Employers from their employees when they went to the polls. They were not passed in all states. Secret ball let polls lagged. So we have this kind of interesting phenomenon with the klan of the 20s. Even as this membership grows, klan violence declines. In fact, racial violence overall declines during the 1920s after a kind of sharp spike in lynchings post world war i. Certainly compared to whats effectively the paramilitary klan of reconstruction or the terrorism of the klan in the civil rights era, historians have written about the klan of the 1920s as less physically environment, though of course still driven by the same fundamentally violent ideology. Thats not the whole picture though. To correct that misunderstanding, what we need to do is look at the klans political involvement. I think its particularly interesting to look at this from the federal level. Now if we focus on electoral success, its pretty easy to dismiss the influence of the ku klux klan on the politics of the 1920s, which is what historians have tended to do. They are very, very good at drawing a lot of attention to themselves. Theyre generally very, very bad at getting a klan candidate or a candidate affiliated with the klan to be elected to office. They have successes sporadically, generally in local strong holds. Indiana of course one of the most notorious strong holds of klan power as i mentioned and, therefore, relative success in electing local officials, but very rare at the federal level. What my Current Research focuses on is the fact that that electoral success isnt really the key to understanding the klans influence on federal politics. The key to understanding the klans involvement with federal politics in the 20s 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 to think about what the klan is doing on a yacht on the potomac filled with senators and chorus girls. Its there the klan is tremendously impactful in shaping legislation. That is directly relevant to klan interests and particularly klan hatreds. Its there the klan is going to help shape what federal prohibition legislation is going to look like. Its there the klan is going to help shape what the immigration legislation looks like in the 1920s. Because of this, the klan doesnt need extra legal vigilante violence to achieve their goals. Instead, the klan of the 1920s is very effective in shaping policy to support their violent ideology. Political power meant the klan violence expressed itself as state violence. It expressed itself not through robed klansmen, but through federal prohibition enforcement agents. It expressed itself through the Border Patrol created in 1924, the same year the klans membership peaks. So, if were to understand the enduring legacy of the klan, its that enter sectional nexus between bigotry, violence and politics that we need to understand. Thank you. [ applause ] well, that is a pretty good place to jump off on a broader conversation about violence in political history. I think the first thing i would love to hear you all talk about is the relationship between violence and politics from kind of a broader level. Which is to say theres often this idea that violence is a failure of politics and somehow exists outside of politics. In some cases it seems like violence is a core component of politics in a lot of ways. Where do you see violence fitting into political history and into the practice of politics . Well, i can say in my own classes i talk about violence really violence is how we understand history in a lot of ways. Every significant moment in history we benchmark with violence. Even if you think about how classes are taught its from the slave trade to the American Revolution to the civil war. Then we teach classes in between war. All these moments, 9 11, all these moments are violent moments. Thats how we mark turning points. In a lt. Of ways i see violence as this great accelerator or this fluid that moves political movements or social movements along. Its a great way to look at how we examine change. A lot of times theres a tendency to have this idea that changes comes about through nonviolence. When we look at the Civil Rights Movement, we say they pushed nonviolence. Thats how we get these great changes. What theyre responding to is violence very much so in every aspect of their lives. Im constantly pushing students to nuance how we understand violence, not to dismiss it as something thats fanatical or is an episode that happens, that it was just a moment, but really an explanation for how policy is made or not made in terms of how progress is developed or not developed. I think guidance is the perfect framework for that. So, i think this is an excellent question. Where does violence fit in . If we need to think about violence as a political language, violence has meaning, specific acts of violence has meaning. It can be used for political purposes. Very rarely is violence unrestrained, unrestricted. Its usually focussed for a particular purpose and groups use violence, specific acts of violence, to try to get their political points across. I have students think about what does a lynching mean in the 1920s . What does a cross burning mean . What are they trying to say . Theres a ritual to this. Whos their audience for that act of violence . I think also as political historians we need to think of the role of violence in the state and the growth of the state. Talking about the border agents, the violence of the state. The violence is embedded of the state. The idea that the modern state has a monopoly on violence. Think about police violence, police brutality, the violence of the state. If you get students to think through that, its an enormously useful exercise. We should also be attentive to it in our scholarship. We cant ignore that violence is at the heart of american political history. One element as well that ive come across in my research and teaching students, its easy to play a what aboutism game. To say because this party used this form of violence and this party got into a scuffle theyre both violent. I think this is what you were talking about earlier. One thing i noticed in the gilded age is being able to claim the other party was doing bad things was a way to excuse your much worse things. The speaker of the house in the 1990s when talking about lynchings in the south, he said yes, these are crimes, but catching fish out of season is a crime too. No one would ever confuse them. Think about how violent acts compare to each other and dig deeper into that. I teach a class on terrorism in the United States. The fun never stops in my classroom. I think i do so as a way of getting addressing with students the idea that not just violence, but fundamentally Political Violence has been a throughline in American History. We look at obviously definitions of terrorism. Thats going to be crucial within that, but ideas of legitimate violence, illegitimate violence, state violence, individual violence, they really do often function as driving questions in, as we said, change or moments of change. Actually to do the terribly uncool thing and respond to a question with a question, something i was thinking about while listening to everybody talk is this myopic place were in today with regards to the use of violence and Political Violence particularly. Its interesting again, off the top of my head just thinking about this, do you think weve come to a place where reform is associated with nonviolence, but revolution is associated with violence and that thats why Political Violence is seen as beyond the pale now . What do you guys think of that . Does violence render whatever the political aim is illegitimate . Is revolution considered illegitimate today . I would say in some ways yes. For my own work, you know, i think its very easy to look back at slavery and say it was wrong hopefully. I think it should be easy to say that. We have a consensus. A lot of the stories in my book are about blacks who are fighting back, who are protecting their communities and using force and violence to protect their communities. Everyone loves hearing these stories because theyre like, yeah, slavery is wrong. I think in some ways you can support that in talking about segregation and jim crow and hopefully people think taking up arms in selfdefense might be rational. Today the way that race has reincarnated itself, its extremely difficult to take up those same sort of stances to use protective violence or selfdefense in a way to purport revolution or change. People think youre a radical. People think youre crazy. In the Civil Rights Movement they thought they were crazy too. I feel like maybe you need distance in order to accomplish it. But, no, i dont think that people i think that people believe you can accomplish anything through nonviolence. While i agree with that to some extent, theres a little historical naivete in terms of how things came about in this country. I think were living with the legacies of that. This is a nation that was born in violent revolution, of civil warfare. Yet, rather consciously on the part of revolution and the Founding Fathers they eschewed that because the flip side of evolution is rebellion. Slave rebellion, insurrection, must be suppressed by the state. How do you justify a new nation state that was discovered on an act of violence to overthrow the sitting government . The way you do that is in part rewriting the history of that initial revolution. Then, also, combatting and becoming counterrevolutionary. I think theres an argument to be made that the United States is one of the most counter revolutionary societies in the world. Think about vietnam. That was a counterrevolution. We sort of need to think through that a bit more. As historians we love to explain change. To think about some of the continuities 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 hes now being reintroduced into america as the most american of all heros when that would seem in part because of the aftermath of the civil war and White Supremacists efforts to paint him as a crazy person. Now to have him discussed as at the forefront of american liberty is a remarkable moment. I wonder what it says about people that are putting him in that way. What do they think about Political Violence if theyre making john brown their patron saint . Just to pick up on that for a second as well, its interesting were seeing that the mainstreaming of that john brown idea, but the people who have most often in the recent past compared themselves to john brown have been those attacking abortion clinics and abortion providers. Thats a specific form of Political Violence that they see themselves acting within the tradition of. One of the words that keeps coming up is legitimate and illegitimate. Whats interesting about the question of violence, aside from a very few committed pacifists there arent that many people in the United States that think all violence is legitimate. How do you see historical actors making the case that their violence was legitimate . As historians it often changes over time and john brown is a great example of that. How are your people making their cases . I can tell you mine. I have found no other group of people that have a moral sort of for using violence. They talk about american hypocrisy. About the American Revolution being uncomplete. The haitian revolution is where the real evolution takes place because they freed their slaves and put in place equality. I think black abolition are saying slavery is wrong and we have a moral authority, a godgiven right and thats important when they can solidify their tenancy with biblical sentiments . Theyre using biblical allegories to justify using violence and force. And theyre using revolutionary language i love the idea. I talk about this idea that violence is a political language. He who would be free must strike the first blow. Theyre using this language over and over to threaten and provoke, you know, the abolition of slavery and they feel justified in that because they feel they are most oppressed. Again, its easy to look at this from a 21st century perspective and say, of course, youre justified in this. I think legitimacy comes through winning. We look at it as legitimate because they won. If you dont win, does that mean your cause is not legitimate . With black freedom and black liberation, there havent been a lot of victories, but that doesnt mean its not legitimate. The American Revolutionaries were the masters of this game. From the beginning of the process they used the press. They mobilized the press in a quite effective way to paint their enemies, those who oppose the glorious cause or the common cause as illegitimate. If you think of the declaration of independence, its the masterful political document justifying american nationhood on the grounds that the british violates the laws of respectable nations and they were guilty of barbaric acts of violence. And this new nation would be respected in the eyes of the world because they played by the rules. Thats why washington is so animated to turn the massachusetts militia man into what he calls a respectable army. They need to look the part of europeans and play by these rules as a way of legitimizing what was illegitimate. The british had suppressed countless insurrections. By labelling it that way their violence was illegitimate. Thats good. Its interesting to consider the legitimate illegitimate question with effective ineffective. This is something you see over and over with the question to how to respond to white is he supremacist violence. Theres a fantastic debate that rages around that in the 1920s that says what is the best way to respond to this . Do we ignore it and let the fire burn itself out . We could do that, but while were doing that the fire is burning and causing devastation. Presumably we have to do something. What is that something . There are those in the black press who say simply, no, they sent us a severed hand in the mail. Were not carrying on a debate. Were encouraging our readers to carry a gun or brick or bat. If you encounter a klansman, you dont try to reason with him. Theres an interesting question there as well about not just how do we defend violence as legitimate, but how do we defend violence as effective at the same time . Thats good. So employers in the late 19th century legitimized their coercion of their employees by claiming the persuasive right. Because i give you your bread and butter, i have the right to persuade. In different places they enforced that right differently. In the south it was taken to mean that it will have an effect. You will do what i said. In some places in the north and especially in the west, that persuasive right is you will have to listen to me. Ill give you my opinion, but i wont follow it up with discharge from employment. In some places those threats are less aggressive than others, but always the right is claimed because i pay you, i have gained an extra political right because i pay you your wages. Thats where the legitimacy comes from to make these claims. Doesnt work the same in all parts of the country. It strikes me that one other missing legitimate tool for violence is the claim of selfdefense which is used quite broadly across the spectrum whether were talking about the black panthers in the 60s or the White Supremacists at any time in the country. Im going to ask one more question and then ill open it up to the audience. I dont know that its a good question. You can tell me. It seems like one of the things 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 neutrality as few of you have suggested, the violence in 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 . I think that is very contrary to the story americans like to tell themselves. We dont always tell selfcomforting stories as historians about the nation. It seems like a particularly disruptive move to put violence at the center of that story. I mean, i feel like thats what im trying to do in my work. Its incredibly hard to do, to sort of flip the script a little bit in terms of how we understand violence and how weve been told i think these really romantic stories about the underground railroad or about the Civil Rights Movement that feel very sweet. There are stories you can tell to kids. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat. Thats very like yay or you can talk about Harriet Tubman and she rescued these slaves. You can package these stories so well. What i try to do is tell the stories that are in order to flee a lot of times you had to fight. I tell the story about a man who was running away from slavery and this man was pursuing him. He was like stop chasing me. If you dont stop chasing me, im going to kill you. He kept chasing him and he killed him. He tells this story and the audience is like applauding. I tell this story to let people know the whole system of slavery was violent. In order for people to bring about their own freedom, they had to bring about violence. 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 present . One of the concepts im trying to work with is this idea of protected violence which to me is more than selfdefense. Its not just protecting yourself. Protective violence is protecting your family, your community, but even strangers. Youre protecting marginalized people, oppressed people, people who dont have access to the ballot or to traditional channels to bring about reform. How do we examine protective violence as useful and as something thats legitimate. Its a hard exercise to do because theres a paradox. On one stand we hate violence, we think its awful. On the other hand we love American Revolution, we love reenacting the civil war and doing these violent things and reenacting them. Theres this love hate relationship with violence ive not been able to reconcile. It brings up a great question. For my students, the war for independence and the American Revolution are the same thing. Theyre not aware of the republican synthesis. For them its Washington Crossing the delaware and its good. Thats a good violence. We like that. What i try to do with my book is thats what the revolutionary wanted us to think. I think that fails. That restrained battlefield victory story de grates. We lose control of the war. We need to sort of in some ways rethink the constitutional moment as an effort by these we can call them nationalists in this period to reassert a monopoly on violence. We need to control this. We need to control violence because that was messy and bad. Were going to take charge of it. As we saw, theres great debate over this. This is one of the origins of the second amendment, an armed population. Its a very contentious issue. Were still dealing with the reverberation of the debate. Are people allowed to selfdefend . We need to engage with that. I think about the election of 1860. Have any of you heard the phrase lincoln wasnt even on the ballot in the south . When you think about it, that doesnt make sense. There was no official ballot. People had to hand out Party Ballots outside the polls. Lincoln wasnt on the ballot because republicans in the south would have hand to stand at the polls with ballots handing them out. Theres no way that would have been allowed to happen. Those people would have been beaten up. They wouldnt have existed. The way that simple phrase, the Republican Party was the sectional party, concealed a great deal of violence that would have happened if they attempted to hand out ballots in the south. In that one moment we talked our way past a moment of extreme violence or potential violence. Thats good. So, theres two things i wanted to respond to there a little bit. First of all the idea of the selfdefense violence or violence in selfdefense, its similar in terms of thinking about thats a difficult question because it asks us what counts as selfdefense. Think of kathleen blues book, she cant unfortunately be here today, but her point that the paramilitary White Supremacist Movement post vietnam is in large part new because it breaks with the state and starts to see the state as the threat. As much, must defend itself against the state and would argue theyre acting in selfdefense in a way of that protective violence. The other kind of, i guess, definitional question i suffer with with this is then this relationship between political history and violence going back to dr. Candys key note from last night he discussed political history being the history of power. At that point we have to determine what is the relationship between power and violence. I think that is a huge question that i am in no way prepared to provide a definitive answer to. What i will say is that Jacqueline Jones biography of lucy parsons, the radical feminist black anarchist in the late 19th century talks about parsons approach to violence and her belief in violence as legitimate because within that framework, the state is inherently violent. All politics is inherently violent. I think theres an argument to be made there for viewing it through that lens. To go back to what was said, its not violence, its antiracist violence. So if you can call it its not discrimination, its antiracist discrimination. It goes into the same thing. You can say its racist selfdefense and antiracist selfdefense. Excellent. I would like to open it up to the audience. Two ground rules. Introduce yourself. Wait for the microphone since were filming. Hi. Im ellie sherma. You did a great job of doing about the revolution to the 1920s. My question is picking up on do we need to expand the definition of violence . I think its clear after the new deal and the question of labor. Im going to not do labor because, even though it may not be as physically violent, the kind of clashes that excite us and we can turn these narratives, what about the work of nathan connelly, like putting a freeway right through black communities . He said its no less violent. How about the tax policies that rip whole communities apart in the central areas, completely dislocating those communities . We have taken away your right to join a union and have that ability to right to work laws and then there are the right to starve laws. We have the questions about voting. Now we can blame you for not getting to the polls on time or registering. How about the zoning that goes along with not allowing multifamily units that might be possible for those dislocated or enabling them to have food in their neighborhoods, the lack of health care questions . There seems to be casualties to these trade rules. 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. Were dealing with levels of depression and suicide that we havent seen. How much can we incorporate that as violence by not only the state, but corporations . If we expand the definition of violence, does that help to change where we might be seeing other acts of violence in the 18th and 19th as well . I think im sorry. No. It was a great question. It tackles a lot. Ill stick with voting because thats what i know best. Methods of preventing people from voting or taking away the right will always try to adapt for whatever we do. So any law that we pass has to think about not just what does it solve right now, but what are the ways that the people who are trying to get around this, what are they going to do to get around it . A lot of the scholarship now is the progressive nature of it. You have to be able to read and write. These are things that make voting more difficult than taking a piece of paper and dropping it into a box. If were going to try and get rid of the problems of ballot secrecy or voting in a physical poling place, we have to remember the ways in which the people who try to get around these things and the people who try to subvert or undermine any ballot protection law we have, they already have a blueprint for what they can do. Weve done this already. The idea that we might say, oh, we dont need ballot secrecy anymore Justice Ginsburg compared it to closing your umbrella in a rain storm because youre not getting wet. We do know a lot of these things could happen. Focusing on, okay, if were going to solve the problems, we have to be thinking about how to solve the next problems and how they all chain together. That was the voting aspect. You guys can handle the rest, right . I dont know that i can. I mean, thats a lot. Everything you said is a lot. Its violence in so motion. Its playing out in this very insidious silent, subtle way so that when you call it violence people are like youre overreacting. Its just a policy. Those policies are destructive, intensely destructive and not just destructive for a generation, but for generations. Its really hard, i think, because we think violence is immediate and in your face and aggressive and, you know, flashy and all of these things we have. We dont recognize it when it plays out very slowly. I think for me in some ways its time to start thinking about our definition of war too. Part of that is i argue that theres a war at home during word war ii. We cant pretend otherwise. Those violent labor struggles continue to be sure. Now were dealing with what does war look like now. Its not easy to talk about. Drone attacks. Weve left that human act. I think we need to think about is this the turn of millennial warfare . An impersonal drone attack, is that just pushing a button . How do we think about there might be a casualty to this kind of warfare even though it seems like a joke to call it on par with Something Like the war in iraq and the war in afghanistan . If we think about a different definition of war and violence, that it can happen at home, that it can be impersonal, is that something that we can think about with the 18th and 19th century . Im not sure. Its interesting to think how you define violence, where you draw the lines. What is the utility of expanding the definition or sometimes its i dont know the answer to this question. Is it a metaphor of violence in some situations or is it actual the definition of violence . Theres a tradeoff for which one it is. Yes, i think its a great question. We have one. Thanks for the great panel. Felix at the end gestured towards the talk last night. I was thinking about your panel like the talk last night overturns an older narrative of a nonviolent american past. He focussed on why that old narrative persisted. Cole, youve gestured to this, kelly, too, how rosa park was a sweet story. Im wondering how through time you think this sort of narrative of political of violence got papered over and how was it papered over in especially big thanks for the great panel. Felix at the end gestured towards the talk last night. I was thinking about your panel like the talk last night overturns an older narrative of a nonviolent american past. He focussed on why that old narrative persisted. Cole, youve gestured to this, kelly, too, how rosa park was a sweet story. Im wondering how through time you think this sort of narrative of political of violence got papered over and how was it papered over in especially big synthetic histories . Why is it papered over . Who is doing the papering over to get this narrative that is in most americans heads about the history driven not by violence, but by Something Else . I think part of it perhaps a small party, perhaps im overestimating the influence the academy has. Part is that historians dont tend to be violent people. The reason i study violence is because i dont understand it. I dont understand why you would its hard for me to understand how you would hurt another human being. So im trying to figure that out and figure out what it means at the time. I think that violence in part has been written out of a lot of our histories. Yes, of course, you have the triumphant battle of gettysburg stories and military history has had its own niche. How much violence is there really . I dont know. When we were writing synthetic histories, are we a little bit to blame for that . Im not sure. I havent fully thought through that. Yeah, its weve definitely sanitize history. Theres no question there. I think, you know, the benefit in that is this is such a i hate using this because we use it all the time. White supremacy. I feel like thats the answer to everything. In White Supremacy whiteness gets to be the villain and the hero. The villain is the slave holder, the klan, really easy things that we can attach to being bad, right . The hero part of it is also the savior, the lincoln that frees the slaves, the William Lloyd garrisons, the kind white man who says not on my watch. We tell these stories because they perpetuate ideas of whiteness being the villain, but then the hero. If you can show something bad happened and then show another good white person that did something to replace it, to remove it, to cure it, then you still get to be the hero at the end of the day. I think a lot of these stories that we get, one, they push people, in particular black people, into the peripheries of their own movement. Well talk about rosa parks and mlk, but theres no other civil rights leaders. Thats intentional. We dont want you to know that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were involved. We dont want you to know that it was not a white person who didnt do the right thing at the end of the day or who didnt tie it in a nice pretty bow at the end of the day. Thats a way to incorporate ideas of patriotism. We can buy into that story because it makes us feel very good, feel very empowered, feel like we can play a role in solving these issues. You can throw a hashtag on something and now youre progressive. Theres real reasons why we do this, but none of them are effective at solving problems, but theyre very effective at making you think you solved the problems. You can look at the Civil Rights Movement and say racism is a thing of the past. We solved that nonviolently. Why black lives matter . Why are you so angry . Because we dont want to acknowledge the anger, having to acknowledge the anger or rage or brutality forces us to have to answer questions we dont want to answer which is how White Supremacy stays supreme. To continue full speed ahead on the White Supremacy train, that feeling good element is a crucial issue here as well. First of all, when we come to write these histories violence is seen as something unsavory. Very rarely we find people who define themselves as violent. Look at the klan of the 20s or slave holders, they dont define themselves as violent people. They can make say they used violence, that they deployed violence to achieve goals, but theyre not themselves violent people. Therefore, violence isnt their story, right . So it becomes this interesting question when were writing these histories. How do we Center Violence in a story in which the subject themselves denies the centrality of that violence . Do we have to write the history of George Washington as a violent man . Hes a military man. Hes a slave holder. Violence is integral to his life. We never talk about him as a violent person, right . When we talk about violent White Supremacists, George Washington isnt the first name that comes to mind . Why doesnt he fall into that category . What does that say about our willingness to use and define violence within the life of these historical actors . Thats a good point. I echo everything thats been said. Also, military history is not exactly a popular sub field in history. Its been exiled outside history. I know thats changing to some degree. To specifically focus on military history and violence in some ways makes it feel like youre not within the academy when you talk about these things. Ive experienced this to some degree in my own training. When i mention in seminars and talking particularly about wars, people dont say we dont want to talk about that. Theyll say im more interested in these other areas. Thats perfectly fine, but just the idea that its something that we can put aside, the fact that anyone would think we can put aside violence or warfare in American History is, i think, incorrect. Thank you so much for this panel. Its been thought provoking. One thing i wanted to ask about is democracy. I think in authoritarian regimes we expect violence. We expect its a violent state. What i found suggested by the panel is maybe theres something inherent about democracy that makes it violent or violent in different ways. Something you said about popular sovereignty leading to a sense of violence. Is there something about democracy or popular sovereignty that leads to a particular type of violence and how is that different than other types of regimes . Thats a great question. It gets to the heart of my book. When we think of democracy we think of the democratic peace. If only we could export democracy around the world, if only we could make iraq and iran democratic powers, then no one would ever go to war. Its a noble dream. Democracy has been divorced of its historic violence. Its one thing the founders were very concerned about. The 51 who could use that power to coerce others, right . Coerce the minority. You see that happening very clearly. Its one of the great ironies that i discuss in my book. At the beginning of the revolution people Like Washington were men of violence, but its a particular type of european style violence. Violence is enacted in specific ways and specific context where it was acceptable, but in other ways it wasnt. That violence, that restrained orderly violence degrades over the process because ordinary people have a voice in this and theyre mobilized through rhetoric and in part through the newspapers and in part of the violence of the british army to theyre mobilized through rhetoric and in part through the newspapers, and in part through the violence of the british army, to demand revenge and demand that their government engage in revengeful practices. So i think we need to do more to think through the ramifications of violence and democracy throughout American History. Ill turn it over to my colleagues here to see what they think. I mean, yes, i agree. I mean, i dont think that we should think that democracy is not violent or that, you know, democracy has this moral high ground that doesnt allow for violence to take place. I think thats a falsehood. I think in a lot of ways democracy is a doubleedged sword that you have to sort of, you know, use 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 or the idea that democracy can be violent or democracy has violent tenets is something i dont think americans would be comfortable hearing, but i dont think its far from the truth. Ben . This has been very thought provoking. Im inspiring by the comments and reflected upon candys conversation last night. Were speaking about democracy and the state and then violence and the ballots, the extent to which American Society has been democratic considering the nature of the ballot and the nature of racism and how democracy works. What i think is missing i struggle when she made this comment. The idea that the response to racism is antiracism. When we had some of the first laws passed, were about violence americans could perform against africans. Racism and violence were born in this country, what became this country. Racism, violence and capitalism. We have this intensely capitalistic state, in the United States of america. They were all born together around 1619. But we havent critiqued capitalism. Im inviting you to muse on that, not really a question, but a comment. That is the root of the deprivation, scarcity and greed which i think breeds this intense violence that defines our society. Absolutely. Well, thank you for the question. Its a welltaken one. My work focused on the late 19th century, this moment of industrialization and capitalism. Theres a crisis, people call it the labor crisis or the labor problem. People worried about what they see as new capitalism and what that will mean for democracy. Whats shocking to me now is that we dont seem to have that sense of crisis when capitalism is changing rapidly around us. Democracy is just as under threat. In the 19th century people were discussing it. It was driving elections. The fact that now we dont there is discussion. Its absolutely out there. I dont think anyone would say its a crisis of democracy and capitalism now the same way they would have used those terms in the 19th century. Still dealing with the throat. I think its a great question. Its something that, again, tying it back to the klan issue a little bit, historians of the klan havent dealt with it all that well even though theres a lot of material on this from the time, particularly from somebody like a. Phillip randolph or 0 organizers in the 20s and 30s who see this as capital to divide and suppress labor. Thats why i think seeing influences of Something Like the klan in federal politics is significant because then you see how thats used not just as the violence on personal level to kind of bring up the distinction we were looking at before. Not only are you sending the klan in as strike breakers, or as a means to divide unions, but also that theyre starting a crusade against socialists and theyll take it into their political lobbying that will become formalized and where theyll become things where john e. Rankin is going to sit and declare that the ku klux klan is an American Institution even as he turns the states attention on radical change, radical organizers, particularly within the africanamerican communities. I think thats an important question because it actually i was chewing into ellies definitional question, but so many questions you were citing were the extreme violence at the heart of anything from slavery to the labor Union Battles of the entirety of American History, the last 150 years or so, but that that is so core to thats how capitalism works in the United States, not just labor strikes, but Workers Health and workers safety. For me its something we need to be attuned to as historians. We have to watch that our analytical words, frame words were using, that they shift over time. For the labor question continues. It stopped being asked in a language that were talking about. It has evolved. Robin munsey published a great article that we have to redefine we have to stop using the word class. That is a word that comes at out of an industrial moment. It stopped being asked perhaps in the public sphere in the language that were talking about. But it has evolved and robin muncie just published a great article we have to redefine and stop use the word class because it comes at a very particular industrial moment that americans stop using over the course of the 20th century. So with you know have working families but we talk about power inequality at the heart of the capitalism that we need to be more attuned and as part of the reason thinking about some of the conversations at this conference how to connect outside of the academic jargon and if we Start Talking in the way that americans have talked over time, not just today but about the kind of violence, that kind of stuff, i feel like we have a better way of reaching and making the larger connections about how violence has always been endemic to this perfect supposedly democratic republic and why the language isnt there but the teacher uprisings and i do call then uprisings and the heartwrenching stories about how much theyre struggling to make basic ends meet is right there. And it could be there are important analogs there to discussions of the late 19th and early 20th century about abuses in sweat shops and not Public Employees trying to do their best by children. Things to think about. In order to keep all of the trains running on time, were going to close it there. Please help me thank our panelists for a great discussion. [ applause ] tonight on American History tv beginning at 8 00 eastern, world war i. The u. S. Army and france launched the offensive, 37day battle that ended the great war in 1918. We travel to northeastern france with a story of french battlefield guide to tour several battle locations. Along the way we discover several artifacts of the great war. Watch American History tv now and over the weekend on cspan 3. Liftoff. Today, watch live coverage of the launch of spacexs commercial crew test flight, marking the first launch of astronauts on american soil and spacecraft since 2011. The spacex crew dragon launch begins at 12 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan2, with liftoff at 4 30 p. M. As astronauts launch to the International Space station. Then a postlaunch briefing with nasa administrator Jim Bridenstein at 6 00 p. M. Eastern. Thursday at 11 00 eastern on cspan2, all day live coverage of the spacex crew dragon as it docks with the International Space station. Then the opening of the hatch between the two space vehicles and the event between the spacex crew dragon and the iss crew. Watch live on cspan2 online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. Up next on American History tv, historians discuss the effect of media and technology on politics. Topics include silicon valley, Artificial Intelligence and cable television. From purdue university, this is about 90 minutes. So, good morning and welcome to the Media Technology and the state panel. This is part of a larger twoday session called