Prof. Kastor i want to begin today by talking about the International Exposition of arts manufacturers and products of the soil and mind. You all want to go to that, dont you . Do any of you know what this actually was . It was also referred to as the centennial International Exposition. It was held in philadelphia from may to november 1876. It was supposed to celebrate the centennial of american independence, and ideally it was supposed to celebrate the reunion of the nation following the civil war, which was really the first worlds fair. But in the midst of the celebration, there was terrible news. I will explain to you what it was, but i think it was a very useful moment, when the Northern Plains and the delaware valley, two of the five regions we have looked at, they seem so far from each other and were in fact closely connected. What i want to do is use this moment, 1876, 1877, to really reflect back on what we have done this semester and give you a sense of where we are going, to talk about continuity and change in the 19th century, because right before the exam, i and was emphasizing a lot of changes. In 1877, the last troops left the confederacy. Will in theory, reconstruction had come to an end. All the states in the union were once again in the union, you selfgoverning, federal authority prevailed throughout the United States. As i mentioned last week, reconstruction, or more specifically the reconstruction amendments to the u. S. Constitution, seemed to have redefined what it meant to be american, what it meant to be a u. S. Citizen. That is a really convenient way of thinking about it. That the civil war and reconstruction constitutes the logical Halfway Point of u. S. History, and it is a fulcrum. It is before the civil war and after the civil war. If you are a civil war and historian, it is all before all the civil war and after the civil war. Here is the way we tend to talk about it. There is the notion of before the civil war and a different one after. You have probably taken classes where the civil war is right in the middle. That many universities where the university has two semesters, that first semester ends in 1865 or 1876 or 1877. Dont get me wrong, the civil war and reconstruction were important. They changed things a lot. Most importantly for the enslaved africanamericans, who gained their freedom as a result of the civil war only to find that freedom was in some way constrained in the years that followed. But what i want to do today is put the civil war and reconstruction located in context, and that context is both chronological and spatial. I want to situate the civil war and reconstruction alongside other events, but also consider what the civil war and reconstruction might have meant for the United States as a continental nation, because the war was not fought throughout all the United States, and reconstruction only applied to certain states. I want to revisit the major things we have visited this semester, and i want to move beyond the sites of battle between the north and south. You see some important continuities. Last week and the week before, i talked about changes. Today, i want to talk about continuity and changes. Continuities that were well in place in the 19th century and changes that began before the civil war, continued after the civil war, and werent caused entirely by it. I want to do that by moving far from where most of the battles were bought in the civil war. I want to move to the Northern Plains. Let me ask you a question. The last time we talked about the Northern Plains, what was it, what was going on there . What do you remember . Anyone . Come on. Yes, front row. Student the expedition had moved westward and they had made contact with natives. Prof. Kastor and what was the impact of the lewis and Clark Expedition on the people who lived in the Northern Plains . Student they were able to trade for more goods. Prof. Kastor true, but the longterm impact was more limited. Lewis and clark and the people who accompanied them come and go, but power and settlement there did not change. What else, anybody else . No . Dont want the microphone in front of you . So be it. One thing you mention was the lewis and Clark Expedition arrived. But when we talk about the Northern Plains, i emphasized the real action was between the native peoples who lived there. That had remained the case through much of the 19th century. This began to change in the Third Quarter of the 19th century as the United States decided it was going to settle matters in the west once and for all. In june 1865, right after robert e. Lees surrender, William Tecumseh sherman did not get a vacation. William Tecumseh Sherman was reassigned to st. Louis to assume command of a military department that extended from the Mississippi River to the rocky mountains. Lets return to sherman. That middle name should be telling you something. Do you remember where sherman was born . What state he was born in . Yes . Student [indiscernible] prof. Kastor very close. Why would settlers in ohio named their son after an indian leader who had fought against white settlers . Does anyone want to take a guess . Do you want to try . Student they were more integrated with native americans. Prof. Kastor that is a great point. It is different from st. Louis, where there are mixed race children, but it is very much part of the regional culture. It is part of the way that People Living in the old northwest lay claim to the territory. They will say, our history here was connected to our interaction and conflict with the indians. What i want to emphasize is the fact he was called William Tecumseh sherman does not mean he had any great love for native people. He lived here in st. Louis. When ulysses s. Grant became president of the United States , both grant and sherman succeeded him as commander of the military. It was on display during the civil war. We talked about the way grant saw the opposition to reconstruction as an assault on federal authority. The same applied when they looked at the west. More specifically, on the way indians remained selfgoverning in the northwest and the southwest. They engaged in a policy to change that. It is a policy that is led by veterans of the civil war, a war that was constructed to save the union, a war with an army that eventually liberated enslaved africanamericans, while this same army would engage in extending federal sovereignty to the west. One of the best examples of that was a young man. He was born in ohio, the civil war gave him a chance. For grant and sherman, the war really recreated opportunities for them. They were struggling in private life before the war began. This young officer graduated last in his class at west point, but by the end of the civil war, he was a general. He became a general at the age of 23. But when the war was over, he was reduced in rank to captain. It was a big humiliation to him. He sought going west as an as he headed west, he saw this as an opportunity to erase his humiliation. What was his name . Can anyone take a guess . George armstrong custer. Now, custer served in shermans army, and i dont mean the army he led to the sea during the civil war, but the army that sherman commanded as commanding general in the late 1860s and early 1870s. And awaiting custer and others was a native American Society undergoing its own profound changes. To understand those changes, lets focus back on lakota. They were powerful residents of the missouri valley, and they had eyed the United States with some degree of suspicion. They saw it as their role to connect trading routes. Throughout much of the 18th and early 19th centuries, they had sought to establish and preserve their own authority and their own autonomy. Much of their own diplomacy, much of their negotiation and conflict in the 19th century was with their native neighbors. But in the final decades of the 19th century, they faced a new challenge from the United States, from an army led by men like George Armstrong custer. One of the leaders was a man named red cloud. His father was probably a brule indian. And later in life, he became a chief. Much of this was in conflict with other indian groups on the Northern Plains. It was part of an elaborate diplomatic situation in the area. But then, the United States army arrived, increasingly attempting to assert its authority. The result is a war between the United States and the lakota that lasted from 1866 to 1867. As red cloud and other leaders like him faced the entire might of the United States army and at first, the indians are winning, and this should be no surprise to you. This is land they know, they are better organized, and they have much better local knowledge. This is very much like the circumstances i described in the 1790s as the United States reorganized by the constitution, came into conflict with the indians of the eastern woodlands who themselves had recently organized in response to the threat they saw from the United States, and the United States suffered a series of defeats. Bless you. Youre welcome. Only to reorganize resources and eventually mobilize the authority of the federal government to achieve victory. Now to what happens to red cloud. In the same way the u. S. Constitution enabled the United States to beat the pan indian movement, the structural changes to the government that had gone on during the civil war, and to a certain degree during reconstruction, enabled the United States to field an army that could defeat red cloud. In 1868, red cloud was one of the indian representatives who signed on to the treaty of fort laramie, which was one of several landmark treaties that created a system in the west. The crucial features of that, that native americans would live on land that was supervised and governed by the federal government. In many ways, it would be transformed from free agent, from self governing autonomous nations into domestic dependents. Some indians accepted this, some did not. Ended in civil war had 1865, the struggle over sovereignty in the west had not. Throughout the 1860s and 1870s, the indians continue to resist the United States in the Northern Plains. In 1873, George Armstrong custer arrived in the Northern Plains, part of the military presence there of the United States that is supposed to subdue native nations. One of his principal opponents was a man who in some ways would replace red cloud as the military leader and political leader. That was someone most people grow up learning about. Sitting bull took advantage of both the motivation of the men and women who were with him, took advantage of his knowledge of the region to maintain an ongoing conflict with the United States, and he scores his greatest battlefield victory in 1866, and it is against custer. In june, he destroyed custers fort at the battle of little bighorn. It was a devastating loss to the white citizens of the United States, who thought there was no way they could lose to the indians on the Northern Plains. After all, the United States army had just won a civil war against the confederate army. It was news of this defeat that arrived at the centennial in philadelphia. It was so upsetting to the people that heard it. The people reacted as expected. Grant and sherman in the final years of the Grant Administration dispatched more troops to the Northern Plains, eventually putting sitting bull and those with him on the defenses. He eventually fled to canada, and in 1881, he returned to the United States and surrendered. While all of this is going on, there is a similar process at work in the southwest, in the other region we have looked at this semester, where other indian leaders are trying to sustain ongoing resistance to the efforts of the federal government assert its sovereignty over the land that it claimed. It ends in a similar manner. In the way that sitting bull surrendered in 1881, the indians in the southwest eventually were subdued by federal forces. What do you think would be some of those indian groups . Who had been those dominant Political Forces in the southwest . Yes . The comanche and the apache. Therethe comanche and the apache. Very different culturally from the lakota. But facing a very similar diplomatic and military circumstance, which is a more emboldened United States army attempting to make its claims to sovereignty a reality in a way they had never been able to do in the decades before. Indians remained in the United States, but they were forcibly removed to areas where the united where the federal government wanted them to live, and they were supposed to occupy a status as domestic dependents, but not fully emancipated citizens. This is hardly a happy story. I think this story is beginning this story is very important to set the civil war and reconstruction in context. In the west, we see a federal Government Holding true to one of its founding principles, to establish federal sovereignty. That is what the government is supposed to do, establish sovereignty over the land it claims, but also to preserve racial supremacy. But in the east, particularly in the southeast, right before the exam, we considered how the federal government had explored the policy of racial equality during reconstruction. But it had been unable to convert that into reality. What this should remind you of is this is not whatthe federal government has been created to do. It has not been created to promote racial equality. One of the Great Questions we will answer is how and why over the century that followed the federal government would assume a mantle for itself of establishing racial equality. What it does so successfully or not is a different matter, but what matters is how and why did the federal government come to assume this was its role . What do we make of all this . I am emphasizing racial inequality. Equality had no meaning in the 1870s. It is a great question to put to you after an exam where you were thinking about citizenship and freedom. I have been emphasizing inequality so far today. What were the roots of equality in the 1860s and 1870s, or in the years before that . What are the forms of equality that we can talk about when we discussed the United States in the mid19th century . Student the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Prof. Kastor yes, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. And i promise we will. You can certainly talk about the amendments. What are the other forms of equality we have emphasized . Yes . Student going back a little bit, you talked about Andrew Jackson and universal male suffrage. Prof. Kastor absolutely. I am going to connect what you said to what you said. A new you did not plan this, but i know you did not plan this, but they are great points. Anyone else . What are the other forms of equality that we have talked about . You are talking about the equality among individuals. Yes, sir. Student equality between state and periphery. Prof. Kastor equality between center and periphery and state equality. Something we take for granted. But during the era of the civil war, this process remained ongoing. From the end of the mexican war to the end of reconstruction, 10 new states entered the union, most of them in the west. And these continued the process to which the United States claims and sustains a system where equality has several meanings. First of all, there is supposed to be spatial equality between states. Second, there is supposed to be equality between the people. The 13th amendment, what did it do . Abolish slavery. What did the 14th amendment do . Student citizenship to everyone born no, it is the way around. I dont remember. Prof. Kastor that is all right. What is your answer . Student citizenship. Prof. Kastor is he right . It is your lucky day, you are right. What was the 15th amendment . Student voting cannot be denied by race. Prof. Kastor excellent. In some ways, these were reconstruction amendments. The 13th amendment, the elimination of slavery, but i think the 14th and 15th amendments emerged as a logical extension of the way that americans have come to understand and practice freedom and citizenship in the decades before the civil war. Your 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, lets put the 14th and 15th amendments alongside your reference to jacksonian democracy and universal male suffrage. Assumptions about citizenship one of the was that citizenship one of the assumptions about citizenship was that citizenship and suffrage should be connected. In the 1780s and 1790s, that was not the case. What did citizenship mean then at the dawn of the republic . Think back to when you read the constitution. Yes . Representation. Today, many of us assume we believe in the amendment, that citizenship brings with it a guarantee of suffrage. But it guaranteed the bill of rights, certain individual rights, and certain implicit exp