To move to the cloud. As a result, even civilian agencies are turning to cloud services. Monday night at in iraq eastern on the communicators on cspan 2. You are watching American History tv weekend, every weekend on cspan 3. To join the conversation, like a fun facebook. Each week, American History tvs real america brings you archival films that tell the story of 20th century america. Planes lineup to take part in the greatest error invasion in history. Americans, british, and canadians make up this army crossing the rhine in the north. In this leapfrog over german positions east of the rhine. This trip is really necessary for victory, as the first planes get away. Carefully guided to avoid s narl. Its a gigantic task to get the two planes and gliders away from their bases in england safely. A job without presidcedent. Take off instructions Winston Churchill and general eisenhower of their progress from the ground, near the rhine. Then the Prime Minister takes a Vantage Point as the plane nears the objective. Air force and british cameramen made these pictures as the men ready for the jump. This is it. The plane and enables them to jot from both sides, 18 at a time, speeding up the operation. In a matter of seconds, the sky is filled with parachutes. Next, the glider troops. The plane zooms to a landing with the position that comes from the invasion goes forward on schedule. The first wayve of troops are out fast as they wait for their buddies to land. Some are hit by enemy shells. A carrier falls in planes caught in aircraft fire. With more splitsecond timing, artillery opens up. [gunshots] within eight hours, every objective was seized. Antimine tanks care of path on the western front. The infantry exploits from two sides. Right on the heels, many seen in this film are from his camera. The mop up continues, street by street. An officer calls on the nazis to surrender over the loudspeaker. They can take a hand when the going is tough. Civilians are quick to fall. The defense was brief but better. However, Pattons Third Army has struck terror into their minds. It could be a hitler hangover or just a patton pasting. Looming is the ancient castle. Koblenz is again an american hands. This giant seaplane, powered by six motors, was developed during the occupation of france under the noses of the gestapo. The method by which it was built are as eager as the plane specifications. This plane represents frances bid for a place in postwar. France, a pioneer in aviation, stages a come back in the world of flight. Belgium will long be remembered as the site of the airborne division. Eisenhower honors the screaming eagles in a ceremony without parallel in more history. Eisenhower it is a great personal honor to be here today to take part in the ceremony that is unique in American History. Never before has a full division then cited by the War Department by the president for gallantry action. Watching the president is a screen actors. General eisenhower himself salutes the herald division, whose commander turned down the german demand for surrender with the famous word, nuts. Against heavy odds, the yanks stood firm. Next, university of tennessee professor, dan feller and his class discussed Andrew Jackson. They talk about the different ways johnsons presidency has been interpreted by historians. This class is about one hour and 15 minutes. Dr. Feller we are considering the problem of jacksonian democracy. Let me try to frame the problem. There is this phrase, jacksonian democracy, that shows up. Its pervasive and historical literature. What is jacksonian democracy . Is it a Political Movement . Is it merely jacksons Democratic Party . Is so, what does that party stand for. Does it lay legitimate claim to the name of democratic . Or is that just a party label. If the jacksonians are the democracy, does that mean democracy is contested and their opponents are not democratic . Or, if democracy the spirit of an age, in which case jacksonian democracy does that mean a Political Movement, but the political environment that has somehow been democratized from an earlier. . Is the latter, is jacksonian democracy is merely a word to describe the times, then why did we name after jackson . Which brings up the question of to what extent jackson is representative of jacksonian democracy, whatever jacksonian democracy is. Then, another question is to what extent are we talking about politics and to what extent are we talking about something beyond politics . Is jacksonian democracy is a Political Movement, what is the relationship between the Political Movement and wider social phenomenon and social change . We started looking at this from the perspective of arthur sessions are schesinger. We thought he claimed that this is indeed a Political Movement, that democracy contested, and the other people, the Business Community are not democratic. Or are reluctantly democratic. That jacksonian democracy is not as an earlier school. Frederick Jackson Turner would have it as something not come out of the west. American democracy does not come out of the west, except in a monday and political sense that the western states believe everybody ought to have the political vote. According to schelesinger, there is a political component that does not come out of the west. It is an updated version of the jeffersonian resistance to the federalists and the business domination of the federalists. By the jacksonian period, the resistance to business domination is no longer centered among farmers. It is centered among workers. It is centered in the factories in the mills, in the cities, and those are in the east. Just a cities like new york philadelphia, and boston represent the cutting edge of social and economic change, thats where the emerging dare i say it class struggle first takes pla shape. The democrats represent, at their heart, the working class against the employing class. I think we saw it is a class conflict within certain bounds. It is not a once and for all fight to the death struggle to conquer the other side. The two sides being the Business Community and everybody else but particularly the working class. Instead, it is a struggle that produces a slick equal cyclical equilibrium in a society that is democratic and capitalist. The democratic side sometimes gets the upper have politically and fixes the mess that the Business Community made. Then, the Business Community reasserts its power. It comes in control of government, and this happens over and over again. Andrew jackson gets in a pattern of democratic antiBusiness Community reform that started with the jeffersonians but then moves primarily to the cities and his exams abide is exemplified by jackson and later by roosevelt, and kennedy and johnson. Does that some a gift fair summary . Last week, we saw a whole bunch of people responding to this. One more thing, what did the indians have to do with this . Basically nothing. You can tell that story completely, really without mentioning indians at all. And mentioning whats going on in the front tier or the west, only tangentially. So, last week we saw someone responding by saying that this cluster was not a class struggle. Its a struggle between old capitalists and new capitalists. Between old money and new money. People who were already rich and people who wanted to be rich and had to shove aside the old rich. We saw benson suggesting that democracy is indeed the spirit of an age. That the Democratic Party has no particular claim to it. And facts, they do not come to it first. And the also there is a certain disconnection between politics and not so much between politics and society, but between policy politics and electoral politics. Voters are voting ethnocultural antagonisms or reflexively voting for a party that they attach themselves to in the past. We saw marvin meyer suggesting that what jacksonian democracy is not really about is a class conflict, but instead, in his words, a persuasion characterized by jackson and his party as not to much a program but a sense of unease. The whigs speaking to americans hopes, and jacksonian democrat speaking to fears, so that if theres is anything that divides weights and democrats, it is more a frame of mind. Taking that even further, we saw Daniel Walker howe celebrating the whigs as carriers of progress. As optimists. They are, in certain parts of Business Community but it is not a Business Community towering in fear and trying to fight off the bastions of modern india, aity. They are the progresses of their day. The builders, the doers who want to make america better, and who are not unwilling to use government to do that. Those who i think myers and howe sit together very well. Lastly, we have charles sellers coming along some years later and the idea of the market revolution of the 1990s. Sellerss market revolution is his market revolution. It comes back to the idea of class conflict, but supercharges it. It is about a Business Community, or the booze was the bush was where and he has the equilibrium he said, is a capitalist one, we would lose democracy. If democracy one, we would lose capitalism. Seller says, no that is not true, capitalism and democracy do not go together, they are naturally antithetical. What happened in the. Of the market revolution is that the rest of us lost. We have been suffering under bourgeois hegemony ever since. First lessened or for schlesi nger, it is a continuing cyclical pattern over years. For sellers, it is a oneoff. There is a before and after in American History. There is before the american revolution, what sellers calls land characterizing American Society, then there is the market revolution. From then on, it is market. I think the jacksonian period may be unique in the way the different historians, all of them making arguments that are on their face, when you read them compelling, can disagree so completely with each other. You wonder if they are describing the same phenomenon. With that as prologue, we have Michael Rogans subjugation of the american india. Whats rogan got to say about jacksonian democracy and what it is all about . There is a pity sentence that describes the core of jacksonian democracy being primitive rage, nostalgia, and acquisitive capitalism. You ask the question, where does jackson fit in . We can give him the primitive rage leg of that stool. It is pretty clear he is at odds with schlesinger on the components of jacksonian democracy. You think he is at odds with schlesinger. You mentioned specific points but where is he not at odds with him . First of all, with schlesinger you have jacksonian democracy forming in the crucible of the eastern cities where class conflict needs to form, different classes in close proximity to each other. You have rogan, taking place in the west. The story of americans venting their furtive rage toward the west, a place where they can exorcise these feelings of childlike omnipotence. Making claims to paternal authority, it is all about moving to the west. That is not what turner said. It is not like a safety valve for economics, but much more of a Psychological Safety valve. The promise out there can distract you. So jacksonians are looking very much westward rather than eastward. You can go with that is just one to start us with. It does seem to be a striking similarity between sellers argument and the market revolution and rogans argument in this book in the sense that the market quoteunquote underlies everything and is the driving force behind all of the change that is occurring. It is the force that is creating individualism, bourgeois values, but for sellers, where is jackson is the individual, the kind of heroic figure opposing all of these changes, and for rogan, this is jackson is at the forefront of the market revolution. He is the one that rogan says, look, conquering the indians is what liberalism is all about. It is what the market revolution is all about. Without indian lands, the market revolution does not happen. There is a thought that i had and i struggled until i discovered one sentence from this book where to find sweater with struggling with. This idea of paternalism over the indians. What does it mean . I struggled because i was thinking removal, forced removal does not sound necessarily fatherly. But then on page 207 and i was rather excited when i found this. Why the indians were roped into the market revolution could take place the advancing tide of White Settlement in the east would protect them in the west. It was not that they moved toward the west. They saw the error of their ways to accept this notion of capitalist democracy. That is benevolence. This idea of paternal benevolence. The idea of your children moving west. That is an act of salvation for them. Those were latent elements in jacksons psychological arch here. Rogan thinks it is significant using it only 1814 after he has militarily conquered many of them and signed treaties, i wonder if he starts using it then because that is when he begins to sign treaties and that is when the occasion arises. In rogans interpretation this , early paternal language is all about violent paternalism. Paternalism ought to be to dominate, but not to protect. This ties in with the whole thesis about primitive rage. The regressive impulse the , desire of the child for freedom, which is what you mean the west. You need paternal authority, but not responsibility. Eventually i guess they come to this decision, well, can i continue doing this on the grounds of benevolence . That is my take on his take. I think there are also some great quotes by van buren on the world stage they had to justify this removal. You can civilize them, make them capitalist by removing them. You can justify it. Again, it seems to me that he is saying liberal society produces a nostalgia for the paternalistic, more structured society that existed before the revolution, and it is that nostalgia that it creates within americans and most prominently jackson himself. Paternalism evolves to control to oversee indians. Thats another interesting point to me, is this is a similarity i see with schlesinger and with sellers that what came after the revolution or what happened after the revolution is, schlesinger says it in chapter one, the title of chapter one of schlesingers book. The end of arcadia. That is the general sense i get from all of those books. One thing about what you said and what you said. What we have not gotten into that i think we need to, the book is about the centrality of indian removal and what is different with sellers, and rogan argues it is the indian removal that initiates the market revolution by securing, by taking the land out of common use, and putting it into private and secure title, so on and so forth. The other thing with the age of paternalism, you still want to ascribe benevolence to the idea of paternalism and i think rogan makes it clear that from jacksons point of view, indians were subjects. They were not members of the new nation. In the language, it is almost say rhetorical device. Language that jackson used in his later career was paternal benevolence in contrast with his , earlier career which was extermination. The whole idea of what we can do to civilize the indians so many will move west there is no more civilized indian than the ones in georgia who have large scale agriculture and were fitting in quite nicely into the market revolution. Professor feller paternalism actually, that word has a nice sound to it. If i am reading rogan, it seems that paternalism is to some extent a delusion, explainable only by distasteful psychological mechanisms. [laughter] and beyond that, it is a shock. It is a fraud. He actually says, and i think you may be right on this, the dialogue between indians and whites is structured by the great white father. That is not the indians idea. The first time a white man said to an indian, your great white father in washington the guy says, he is not my father. Paternalism is a device that whites use basically in order to justify what they are doing to the indians. And it is also a way of blaming the indians for what happens to them. Have i got that wrong . No. I could not help and i do not want to get off the subject but i could not help thinking, these books were published about the same time, and thinking very much about this other paternal is in. I do not see that in rogan. I think it would have been helpful, and not to criticize the author for not righting something he did not write, but i will how does slavery and print journalism and paternalism in jackson for life affected this whole idea of jacksonian democracy . Indeed, it may downplay the role of slavery. If you have an all inclusive focus on his relationship with how he could use native americans on a psychological basis, using that as a theory, it seems like there just to be more to the story here. I did think that was lacking in the book, because the only time he mentioned Andrew Jackson as a slave owner was when he was on the deathbed and the slaves cried because their paternal father figure was no longer in the picture. But, you know, i feel like there is no political inquiry into where slavery the extent and the number that he owned. It seems that this would have had some sort of affect post adolescence. Professor feller and he should deal with it like Arthur Schlesinger did . I would not say that. Professor feller how did Arthur Schlesinger deal with the fact of Andrew Jackson as a slaveholder . He sort of paints this idea the democrats becoming the antislavery party. Professor feller yeah, so jackson is a slaveholder does not appear to my memory in schlesinger at all. And i think the only time when they really mentioned that he owned slaves is when jackson is on his deathbed and says, i hope to meet you all in heaven, one and all,