaboard, this was the result of natural increase. it was partly the result of the growth of the city. urbanization and the rise of early industrial manufacturing but also it was the group that was fueled by the immigrant boom of the mid-19th century. the majority of immigrants started in the cities. many scattered into the country but many started and stayed in the cities. ports of entry like philadelphia, new york or st. louis which was a point of entry. do you have a question? >> how did they get into pennsylvania and st. louis? >> they would literally leave the ship on the document and start their. in some cases, you would have people arrive in new orleans and they might take a train to st. louis because they heard
that was a place of opportunity or a steamboat up the river. that is why a lot state along the coast because that is why they leave on the transatlantic voyage. one of the things we see the city's this large population. philadelphia has undergone a demographic revolution as numbers increase but in some ways it is the same kind of city that we saw in the 1800s. a multiracial population that is mostly of european or african ancestry. white residents are often competing where they feel like they are competing with african- american residents. they feel like they are squeezed out by white commercial networks. what political party do you think most of the residents of philadelphia would have been
in? what was the majority political party? >> republican. >> they are actually split. there is a real democratic strength but now it is competing with a new republican party pick it reflects a change that is going on in american politics. now let's shift to the region connecting the virginia tidewater to the piedmont. in theory this was a region that should have gone the most change and in some degree it was. they ended enslavement and the system that was the basis for the regional economy, the social order, we talked about how the system came into being in the sensory -- 17th century. this is how things operated in virginia. it comes to an end as a result of the civil war. there was a clear break. we will talk about this region in different turns -- terms but there are limits.
the region remained unchanged in certain ways. richmond was an emerging city but this is a rural area. immigration was limited. this is far more of a nativeborn population. mostly white and black. african-americans made important gains in the aftermath of emancipation, whites were already immobilizing. -- mobilizing. they were coming in the northern plains and the southwest. the major theme is that we got the story with u.s. acquires the louisiana purchase and the mexican section but you would think the government would be there immediately but it didn't.
the change was quick pick in the 1860s and 70s and the story that i opened with in class. this will have profound changes for the region. this is partly the story of how native americans find themselves stripped of their sovereignty and opportunity but it is also the story of how white settlers find their opportunity. if you want to understand the opportunities, i want to tell you about danny alderson. 90 alderson was at the vanguard of white settlement into the northern plains. she was born in virginia but she was born in 1860. in 1883 she married and with
on the range of montana. it comes at the price. they had been forcibly removed. finally, let's come to the confluence region. st. louis. st. louis, like philadelphia was a place within urban center. in 1800, st. louis was the home of about 2000 people. its numbers took off. then expanded even more during the immigration -- as a rate s as a -- as a result of -- st. louis would become crucial stopping off point where they outfitted themselves, there was a manufacturing base there that would produce materials that they would take with them. these developments i have talked about will set the stage for what follows. as i said manny alderson was at
the vanguard in the rockies and southwest. likewise, in urban centers like philadelphia and st. louis, it's manufacturing economy will become an industrial economy. this combination of widespread migration, early industrialization, and then 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, won't 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 bush. that takes us back to 1876. first of all, 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 that 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. that is because they thought the future was in the city. that is a moment we will return to later. it is a changed that will have far-reaching consequences for st. louis. another change that would have far-reaching consequences was that at the same time the brewery first established by george snyder, acquired by anheuser, and later run by him and his son bush, they started a new beer. you better know the answer if you live in st. louis. thank you! you said budweiser, are you from st. louis? thank goodness. they start producing budweiser. i get to close the lecture today by talking about beer. but i also get to say that forbush 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 at the same time. i went a few minutes over, i'm sorry. have a great day. i will see you all next monday. on c-span two live coverage of the senate as they continue work on an $857 billion spending package for the
departments of defense, labor, hhs and education. this sunday and oral histories we continue our history of women in congress with helen beth drake -- bentley. >> i knew i had to do well because they could not afford not to. i just kept plugging. i worked hard. it was not a playpen. a campaign is tough work. i admire anybody who goes into it. >> in the weeks ahead we will hear from barbara kelly, nancy johnson and lynn woolsey. watch oral histories, sunday at 10 am eastern on american history tv, on c-span three. coming up tonight american history tv and primetime features our series lectures in
history. we will look at lectures on the reconstruction area with brandeis university professor abigail cooper on african americans during the reconstruction era and how former slaves fought for economic rights and full citizenship including the right to vote. >> next, abigail cooper teaches a class on african americans during the reconstruction era. her lesson looks at how former slaves fought for economic rights in full citizenship, including the right to vote, make contracts, and choose where they worked. this is about 50 minutes. slavery to freedom revisited. radicals and roots. they talk about the leaden -- latin of radicalism and roots. it's almost a cli