Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian Click "read more" for corrections and bibliography. First, here are some related videos: *[reserved for errata]* *Bibliography* _A Companion to the Civil War and Reconstruction,_ edited by Lacy K. Ford (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), ebook. amzn.to/3n5Iuea Brandon Byrd, “Black Republicans, Black Republic: African-Americans, Haiti, and the Promise of Reconstruction,” _Slavery and Abolition_ 36, iss. 4 (December 2015): 545-567. Eric Foner, _Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,_ new ed. (1988; New York: Perennial Classics, 2002). amzn.to/34lFOhq James Marten, _Sing not War: The Lives of Union and Confederate Veterans in Gilded Age America_ (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011). amzn.to/3DQNpqo David M. Oshinsky, _Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice_ (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997). amzn.to/2u0KwBS Elaine Frantz Parsons, _Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015). amzn.to/2uSkmov _Reconstruction in a Globalizing World,_ ed. David Prior (New York: Fordham University Press, 2018). amzn.to/2ztpwGK Elliott West, “Reconstructing Race,” _Western Historical Quarterly_ 34, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 6-26. www.jstor.org/stable/25047206
I think that, too often, pop historians will tend to sideline ideology and/or controversial subjects in order to maintain a larger audience. I'm glad that you're willing to examine history with ideology and politics in mind. It's a breath of fresh air to have a pop historian who doesn't toe the line between "Slavery was bad" and "Well, maybe the confederacy had some good points".
Thanks. I hope this kind of lecture is fairly standard for most universities, but I've only taken classes from three, so not a representative sample. Most of this lecture was derived from Foner's _Reconstruction,_ with just a few touches from others. Foner's _Give Me Liberty_ is kinda the standard college-level textbook, so I'd guess this is what you should expect from a professor
@@Prodigi50 Oop- I read that as red-blue- no they’re completely right but I do think other groups would’ve more readily been accepted if the white supremacy in the South wasn’t allowed to continue
@@xtusvincit5230 The question, in the years after the war was, where does sovereignty lay? There was a moment, during the Articles of Confederation where there was an appeal to the King of Prussia, to take over the united States. After the United States was formed under the new Constitution, the question of sovereignty has surfaced periodically. Most notably during the second civil war.
Any enemy who doesn't admit defeat or that their cause was truly disgusting is still a danger. As someone who's country was a founding member of the Axis powers I loathe the "Lost Causers" in the US. Sure many people in Italy mourn those who died in North Africa and at Stalingrad, but none of them believe their loved ones died for a just cause. In fact many loathe Mussolini for getting Italy involved in the war. If the same sentiment was applied by those who lost their husbands and sons in the Confederacy during the Civil War none of this Lost Cause nonsense would've happened.
All too often you’ll find that the same morons that believe in the lost cause are also the same ones claiming ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’ or that ‘the holocaust wasn’t real’. They are the most disgusting and lowest humanity has to offer
@@rickb3650 most of the civil war was fought on their land, most people in that time thought people from a outside county were strange. You can justify it to yourself here. But the clear point is the civil war was fought on Johnny rebels home turf. I'm fairly certain that if film cameras could catch the union soldiers. Fairly sure the northern soldiers raped and looted alot of small towns and cities.
@@rickb3650 no matter how much we claim to hate war or proclaim peace is part of humanity we can't thrive without war. Second one day people who you don't recognize came onto your land and told you one day everything you know needs to change immediately. There is a reason the ku Klux klan formed. People don't like to submit to an unjust authority especially once they lost a war. We unfortunately only saw the civil war as one of good vs evil when it should have been the agrarian world vs the industrial one.
thugh Italy in some ways had its own low intencity civilwat in the "years of Lead" where fascists and comunists did fight the state and eachother. the horrors of Right wing Terrorism culimiating in the Bolognia boming in 1980 and left wing terror exemplified by the murder of Aldo Moro did much i think to forstal an Italian lost cause myth
@@BradyPostma Also the fact that the POTUS was basically trying to water down the laws and promises they had fought for during the civil war to satisfy his naïve notion that the treasonous losers of the conflict could be trusted with enshrining said laws and promises in their states. Taxes can vary from state to state but civil rights and human rights are for the whole nation, no matter what asshole in some remote corner says.
Reconstruction is my favorite topic because it shows that equality is not just legal, but social as well (as in perceptions). Thank you for this video!
@@tbone9803 man, you really are just another nihilistic @sshole who clings to an extreme viewpoint to make yourself feel intelligent and superior to defend yourself from the reality of your sh|tty life and personality. Here’s a pro tip: you can’t win an argument with a religious person by calling their argument “religious nonsense”. Maybe get some therapy or some people skills instead of espousing bullsh|t online.
Well it's not exactly that simple, they would have been contending with an entire culture from the top down. Culture shifts but is hardly changed by government, government is more a reflection of the culture. In a very real sense government just enforces cultural ideals
@@ohauss Germany isn't the best thing to draw on Nazi Rule wasn't nearly as ingrained as White Supremacy in the South (which still isn't rooted out completely)
The problem with saying Reconstruction would have fixed America is that it only would have made things right for ONE minority race. Even if blacks became equal to whites in the 1870s on, would Native Americans have been treated better? How about Latinos or Asians? Unless prejudice against ALL races was done away with, it would have still been a problem for the decades that followed. An America that simply finished Reconstruction might have had signs in various areas reading "Blacks and Whites Only" until a civil rights movement developed for people of Native American, Asian and other races to get their equality. Even in the 1950s, Hollywood was calling out and denouncing the fact that other races in addition to blacks faced wrongful prejudice (famously in the films Broken Arrow, Sayonara, and South Pacific).
@@thunderbird1921it was only blacks and whites fighting in the civil rights movement, everyone else was relaxing at home, up until reconstruction ended society was egaltarian
@@warlordofbritannia I'd argue Eisenhower takes that one, not Truman. Eisenhower's stance on civil rights was a complicated one, he certainly made leaps and bounds of progress during his presidency, desegregation of schools, finishing off Truman's order to desegregate the military, and so on. But it would also seem he sympathised with white southerners who were outspoken against the civil rights movement and held racist views of his own, So it's really a toss up of whether you want to celebrate the progress or condemn the racism... Or, preferably, both.
I think the term "race riot" can be confusing due to its use to describe the attacks you talk about in this lecture, as well as the disturbances in black communities during the civil rights era. For these violent persecutions of a particular group, I like to use the term "pogrom." I know it is generally used to refer to the Russian persecution of Jews, but it is otherwise apt. I don't expect it to become common, however.
Wow, I just typed a whole dissertation saying just about exactly the same thing, but not as well. It's a specific form of collective violence waged by a more powerful group (racial, religious, national, etc.) against a less-powerful group, with at the very least malign neglect on the part of the State, if not active encouragement, for the purpose of terrorizing the targeted group.
@@dwc1964 I grew up during the Sixties and Seventies, and events like the Watts Riot or Detroit Riot were described in the news as "race riots", which caused a moment of amount of confusion when I later learned of the Tulsa Massacre or the riots during the Red Summer of 1919 being described the same way. Of course, this is because contemporary accounts use these words, but the precipitating factors, the major actors, and the purpose of the violence are so different.
@@PhilipDeLong I described the same historical memory and feeling of confusion in my post - we're definitely on the same page! (my handle gives a hint at my age...)
@Alias Fakename I don't think this comparison is an apt one. Slaves were viewed as property and were valued as such. The point of the Holocaust was to exterminate.
Having lived in the town Andrew Johnson was from and visited his homes and museum I feel like this is not at all what I learned about his presidency and impeachment. Very interesting. TY.
The term "race riot" confused me when I first read it in history books, because my first image was of the Watts and Detroit and similar riots in Black ghettoes in the 1960s, which had been on the TV news in the background of my early childhood before I had the mental capacity much less contextual knowledge to have any understanding of, but which came back to me in history class as a teenager. So when I read about Tulsa and Rosewood and a couple others, the mentions were so brief that the term got me twisted about what they were. And then I learned what they were, and the term "race riot" has annoyed me ever since. it seems designed to obscure the nature of the phenomenon. As Cypher inserts a couple of times, "massacre" is more appropriate. But even so, there's something ... missing from it. From my learning about Jewish history in eastern Europe in the late-19th and early-20th century, I learned the only word I've ever heard that conveys with _specificity_ the nature of the phenomenon it denotes - *_pogrom_*
How about like all those headlines along the lines of "violence erupted following the killing of an unarmed black person by the police" as though the initial act of killing was not violence or an inciting incident worthy of examining. You should check out the podcast Citations Needed, the whole thing is about deconstructing and analyzing how such anodyne language is used to downplay and white wash police brutality, imperialism, war crimes, and anti-poor economic policies. A great example on the imperialism aspect is the one titled "The always stumbling US empire" which discusses how framing imperial violence as blunders and quagmires is used to sanitize intentional colonialist violence.
Correct, the massacres of black towns is pogrom and I would phrase reactionary violence due in response to state sanctioned violence as a rebellion. The “Watts Riot” was a rebellion just like Nat Turner or the German Coast incidents were slave rebellions.
You have one of the most interesting perspective at looking at history I have agreed with you in so many topic that I have lost count I really want you to cover the middle east more often
This is my favorite time to study in American history because of the examples of non governmental groups ability to change perception and the way it (improperly and maliciously) shaped the country’s future.
There's the civil rights movement in the 50s-70s, that had a lot of nongovernmental groups organizing to change perception and most of them were good or at least not horrible.
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat My opinion is that the 1962 civil rights act was not a good capstone for the era and led to overall worse outcomes through time for the black community. It was the culmination of the movement and it was a hoodwinking that made the lower class black community totally beholden to the state for subsistence. I was more referring to the yellow journalism around the great migration that painted a largely southern problem as a racial disposition of blacks when northern black communities were rapidly growing and expanding. This agenda led directly to many of the racist laws that came into effect long after the civil war in the north.
Reconstruction established a new, more damning reality for Black people in America. Liberals and moderate whites would help you up until a certain point, and that was that. And worse, would absolutely use your interests as fodder in negotiations for things you wouldn't be as privy to. The past is ALWAYS prologue. I laugh when people try to turn this reality in to some argument about political party as if the modern Republican party was the same as the one that existed in the 19th century. It's more about the reality that American politics have never fully had the equality of Black people in mind. Perhaps in theory, but never truly in practice. The way the era of Reconstruction ended...with the progressive Republicans knowing FULL WELL what their 'compromise' to put Rutherford B. Hayes in office meant for my elders, was all the proof I needed.
@@FreyaEinde Sadly when one side wants to cooperate and the other puts their individual interests first, it is the individualist who will come out ahead. Then the rest quit cooperating and everything disintegrates.
@@pixality7902 True, and it’s not like the north is absolved in this either because ultimately they’re own economic interest prevented them from doing the most decent thing and granting citizenship as rule of law despite having the political advantage at the time.
@@tonytebliberty The Nazis had a massive base of support in the south. They based their policy of eugenics and discrimination of Jews on the south’s policy of Jim Crow.
I, being raised in the south by southerners whose grandparents owned slaves, understand that we needed a reconstruction, just not the one we got! My dad was raised by these people, but during WWII was a 3 year prisoner of the Japanese, along with a troop of black soldiers! To say his feelings did a180 degree shift is a huge understatement, and my mom was raised with 2 siblings by her widowed mother! They often had nothing except her $33 social security check. When we visited my paternal grandparents, I understood little of their diatribe against the “animal darkies”. I didn’t have a clue what was going on, luckily we didn’t visit often because my parents couldn’t handle this talk. Around 1970, a cousin went away to college, and I never saw her again!, Until her mom’s funeral in 2003, when I met my 3 half black cousins!!! I’m not sure i will ever not be mad that I was denied access to cousins I never got to know! They were gracious, highly intelligent people i would have been proud to have as part of my family, but we were virtually strangers with little in common. Reconstruction and Jim Crow are stains we can’t get out now, but hopefully in the future, young people will finally erase that.
amazing video, definitely learned a bunch of specifics to fill in the gaps in my general understanding of the Civil War and Reconstruction periods as well as saw more clearly the throughlines to today which I was already aware of.
Great video and great channel. Continue keeping the fire going and your video Debunking PragerU was phenomenal. Also from one veteran to another thank you for your service.
The Battle of the Little Big Horn occurred in the hills of south Montana, not South Dakota. I live 45 minutes away. Specifically, near Crow Agency south of Billings.
Just (as in, last night) finished my undergrad thesis on the memoirs of Confederate leaders, basically found that the politicians were die hards and the main espousers of what we now know as the Lost Cause Meanwhile, Confederate veterans felt more connection with their Union counterparts than their own politicians; they tended to push for reconciliation and were more critical of the Confederacy and complimentary to the Union Plus, the former group had these high-minded principled histories while the latter were more personal in both tone and narrative content That’s the short version anyways, the real thing goes 28 or so pages lol
@somestranger Unfortunately, I didn’t find anyone who approached the issue like I did-most of what I found focused on broader trends or specific organizations The best secondary sources I had were stuff like Gaines Foster’s Ghosts of the Confederacy or a couple of things by Gary W Gallagher
Its almost like most Confederate soldiers werent slave owners and were just pawns in the eternal game of the elites who have enslaved the lower classes for millenia.
I think the point is not that the civil war itself was a revolution, but that the political change that came afterwards was - especially the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to our constitution. Those were foundational changes in our political system and arguably amounted to a greater degree of social change than even the revolutionary war period.
@@timprosser1710 Well when I say revolution I mean somethink that forces change throw violence that peacefull roform won't, but in this case these reform were inhevetable
@@janvancura8412 Those amendments would most likely not have passed if not for the war. The union victory in the civil war is what allowed the northern states to install new governments in the southern states. Without those new governments and the process of reconstruction, these amendments would probably not have passed.
@@timprosser1710 I would argue that the north didn't "install new governments in the south" but rather guaranteed actual democratic representation in the south by guaranteeing an actual right to vote to everyone. I don't disagree at all about those governments being necessary to pass the amendments though.
Well done Cypher, this video was so enlightening to me, seeing Reconstruction as a failed revolution makes absolute sense. As a Country not a Nation the USA has still got a lot to start, recommence and finish in regards to Civil Rights. That one aberration known as to me at least as The Tangerine Bawbag has done a lot of harm nearly to Wilson levels of disenfranchisement and reignitement of far right and racist activism will take a lot of work legislatively and socially to eradicate. Keep up the great work and I can't wait to see more of your videos.
@@CynicalHistorian you narrate plainly and stick to facts, which I appreciate. There's entirely too much revisionism from both sides of the political aisle for a consumer to remain objective and get a balanced view. I've subscribed and sent a buddy one of your video sessions. Thanx!
I don’t *want* to; I don’t think any healthy person wants to participate in a war if they can avoid it. If they wound up fighting on the side of the white supremacists, though, I would pull the trigger without a second thought.
It's great seeing people learning about the often misinterpreted history about reconstruction. Seeing white people and black people both learn the history together makes me feel warm
With how much stupidity and division on both sides and politicians not only stoking, but deepening that division for their own benefit and profit, we're well on our way to needing another reconstruction.
Many white abolitionists were very racist and wanted to ship all slaves 'back' to Africa and for many the main argument against slavery was the economic argument that it was less profitable than free labor. A lot of northerners supported segregation in the North and the continuing genocide of Native Americans. The Civil War was fought against slavery but not against racism. That's an important destinction and helps explain the failures of reconstruction and why near all Confederates were pardonned: most white Americans just didn't care enough except for the minority group of radicals who quickly lost momentum.
One bit of feedback in delivery of this is to clarify who you mean when you say "Americans were tired of..." or "Americans were weary of..." it was the white majority who had their rights already being seen to. The Indigenous & Black (not to mention other marginalized racial groups) were not tired of working to to get their rights recognized & codified across the nation. The language creates an implication of who is & isn't considered (or allowed to be considered) American. While I am sure it is not done intentionally, it is a subtle thing that has can have deeper impacts if not addressed. I appreciate all the work you do to teach history that many never knew or has been slanted to push ideological agendas.
It's an indication of the majority of Americans, as in general sentiment. It would be counterproductive to require constantly saying "majorities are not minorities, but..." That's already quite clear
@@CynicalHistorian while I agree that it is clear to those who have an understanding of history & the way marginalized & racialized identities are under represented in historical narratives. Sadly those who don't will not make that distinction & will/do use that distinction to further false division around who is & who is not considered American. Again, I understand your intentions. I am just pointing out how I have seen such language used when more exactness of speech is not at least clarified for context. Thank you again for all you do! 💜
Yeah, it's important to keep in mind that these are college-level lectures, so the intended audience should readily differentiate. I think the people who'd deny Americans have always been racially diverse are not the kind who'd succeed in college, most of whom would never even seek admittance. Racists like that are dumb. It's the smart ones you've gotta look out for, and they'd understand that minorities are American. I'd also point out that it's quite bad to assume that racial minorities were all of one mind about Reconstruction. For instance, Hispanics despised it, both the southern and western forms. Most peons supported their peonage and tried to vote against its abolition (but territories don't have state rights). That's about 60-100k people, so not an insignificant minority
@@CynicalHistorian I agree that no group is ever a monolith, & by stating "most Americans ______" it can lead to some messy over simplification of the nuances of our vast nation at any point in history. I do understand that is is inte ded for college level, & that those who had less than robust (or any) high school level history that explored this, will be best served by creating space for the nuance to exist. While many who have been conditioned & taught to believe in very either/or & hierarchical dynamics can be stubborn when faced with information that goes against what they were taught first & repeatedly, to assume they are dumb removes the option of learning. Some were simply raised in a family, community, school system that kept the information away from them. They are ignorant, but not unable to learn. As a 40+ multiethinic socially racialized cis woman, raised in a very progressive & revolutionary family (grandfather was a college level sociology educator & author), I know how ignorance can breed hostility. How many living today do not believe parents should have married let alone had me. It's too easy to dismiss people we disagree with by labeling them the other or grouping without nuance or allowing for the human to be seen as they are, flawed but maybe willing. I hope you can hear that I am not intending to argue, simply add a perspective that may not have been available prior to this discussion. Again, I respect your work & appreciate what it takes(& has taken) to do all that you do!💜
Turning on the tube, beer in hand, and seeing you've downloaded a new video, that is sweet thing. Almost as good as the Nirvana achieved when watching a new History Buffs vid. 😜
As a lawyer, I really hate the term “states rights”. States do not have rights, they have powers. Rights are reserved for individuals or “the people” writ large. The term “states rights” seems to place the power of states on equal footing with individual rights, such as life, liberty and property. In reality, that’s absurd. While individual rights should be considered and held inviolate, the powers that states or the US government have is negotiable and changeable as circumstances warrant.
Maybe the slogan was and is "States Rights", because "States Powers" is a little too close to what the slogan is actually understood to be ...and it rhymes with _white._ ;-)
@@munchenonyou3774 Lawyer steal your girl or something? I don't like *some* lawyers, but others are really helpful, like the ones who helped my wife and I set up our living trust.
More Reconstruction content, please! Ppl know far too little about the era as it is, but its relevance to the current moment is almost eerie. And if we don't watch out the same thing that ended the first reconstruction will end the 2nd in similar fashion. Between the gerrymandering, the acceleration of the tightening of access to the franchise, and the "supreme" court liable to allow certain coup like events that may come before it, it's more important than ever that ppl like you make more of the enlightening content such as this.
@@CynicalHistorian Probably a test for a class, but that's largely talking out of my rear end. I just know that when I was taking AP courses back in high school I'd often just say 'AP ' test like that.
@@CynicalHistorian sorry for not being specific, I meant my period 5 exam. It's my first AP class I've taken, not to knowledgeable on the terms, or the differences and such. Also thanks for responding, really enjoy your videos
@@Cardboardtank You'll have a big exam at the end of the class, scored 1 (bad) to 5 (good), and which determines how much college credit your AP class is worth. That's what most adults will think you mean by "AP test" because it's the only test that still matters next year.
The 14th amendment privileges or immunities died by SCOTUS case, Slaughterhouse. Labor union say company violated their privileges. Court said nope. Damn, I want my privileges or immunities
Awesome analysis…. The Lost Cause remains unfortunately . My everlasting mystery is how reconstruction could of worked if enacted in a different manner. I maintain it was the lack of education opportunities.. Most profound: North won Civil War, South won Reconstruction.
That’s crazy u made this video right after I finished my argumentative essay arguing whether the freedmen’s bureau was effective or ineffective in helping black people
Yo the Lakota were badasses! I knew they fought hard but I didn't know they embarrassed America on what was supposed to be a time of "celebration". That's great.
Great stuff as always, Cypher. Question- In Rachel Shelden's grad seminar on slavery last spring at Penn State, Dr. Shelden argued vehemently that the corrupt bargain of 1876 is a complete falsehood. You mention it in this vid as having happened. I haven't done sufficient research to take a side. Do you (or anyone else) think there is validity to her claim? Cheers.
There's no evidence of an actual bargain talking place. It's pure supposition. So one could argue that there wasn't an actual bargain, but one thing is for sure - the electoral commission had the time and came to a conclusion completely contradictory to popular vote, and the Posse Comitotus Act passed awfully smoothly, despite years of waving the bloody shirt
Absolutely spooky how these battles are being rerun right now. One might be tempted to state that modern day democrats lack the courage and radicalism of the republicans of the 1860s and 70s. Perhaps a more rounded view might be that, given the evidence of history, they might think such decisive and forceful action would not work, since ‘the South won the peace’ despite such attitudes. One still longs for a bit of gumption from the Democrat side though. Thanks for another really interesting and thought-provoking video.
That is the ultimate quandary of progressivism: When will it alienate so many people as to be counter-productive? That's not a moral question, but a practical one
You could argue that we cycle back to the same arguments because of the refusal to grant equality and agency evenly on the books for all citizens. Which results in a complicated citizenship. How are you going to operate as a country if you de-legitimize your own citizens? We've relied on social movements to push the issues incrementally but it would a moot point if was a matter of law. Because a precedent is the highest protection you can have in terms of rights and it can argued that the laws passed to grant more freedom are half measures that we panic over being easily overturned.
But part of the reason Reconstruction failed is because it wasn't radical enough. Think how much better off we'd be today if after the Civil War, all the plantation owner's land was redistributed to former slave and poor white people.
The democrat party is a corporate oligarch party who claim to support you and yet stab you in the back everytime when it benefits their bankrollers. Hell even the so called Justice Democrats have been exposed time and time again and yielding to corporate interests over their own stated party platform. If you are a progressive the US political establishment is a carefully crafted hell made just to tease you but made to see that you’ll never see any satisfactory results.
Fun fact, but the other day, I tried looking for a Reconstruction video, but the only one seemed to be one from Prager U. I kind of had to look for something else.
@@TryingIGuess “I have seen your SHIT before 😡😤” haha I can for sure hear it No, Cypher is great, he’s just always been a little to niche for me to actually click subscribe. This video’s the one that finally made me do it Still haven’t forgiven him for what he did to the Nebuchadnezzar in the first Matrix movie though
Great video. Your videos are always thorough and easily digestible. America has a lot of blood on its hands when it comes to the treatment of minorities and far too many wanna sweep it under the rug like American history is all sunshine and rainbows. Best to learn from the past and strive for better than to pretend this country has no faults.
Grat information. There is an arguement to be made the the South won the war. The Soutb remained part of USA and the South got to legislate a system the was every bit as bad as slavery but not having to support the slaves and made African Americans to pay for their oppression.
The USA won the civil war but the CSA won the reconstruction Confederate ideologies weren't broken until the civil right era in the 50s and 60s with the fall of the southern Democrats and the KKK but they can always rise from the ashes assuming there haven't already.
Historical Facts: *During it's time periods they managed at least to get the Civil Rights Acts in 1875 (thrown out yet made a comeback in 1964) and attempted to crack down on Confederate remnants and white supremacists such as the KKK. Post abolitionists with their Republican allies clashed against Democratic racist sympathetizers in post Civil War eras with badasses Thaddeus Stevens and Cassius Clay*
Every day feels like this unhealed divide will split us again and just as violently. There's been tension in this country from the moments it first formed, and that tension has maintained momentum for almost 250 years
Whenever I mention to conservatives that the South was conservative, that the Confederacy and the Democratic party was conservative in the 1800s I usually get dogpiled on. Endless rants of "no they weren't" and "the party switch never happened" and "the Southern Strategy is a hoax" and "that's historical revisionism." I think I'll be linking this video to more and more of my future posts. No doubt they will still deny it all, but at least I have more ammo to use. Thanks.
Yep, the Democrats back then were against progressive change in Southern society after the Civil War, that would make the Democratic Party conservative compared to the Democratic Party today. I mean the whole idea of conservatism is about being against the idea of change. It’s funny how when we bring this up to conservatives who are known for being confederate apologists, they call it “revisionism”, when in reality what they believe in is actual revisionism when they argue that the civil war was about “States Rights not slavery!”. States rights to what? If it wasn’t about slavery then why was Jim Crow put in the place of slavery? Obviously white southerners couldn’t accept the idea freed slaves of being equal to white southerners in a post-Civil War Southern society when they suppressed things like voting rights with the “Grandfather Clause”, or forming the KKK which perpetuated decriminalized lynchings. And honestly, I’ve never understood the whole attachment and romanticism of the CSA among conservatives. What is there to be proud of? Losing and existing for only 4 years? lol!
Just point out the fact that Lincoln and the Republican Party oversaw the largest expansion in federal power/bureaucracy in our nations history, suspended the writ of habeus corpus and occupied southern states with federal troops to ensure federal law was obeyed. Then ask how that aligns with conservative/GOP rhetoric of today.
I have not seen the video yet, I've had it paused at 5 seconds while I type this; I think Reconstruction should've been better. I think it could have been better with Abraham Lincoln in place instead of his VP. Although at times it's hard to explain to some how horribly Reconstruction went, I usually use Post-WW2 Germany as an example, and sometimes tie into Post-WW1 Germany as well. The South was beat, in every single way. They lost their economy and infrastructure-Sherman's Neckties hung around trees across the east of the Mississippi-they lost their best general and primary force in a surrender-whose general was more focused on his state and home rather than slavery, who afterwards wanted Reconstruction to work-they lost their capital to an overwhelming Union advance, and it could have been an ideological victory as well. However, it did not become such. In an inversion to how Post-War Germany was treated, the South was not punished and subjected to the reasons *why* they lost, they just told that they were now having government troops in the area to allow the former slaves to vote at times, and Capital Hill was going to try and repair everything. Nothing came in to say "treat African Americans as equals, because not doing so is why you lost." Nothing came in to stop share cropping. No major Confederate leader with aggregious anti-equality sentiments was tried and publicly sentenced as a universal criminal. In contrast, Post-War Germany had a different treatment. They weren't just occupied and then left to their own devices, they had the punishment of a lifetime. If the loss of cities, millions of men and women, and the overall devastation wasn't enough, the Nuremberg trials were, the occupations and alterations to laws were, and the enforcement of these changes did the job. They were smacked hard with the face of their inflicted horrors, and came to hate that regime and hope it never happened again. This also contrasted Post-ww1 Germany, which was not given post-war guidelines, just a harsh, antagonizing treaty and no occupation to try and keep that in line. They were antagonized too harshly, like losing that video game and suddenly being forced ro be the winner's servant.
Great video as always, and I hope more people on the new right-wing would learn this and understand how the parties changed. But the way the lost cause myth was taught to those in the southern states has pandered and pushed fake information that has blown out beyond recognition. Still, I do enjoy these videos as they are factual, which we all need to look at for our schools.
Random observation I'd like to put here; I witness FAR more racism in Northern cities than I have in Southern towns. I've not been everywhere in the US, yet but after 4 years in Chicago I'm convinced it's the most racist location in the nation.
Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: teespring.com/stores/the-cynical-historian
Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian
Click "read more" for corrections and bibliography. First, here are some related videos:
*[reserved for errata]*
*Bibliography*
_A Companion to the Civil War and Reconstruction,_ edited by Lacy K. Ford (New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), ebook. amzn.to/3n5Iuea
Brandon Byrd, “Black Republicans, Black Republic: African-Americans, Haiti, and the Promise of Reconstruction,” _Slavery and Abolition_ 36, iss. 4 (December 2015): 545-567.
Eric Foner, _Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,_ new ed. (1988; New York: Perennial Classics, 2002). amzn.to/34lFOhq
James Marten, _Sing not War: The Lives of Union and Confederate Veterans in Gilded Age America_ (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011). amzn.to/3DQNpqo
David M. Oshinsky, _Worse than Slavery: Parchman Farm and the Ordeal of Jim Crow Justice_ (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1997). amzn.to/2u0KwBS
Elaine Frantz Parsons, _Ku-Klux: The Birth of the Klan during Reconstruction_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015). amzn.to/2uSkmov
_Reconstruction in a Globalizing World,_ ed. David Prior (New York: Fordham University Press, 2018). amzn.to/2ztpwGK
Elliott West, “Reconstructing Race,” _Western Historical Quarterly_ 34, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 6-26. www.jstor.org/stable/25047206
O
I think that, too often, pop historians will tend to sideline ideology and/or controversial subjects in order to maintain a larger audience. I'm glad that you're willing to examine history with ideology and politics in mind. It's a breath of fresh air to have a pop historian who doesn't toe the line between "Slavery was bad" and "Well, maybe the confederacy had some good points".
Thanks. I hope this kind of lecture is fairly standard for most universities, but I've only taken classes from three, so not a representative sample. Most of this lecture was derived from Foner's _Reconstruction,_ with just a few touches from others. Foner's _Give Me Liberty_ is kinda the standard college-level textbook, so I'd guess this is what you should expect from a professor
This is a liberal arts education my friend. Explore and learn 😊
@@BeerPatio just enjoy the video lol
Unless I miss understood, quite low on sleep. More like power naps for the last couple days
@@gabe0628 liberal arts doesn’t mean liberal in the modern sense. Classical liberalism is about freedom and individuality
Learning about the Reconstruction always makes me sad- we were headed towards a bright future that never got to be
It really is depressing how many moral ideas were ignored or lost the political battle, resulting in such a harmed and damaged society.
@[unavailable] Oh no, the conservatives would stay mad about civil rights 🥺 poor babies
@@friskybitzboi I’m guessing they’re talking about the native Americans. The reconstruction wasn’t doing much for them to my knowledge.
@@Prodigi50 Oop- I read that as red-blue- no they’re completely right but I do think other groups would’ve more readily been accepted if the white supremacy in the South wasn’t allowed to continue
@[unavailable] I’m sorry for my response, I read your comment wrong
States don't have rights. States have powers. People have rights. A correct reading of the Constitution discredits the argument of states rights.
"Rights" are fake.
I love this opinion 👏🏿
@@xtusvincit5230 The question, in the years after the war was, where does sovereignty lay? There was a moment, during the Articles of Confederation where there was an appeal to the King of Prussia, to take over the united States. After the United States was formed under the new Constitution, the question of sovereignty has surfaced periodically. Most notably during the second civil war.
Any enemy who doesn't admit defeat or that their cause was truly disgusting is still a danger.
As someone who's country was a founding member of the Axis powers I loathe the "Lost Causers" in the US. Sure many people in Italy mourn those who died in North Africa and at Stalingrad, but none of them believe their loved ones died for a just cause. In fact many loathe Mussolini for getting Italy involved in the war.
If the same sentiment was applied by those who lost their husbands and sons in the Confederacy during the Civil War none of this Lost Cause nonsense would've happened.
The lost causers are this way because they DO think that African Americans are lesser than whites. It bred into white supremacy.
All too often you’ll find that the same morons that believe in the lost cause are also the same ones claiming ‘Hitler did nothing wrong’ or that ‘the holocaust wasn’t real’. They are the most disgusting and lowest humanity has to offer
@@rickb3650 most of the civil war was fought on their land, most people in that time thought people from a outside county were strange. You can justify it to yourself here. But the clear point is the civil war was fought on Johnny rebels home turf. I'm fairly certain that if film cameras could catch the union soldiers. Fairly sure the northern soldiers raped and looted alot of small towns and cities.
@@rickb3650 no matter how much we claim to hate war or proclaim peace is part of humanity we can't thrive without war. Second one day people who you don't recognize came onto your land and told you one day everything you know needs to change immediately. There is a reason the ku Klux klan formed. People don't like to submit to an unjust authority especially once they lost a war. We unfortunately only saw the civil war as one of good vs evil when it should have been the agrarian world vs the industrial one.
thugh Italy in some ways had its own low intencity civilwat in the "years of Lead" where fascists and comunists did fight the state and eachother. the horrors of Right wing Terrorism culimiating in the Bolognia boming in 1980 and left wing terror exemplified by the murder of Aldo Moro did much i think to forstal an Italian lost cause myth
I liked the part where Congress had their shit together and could challenge the power of the executive branch.
Yeah pretty funny but also terrifying
Yeah. The secret to their unity was that the Southern states weren't readmitted yet.
@@BradyPostma Also the fact that the POTUS was basically trying to water down the laws and promises they had fought for during the civil war to satisfy his naïve notion that the treasonous losers of the conflict could be trusted with enshrining said laws and promises in their states.
Taxes can vary from state to state but civil rights and human rights are for the whole nation, no matter what asshole in some remote corner says.
@@xp8969 quédense con Texas, no nos manden a esos agresores de los derechos reproductivos acá
I liked the part where there were actual good people in congress and not corporate puppets
Reconstruction is my favorite topic because it shows that equality is not just legal, but social as well (as in perceptions). Thank you for this video!
@@tbone9803 “means nothing” jesus nihilism gets no one anywhere lmao
@@tbone9803 man, you really are just another nihilistic @sshole who clings to an extreme viewpoint to make yourself feel intelligent and superior to defend yourself from the reality of your sh|tty life and personality. Here’s a pro tip: you can’t win an argument with a religious person by calling their argument “religious nonsense”. Maybe get some therapy or some people skills instead of espousing bullsh|t online.
Imagine a US where Reconstruction didn’t end in failure, and the South actually reformed for the better. We’d be a much better country that way.
Well it's not exactly that simple, they would have been contending with an entire culture from the top down. Culture shifts but is hardly changed by government, government is more a reflection of the culture. In a very real sense government just enforces cultural ideals
@@JonahNelson7 I think that’s an oversimplification in itself, for sure. The state can definitely play a major role in shaping culture.
@@ohauss Germany isn't the best thing to draw on
Nazi Rule wasn't nearly as ingrained as White Supremacy in the South (which still isn't rooted out completely)
The problem with saying Reconstruction would have fixed America is that it only would have made things right for ONE minority race. Even if blacks became equal to whites in the 1870s on, would Native Americans have been treated better? How about Latinos or Asians? Unless prejudice against ALL races was done away with, it would have still been a problem for the decades that followed. An America that simply finished Reconstruction might have had signs in various areas reading "Blacks and Whites Only" until a civil rights movement developed for people of Native American, Asian and other races to get their equality. Even in the 1950s, Hollywood was calling out and denouncing the fact that other races in addition to blacks faced wrongful prejudice (famously in the films Broken Arrow, Sayonara, and South Pacific).
@@thunderbird1921it was only blacks and whites fighting in the civil rights movement, everyone else was relaxing at home, up until reconstruction ended society was egaltarian
Grant was probably the most pro-Civil Rights President up until the 1960’s.
Fr, his only plausible competition is Truman (for desegregating the military)
@@warlordofbritannia I'd argue Eisenhower takes that one, not Truman.
Eisenhower's stance on civil rights was a complicated one, he certainly made leaps and bounds of progress during his presidency, desegregation of schools, finishing off Truman's order to desegregate the military, and so on.
But it would also seem he sympathised with white southerners who were outspoken against the civil rights movement and held racist views of his own, So it's really a toss up of whether you want to celebrate the progress or condemn the racism... Or, preferably, both.
Shame his sleeping at the wheel resulted in the gilded age.
@UCxj8a8DWwJ3KxUDM_e2M5bg never forget Operation W3tback happened under his admin lol
Garfield?
I think the term "race riot" can be confusing due to its use to describe the attacks you talk about in this lecture, as well as the disturbances in black communities during the civil rights era. For these violent persecutions of a particular group, I like to use the term "pogrom." I know it is generally used to refer to the Russian persecution of Jews, but it is otherwise apt. I don't expect it to become common, however.
Agree. “Race Riot” is too neutral of a term and doesn’t convey the real significance of these events.
Wow, I just typed a whole dissertation saying just about exactly the same thing, but not as well.
It's a specific form of collective violence waged by a more powerful group (racial, religious, national, etc.) against a less-powerful group, with at the very least malign neglect on the part of the State, if not active encouragement, for the purpose of terrorizing the targeted group.
@@dwc1964 I grew up during the Sixties and Seventies, and events like the Watts Riot or Detroit Riot were described in the news as "race riots", which caused a moment of amount of confusion when I later learned of the Tulsa Massacre or the riots during the Red Summer of 1919 being described the same way. Of course, this is because contemporary accounts use these words, but the precipitating factors, the major actors, and the purpose of the violence are so different.
@@PhilipDeLong I described the same historical memory and feeling of confusion in my post - we're definitely on the same page! (my handle gives a hint at my age...)
@Alias Fakename I don't think this comparison is an apt one. Slaves were viewed as property and were valued as such. The point of the Holocaust was to exterminate.
Having lived in the town Andrew Johnson was from and visited his homes and museum I feel like this is not at all what I learned about his presidency and impeachment. Very interesting. TY.
The term "race riot" confused me when I first read it in history books, because my first image was of the Watts and Detroit and similar riots in Black ghettoes in the 1960s, which had been on the TV news in the background of my early childhood before I had the mental capacity much less contextual knowledge to have any understanding of, but which came back to me in history class as a teenager.
So when I read about Tulsa and Rosewood and a couple others, the mentions were so brief that the term got me twisted about what they were.
And then I learned what they were, and the term "race riot" has annoyed me ever since. it seems designed to obscure the nature of the phenomenon.
As Cypher inserts a couple of times, "massacre" is more appropriate. But even so, there's something ... missing from it.
From my learning about Jewish history in eastern Europe in the late-19th and early-20th century, I learned the only word I've ever heard that conveys with _specificity_ the nature of the phenomenon it denotes - *_pogrom_*
Yes. Race riot is too neutral to describe who was rioting, for what purpose!
How about like all those headlines along the lines of "violence erupted following the killing of an unarmed black person by the police" as though the initial act of killing was not violence or an inciting incident worthy of examining.
You should check out the podcast Citations Needed, the whole thing is about deconstructing and analyzing how such anodyne language is used to downplay and white wash police brutality, imperialism, war crimes, and anti-poor economic policies.
A great example on the imperialism aspect is the one titled "The always stumbling US empire" which discusses how framing imperial violence as blunders and quagmires is used to sanitize intentional colonialist violence.
Correct, the massacres of black towns is pogrom and I would phrase reactionary violence due in response to state sanctioned violence as a rebellion. The “Watts Riot” was a rebellion just like Nat Turner or the German Coast incidents were slave rebellions.
You're a hero in my book brother. Thank you
You have one of the most interesting perspective at looking at history I have agreed with you in so many topic that I have lost count I really want you to cover the middle east more often
@Safwaan hahaha
Matt Christman on the Hell of Presidents podcast really hit a lot of what you're saying. Your vid is still fantastic and so are you
You continue to make a point that I have maintained for some time; the America never stopped fighting the civil war and it continues today.
Great content- amazing work packing that much info into a 30 minute lecture.
This is my favorite time to study in American history because of the examples of non governmental groups ability to change perception and the way it (improperly and maliciously) shaped the country’s future.
There's the civil rights movement in the 50s-70s, that had a lot of nongovernmental groups organizing to change perception and most of them were good or at least not horrible.
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat My opinion is that the 1962 civil rights act was not a good capstone for the era and led to overall worse outcomes through time for the black community. It was the culmination of the movement and it was a hoodwinking that made the lower class black community totally beholden to the state for subsistence.
I was more referring to the yellow journalism around the great migration that painted a largely southern problem as a racial disposition of blacks when northern black communities were rapidly growing and expanding. This agenda led directly to many of the racist laws that came into effect long after the civil war in the north.
You always mostly do a solid job with American history. Very good. Love the content.
Reconstruction established a new, more damning reality for Black people in America. Liberals and moderate whites would help you up until a certain point, and that was that. And worse, would absolutely use your interests as fodder in negotiations for things you wouldn't be as privy to. The past is ALWAYS prologue. I laugh when people try to turn this reality in to some argument about political party as if the modern Republican party was the same as the one that existed in the 19th century. It's more about the reality that American politics have never fully had the equality of Black people in mind. Perhaps in theory, but never truly in practice. The way the era of Reconstruction ended...with the progressive Republicans knowing FULL WELL what their 'compromise' to put Rutherford B. Hayes in office meant for my elders, was all the proof I needed.
We were too kind to the south.
Yep, and we've been paying for it ever since. You don't let a group that committed treason to dictate terms, ever.
@@FreyaEinde Sadly when one side wants to cooperate and the other puts their individual interests first, it is the individualist who will come out ahead. Then the rest quit cooperating and everything disintegrates.
@@pixality7902 True, and it’s not like the north is absolved in this either because ultimately they’re own economic interest prevented them from doing the most decent thing and granting citizenship as rule of law despite having the political advantage at the time.
Ok Nazi
@@tonytebliberty The Nazis had a massive base of support in the south. They based their policy of eugenics and discrimination of Jews on the south’s policy of Jim Crow.
I, being raised in the south by southerners whose grandparents owned slaves, understand that we needed a reconstruction, just not the one we got! My dad was raised by these people, but during WWII was a 3 year prisoner of the Japanese, along with a troop of black soldiers! To say his feelings did a180 degree shift is a huge understatement, and my mom was raised with 2 siblings by her widowed mother! They often had nothing except her $33 social security check. When we visited my paternal grandparents, I understood little of their diatribe against the “animal darkies”. I didn’t have a clue what was going on, luckily we didn’t visit often because my parents couldn’t handle this talk. Around 1970, a cousin went away to college, and I never saw her again!, Until her mom’s funeral in 2003, when I met my 3 half black cousins!!! I’m not sure i will ever not be mad that I was denied access to cousins I never got to know! They were gracious, highly intelligent people i would have been proud to have as part of my family, but we were virtually strangers with little in common. Reconstruction and Jim Crow are stains we can’t get out now, but hopefully in the future, young people will finally erase that.
This is so sad 😢 Thank you for sharing.
Have been learning Reconstruction in APUSH. Should have watched this before my DBQ!
amazing video, definitely learned a bunch of specifics to fill in the gaps in my general understanding of the Civil War and Reconstruction periods as well as saw more clearly the throughlines to today which I was already aware of.
Oh, what a wonderful and insightful material Dr. Patton-Hall, thanks
Great rundown on reconstruction, I def learned a lot!
"Unfinished Revolution" is a very well known republican slogan in Ireland. That made the title quite funny.
Great video and great channel. Continue keeping the fire going and your video Debunking PragerU was phenomenal. Also from one veteran to another thank you for your service.
Listening to this almost made me cry.
The Google Drive folder for my Intro to Philosophy class looks shockingly similar, down to the numbering system, lol.
#MillennialPhDStudentSolidarity
The Battle of the Little Big Horn occurred in the hills of south Montana, not South Dakota. I live 45 minutes away.
Specifically, near Crow Agency south of Billings.
Just (as in, last night) finished my undergrad thesis on the memoirs of Confederate leaders, basically found that the politicians were die hards and the main espousers of what we now know as the Lost Cause
Meanwhile, Confederate veterans felt more connection with their Union counterparts than their own politicians; they tended to push for reconciliation and were more critical of the Confederacy and complimentary to the Union
Plus, the former group had these high-minded principled histories while the latter were more personal in both tone and narrative content
That’s the short version anyways, the real thing goes 28 or so pages lol
@somestranger
Unfortunately, I didn’t find anyone who approached the issue like I did-most of what I found focused on broader trends or specific organizations
The best secondary sources I had were stuff like Gaines Foster’s Ghosts of the Confederacy or a couple of things by Gary W Gallagher
@somestranger May want to check out David Blights book:. Race and Reunion.
Its almost like most Confederate soldiers werent slave owners and were just pawns in the eternal game of the elites who have enslaved the lower classes for millenia.
@@briansass4865
Right, couldn’t remember the dude’s name but I also used Race and Reunion
This was iteresting. Ive always wondered about the details about reconstruction. Youve saved me the money to have to buy a book. Im sharing!
I'd still recommend reading about this, especially Foner's book
@@CynicalHistorian What was the title of that book?
@@ehrldawg it's linked in my bibliography, similar to the title of this video
@@CynicalHistorian 10 4
@@ehrldawg Eric foner is a great historian especially on reconstruction. To me he is THE reconstruction historian.
I learned a lot from this video, so 7/10 odds it will be demonitized
Elliot West is my professor at the University of Arkansas he’s INCREDIBLE
I've got an entire video based on his Greater Reconstruction idea coming up soon, it's the reason i released this first
@@CynicalHistorian Im looking forward to it then
I actually went to the U of A and majored in History. It's a shame I missed his class!!!
@@b_dockk Aw man awesome I’m finishing up my history major there right now. He gives the most insightful perspectives on history I have ever heard!
Can you post a public link from him that you recommend everyone should see.
I would not call American civil war a revolution but a crushing of a reactionary uprising followed by unfinished period of reform
I think the point is not that the civil war itself was a revolution, but that the political change that came afterwards was - especially the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to our constitution. Those were foundational changes in our political system and arguably amounted to a greater degree of social change than even the revolutionary war period.
@@timprosser1710 Well when I say revolution I mean somethink that forces change throw violence that peacefull roform won't, but in this case these reform were inhevetable
@@janvancura8412 Those amendments would most likely not have passed if not for the war. The union victory in the civil war is what allowed the northern states to install new governments in the southern states. Without those new governments and the process of reconstruction, these amendments would probably not have passed.
@@timprosser1710 I would argue that the north didn't "install new governments in the south" but rather guaranteed actual democratic representation in the south by guaranteeing an actual right to vote to everyone.
I don't disagree at all about those governments being necessary to pass the amendments though.
Well done Cypher, this video was so enlightening to me, seeing Reconstruction as a failed revolution makes absolute sense. As a Country not a Nation the USA has still got a lot to start, recommence and finish in regards to Civil Rights. That one aberration known as to me at least as The Tangerine Bawbag has done a lot of harm nearly to Wilson levels of disenfranchisement and reignitement of far right and racist activism will take a lot of work legislatively and socially to eradicate. Keep up the great work and I can't wait to see more of your videos.
So well organized and researched!!!!
I read just a few books on the topic before composing this lecture. It's not really anything special, just made better with the ability to edit audio
@@CynicalHistorian you narrate plainly and stick to facts, which I appreciate. There's entirely too much revisionism from both sides of the political aisle for a consumer to remain objective and get a balanced view. I've subscribed and sent a buddy one of your video sessions. Thanx!
I find this video extremely fascinating as it should be a reminder to people in our government currently like MTG, CRUZ
A what if reconstruction worked would be interesting...I should tweet cody about that.
That would be a great episode of his. Though there's a dark side: It could result in another civil war.
@@CynicalHistorian We probably needed another Civil War. We obviously didn't finish the job the first time.
@@BrianHartman their daughters did a lot of work re-writing history and burning books that were "unfair to the south".
@Brian Hartman, that’s the most depressingly true thing I’ve read this year.
I don’t *want* to; I don’t think any healthy person wants to participate in a war if they can avoid it. If they wound up fighting on the side of the white supremacists, though, I would pull the trigger without a second thought.
Going to assign this to HS class I think it's very appropriate. Wonderful job
I saw the title of one of my favorite history books, from one of my favorite history authors (Eric Foner), and couldn't click fast enough
It's great seeing people learning about the often misinterpreted history about reconstruction. Seeing white people and black people both learn the history together makes me feel warm
It’s sad how much this era of history gets twisted for bad faith arguments
With how much stupidity and division on both sides and politicians not only stoking, but deepening that division for their own benefit and profit, we're well on our way to needing another reconstruction.
Many white abolitionists were very racist and wanted to ship all slaves 'back' to Africa and for many the main argument against slavery was the economic argument that it was less profitable than free labor. A lot of northerners supported segregation in the North and the continuing genocide of Native Americans. The Civil War was fought against slavery but not against racism. That's an important destinction and helps explain the failures of reconstruction and why near all Confederates were pardonned: most white Americans just didn't care enough except for the minority group of radicals who quickly lost momentum.
@@tbone9803 28 responses on the same channel on a 4 month old account randomly arguing with strangers. Are you okay over there?
@@last1729 Ever heard of the trail of tears both are guilty
@@last1729 I dont care and I dont have the energy to fact check your statement. Your original statement is wrong.
This was a pretty good and very informative video Cypher, I'm glad you made it.
One bit of feedback in delivery of this is to clarify who you mean when you say "Americans were tired of..." or "Americans were weary of..." it was the white majority who had their rights already being seen to.
The Indigenous & Black (not to mention other marginalized racial groups) were not tired of working to to get their rights recognized & codified across the nation.
The language creates an implication of who is & isn't considered (or allowed to be considered) American. While I am sure it is not done intentionally, it is a subtle thing that has can have deeper impacts if not addressed.
I appreciate all the work you do to teach history that many never knew or has been slanted to push ideological agendas.
It's an indication of the majority of Americans, as in general sentiment. It would be counterproductive to require constantly saying "majorities are not minorities, but..." That's already quite clear
@@CynicalHistorian while I agree that it is clear to those who have an understanding of history & the way marginalized & racialized identities are under represented in historical narratives. Sadly those who don't will not make that distinction & will/do use that distinction to further false division around who is & who is not considered American.
Again, I understand your intentions. I am just pointing out how I have seen such language used when more exactness of speech is not at least clarified for context.
Thank you again for all you do! 💜
Yeah, it's important to keep in mind that these are college-level lectures, so the intended audience should readily differentiate. I think the people who'd deny Americans have always been racially diverse are not the kind who'd succeed in college, most of whom would never even seek admittance. Racists like that are dumb. It's the smart ones you've gotta look out for, and they'd understand that minorities are American.
I'd also point out that it's quite bad to assume that racial minorities were all of one mind about Reconstruction. For instance, Hispanics despised it, both the southern and western forms. Most peons supported their peonage and tried to vote against its abolition (but territories don't have state rights). That's about 60-100k people, so not an insignificant minority
@@CynicalHistorian I agree that no group is ever a monolith, & by stating "most Americans ______" it can lead to some messy over simplification of the nuances of our vast nation at any point in history.
I do understand that is is inte ded for college level, & that those who had less than robust (or any) high school level history that explored this, will be best served by creating space for the nuance to exist.
While many who have been conditioned & taught to believe in very either/or & hierarchical dynamics can be stubborn when faced with information that goes against what they were taught first & repeatedly, to assume they are dumb removes the option of learning. Some were simply raised in a family, community, school system that kept the information away from them.
They are ignorant, but not unable to learn.
As a 40+ multiethinic socially racialized cis woman, raised in a very progressive & revolutionary family (grandfather was a college level sociology educator & author), I know how ignorance can breed hostility. How many living today do not believe parents should have married let alone had me.
It's too easy to dismiss people we disagree with by labeling them the other or grouping without nuance or allowing for the human to be seen as they are, flawed but maybe willing.
I hope you can hear that I am not intending to argue, simply add a perspective that may not have been available prior to this discussion.
Again, I respect your work & appreciate what it takes(& has taken) to do all that you do!💜
Turning on the tube, beer in hand, and seeing you've downloaded a new video, that is sweet thing.
Almost as good as the Nirvana achieved when watching a new History Buffs vid. 😜
Thank you so much for the work you do my friend
As a lawyer, I really hate the term “states rights”. States do not have rights, they have powers. Rights are reserved for individuals or “the people” writ large. The term “states rights” seems to place the power of states on equal footing with individual rights, such as life, liberty and property. In reality, that’s absurd. While individual rights should be considered and held inviolate, the powers that states or the US government have is negotiable and changeable as circumstances warrant.
Maybe the slogan was and is "States Rights", because "States Powers" is a little too close to what the slogan is actually understood to be ...and it rhymes with _white._ ;-)
As a normal person, i really hate lawyers
@@munchenonyou3774 I’ve conferred with my colleagues in the bar, and pretty much they all hate you so I guess we’re even.
@@theraven6836 as if i care what the slime of the earth has to say aha
@@munchenonyou3774 Lawyer steal your girl or something? I don't like *some* lawyers, but others are really helpful, like the ones who helped my wife and I set up our living trust.
A very good history lesson
Great I insightful video per usual! Keep up the great work sir!
This was a nice video, good job mate. At 30:44, you say Stronghold in a funny manner, made me chuckle.
More Reconstruction content, please!
Ppl know far too little about the era as it is, but its relevance to the current moment is almost eerie. And if we don't watch out the same thing that ended the first reconstruction will end the 2nd in similar fashion. Between the gerrymandering, the acceleration of the tightening of access to the franchise, and the "supreme" court liable to allow certain coup like events that may come before it, it's more important than ever that ppl like you make more of the enlightening content such as this.
Of course this was uploaded two days after my AP test
Aren't those normally administered in the Spring?
@@CynicalHistorian Probably a test for a class, but that's largely talking out of my rear end. I just know that when I was taking AP courses back in high school I'd often just say 'AP ' test like that.
@@CynicalHistorian sorry for not being specific, I meant my period 5 exam. It's my first AP class I've taken, not to knowledgeable on the terms, or the differences and such.
Also thanks for responding, really enjoy your videos
@@Cardboardtank You'll have a big exam at the end of the class, scored 1 (bad) to 5 (good), and which determines how much college credit your AP class is worth. That's what most adults will think you mean by "AP test" because it's the only test that still matters next year.
The 14th amendment privileges or immunities died by SCOTUS case, Slaughterhouse. Labor union say company violated their privileges. Court said nope.
Damn, I want my privileges or immunities
I just got done learning about reconstruction in my ap us history class!
Awesome analysis…. The Lost Cause remains unfortunately .
My everlasting mystery is how reconstruction could of worked if enacted in a different manner. I maintain it was the lack of education opportunities..
Most profound: North won Civil War, South won Reconstruction.
That’s crazy u made this video right after I finished my argumentative essay arguing whether the freedmen’s bureau was effective or ineffective in helping black people
Oh boy! New video. Lets see it before it gets demonized or blocked.
Yo the Lakota were badasses! I knew they fought hard but I didn't know they embarrassed America on what was supposed to be a time of "celebration". That's great.
Big fan of this episode! Willing to bet you teach a good class
Great stuff as always, Cypher. Question- In Rachel Shelden's grad seminar on slavery last spring at Penn State, Dr. Shelden argued vehemently that the corrupt bargain of 1876 is a complete falsehood. You mention it in this vid as having happened. I haven't done sufficient research to take a side. Do you (or anyone else) think there is validity to her claim? Cheers.
There's no evidence of an actual bargain talking place. It's pure supposition. So one could argue that there wasn't an actual bargain, but one thing is for sure - the electoral commission had the time and came to a conclusion completely contradictory to popular vote, and the Posse Comitotus Act passed awfully smoothly, despite years of waving the bloody shirt
Absolutely spooky how these battles are being rerun right now. One might be tempted to state that modern day democrats lack the courage and radicalism of the republicans of the 1860s and 70s. Perhaps a more rounded view might be that, given the evidence of history, they might think such decisive and forceful action would not work, since ‘the South won the peace’ despite such attitudes. One still longs for a bit of gumption from the Democrat side though.
Thanks for another really interesting and thought-provoking video.
That is the ultimate quandary of progressivism: When will it alienate so many people as to be counter-productive? That's not a moral question, but a practical one
@@CynicalHistorian
I generally figure that it does work in the long run-the principle, once mooted and ceded, cannot truly be suppressed
You could argue that we cycle back to the same arguments because of the refusal to grant equality and agency evenly on the books for all citizens. Which results in a complicated citizenship. How are you going to operate as a country if you de-legitimize your own citizens? We've relied on social movements to push the issues incrementally but it would a moot point if was a matter of law. Because a precedent is the highest protection you can have in terms of rights and it can argued that the laws passed to grant more freedom are half measures that we panic over being easily overturned.
But part of the reason Reconstruction failed is because it wasn't radical enough. Think how much better off we'd be today if after the Civil War, all the plantation owner's land was redistributed to former slave and poor white people.
The democrat party is a corporate oligarch party who claim to support you and yet stab you in the back everytime when it benefits their bankrollers. Hell even the so called Justice Democrats have been exposed time and time again and yielding to corporate interests over their own stated party platform.
If you are a progressive the US political establishment is a carefully crafted hell made just to tease you but made to see that you’ll never see any satisfactory results.
Fun fact, but the other day, I tried looking for a Reconstruction video, but the only one seemed to be one from Prager U. I kind of had to look for something else.
I have seen your shit before, this one made me smash that subscribe button. Quality
At first I thought this was gonna be a negative comment😂
@@TryingIGuess “I have seen your SHIT before 😡😤” haha I can for sure hear it
No, Cypher is great, he’s just always been a little to niche for me to actually click subscribe. This video’s the one that finally made me do it
Still haven’t forgiven him for what he did to the Nebuchadnezzar in the first Matrix movie though
Great video. Your videos are always thorough and easily digestible. America has a lot of blood on its hands when it comes to the treatment of minorities and far too many wanna sweep it under the rug like American history is all sunshine and rainbows. Best to learn from the past and strive for better than to pretend this country has no faults.
@@thewoodseastofathens3698 Not sure what point you're attempting to make.
@@thewoodseastofathens3698 No seriously I don't understand your point. Your comment didnt address what i said.
Grat information. There is an arguement to be made the the South won the war. The Soutb remained part of USA and the South got to legislate a system the was every bit as bad as slavery but not having to support the slaves and made African Americans to pay for their oppression.
Well made, and thank you.
The USA won the civil war but the CSA won the reconstruction Confederate ideologies weren't broken until the civil right era in the 50s and 60s with the fall of the southern Democrats and the KKK but they can always rise from the ashes assuming there haven't already.
Right on the day my teacher tough it
Historical Facts: *During it's time periods they managed at least to get the Civil Rights Acts in 1875 (thrown out yet made a comeback in 1964) and attempted to crack down on Confederate remnants and white supremacists such as the KKK. Post abolitionists with their Republican allies clashed against Democratic racist sympathetizers in post Civil War eras with badasses Thaddeus Stevens and Cassius Clay*
The USA actually went to war with the Klan...but the klan had alot of powerful ties within the govt. The Kirk Holden war
What books have you written or planned to right?
My dissertation
Every day feels like this unhealed divide will split us again and just as violently. There's been tension in this country from the moments it first formed, and that tension has maintained momentum for almost 250 years
Reads the title. Yup. What I have been saying for months. Since the compromise of 1877.
Thank you.
Whenever I mention to conservatives that the South was conservative, that the Confederacy and the Democratic party was conservative in the 1800s I usually get dogpiled on. Endless rants of "no they weren't" and "the party switch never happened" and "the Southern Strategy is a hoax" and "that's historical revisionism." I think I'll be linking this video to more and more of my future posts. No doubt they will still deny it all, but at least I have more ammo to use. Thanks.
Yep, the Democrats back then were against progressive change in Southern society after the Civil War, that would make the Democratic Party conservative compared to the Democratic Party today. I mean the whole idea of conservatism is about being against the idea of change. It’s funny how when we bring this up to conservatives who are known for being confederate apologists, they call it “revisionism”, when in reality what they believe in is actual revisionism when they argue that the civil war was about “States Rights not slavery!”. States rights to what? If it wasn’t about slavery then why was Jim Crow put in the place of slavery? Obviously white southerners couldn’t accept the idea freed slaves of being equal to white southerners in a post-Civil War Southern society when they suppressed things like voting rights with the “Grandfather Clause”, or forming the KKK which perpetuated decriminalized lynchings. And honestly, I’ve never understood the whole attachment and romanticism of the CSA among conservatives. What is there to be proud of? Losing and existing for only 4 years? lol!
Just point out the fact that Lincoln and the Republican Party oversaw the largest expansion in federal power/bureaucracy in our nations history, suspended the writ of habeus corpus and occupied southern states with federal troops to ensure federal law was obeyed. Then ask how that aligns with conservative/GOP rhetoric of today.
I have not seen the video yet, I've had it paused at 5 seconds while I type this;
I think Reconstruction should've been better. I think it could have been better with Abraham Lincoln in place instead of his VP. Although at times it's hard to explain to some how horribly Reconstruction went, I usually use Post-WW2 Germany as an example, and sometimes tie into Post-WW1 Germany as well.
The South was beat, in every single way. They lost their economy and infrastructure-Sherman's Neckties hung around trees across the east of the Mississippi-they lost their best general and primary force in a surrender-whose general was more focused on his state and home rather than slavery, who afterwards wanted Reconstruction to work-they lost their capital to an overwhelming Union advance, and it could have been an ideological victory as well.
However, it did not become such. In an inversion to how Post-War Germany was treated, the South was not punished and subjected to the reasons *why* they lost, they just told that they were now having government troops in the area to allow the former slaves to vote at times, and Capital Hill was going to try and repair everything. Nothing came in to say "treat African Americans as equals, because not doing so is why you lost." Nothing came in to stop share cropping. No major Confederate leader with aggregious anti-equality sentiments was tried and publicly sentenced as a universal criminal.
In contrast, Post-War Germany had a different treatment. They weren't just occupied and then left to their own devices, they had the punishment of a lifetime. If the loss of cities, millions of men and women, and the overall devastation wasn't enough, the Nuremberg trials were, the occupations and alterations to laws were, and the enforcement of these changes did the job. They were smacked hard with the face of their inflicted horrors, and came to hate that regime and hope it never happened again. This also contrasted Post-ww1 Germany, which was not given post-war guidelines, just a harsh, antagonizing treaty and no occupation to try and keep that in line. They were antagonized too harshly, like losing that video game and suddenly being forced ro be the winner's servant.
Excellent!
Can you do a video on the Gilded Age
Sup my fallow history nerds
@Safwaan lol he is the Justin Y of history channel's
This was great Thank u ❤
Slight critique. You mentioned the south seceded to maintain slavery. They actually seceded to expand slavery.
That's a distinction without a difference
Any votes for Andrew Johnson as worst president ever? I know there is a lot of competition for this title.
I'm just very jealous of whoever you get to teach first handed. They will he very lucky students.
Another good video!
Fantastic job
Where can I find all those docs and slides at from the beginning of the video?
Those are my lectures. Only way to see them all is to take my classes
Great video as always, and I hope more people on the new right-wing would learn this and understand how the parties changed. But the way the lost cause myth was taught to those in the southern states has pandered and pushed fake information that has blown out beyond recognition. Still, I do enjoy these videos as they are factual, which we all need to look at for our schools.
Can't get away from the we good they bad mentality
@@cherrycoyote55 Yes, I have seen both sides and it is amazing how drastically different the information is given across the board.
@@xp8969 But they're literally not even left wing. They're barely left of the republican party in terms of actual policy.
Excellent
Great work
Key takeaway from this: Don't trust theatre troupes.
Especially if they're run by someone named Count Olaf.
Do you have this on PDF, would love a copy
Random observation I'd like to put here; I witness FAR more racism in Northern cities than I have in Southern towns.
I've not been everywhere in the US, yet but after 4 years in Chicago I'm convinced it's the most racist location in the nation.
It’s been a myth that the south is more racist. The north has as much blood on there hands.
The South had to confront and address racism while the North didn’t really have to do that
Shit!!! This is like getting a new assignment to watch so I can keep my powder dry metaphorically. Much Love ❤️
I'm actually about to take post-Reconstruction US History. Nice!
A minor thing, but Custer's Last Stand happened in Montana, not South Dakota.
The Battle of the Little Bighorn was fought in MT not SD
The biggest problem with Reconstruction was that it was ended a century too soon.