HST 201 Module #14
Module Fourteen: Stay Together for the Kids (1863 CE - 1870 CE)
I'm professor Ryan Lancaster, and this is Module 14: Stay Together for the Kids. This week, we are looking at the fallout from the American Civil War and how the union continues to splinter even at the start of reconstruction. That's right, the south and north divide even further in their attempt to heal. Much like parents who perhaps should have just gotten divorced, the United States aims to stay together despite their differences. Despite restoring the union, many whites developed things like the KKK and Black Codes to keep African Americans disenfranchised as full red-blooded Americans.
If you think you are ready, let's get started.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Otherwise, we'll see you out there.
I'm professor Ryan Lancaster, and this is Module 14: Stay Together for the Kids. This week, we are looking at the fallout from the American Civil War and how the union continues to splinter even at the start of reconstruction. That's right, the south and north divide even further in their attempt to heal. Much like parents who perhaps should have just gotten divorced, the United States aims to stay together despite their differences. Despite restoring the union, many whites developed things like the KKK and Black Codes to keep African Americans disenfranchised as full red-blooded Americans.
If you think you are ready, let's get started.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Otherwise, we'll see you out there.
The next rule of history: "expertise," as we understand it is mainly fake. In academia, there's a saying that instead of measuring what we value, we value what we can measure. Researchers can manipulate numbers and facts to support any hypothesis or be a stronghold for confirmation bias. But history academics also rely on non-statistical data, meaning you read history and try to get some lessons. And historical specialization can cause an issue within academic learning.
Specialization sounds good and is ultimately rooted in a desire for a more egalitarian intellectual culture. In this way of thinking, a PhD is just as much of a "doctor" as a Noble Prize-winning physicist and has much more credibility in any field. Not everyone can engage in careful analysis of data in a way that can withstand scrutiny, but lower the standards enough and create enough areas, and a lot of people can be experts. Since people aren't getting more competent, more experts mean that the average intelligence of those influencing public policy drops. Part of the reason that specialization is terrible is that people have to justify the field's existence. Some historians have some terrible takes because they need to be original to get published.
Don't tune into the History channel and expect to find much-involving history. Historical thought has given up its death rattle and has been replaced by reality shows. And this happens because of how the world works. There are two kinds of people – those who don't care about past events and who soak it in. You can guess which sample size would be more prominent. An alternative now is video platforms like YouTube. As a form of social media, YouTube has moved beyond vapid videos of cute animals to something where historians can discuss every topic under the sun. This ubiquitous social media allows those interested in history to find an audience, which is a good thing.
However, this new trend has a downside: everyone with a camera can press record and spout off their knowledge. Many of the history videos on YouTube look great, but the information presented rarely goes into depth. Instead of documentaries with multiple sources, we are presented with highly polished lectures that give one person's take on past events or items from history. Rarely do these individuals offer what research they did or how they drew their conclusions. In some cases, the information is inaccurate or, worse, biased. There ends up being a lot of false information. YouTube has provided a platform for conspiracy theorists and worse to spread their narrative. Virtually anyone can set himself up as a knowledgeable source. The narrators of these videos talk to the camera as if they are the definitive expert's expert on said subject.
Throughout history, readers have been required to weigh the quality of the research. In the past, this has been done by following footnotes and bibliographies. A reader could always check a writer's sources to determine whether the printed material was accurate or exciting, as we understand it is mainly fake.
This is the dilemma, then. "Trust the experts" can lead the public astray, and so does "don't trust the experts." While that's an issue for most people, for intellectuals, the problem is more soluble. When you don't have the time to research something for yourself, you should trust those who have good intellectual habits.
HIGHLIGHTS
|
|
LECTURES
READING
My classes utilize both Howard Zinn's Patriot's History of the United States and Larry Schweikart's Patriot's History of the United States, mostly in excerpts posted to the modules. You can access the full text of People's History or Patriot's History by clicking on the links.
- #053: Ten Percent plan, Race Riots, Sand Creek, and the Freedmen’s Bureau (32:24)
- #054: Assassination, Wild Bill, the KKK, and Black Codes (32:28)
- #055: Reconstruction Acts, the Railroad, and Women’s Suffrage (35:25)
- #056: Labor, Football, and the 15th Amendment (34:18)
READING
- Carnes Chapter 14 “The War to Save the Union”
My classes utilize both Howard Zinn's Patriot's History of the United States and Larry Schweikart's Patriot's History of the United States, mostly in excerpts posted to the modules. You can access the full text of People's History or Patriot's History by clicking on the links.
Schweikart, Chapter 9 “The Crisis of the Union 1848-60”
…Despite a remarkable, and often unimaginable, growth spurt in the first half of the nineteenth century, and despite advances in communication and transportation—all given as solutions to war and conflict—the nation nevertheless lumbered almost inexorably toward a final definitive split. No amount of prosperity, and no level of communication could address, ameliorate, or cover up the problem of slavery and the Republicans’ response to it. No impassioned appeals, no impeccable logic, and no patriotic invocations of union could overcome the fact that, by 1860, more than half of all Americans thought slavery morally wrong, and a large plurality thought it so destructive that it had to be ended at any cost. Nor could sound reasoning or invocations of divine scripture dissuade the South from the conviction that the election of any Republican meant an instant attack on the institution of slavery.
What made war irrepressible and impending in the minds of many was that the political structure developed with the Second American Party system relied on the continuation of two key factors that were neither desirable nor possible to sustain. One was a small federal government content to leave the states to their own devices. On some matters, this was laudable, not to mention constitutional. On others, however, it permitted the South to maintain and perpetuate slavery. Any shift in power between the federal government and the states, therefore, specifically threatened the Southern slaveholders more than any other group, for it was their constitutional right to property that stood in conflict with the constitutional right of due process for all Americans, not to mention the Declaration’s promise that all men are created equal. The other factor, closely tied to the first, was that the South, tossed amid the tempest and lacking electoral power, found itself lashed to the presidential mast requiring a Northern man of Southern principles. That mast snapped in November 1860, and with it, the nation was drawn into a maelstrom…
…Despite a remarkable, and often unimaginable, growth spurt in the first half of the nineteenth century, and despite advances in communication and transportation—all given as solutions to war and conflict—the nation nevertheless lumbered almost inexorably toward a final definitive split. No amount of prosperity, and no level of communication could address, ameliorate, or cover up the problem of slavery and the Republicans’ response to it. No impassioned appeals, no impeccable logic, and no patriotic invocations of union could overcome the fact that, by 1860, more than half of all Americans thought slavery morally wrong, and a large plurality thought it so destructive that it had to be ended at any cost. Nor could sound reasoning or invocations of divine scripture dissuade the South from the conviction that the election of any Republican meant an instant attack on the institution of slavery.
What made war irrepressible and impending in the minds of many was that the political structure developed with the Second American Party system relied on the continuation of two key factors that were neither desirable nor possible to sustain. One was a small federal government content to leave the states to their own devices. On some matters, this was laudable, not to mention constitutional. On others, however, it permitted the South to maintain and perpetuate slavery. Any shift in power between the federal government and the states, therefore, specifically threatened the Southern slaveholders more than any other group, for it was their constitutional right to property that stood in conflict with the constitutional right of due process for all Americans, not to mention the Declaration’s promise that all men are created equal. The other factor, closely tied to the first, was that the South, tossed amid the tempest and lacking electoral power, found itself lashed to the presidential mast requiring a Northern man of Southern principles. That mast snapped in November 1860, and with it, the nation was drawn into a maelstrom…
Union soldiers entrenched along the west bank of the Rappahannock River at Fredericksburg, Virginia.
KEY TERMS
ASSIGNMENTS
Forum Discussion #15
- Ten Percent Plan
- Detroit Race Riot
- Wade Davis Bill
- Sand Creek Massacre
- Chinese Workers
- Freedman's Bureau
- Lincoln Assassination
- Wild Bill Hickok
- Ku Klux Klan
- Civil Rights Act of 1866
- Black Codes
- Reconstruction Acts
- 14th Amendment
- The Treaty of Fort Laramie
- Transcontinental Railroad
- Wyoming and Suffrage
- National Women's Suffrage Association
- Black Friday
- The Knights of Labor
- First Football Game
- The 15th Amendment
- Force Acts
ASSIGNMENTS
- Forum Discussion #15
- FINAL VIDEO PROJECT DUE
Forum Discussion #15
"American Experience" combines dramatic re-enactments with commentary by historians and authors to present an absorbing look at the personalities, events and resources that have had a profound impact on the shaping of America's past and present. Many of the program's documentaries have received major honors in the broadcasting community, including Emmy, Peabodys and duPont-Columbia University awards.
Watch this short video and please answer the following question with a two-paragraph minimum:
Explain the Chinese Exclusion Act. What is its historical significance?
Need help? Remember the Discussion Board Rubric.
LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO
Watch this short video and please answer the following question with a two-paragraph minimum:
Explain the Chinese Exclusion Act. What is its historical significance?
Need help? Remember the Discussion Board Rubric.
LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO
- (Disclaimer: This is not professional or legal advice. If it were, the article would be followed with an invoice. Do not expect to win any social media arguments by hyperlinking my articles. Chances are, we are both wrong).
- (Trigger Warning: This article or section, or pages it links to, contains antiquated language or disturbing images which may be triggering to some.)
- (Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is granted, provided that the author (or authors) and www.ryanglancaster.com are appropriately cited.)
- This site is for educational purposes only.
- Fair Use: Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
- Fair Use Definition: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.