Transcripts For CSPAN3 Violence In U.S. Politics 20240713

Violence in american politics panel, as i think you will see, its an incredibly timely panel, and a really good time to be putting these topics into the context of a broader American History, so i will start off by introducing our panel. And everyone will give their Opening Statement and then we will start the conversation, sitting right next to me is t. Cole jones, an assistant professor of history at purdue university. He held a ph. D. From Johns Hopkins and colonial history. Hes the author of captives of liberty prisoners of war and politics of vengeance and the American Revolution, but still be released this fall by the enormity of pennsylvania pressed. In addition to his book, he has published articles in the journal of the early republic, the journal of military history and the new england quarterly. Hes currently on the work that is provisionally titled, Patrick Henry war, the struggle for the revolutionary west. Kellie Carter Jackson is it, and the politics of violence, out from the University Provides the first historical analysis exclusively focused on the technical uses of violence among Antebellum Black activists. Shes a coup editor of reconsidering roots race, politics, and memory and it was featured in the History Channel documentary on routes, which was nominated for an naacp image award in 2016. Gideon cohnpostar is a pianist candidate in history at northwestern university. His dissertation explored the and consequences of the crisis of economic voter intimidation in the late 19th century United States. His research has received the support of the congressional center, the institute of American History, the Andrew Mellon foundation, and the social Science Research council. And, finally, Felix Harcourt is and assistant professor, and his research focuses on the politics of culture, he is the author of ku klux kulture, america and the clan in the 1920s. And is the editor of two volumes of helena roosevelt papers. Coming from charlottesville, virginia, where i watched as neofascist and other protesters clashed with protests, i was at one of the most explosive moments of violence in u. S. Politics. And also opened about Political Violence, as americans learned more about antifa. Some antifascist organizations except the use of violence as a legitimate means of stop is fascist actors, but while the protesters who stood up to the neonazis and no confederate in charlottesville were often, if not universally praised, even though supporters were unsure about what to do about their position on the use of violence. With the visible races to Political Violence on the rise in the past few years, what antifa cost anti racist the moral high ground . Did i make them and irredeemable . Even rejecting the formulation of good people on both sides, did antifas refusal to reject violence make both sides bad . Those are the kind of questions i run into in speaking to groups about charlottesville. And the one thing that is missing from those discussions in a sense of history. Maybe to put it more correctly, there is a mistaken or limited sense of history that runs through those questions, one veteran through the Nonviolent Civil Rights Movement of the 19 fifties and sixties, when, as the story goes, justice was achieved not through war but through peaceful resistance. That story is quite a thin one in the broader history of violence in American History, so im really glad that were having this conversation today that takes us back to the nations founding and up through the activities of the ku klux klan. Im really eager to kick this off, so why dont you get us started, coal . Excellent, thank you for that introduction. And katie for organizing this conference. So, my research addresses a perennial theme in the scholarship on Political Revolutions, the relationship between violence and political change. And both the popular and scholarly and imagination, little revolution conjures images of Political Violence. From the violence and acted during the arab spring in 2011, to that of the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the french revolutionary terror of 1793, revolutionary political change seems to come hand in hand with widespread violence. Cultural historians, drawing on the inside of their colleagues and social scientists social sciences, described violence as a language. Its a way of communicating when other forms of communication breakdown. When a petition and protest failed to achieve the desired change, discourse can devolve into violence. These historians have been at pains to demonstrate that specific acts of violence have historically contingent meetings. In other words, the vocabulary of violence changes over time. But the correlation between Political Violence excuse me, a Political Revolution and Political Violence often appear to be trans historical. Violence is the common denominator of revolutions. But what about the American Revolution . And like the french, haitian, mexican, russian, chinese, countless other Political Revolutions, americas revolution seems restrained. Although hardly nonviolent, we can all think of mel gibson for his gory reminder in the box office disappointment, the patriot, neither does it appear to have much in common with the revolutionary violence of those that followed. American revolutionary violence appears legitimate, justified. Even comical, think boston the party or tar and feather. Its hard to imagine john adams lopping peoples heads off while wearing powdered wigs. As gordon would noted in his study, the radicalism of the American Revolution, American Experiences not seem to resemble the revolutions of other nations in which people were killed, property destroyed and everything turned upside down. Four would, the radicalism late in the idea of popular sovereignty. This was an ideology that will transform not only americas government, but a society as well. All of which was achieved by the early 19th century, without ever erecting a guillotine in philadelphia. The apparent absence of widespread violence has prompted some historians to question whether the American Revolution was really all that revolutionary. After, all king george the third survived the conflict with his head intact. Perhaps americas revolution was a unique, maybe it was even exceptional. In this framing, the american model appears as a shining city upon a hill, an example to be emulated, if not exported around the globe. Yet, to make this claim requires willful ignorance of the eight years of bloody and divisive civil warfare that pitted british americans against their metropolitan cousins, american loyalist against patriot neighbors, liberated slaves against their erstwhile masters and indigenous nations against each other. Most historians of the American Revolution have segregated the political and social transformations of the era from the actual fighting. Does, we have a war for independence with its generals and battles, which is separate from the Political Revolution of 1776. When thinking of the political history, scholars often concentrate on the declaration of independence enlightened preamble and forget jeffersons vitriolic, enunciation of king george for plundering our seas ravaging our coasts, burning our towns and destroying the lives of our people. This history of graphic segregation of the war from the revolution would baffle historians of the french, haitian revolution, but would please the Founding Fathers to know and as john adams wrote jefferson in 1913, what do we mean about the revolution. The war . There was no part of the revolution, only and effect and consequence of it. Adams and his peers scrubbed towards violent from their history. Theres was the good revolution, the gentlemanly revolution. But adams is a revolution was not the one its victims remembered. Recently, historians such as alan taylor, patrick griffin, and tea age green, to name a few. Influenced by our post 9 11 world ongoing confrontation with Political Revolution and Political Violence, read, terrorism have work to bridge the gap between the revolutions rhetoric and its reality. Unearthing shocking levels of violence in the process. But highlighting this violence is not enough. We must seek to understand its social, cultural and political causes and effects. If not, we will continue to accept a narrative of the American Revolution divided into two halves. On one side, the war, destructive and repressive. And on the other, the Political Revolution, idealistic, although unfinished. Breaking down this barrier requires making a connection between revolutionary political change and revolutionary violence. My forthcoming book, captives of liberty prisoners of war and politics of vengeance and the American Revolution, which is a history of persons of treatment of war and the cycle of vengeance that treatment generated, centers the bar and its horrors in this color debate about the character and consequences of the American Revolution. It argues that the Political Revolution rejecting monarchy and favor of a republic founded upon popular sovereignty had the unacquainted consequence of transforming that war waged to achieve it. By making the people sovereign, the revolution shattered the political elites monopoly on legitimate violence, fostering the conditions necessary for a cycle of revenge for reprisals. Prisoners of war, as victims of revolutionary violence reveal a side of the revolution the founders prefer to have forgotten. The violence of the democratization of war. Thank you very much. applause good morning. So, i want to tell a couple of stories. Some of those stories will come from my book, black abolitionists and the politics of violence. I look at a lot of the violence taking place, particularly in the 18 fifties before the civil war, i see the 18 fifties as one of the most violent decades to preclude the civil war. So, i want to tell a story that youre all familiar with, its the story of a senator Charles Sumner from massachusetts and his gaining while he was in the Senate Chamber. But i also want to tell you a little bit further because i know we are freely about the story and tell you how people responded and how black people responded to this cain. Charles sumner, just to give you a context, its giving a speech, hes talking about the candidates and nebraska act, and talking about how horrible he thinks this act is. So Charles Sumner spoke out against the actor during a speech in which he ridiculed its authors, Stephen Douglas and andrew butler. Using incendiary language and sexual imagery, he claimed that southerners crime against kansas was, quote, akin to the rape of a virgin. Some nor accused senator butler of being in love with a harlot, that harlot being slavery. His three hour speech can you imagine this being three hours . His three our speech was so controversial that Stephen Douglas remark to a colleague, this fool is going to get himself a shot by another fool. Sure enough, president brooks, a congressman some South Carolina and nephew to andrew butler, intended to make a lesson out of sumner. Political violence took place not only in the remote territories of the west, but also in the Senate Chamber of the nations capital. Just two days later, on may 22nd, while sitting at his chamber desk, brooks approached sumner and said, quote, i have read your speech twice over carefully. It is libel on South Carolina. And mr. Butler, who was a relative of mine. At that moment, he began to strike summer using a thick cane with a gold head. Summer was repeatedly bludgeoned over and over his entire body. He tried to crawl under his desk for refuge, but the desk was bolted to the floor. It only served as a holding pen while books continue to take aim at him. Brooks bleed him so relentlessly that the desk eventually released from the floor as summer late bloodied and unconscious. Brooks only stop when his cane broke. In the end, some dirt miraculously survived, it became more than three years to recover from his injuries, and some might argue that he never fully recovered. But what i think is interesting is the letters of support that poured in four Charles Sumner from the black community. One letter i will share with you in particular. Summers attack validated one of the most remarkable responses to soliciting came from an editor of the new orleans daily creole, a black newspaper that debuted a month after the attack. The oped was titled, quote, a challenge to mr. Brooks. Mrs. Emilia robinson called the attacks cowardly, to be a man unarmed and down. She referred to brooks as a cringing puppy who she would gladly challenge to meet her any place with, quote, pistols, rifles, or cow hides. The outrage, robinson felt, had no bearing on her sex. She, like other male black leaders, was exacerbated by the sacrifices that it cost her dearly. She was 50 years old and a widow. She had lost two sons in the mexican war, and brooks actions represented a direct affront to her own liberty, a liberty that she believed her country should protect. She said, quote, now than, mr. Brooks, robinson challenged, lets see some of your boasted courage. You are afraid to meet a man. There you made a woman . Robinson occurred that she was anxious to do her country some service by whipping or choking the cowardly ruffian, who threatened, what she perceived as americas most professions right, the freedom of speech. Robinson was going to put her strong words into print and who expose her disdain regarding the attacks on sumner. And more for any other man, she admitted to what she was going to do publicly. While many were praying for some, near robinson illustrated but she was willing to do with a pistol. And i like this because there is no anonymity behind it. She put her name on it, first name, last name, she gives her age, right . She lets him know who she is much is revealed by robinsons remarks, he was publicly challenging senator books and even taunting him. She wrote with rage that signaled she had a little too loose. The fact that some robots immobilized for most of the beating under his desk was perhaps the greatest act of cowardice. Not only was she willing to meet weapon for weapon with pistols, rifles, or cow hides, she claimed she could even with him without weapons, quote, by choking the cowardly ruffian. Robinson was 50 and fearless and few men responded to threats to meet some nerves violence with violence. Robinson was willing not just to take on not just a man, about a public figure. Robinson was undeterred. The significance of her being a black woman threatening violence against a white man should also be duly noted. The Sexual Violence that white men committed against black women was rampant, and sumner was not wrong tool due to sexual imagery in his speech. Its likely that her rage also stemmed from gender violence that black women faced daily. Her response was clear, made violence with the violence, or more specifically, meet cowardly acts with justice. Thank you. applause is this on . Hello . Yes, its on. Thank you. Today, i will talk about my research, which focuses on a form of voter intimidation that whiteout actually fit that well but the topic of the panel because its an explicitly nonviolent one, or at least it seems to be. Im talking about what is called economic voter intimidation. This kind of intimidation is typically done by an employer against an employee, and it has been part against American History since the beginning. There are cases of intimidation, but it was called coercion going all the way back to the 18th century, but i argue that in the last half of the 19th century, particularly after the panic of 1873, theres a disastrous financial panic. A crisis of economic intimidation. The number of incidents dramatically increased, the number of people dependent for their wages on one boss to magically increased during this time as well. At the same time as political contests became closer and closer, it became reasonable, it became a tactic used by many politicians, by many employers, to use their employees to try to win close elections. I will give you a few examples of how that work, and also talk about the long term consequences of this kind of intimidation on the laws we have today. To an extent, historians and political scientists have not grappled with economic intimidation and why we vote in open secret. It advocated for balancing chrissy in the 18 seventies and the way they never had before. To begin with what did voting look like before we voted in secret . On give you one example of from new york in 1878, voting in what was called the armory, a large building in the center of town. In the polling places in the center of the building. To get to the polling place, into the center of the building, you had passed by two tables, one staff by republican, won by democratic operatives. And they were the ones who gave you your ballot. The valves were printed by parties, there is no official ballot, and the operatives who worked for the Republican Party happened to also work for a man named thompson kinks furred, who owned the kings for mill. You might use kings for starch in your cooking, or keep your clothes starts, its a large company. It is widely known that as the men who worked for tom watson kingsford, the republican operatives reminded them to vote and the way that thompson kingsford vote wanted them to. As one of the democratic observers testified, the workers a day or not do it, they are not change their ticket or fight against thompson kingsford because they are watched. That was the key element, theyre being watched as they walk into the polls. Because they were precarious at work and this very tough economic times, and also insecure at the polls, workers had little recourse. This happened throughout the country in the crisis blew up in part because it was a political crisis for some people, and there were thousands of people being intimidated but and accusing the other side of doing this, but democratic repressive is accused to reference to republican employers. That was a difficult element in my working in that this was a real crisis and was really happening, but in the same sense, it is a rhetorical crisis. And it becomes a broader rhetorical crisis because these forms of intimidation, threatening to fire someone if they dont vote the way you want to struck deeply at what a lot of these workers believed was their manhood, their independent, their ability to provide for their families. And just as one example, in portland, maine in 1880, the road workers the road working municipal crew in portland were especially worried that year because there was going to be a tough winter coming, the election is taking place in september, as it always it at that time. But they knew the winter was coming and they did not want to be out of work. Their formula out to them, mind how you vote, vote for your bread and butter. If you cut my throat now, a cut yours here after. Im on your track and i will camp on it. He walked with them to the polls, watched as they took the ticket that he wanted and voted. They had very little choice. It seems that one person refused to do so and went home and was never employed on the road work crew again. Whats most remarkable about this form of intimidation is that it could interlaced with other forms of coercion, other violent forms of intimidation. This is especially true in the south. In virginia, the black workers at the local insane asylum or marched down to the polls by the boss. In virginia at that time, there were two lines to vote, the white line and the colored line. The remarkable thing about this incident is that the employees of the asylum were allowed to skip both minds. They did not have to wait and either line. Of course, the white line was allowed to vote before the other line, as long as anyone in the white line, no one else could vote. These men were allowed to vote. But the absolute were not allowed to vote for the candidates they wish to vote for. And this case, they were told to vote for the democratic ticket and they did. Thats the way these forms of intimidation can be interlaced on top of each other. The legal intimidation, the legal separation and suppression into different lines as overlaid on the knowledge of the violence rendered against African Americans in the south and then, add to that the coercion, the intimidation of losing your job. The states try to fight against this kind of intimidation and a number of ways. And the state of connecticut, which experience a great deal of academic intimidation, they passed several laws making this kind of intimidation illegal. An 1884, they attempt to enforce those laws. The state of connecticut arrested a man who had intimidated his employees and a male in water barry, connecticut, and the man seems to have been perfectly have to admit, yes, i intimidated him, i told what to do but, the Court Dismissed the case. The judge determined that the employer had been using his First Amendment right to tell the employee how to vote. Attempting to solve this problem through a punitive law that punished you did not seem to be working. So, gradually, and the state happened in the late 18 eighties, states began to adopt secret ballot laws. It was invented in australia an 1851, it comes to the United States after, and the First American to advocate for the secret ballot in print is a man named henry george, a reform advocate. This is 1871, before he is fully famous for his reform advocacy. And he advocates for a secret ballot because they would indeed bribery and, he put it, another form of election corruption, which is even worse and more demoralizing then bribery the coalition of voters by their employers. The first time its mentioned in the United States, this particular form as couple directly with economic voter intimidation. And georges allies took up the call and advocated for ballot secrecy. The socialist tick labour party was the First National party to include ballot secrecy international platform, they did so in 1885. A rush of legislation between 1888 in 1890, and finally separating employers from employees when they went to the polls. Those laws were not passed and all states. Particularly in the south, secret ballot logs lag. North carolina did not pass a secret ballot law until 1929. But also secret ballot laws are not necessarily useful to protect against generalize forms of intimidation. They dont really protect African Americans going to the polls, they protect specific workers from their specific employers. It breaks the chain of information. The secret ballot laws will never be effective at preventing generalize intimidation. But after all, thats what they were assigned to do. We talk about secret ballot laws, my research argues that we should remember what they were first and acted to do. To prevent bribery, and this chain of knowledge between the employer and employee but how they were voting. Especially now as they are doing away with ballot secrecy in a number of ways, through allowing about selfies at the polling place, the Supreme Court refers to it as taking a picture of your ballot, they dont understand what a selfie is. But also absentee balloting reintroduce is the possibility that you are voting in the presence of someone who might have a coercive influence on you. A core element of my research that brings it to the president as we need to understand why we have the laws we do before we decide to do away with him. And i think the secret ballot as one of the most important laws to. Thank you applause we as you can tell, im getting over a cold. So im croakily. Thats one of the reasons why i wont keep my for more comments brief, the other reason that i want to get to our conversation. This is so we can understand the context in which i am approaching these questions and this issue. My research focuses on the ku klux klan of the 1920s, which is really when the organization was at the height of its power in the United States. It is when the organization is breaking sectional boundaries, moving outside of the south to establish a nationwide power base. One of the strongest, most powerful influential clan stronghold, for example, was right here in indiana, of course. And the clans of the 20s peaks in membership numbers in 1924 with an estimated 4 million members nationwide. Those numbers are drawn to the organization, not just as adherence to the ideology, to the tenants of White Supremacy, but also by the very fact that the klan of the 20 sells itself as the answer to a variety of ills, or supposed ills. So it is a Fraternal Organization that protects against the feminization and the breakdown of a masculine society. It is a law and order group that is pushing prohibition enforcement. They are more lists, defending against the apparent evils of modernism and jazz. Theyre very upset at they are nativist, particularly picking up on the popular anti catholic and antisemitic sentiments to really drive calls to restrict immigration or halt immigration entirely. And far more than this. Really, the klan is very responsive to local concerns and taylors itself in those ways. So we have this interesting phenomenon with the clan of the 20s, where even as this membership grows, klan violence declines. In fact, racial violence overall declines throughout the 1920s after the sharp spike in lynching post world war one. Certainly compared to, what is effectively the paramilitary plan of reconstruction or the terrorism of the klan in the civil rights area, historians have generally written about the klan of the 1920s as less physically violent, although still driven by the same fundamentally violent ideology. That is not the whole picture though. And to correct that misunderstanding, what we need to do is look at the klans political involvement. Its particularly interesting to look at this from the federal level. We focus on electoral success, its pretty easy to dismiss the influence of the ku klux klan on the politics of the 1920s. That is what historians have generally tended to do. They are very good at drawing a lot of attention to themselves. They are generally very, very bad at actually getting a klan candidate to be to be elected to office. They have successes sporadically, generally in local strongholds. Diana, of course, one of the most notorious stronghold of klan power, as i mentioned, and therefore some relative success in electing local officials and state officials, but very rare at the federal level. What my Current Research focuses on is the fact that electoral success its not really the the key to understanding the klans influence on federal politics. The key to understanding the klans involvement in federal politics is understanding the ways in which the klan functioned as a political lobbying movement. Not to think about what the klan is doing at the ballot box, but what the klan its doing on a yacht on the potomac filled with senators and chorus girls. Real situation, real people. It is there that the klan is tremendously impactful in shaping legislation that is directly relevant to klan interest and particularly klan hatred. It is there that the klan its going to help shape what federal prohibition legislation is going to look like. It is there that the klan its going to help shape what the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s looks like. Because of this, the klan does not need extra legal vigilante violence to achieve its goals. Instead, the klan of the 1920s is very effective at shaping policy to support their violent ideology. Political power meant the klan violent express itself as state violence. It express itself not through rogue clansmen but a through federal prohibition enforcement agents, it expressed itself through the border patrol, created in 1924. At the same year that the klan s membership peaks. And so, if we are to understand the enduring legacy of the clan, it is that intersectional nexus between bigotry, violence, and politics that we need to understand. Thank you. applause thats a good place to jump off a broader conversation about the violence in political history. I think the first thing i love to hear you talk about is the relationship between violence and politics from a broader level, which is to say that there is this idea that violence is a failure of politics, and somehow exists outside of politics and that, in some cases, it seems that violence is a core component of politics and a lot of ways. So where do you see violence putting into political history and the practice of politics . I can say, in my own classes, i talk about violence violence is how we understand history and a lot of ways. Every significant moment in history, we benchmark with violence. If you think about how pedagogy and classes are top, from the slave trade, to the American Revolution, to the civil war, and then we teach classes on the war and between wars, the cold war, what were too. All these moments, 9 11, all these moments are violent moments and, that is have a mark turning point. And a lot of ways, i see violence as this great accelerator that most political movements along. Its a great way to look at how we examine change, because theres a tendency to have this idea that change comes about through non violence. Thats how we get these great changes, but what they are responding to is violence, very much so in every aspect of their lives so im constantly pushing students to nuance how we understand violence, not to dismiss it as something that is fanatical or peripheral or an episode that just happens, just one moment. But really as an explanation for how policy is made or not made in terms of how progress is developed or not developed. And i think violence is the perfect framework for that. I think this is an excellent question. Obviously, what is violence fit in . If we need to think about violence as a political language, violence has meaning, specific acts of violence have meaning. They can be used for political purposes. And very rarely is violence unrestrained, unrestricted. Its usually focused for a particular purpose and groups will use violence and specific acts of violence to try and get their political point across. Thats one thing i have to think about. What does it mean . What does a lynching mean in the 1920s, right . What does a cross burning mean . What are they trying to say . Theres a ritual to this one. Whos the audience . Is there a performance of nature of it . Also, as political historians, we need to think about the role of violence in the state and the growth of the state, right . So, talking about the border agents, the violence of the state. Violence is embedded in the state. They did that the modern state has a monopoly on violence and what constitutes legitimate violence, thinking about police violence, police brutality. The violence of the state, etc. And when you get students to think through that, as you were saying, i think its an enormously useful exercise. But we should also be attentive to this in our scholarship. We can ignore that violence is at the very heart of american political history. One element as well that ive come across in my research and teaching students, its very easy to talk about a whataboutism game with forms of Political Violence, because his party use this form of violent, and this party got into a scuffle, theyre both violent, it was the label of violence on it. Thats what youre talking about earlier with antifa. One thing i noticed in the gilded age in particular instead of being able to claim that the other party was to also doing bad things away for you to excuse your much worse things. Thomas bracket read, the republican speaker of the house in the 1890s, when talk about lynchings and violence in the south an economic intimidation the north said, yes, these are both crimes, but murder and catching fish out of season are both crimes to. No one would ever confuse them. So keep that in mind when we talk about violence, we need to be very clear what kinds of violence that historical actors are using, how they compare to each other, and not just label all interactions between people as violence. To dig deeper into that. And hes a class on terrorism in the United States. The fund never stops in my classroom. I think i do so as a way of addressing with students the idea that not just violence but fundamentally Political Violence has been a through line in American History. And we look at, obviously, definitions of terrorism are going to be crucial within that. But ideas of legitimate violence and illegitimate violence, state violence and individual violence that really do often function as a driving questions in change or moments of change. Actually, to do the terrible uncouth thing to respond to a question with a question, something i was thinking about as i was listening to everyone talk is this almost myopic place in today with regard to the use of violence and Political Violence in particular. Its interesting. Again, this is off of the top of my head to think about this, but do you think weve come to a place where reform is associated with non violence, but revolution is associated with violence, and that is why Political Violence is seen as beyond the pale now . Yeah, what you guys think that . Does violence render whatever the political aim is illegitimate . Its a revolution knit considered revolution in todays culture . In some ways, yes. And my own work, i think its easy to look back at slavery and say it was wrong, hopefully. I think it should be easy. But i think a lot of the stories in my book are about black abolitionists who are fighting back, protecting their communities and using force and violence to protect their communities, and everyone loves hearing these stories because theyre like, yes, slavery is wrong, right . And i think, in some ways, you can even support that when talking about segregation or jim crow. Hopefully, we can all agree that was wrong. And that people will see that even taking up arms in selfdefense might be rational. But i think that today the way that race has reincarnate itself and the way that it looks, its extremely difficult to take up the same sort of stances to use protective violence or selfdefense in a way to purport revolution or change. People think that you are a radical, people think that youre crazy. Its funny, in the Civil Rights Movement, they thought they were crazy to, and even the evolutionists thought they were crazy. So i think you need to have distance in order to accomplish it. But, no, i dont think that people i think that people believe that you can accomplish anything through non violence. And while i agree with that to some extent, theres a little bit of historical naivety about how we really see change come about in this country. Thats a great question, and id like to jump in to the founding moment. Were living with the legacy of that. This is a nation born in violent revolution, civil warfare. Yet, rather consciously, on the part of the revolutionary in, the Founding Fathers a shoe that because the flip side of revolution is rebellion. Rebellion is illegitimate, slavery valiant, insurrection illegitimate, it must be suppressed of the state. So how do justify the foundations of a new nation state that was founded in an active inherent illegitimate violence, right . To overthrow the sitting government. The way you do that is in part by rewriting the history of that initial revolution. But then also combatting and becoming rather counter revolution, maybe the United States is one of the most counter revolution nations in history, especially considering slavery billion. But around the world. Think about vietnam. We as political as dorians need to think through that a bit more and historians love to explain change, but to think about some of the continuity that exist as well. I think some of this can be explained in a way through the recent rehabilitation of john brown and the fact that he is now being reintroduced into the american cannon as the most american of all heroes, when that would seem like in, part because of the aftermath of the civil war and the white supremacist efforts and he was considered quite a radical. Now, to have him discussed as at the forefront of american liberty is kind of a remarkable moment. I wonder what might say about the people who are understanding here or putting him back into the american cannon and that way, what do they think about Political Violence if theyre making jon brown their patron saint . Just to pick up on that as well. Its interesting that were seeing the main strain of that jon brown idea and the people that have most often in the recent past compare themselves to john brown have been those attacking abortion clinics and abortion providers. That is this very specific form of Political Violence that they dont see themselves acting within the tradition of. One of the words that keep coming up, legitimate and illegitimate. What is interesting about the question of violence is, aside from a very few committed pacifists, there arent that many people in the United States to think that all violence is illegitimate. How do you think historical actors making the case for their violence being illegitimate . I think as historians, it often changes overtime, which actors rethink and jon brown is a great example of this. Which actors are using violence legitimately and which ones are not. How are your people making their cases . I can tell you mine. Black abolitionists, certainly. I have found no other group of people that have a moral impetus for using violence. They talk often about american hypocrisy, the American Revolution being uncompleted, that the haitian revolution in haiti was the real revolution because they actually freed their slaves and put in place equality and so, i think that black abolitionists are saying since labor is wrong, slavery as violent and that we have a moral authority, a god given right, and that is very important. When they can solidify their legitimacy with biblical tenets, few people who can argue against the bible . Certainly not in the 19th century, you cant really do that. So theyre using these biblical allegories to justify using violence, justify using force. And they are using revolutionary language. I love the idea i talk about this in my book, violence as a political language. Theyre using this language, of give me liberty, or give me death. He who would be free must himself strike the first blow. Theyre using this language over and over again to threaten and provoke the abolition of slavery, and they feel justified in that because they believe that they are most oppressed. And its very easy for us to look at this from a 21st century perspective and say, of course, youre justified in this. But i also think that legitimacy comes through winning, so we look at the American Revolution as legitimate because they won. We look at, you know, the civil war as legitimate because the north one, right . But what happens when you dont win . Does that mean that your cause is no longer legitimate . And i think that, especially when you look at black freedom and black liberation, theres not been a lot of victories. But that does not mean that these actions are not legitimate. Thats excellent. The American Revolution were masters of this game of legitimate versus illegitimate, right . This was the very beginning of this process, they use the press, right . They mobilize the press, they really were quite effective, to paint their enemies, those who oppose the glorious cause or the common cause as a legitimate, inherently a legitimate, right . You think of the declaration of independence, its this masterful political document, justifying his american nationhood on the grounds that the british violated the respectful nations and they were guilty of these barbaric acts of violence that made themselves outside of the political sphere, right . And that this new nation would be respectable in the eyes of the world because it had a play by the rules, right . And that is why you see washington so animated by the desire to turn the ragtag massachusetts militia men into what he calls a respectful army but, and to play by these rules that would be understandable to european eyes as a way of legitimizing what was illegitimate. And in the atlantic context, the british had suppressed countless domestic interactions, not only slave interactions, but also irish interactions and by linking them as others, as inherently, the violence is illegitimate. The revolutionary is very attuned to that in this political game and justified and that. First i think that they legitimate a legitimate question without intersect with another question that i think was brought up, effective and any affective. This is particularly something that we see over and over again with the question of how to respond to white supremacist violence. Is it effective, not just as a legitimate, but it is effective to respond to that violence with violence . And there is a fascinating debate that rages around that in the black press of the 1920s, and what is the best way to respond to this . Do we ignorant, do we deny the oxygen of attention and let the fire burn itself out. Well, we could do that, but while we are ignoring it, the fire is burning and is causing preventable devastation. So, presumably, we have to do something and what is that something . Certainly, there are those in the black press, like the messenger, who say, simply no. We are not caring on a debating society, we are encouraging our readers to carry a gun or break or a bad and if you encounter a clans, many dont try to read the with them. So i think theres an interesting question there as well about, not just how do we defend violence at legitimate, but how do we defend violence as effective at the same time . So, employers in the late 19th century legitimize their coercion by what they called claiming the persuasive right. Because i give your bread and butter, because i pay for you to live in a house, i have the right to persuade. And in different places, they enforce that right differently. In the south, the persuasive right is taken to mean that the persuasion would have an effect, you will do what i have said. In some places in the north and in the west, thats persuasive right is considered, you will have to listen to me. I will give you my opinion, but i wont necessarily follow it up with a discharge from employment. So, in some places, those threats are less aggressive than others, but also has had a political right. So that is where the legitimacy claim comes from. It does not work the same way in all parts of the country, but the general idea that i have paid to and then i have that right. It has struck me that one other missing illegitimateing tool for violence is the claim of selfdefense. That is used quite broadly across the spectrum, whether we talk about black panthers in the late 1960s or talking about White Supremacists in any period of American History that there is an inherent legitimacy to, i am defending myself for defending my country or defending a set of beliefs or institutions that has been wielded effectively in the past. Im going to ask one more question, then open it up to the audience. And i dont know that its a good question. You can tell me, but it seems like one thing that came out earlier in the conversation was about state violence and violence almost as a tool of state building. I think that forces our eyes to this sensuality as feel you have suggested the, centrally of violence to american politics and American History. How does that change the story we tell about u. S. History, to put violence at the center of it . Because that is very contrary to the story americans like to tell themselves, and we dont always tell self comforting stories as historians about the nation, but it seems like a particularly disruptive move to put violent at the center of that story. I feel thats what im trying to do in my work. Its very hard to do, to flip the script in terms of how we understand violence and how weve been told this really romantic story about the underground railroad or about the Civil Rights Movement that feel very nostalgic and sweet. There are stories you can tell the kids, you know. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat, and that is very, oh, yay you can talk about harriet tuchman and she, you know, rescue the slaves, and she didnt do it without hurting anyone. We can tell the stories and they are packaged so well. But what i try to do is to tell the stories that are like, in order to flee, a lot of the times you had to fight. So i tell a story by a man who was running away from slavery and this man was pursuing him, and he was like, stop chasing me, if you dont stop chasing me, im going to kill you. And he kept chasing him and so he killed him. He tells the story and the audience is flying applauding and hes like, wow you, did right. But i tell the story to show that the whole system of slavery is inherently violent, and that oftentimes in order for people to bring about their own freedom, they had to employ violence. And that how do we understand that in terms of black freedom and black liberation . How do we justify that and how do we take it into the president . One of the concept that im working with is this idea of protective violence, which to me is more than selfdefense. Its not just protecting yourself, but protective violence is protecting your family, your community, but even strangers, right . You are protecting marginalized people, oppressed people, people who do not have access to the ballot, people who dont have access to these traditional channels to bring about reform. And how do we examine protective of violence as useful and as something that is also legitimate . Ill go from answer your question, but its a very hard exercise to do because there is this paradox, right . And in one stance, we hate violence, we abhorrent, we think its awful. But on the other hand, we love American Revolution, we love reenacting the civil war, we love doing these really violent things and reenacting them, there is this love hate relationship with violence that i have not yet been able to reconcile. That brings up a great question that i deal with a lot in my classroom, for my students unlike this historiography i talk about, for my students the war Pro Independence and American Revolution or synonymous and the same thing. They are not aware of the public synthesis, for them it is shooting red coats and washington crosses the delaware and suddenly, we are a nation. That is good. That is like a civil reenactment of the civil war. That is a good violence. We like that. What i try to do with my book is that what the revolutionaries wanted us to think. But what if that fails . It is this restrained battlefield victory story. And it to greats over the course of the we lose control of the war. I think there is, i think that we sort of need in some ways to rethink the Constitutional Movement as an effort by, we can call them nationalists in this period, to reassert a monopoly on violence. In this new state we need to control this. We need to control violence because it was messy and bad. We are going to take charge of it. We saw that there is a big debate over this. The origins of the second amendment, right . This armed populace. Its a very contentious issue and we are still dealing with the reverberations of that debate. Does the state have a complete monopoly on violence or are people allowed to selfdefense . As historians we need to engage with that. I think about the election of 1860. Have any of you heard the phrase, lincoln wasnt on the ballot in the south and 1860 . That actually doesnt make sense, there was no official ballot. People had to handle party ballots. Lincoln wasnt on the ballot but thats because it would require republicans in the south to stand outside the polls with lincolns name on them, handing them out. When you think about that historical moment theres no way that would have been allowed to happen. They wouldve been beaten up and driven out of town. They wouldnt have existed. So the way in which that symbol, lincoln was an on the ballot in the south actually conceals a great deal of violence that would have happened had they attempted to handle ballots in the south. In that one moment you can see, we can talk our way past away passed a moment of pretty extreme violence or potential violence. I think there are two things that i want to respond to their little bit. First of all, the idea of selfdefense violence in selfdefense. In similar in terms of thinking about, thats a difficult question because it then as is to determine what counts as selfdefense. One thing in particular, Something Like kathleen blues book who unfortunately cannot be with us today, her point that the kind of mayor paramilitary White Supremacy Artist Movement post vietnam is in large part knew because it breaks with the state and starts to see the state as the threat. As such, it needs to defend itself against the state. And so it would argue that they are acting in selfdefense very much so. In a way of that protective violence. Yes. The other kind of the definition no question that i struggle with, then this relationship between political history and violence, going back to it i the keynote from last night, he discussed the idea of political history really being the history of power. At that point we have to determine the relationship between power and violence. I think that is a huge question. And i am in norway prepared to provide a definitive answer to. What i will say is that, jacqueline joneses biography of lucy parsons, the radical feminist black anarchist and the late 19th century, talked a lot about parsons approach to violence and her belief in violence as legitimate. Because within that at a crystal framework, the state is inherently violent, all politics is inherently violent. I think there is certainly to be an argument made there for viewing it through that lens. To go back to it, its not violence, its anti racist violence. So you can call it not discrimination its anti racist discoloration and it kind of goes into the same thing. So you could say it is racist selfdefense and anti racist selfdefense. Excellent, with that i would like to open up to the audience, to ground rules. Introduce yourself. Also, wait for the microphone since we are filming. Hi im emily, i really enjoy this panel. You did a great job of going from the revolution to the 1920s, but then we get into the rest of the 20th century. My question is picking up on whether we need to expand the definition of violence its particularly clear after the new deal and the question of labour. The even though it may not be as physically violent, the kind of clashes that do excite us fought, what about the work of Nathan Connolly of the destruction putting a freeway right through black communities. He says it is no less violence. I think he is right there. What about the tax policies that ripple communities part . Completely dislocating those communities . Labor laws, we dont have violent clashes as much anymore, but we have basically taken away right to join a union and actually have that ability to work with, the right to starve laws. That type of question. We have the questions about voting, but now we can blame you for not getting to the polls on time or registering. How about zoning that goes along with not allowing multi family units to have food in their neighborhoods, we have whole food deserts, lack of health care questions, and there seems to be real casualties to these trade wars. Rural america has already been devastated. The reason i think about this is, what was shocking over the last three years, we have across the entire board a decline in life expectancy. For the First Time Since the 1930s, we are dealing with levers of depression and suicide we have not seen. How much can we incorporate that as of violence from the state and corporations . If we are going to expand the definition of violence to the 20th century, does that help us see other aspects of the 18th and 19th centuries as well . I think, that is a great question and tackles a lot. I will stick with voting because thats what i know. Best methods of preventing people from voting or taking your way the right, or making it difficult, will always try to adapt to whatever we do. And so any low we pass always has to think about not just what its solves right now, but what are the ways that the people who are going to try to get around this. What will they do to try to get around it . A lot of scholarship on the secret ballot law now emphasizes the progressive nature of it. The fact that you have to be able to read and write, all these things that make voting by secret ballot more difficult than just taking a piece of paper and dropping it in a box. This is one of those areas that i think that yes its true, but if we are going to try to get rid of the ballot secrecy problems, we have to remember the ways in which the people who will try to get around these things. People that will try to subvert, undermine any ballot protection law we have. They already have a blueprint for when they already have no ballot secrecy. The idea we might say we dont about secrecy anymore, its like comparing closing the voting act from working like closing and umbrella Terrain Store because youre getting wet. We do know a lot of these things could happen. Focusing on, okay if we are going to solve the problems that exists now we have to be thinking about how to solve the next problem and how they chain together. That is just a voting aspect. You guys can handle the rest. I dont know that i can. That is a lot. Everything you said is a lot. But it is sort of violence in slow motion. It is playing out in this very insidious, silent, subtle way. So that when you call it violence people are like, oh you are overreacting. It is just a policy. But those policies are destructive, intensely destructive. Not just for a generation but for generations. It is really hard i think, because we think violence is immediate and in your face, aggressive, flashy, all the easy things we have with violence. We do not recognize it when it plays out very slowly. I think for me in some ways it is time to start thinking about our definition of war also, part of that is that i argue that there is a war at home. We cannot pretend otherwise. Those labor struggles continued into the 1930s. What we are dealing with is what does war look like now. It is not the kind of combat situations that are easy to talk about. Drone attacks, we left that human act. We have to think about, is this the term of millennia warfare . It is either by in personal drone attack. It is something that is unseen, someone is pressing a button somewhere. I dont even know how that works. But also with the trade war, and thinking about the devastation that will cause on folks in Rural Communities that are struggling to make agriculture work. How do we grapple that and begin to think that there might be a casualty to this type of warfare even though it seems like a joke tickled on par with Something Like the war in iraq, or again afghanistan. I am not sure if we are going to start thinking out of a more capacious definition of war and violence, that it can happen at home, that it cannot be impersonal, it can be about economics, can that be something that is interesting to think about with the 18th and 19th century. Not sure. Its an idea. It will be interesting to think through what extent, where you draw the lines around it. What is the utility of either expanding the definition. Sometimes, i dont know the answer to this question, but is it a metaphor of violence in some situations . Or is it actual definition of violence. Theres a trade offer which one of those it is. But yes, that is a great question. We have one here. I i am bark, thank you for the great panel. I was thinking about your panel, like his top last night overturns an older narrative, a non violent american past. He focused on why that old nerve tip existed. You gestured to this about rosa parks, how its a sweet story, or how the founders warned us to think of the red pollution as non violent. But i wonder how through time, this sort of narrative of Political Violence being central to American History got papered over. Who was and how was it papered over . Especially being a synthetic history. Why is it a papering over . Who is doing that papering over to get that narrative into the heads of most americans heads of a kind of American History driven not by violence but by Something Else . I think that part of it, perhaps a small part, perhaps im overestimating the influence that the academy has, but part of his that historians do not tend to be particularly violent people. The reason i study violence is largely because i dont understand it. I dont understand, it is hard for me to understand how you would hurt another human being. And so, im trying to figure that out an historic size it. I do think that violence in part has been written out of a lot of our histories. You have the triumphant battle of gettysburg story and military history has always had its own sort of niche and following. But, in the new book how much violence is there, really . I dont know. When we are writing synthetic histories, are we a little bit to blame for that . Im not sure. I have not fully thought through that. But it is a thought. You, we definitely have sanitized history. Theres no question there. The benefit in that is that, i hate using this because we use it all the time, but White Supremacy. I feel like that is the answer to everything. In White Supremacy, whiteness gets to be both the villain and the hero. The villain is the slave holders, the clan, these really easy things that we can attached to being bad. But the hero part of it is also the savior, the lincoln that frees the slaves, the abolition movement, the kind white man who says, not on my watch. The person who intervenes. We tell the stories because they perpetuate ideas of whiteness being the villain and the hero. If you can show something bad happen and then show another good white person that did something to replace it, remove it, accurate, then you still get to be the hero at the end of the day. I think a lot of these stories that we get, they push people, particularly black people to the periphery of their own movements. I cannot say how many times we talk about Frederik Douglas or harriet tuchman, but no other black abolitionists. Or rosa parks. But no other black civil rights leaders and i feel that is intentional, we dont want you to know that multiple people were involved. Hundreds of thousands involved. We do not want you to know that it was not a white person who didnt do the right thing at the end of the day. Or did it tied up at the nice pretty bow at the end of the day. That is a way to inculcate ideas of patriotism, but also ideas whiteness being supreme. We can all buy into that story because it makes us feel good, feel very empowered, feel like we can play a role in solving these issues because it feels easy to play a role. You can put a hashtag on something and now you are progressive. I think there are real reasons as to why we do this. None of them are very effective, actually solving problems. But they are very effective at making you think that youve solve the problem. So you can look at the Civil Rights Movement and say, racism is a thing of the past, we solved that. Nonviolently. So why black lives matter. Why are you so angry . Because we dont want to acknowledge the anger, because having to acknowledge the anger, rage, harm and brutality forces us to answer questions we have never wanted to answer. Which is how White Supremacy stays supreme. It just to continue full speed ahead on the White Supremacy train, that feeling good element i think is a really crucial issue here as well. First of all when we come to write these histories, violence is seen as something as unsavory, so it is left to the side. At the same time when we are looking at self definitions from historical actors, i think rarely do we find people that define themselves as violent. If you look at the clan of the twenties, or White Supremacists, or support philippe holders, they do not define themselves as violent people. They will say they use violence, but they deploy violence to achieve goals. But them selves are not violent people. Therefore, violence isnt their story. There comes this interesting question when we are writing these histories, how do we Center Violence in a story in which the subject themselves denies the centrally of the violence . Do we have to write the history of George Washington as a violent man . He is a military ban, slave holder, violence is integral to his life. We never talk about him as a violent person. When we talk about violent white supremacist, George Washington is the first thing that comes to mind. But why doesnt he fall into that category and what does that say about our willingness to use and to find violence within the life of these historical actors . That is a good point. I absolutely i call that its been said. Here military history is not a popular sub field in history. It has been outside of history. That is been changing to some degree. But to specifically focus on military history and violence, in some ways it makes it feel like you are not within the academy when you talk about these things. Ive experienced this. Im currently a graduate student and when i mention in seminars about violence, particularly wars, most people dont say i dont want to talk about that, but theyll say im more interested in these other areas. That is perfectly fine, military history has been covered in American History. But the idea that is something we can put aside, that anyone would think we can put aside violence or warfare in American History is incorrect. Thank you so much for this panel, very thoughtprovoking, i am still processing a lot of it. One thing i wanted to ask about is democracy. In authoritarian regimes we expect violence, expect that it is a violent state, a violet environment, and what i found very suggestive about this panel is that maybe there is something about democracy that also make it violent or violate in different ways. Something you said about popular sovereignty leading to a new kind of violence, or a particularly intense violence. I was just wondering if you would be able to comment more on that . Is there something about democracy or popular sovereignty leading to a particular type of Political Violence and how is that different from violence and other regimes . Thats a great question. That gets to the heart of my book. Then when we think of democracy, we think of the democratic piece. And if only we could just export to moxie around the world. If we could just make iraq and afghanistan democratic, no one would go to war. It is a noble dream. Democracy in many ways has been divorced of its historic violence. But it is one thing that the founders were concerned about. The tyranny of the majority, the 51 who can use that power to course others, course the minority. And you see that happening very clearly. It is one of the great ironies that i discussed in my book. At the beginning of the revolution, these elite founders, people Like Washington and men of violence, it was a particular type of european style violence. Violence in active speak suffolk weighs in context and where was accepted and legit the mid, and other ways where it wasnt. That violence, that restraint, it degrades over the process. Ordinary people finally have a voice in this, they are mobilized in part through rhetoric and in part through the newspapers hen in part through the actual violence of the british army that theyve as legitimate. They demand revenge, demands that their government engage in revenge full practices. I think we need to do more to think through the ramifications of violence and democracy. Especially throughout American History. Ill turn it over to my colleagues to see what they think. Yes, i agree. I dont think that we should think that democracy is not violent or that democracy has this moral high ground that does not allow for violence to take place. I think that is a falsehood. I think a lot of ways democracies a double edged sword that you have to, use almost violence to employ your means. To get your means across. Weve seen this play out in history time and time again. Even just introducing that concept of, or the idea that democracy can be violent, or democracy has violent tenants, is something that most americans wouldnt be comfortable hearing. But i do not think it is far from the. Truth very thoughtprovoking, im inspired by my colleagues, and reflecting upon these conversations from last night, in light of this conversation it is left me wanting, we are speaking about democracy, about the state and violence in the ballots to the extent of which American Society has been democratic considering the balloting considering the nature of racism and how democracy works. But i think what is missing, and reflecting upon the remarks from last night, the idea that the response to racism is anti racism. But going back to 16 19 when we had the first democratic assembly, the first laws passing were about the violence citizens can enact towards africans. So creating scarcity, juxtapose that greed from the outset. It is part of capitalism. Racism and violence were born in this country, racism, capitalism and violence are together. We can critique democracy and the state, but what was absent was the critique of capitalism. I am inviting needed news on that for a moment. We have this intensely capitalist state in the usa, and its intensely violent, intensely racist and it is like they are all born together around 16 19. I invite you to muse on that. Not really a question, just a comment. That is the root of the deprivation, scarcity, angry that i think breeds this intense violence that defines us. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. Well taken. One thing, my work focused on the late 19 century, this moment of massive industrialization, capitalism expanding in a bunch of different ways and methods. Theres a crisis. It is called the labor crisis or labor problem. People worried about they see as duly industrial to capitalism, what that will mean for democracy. This coercion by employers is part of that crisis. What is shocking to me now is that we dont seem to have that sense of crisis when capitalism is changing just as rapidly around us. Democracy is justice under threat and yet the labor crisis of the 19th century, people were discussing it, it was driving elections, pretty much everyone had an opinion about the labor question. The fact that we now, we do have discussion it is out there, but i dont think that anyone would say it is a crisis of democracy and capitalism. The way that they would explicitly uses terms in the 19th century. Its a great question, and something that, again, can tie back to the klan issue a little bit. Historians of the klan really havent dealt with it all that well, even though there is a lot of material on this from the time, particularly from radical black organizers in the 1920s and 1930s who see the violence of the klan as fundamentally a tool of capital, in order to divide and suppress labor. And thats why i think seeing the influence of Something Like the klan in federal politics is significant, because then you see how it is used as violence on a personal level, to bring up the distinction before from personal violence versus impersonal violence. Sending the klan in as strikebreakers, or as a means to divide unions. But also, that they are starting a crusade against socialists and bolsheviks, taking in the political lobbying that is going to become formalized, thats going to become things like the house on unamerican activities activity, where johnny rankin, one of the most noxious human beings to ever sit in the house, is going to sit and declare that the ku klux klan is an American Institution even as he turns the states attention and states violence on radical change, radical organizers, particularly within the africanamerican communities. And i think that is such an important question. I was chewing into the definition, but so many examples of the extreme violence at the heart of everything from slavery to the labor Union Battles of the entirety of American History. The last 150 years or so. That is so core to, you know, thats how capitalism works in the United States, through various forms of violence. Not just labor strikes, but workershealth and safety. For me, something we need to be attuned to as historians, we have to watch our analytical frameworks were using, that they shift over time. For me, the labor question continues. Its stopped being asked in the public sphere in the language that we are talked about, it has evolved just published a great article that we have to redefine, we have to stop using the world class, because that is a word comes out of a particular industrial moment. American stopped using over the course of the 20th century. We have a way of talking about power and equality. That we need to be more attuned and to start updating, it is part of the reason that im thinking about some of the conversations we had about how to connect outside this academic jargon. If we Start Talking in a way americans have talked overtime, not just today, about the kinds of inequalities with violence, that kind of stuff, i feel like we have a better way of reaching it. Making the larger connections about how violence has always been endemic to this imperfect democratic republic. That is something we can think about. Why the language isnt there. The teaching uprisings . Look at the discussions that they are having, the heart wrenching stories about how they are struggling to make basic ends meet. It is right there. There are pardon analogs there to the 19th and swayed 20 centuries about abuses in sweatshops, something we are much more used to thinking about, not teachers trinity their best by children. Things to think about. In order to keep all the trains running, please help our panelist. Thank my panelist for a great discussion. Good morning and welcome to the media and technology and state panel. This is part of a larger todays session called remaking american political history, we are all talking about history and how its going to be