Im an assistant professor of history at the university of Southern California and this is my first in person Conference Since the pandemic and after two years where giving a conference paper was basically sitting alone in my apartment, its wonderful to be able to talk with you today. So just wanted to get a big thank you to the organization for putting together this conference and for accommodating the varieties of which people chose to participate even though i know that came at some great logistical challenges. I also want to thank who cant be here today but is the one responsible for bringing us all together today. As she originally conceived of the roundtable as one that would be focused on the civil war and the west but ultimately last yearry around february decided o focus it on 1862. This is the year when the Republican Party succeeded into some of its original Campaign Promises abolished in the district of columbia and the western territories as well as passing the homestead act. When lincoln recognized what manyny africanamericans free ad enslaved had known all along that this was a war over slavert not just union, and of course the war in the west is even more complicated and im sure will be the subject of what we will be discussing in todays roundtable. All these decisions and eventst have shaped the world that we live in today what we are going to do is ask the two members of the roundtable to share some thoughts. I will introduce each of them before they speak and then we will open the floor up to a broader discussion and i hope that we will be able to do that as a conversation. So first we have an assistant professor of american studies and affiliated faculty with studies at barnard college. The imperialism with antiracism. He teaches courses on the political economy of racism, imperialismsm and radical internationalism, critiques of the economy and liberation. The author of empire indigenous nations and the Transcontinental Railroad published in 2019. In the wartime expansion of the u. S. T military power with the development of u. S. Financial institutions and im interested in the relationships between the war in the financial power. And the most expensive war that the u. S. Fought so the civil war was the militarily defeated and also against mexico the u. S. War economy tied together the production of farms and new england with of the stabilization of slavery in texas and the deep south. By the early 1860s the war economy marked the confrontation between the Merchant Capital that required a protected National Market and a southern southernovarian capital that Red International exports. Merchant and insurance capitalll based in new york city and the Connecticut River valley began the war paralyzed and divided undertaking a transition to a diversified portfolio of investments across thehi ranchi, agriculture, mining industry. As the expected u. S. Victory over the confederacy was thwarted by the battlefield catastrophes the legal act passed on 1862 authorized 150 million in u. S. Treasury notes which eventually increased the 450 million and with an additional half billion dollars raising funds to support military power over land and sea which would be necessary to defeat the confederacy it provided a windfall for industrial and military contractors launching the careers. In a further effort to raise the funds in the the act that was signed into law july 1st, 1862 established both the First Federal income tax and first tax on inherited wealth and the agency that would become the irs. The laws interns at the stage for the National Bank act between 1863 and 1866 which formed a National Banking system giving the u. S. Federal government the ability to issue with the war bonds and authorizing the federal government to regulate and tax the commercial banking system. April 19, 1861, lincoln issued a proclamation against southern ports. The naval blockade was necessary to stop the flow of capital, weapons and consumer goods into the confederacy. It was a coercive policy to break the alliance of the new york merchants with, southern planters which is running goods by. The u. S. Navy began the civil warth with 42 ships and actives are busy and by the end of the 1862 this would increase the 384 and the u. S. Had the largest navy. This may be provided the muscle for an expanded Monroe Doctrine in the decades following the war with active interventions against the caribbean and central nationalist movements and the service of ensuring the returns on investment. In cuba over the coming decades they would leverage political, economic individually military pressure to support the alliance of the finance capital. At the close of the symmetry of the cuban revolution but seek to overturn this pressure. Two days after the passage of the act february 27, 1862 the u. S. Executed which had been apprehended the previous august carrying a cargo. This is the first and only time that they executed to someone for participating in the slave trade. Six weeks later 1862 the british and u. S. Concluded negotiations on the sewer treaty that ended the sanction for participation in the slave trade to cuba and brazil and ended the u. S. Participation in the atlantic slave trade. 1862 salter concession in u. S. Power over land. July 1, 1862 the same day the revenue, lincoln signed the Pacific Railway act into law and a chartered the Pacific Railroad and provided the grants to the railroad that is chartered in the state of california. In these corporate land grants the congress violated the treaties that is lined with indigenous nations along the path of the railroad and the company is used these grants to raise capital to fund the construction and maintenance of the roads and the infrastructure and took place on ahe global ste and the completion of the end of 1862 with the completion of the first lien in algeria and spread of the network in western india. July 2nd lincoln signed the morrill act establishing the land grantsrsity that was another aspect. By Opening University education to small Property Owners the act deepened. By organizing Higher Education around the disciplines producing graduates in engineering, accounting, administration and management the universities produced by the act were trained and educating the rapidly modernizing and expanding states. The political economies of our own era continues to operate within the constraints set in place by the land grants to corporations and universities over these days in 1862. At the end of the day the u. S. Executed 38 prisoners and what remains the largest official execution and history. In the Historical Context of the act and the land grant act the mass execution was another type of assertion of landbased power that involved the transaction relating to north america inn te space of war to the space of policing the transition that remains unfinished in our own days. Together we see the prioritization. The expansion of land and seabased military power was accomplished in the expansion of the finance capital that interns at the stage for the Subsequent Development such as territory, vigilante and the treaty obligations that provide the context for the massacre november 29, 1864. The subsequent period following the deceit of the confederacy into the demise of the southern clintock chrissy the war finance ifpower between mississippi and california. The definitive break in the alliance between northeastern merchant muppercaseletter southern slaveholding capitals around shared investments led to the development of finance capital investing in industries. By the end of the 1880s the u. S. Finance capital had in economic terms controlled the production of sugar and Mining Operations burning down the forests to establish Building Networks to transport materials and thousands of workers from haiti and jamaica. Ive spoken about two executions into the transitions during that year. Im particularly interested in how the defeat of the southern agrarian capital was accomplished through the new alliance between finance capital and agrarian capital particularly on the plains of north america and in the islands of the caribbean. Calling attention to the saudi execution followed by the u. S. Shipment of a significant number of patriot missiles to saudi arabia on march 201st as reported in the wall street journal while they report they are unable or unwilling to rapidly increase the Oil Production to offset the sanctioned russian oil for consumers. This is taking place as we witnessed the unfolding experiments between countries seeking to trade currencies other than the u. S. Dollar in the recent developments we see assertions of power over sea and land in attempts to stabilize the future of u. S. Power caught in the grip of the nexus. [applause] thank you so much. The next panelist is an assistant professor of american studies at rutgers. His current book project race, law and mixed ancestry in this injury midwest analyzes racial complexities of American Indians of mixed indian and european ancestry with a focus on kinship, family history, land disposition and citizenship. Dedicated to the language revitalization and preservation and research is driven by the need to understand the full effects of american colonialisms on indigenous americans and how those consequences influence native people today doing so with the hope of contributing to the fright of the healing of indigenous communities. Hello, my relatives and thank you for coming to think more about native people in the west. 1862 and civil war years. Is a particularly horrible moment fori native americans, where the u. S. Government really goes all out and makes it full policy to dispossess native people of their lands and replace them with white settlers, the u. S. And hor colonial powers in north america have been carrying out genocide and dispossession of American People for hundreds of years. But the civil war acted as cover for american lawmakers to make natist land dispossess a policy of the federall government, in 1862 we heard about the congressional actions of that period, homestead act. Pacific railroad act, moral act, they were legislation that focused on the dispossession of native people of sovereign indigenous nations, a policy to remove them from their homelands. In the same years during civil war we see creation of a lark large number of territories, and arizona in idaho in 1863 and montana in 1864, a government presence was increased. Which all these things coupledd together. Was really all about using the what was going on in civil war as cover to over take indigenous lands. It kind of ramps up at this moment, we see the ramp up in violence in this particular moment in 1862. Some of these are better known, the u. S. Dakota war of 1862. You know wasas a major war that depopulated the states of minnesota s and resulted in hundreds of settlers and native people dead, thousands of native people displaced from their homes and removed from their homeland in minnesota. One of our professors is a descendants of one of 38 men, who were excused in 1862, i wish he were here to give a talk about that. That is one of the better known ones for historians, the another sand creek massacre in 1864 in colorado. There are many other actions of violence the california genocide which once on a decade or two before civil war and continued after, it was a bloody time. For example a lot of these are lesser known. The bear river massacre in idaho of m where u. S. Army massacred 280 men, women and children. There was another massacre in california settlers, rose up andtl murdered probably about 300 indians in california. These are to name a couple of the more extreme. Sos many of these massacres in this violence was going on in the west during civil war years, many are unknown like, those in california, just under studied. There are people who are more experts on california than i. There is a native population of california was greatly reduced. Something like 75 or 80 i believe, on a broader timeline. From i think 300 thousand to 30 to 50 thousand, through largely through theou settler violence going on. But back to u. S. Dakota war. General johnra polk commander of new department of northwest which was created as result of the war he wrote to henry sibling in september of 1862, writing about his thoughts about dakota people, he used word sioux. Saying itai is my purpose toic to exterminate the sioux. He goes on destroy everything belongingtr to them, and force them out on to the plains to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts and no meanings as people with whom treaties are compromises to be made. Notfi every army officer had the same views but many did like most colonel john. But this gets to the thoughts of the military officers of the time and some of the people in lincoln administration. Another aspect of civil war was that it devastated indian territory, now oklahoma. This is where u. S. Gastromoved thousands of people, a generation earlier, now civil war devastated their new homeland. There, there were you know thousands of native people that served on both sides for confederacy and american side. That gets us to president lincoln. Lincoln is someone who scholars and public vias one of the greatest american president s, but, reality is he did little to nothing to curtail violent toward native people during his tenure. He did nothing to curtail the suffering of native people, particularly indan territories. Lincoln saw native people as a threat to white settler, expansion. That is why we have legislation homestead act. His political appointees in Indian Service at the time, called the office of indian affairs, they were largely incompetent and corrupt. That was not just something from his administration, this was common you know in the administrations before and after. These are political whointees, people worked at indian agencies or worked in dc. They were not appointed because of their skills or their abilities to work with native people. You know, or things like that or carry out federal policies of the government in the relationships or treaty responsibilities. The federal government. They were appointed for political f reasons, they had no experience with native people, they were there to make money. That was the huge problem in Indian Service of the period, these indian agents and other workers regularly stole money and supplies that was meant to go to native o people. Very often the lincoln appointees were skimming off the top or sometimes skimming all the way to the bottom. Thatat is one of the causes of u. S. Dakota war. You know, dakota people starving to death because a lots of the local politicians and the constituent of minnesota who were also in the state of minnesota who were also often worked for government as part of Indian Service likee some were fur traders like sibling who was later an Army Officers later. They embezzled pretty much all of the money for dakota people left them starving. This is what is going on during the lincoln administration. He and his appointees were interested in concentrating native people on reservation lands and taking their lands for settler expansion. If authorities or militia groups fell it was necessary to commit genocide all violence to achieve, that they did so. We have seen that with you knowow sand creek and bear river o and various other massacres. So often scholars white of lincoln write of lincoln asin being too busy with the civil war to do anything do help native people or to carry out policies that would be protective of native people and their lands, but rather lincoln was the architect of his administration. He was the architect of the policies of his administration. He was the architect of the actions that his appointees and people carried out. But anyways, i want to wrap up my comments as a question here of to think about this, this historical literature about this. This period of native americans during civil war. I thinkat there is really a two fold issue with the his. On a small scale there is decentnt literature. Some work on sand creek massacre. E our other member who could not make it, a beautiful and horrifying book, in the trauma in the book of the sand creek massacre, i wish he were here. They have other circumstances and could not make it. Unfortunately. I lost myy train of thought. Anyway, there are some historicalhi work on things like sand creek and u. S. Dakota war but other moments of violence, have gone under studied or not studied. We might know the names of them that is about it. Thatt. Is one issue, we really need a lot morely work of people to dig into these study these. These particular events that werear going on in the civil war period. But another issue is we also need more work that takes these t events as a whole gives broader understanding of why and how these things happen. How they relate to the civil war. In that particular period. And before the talk i had lunch with a great scholar jeffrey osler, in audience, he had a book come out. Deriving genocide that gives that broad overview. Were awaiting his second volume that brings that so a later date. That is one example of the important work done, but there needs to be more work. Not only small scale stuff of figuring out what happened but broad scale to get more into the meanings of this. Of o how these episodes relate to creation of the United States and coming out of civil war and issues of reconstruction or lack of it in many cases with Indigenous People. Im looking forward to our discussion. [applause] thank you both for fascinating talks giving us a lot to think about. I think going to exercise chairs prerogative and ask the first question, after that well open the floor to your audience questions. A quick reminder to go to the microphone and middle of the room, and take the time nowow to think about what questions yous might want to ask. There are t probably a lot. So, really fascinating talks give us a very make the case for why studying the west and looking more broadly at the civil war is so s important whether caribbean or the north american west. And im followup on jimmys points or ending about his historiography. Your talks show us, getting to us think more about civil war and re reconstruction to think about thehe west and south together. As periods of a larger period of debate over federal control. Kate and greg have suggested limitations to that arguing for thinking about United States as a whole during this time as a postwar nation. And im curious to hear if you have any comments about howow he might or we might or expand on your comments how we think about what is happening in the south and happening in the typical textbook depiction of the civilar war in relation to everything else. You have talked about this a bit, jimmy talking about civil war as cover, and money and financial and federal expansion that was prompted by civil war. Im curious to hear you reflect more broadly about what how he might think about the United States as a whole during this period or whether we should at all. A great question. One i would need tong about more. To think about more. What is going on in the west is different from what is going on in eastern u. S. During civil war period. You know civil war you know this civil war and say eastern United States has garnered vast majority of the his call attention. Historical attention. And theref are battles between confederacy in new mexico and United States, and of theseabout some moments withrt native people, there is a growing historiography of civil war as fought in indian territory which fought numerous battles i think one of the most fought over pieces of ground in civil war was the indian territory no troops of number of firefights and things like that and to then i think to mention lunch i had with jeffrey and his thousands that in our discussion before this is you knowou we were kind of musing that reconstruction really maybe not be the right word for what was going on in the west is nothing was reconstructed other than being constructed or deconstructed in many senses. The native sovereign nations and forced on to reservations. And the United States was constructing and expanding their empire on top of the other nations at the same time. And indian territory was not. Lincoln had you know no real interest in helping the people who are suffering there, were talking about tens thousands of people who were refugees in the indian territory as a result of the war flooded into kansas and things like that he didnt care much about that was done not much was done after that. I think professor mike, who was more of experts than i on lincoln and his administration might have otherng thoughts. That is what im thinking aboutt what now. Ive been interested in turning back to learn from debates in the 30s a among radicals about the interpretrations of the civil war as a revolutionary period and debates what kind off revolution. You know striking as we know about reconstruction in the moment. Those forced by general strike, there were other an alcees at the time, this is in a period in 30s in a depression. A systemic crisis, all kinds of experimenting in working class organizations out of that moment people are reininterpreting reconas a revolution. I think maybe that sounds abstract. This speaks to political demand of our moment in some ways, and experiments in mutual aid in food distribution. And alsoo with the lessons were learning in indigenous history and understanding history. I think onege question for me question of land, if weti go with latter interpretation of civil war. It is a capital seems that there is a landed component to it. Similar revolutionary pressures in other parts of the world in developing nations, countries that are developing capitalism in cuba itself there would be positives of time a nascent class within cuba would try took sert its own interest and transform policy. And was thwarted. But across north america there is a different set of patterns at play where there is a strengthening of there is neverll a question of reform but in the pockets of south that we learn from devoice. But reform across the u. S. Ask not on the table. It is the opposite. Expansion of this Industrial Capital of Financial Capital is achieved through expansion of private property claims on land. Ill leave it at that. Thank you so much for responding. The issue of land is key for us to think about. Jimmy, i love that idea of deconstruction. Maybe we need a book about that so to go alongside eric a masterpiece. Now to questions from audience. If you have a question, just go to the middle aisle and ask away. Ill be brave. Thank you. After our critique of lincoln it is you know pushes a lot of buttons that need to be pushed. Thank you. Im wondering about come about civil war was a cover, this sort of implies a certain now we can do it no one is paying attention, i want more motivation, more evidence that as opposed to just coinciding with civil war. And we see with no civil war, a counter factual, there would be still be some of these policies might still well be taken. Role of civil war in policies andol as a graduate of a Land Grant University uc berkeley, you know im part of the land comes and training of engineer, seems that there are other a things that occurred with the moral act for example, how do we balance the critique and the of this holocaust of native americans and other things that did arise from this development. I think you are right, my comment was too strong a word. Some evidence we have is making nevada ans state in 1864, it didnt wasnt near threshold that was necessary like i think it was number is 50,000 or 60,000, rather than not counting native people in, that i think that had like 10,000, right . Y this rushed through. Making it a state because they could there was a civil war and they didnt have you know southerners to tell them no you cant vote for that. Maybe that is one piece of evidence. I think if we dug deep we could find more. That would say, but you are probably right, it is probably a strong word. To the second point, thinking about moral act and you know creation of land grant institutions, we in United States we look at this, really important point because it does create the Public Institutions that do a lot of good in terms of education of the populous, a lot of people who would never have the ability to get that kind of education. We can look at that and say, why would we say a negative to that. So often so many of things we look at as common good did have extreme consequences for other people. There was the article by high country times, high country news, sorry, that came out a couple years ago about the moral act and these schools and the way they dispossess native people, features rutgers, im in the same boat there. There is that legacy that this university has, a little bit indirect in that case compared to say to schooling out west because new jersey didnt have public land, they used land script they sold. That is just like the legacy of so many of thins in the United States the next panel about 1776 and somehow i got roped intoo that panel as well, ill be making comments there about the declaration of independences and the constitution. Resulted in suffering for native American People. We have to recognize what it did in terms of dispossession of native people with dispossession then comes a host of other things like starvation and loss of sacred sites, we need to critique a little bit some things we up hold in American Culture as importance, we have continued to they impacted people in many different ways in negative ways they need to be addressed and possibly redressed for people today, what it might mean in term of land back and those kinds of things. Ill. Ill use that opportunity to give two plugs for the article roberts lee wrote. Thenen a plug, for roberts book weve been here all the while, a good job at look at land redistribution that didnt happen in the territory in the way it benefited people and pan americans and a complicate story that happened in. For those interested. If i could jump in, on the idea that civil war is a cover. For me i understand, in two concrete ways could you have expansion of navy and expandtion of army, number of divisions and officers. They want to keep the them. S many of it wasnt going to disband it was a huge wrecking tool that needed to find things direct. And then there are investments, in the army. You know all these small investors, who had money they are a rational direct interest in getting a return on their investment that investing in the growth of the military. This civil war is the contact not cover context, notot cover but maybe a context. The way that it unfolded happened in this way. Also interesting to read some of the accounts of the soldiers who were sent into foreign countries, territory, of other nations, who were bitter about being sent there to fight under very difficult scary for them conditions, they left records, we signed to fight confederacy, why are we sent to attack another nation . That is not what we were here for. There are contradictions also in historical record in terms of universities there are contradictions there. Im not historian of education, it would be interesting to look at german Higher Education in this period, which is also modernizing and developing, which is developing in advance capitalist economy which lookings different from the United States there might be lessons for us in understandings development of disciplines, and development of the universities institutions across the two country. What a fascinating comparison. Next question. Hi, thank you very much for these really, really remarks, think about 1862 of a beginning of decade in which unitedwh states as a nation state transformed understanding and assertion of jurisdiction in south and west. Thinking about that. We take that forward to enforcement act and end of treaty making a decade later, similarly asserting centralize federal authority or critical matters which have understood to be nation to nation, state bait or local, right . Also making National Citizenship as aspirational were accustomed to thinking about. As treaty apparatus. But the place where the divergence is clear, as you say, in land, right . By the end of this period it is clear i think that while from maybe goes to your point about forms of capital. That while the aspirations of africanamerican for their own acres were thwarted and were wrongly relegated to forms of wage labor in the west to reduce that contact allotment, it is the tool of conquest rather than aspirational form there is a funny contradictory in the conversation about land in this period. Your thoughts about that, thank you for provoking those ideas. I would love to hear you talk more about, that i think they arey great connection. This maybe random hearing you talk. Makes me it actually draws my mind to the blues and question of culture. You know this is the era where you know historians it is in the defeat of the radical promise of preconstruction in the south and development of share cropping. You knoww we often associate this with the beginnings of the blues. And with that, i wonder in the west, kind of patterns that you are tracking out what kind of cultural shifts taking place that we could track and read alongside the blues that still live with us. I dont have answer, im thinking with you with your comments you made, i appreciate that, that line off just thread you laid out for us. Thinking about thehe contradictions that weve been talking about some things have a particularly good but a devastation to others. Therehe are other of these moments, your mention of citizenship. For my own research, writing citizenship in minnesota territory in early states in minnesota where it was contradictory where particularly it became partisan but where democrats were using native people who acquired citizenship to use them for political purposes, what organic act of created that created a new territorial legislator, franchised those. And then there were a number of native men served in the Territorial Legislature in first couple years. So many of them, so many of the white legislatures who were married to native women were all democrats they were called the moccasin democrats because of their connection to native people. It sounded fascinating debates within the Constitutional Convention in 1857. You know about these issues ofof who to en franchise. Theyey were interested in franchising the native folks because they knew they were on their side and vote for them, you can see how some that works really good in some cases for native folks was intended for political purposes and another 1862 connection, had some native members as part of legislature, u. S. Dakota war happenss and local populous turns very much against native people. You can see that moment shift of thinking. And to ideas of citizenship, it is fascinating because there were the debates at the time like racially, okay these are folks of mixed white and native, we should occur them white for our purposes. This is a weird moment of racial creation but short lived and it obviously had a political purpose. I came to understand that they were only interested in citizenship for those who they perceived as civilized. The native people of mixed a ancestry could vote only if they were civilized, they created civilized as a legal term. From the writings it meant to mean assimilated in your American Culture. And they played part, you wear the l american clothing and kurt your hair cut your hair, you could vote, you can see in the casess citizenship grows to mean Different Things to different people and how that could b be used in different political circumstances to benefit of native people. Against the contradictory notion. The other way with the reconstruction legislation that comings out of that like 14 amendment. The Supreme Court case, in 1884 made the decision, 14 amendment does not apply to native americans. Citizenship of american native people is in limbo and murky until 1924 american citizenship act. They acquired citizenship in various ways until them. But idea was native people, that came out of Supreme Court case, was idea was, well up hold sovereignty of native people. It is contradictory before any case that indigenous sovereignty was they would fight, but in this case, well up hold that. You might get lucky who you were a native person and it worked in your favor, often to worked against you. Thank you so much. Head right up there, thank you. Thank you, i really learned aea lot, enjoyed your presentations, when we think about historiography, we think about writing and words, we have seen in last few words words can shift the way we think about things, i get stuck on word massacre, on one hand it applies hapless innocence killed for no reason, Indigenous Women and and men and children too old to bare arms opposed a threat to u. S. S. By just existing. My question, first if you have another ways to think about that word massacre, every time i write it im not satisfied. What other words are worth rethinking, if were rewriting the narrative of this period, and we want to do travelt to like k12 and beyond oal. Oa w h, what words could we be thinking and using . I share that not necessarily aversion but massacre does not feel like the right term for the reasons you brought up. I think there is another way of looking at this, part of aar concerted military strategy. This is a how the u. S. Fights wars. You know that is ortiz writes about this is evidence in history of north america but also in histories of u. S. Wars elsewhere. U. S. Attacks civilian homes and civilians and food sources and water sources. I dont know did strategy is a god word to replace a good word to cut and place with massacre, but i think that perspective is this is purposeful. Even in case of sand creek there is a big investigation, a loto of handwringing this is part of a purpose full pattern that goes back. I think that is important question. To other conversations like debate is something genocide or ethnic cleansing. But thinking of massacre. I could see how that leaves foul taste in your mouth, maybe it fits in some cases but not all, i think this native American History it is important, it was a counter to the term battle. You know so many people would want to term Something Like sand creek a battle or wounded knee a battle, and massacre switches it no, it was not a battle between two opposing military forces, this was a massacre in a sense that whens u. S. Army, is like their policy, they were not attacking armies of nnative americans but villages, people with majority noncombatant on purpose to kill them, drive them away or destroy their food supply, knowing full well it would result in starvation and death, i think that is why its useful as way to combat the idea they were battles, you are right there is probably a better term. I dont have one yet. I think that we strive to use best terminologies we are using in a correct way, that is you are right that is one that needs more looking into. Thank you for the comments, they are thought provoking. There is a way to think about what happened in 1858 with u. S. Mexico war. An example of this kind of i dont know if it was total war, it is a similar kind of like, you know. You know targeting of civilian and c children and homes and villages. I was interested in the way you were talking about capitalismsm and different forms, i feel a theme of this conference has been rethinking. I heardeaou about it in terms of plenary power and immigration policy and thinking about that . Relation to southern colonialism, i think there is something about what you are talking about with capitalism and imperial capitalism and different capitalist actors that helps us understand settler colonialism and u. S. Empire more broadly and thinking about a broader project. I wonder if maybe you could both talk a little bit about this moment visavis what weha see come afterwards . I think t there something in particular about this moment, and about like how to we think about settler colonialism. Thank you, i appreciate this question. I think they are related and linked. Well, i agree there is if we look at the development of capitalismm overtime, it could help us it could help us understand the contradictions at play, some of the motive forces, this is set in civil wa era, a huge expansion of military power with a expansion was not just financial power but finance capital, investment in the know institutions of the Financial Capital. People have money have to make these decisions, it is the phrase i hate Financial Literacy of that time. People had to develop that. These are you know the like wealthy empowered people. This is tied to the universities that requires all of these new techniques of keeping statistics of keeping accounts, of measures probabilities, and future. And you know, so, the expand expansion of finance and investment and institution alongside military, to explains a lot about coming period, one thing that is interesting. They argue that imperialism was a stage in the development of capitalism, deboyce in his article explains why the First World War breaking out. Inay he wrote about dividends of whiteness, dividends is a financial term for me that suggests a return on investment. Whichh is interesting, looking at u. S. History, and of the United States imposing itself over north america, and to caribbean, in last quarter of 19 century we see patterns at play earlier then deboys and lennon were assessing them in some ways north america anticipates patterns that took place elsewhere for example rail network, i have studied and written about in Network America is built in the historical period prior to the scramble for africa, and for africa took place through construction of railroads, one thing that is interesting to me in studying u. S. History, of north america, how many way its anticipates when we think of modern imperialism taking place elsewhere. If we look to settler colonies on africa and algeria, roads are looked to the railroad construct you construction across north america as a model how British Empire some capture control over the african continent and the idea of rhodes were still being worked out in apartheid regime, and stale being worked out with the people who made their wealth in those regimes and are now at heart of silicon val here in United States anyway, those are some ways that i would think about those patterns. But, and i mentioned this in comments i gave, the nexus war and finance to me, that is really the core that core of how this manifests. Thanks for the question. I would say to you, this particular moment was about the commodity fiing of the latest lands to make them a commodity that something a product that is bought and sold. Y so many treaties between federal government and various sovereign nations, were land session treaties, a majority were coerced or fraudulent in some way. It was you know forcing them to then accept Cash Payments or other kinds of goods or services for giving up their land to federal government. That was really very. The part of the american settler colonial project do commodify their lands. But for at least in region i study, mid west and northern great plains, those tribal nations their economies were based on reciprocal kinship obligations, you made kin of someone through marriage or ceremony they had an obligation to you to help you out and you had obligations to them, different conceptions of the economic systems that did not necessarily not commodities not capitalism, but, that is what this relationship was between the United States and Indian Tribes was trying to comland. A little bit more than 10 minutes left. We asked to have those who have remaining questions to share their questions then well have last 10 minutes to let the panelist reflex on them. Interesting panel, one thing i would think of makes 1862 big, emancipation tie in of the union army and northern to defense what role that plays in story were hearing about the west. Any other questions . We have a lot. Well get through them all. This there is time in current environment we see, in addressing complex and controversial history, on the national and statewide level, particularly for someone like myself who is professional background is in secondary education, if anyone would care to comment thousand address these within this context. Thank you. Her, her. Conversation we had on complexity, was fascinating, i would love professor suite to expand on some point about indigenous men fighting on both sides in the army, that would be a great piece to hear about. Dr. Suite brought up lincoln and viewing Indigenous People as a threat to white settlers, about a threat to the confederate war efforts. Related to that, you think there needs to be a distinguishtion between u. S. Fight against the sovereignties in period. That confederacy represents itself. Im wondering, did these events in the west, have any direct impact on things that were going on in the east in the way they played out . Last. A lot of interesting questions. A lot in there. I can just jump in on emancipation proclamation, it is interesting to track corporate person hood, still you know, Corp Operations are people, and Corporation People in the way you and i, they have more rights as people that is traced to 14mm. Amendment. This comes back to land. Lack of addressing the question ofin land. Remember that slavery itself was in terms of property was a form of real estate. You are making slavery illegal but you keep real estate. The case of southern pacific versus santa clara, this was about a tax action of Railroad Company over the fences. What kind of taxes is the corporation liable for of the county. There isis a land question. Thatha then, you know is related to the radical promise of the south. Experiments of black people, freed people. I think that question of how to address this in Public Education is profound. And really beautiful. You know in Public Education. I only have experienced teaching in universities in that setting. You know, i can only guess but i think theyre it comes back to the question about the language you use about you know, for example massacre like what language are we using . Whats the purpose of these of studying these histories . I once had a a senior colleague who teaches who taught european medieval history. Observe my teaching in the us survey and very critically right that the purpose of the us surveys to create a shared identity a shared common identity which in a way i think i was doing just not the shared common. I would have preferred me to be teaching so i think they are questions for us. These are questions of theory and i will stop there. Theres a lot of questions to answer and i will be brief i guess. We need to understand how but i think more broadly is of course we still need a lot more work on the intersection. Or the book afro indigenous history. As a general comment theres a lot of work making those connections between the communities and i think we would learn a lot if we had more of that study. At the k12 question is one that ive heard quite a bit. Last year i worked with the new Jersey Historical commission for a conference on indigenous histories of new jersey and we got an inordinate number of questions from a lot of educators who showed up and it was a Virtual Conference but had questions like how do a we teach this and i think at least for me you mentioned to you were not really i trained and i was not s well. I felt horrible because i didnt know how to answer the question and i feel that is something that academics we should be adding to the conversation. That is the case we dont have the skills of how to make things accessible to a younger audience and something we all need to work on. A question about fighting on both sides. Yes there were lots that joined the army and served in the regular army and served as militia groups and in particular like in the indian territory thousands of men who joined the confederacy and the last confederate general to surrender thats an issue and that happens in other places like in the u. S. Dakota war there were men who fought on the side of the u. S. Army whoseig joined. Some of them to fight against the confederacy but once the war started that they were diverted and i think theres a lot more work to bevi done in terms of native service in the war and things like that but also as in essence you might say that its a kind of native civil war they are fighting each other and the question about people being a threat to the union army of army ofcourse they diverted thos of troops and had to create a new military department to send leadership and things like that and lincoln exempted the governor of minnesota from sending people from the war effort. I think thats a great question and one we t need to think more about. Native people were a threat thats why we are fighting but weli didnt need to be a threat like the u. S. Didnt have to expand on their territory. In the overall this is what was going on and troops were having to be sentnt all over the place. Maybe in some cases they shouldnt have been sent at all but anyway thats a whole other ntthing but thats an important question that needs to be thought about more and then the last question to think about things that were going on in the west stand how they impacted the east and that is another important question but i dont have an answer to that. The native connection certainly there were native people in the east who served in the civil war and there were the galvanized confederates that c were capturd and agreed to become Union Soldiers and were sent to the great plains and later they fought the confederacy but its interesting that connections in that sense but that is another good question i dont quite have an answer to it is certainly something to think about. Thank you both so much for such fascinating comments and especially to everyone in the audience for participating in this really fascinatin discussion. I dont think wevead answered l the questions but weve made a lot of progress and if you would like to stay with us to talk about this even more, stay around for the next part of the roundtable. Thanks so much. [applause]