Sentence
stringlengths 154
2.26k
| video_title
stringlengths 14
105
|
|---|---|
So now what happens? Well, one of Grant's generals who served under him in this Tennessee campaign is now going to turn his attentions to a massive campaign of total war in the South. So this is William Tecumseh Sherman, and Sherman's idea is that he is going to cut a swath through the South, and he is going to try to destroy the South's morale by not only trying to get rid of foodstuffs and interrupt supply lines, destroy infrastructure, burn houses. He's gonna make things so bad on the home front that the Confederate soldiers who are fighting up here with Lee are gonna get upset that their property and their families are not being protected at home. So he's trying to win a morale victory by making people in the South really tired of being at war, and also by making Lee's soldiers want to desert and come back and defend their home territory. So Sherman turns his troops toward Atlanta, and in September of 1864, Sherman takes Atlanta. Now, there's a very famous scene of this in Gone with the Wind where you see Scarlett O'Hara looking out over the many injured people in the city of Atlanta. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
He's gonna make things so bad on the home front that the Confederate soldiers who are fighting up here with Lee are gonna get upset that their property and their families are not being protected at home. So he's trying to win a morale victory by making people in the South really tired of being at war, and also by making Lee's soldiers want to desert and come back and defend their home territory. So Sherman turns his troops toward Atlanta, and in September of 1864, Sherman takes Atlanta. Now, there's a very famous scene of this in Gone with the Wind where you see Scarlett O'Hara looking out over the many injured people in the city of Atlanta. That's Sherman's doing. But now let's turn our attention away from the military campaigns for a second and talk about the politics of 1864. Now, in 1864, it's an election year. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
Now, there's a very famous scene of this in Gone with the Wind where you see Scarlett O'Hara looking out over the many injured people in the city of Atlanta. That's Sherman's doing. But now let's turn our attention away from the military campaigns for a second and talk about the politics of 1864. Now, in 1864, it's an election year. It's been four years since Lincoln was elected in November of 1860, and so now, Lincoln has to stand for re-election. And this is a really interesting election for lots of reasons. One is that it's the first election during wartime since 1812. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
Now, in 1864, it's an election year. It's been four years since Lincoln was elected in November of 1860, and so now, Lincoln has to stand for re-election. And this is a really interesting election for lots of reasons. One is that it's the first election during wartime since 1812. So in the election of 1864, soldiers are going to cast their ballots, either by getting short leaves to go to the ballot box or by sending in their ballots by mail. Another thing that's really interesting about this is that Lincoln is not at all sure that he's going to win this election. In fact, many in his own party, the Republican Party, feel that he's been considerably too soft on the South, that his plans for reunification are not nearly punitive enough. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
One is that it's the first election during wartime since 1812. So in the election of 1864, soldiers are going to cast their ballots, either by getting short leaves to go to the ballot box or by sending in their ballots by mail. Another thing that's really interesting about this is that Lincoln is not at all sure that he's going to win this election. In fact, many in his own party, the Republican Party, feel that he's been considerably too soft on the South, that his plans for reunification are not nearly punitive enough. There are many who want to replace Lincoln with a more radical candidate in 1864. That does not end up happening, but one interesting thing that does end up happening is to try to increase Lincoln's appeal, his running mate is Andrew Johnson. And Johnson was a slaveholder, believe it or not, from Tennessee, and the idea was that maybe Johnson could pick up some of the Democrats who might necessarily have voted for McClellan, and maybe he could pick up some of the border states, the same way that we often might choose a vice president today because they come from a crucial swing state. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
In fact, many in his own party, the Republican Party, feel that he's been considerably too soft on the South, that his plans for reunification are not nearly punitive enough. There are many who want to replace Lincoln with a more radical candidate in 1864. That does not end up happening, but one interesting thing that does end up happening is to try to increase Lincoln's appeal, his running mate is Andrew Johnson. And Johnson was a slaveholder, believe it or not, from Tennessee, and the idea was that maybe Johnson could pick up some of the Democrats who might necessarily have voted for McClellan, and maybe he could pick up some of the border states, the same way that we often might choose a vice president today because they come from a crucial swing state. And this is gonna be important later because after Lincoln is assassinated, Andrew Johnson will take over as president, and he is quite a different president than Lincoln might have been under the circumstances. Now on the Democratic side, the candidate is George McClellan, and you might remember McClellan because he was one of the first commanders of the Union Army, and Lincoln sent him down for failing to really go after the enemy strongly in the early stages of the war. Now the Democratic Party is having some internal struggles at this point. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
And Johnson was a slaveholder, believe it or not, from Tennessee, and the idea was that maybe Johnson could pick up some of the Democrats who might necessarily have voted for McClellan, and maybe he could pick up some of the border states, the same way that we often might choose a vice president today because they come from a crucial swing state. And this is gonna be important later because after Lincoln is assassinated, Andrew Johnson will take over as president, and he is quite a different president than Lincoln might have been under the circumstances. Now on the Democratic side, the candidate is George McClellan, and you might remember McClellan because he was one of the first commanders of the Union Army, and Lincoln sent him down for failing to really go after the enemy strongly in the early stages of the war. Now the Democratic Party is having some internal struggles at this point. There are some who think that the war against the South is very foolish, that no one should be fighting in the North to end slavery, which Lincoln has clearly made a war goal by this point. And so many just wish to have peace with the South on the terms of the South, which is as a separate nation with the continuation of slavery. And then there are those Democrats who would like to continue the war, and McClellan ends up being one of those. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
Now the Democratic Party is having some internal struggles at this point. There are some who think that the war against the South is very foolish, that no one should be fighting in the North to end slavery, which Lincoln has clearly made a war goal by this point. And so many just wish to have peace with the South on the terms of the South, which is as a separate nation with the continuation of slavery. And then there are those Democrats who would like to continue the war, and McClellan ends up being one of those. Obviously being a general, it would have been pretty difficult for him to say that the war was pointless without having disappointed so many people who had fought for him or with him. Now this election is really crucial because many in the South are hoping that if someone other than Lincoln gets elected, if the Democrats are elected, that is gonna be their last best hope to try to achieve their independence from the Union. If Lincoln is replaced by someone who is pro-South, who is pro-slavery, then perhaps they'll just end the war and that will be the end of it. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
And then there are those Democrats who would like to continue the war, and McClellan ends up being one of those. Obviously being a general, it would have been pretty difficult for him to say that the war was pointless without having disappointed so many people who had fought for him or with him. Now this election is really crucial because many in the South are hoping that if someone other than Lincoln gets elected, if the Democrats are elected, that is gonna be their last best hope to try to achieve their independence from the Union. If Lincoln is replaced by someone who is pro-South, who is pro-slavery, then perhaps they'll just end the war and that will be the end of it. So whites in the South are really holding on to the idea that Lincoln will be defeated in 1864. And there are a lot of reasons to think that Lincoln might have been defeated in this. Lincoln himself was not very sure that he would win this election. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
If Lincoln is replaced by someone who is pro-South, who is pro-slavery, then perhaps they'll just end the war and that will be the end of it. So whites in the South are really holding on to the idea that Lincoln will be defeated in 1864. And there are a lot of reasons to think that Lincoln might have been defeated in this. Lincoln himself was not very sure that he would win this election. Remember that there has not been a single American president who has been reelected in more than 30 years. The last president to be reelected was Andrew Jackson in 1832. So re-election is a very unusual thing at this point. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
Lincoln himself was not very sure that he would win this election. Remember that there has not been a single American president who has been reelected in more than 30 years. The last president to be reelected was Andrew Jackson in 1832. So re-election is a very unusual thing at this point. And McClellan was a very popular general. He got popular because he was very keen to spare the lives of his soldiers, which is quite different than the approach that Ulysses S. Grant will end up taking at the end of the war. But there are several things that go in Lincoln's favor. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
So re-election is a very unusual thing at this point. And McClellan was a very popular general. He got popular because he was very keen to spare the lives of his soldiers, which is quite different than the approach that Ulysses S. Grant will end up taking at the end of the war. But there are several things that go in Lincoln's favor. One is the capture of Atlanta by Sherman in September. And some very good military victories also in this Eastern theater of the war. So McClellan, who had hoped that the war was going badly, didn't have much on his side when it actually came to election day, because at that point, the war was going pretty well. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
But there are several things that go in Lincoln's favor. One is the capture of Atlanta by Sherman in September. And some very good military victories also in this Eastern theater of the war. So McClellan, who had hoped that the war was going badly, didn't have much on his side when it actually came to election day, because at that point, the war was going pretty well. Remember that Sherman is here in Atlanta, and Sherman is now going to pick up what is known as his march to the sea when he cuts a 60-mile-wide swath of destruction through Georgia. So things are looking pretty good for the United States at this point. And the turning point for Lincoln in this election is really the votes of the soldiers. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
So McClellan, who had hoped that the war was going badly, didn't have much on his side when it actually came to election day, because at that point, the war was going pretty well. Remember that Sherman is here in Atlanta, and Sherman is now going to pick up what is known as his march to the sea when he cuts a 60-mile-wide swath of destruction through Georgia. So things are looking pretty good for the United States at this point. And the turning point for Lincoln in this election is really the votes of the soldiers. And they have a really strong pro-Lincoln mandate. One of Lincoln's campaign slogans is vote as you shot. So Lincoln ends up trouncing McClellan in the election of 1864, and he really comes away with a strong mandate to finish the war, finish it with an unconditional surrender of the South and the end of slavery. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
And the turning point for Lincoln in this election is really the votes of the soldiers. And they have a really strong pro-Lincoln mandate. One of Lincoln's campaign slogans is vote as you shot. So Lincoln ends up trouncing McClellan in the election of 1864, and he really comes away with a strong mandate to finish the war, finish it with an unconditional surrender of the South and the end of slavery. And having triumphed in the election of 1864, Lincoln gets even more good news from Georgia, which is a telegram from General Sherman from the city of Savannah saying, Mr. President, I wish to offer you the city of Savannah as a Christmas present. So on December 25th, 1864, Sherman's march to the sea has concluded, and from there, he's going to start heading north. And we'll get to that in the next video. | Later stages of the Civil War part 2 (2).mp3 |
And to a large degree, he was able to keep the U.S. out of war because the German Empire had pulled back from its unrestricted submarine warfare. After the sinking of the Lusitania and how angered America had gotten, they said, okay, we're not going to attack passenger vessels anymore. We're only going to attack things that are definitely British non-passenger vessels. But as we go into January of 1917, the British blockade on the central powers was having its effect and the central powers were getting desperate, in particular Germany. And so they were eager to essentially do the same to the British, once again go with the unrestricted submarine warfare. But the Germans knew that if they were to go back to this, it was likely that the U.S. would enter the war on the side of the Allies. So knowing that that was likely to happen, they said, well, how could we slow the U.S. down? | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
But as we go into January of 1917, the British blockade on the central powers was having its effect and the central powers were getting desperate, in particular Germany. And so they were eager to essentially do the same to the British, once again go with the unrestricted submarine warfare. But the Germans knew that if they were to go back to this, it was likely that the U.S. would enter the war on the side of the Allies. So knowing that that was likely to happen, they said, well, how could we slow the U.S. down? And the thinking was, well, maybe we could somehow enlist the help of Mexico, which at the time was not on the best terms with the United States. And so Arthur Zimmerman, who was the German foreign secretary, the equivalent of the United States Secretary of State, the foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman sends an encoded telegram to the Mexicans. And it's encoded especially because it has to go over lines that are controlled by the Americans. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
So knowing that that was likely to happen, they said, well, how could we slow the U.S. down? And the thinking was, well, maybe we could somehow enlist the help of Mexico, which at the time was not on the best terms with the United States. And so Arthur Zimmerman, who was the German foreign secretary, the equivalent of the United States Secretary of State, the foreign minister, Arthur Zimmerman sends an encoded telegram to the Mexicans. And it's encoded especially because it has to go over lines that are controlled by the Americans. And in it, he actually proposes an alliance to slow the Americans down. So this is what he wrote. So this is the encoded telegram and then it was actually intercepted by British intelligence and decoded and then shared with the Americans. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
And it's encoded especially because it has to go over lines that are controlled by the Americans. And in it, he actually proposes an alliance to slow the Americans down. So this is what he wrote. So this is the encoded telegram and then it was actually intercepted by British intelligence and decoded and then shared with the Americans. And then that was also then made public to the American public. And so this is why it's fascinating to actually read this stuff. This is January 1917. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
So this is the encoded telegram and then it was actually intercepted by British intelligence and decoded and then shared with the Americans. And then that was also then made public to the American public. And so this is why it's fascinating to actually read this stuff. This is January 1917. This is the Germans talking to the Mexicans. We intend to begin on the 1st of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
This is January 1917. This is the Germans talking to the Mexicans. We intend to begin on the 1st of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis. Make war together, make peace together. Generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis. Make war together, make peace together. Generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This settlement or the settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the president, they're talking about the president of Mexico, of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should on his own initiative invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the president's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. This settlement or the settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the president, they're talking about the president of Mexico, of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should on his own initiative invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the president's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace. Signed, Zimmerman. Now, the Mexicans when they read this, they really didn't take it too seriously. They didn't think that they could seriously engage the US in a war, they could seriously take back or occupy these territories, so they didn't really think much of it. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Please call the president's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace. Signed, Zimmerman. Now, the Mexicans when they read this, they really didn't take it too seriously. They didn't think that they could seriously engage the US in a war, they could seriously take back or occupy these territories, so they didn't really think much of it. The real effect of this telegram was to make the American public angry. They were going to go back into the unrestricted submarine warfare and the Germans themselves talk about ruthless, ruthless employment of our submarines. When people talk about what were the causes, what brought the US into war, the ones that are typically cited are the unrestricted submarine warfare, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram that was trying to get Mexico to somehow get into a war with the US and reclaim these territories. | Zimmermann Telegram The 20th century World history Khan Academy (2).mp3 |
Now, we've already talked about the settlements at Virginia and those of Massachusetts, and a little bit about the settlement of New York, which was first founded by the Dutch as New Amsterdam in 1624. In this video, I wanna talk a little bit more about the middle colonies, these colonies that were here kind of on the center of the eastern seaboard, south of Massachusetts and north of the southern colonies of Virginia, particularly Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and this little tiny purple colony right here, Delaware. Now, what's unique about the middle colonies compared to the northern or southern colonies is not just that they were kind of in this central location, but also that they were proprietary colonies, which means that they were the property of individual owners. So unlike Jamestown, for example, which was founded by a company, the Virginia Company, the colony of Pennsylvania was founded by one man, William Penn, who was granted his land by the King of England in exchange for a debt that the King had owed his father. So in the early years of these proprietary colonies, they were kind of the playgrounds of the people who owned them. They could set their own rules for the most part, and that freedom resulted in colonies that were more ethnically diverse and more religiously tolerant than their neighbors to the north or south. So let's look at the colony of Pennsylvania as an example. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
So unlike Jamestown, for example, which was founded by a company, the Virginia Company, the colony of Pennsylvania was founded by one man, William Penn, who was granted his land by the King of England in exchange for a debt that the King had owed his father. So in the early years of these proprietary colonies, they were kind of the playgrounds of the people who owned them. They could set their own rules for the most part, and that freedom resulted in colonies that were more ethnically diverse and more religiously tolerant than their neighbors to the north or south. So let's look at the colony of Pennsylvania as an example. So Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn, and Penn was a English aristocrat from a very good family who converted to the Quaker religion. Although the real name for Quakers was the Religious Society of Friends, they got the nickname Quaker because they seemed to quake when they were in religious ecstasy. Like the Puritans, Quakers faced religious persecution in England because they did not follow the Church of England, which was a form of rebellion against the King, who was the head of the Church of England. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
So let's look at the colony of Pennsylvania as an example. So Pennsylvania was founded by William Penn, and Penn was a English aristocrat from a very good family who converted to the Quaker religion. Although the real name for Quakers was the Religious Society of Friends, they got the nickname Quaker because they seemed to quake when they were in religious ecstasy. Like the Puritans, Quakers faced religious persecution in England because they did not follow the Church of England, which was a form of rebellion against the King, who was the head of the Church of England. But in addition to the Quakers' strange ideas about religion, they also had some strange ideas for the time period about social status. Quakers believed that all people had the light of God in them and therefore were more or less equal in stature. So for example, women could preach in church, as you see in this image right here. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Like the Puritans, Quakers faced religious persecution in England because they did not follow the Church of England, which was a form of rebellion against the King, who was the head of the Church of England. But in addition to the Quakers' strange ideas about religion, they also had some strange ideas for the time period about social status. Quakers believed that all people had the light of God in them and therefore were more or less equal in stature. So for example, women could preach in church, as you see in this image right here. So when William Penn converted to the Quaker faith, Penn had a really rough time of it. So he came upon an idea that perhaps he could make a haven for Quakers and for religious dissenters more broadly in the New World. So he negotiated with the King, who owed his father a debt, and in exchange for this debt, the King granted Penn land in North America, which was named Penn's Sylvania, Sylvania being Latin for forest, so kind of Penn's forest, Penn's woods. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
So for example, women could preach in church, as you see in this image right here. So when William Penn converted to the Quaker faith, Penn had a really rough time of it. So he came upon an idea that perhaps he could make a haven for Quakers and for religious dissenters more broadly in the New World. So he negotiated with the King, who owed his father a debt, and in exchange for this debt, the King granted Penn land in North America, which was named Penn's Sylvania, Sylvania being Latin for forest, so kind of Penn's forest, Penn's woods. And Penn decided to extend his religious tolerance not just to Quakers, but really to all people, all Protestants, no matter what their particular sect could have citizenship, run for office, vote, and Catholics and even Jews were welcome in Pennsylvania, although they did not have the right to vote or hold office. This was incredibly radical for the time period when it was common for nations to have a state religion and to persecute those who didn't follow that religion. Penn advertised for his new colony and particularly hoped that industrious people, people with skills like carpentry or blacksmithing would come to Pennsylvania and make it a prosperous colony, and they did. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
So he negotiated with the King, who owed his father a debt, and in exchange for this debt, the King granted Penn land in North America, which was named Penn's Sylvania, Sylvania being Latin for forest, so kind of Penn's forest, Penn's woods. And Penn decided to extend his religious tolerance not just to Quakers, but really to all people, all Protestants, no matter what their particular sect could have citizenship, run for office, vote, and Catholics and even Jews were welcome in Pennsylvania, although they did not have the right to vote or hold office. This was incredibly radical for the time period when it was common for nations to have a state religion and to persecute those who didn't follow that religion. Penn advertised for his new colony and particularly hoped that industrious people, people with skills like carpentry or blacksmithing would come to Pennsylvania and make it a prosperous colony, and they did. The ease of getting citizenship, the religious tolerance, and the plentiful and cheap land of Pennsylvania drew many settlers to the colony, such that its principal city, Philadelphia, was the largest city in North America before the Revolution, with about 40,000 inhabitants. Because Quakers were pacifists, that is, they did not believe in violence or war, they even lived peacefully with Native Americans in the early years of Pennsylvania settlement. But as more emigrants of different faiths came to Pennsylvania and began pushing west, that short era of peaceful cohabitation ended. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Penn advertised for his new colony and particularly hoped that industrious people, people with skills like carpentry or blacksmithing would come to Pennsylvania and make it a prosperous colony, and they did. The ease of getting citizenship, the religious tolerance, and the plentiful and cheap land of Pennsylvania drew many settlers to the colony, such that its principal city, Philadelphia, was the largest city in North America before the Revolution, with about 40,000 inhabitants. Because Quakers were pacifists, that is, they did not believe in violence or war, they even lived peacefully with Native Americans in the early years of Pennsylvania settlement. But as more emigrants of different faiths came to Pennsylvania and began pushing west, that short era of peaceful cohabitation ended. Likewise, because Quakers believed in the innate equality of all human beings, they were not fond of slavery. The environment in the Middle Colonies was not so cold as it was in the North, not so hot as it was in the South. It was kind of middling. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
But as more emigrants of different faiths came to Pennsylvania and began pushing west, that short era of peaceful cohabitation ended. Likewise, because Quakers believed in the innate equality of all human beings, they were not fond of slavery. The environment in the Middle Colonies was not so cold as it was in the North, not so hot as it was in the South. It was kind of middling. And so it was a very good place for farming, particularly cereal crops like wheat. You can see this print here shows wheat growing in this field, and just as the name suggests, Pennsylvania had a lot of wood, so it was also a good place for timber. And the excellent ports at Philadelphia and New York City made it an excellent place for trade. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
It was kind of middling. And so it was a very good place for farming, particularly cereal crops like wheat. You can see this print here shows wheat growing in this field, and just as the name suggests, Pennsylvania had a lot of wood, so it was also a good place for timber. And the excellent ports at Philadelphia and New York City made it an excellent place for trade. Because it was such a good place to grow food, the Middle Colonies got the nickname the Breadbasket Colonies. And the patterns of land ownership reflect this. Since the soil was good, your average farmer owned more land than a New England farmer, but not as much as a Virginia farmer who would have had many acres to grow tobacco. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
And the excellent ports at Philadelphia and New York City made it an excellent place for trade. Because it was such a good place to grow food, the Middle Colonies got the nickname the Breadbasket Colonies. And the patterns of land ownership reflect this. Since the soil was good, your average farmer owned more land than a New England farmer, but not as much as a Virginia farmer who would have had many acres to grow tobacco. So much like the environment, the farms in the Middle Colonies were middling in size. In fact, if I had to put the Middle Colonies on a spectrum, in many places I'd put them right in the middle. When it came to an economy that was more agrarian, the Middle Colonies had a little bit of both. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Since the soil was good, your average farmer owned more land than a New England farmer, but not as much as a Virginia farmer who would have had many acres to grow tobacco. So much like the environment, the farms in the Middle Colonies were middling in size. In fact, if I had to put the Middle Colonies on a spectrum, in many places I'd put them right in the middle. When it came to an economy that was more agrarian, the Middle Colonies had a little bit of both. Unlike the Chesapeake and Southern economies, which were strongly agrarian, and unlike the New England colonies, who began manufacturing quite early. Likewise, when it comes to the distribution of wealth in the Middle Colonies, once again, I'd put the Middle Colonies right here in the center. There were plenty of middling farmers, many indentured servants, and a handful of people who became quite wealthy. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
When it came to an economy that was more agrarian, the Middle Colonies had a little bit of both. Unlike the Chesapeake and Southern economies, which were strongly agrarian, and unlike the New England colonies, who began manufacturing quite early. Likewise, when it comes to the distribution of wealth in the Middle Colonies, once again, I'd put the Middle Colonies right here in the center. There were plenty of middling farmers, many indentured servants, and a handful of people who became quite wealthy. Unlike the Chesapeake, where there were a handful of extremely wealthy landowners, while most people lived at the bottom of the social scale, and unlike New England, where small farming led to a fairly even middle class. So the Middle Colonies had a mixed economy of industry and farming, and a fairly balanced class structure, with people at many different levels. Putting them smack dab in the middle. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
There were plenty of middling farmers, many indentured servants, and a handful of people who became quite wealthy. Unlike the Chesapeake, where there were a handful of extremely wealthy landowners, while most people lived at the bottom of the social scale, and unlike New England, where small farming led to a fairly even middle class. So the Middle Colonies had a mixed economy of industry and farming, and a fairly balanced class structure, with people at many different levels. Putting them smack dab in the middle. But for all the ways that the Middle Colonies were middling, there were also a few ways that they were quite extraordinary. We've already mentioned that the Middle Colonies had a level of religious freedom that was virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. For example, Pennsylvania extended citizenship to all Protestants, and tolerated Catholics and Jews. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Putting them smack dab in the middle. But for all the ways that the Middle Colonies were middling, there were also a few ways that they were quite extraordinary. We've already mentioned that the Middle Colonies had a level of religious freedom that was virtually unmatched anywhere else in the world. For example, Pennsylvania extended citizenship to all Protestants, and tolerated Catholics and Jews. In comparison, the Chesapeake and Southern Colonies required citizens to belong to the Anglican faith, the Church of England, and religious tolerance for the Catholic Church in Maryland, and New Englanders were extremely strict. For example, in Massachusetts Bay, anyone who was not a Puritan was expelled or executed, although there is, of course, the exception of Rhode Island, where religious dissenters could find safe haven. The other extraordinary aspect of these Middle Colonies was just the sheer amount of ethnic diversity there was. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
For example, Pennsylvania extended citizenship to all Protestants, and tolerated Catholics and Jews. In comparison, the Chesapeake and Southern Colonies required citizens to belong to the Anglican faith, the Church of England, and religious tolerance for the Catholic Church in Maryland, and New Englanders were extremely strict. For example, in Massachusetts Bay, anyone who was not a Puritan was expelled or executed, although there is, of course, the exception of Rhode Island, where religious dissenters could find safe haven. The other extraordinary aspect of these Middle Colonies was just the sheer amount of ethnic diversity there was. By the time of the American Revolution, less than half, only about 49%, of inhabitants were from England or had an English background. The rest were German, French, Dutch, Scotch-Irish, and just a few Africans, as there was relatively little slavery. In comparison, New England was perhaps the least diverse of the colonies. | The Middle colonies Period 2 1607-1754 AP US History Khan Academy.mp3 |
Hey, Becca. Hi, Kim. All right, so we're here to talk about Uncle Tom's Cabin, and I think this is such an interesting book, because when Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he said to her, so you're the little lady that started this great war. He said Uncle Tom's Cabin actually started the Civil War. So how does a book start a war? I think that's a really good question, Kim, and these next two videos are going to help us understand a little bit more why Lincoln said that. How does a little book start a war? | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
He said Uncle Tom's Cabin actually started the Civil War. So how does a book start a war? I think that's a really good question, Kim, and these next two videos are going to help us understand a little bit more why Lincoln said that. How does a little book start a war? So this book was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Here she is, Stowe. And Harriet Beecher Stowe was born in Litchfield, Connecticut to this kind of great abolitionist family. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
How does a little book start a war? So this book was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe. Here she is, Stowe. And Harriet Beecher Stowe was born in Litchfield, Connecticut to this kind of great abolitionist family. So what's abolitionism, Kim? Well, abolitionism was the belief, mostly in the early 19th century, that slavery should be ended immediately. So there were varieties of beliefs about the institution of slavery in early America. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
And Harriet Beecher Stowe was born in Litchfield, Connecticut to this kind of great abolitionist family. So what's abolitionism, Kim? Well, abolitionism was the belief, mostly in the early 19th century, that slavery should be ended immediately. So there were varieties of beliefs about the institution of slavery in early America. Some people obviously were very pro-slavery, believed that it was a natural institution, sanctioned by the Bible. Some people, like Abraham Lincoln, at least early in his political career, just wanted slavery to stay where it was. And those were what we would call free soilers, or anti-slavery advocates. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
So there were varieties of beliefs about the institution of slavery in early America. Some people obviously were very pro-slavery, believed that it was a natural institution, sanctioned by the Bible. Some people, like Abraham Lincoln, at least early in his political career, just wanted slavery to stay where it was. And those were what we would call free soilers, or anti-slavery advocates. They said, all right, we can't get rid of slavery in the South. It's too entrenched there as an institution, but we can make sure that it does not spread to any of the Western territories that we might settle in the future. But abolitionists were the strongest opponents of slavery. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
And those were what we would call free soilers, or anti-slavery advocates. They said, all right, we can't get rid of slavery in the South. It's too entrenched there as an institution, but we can make sure that it does not spread to any of the Western territories that we might settle in the future. But abolitionists were the strongest opponents of slavery. They said that slavery should be ended today, everywhere in the United States and the world, and that it is an immoral, unchristian institution. So these Western territories were a really big part of the increasing tension over the institution of slavery in the 1850s. So in 1848, the United States won the Mexican-American War, and they got a whole bunch of new territory that had once been Mexico, and these will become the states of Texas and Oklahoma and many of the sort of Midwestern states we have today. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
But abolitionists were the strongest opponents of slavery. They said that slavery should be ended today, everywhere in the United States and the world, and that it is an immoral, unchristian institution. So these Western territories were a really big part of the increasing tension over the institution of slavery in the 1850s. So in 1848, the United States won the Mexican-American War, and they got a whole bunch of new territory that had once been Mexico, and these will become the states of Texas and Oklahoma and many of the sort of Midwestern states we have today. But this now threatened the balance of power between those slave-holding states in US Congress and those that were free states. So now everyone is wondering, is slavery going to spread to the West? Should slavery spread to the West? | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
So in 1848, the United States won the Mexican-American War, and they got a whole bunch of new territory that had once been Mexico, and these will become the states of Texas and Oklahoma and many of the sort of Midwestern states we have today. But this now threatened the balance of power between those slave-holding states in US Congress and those that were free states. So now everyone is wondering, is slavery going to spread to the West? Should slavery spread to the West? And this kind of anxiety about the Western expansion of slavery was more tense and became more sectionally divided after the Compromise of 1850. So the Compromise of 1850 happened right here in 1850. And the Compromise of 1850, I like to think of it kind of like a band-aid over this sectional tension. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
Should slavery spread to the West? And this kind of anxiety about the Western expansion of slavery was more tense and became more sectionally divided after the Compromise of 1850. So the Compromise of 1850 happened right here in 1850. And the Compromise of 1850, I like to think of it kind of like a band-aid over this sectional tension. So I'll draw you guys a little band-aid. This is like a gaping wound, right? And the Compromise of 1850 is just like this tiny little band-aid that's kind of holding this dam together to mix my metaphors. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
And the Compromise of 1850, I like to think of it kind of like a band-aid over this sectional tension. So I'll draw you guys a little band-aid. This is like a gaping wound, right? And the Compromise of 1850 is just like this tiny little band-aid that's kind of holding this dam together to mix my metaphors. The Compromise of 1850 actually admitted California as a free state, which was a really big win for the North, obviously. Right, lots of gold. But it also had a really strong fugitive slave act. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
And the Compromise of 1850 is just like this tiny little band-aid that's kind of holding this dam together to mix my metaphors. The Compromise of 1850 actually admitted California as a free state, which was a really big win for the North, obviously. Right, lots of gold. But it also had a really strong fugitive slave act. So this was a really kind of critical part of the Compromise of 1850, and this was a big win for the South. So why was it a big win? Well, the Fugitive Slave Act said that if a marshal was in your town requesting your help in rounding up an escaped slave, you had to help that marshal or face charges yourself. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
But it also had a really strong fugitive slave act. So this was a really kind of critical part of the Compromise of 1850, and this was a big win for the South. So why was it a big win? Well, the Fugitive Slave Act said that if a marshal was in your town requesting your help in rounding up an escaped slave, you had to help that marshal or face charges yourself. So this meant that any time that someone who was enslaved in the South made a run for the North, a run for Canada, as many of the enslaved people did, anyone in the North might be drafted to help return that person to the South. And if they didn't, they were oftentimes fined, and this really made all Northerners participatory in slavery. Even if they weren't slaveholders themselves or living on a plantation in the South, Northerners were participating in the way that slavery was held together by disallowing runaway slaves from continuing their lives in free territories. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
Well, the Fugitive Slave Act said that if a marshal was in your town requesting your help in rounding up an escaped slave, you had to help that marshal or face charges yourself. So this meant that any time that someone who was enslaved in the South made a run for the North, a run for Canada, as many of the enslaved people did, anyone in the North might be drafted to help return that person to the South. And if they didn't, they were oftentimes fined, and this really made all Northerners participatory in slavery. Even if they weren't slaveholders themselves or living on a plantation in the South, Northerners were participating in the way that slavery was held together by disallowing runaway slaves from continuing their lives in free territories. So you can imagine how this might really galvanize a Northern audience into action about slavery, because before, you might think, well, I don't like slavery, but what does it have to do with me, right? I'm just a grain miller living in Pennsylvania. None of my business. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
Even if they weren't slaveholders themselves or living on a plantation in the South, Northerners were participating in the way that slavery was held together by disallowing runaway slaves from continuing their lives in free territories. So you can imagine how this might really galvanize a Northern audience into action about slavery, because before, you might think, well, I don't like slavery, but what does it have to do with me, right? I'm just a grain miller living in Pennsylvania. None of my business. I don't like it, but I can't do anything about it, and it's not my fault. Now, all of a sudden, if an escaped slave comes past your house and a marshal follows him or her, now you've gotta be a person to round that person up, and so that means you have to participate in slavery directly, and so you might find yourself thinking, you know what, I refuse to do that, and that means that I really do hate slavery. And this was definitely the sentiment that Stowe and her family had on the Underground Railroad. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
None of my business. I don't like it, but I can't do anything about it, and it's not my fault. Now, all of a sudden, if an escaped slave comes past your house and a marshal follows him or her, now you've gotta be a person to round that person up, and so that means you have to participate in slavery directly, and so you might find yourself thinking, you know what, I refuse to do that, and that means that I really do hate slavery. And this was definitely the sentiment that Stowe and her family had on the Underground Railroad. So Stowe lived on a stop in the Underground Railroad, and that was this passageway for Southern slaves to get to the North, and Stowe and her husband actually helped a lot of runaway slaves. So the Underground Railroad wasn't like a literal railroad, right? I mean, that would be pretty sweet if there were a railroad that went under the ground all the way up to Canada, but it was more like a sort of informal network of people who might help escaped slaves, direct them to food and shelter, and just kind of send them along to the next waypost on their trip either to the North or to Canada. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
And this was definitely the sentiment that Stowe and her family had on the Underground Railroad. So Stowe lived on a stop in the Underground Railroad, and that was this passageway for Southern slaves to get to the North, and Stowe and her husband actually helped a lot of runaway slaves. So the Underground Railroad wasn't like a literal railroad, right? I mean, that would be pretty sweet if there were a railroad that went under the ground all the way up to Canada, but it was more like a sort of informal network of people who might help escaped slaves, direct them to food and shelter, and just kind of send them along to the next waypost on their trip either to the North or to Canada. And so when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed with the Compromise of 1850, the Band-Aid, this really upset Harriet Beecher Stowe and really was one of the main catalysts for her writing this book. She also witnessed a slave auction, and this Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about as just this terrible kind of scene of a family being just torn apart. And this was a really common practice within slavery that the unit of the family was not respected as slaveholders wanted to sell their slaves to different plantations throughout the South, and this slave auction really became the basis for the plot of Uncle Tom's Cabin. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
I mean, that would be pretty sweet if there were a railroad that went under the ground all the way up to Canada, but it was more like a sort of informal network of people who might help escaped slaves, direct them to food and shelter, and just kind of send them along to the next waypost on their trip either to the North or to Canada. And so when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed with the Compromise of 1850, the Band-Aid, this really upset Harriet Beecher Stowe and really was one of the main catalysts for her writing this book. She also witnessed a slave auction, and this Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote about as just this terrible kind of scene of a family being just torn apart. And this was a really common practice within slavery that the unit of the family was not respected as slaveholders wanted to sell their slaves to different plantations throughout the South, and this slave auction really became the basis for the plot of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Slave auctions were absolutely terrible. In fact, not long before the Civil War, the main slave auction site in Washington, D.C. was just around the corner from the White House. So imagine walking down the thoroughfare of this great democracy, seeing the President's House, the seat of government, and then turning a corner and seeing people being sold off the block. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
And this was a really common practice within slavery that the unit of the family was not respected as slaveholders wanted to sell their slaves to different plantations throughout the South, and this slave auction really became the basis for the plot of Uncle Tom's Cabin. Slave auctions were absolutely terrible. In fact, not long before the Civil War, the main slave auction site in Washington, D.C. was just around the corner from the White House. So imagine walking down the thoroughfare of this great democracy, seeing the President's House, the seat of government, and then turning a corner and seeing people being sold off the block. You know, Abraham Lincoln saw a slave auction in New Orleans, and he said it was one of the things that most influenced him to hate slavery, just witnessing these families being torn apart. And imagine either watching a mother being sold away from her infant children or being that mother, wondering what it would be like if you're ever going to see them again. I think that's a really important point, just to show that this was something that was happening all around the United States, and this was just abolitionist fervor was bubbling up. | Uncle Tom's Cabin part 1.mp3 |
I'm Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute and we're here with our third lesson on the Reconstruction Amendments and I'm with Jeffrey Rosen the CEO of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. So now we get to the 15th Amendment. First let's put it on the timeline. When did it happen? Passed by Congress February 26, 1869 and ratified February 3rd, 1870. And we call these the Reconstruction Amendments but let's get the whole timeline straight. Reconstruction basically begins with the end of the Civil War in April 1865 and pretty much ends with the end of Ulysses S. Grant's presidency at the beginning of 1877 when Rutherford Hayes takes over. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
When did it happen? Passed by Congress February 26, 1869 and ratified February 3rd, 1870. And we call these the Reconstruction Amendments but let's get the whole timeline straight. Reconstruction basically begins with the end of the Civil War in April 1865 and pretty much ends with the end of Ulysses S. Grant's presidency at the beginning of 1877 when Rutherford Hayes takes over. Is that about right? That's exactly right. The Compromise of 1876 which gives Hayes the presidency and the deal is that the Southern Democrats agreed to support Hayes in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
Reconstruction basically begins with the end of the Civil War in April 1865 and pretty much ends with the end of Ulysses S. Grant's presidency at the beginning of 1877 when Rutherford Hayes takes over. Is that about right? That's exactly right. The Compromise of 1876 which gives Hayes the presidency and the deal is that the Southern Democrats agreed to support Hayes in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. So Reconstruction was a big broad thing that helped change the way the laws were applied in the South but at the core were these three amendments right? They are the mark that was left in the Constitution constitutionalizing the vision of the Reconstruction Republicans. So let's get to the 15th. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
The Compromise of 1876 which gives Hayes the presidency and the deal is that the Southern Democrats agreed to support Hayes in exchange for the end of Reconstruction. So Reconstruction was a big broad thing that helped change the way the laws were applied in the South but at the core were these three amendments right? They are the mark that was left in the Constitution constitutionalizing the vision of the Reconstruction Republicans. So let's get to the 15th. What does it say? It says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In other words freed slaves could vote. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
So let's get to the 15th. What does it say? It says the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. In other words freed slaves could vote. In theory. So why well first of all why was it necessary? Wasn't that an obvious thing? | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
In other words freed slaves could vote. In theory. So why well first of all why was it necessary? Wasn't that an obvious thing? It was necessary because the 14th Amendment which we talked about last time only protected civil rights not political rights. This was a distinction that was important to the Reconstruction Republicans. They thought that although a citizen of Maryland could go to Virginia and make contracts the same Maryland citizen couldn't go to Virginia and vote in Virginia elections or on Virginia juries and therefore all section 2 of the 14th Amendment also seems to anticipate that southern states might deny African-Americans the right to vote but reduce their apportionment in Congress accordingly. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
Wasn't that an obvious thing? It was necessary because the 14th Amendment which we talked about last time only protected civil rights not political rights. This was a distinction that was important to the Reconstruction Republicans. They thought that although a citizen of Maryland could go to Virginia and make contracts the same Maryland citizen couldn't go to Virginia and vote in Virginia elections or on Virginia juries and therefore all section 2 of the 14th Amendment also seems to anticipate that southern states might deny African-Americans the right to vote but reduce their apportionment in Congress accordingly. That's why even though the 14th Amendment guarantees equality of civil rights it took the 15th Amendment to guarantee equality of the political right of voting. Now you said in theory it allowed freed slaves to vote. Why just in theory? | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
They thought that although a citizen of Maryland could go to Virginia and make contracts the same Maryland citizen couldn't go to Virginia and vote in Virginia elections or on Virginia juries and therefore all section 2 of the 14th Amendment also seems to anticipate that southern states might deny African-Americans the right to vote but reduce their apportionment in Congress accordingly. That's why even though the 14th Amendment guarantees equality of civil rights it took the 15th Amendment to guarantee equality of the political right of voting. Now you said in theory it allowed freed slaves to vote. Why just in theory? Because soon after the 15th Amendment was passed southern states did their darndest to disenfranchise African-Americans by ruses and other stratagems. They passed grandfather clauses that prohibited people from voting if they hadn't been registered before the Civil War. They passed poll taxes that made it impossible for African-Americans to afford to cast a vote and the Supreme Court in a series of decisions some of them written by liberal heroes like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld these appalling stratagems so in practice African-Americans could not meaningfully vote in many southern states until after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
Why just in theory? Because soon after the 15th Amendment was passed southern states did their darndest to disenfranchise African-Americans by ruses and other stratagems. They passed grandfather clauses that prohibited people from voting if they hadn't been registered before the Civil War. They passed poll taxes that made it impossible for African-Americans to afford to cast a vote and the Supreme Court in a series of decisions some of them written by liberal heroes like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld these appalling stratagems so in practice African-Americans could not meaningfully vote in many southern states until after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. It really took the Voting Rights Act of 1965 meaningfully to give African-Americans the right to vote that they were promised more than a century earlier. Under what ground did Oliver Wendell Holmes and others sort of overturn what is the clear intent of this amendment? Well it was an amazing decision it was called Giles, the Giles decision and Holmes basically said only formal forms of disenfranchisement are prohibited by the amendments. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
They passed poll taxes that made it impossible for African-Americans to afford to cast a vote and the Supreme Court in a series of decisions some of them written by liberal heroes like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upheld these appalling stratagems so in practice African-Americans could not meaningfully vote in many southern states until after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. It really took the Voting Rights Act of 1965 meaningfully to give African-Americans the right to vote that they were promised more than a century earlier. Under what ground did Oliver Wendell Holmes and others sort of overturn what is the clear intent of this amendment? Well it was an amazing decision it was called Giles, the Giles decision and Holmes basically said only formal forms of disenfranchisement are prohibited by the amendments. Ruses that have the effect of disenfranchisement aren't covered and then he said basically if the southerners are perpetrating a fraud on African-American citizens the court can't be a party to the fraud by presuming to strike it down. It was a really striking and appalling decision. And when was that decision? | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
Well it was an amazing decision it was called Giles, the Giles decision and Holmes basically said only formal forms of disenfranchisement are prohibited by the amendments. Ruses that have the effect of disenfranchisement aren't covered and then he said basically if the southerners are perpetrating a fraud on African-American citizens the court can't be a party to the fraud by presuming to strike it down. It was a really striking and appalling decision. And when was that decision? It was soon after it was in the 1870s soon after the 15th Amendment was passed. So pretty much these reconstruct or at least the 15th Amendment is undermined or at least made irrelevant within ten years of passage. This was the time of Jim Crow beginning to rise up. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
And when was that decision? It was soon after it was in the 1870s soon after the 15th Amendment was passed. So pretty much these reconstruct or at least the 15th Amendment is undermined or at least made irrelevant within ten years of passage. This was the time of Jim Crow beginning to rise up. It was the time that the court upheld a railroad segregation in Plessy versus Ferguson. It's such a tragic story. It was it was also a time when the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which had been passed to guarantee equality in accommodations and access to public places. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
This was the time of Jim Crow beginning to rise up. It was the time that the court upheld a railroad segregation in Plessy versus Ferguson. It's such a tragic story. It was it was also a time when the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which had been passed to guarantee equality in accommodations and access to public places. So you have this shining promise of Reconstruction embodied in these amendments but very quickly southern states act to deny the promise with their laws and the Supreme Court just repeatedly and relentlessly sides with the South and against the intention of the framers of the Reconstruction. So throughout the 1870s and it's not just the South now it's the Supreme Court as well throughout the 1870s you said Plessy versus Ferguson that basically says what? That's by 1890 and that says that railroad segregation where southern states are compelling railroad carriages to separate blacks and whites is perfectly consistent with the 14th Amendment that there was a stirring dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan saying that the Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
It was it was also a time when the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which had been passed to guarantee equality in accommodations and access to public places. So you have this shining promise of Reconstruction embodied in these amendments but very quickly southern states act to deny the promise with their laws and the Supreme Court just repeatedly and relentlessly sides with the South and against the intention of the framers of the Reconstruction. So throughout the 1870s and it's not just the South now it's the Supreme Court as well throughout the 1870s you said Plessy versus Ferguson that basically says what? That's by 1890 and that says that railroad segregation where southern states are compelling railroad carriages to separate blacks and whites is perfectly consistent with the 14th Amendment that there was a stirring dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan saying that the Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Thurgood Marshall read Harlan's dissent before arguing Brown versus Board of Education and it wasn't until 1954 that the Supreme Court essentially overturns Plessy and recognizes that segregation is a violation of the 14th Amendment. So from the 1870s to the 1890s we pretty much have the undermining of at least the 15th Amendment and somewhat the Equal Protection Clause and it's almost a hundred years. How does it happen a hundred years later? | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
That's by 1890 and that says that railroad segregation where southern states are compelling railroad carriages to separate blacks and whites is perfectly consistent with the 14th Amendment that there was a stirring dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan saying that the Constitution is colorblind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. Thurgood Marshall read Harlan's dissent before arguing Brown versus Board of Education and it wasn't until 1954 that the Supreme Court essentially overturns Plessy and recognizes that segregation is a violation of the 14th Amendment. So from the 1870s to the 1890s we pretty much have the undermining of at least the 15th Amendment and somewhat the Equal Protection Clause and it's almost a hundred years. How does it happen a hundred years later? We have the Voting Rights Act. What else? I suppose it really began after World War II when African Americans served with whites honorably in the war and Major League Baseball was integrated and public opinion about segregation began to change. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
How does it happen a hundred years later? We have the Voting Rights Act. What else? I suppose it really began after World War II when African Americans served with whites honorably in the war and Major League Baseball was integrated and public opinion about segregation began to change. When the Roosevelt and Truman administrations argued against segregation and by the time the court struck down school segregation in 1854 repudiating the doctrine of separate but equal public opinion was nationally against segregation. 54% of the country opposed segregation in 1954. And explain what the phrase separate but equal how does that come about? | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
I suppose it really began after World War II when African Americans served with whites honorably in the war and Major League Baseball was integrated and public opinion about segregation began to change. When the Roosevelt and Truman administrations argued against segregation and by the time the court struck down school segregation in 1854 repudiating the doctrine of separate but equal public opinion was nationally against segregation. 54% of the country opposed segregation in 1954. And explain what the phrase separate but equal how does that come about? Well it came about I suppose from Plessy versus Ferguson which recognized that you couldn't have completely unequal railroad carriages or facilities but said it was fine to separate blacks and whites because if anyone assumed that there was any intention to degrade African Americans that was just their construction you know as long as the railroad carriages were basically the same then there was no inequality. Brown versus Board of Education repudiated that unconvincing ruse and recognized that both the purpose and effect of segregation was to stigmatize and degrade African Americans as inferior and less worthy than whites. And so what we have are these three Reconstruction amendments passed between 1865 and 1870 and they really come into full force exactly a century later with the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the other Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
And explain what the phrase separate but equal how does that come about? Well it came about I suppose from Plessy versus Ferguson which recognized that you couldn't have completely unequal railroad carriages or facilities but said it was fine to separate blacks and whites because if anyone assumed that there was any intention to degrade African Americans that was just their construction you know as long as the railroad carriages were basically the same then there was no inequality. Brown versus Board of Education repudiated that unconvincing ruse and recognized that both the purpose and effect of segregation was to stigmatize and degrade African Americans as inferior and less worthy than whites. And so what we have are these three Reconstruction amendments passed between 1865 and 1870 and they really come into full force exactly a century later with the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the other Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Is that about right? That's exactly right and that reminds us that any notion we have that our rights come mostly from the Supreme Court is not consistent with history because although we fought a civil war and passed these three heroic constitutional amendments it wasn't until the people of the United States rose up in the Civil Rights Movement to actually make these rights a reality. Thank You Jeffrey Rosen. | Reconstruction Amendments 15th Amendment (2).mp3 |
And if we start in the late 1800s, and in the late 1800s, so we've had the Civil War, we've had Reconstruction, you actually have a crisis, kind of a depression after the Civil War, but then after that depression, at the end of the 1800s, the United States comes roaring back, it becomes a major industrialized nation. And part of that industrializing process, you have some gentlemen who become very, very, very wealthy. You have Cornelius Vanderbilt, his wealth was in the rail and the steamboats. John D. Rockefeller, known by some people as the wealthiest man in history. And that may or may not be the case, but he was definitely the wealthiest man in American history. And if you inflation adjust, so some accounts will say he had $1.5 billion, you might say, wait, I know of people who have more than $1.5 billion, but if you inflation adjust the amount of money that John D. Rockefeller had at the turn of the century, it comes out to $400 billion to $600 billion. So this is a lot more than anyone that we know of in present times. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
John D. Rockefeller, known by some people as the wealthiest man in history. And that may or may not be the case, but he was definitely the wealthiest man in American history. And if you inflation adjust, so some accounts will say he had $1.5 billion, you might say, wait, I know of people who have more than $1.5 billion, but if you inflation adjust the amount of money that John D. Rockefeller had at the turn of the century, it comes out to $400 billion to $600 billion. So this is a lot more than anyone that we know of in present times. Andrew Carnegie in the steel business, his net worth, if you look at it in a present value basis, is approximately $300 billion. You have people like J.P. Morgan. And although his net worth, also a huge, huge amount, but where his power was really in, since he was kind of in control of the financial world at that time, his financial power was tremendous, maybe more than the type of power that these gentlemen could wield. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
So this is a lot more than anyone that we know of in present times. Andrew Carnegie in the steel business, his net worth, if you look at it in a present value basis, is approximately $300 billion. You have people like J.P. Morgan. And although his net worth, also a huge, huge amount, but where his power was really in, since he was kind of in control of the financial world at that time, his financial power was tremendous, maybe more than the type of power that these gentlemen could wield. But the amount of power that him and his associates controlled through their various holdings, some have said, amounted to the amount of wealth in all of the United States west of the Mississippi. So these are hugely powerful, hugely wealthy men, the type of power and wealth that we actually have not seen since. And you can decide what you think of these people. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And although his net worth, also a huge, huge amount, but where his power was really in, since he was kind of in control of the financial world at that time, his financial power was tremendous, maybe more than the type of power that these gentlemen could wield. But the amount of power that him and his associates controlled through their various holdings, some have said, amounted to the amount of wealth in all of the United States west of the Mississippi. So these are hugely powerful, hugely wealthy men, the type of power and wealth that we actually have not seen since. And you can decide what you think of these people. On some level, all of these people were, I'm sure they were good entrepreneurs, I'm sure they were hardworking, I'm sure they innovated in their own way. But they're also known for, back then, this might be why it would have given fuel to someone like Marx, who would look at people like this and say, look, these people have so much power. Labor has no power compared to them. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And you can decide what you think of these people. On some level, all of these people were, I'm sure they were good entrepreneurs, I'm sure they were hardworking, I'm sure they innovated in their own way. But they're also known for, back then, this might be why it would have given fuel to someone like Marx, who would look at people like this and say, look, these people have so much power. Labor has no power compared to them. Some of the employees in some of these companies, it's hard to really say that they are independent human beings. They're almost like slave labor. They live on the campus. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
Labor has no power compared to them. Some of the employees in some of these companies, it's hard to really say that they are independent human beings. They're almost like slave labor. They live on the campus. They have no rights. People are dying while they're working for some of these organizations. So you can decide where you will. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
They live on the campus. They have no rights. People are dying while they're working for some of these organizations. So you can decide where you will. But the reality is that these people were hugely, hugely, hugely wealthy, hugely powerful. Now you fast forward to the early 1900s, and you start having a little bit of a backlash against these, I guess the system in which these type of people can thrive. And you have Teddy Roosevelt comes to power in 1901. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
So you can decide where you will. But the reality is that these people were hugely, hugely, hugely wealthy, hugely powerful. Now you fast forward to the early 1900s, and you start having a little bit of a backlash against these, I guess the system in which these type of people can thrive. And you have Teddy Roosevelt comes to power in 1901. And one of the things, he's famous for many things, but one of the things he's famous for is being a trust buster. And when he talks about trust, a trust is really just a large corporation. And the idea is that, look, Standard Oil, you have essentially taken control of the refining in the oil industry in America. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And you have Teddy Roosevelt comes to power in 1901. And one of the things, he's famous for many things, but one of the things he's famous for is being a trust buster. And when he talks about trust, a trust is really just a large corporation. And the idea is that, look, Standard Oil, you have essentially taken control of the refining in the oil industry in America. You have become a monopolist. You need to be broken up. This is anti-competitive. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And the idea is that, look, Standard Oil, you have essentially taken control of the refining in the oil industry in America. You have become a monopolist. You need to be broken up. This is anti-competitive. Remember, capitalism, for capitalism's sake, is maybe not that good of an idea. What we want is competition. What we want is innovation. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
This is anti-competitive. Remember, capitalism, for capitalism's sake, is maybe not that good of an idea. What we want is competition. What we want is innovation. What we want is incentives. And if you control everything and no one can compete, that's not helping anyone. So Teddy Roosevelt, it didn't happen during his administration, but he kind of started the trust-busting process. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
What we want is innovation. What we want is incentives. And if you control everything and no one can compete, that's not helping anyone. So Teddy Roosevelt, it didn't happen during his administration, but he kind of started the trust-busting process. And in the next administration, in Taft's administration, you actually have Standard Oil being broken up. And just to get an idea of how big Standard Oil was, if you take Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and pretty much every other major U.S. oil company, put them together, I'm not saying that's the equivalent of Standard Oil, that's actually what Standard Oil was. That when Standard Oil was broken up during Taft's administration, it was actually broken up into all of these corporations. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
So Teddy Roosevelt, it didn't happen during his administration, but he kind of started the trust-busting process. And in the next administration, in Taft's administration, you actually have Standard Oil being broken up. And just to get an idea of how big Standard Oil was, if you take Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, and pretty much every other major U.S. oil company, put them together, I'm not saying that's the equivalent of Standard Oil, that's actually what Standard Oil was. That when Standard Oil was broken up during Taft's administration, it was actually broken up into all of these corporations. And you can look into it more. So you can imagine how much power someone like that would hold. So the pendulum swung in one extreme at the end of the 1800s. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
That when Standard Oil was broken up during Taft's administration, it was actually broken up into all of these corporations. And you can look into it more. So you can imagine how much power someone like that would hold. So the pendulum swung in one extreme at the end of the 1800s. Roosevelt comes in, once again, Republican president, very strong president. But he said, look, enough is enough. This is too much. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
So the pendulum swung in one extreme at the end of the 1800s. Roosevelt comes in, once again, Republican president, very strong president. But he said, look, enough is enough. This is too much. This is not in the best interest of the American people. We need competition. And you fast forward even more. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
This is too much. This is not in the best interest of the American people. We need competition. And you fast forward even more. In the 20s, you have this huge boom. Things are looking well. Whenever there's a boom, people look the other way. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And you fast forward even more. In the 20s, you have this huge boom. Things are looking well. Whenever there's a boom, people look the other way. People think, oh, we don't need much regulation. We don't need much government intervention. But then booms, many times, almost always, lead to busts. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
Whenever there's a boom, people look the other way. People think, oh, we don't need much regulation. We don't need much government intervention. But then booms, many times, almost always, lead to busts. And then you have the Great Crash of 29, leads into the Great Depression. People are unhappy with Herbert Hoover. FDR comes into power in kind of the heart of the Great Depression. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
But then booms, many times, almost always, lead to busts. And then you have the Great Crash of 29, leads into the Great Depression. People are unhappy with Herbert Hoover. FDR comes into power in kind of the heart of the Great Depression. He stays president until World War II. And in his attempts to take the country out of the Great Depression, he has his New Deal set of programs. And some of the New Deal programs were essentially to make use of all of the labor and industrial capacity that was going unused during the Great Depression. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
FDR comes into power in kind of the heart of the Great Depression. He stays president until World War II. And in his attempts to take the country out of the Great Depression, he has his New Deal set of programs. And some of the New Deal programs were essentially to make use of all of the labor and industrial capacity that was going unused during the Great Depression. So it was kind of this Keynesian philosophy that if no one else is going to supply the demand to use all of these factories and to use all these people, the government will. And so there were these huge public works projects. But there was also regulation getting involved here to kind of stop some of the things that were perceived caused the boom and the bust. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And some of the New Deal programs were essentially to make use of all of the labor and industrial capacity that was going unused during the Great Depression. So it was kind of this Keynesian philosophy that if no one else is going to supply the demand to use all of these factories and to use all these people, the government will. And so there were these huge public works projects. But there was also regulation getting involved here to kind of stop some of the things that were perceived caused the boom and the bust. And so you have the Glass-Steagall Act, which is most famous for separating investment banking from depository institutions, essentially saying the same people who are taking your deposits can't on the other side take your deposits and gamble with them in the stock market. This is when Social Security passed. So this, once again, providing a safety net, going slightly in the socialist direction, saying, look, if we're a civilized, rich country, we can't have people going hungry in the streets. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
But there was also regulation getting involved here to kind of stop some of the things that were perceived caused the boom and the bust. And so you have the Glass-Steagall Act, which is most famous for separating investment banking from depository institutions, essentially saying the same people who are taking your deposits can't on the other side take your deposits and gamble with them in the stock market. This is when Social Security passed. So this, once again, providing a safety net, going slightly in the socialist direction, saying, look, if we're a civilized, rich country, we can't have people going hungry in the streets. We can't have older people who've done their work, who've contributed to society, now all of a sudden that we're in the middle of a depression, we can't have them starving to death or not having them have at least a basic level of existence. So you have Social Security, safety nets coming into play. You have Fannie Mae being created, which the Fannie Mae narrative plays all the way into 2008 and continues to be a part of the story with the American housing situation. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
So this, once again, providing a safety net, going slightly in the socialist direction, saying, look, if we're a civilized, rich country, we can't have people going hungry in the streets. We can't have older people who've done their work, who've contributed to society, now all of a sudden that we're in the middle of a depression, we can't have them starving to death or not having them have at least a basic level of existence. So you have Social Security, safety nets coming into play. You have Fannie Mae being created, which the Fannie Mae narrative plays all the way into 2008 and continues to be a part of the story with the American housing situation. But what this is is an organization that essentially can buy mortgages. And when it's buying mortgages, it's essentially lending money to people for mortgages. And the reason why the government did this is the government, this is a separate organization that implicitly had the backing of the government, which says that Fannie Mae can borrow from people, but if for whatever reason one day Fannie Mae can't pay back its loans, the government will back it up. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
You have Fannie Mae being created, which the Fannie Mae narrative plays all the way into 2008 and continues to be a part of the story with the American housing situation. But what this is is an organization that essentially can buy mortgages. And when it's buying mortgages, it's essentially lending money to people for mortgages. And the reason why the government did this is the government, this is a separate organization that implicitly had the backing of the government, which says that Fannie Mae can borrow from people, but if for whatever reason one day Fannie Mae can't pay back its loans, the government will back it up. It will make good on those loans. So what that allowed Fannie Mae to do is to borrow money at very low interest rates, essentially close to the rate that the U.S. government could borrow at, and then loan that money at very low interest rates to people who want to buy houses. So essentially subsidized home ownership. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |
And the reason why the government did this is the government, this is a separate organization that implicitly had the backing of the government, which says that Fannie Mae can borrow from people, but if for whatever reason one day Fannie Mae can't pay back its loans, the government will back it up. It will make good on those loans. So what that allowed Fannie Mae to do is to borrow money at very low interest rates, essentially close to the rate that the U.S. government could borrow at, and then loan that money at very low interest rates to people who want to buy houses. So essentially subsidized home ownership. Subsidized... I should say not home ownership, subsidized home borrowing. And I want to make that clear because if everyone now has more borrowing power to buy a home, then most likely that will just increase the price of houses. | 20th Century Capitalism and Regulation in the United States.mp3 |