Topics into the context of a broader American History. I will start off by introducing our panel then, everyone will give Opening Statements and then we will start the conversation. So, sitting right next to me is an assistant professor of history at purdue university. He holds a phd in colonial history from Johns Hopkins and is author of captives of history, prisoners of war and the American Revolution that will be released this fall at the university of pennsylvania. In addition to his book, hes published articles in the journal of the early republic the journal of military history in the new england quarterly. Hes currently at work on a project that is provisionally titled, patrick henrys war, the struggle for empire in the revolutionary west. Kelly Carter Jackson is a 19 century historian in the department of african ascites at wellesley college. Her book out from the university of pennsylvania was exclusively focused during antebellum activist. Shes coauthor and featured in the History Channel stock to mainieri, roots, history revealed nominated for an naacp award in 2016. A phd candidate in history at Northwestern University that explores the causes and consequences of the crisis of economic voter intimidation in the late 19th century United States. Research has received the support from the institute of American History, the Andrew W Mellon foundation and research council. Finally, Felix Harcourt is an assistant professor at Austin College and the research focuses on the intersection of president the best price should us intersection of prejudice. The assistant editor two volumes of roosevelt collected papers. So, coming from charlottesville where i watched as neofascists and other violent races clash with protesters i was at the site of one of the most visible and explosive moments of lyrical violence in the u. S. In the last few years, it was also a moment that open the debate about Political Violence particularly as americans learn more about nt for. The neoconfederates in charlottesville were often universally praised and even supporters were unsure what to do about the position on the use of violence. The visible races Political Violence in on the rise but antifat cost antiracist moral high ground making them irredeemable. The refusal to reject violence is the kind of questions i run into. May be , to put it more correctly, theres a mistake or limited sense of history that runs through the questions, through the Nonviolent Civil Rights Movement in the 60s when, as the story goes, justice was achieved not through war but for petes civil resistance. The story is a thin one in the broader history of violence in American History, so, im glad were having a conversation that takes us back to the nations founding and activities of the ku klux klan. Why dont you get us started. Thank you for the introduction and thank you katie for organizing this amazing conference. But my research addresses a perennial theme cultural historian strong on the inside of colleagues of special sciences describe violence as a language, its a way of communicating when other forms of communication breakdown. One petition and protest failed to achieve the desired change, this course can devolve into violence. These historians pay pains to demonstrate the specific acts of violence have historically contingent meetings , and other words the vocabulary of violence changes over time. By, the correlation between Political Revolution and Political Violence often appears to be trans historical. Violence is the common denominator of revolutions. But, what about the American Revolution. Unlike the french, haitian, mexican, russian, chinese, countless other Political Revolutions, americas revolution seems state and restrained, although hardly nonviolent, we can all think mel gibson for his reminder in the box office disappointment. 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 Tea Party were tar and feathers. Its hard to imagine john adams of Thomas Jefferson lopping peoples heads off while wearing the breeches and powdered wigs. As gordon wood noted in his study the radicalism of the American Revolution, americas experience does not appear to resemble that of the revolutions of other nations in which people were killed, property destroyed and everything turned upside down. The ideological idea of this ideology that would transform not only americas government but 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 caused some to question whether the American Revolution was revolutionary. King george the third survives a conflict with his head in tack. Perhaps, americas revolution was unique maybe 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 eight years of plenty and divisive civil war era that pitted british americans about the metropolitan cousins five american loyalists, patriot neighbors, liberated slaves against masters and indigenous nations against one another. Most historians of the American Revolution have segregated the political and social transformations of the era from the actual fighting basket we have a war for independence with drums, generals, battles , separate from the Political Revolution of 1776. When thinking of the political history, scholars also concentrate on the declaration of independence and lane preamble and forget jeffersons vitriolic king george for plundering the seas, ravaging the coasts and burning the towns and destroying the lives of people. This history of graphic segregation from the war would baffle historians of the french, haitian or russian revolution, but it would have pleased the Founding Fathers to know and. As john adams wrote jefferson, the war, that was a part of the revolution, it was only a cause or only in effect in consequence of it. Adams and his peers in the founding elite scrub the wars violence from the history of theirs was a good revolution, the moderate revolution but, adams revolution is not the one its victims remembered. s story from patrick griffin, to name but a few, no doubt influenced by the post9 11 world, ongoing confrontations with critical revolutions in Political Violence breed terrorism, has worked to bridge the gap between the revolutions rhetoric and reality, unearthing shocking levels of violence in the process. Highlighting this violence is not enough. We must seek to understand the social, cultural and political causes and effects. If not, we continue to accept a narrative of the American Revolution divided into two halves on the one side, the war, destructive and oppressive and on the other a Political Revolution. Idealistic although unfinished. Raking on the barrier requires making the connection between revolutionary physical change and revolutionary my forthcoming book history of the treatment of prisoners of war centers the war and its horrors in a scholarly debate about the character and consequences of the American Revolution. And rejecting the moniker he found it unpopular 70, had the unintended consequence of transforming the war waged to achieve it. By making the people sovereign the revolution shattered political elites, a monopoly and legitimate violence, fostering the conditions necessary for a cycle every vengeful reprisals. President s of war and victims of revolutionary violence reveal the side of the revolution the founders preferred forgotten the violence of the democratization of war. Thank you very much. [ applause ] good morning, i want to tell a couple stories, some of the stories will come from my book, freedom, black abolitionist and the politics of violence. Look at the violence thats taking place in the 50s i also want to go further because were familiar with the story, tell you how people responded and in particular how black people responded to this painting. So Charles Sumner to give you context is giving a speech in talking about the kansas nebraska act and talking about how horrible he thinks the act is. So, Charles Sumner spoke out during a speech in which he ridiculed authors and Stephen Douglas and andrew butler. Using incendiary language and sexual imagery that he claimed southerners crime against kansas was taken to the rip of a virgin, sumner accused butler of being in love with the harlot, that harlot being slavery. His threehour speech, can you imagine speaking for three hours, his threehour speech was so controversial that Stephen Douglas remarked to a colleague of this fool will get himself shot by some other fool. Sure enough, preston brooks, the congressman from South Carolina and nephew to andrew butler, intended to make a lesson out of sumner. Political violence to lace not only in the remote and growing territories of the west, but also in the Senate Chamber of the nations capital. Just two days later on may 22 while sitting at his chamber desk, brooks approached sumner and said, quote, i have read your speech twice over carefully, it is liable in South Carolina. Mr. Butler whos a relative of mine. At that moment he struck sumner over the head with with a cane with the gold had. Sumner 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 brooks continued to take aim at him. Brooks beat him so relentlessly that the desk released from the floor. As sumner label ready and unconscious , brooks only stopped when his cane broke. In the end, sumner miraculously survived, it to come more than three years to recover from his injuries , some might argue that he never fully recovered. But, what i think is interesting is the letters of support that poured in for Charles Sumner from the black community. One letter i like to share with you in particular, sumners attack validated African American desires to intervene in politics at the National Level and have their voices heard. One of the most remarkable responses came from an editorial in the new orleans daily creole, black newspaper that debuted about a month after the attack. The oped was titled a challenge to mr. Brooks. Mrs. Amelia rn robinson called the attacks cowardly , to beat him an unarmed and down. She referred to brooks as a cringing puppy who she would gladly challenge to meet her any place with pistols, rifles or cowhide. The outrage felt had no bearing on her sex and she like other black leaders was exasperated by the sacrifices and she was 50 years old, a widow, she lost two sons in the mexican war and her actions represented a direct affront to her own Liberty Liberty she believed the country should protect. Now then mr. Brooks robinson challenge, to see some of your posted courage. You are afraid to meet a man could do you meet a woman. Robinson declared that she was anxious to do her country some service, either by ripping or choking the cowardly ruffian who threatened what she perceived as americas most precious right to freedom of speech. Robinson was willing to put strong words into print and takes her disdain for carting the attack for sumner. More than any other man she admitted to what she was willing to do public. While many were praying for sumner , robinson illustrated what she was willing to do with the pistol. I like this because there is no anonymity that she puts her name on it gives her age, she let them know who she is. So, much is revealed by the remarks that she was publicly challenging the senator and even taunting him. She wrote with rage that signaled she had little to lose. The fact that she was immobilized for most of the beating was perhaps the greatest act of cowardice. Not only was robinson ready to meet brooks weapon for weapon with pistols, rifles or cowhide, but she claims she would even whip him without weapons , by choking the cowardly ruffian. Robinson was 50 and fearless and few men, white or black responded to threats to meet violence with violence. Robinson was willing not to just take on any man but a public figure and a politician. While they are report what they saw as barbarian is him he was undeterred. The significance of her being a black woman and threatening violence against the white man should also be duly noted. The Sexual Violence that whiteman committed against black women was rampant. Sumner was not wrong to allude to sexual imagery in his speech. Robinsons rage also stemmed from gender violence and enslaved black women face daily. The responses clear, meet violence with violence. More specifically, meet cowardly acts with justice. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you. Today im going to talk about my research that focuses on a form of voter intimidation that might not actually fit all that well with the topic of the panel because its an explicitly nonviolent one or seems to be. Im talking about economic voter intimidation. This kind of intimidation is typical done by an employer against an employee, its in part of American History since the beginning with cases of intimidation and was often called coercion, going back into the 18th century. But what i argue is that in the last half of the 19th century, after the panic of 1873, a really disastrous financial panic, theres a crisis of economic intimidation. The number of incidents increased in the number of people dependent for their wages on one boss, dramatically increased at this time as well and at the same time the political contest came closer and closer and it became reasonable attack used by many politicians and employers to use their employees i will give a few examples and also talk about the long consequences of this type of intimidation from today. And this is where we vote in secret and economic intimidation activated labor constituencies and radical constituencies to advocate for ballot secrecy in a way they never had before. Now again, what did voting look like before we voted in secret . Ill give you an example the 64 place in the armory, large building in the center of town and the polling places in the center of the building, to get into the polling place you had to pass by two tables one staffed by republican and one by democratic operatives who gave you your ballot the ballots are printed by parties with no official ballot and the operatives who worked for the republicans happen to also work for a man named tom sinking for , kingsford milk, kingsford starch may be used to keep your close starch to, its still a Large Company today. Its widely known that as kingsford employees walked into the building, the republican operatives would hand them their tickets and remind them that they were expected to vote the way thompson kingsford wanted them to they had nowhere to go after they were given the ballots, they had to go straight in and as one of the democratic observers testified , the workers dare not do it, they do not change the ticket or try to fight against thompson kingsford because they are watched. Thats the key element, there watched as they walk in the polls. Because they were precarious at work in this tough economic time and insecure at the polls, workers had little recourse. This happened throughout the country and the crisis blew up in part because it was a politically useful crisis for some people. While these events that happen with thousands of people being intimidated, it was useful to accuse the other side of doing this more than they were. So, gradually, democratic process began to accuse republican employers of intimidating employees out of proportion with what they were actually doing. This is a difficult element and a real crisis, this is really happening but in the same sense its a rhetorical crisis and becomes an even broader rhetorical crisis because forms of intimidation are threatening to fire someone if they dont vote the way want to and they struck deeply at what a lot of workers believed was their manhood, their independence, the ability to provide for the families. This is one example, in Portland Maine in 1880, the road workers on our road working municipal crew in portland were especially worried that because there would be a tough winter coming, the election would take place in september and they knew the winter was coming and didnt want to be out of work in the winter. At the foreman yelled out to them as they walked to the polls from work mind how you vote boys, vote for bread and butter. If you cut my throat now i will , yours, i am on your track and i will camp on a. He walked with them to the polls and watched as he took the ticket and voted. They had little choice. It seems that one person refused to do so the way home was never employed on the work crew again. Whats most remarkable about this form of intimidation is that it could interlace with other forms of coercion and other violent forms of intimidation, especially true in the south were in