Podcast appearances and mentions of charles postel

The nineteenth century saw the rise of great monopolies. Americans pushed back. What changed?  We discuss lessons learned from antitrust action in the Gilded Age with Jack Beatty and Charles Postel.

Everything is bigger in Texas, including political movements. I have yet to speak with scholars of populism, and this show rectifies that with two outstanding authors of the latest Texas populism histories (professors Gregg Cantrell and Thomas Alter) and a guest host, my colleague at Dickinson State University Dr. Jeff Wells.Essential Reading:Gregg Cantrell, The People's Revolt: Texas Populists and the Roots of American Liberalism (2020)Thomas Alter II, Toward a Cooperative Commonwealth: The Transplanted Roots of Farmer-Labor Radicalism in Texas (2022).Recommended Reading:Donna Barnes, Farmers in Rebellion: The Rise and Fall of the Southern Farmers Alliance and People's Party in Texas (1984). Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (1976). Matthew Hild, Greenbackers, Knights of Labor, and Populists, Farmer-Labor Insurgency in the Late-Nineteenth-Century South (2007). Roscoe Martin, The People's Party in Texas: A Case Study in Third-Party Politics (1933). Robert C. McMath, Jr., Populist Vanguard: A History of the Southern Farmers' Alliance (1975).Charles Postel, The Populist Revolt (2007).Marion K. Barthelme, (ed.), Women in the Texas Populist Movement: Letters to the Southern Mercury (1997). Theresa Case, The Great Southwest Railroad Strike and Free Labor (2010). Tim Lehman, Up the Trail: How Texas Cowboys Herded Longhorns and Became an American Icon (2018). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For this episode, we spoke with Charles Postel about his recent book *Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866-1896.* After the Civil War, many social movements in favor of "equality" flourished in the U.S. -- champions of racial, sexual, regional, and economic equality pressed their case like never before. Organizations like the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Knights of Labor mobilized women and workers on a massive scale, while the Grange - a project initiated by federal bureaucrats from D.C. - assembled farmers into the largest and most coherent organ for class-interest in the country. Each had to face up to the practical dilemmas of pursuing national political power in an uneven and divided country.****** LINKS *******The Populist Vision* - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-populist-vision-9780195176506*Equality: An American Dilemma* - https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780809079636/equality"If They Repeal the Progressive Era, Should We Care?" - https://www.jstor.org/stable/43903026*** REFRESHERS ***The Grange - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grange_of_the_Order_of_Patrons_of_HusbandryWomen's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Christian_Temperance_UnionFrances Willard - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_WillardKnights of Labor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_LaborTerence Powderly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_V._PowderlyChinese Exclusion Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_ActHomestead Acts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_ActsFrances Ellen Watkins Harper - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_HarperElizabeth Cady Stanton - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_StantonHenry George - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_GeorgeThomas Piketty - Capital in the Twenty-First Century - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_CenturyT. Thomas Fortune - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Thomas_FortuneIgnatius Donnelly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._DonnellyThe Omaha Platform - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Platform*** HISTORIOGRAPHY MENTIONED ***David Montgomery - Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862-1872 - https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p008696Walter Johnson - The Broken Heart of America: St. Louis and the Violent History of the United States - https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/walter-johnson/the-broken-heart-of-america/9780465064267/Gregg Cantrell - The People's Revolt - Texas Populists and the Roots of American Liberalism - https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300100976/peoples-revolt

Additional Reading (in order of recommendation):Daniel T. Rogers, Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age (1998).Rebecca Edwards, New Spirits: Americans in the Gilded Age: 1865-1905 (2005).Maureen Flanagan, America Reformed: Progressives and Progressivisms, 1890s-1920s (2006).Jackson Lears, Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern America, 1877-1920 (2010).Glenda Gilmore, Who Were the Progressives? (2002).Jacqueline Jones, Goddess of Anarchy: The Life and Times of Lucy Parsons, American Radical (2017).Nick Salvatore, Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist (1984).Nancy Unger, Fighting Bob La Follette: The Righteous Reformer (2000).Nancy Unger, Belle La Follette: Progressive Era Reformer (2015).Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916 (1963).John Morton Blum, The Progressive Presidents: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson (1982).Charles Postel, The Populist Vision (2007).Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion: An American History (1995).William and Susannah Link, The Gilded Age and Progressive Era: A Documentary Reader (2012). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Show #257 | Guest: Charles Postel | Show Summary: Charles Postel's new book, Equality: An American Dilemma, 1866-1896, compares and analyses today's wealth and power disparities in light of their origins in the Gilded Age of a century ago. Charles Postel, Professor of History at San Francisco State Univerity, is also the author of The Populist Vision.

美国政治大戏尘埃落定。在主流媒体、民调机构的惊愕声中，华盛顿圈外人的川普登上了美国政治的巅峰。今年9月曾与本播客老嘉宾——贾敏老师（第6、8期）聊过大选的进程。贾敏是我身边为数不多预期到川普崛起的国内学者，借用他自己的话来说：“理解特朗普现象同样会遇到认知障碍。一个突破口或许就是反思精英的语言认知和现实存在的差距。我一再强调慎用民粹主义的修辞、警惕遮蔽某些真实的面相，强调全面理解平民主义的历史社会背景，理解大写的Populism的复杂意蕴。“本次节目特别邀请贾敏与我们聊聊他眼中的这次选举，讲述美国平民主义传统如何深刻影响当下的美国政治以及川普情感动员的技巧与手段。参考读物：查理斯•波斯特（Charles Postel ）的《平民主义者的远见》（The Populist Vision）：https://book.douban.com/review/3645696/

Show #121 | Guests: Edith Sheffer, Assistant Professor, Modern European History and German Studies at Stanford University, author of Burned Bridge: How East and West Germans Made the Iron Curtain and Charles Postel, Assistant Professor, History at San Francisco State University,author of The Populist Vision. | Show Summary: What's behind the increasing comparisons of candidate Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler, one of the greatest scourges of the modern age? Shouts from within a rowdy crowd are easily dismissed. But Anne Frank's stepsister and multiple prominent international voices - including past and present presidents of Mexico, and an honored Israeli journalist - are now on record with the same warning. Angie hosts a panel to discuss and take questions from the audience.

In the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, the morning of Friday July 10, 1925 was blisteringly hot. Outside the country courtroom, a crowd of around 1000 people had gathered. Squeezing through the throng came a young schoolteacher and athletics coach, John Scopes. Scopes was accompanied by Clarence Darrow, one of the most famous lawyers in the United States. But when a cheer went up from the assembled mass, it was not for Scopes or Darrow, but for the elderly, burly figure of Williams Jennings Bryan. Lawyer, moralist, three times Presidential candidate, religious authority, and key figure in the Populist movement of the 1890s. These two legal titans were here to defend and prosecute John Scopes. His crime was admitting to teaching Darwinian evolution in defiance of a state law banning the promulgation of evolutionary theory.  The Scopes Trial has entered popular myth and legend, claimed as a victory by both sides, misrepresented and misunderstood in film and literature. So, in Episode 17 of American History Too! we’re going to look at the 1925 Scopes Trial and try to get to the heart of what was actually going on. Reading List Barry Hankins, Jesus and Gin:  Evangelicalism, the Roaring Twenties and Today’s Culture Wars (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010) Edward J. Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 1998) Michael Lienisch, In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement (University of North Carolina Press, 2007) Jeffrey P. Moran, The Scopes Trial: A Brief History With Documents (Bedford/St Martin’s, 2002) Ronald Numbers, Darwinism Comes to America (Harvard University Press, 1998) Charles Postel, The Populist Vision (Oxford University Press, 2007) Andrew Preston, Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (Anchor Books, 2012) Adam Shapiro, Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2014) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Teresa Ghilarducci Teresa Ghilarducci is an expert on retirement security, and while Republicans continue their assault on Social Security, she has a new idea – let individuals get the same guaranteed-income retirement accounts that employees of the Federal Reserve have. http://teresaghilarducci.org/ Catherine Poe Columnist and regular contributor Catherine Poe makes the case for the Dream Act – to help children of undocumented workers who were born in the United States get a college education. She points out how Mitt Romney is way out of step with other Republicans and with his own church on  this issue. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/staff/catherine-poe/ Charles Postel And now, historian Charles Postel examines the “no-tax” pledge that Grover Norquist imposes on Republicans -- driving moderates out of the GOP, making the rich richer and the rest of us more miserable. http://history.sfsu.edu/faculty/defaultfaculty.htm

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from Charles Postel and his award-winning book The Populist Vision (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party? Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from Charles Postel and his award-winning book The Populist Vision (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party? Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren’t really the “Populists,” they were the “People’s Party.” But even that isn’t a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers’ Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from Charles Postel and his award-winning book The Populist Vision (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don’t you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People’s Party? Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever wonder where the term “populist” came from? It came from “Populism,” a nineteenth/early twentieth-century American political movement. Of course the Populists weren't really the “Populists,” they were the “People's Party.” But even that isn't a very good description. It would be better to call them the “Farmers' Party,” because most of them were farmers. Most, but not all. A lot of them were urban types, and particularly union members. All this and more I learned from Charles Postel and his award-winning book The Populist Vision (Oxford, 2007). The Populists have a bad name (as does Populism, for that matter). It seems that historians erroneously branded them “backward-looking” because most of them were, well, farmers, and farmers are always “backward-looking” don't you know. Charles does a terrific job of correcting this libel. The Populists were the farthest thing from “backward-looking.” By almost any contemporary measure, they were forward-looking. They favored market rationalization, labor organization, welfare, education, and even the emancipation of women. They also hated the Gold Standard, which is progressive in my book. There were some warts–the Populists generally favored racial segregation, which they viewed as progressive (so did a lot of other folks at the time). But they look pretty good in hindsight. Maybe we need a new People's Party? Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven't already.