Watch American History tv, tonight and over the weekend, on cspan3. All right. Since we have a very ontime sort of calming of the room, i am going to go ahead and kick us off. Thank you, so much, for coming to the violence in american politics panel. As i think we will see it as an incredibly timely panel. And a really good time to be putting these topics into the context of a broader American History. So im going to start off by introducing our panel. And then everyones going to give their opening statement. And then, we will start the conversation. So who is sitting right next to me is t. Cole jones. Assistant professor at purdue university. He is author of captives of liberty prisoners of war and the politics of vengeance in the American Reserve lugz, which will be released this fall by the university of pennsylvania press. In addition to his book, hes published articles in the journal of the early republic, the journal of military history and the new england quarterly. He is currently working on a project that is provisionally titled patrick henrys war, the struggle for empire in the revolutionary west. Kelly Carter Jackson is a 19th century historian at wellsly college. Her book force and freedom, black abolitionists and the politics of violence, out from University Pennsylvania press, provides the first historical analysis exclusively focused on the tactical uses of violence against black activists. And was featured in the history channels documentary roots. A history revealed. Which was nominated for an naacp image award in 2016. Gideon is a ph. D. Candidate in history at northwestern university. His dissertation explores the causes and consequences of the crisis of economic voter intimidation in the late 19th century United States. His research has received the support of the congressional center, the guilder institute of American History, the andrew w. Mellin foundation. And finally, felix is assistant professor of history at Austin College and his research focuses on the intersection of prejudice, politics, and popular culture. He is the author and assistant editor of two volumes of Eleanor Roosevelts collected papers. So, coming from charlottesville, where i watched as neofascists clashed with protestors and anti fascists, i was one the site of visible Political Violence in the last few years. It was also a moment that opened a debate about Political Violence, particularly as americans learned more about antifa. But, while the protestors who stood up to the neonazis and neoconfederates in charlottesville were often if not universally praised, even their supporters were unsure what to do with violence. On the rise in the past few years, would it cost moral high ground . Did antifas refusal to reject violence make both sides bad . Those are the kinds of questions i run into when speaking to groups about charlottesville. And one thing thats missing from those questions, often, is any sense of history. Maybe to put it more correctly, there is a mistake in our limited sense of history that runs through those questions. One that runs through the socalled nonviolent civil rights of the 1950s and 60s where, as the story goes, justice was achieved not through war but through peaceful persistence. Im really glad we are having this conversation today that takes us back to the nations founding and the activities of the ku klux klan. Excellent. Thank you, so much, katie, for that introduction. Or nikki. Excuse me. And, katie, forganizing this amazing conference. So my research addresses a perennial theme. The relationship between violence and political change. In both the popular and scholarly imagination, Political Revolution conjures images of Political Violence. From the violence enacted during the arab spring in 2011, to that of the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the french revolutionary terror of 179394, revolutionary political change seems to come hand in hand with widespread violence. Cultural historians, drawing on the insights of their colleagues and the social scientists social sciences describe violence as a language. Its a way of communicating when other forms of communication break down. When petition and protests fail to achieve the desired change, discourse can devolve into violence. These historians have been at pains to demonstrate that specific acts of violence have historically contingent meanings. In other words, the vocabulary of violence changes over time. But the correlation between Political Violence or excuse me Political Revolution and Political Violence, often, appears to be transhistorical. Violence is the common denominator of revolutions. But what about the American Revolution . Unlike the french, haitian, mexican, russian, chinese, countless other Political Revolutions, americas revolution seemed stayed, even restrained. Although hardly nonviolent, we can all thank mel gibson for his gory reminder in his boxoffice disappointment, the patriot. Neither, does it appear to have much in common with the revolutionary violence that followed. American revolutionary violence appears legitimate, justified, even comical. Think Boston Tea Party or tar a and feathers. While wearing knee breaches and powdered wigs. As gordon wood noted in his seminal study, the radicalism of the American Revolution, americas experience does not appear to resemble that of the revolutions of other natuions i which people were killed, property destroyed, and everything turned upside down. For wood, the revolution radicalism lay in republican ideology and popular sovereignty. This was ideology that would not only transform government but society as well. All of which, was achieved by the early 19th century, without ever erecting a guillotine in philadelphia. The apparent absence of widespread violence has prompted some historians to question whether the American Revolution was really all that revolutionary. After all, king george the 3rd survived the conflict with his head intact. Perhaps, americas revolution was unique. Maybe, itself even exceptional. In this framing, the american model appears as a shining city upon a hill, an example to be emulated, if not exported, around the globe. Yet, to make this claim requires willful ignorance of the eight years of bloody and divisive civil warfare that pitted britishamericans against their metropolitan cousins. Liberated slaves against their masters and indigenous nations against one another. Most historians of the American Revolution have segregated the political and social transformations of the era from the actual fighting. Thus, we have a war for independence, with its fifes and drums, its generals and battles, which is separate from the Political Revolution of 1776. When thinking of the political history, scholars often concentrate on the declaration of independences enlightened preamble and forget jeffersons v vitriolic for ravaging our coasts, burning our towns, and destroying lives of our people. This segregation of the war from the revolution would baffle historians of the french, haitian, or Russian Revolutions. But it wouldve pleased the Founding Fathers, to no end, as as john adams wrote jefferson, in 1815, what do we mean by the revolution . The war . That was no part of the revolution. It was only a cause or was only an effect and consequence of it. Adams and his peers, in the founding elite, scrubbed the wars violence from their histories. Theirs was the good revolution. The moderate revolution. The gentlemanly revolution. But adams revolution was not the one its victims remembered. Recently, historians, such as alan taylor, patrick griffin, holger hook, to name a view, no doubt influenced by our post9 11 world ongoing confrontation with Political Violence have worked to bridge the gap between the revolutions rhetoric and its reality. Unearthing shocking levels of violence in the process. But highlighting this violence is not enough. We must seek to understand its social, cultural, and political causes and effects. If not, we will continue to accept a narrative of the American Revolution, divided into two halves. On the one side, the war, destructive and repressive. And, on the other, the Political Revolution. Idealistic, though unfinished. Breaking down this barrier requires making the connection between revolutionary political change and revolutionary violence. Forthcoming book and t cycle of vengeance that treatment generated centers the war and horrors and consequences of the American Revolution. It argues that the Political Revolution, rejektsicting monar in favor of a republic founded on popular sovereignty had the unintended consequences of transforming the war waged to achieve it. By making the people sovereign, the revolution shattered the political elites monopoly unlegitimate violence fostering the conditions necessary for a cycle of vengeful reprisals. Prisoners of war, as victims of revolutionary violence, reveal a side of the revolution the founders preferred forgotten. The violence of the democratization of war. Thank you very much. Good morning. So i want to i want to tell a couple stories. Some of those stories will come from my book. For some freedom, black abolitionists and the politics of violence. I look at a lot of violence taking place particularly before the civil war, i siee the 1850s as one of the most violent decades to prelude the war. The story of senator Charles Sumner from massachusetts and his caning while he is in his Senate Chamber. But then, i also want to go a little bit further because i know were familiar with the story. And tell you how people responded and, in particular, how black people responded to this caning. Charles sumner, just to give you a little context, giving a speech, talking about the kansas nebraska act and talking about how horrible he thinks this act is. So Charles Sumner spoke out against the kansasnebraska act, during a speech in which he ridiculed its authors Steven Douglas and andrew butler. Using incendiary language and sexual imagery, he claimed southerners claims against kansas. Senator accused senator butler of being in love with the harlet. Can you imagine for speaking for three hours . His threehour speech was so controversial that Steven Douglas remarked to a colleague this damn fool is going to get himself shot by some other damn fool. Sure enough, preston brooks, a congressman from South Carolina and nephew to andrew butler, intended to make a lesson out of sumner. Political violence took place, not only in the remote and growing territories of the west, but, also in the Senate Chamber of the nations capitol. Just two days later, on may 22nd, while sitting at his chamber desk, brooks approached sumner and said, quote, i have read your speech twice over carefully. It is libel on South Carolina and mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine. At that moment, he began to strike sumner over the head using a thick cane with a gold head. Sumner was repeatedly bludgeoned over and over his entire body. He tried to crawl under his desk for refuge. But the desk was bolted to the floor. It only served as a holding pin while brooks continued to take aim at him. Brooks beat him so relentlessly that the desk eventually released from the floor. As sumner lay bloody and unconscious, brooks only stopped when his cane broke. In the end, sumner miraculously survived. It took him more than three years to recover from his injuries. And some might argue that he never fully recovered. But what i think is interesting is the letters of support that poured in for Charles Sumner from the black community. And one letter that id like to share with you, in particular. Sumners attack validated africanamericans desires to intervene in politics at the National Level and have their voices heard. One of the most remarkable responses to sumners beating came from the new orleans daily creole. The oped was titled, quote, a challenge to mr. Brooks. Mrs. Amelia robinson called the attacks cowardly. To beat a man, unarmed and down. She referred to brooks as a cringing puppy, who she would gladly challenge to meet her any place with, quote, pistols, rifles, or cow hides. The outrage, robinson felt, had no bearing on her sex, she like other black leaders was exacerbated by the sacrifices it cost her dearly. She was 50 years old and a widow. She had lost two sons in the mexican war. And brooks actions represented a direct affront to her own liberty. Quote, now, then mr. Brooks robinson challenged, let us see some of your boasted courage. You are afraid to meet a man. Dare you meet a woman. Robinson declared that she was anxious to do her country some service, either by whipping or choking the cowardly ruffian who threatened what she perceived americas most precious right, the freedom of speech. Robinson was willing to put her strong words into print. And more than any other man, she admitted to what she was willing to do publicly. While many were praying for sumner, robinson illustrates what she was willing to do with the pistol. And i like this because theres no anonymity behind it. She puts her name on it. Like, first name, last name. She gives her age, right . She lets her know she lets him know, like, who she is. So much is revealed by robinsons remarks. She was publicly challenging senator brooks and even taunting him. She wrote with rage that signalled she had little to lose. The fact that sumner was immobilized for most of the beating under his desk was perhaps the greatest act of cowardice on brooks part. Not only was robinson ready to meet brooks, weapon for weapon, with pistols, rifles, or cowhides but she claimed she would even whip him out questions, quote, by choking the cowardly ruffian. Robinson was 50 and fearless. And few men, white or black, responded to threats to meet sumners violence with violence. Robinson was willing to not just to take on any man but a public figure and a politician. More than sentiment regarded as southern barbarism, threatening violence against a white man, should also be dually noted. The Sexual Violence that white men committed against black women was rampant. And sumner was not wrong to allude to sexual imagery in his speech. It is likely that robinsons rage also stemmed from violence that enslaved black women faced daily. Accordingly, her response was clear. Meet violence with violence. Or, more specifically, meet cowardly acts with justice. Thank you. Is this on . Hello . Its on. Now, its on. Thank you. So, today, im going to talk about my research, which focuses on a form of voter intimidation that might not actually fit all that well with the topic of the panel because its an explicitly nonviolent one. Or at least it seems to be. I am talking about whats called economic voter intimidation. Now, this kind of intimidation is typically done by an employer against an employee. And its been part of American History since the beginning. There are cases of swintimidati, what often was called coercion, going all the way back into the 18th century. But what i argue is that, in the last half of the 19th century, particularly after what was called the panic of 1873. It was a really disastrous financial panic. There was a crisis of economic intimidation. The number of incidence dramatically increased. The number of people who were dependent for their wages, on one boss, dramatically increased at this time as well. And at the same time as political contests became closer and closer, it became reasonable, it became a tactic used by many politicians, by many employers, to use their employees to try to win close elections. And im going to give you a few examples of how that worked. And then, also, talk about the longterm consequences of this kind of intimidation on the laws that we have today. Because, to an extent that historians and political scientists have not grappled with economic intimidation is why we vote in secret. And economic intimidation, in particular, activated labor con stit con stit constituencies in a way they never did before. So what did voting look like before we did in secret . Ill give you one example kind of a perfect example of it from osuego, new york. The armory. It was a large building in the center of town. But to get into that polling place, to get to the center of the building, you had to pass by two tables. One staffed by republican, one staffed by democratic operatives. And they were the ones who gave you your ballot. The ballot were printed by parties. And the operatives who worked for the Republican Party at that polling place happened to also work for a man named thomason kingsford. You might use kingsford. Still, a Large Company today. And it was widely known that, as the kingsford employees, as the men who worked for thomason kingford, would remind them they were expected to vote the wait thompson kingford wanted them to. And as one of the democratic observers testified, the workers dare not do it. They dare not change their ticket. They dare not try to fight against thompson kingsford because theyre watched. That was the key element. Theyre being watched as they walk into the polls. And, because they were precarious at work in this very tough economic times, and also insecure at the polls, workers often had little recourse. This happened throughout the country and the crisis