But in the midst of the celebration, there was terrible news. I will explain to you what it was, but i think it was a very useful moment, when the Northern Plains and the delaware valley, two of the five regions we have looked at, they seem so far from each other and were in fact closely connected. What i want to do is use this moment, 1876, 1877, to really reflect back on what we have done this semester and give you a sense of where we are 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 troops left the confederacy. In theory, reconstruction had come to an end. All the states in the union were once again in the union, selfgoverning, federal authority prevailed throughout the United States. As i mentioned last week, reconstruction, or more specifically the reconstruction amendments to the u. S. Constitution, seemed to have redefined what it meant to be american, what it meant to be a u. S. Citizen. That is a really convenient way of thinking about it. That the civil war and reconstruction constitutes the logical Halfway Point of u. S. History, and it is a fulcrum. It is before the civil war and after the civil war. If you are a civil war historian, it is all before and after the civil war. Here is the way we tend to talk about it. There is the notion of peers the u. S. Before the civil war and a different one after. You have probably taken classes where the civil war is right in the middle. In many classes, that first semester ends in 1865 or 1876 or 1877. Dont get me wrong, the civil war and reconstruction were important. They changed things a lot. Most importantly for the enslaved africanamericans, who gained their freedom as a result of the civil war only to find that freedom was in some way strained in years that followed. But what i want to do today is put the civil war and reconstruction located in context, and that context is both chronological and spatial. I want to situate the civil war and reconstruction alongside other events, but also consider what the civil war and reconstruction might have meant for the United States as a continental nation, because the continental nation, because the war was not fought throughout all the United States, and reconstruction only applied to certain states. I want to revisit the major things we have visited this semester, and i want to move beyond the sites of battle between the north and south. Because when we do this, you see some important continuities. Last week and the week before, i talked about changes. Today, i want to talk about continuity and changes. Continuities that were well in place in the 19th century and changes that began before the civil war, continued after the civil war, and werent caused entirely by it. I want to do that by moving far from where most of the battles were bought in the civil war. I want to move to the Northern Plains. The last time we talked about the Northern Plains, what was it, what was going on there . What do you remember . Anyone . Come on. Yes, front row. Student the expedition had moved westward and they had made contact with natives. Prof. Kastor and what was the impact of the lewis and Clark Expedition on the people who lived in the Northern Plains . Student they were able to trade for more goods. Prof. Kastor true, but the longterm impact was more limited. Lewis and clark and the people who accompanied them come and go, but power and settlement there did not change. What else, anybody else . No . Dont want the microphone in front of you . One thing you mention was the lewis and Clark Expedition arrived. But when we talk about the Northern Plains, i emphasized the real action was between the native peoples who lived there. They engaged in their own winning of the west, their own conflict. That had remained the case through much of the 19th century. This began to change in the Third Quarter of the 19th century as the United States decided it was going to settle matters in the west once and for all. In june 1865, right after robert e. Lees surrender, William Tecumseh sherman did not get a vacation. William Tecumseh Sherman was reassigned to st. Louis to assume command of a military department that extended from the Mississippi River to the rocky mountains. Lets return to sherman. That middle name should be telling you something. Do you remember where sherman was born . What state he was born in . Yes . Student [indiscernible] prof. Kastor very close. Sherman was born in ohio. Why would settlers in ohio named their son after an indian leader who had fought against white settlers . Does anyone want to take a guess . Do you want to try . Student they were more integrated with native americans. Prof. Kastor that is a great point. It is different from st. Louis, where there are mixed race children, but it is very much part of the regional culture. It is 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 and conflict with the indians. What i want to emphasize is the fact he was called William Tecumseh sherman does not mean he had any great love for native people. He lived here in st. Louis. Ulysses s. Grant became president of the United States and sherman succeeded him as commander of the military. It 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, on the way indians remained selfgoverning in the northwest and the southwest. They engaged in a policy to change that. It is a policy that is led by veterans of the civil war, a war that was constructed to save the union, a war with an army that eventually liberated enslaved africanamericans, while this same army would engage in extending federal sovereignty to the west. One of the best examples of that was a young man. A difficult young officer. He was born in ohio, the civil war gave him a chance. For grant and sherman, the war really recreated opportunities for them. They were struggling in private life before the war began. This young officer 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. But when the war was over, he was reduced in rank to captain. It was a big humiliation to him. He saw going west as an opportunity to erase his humiliation. What was his name . Can anyone take a guess . George armstrong custer. Now, custer served in shermans army, and i dont mean the army he led to the sea during the civil war, but the army that sherman commanded as commanding general in the late 1860s and early 1870s. And awaiting custer and others was a native American Society undergoing its own profound changes. To understand those changes, lets focus back on lakota. They were powerful residents of the missouri valley, and they had eyed the United States with some degree of suspicion. They saw it as their role to connect trading routes. Throughout much of the 18th and early 19th centuries, they had sought to establish and preserve their own authority and their own autonomy. Much of their own diplomacy, much of their negotiation and conflict in the 19th century was with their native neighbors. But in the final decades of the 19th century, they faced a new challenge from the United States, from an army led by men like George Armstrong custer. One of the leaders was a man named red cloud. His father was probably a brule indian. And later in life, he became a chief. Much of this was in conflict with other indian groups on the Northern Plains. It was part of an elaborate diplomatic situation in the area. But then, the United States army arrived, increasingly attempting to assert its authority. The result is a war between the United States and the lakota that lasted from 1866 to 1867. As red cloud and other leaders like him faced the entire might of the United States army and at first, the indians are winning, and this should be no surprise to you. This is land they know, they are better organized, and they have much better local knowledge. This is very much 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 themselves had recently organized in response to the threat they saw from the United States, and the United States suffered a series of defeats. Only to reorganize resources and eventually mobilize the authority of the federal government to achieve victory. Now to what happens to red cloud. In the same way the u. S. Constitution enabled the United States to beat the pan indian movement, the structural changes to the government that had gone on during the civil war, and to a certain degree during reconstruction, enabled the United States to field an army that could defeat red cloud. In 1868, red cloud was one of the indian representatives who signed on to the treaty of fort laramie, which was one of several landmark treaties that created a system in the west. The crucial features of that, 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 dependents. The struggle over sovereignty in the west had not ended. Throughout the 1860s and 1870s, the indians continue to resist the United States in the Northern Plains. In 1873, George Armstrong custer arrived in the Northern Plains, part of the military presence there of the United States that is supposed to subdue native nations. One of his principal opponents was a man who in some ways would replace red cloud as the military leader and political leader. That was someone most people grow up learning about. Sitting bull 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 the United States, and he scores his greatest battlefield victory in 1866, and it is against custer. In june, he destroyed custers fort at the battle of little bighorn. It was 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. It was news of this defeat that arrived at the centennial in philadelphia. It was so upsetting to the people who heard it. Reacted asstates 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 with him on the defenses. He 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, in the other region we have looked at this semester, where other indian leaders are trying to assert its sovereignty over the land that it claimed. It ends in a similar manner. In the 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 had been those dominant Political Forces in the southwest . Yes . The comanche and the apache. Very different culturally from the lakota. But Different Military circumstances, which is a more embolden United States army attempting to make its claims 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 to areas where the united where the federal government wanted them to live, and they were supposed to occupy a status as domestic dependents, but not fully emancipated citizens. This is hardly happy. I want to begin today with a delightfully unhappy story. Welcome back from break, this is just what you needed to hear. But i think this story is very important to set the civil war and reconstruction in context. In the west, we see a federal Government Holding true to one of its founding principles, to establish federal sovereignty. That is what the government is supposed to do, establish sovereignty over the land it claims, but also to preserve superiority. 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 the policy of racial equality during reconstruction. But it had been unable to convert that into reality. What this should remind you of is this is not whatthe federal government has been created to do. It has not been created to promote racial equality. One of the Great Questions we will answer is how and why over the century that followed the federal government would assume a mantle for itself of establishing racial equality. What matters is how and why did the federal government come to assume this was its role . What do we make of all this . I am emphasizing racial inequality. Equality had no meaning in the 1870s. It is a great question to put to you after an exam where you were thinking about citizenship and freedom. I have been emphasizing inequality so far today. What were the roots of equality in the 1860s and 1870s, or in the years before that . Let me put that question to you. What are the forms of equality that we can talk about when we discussed the United States in the mid19th century . Student the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Prof. Kastor yes, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. And i promise we will. You can certainly talk about the amendments. What are the other forms of equality we have emphasized . Yes . Student going back a little bit, you talked about Andrew Jackson and universal male suffrage. Prof. Kastor absolutely. To connect what you said to what you said. This, you did not plan but they are great points. Anyone else . What are the other forms of what are the other forms of equality that we have talked about . You are talking about the equality among individuals. Yes, sir. Student equality between state and periphery. Prof. Kastor equality between center and periphery and state equality. Something we take for granted. But during the era of the civil war, 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 in the west. And these continued the process to which the United States claims and sustains a system where equality has several meanings. First of all, there is supposed to be spatial equality between states. Second, there is supposed to be equality between the people. The 13th amendment, what did it do . Abolish slavery. What did the 14th amendment do . Student citizenship to everyone born i dont remember. Prof. Kastor that is all right. What is your answer . Student citizenship. Prof. Kastor is he right . It is your lucky day, you are right. What was the 15th amendment . Student voting cannot be denied by race. Prof. Kastor excellent. In some ways, these were reconstruction amendments. The 13th amendment, the elimination of slavery, but i think the 14th and 15th amendments emerged as a logical extension of how the americans had come to understand and practice freedom and citizenship in the decades before the civil war. Your 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, lets put the 14th and 15th amendments alongside your understanding of jacksonian democracy and male suffrage. One of the emerging 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 at the dawn of the republic . Think back to when you read the constitution. Yes . Representation. Today, many of us assume we believe in the amendment, that citizenship brings with it a guarantee of suffrage. But the constitution did not guarantee that. It guaranteed representation. But it guaranteed the bill of rights, certain individual rights, and certain implicit 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 1810s and 1820s. By the time the 15th amendment comes around, that is very much 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 any access to these rights . The 15th amendment is a great case in point. The 15th amendment says all citizens should have access will have access to suffrage. How does that play out in real time . Yes . Student [indiscernible] prof. Kastor they controlled. Who is they . By the way, you avoided the passive voice, but i still dont know who did what. State governments. State governments controlled voter processes. After the end of reconstruction, a point we will get to next week, state governments create elaborate structures that denied access to suffrage on the basis of race. That is the way citizenship also becomes a social practice. What else . Who else doesnt have access to suffrage . Thank you. Roughly half the population. One thing we have emphasized this semester, especially in the period after the declaration of independence and the constitution is that citizenship is proceeding 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 does not matter which state you live in because all states are equal to each other. At the same time that citizenship is limited, is different, and is experienced differently primarily as a result of race and gender. It is also not just what rights citizens had in the decades surrounding the civil war, but also how people became citizens. There were three ways to become a u. S. Citizen in the 19th century. What were they . Yes . Student to be born a u. S. Citizen, to be an immigrant that is naturalized, and prof. Kastor what would be the third one . Student to be freed as a slave . Prof. Kastor that is one. One of the ways to become a citizen was to be born a u. S. Citizen. To be born in the u. S. And be a citizen at birth. The other was to go through the nationalization process. The third included emancipation, but it is not only that. They became citizens through other methods. Other methods. This is a tough question, i know. Yes, back row . Student being married to a citizen . Prof. Kastor you can acquire it that way. It is an odd women have a nebulous citizenship. They can also lose their citizenship by marrying foreign men. Yes . Student there are modern ways to become a citizen. Prof. Kastor that would have been similar it was an identical legal statute, born a u. S. Citizen. Ted cruz is an example of someone. Anybody else . Yes . Student to live in a territory that becomes a state. Prof. Kastor yes, if you live in a territory that is acquired by the United States. If you lived in louisiana, if you were born in new mexico, if you were born in one of these territories acquired by the United States, there are different ways. They are part of the treaty by which the u. S. Acquires that lands, that is a you become a citizen and we say that all of the residents will become citizens as quickly as possible. But lets look at the first two. People born in the u. S. And the second example you gave, immigrants who naturalize. That is what people associate with the process by which people become citizens. The u. S. Is not acquiring territories. We are not invading canada anytime soon and converting canadians into u. S. Citizens. I dont think canadians would enjoy that. We tried that in 1812, it did not work. There is, of course, an ongoing process of naturalization. As i have said, the u. S. Passed naturalization laws in 1790. I want to turn to that because if you want to understand what is going on in the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s, you need to look at the large number of immigrants arriving in the United States. Immigrants had arrived before then, but there is a sudden arrival of new immigrants, and i want to discuss the implications and consequences. So, what were some of the principles of naturalization . Yes . Student [indiscernible] prof. Kastor people need to learn about the government before they become citizens. Anything else to add . Yes . Student [indiscernible] prof. Kastor once you are naturalized, you are a citizen on par with others, but it comes after a waiting period in which the principal change is you are supposed to learn these american political principles, that as an individual you will be equal to all others. This is very much on the mind of the immigrants who begin arriving in the United States in the 1840s and 1850s. They are arriving across the atlantic and i will talk about immigrants arriving across the pacific later in this lecture. They are coming from a lot of places. But where were the largest numbers of immigrants coming from . Do any of you know . Student germany and ireland . Prof. Kastor germany and ireland. Spot on. There were german speaking people who came from the places that became germany, a large number of them came to the United States and a large number of irish immigrants. I want to do this through a few examples. First, the germans, as these immigrants arrived from germany, ireland, other places, they transform cultures. One thing striking about them is they see opportunities in american citizenship. One example is a guy named George Schneider, who came in 1682. He opened the bavarian brewery. That begins our year history of American History. What you may not know beer history of American History. What you may not know, america wasnt producing a lot of year beer packed them back then. They were producing a lot of spirits. What were distilled spirits . You dont know your alcohol . Whiskey, gin. Whiskey was the big spirits they were producing. There were a lot of german brewers that showed up. Another immigrant was a guy name ever hot eberheardt. One of the guys he went into business with was a man named adolphis bush. What you know about adolphis bush . How many of you saw that ad in the super bowl . Now the hands go up. Based on that ad, tell me about adolphis busch. Student a rags to riches sort of thing . Prof. Kastor rags to riches, yes. Student American Dream . Prof. Kastor it is an American Dream. He comes to the United States he , acquires citizenship, enjoys the opportunities that go with that, and that shes asked ordinary things and has great opportunities. I emphasize this, this narrative i was using. Both of these go together. The limitations on those who are excluded from citizenship and the opportunities for those who have access to it. There are some more details the right to riches story and that is mostly fabrication. You clearly didnt study that ad carefully. You dont obsess about Super Bowl Ad like others do . You actually focus on the game . It was totally a good game. What else happens in that ad . Anybody . You remember . What happens to him on the ship . You do not study advertising closely enough. You are clearly studying the wrong commercials. He says, i want to brew beer. He arrives as an immigrant and natives treat him obnoxiously. When he crosses the atlantic, it looks unpleasant. He is later on the steamboat that catches fire. He jumps into the river. He arrives at a bar in st. Louis. Annheiser comes up and gives him a beer. If only life was really like that. Busch was born into a prosperous family. His passage to the United States was relatively comfortable. He went and he wanted to go into the are really business and he brewery business and he did what something americans had in done before him. He shared something very important with Thomas Jefferson and george washington. Do you know what it was . Student he married well. Prof. Kastor he married well. He married the daughter of annheiser. And they went into business together. In the 1860s. To them, both of them immigrants, required u. S. Citizenship. Citizenship brought extraordinary opportunity. They had not been born in the United States. But by becoming citizens, they enjoyed equal legal status with nativeborn citizens. It became a land of opportunity for them. This is what many immigrants would find. One of the reasons is that the germans in general faced less antagonism than the irish. I think the experience for any immigrant is difficult. You arrive in a new country, people may not trust you, you may not speak the same language, it is always difficult. Then there are matters of degrees. Why have so many of the irish emigrated to the United States in the 1840s and 1850s . Student the potato famine . Prof. Kastor the potato famine. That is one thing Everybody Knows about. There are a lot of pushes that would tell the irish to emigrate to the United States, but there appears to be Economic Opportunity and promise of quality for citizens and it is a legal status, that it is also a cultural practice. What happens to the irish when they arrive . They face chauvinism from the anglo english majority for many reasons. One of them is religious. Many irish immigrants are catholic. Many angloamericans are protestant. Most angloamericans are protestant. They are deeply concerned about that because the United States just acquired territory from mexico where much of the population is also catholic. There are also longrunning disputes between the irish and the english and the challenges, what are people like the irish and germans going to do to overcome these challenges . They work hard, take it vantage of the opportunities they have, but one of the things that will become increasingly clear that will make their experience different from the example you mentioned of emancipated former slaves, is that race will play a crucial role in who enjoys the benefits of citizenship. One of the things the irish and the germans to is to convince the majority that surrounds them that they are what . The group that really has to struggle is the irish. That may come as a surprise because the classic stereotype of the irish is that they are pale. They have that overwhelming stereotype. In 1750, there were many english that thought the irish were a different race. The term they use rather abruptly. What the irish do, if they can convince the white majority in the United States that they are white. They can establish their claims to whiteness. They made an enormous leap. They crossed a threshold that enabled them not just to get equal legal citizenship, but also to enjoy the benefit of citizenship as a cultural practice. 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, leaving all naturalized citizens should be treated the same. It might explain why they support amending the constitution to say 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 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 in reconstruction are not necessarily the midway point of u. S. History. I will be interested to see how history is taught 20 or 30 years from now we have to cover a lot of stuff after the civil war. But i do find this era of the civil war a useful time to take stock. Especially now, because we just passed the Halfway Point in the semester and it just took a midterm exam. I know you are still trying to forget the fact you took an exam. What i want to do is go to the regions that we have been looking at periodically to figure out how they changed and how they were the same between the moment we last looked at them systematically in the 1800s. I want to talk about the delaware valley, the Northern Plains, the southwest, and last, st. Louis. How have they changed . How were they to change . How were they the same . Lets start with the delaware valley. Thats how i started my lecture today. The centennial exhibition wasnt just supposed to celebrate a century of american independence. It wasnt just supposed to celebrate the reunion after the civil war. It gave philadelphia the chance to celebrate itself. According to the 1870 census, philadelphia was home to 674,000 people. When the census was taken 20 years earlier in 1850, that population was 121,000. You do the math. Im lousy at math. How many of you are taking calculus this semester . How many ok, you are taking calc . This is small potatoes for you. 121,000 in 1850, 674,000 in 1870. Clock is ticking. Student [indiscernible] prof. Kastor exactly. Good job. That is a fivefold increase in population. What accounts for this . Like other areas of the eastern seaboard, this was partly a result of natural increase. Partly a result of the city, urbanization and the rise of industrial many factory. It was also a growth fueled by the immigrant boom of the 19th century. The majority of immigrants started in cities. Many scattered into the countryside, but many would start and stay in cities. Ports of entries like philadelphia, new york, or st. Louis. You have a question . Student [indiscernible] how did they get into pennsylvania and st. Louis . Prof. Kastor philadelphia was a point of entry. They would start there. In some cases, he would have people who would arrive in new orleans and by the 1850s and 1860s, would take the train to st. Louis because they saw it as a place of opportunity. Thats why a lot of them would stay along the coast because thats where they leave in the transatlantic point. One of the things we see in the city and one of the harbingers of change is this large population. Philadelphia has undergone a demographic revolution in numbers increase, that in some ways it is still the same kind of city we saw in 1800, a multiracial population. It is mostly of a european or african ancestry. White residents are often competing for jobs with africanamerican residents. Africanamerican residents feel 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 would have been the majority political . Student republican. Prof. Kastor they are actually split. There is a democratic strength among the working class, but now it is competing with this new Republican Party to reflect this change going on in america politics. Now lets shift to the region connecting the tidewater to the piedmont. In theory, this was the region that should have undergone and in some change, ways it was. The civil war ended and slight meant, the basis for the regional economy and social order. We spent weeks talking about how that system came to be in the 17th century. For two centuries, 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 need to talk about this region in different terms, but there are limits to those differences. In certain ways, the region remains unchanged. Richmond was an emerging city, but this was an overwhelmingly rural area. Immigration was far more limited than it was to the northeast. It is far more of a nativeborn population, mostly white and black. While african have made important gains in the immediate aftermath of emancipation, White Virginians were mobilizing to restore their authority. In some ways, the greatest changes came in points farther west, from the Northern Plains and the southwest. The major things ive and the size is that we cap this story of history where the u. S. Acquires the Louisiana Purchase and the mexican secession in 1848 and you would think the government would be there immediately. But it didnt. Native peoples were the governing authority in much of the American West throughout much of the 19th century. That changed and changed quickly. In the 1860s and 1870s. That was the story i opened with in class today. This would have profound changes for the region. This is partly the story of how native americans find themselves stripped of their sovereign and opportunity, but also the story of how white settlers find their opportunities. Thats the fundamental tension with have been looking at all semester. If you want to understand these opportunities, i want to tell you about manny alderson. Nanny alderson. She was born in 1860. In 1883, she married and with i was going to say in the rearview mirror, she didnt have a car. But she and her husband moved to a ranch in montana. She recorded when she published a memoir that everyone, it seemed, was making fabulous sums of money or was about to every about two. We were to share all those rosecolored expectations. Her experience was similar to many migrants. In the same way that immigrants would find in u. S. Citizenship tremendous opportunities. Migrants would find extraordinary opportunities. Some of these immigrants are also migrants. We talked about how Land Ownership was the foundation for prosperity and independence. That is what nanny alderson would find on the ranch in montana, but that comes at the price of the people who lived on that land before. Finally, we come to the confluence region, st. Louis. St. Louis, like philadelphia, was an urban center. In 1800, st. Louis was the home of 2000 people. Its numbers took off during the 1820s and 1830s and expanded even more during as a result of the immigration wave and as white settlers moved farther west, st. Louis would become a crucial stopping off point where they arent at themselves. There was a Manufacturing Base their. Base there. These developments set the stage for what follows. Nanny alderson was a settlement into the great plains. Likewise, in urban centers, this manufacturing economy will become an industrial economy and this combination of widespread migration, early industrialization, and a whole new wave of immigration in the 1880s and 1890s, would further transform the way americans think about their country. This new wave of immigration wont just come across the atlantic. It would come across the pacific , or the rio grande. The last thing i want to do is finish up the story of everhart anheuser and busch. The city of st. Louis in 1866, separated from st. Louis county. 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 note st. Louis, you know how things have changed. Thats because they thought the future was in the city. Thats a moment we will return to later. Its a change that would have farreaching consequences for st. Louis. Another change that would have farreaching consequences was that at the same time, the brewery first established by George Schneider acquired by anheuser and later run by anheuser and adolphis busch, started a new beer. What did they call it and you better know the answer if you live in st. Louis . Thank you. You said budweiser. Are you from st. Louis . Thank you. They started reducing budweiser. Producing budweiser. I get to close the lecture today by talking about beer. This is their American Dream. This is the way immigration and naturalization created 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. Im sorry. Have a great day. I will see you all next monday. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] join us every saturday evening as we join students in College Classrooms to hear lectures in classrooms. They are also available as podcasts. Website, or download them from itunes. American history tv is on cspan3 every weekend, the train museum to ours, archival films, and programs on the presidency, civil war, and more. Heres a clip from a recent program. I will tell you everything that i know about myself. Prefer if you will allow me not to mention other peoples names. Me with this choice of being in contempt with this jail, or are going to forcing me to crawl through the mud and be an informer. I do not think that this is american. It is more akin to what happened under hitlers. I thank you not to force me to do this. This is what i have been talking about. This is the thing, i am no longer fighting for myself because i will tell you, frankly, that i am the most completely ruined man that you have ever seen. Principal, i for a think. America is involved in this particular case. This is what i have been talking about. I do not believe it benefits this committee to force me to do this. I do not believe it benefits this committee, or its purposes, to force me to do this. It is my honest feeling about it. These are not people that are a danger to this country. They are people that i knew. They are people like myself. I direct the witness to answer the question. Not refuse to answer the question, but i feel the committee is doing a really i do notthing that believe the American People will look at kindly. This is my opinion. It will not consider this in the spirit of fair play. When you just answer the question please . You can watch this and other American History programs on our website, where all of our videos are archived. There are hundreds of statues, paintings, and sculptures throughout the u. S. Capital. Tv, aon American History penn state history professor talks about how visitors to the capital experience art and architecture. He also discusses how christopher columbus, native americans, and females are depicted. He is a fellow with the library of congress