tv The Civil War Causes of the Civil War CSPAN September 28, 2019 11:15pm-12:01am EDT
of the civil war and show artifacts from that time that represent some of the causes. he is the editor of the book from the civil war and the transformation of american citizenship. this 45 minute talk was part of the american civil war museums annual symposium at the library of virginia and cohosted by the university of virginia center for civil war history. >> good afternoon and welcome back to the 2019 american civil war museum symposium. day withve had quite a amazing speakers thus far, and you are on tap for not one, but two more. next up, i would like to introduce dr. paul quigley. as one would hope, in a state that figured so prominently in the civil war, virginia is blessed with a large and deep
scholars, andwar they are getting younger by the day. [laughter] >> we just heard one, and now we will hear another with dr. paul quickly. asis familiar to many of you the associate presser o professr of civil war studies. would saye, and some the pleasing voice, if you happen to be an anglophile, for the center's many public programs, and like his endowed chair's namesake, he speaks often and writes for the popular media and the wider community as well as staying active in the scholarly world. before he came to virginia tech in 2013, he was a lecturer at in american history at the university of edinburgh.
that is scotland, you got that right. [laughter] >> he spent many years before that in the so-called valley of humility, earning his ma and phd at the university of north carolina chapel hill, lecturing not only at unc, but at duke university and guilford college , and working for the journal, "southern cultures." it was at unc that he met his wife, mindy, now a mystery writer. his doctoral dissertation became his first book, "shifting grounds, nationalism and the american south, 1848 to 1865," which won the jefferson davis award. there is something you probably don't know. for the past couple of years, the museum has been partnering with colleges in central and southwestern virginia to help program and serve as a training ground and program are temporary gallery at appomattox. is leaving aul
group of students from virginia tech, and they will be exhibiting a new show for us out there, starting in april, entitled enacting freedom, black virginians in the age of emancipation, which opens at our appomattox site in early april. polls program for this imposing has intrigued all of us for the six months since he first suggested its title, civil war histories does confounding ?"estion, why/" gentlemen and ladies, dr. paul quigley. [applause] >> thank you. i appreciate that. it is an honor to be with you today and play a small role in the making of the new museum. it is a big deal in our world and the world civil war history, so when i considered my topic, i wanted it to reflect that, so i
picked a simple topic of why, and i confess i have regretted it a bit since i chose it. i have been intrigued about what exactly i would say, how i would do in this amount of time. it is a question, one of those things that comes up very regularly, especially if you are civil war history professor. but i think even out there in the media and in the world, it is a question that comes up all the time. we hear about politicians expressing their opinions, hear about school books, textbooks, what they have to say about this question, but out there constantly. paradoxically, even though it is out there all the time, it is typically treated only very superficially, only very briefly. so why did the civil war happened? it's often presented as a multiple-choice quiz with two only two possible answers, slavery and state rights.
i'm presented if with that multiple-choice quiz, i will click on slavery and move on. but my preference is to do what i'm able to do today and take toh more than one word address this question. and even in about 35 or 40 minutes, i won't be doing a comprehensive job of that, but hopefully, i will give you some fresh ideas about how to approach the question. and more than that, i will take advantage of this special occasion, the impending opening of the new museum to reflect a little bit on what museum exhibits can bring to big questions like this. my world is typically one of books and essays. so one of the great things about being involved in this project, i have gotten a glimpse into how museums can use artifacts, text, images, quotations, all of this
to answer questions like why in a different way than we would if give a to write a book, talk, or something like that. so tonight is an opportunity for me to take a different perspective on this question i think about regularly. one of the difficulties with this question is that, very often, people are answering different questions. so asking why the war came is different from asking why the southern states seceded which is different from asking why the federal government and the northern states decided to oppose secession. asking why the north and south came into conflict is different from asking why individuals on both sides chose to fight. and yet, all of this typically gets lumped together into this one question. and what makes it even more tricky is that i found every time you ask a why question, it tends to beget another why question. sometimes it becomes a never
ending cycle, and anyone who this a lot of time around will understand how this works. so if you ask why the war happened, it was because northerners and southerners disagreed over the place of slavery in the nation's future. why? because white southerners had built a whole society and economy around slavery. they were prepared to fight to see it expand. why? because they thought slavery was under threat. why? because enslaved people routinely resisted slavery and now, it seemed like more and more white northerners also opposed to the institution. you can go on with more and more whys if you want to. but you get the message. it is complicated. it tends to spiral out of control with people talking about different issues in different ways. but i think one of the few things we can all agree on quite easily is that abraham lincoln had it right when he said that
in 1865 that slavery was somehow the cause of the civil war, that but it is that somehow that's caused all the problems. that is a difficult question to answer. and so, you think about slavery and its opposition to free labor as being the foundation of the whole conflict. he know that ends in war. because it did. the question is what lays between slavery and the outbreak of war. that is how slavery caused the war, why slavery caused the war. it is the question i tend to focus most of my energies on. and when i think about what lies between the foundation of slavery in the outbreak of war, what i tend to come back to is very often is people, and the idea that it's people who took that basic difference between slavery and free labor and turned it into war. and all kinds of people were involved, of course. radical secessionists who succeeded in dragging their
states out of the union. s who wereitionist determined to make the union live up to its ideals. even a woman who wrote a best-selling novel about the damage that slavery did to the enslaved people. and enslaved people who resisted slavery and ran away and really brought the issue to the surface. we've already heard a little bit about how that happened during the civil war, in the run-up to the civil war, that was already happening. a politician who stood his ground. and finally, the millions of men on both sides who chose to fight . all of these individuals, and they are just a few among the millions, all of them played some role in the coming of the civil war. slavery caused this war because of how people acted, how they behaved, the way they spoke and thought about themselves and others, about what was right and
wrong, about what they got to do to other people and what other people got to do to them. most americans did not want war. but is an obvious point, one we sometimes forget. nevertheless, their words and actions all combining together is what created the war nonetheless. and this is something that i'm so impressed by by the exhibit. it makes it clear how important people were to the outbreak of this work. this is just a design image. it does not exist yet. but it soon will. and, you can see it as soon as you walk into the gallery. you are surrounded by people of the 1860's, the people who lived, fought, and endured the civil war, people who caused the war to begin with and the people cause it to continue. the exhibit as a whole is called the people's context. it is a reference, we have heard
this already to lincoln and the democratic government. but it is also a sign of how important people are going to be in this exhibit. the exhibit tells human centered stories, just as it should, about the civil war. it's causes and its its causes and its consequences. as soon as you recognize this is a human story, a human conflict caused by ordinary people, you have to throughout the window any notion that it was a simple, rational conflict between two economic systems. just not how people work. it didn't happen by itself. once you recognize this was a human conflict, you immediately start thinking about misperceptions, paranoia, accidents, flawed motivations, unintended consequences. these are all -- i think about them sometimes as filters that the basic issue of slavery got
forced through to result in war, so things become much more blurry once you start thinking people in the of coming civil war. and this is where i get to channel my predecessor at virginia tech. he was well-known for telling generations of students if you are going to understand the civil war, you have to understand the emotions of the people who lived through it. i have heard him say that a bunch of times. i'm sure the audience has as well. and he's absolutely right. for me, the key emotion was feeling under threat from the other side. that is what helps me explain how people on all sides of this conflict came to the point where conflict was imaginable. white southerners increasingly sought not only african-americans, but white northerners, as the enemy. northerners black and white can called theat they slave power as a threat to their interests. it is a mutually reinforcing dynamic, of course.
the other word i use is "perception." the way people perceive each other is crucial. you cannot understand the civil war without looking through eyes,duals, through their to see how they viewed the groups around them, especially those that they came into conflict with. now, i get to channel another historian. he wrote what i think it's one of the most concise, insightful treatments of this question of what caused the civil war. it is an essay he wrote around 2003. he does a really nice job of taking generations of historical scholarship, pulling it all together, and coming up with a slightly individual spin. promises us to get somewhere new. and traditionally, historians bounce back and forth from
interpretations of what people called an irrepressible complex, a fundamental conflict between two incompatible societies. or on the other hand, the result of a blundering generation and needless war that did not have to happen. it was the result of incompetent leadership, overly emotional politicians, and so on and so forth. did was doctor is was map out a new way to combine both of those explanations. of course, they both have merit, but neither one is correct by itself. he talks about the contingency as a way to understand the way people's behavior and actions within those structures of slavery versus free labor actually helps propel the country towards civil war. specifically, what i want to pull out today is the importance to thethings, according
doctor. one is the media. the other is the political system propelling people into outright conflict. we have already heard a little bit from john meacham earlier today about some parallels between the 1850's and our own time. and if you look at the 1850's, you look at intense political conflict often fueled by a media that sees the value of trafficking and negative stereotypes from group to group, it does seem rather familiar. people talk about the echo chamber in social media. this, i think, is what john meacham was referring to in our own time. i think civil war americans have their own echo chambers. they were locked in their own worlds, reading negative portrayals of the other side. that is what created the sense of being under threat from the other side that became so consequential.
you have to get into the minds of the actors, the people who caused the civil war in order to understand how things spiraled in the direction of conflict. and i think that can be really difficult in many ways to do in a museum exhibit. but what i have learned from working with the museum staff, the professionals, is that they know how to say a lot with a little. it is kind of the opposite of some college professors, i think. [applause] -- [laughter] they can deploy just the right quotations, the right personal stories, the right details to reveal this kaleidoscope of different perspectives and opinions and ideas of people who lived through the 1850's and into the civil war. they also had to deploy the right artifacts, i think, to allow visitors to connect to this history in new kinds of ways.
that's what i am going to reflect on for the remainder of my time, how the new exhibit uses artifacts to allow visitors to think about the big questions, like why? i selected three types of artifacts that i'm going to explore, and suggest to you how they can be used by visitors. i thought about giving my talk, an alternative title, which is the three kinds of artifacts that i use, but i thought nobody would come to a talk like that. nonetheless, that's what you will get over the next little while. [laughter] the first artifact is a pike. i'm sure many of you have already guessed it was one of the pikes jim brown intended to arm enslaved people with in the his harpers ferry raid of october 1859. i'm sure also many of you are looking at this thing and thinking, this does not really
fit with 19th century warfare. we often think about the civil war as being on the frontier of modern warfare. we heard a little bit before about the rifle, firearms technology. even though it did not have that actual an impact on the tactics and the casualties and so on, that is the kind of weapon we think of when we think about in the civil war period. nonetheless, on the eve of the civil war, this is the weapon jim brown chose to use in his attempt to start a slave rebellion. there's a really good essay that was published recently on these pikes, specifically by a historian named jason phillips. he kind of helped me think through the meaning of these things. one of the points he makes is that even though it looks like a medieval rather than 19th-century weapon, they were the perfect weapon for what jim brown wanted to do. he gave a great deal of thought about what kinds of weapons
would be suited to the task at hand. back in the day, pikes had been the weapon of choice for commoners against the elite. it was a weapon to stand up to calvary with. a weapon that could take down the aristocracy. so for brown, this was the perfect thing to use to bring down the new aristocracy of the slaveholders. and he actually had these things custom-made. he contracted with a connecticut blacksmith to make 1000 of these things. and what he did was brought the bowie knife back from the conflict, which you can see more closely there. he asked the blacksmith to make something that looks like it, just mounted on a long pole. and that's what we are going to use. they, for me, open up the question of civil war causation in some really interesting ways. one of the things they did, one of the nice connections, was bleeding kansas.
brown is coming out of that context. he is bringing the weapons of that context and repurposing them for use in virginia. but even more powerfully than that, i think, they drive home the depths of violence that people in the late 1850's were imagining, committing against each other. so this atmosphere of mutual mistrust and fear helped drive americans towards conflict. and these things did not end up being used for the purpose that was intended, but they suggest, at least, a little bit of enslaved men's revolutionary thirst for justice and vengeance, inspired and fired up by the righteousness of abolitionists like john brown. they also signified white southerners' deep fears about the security of slavery and the loyalty of their slaves. this has been a major theme in the history books lately.
people thinking about the causes of the civil war have been much more interested in the role that african americans, particularly enslaved african americans, played in this escalating dynamic. it's kind of a clear sequence of events here. slaves resist slavery, so slaveholders worry. so slaveholders react forcefully against criticism from the outside, from abolitionists. that meant white northerners perceive an assault on their liberty. not only the liberty of african americans, but of white northerners as well. it is a cycle of paranoia, mistrust, that snowballed towards open warfare. for me, it is wrapped up in these pieces of metal. there is actually testimony as well, direct evidence from people at the time, that they also saw similar meanings and potential in these weapons. specifically, the virginia secessionist edmund ruffin really recognized the potential
of these objects. after brown's raid failed, the pikes were taken as souvenirs. people were interested in having them. they wanted this connection to this historic event. ruffin took some of them, and he packaged them up and send one -- sent one each to the governments of the slaveholding states. with the packages, he included a letter, which included this morning. sample of favors designed for us -- which included this warning. sample of favors designed for us by our northern brethren. the message is loud and clear, they are out to get us, we need to be afraid, we need to react. those few words combined with the objects themselves tell a powerful story about the fear, the manipulated emotion that propelled americans towards war. so, that is the pike. the next set of objects are very different. much less threatening. these are secession badges. or
you rarely read that much about them in the history of the civil war. but if you have traveled around the south in 1861, you would have seen people wearing a lot of these, showing their support for secession. the museum has a great collection. many of the next exhibit. and this will be the next type of artifact i want to look at. you probably already know that most of these up here depict the palmetto tree, which is the state tree of south carolina. the one on top is slightly different. it is not a tree. you may have noticed. but it is a crescent, which is also a symbol of south carolina state identity. it is actually on the state flag, along with the palmetto tree. even with the trees, people made these things. these things are all woven out of palmetto fronds. people made these things in slightly different designs. they did things like put ribbons
at the bottom. they made them their own. there are also a lot of variations in the design and fabrication of these things. these are some examples made out of fabric. typically silk rather than palmetto fronds. you often see them in these rosette shapes. these are things meant to be worn about the person. all three of these, by the way -- often with artifacts like this, we don't know much about the prominence, who produced them, who owned them. but all three of them were sent gifts to miss graham in december 1860. a few more examples. the most common color for these things was blue, as the top two examples up there show. so you may be thinking, ok, these are kind of cool to look at. you may have never seen these specific items before.
you might be thinking, what can they tell us really about the coming of the civil war? the causes of the war? for me, they really drive home the fact that it was people who caused the civil war, not these big abstract historical forces, but people, men and women with bodies, people in many ways like you and me who held these things, they made these things very carefully, both men and women, and they affixed these things to their houses and coats. especially when you see them in the museum and in person, it will be driven home even more that these were people walking around, showing these things off, wearing their emotions quite literally as part of their clothing. so it is an awareness that you see that these people were -- these people knew they were living through extraordinary times. what they were trying to achieve
most basically is to display their support for secession. to display their identity. so it is a little bit like wearing the colors of your sports team. this is the weight you show that you support secession in 1860 and 1861. you are declaring membership in this group rather than that one. south in 1860 and 1861, this is one of the ways secessionists showed their opinion. when you step back and think more about these objects, you can begin to see, or at least imagine, some cracks in the unity. for me, almost anytime there's this outward display of political unity, you can pretty much guarantee that there are some fractures beneath the surface. and that was definitely true in the south leading up to the civil war. and even during the civil war, we heard in the talk before, southern unity was ever only an
aspiration, really. there were lots of dissenters in the south. this was true in the secession period. in a way, rather than seeing these as a demonstration or evidence of unity in the south, you can see them as an attempt to create that unity. that subtly changes their meaning and helps us think about the coming of the civil war a bit differently. the other thing i want to point out as well is that almost all of these badges are targeted at the state rather than the confederacy of the south as a whole. these three examples all contain buttons in the middle. and i would be amazed if anybody can make out what they are, but maybe you can see just enough to all state seals. one is the seal of maryland, a southern state that didn't even join the confederacy, so that right there tells you something about southern unity. the other two, one is virginia
and one is south carolina. we've already seen the palmetto trees as an example of specifically state pride rather wide once wide o the confederacy came into being. people were shouting very loudly and displaying these things at the same time about us versus them, and our identity versus the other group. but in fact, the south was not unified, even at the moment the confederacy was created. that is something that these -- again, with a bit of interpretation -- can tell us quite clearly. the third and final artifact i want to show you is not pretty like some of these badges are, nor is it menacing like the pike. in fact, i think you will all find it pretty mundane. it is a piece of cotton. i feel like i have to say that quickly, given sometimes when people see this image, they
think it is a brain. [laughter] john meacham earlier was talking about the battle of the brain versus the guts. i thought that might be on people's minds this afternoon. [laughter] but no, it is a piece of cotton. it was grown by enslaved georgians just before the civil war. on the face of it, it is a less intrinsically interesting as an object, probably. for most people, it seems less pike.icant than the out of everything i have talked about so far, it is this piece of cotton that gets us to the fundamentals, the taproot of the whole conflict. one way to think about cause and effect in general, what caused this event, is to imagine what would happen if you would take out certain factors, certain things. and it is really hard to to with
history. dois not a lab where we can scientific experiments, where we can take one thing out, replay, and see what happens. but i think, based on informed speculation, you can make an strong argument that if you remove this, it is extremely unlikely you would get a civil war, at least as it happened, in 1865. if you remove this, you remove the vitality of the south. this wasn't the only thing enslaved people did, but it was cotton that empower the expansion of the slaveholding west to the south and the between the revolution and the civil war, to alabama and mississippi and texas. and it was cotton that created unparalleled wealth for the top and awakening and
insatiable desire for more profits, more labor, more land. as we all know, slaveholders hunger for land when it came up against free labor visions of the u.s. west is what, more than anything else, triggered this conflict. so it is a commonplace artifact, but you can actually feel a lot of emotion wrapped up in it. you can feel slaveholder self-confidence, the sense that they were doing the right thing, the face that slaved produced -- the faith that slaved produced cotton was the best hope for their future and the future of the nation. wrapped up in the cotton was a bris, theers' hu belief that they could do it alone and thrive outside of the united states. this is one of those places where another why question suggests itself. why did they believe this? why were they so self-confident based on cotton? it was in large part, i think, because of the incredible demand in the 19th century for raw
cotton, including from new england, but also in europe, england, and france, where textile mills processed cotton into fabric that clothed the world. the fact that the u.s. south produced about 3/4 of the the 19thaw cotton in century is what gave slaveholders this sense of self-assurance. we can't make it without the united states. these global economic connections as well as everything happening within the united states help drive the southern states toward secession and the united states towards war. of course as a side note, it is also a connection between this place, the u.s. south, and people in my part of the world in manchester in northern england, which was the epicenter of the 19th century textile industry. every time i get the chance to insert manchester into a talk on the u.s. civil war, i'm going to take it. so thank you for indulging me. [laughter]
opens up a much wider transnational lens on the causes of the civil war. that's been of great interest to historians lately. you will find lots of books on the global context of which the civil war emerged. but at the same time, and this is one of the things i like so much about the piece of cotton, it also allows a very sharp focus on the people who actually produced it. the people who had the most at stake in this conflict, but of whom we know so little. enslaved people. if you look at this cotton, you can reflect, you can speculate on its meaning, not only for slaveholders or textile manufacturers in europe, but also the enslaved laborers who actually grew it and handled it and knew what it would feel like and smelled like because it was such a basic part of their daily lives.
and its very ordinariness, i find it a very suggestive artifact. it connects many different parts of the story i have tried to tell today. and throughout the talk, that has been an underlying premise, is that there are so many connections. you are not going to be able to answer a big question about the causes of the civil war in a one-dimensional way. there are so many layers of together andt come change in unpredictable ways. the cotton reveals the basic foundation of slavery. the badges show the formation of new identities. and the pike embodies the intense emotions, the fears that made the civil war possible. so, that's in the time available and in the context of opening the new museum, that is the best answer i can give to civil war history's most confounding question. and i don't think it is going to
end the debate that has been going on for 150 years. i'm sure people have a lot else to say on the subject. and that's absolutely fine with me. but what i am really looking forward to is going into the exhibit and continuing to contemplate this question and continuing to discuss the many aspects of civil war causation. and i'm just going to show you a few more images from the design plans for the exhibit. just to give you a sense of what awaits you. of course, i have only shown you're a tiny sliver of the riches that are in the exhibit. the evocative artifacts, the immersive multimedia environment that's going to challenge everyone who goes there, i think, to think anew about civil war history, why it happened, how it felt to experience it, what it meant, where it falls short, why it still matters. these are tough questions to answer. one exhibit couldn't hope to answer them all.
but what the exhibit can do is provide a rich and carefully curated collection of objects, images, words, ideas, even some emotions that allow each visitor to forge their own connections with civil war history. so, you should all go very soon, as soon as it opens. my final recommendation is to take a toddler with you to ask that all important question of why. thank you. [applause] questions? >> my question didn't come up until the very end, and it is
blah, but it seems most americans tried to make the civil war into a one or two dimensional question. north-south, blue-white, but as slave, free. why do you think that is? why do we do that, and how can we overcome it? dr. quigley: i think you are absolutely right. and i think the first thing is not only the american civil war. i think people in every part of the world look for stories to explain what has happened. who they are, what's important for them, where they are going, all of those questions. part of it is the natural tendency to latch onto a simple story that seems to explain things in a simple way. that is why i think it is very important, especially on this question, that we keep talking about the why in very extensive ways. and so, i think -- as i said in the beginning, if we continue in
this binary groove where it is just slavery or states rights and that is the only thing we can talk about in the public sphere, we are never going to get anywhere. i think the important thing is for those of us who teach civil war history, we are trying to do it all the time. but also, public institutions like the american civil war museum to present a multilayered story with different perspectives. and perspectives, i think, is absolutely crucial, to think about how did this conflict look through the eyes of this person, this social group? it is not something you can explain by having just two people. you couldn't just put abraham lincoln and jefferson davis next to each other and understand why the civil war came, what it meant about -- what it meant, why it came to an end when it did. for me, that's is one of the exciting things about this new
museum, the deliberate attempt to make sure it is a multi-perspective story that we are telling. >> why do you think the southern plantation owners did not figure out an economical way to continue the stream of wealth that cotton was bringing to them without continuing slavery? why didn't they come up with jim crow sooner? i think they had an example of how to do that, and that would be the emancipation act that was passed in the northern states following the american revolution. the model was there. there is a way to solve jefferson's conundrum, the wolf
i the ears. -- the wolf by the ears. how do we end this institution that we don't feel particularly comfortable with? thought model was there in the northern states with gradual emancipation, which was feasible from the slaveholders' perspective. i think the trouble was, cotton, honestly, was one of the biggest things because so much money was to be made by growing cotton with an enslaved labor force. slaveholders simply could not imagine how they could continue to do this without a large slave labor force. they doubled down and recommitted themselves to slavery. as time went on, they found it more and more difficult to imagine an alternative to enslaved labor. so the simple answer is it was working extremely well for these wealthy cotton planters. from their perspective, why consider an alternative when it
is working well for you? i think that is the answer. >> in listening to you speak about these things, i was time, maybe 30 years ago or more, when i studied civil war history at the university of virginia. and my professor was very insistent at that time that this had nothing to do with slavery. interesting, that previous question leads into mine. in listening to you, i was thinking there was so much money to be made, so of course it was about economics as well. and it made me wonder whether there is much scholarship that europeans have a written about the american civil war and what
they had to lose by its ending slavery. dr. quigley: this is a question about the international economic connections, the global cotton trade, and what that meant for european perspectives on the civil war, if i understand you correctly. that, of course, is a whole other lecture, which i could give, but it would take longer than we have today. let me see if i can be brief and say that it certainly was in the rational economic interests of textile manufacturers in europe , including in britain, to see the status quo continue in the u.s. and for southern slaves to continue to produce cotton and sell it to britain for processing. but then there were also countervailing pressures and factors involved. for example, the fact that even though they were relying on the importation of raw cotton
through slave labor, britain in general -- of course, this is a big generalization -- tended to be anti-slavery by the 1860's. so there was a lot of ambivalence. people felt uncomfortable with the institution of slavery. but you won't be surprised to hear, they often didn't mind if they continued to make money out of it. but there were also diplomatic and political considerations as well. in essence, the british government, like was governments do in situations like this, looked after their own self interests. they made the calculation, continued to make the calculation through the civil war that we stand more to lose than we do to gain by getting involved in the civil war. so the best thing for us is to see how it plays out and then we can support the side that wins. the confederacy or the u.s. but yeah, there were certainly
passionate debates in britain in particular about, should we recognize the confederacy? should we remain neutral? they continued through at least the first two years of the war. ms. coleman: thank you so much. again, and hand for dr. paul quigley. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] , sunday at 2:00 p.m., world war ii pilot spewed -- world war i pilots. thisdid not know how long camera had been on me. we did not know the term sexual harassment or hostile workforce.
there are two different ways to think about that. one is that it is voyeuristic on the parts of the dudes watching you and it is harassing and uncomfortable. -- toher way to link think of it is to let them look and let them know. let everybody not in this room know there is a woman here, i am here, get used to it. [applause] onexplore our nations passed american history tv every weekend on c-span3. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] next on the in history, loyola university chicago professor michelle nickerson teaches a class on the deindustrialization of the u.s. in the 1970's and 1980's and how music and popular culture reflected economic changes. prof. nickerson: ok.