Podcast appearances and mentions of samuel tilden

Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the Presidency to Rutherford B. Hayes in the disputed electoral college. That is is his footnote in history. He's also known for taking down Boss Tweed. Though his actual role is disputed by people at the time. What's less known about him is the source of the family money. His family sold patent medicines. Frankly it was cannabis, and at a strength of about 10 times todays routine variety. We link politics, corruption, reform and strong medicine all together in our next episode. CANNABIS AND SAMUEL J. TILDEN coming up soon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rachel Shelden is Associate Professor of History and Director of the Richards Civil War Center at Penn State University. She joined David Priess to talk about the disputed presidential election of 1876 and how the political system found a way to avoid widespread violence and another civil war while resolving it in 1877. They discussed Abraham Lincoln's huge impact on kids growing up in Illinois, the status of Reconstruction by 1876, US political culture in the late 19th century, Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden, what happened on election day and night, how Congress handled contradictory election returns from three states, the creation and operation of the special commission created to resolve the issue, how Hayes won, what we can take away from 1876-77, and the importance of Constitutional creativity and flexibility.Works mentioned in this episode:"Americans worry about 2020 being another 2000, but the real worry is another 1876," by Rachel Shelden and Erik B. Alexander, Washington Post, October 20, 2000.Washington Brotherhood by Rachel Shelden (2013)Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rachel Shelden is Associate Professor of History and Director of the Richards Civil War Center at Penn State University. She joined David Priess to talk about the disputed presidential election of 1876 and how the political system found a way to avoid widespread violence and another civil war while resolving it in 1877. They discussed Abraham Lincoln's huge impact on kids growing up in Illinois, the status of Reconstruction by 1876, US political culture in the late 19th century, Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden, what happened on election day and night, how Congress handled contradictory election returns from three states, the creation and operation of the special commission created to resolve the issue, how Hayes won, what we can take away from 1876-77, and the importance of Constitutional creativity and flexibility.Works mentioned in this episode:"Americans worry about 2020 being another 2000, but the real worry is another 1876," by Rachel Shelden and Erik B. Alexander, Washington Post, October 20, 2000.Washington Brotherhood by Rachel Shelden (2013)Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Snart vankas det amerikanskt presidentval, och vi laddar upp med ett av de mer rafflande valen i amerikansk historia. Nämligen valet 1876 mellan republikanen Rutherford Hayes och demokraten Samuel Tilden. Den senare hade på valkvällen 184 elektorsröster och behövde bara en till för att säkra segern, det borde inte vara några problem eftersom tre av de ofärdiga staterna låg i södern, som var säkra demokratiska fästen. Men dagen efter valet började det hände konstiga saker. Vem hade egentligen vunnit i de tre södra delstaterna? Lyssna på våra avsnitt fritt från reklam: https://plus.acast.com/s/historiepodden. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Learn how the mode of selecting the President was the result of a hard fought and contentious Constitutional Convention debate, resulting in the adoption of Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. Review that the idea of a popular, nationwide election was rejected because, among other things, there were serious concerns that the public would not have sufficient information, and the public would be swayed by bias to local candidates, passion, and celebrity. Understand that the idea of a Congressional election of the President was rejected because, among other things, of grave concerns about the independence of the President, as well as formation of cabals and corruption. The electoral college was intended to mediate the passions of the people as well as the dangers of elections by Congress by creating an independent body, whose sole function was to select the best candidate. Review how electors are chosen is determined by the Legislature of each state. Each State has the number of electors equal to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives and Senators. Learn the mistakes the Founding Fathers made in connection with the Presidential Election (for example, having the runner-up become Vice President) - and how paralyzed the nation during the election of 1800. The President and Vice President now run as a slate, and electors cast one vote for each. A person receiving an outright majority of electors becomes President and Vice President respectively. Otherwise, the House of Representatives chooses the President, selecting from the top three vote getters. Each State has one vote, chosen by a majority of its representatives. A similar process works for the Vice President, but he or she is chosen by the Senate out of the top two vote getters. Originally, most electors were chosen directly by the legislatures of the States. Over time, States determined to select their electors by popular election, with 48 of the 50 States choosing a winner takes all system. Highlights include James Madison, Constitutional Convention, George Washington, Articles of Confederation, Founding Fathers, Congress, Edmund Randolph, the Virginia Plan a/k/a Randolph Resolutions a/k/a Randolph Plan, the President, Abraham Baldwin, William Paterson, New Jersey Plan a/k/a Paterson Resolves a/k/a Paterson Plan, American Revolution, James Wilson, George Mason, Gouverneur Morris, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman, Charles Pinckney, Elbridge Gerry, Alexander Hamilton, Hugh Williamson, John Dickinson, Luther Martin, Oliver Ellsworth,  Caleb Strong, Jonathan Blearly, Blearly Committee, Max Farrand, Abraham Baldwin, John Jay, Federalist Papers (Federalist Paper No. 39, Federalist Paper No. 48), Anti-Federalist Papers, presidential electors, United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, North Carolina Ratifying Convention, James Iredell, United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of The Constitution of the United States, Aaron Burr, Vice President, Presidential Election of 1800, James A. Bayard, the Revolution of 1800, United States Constitution Article II, Section 1, 12th Amendment, Presidential Election of 1788, Presidential Election of 1792, electoral votes, Presidential Election of 1824, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Presidential Election of 1876, President Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, Presidential Election of 2000, President George W. Bush, Vice President Al Gore, Election of 2016, President Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, 23rd Amendment, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Chiafalot v Washington (2020), 10th Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and many others. To learn more about the President and elections & Patriot Week, visit www.PatriotWeek.org. Our resources include videos, a TV series, blogs, lesson plans, and more. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michael-warren9/support

Carl Raymond of The Gilded Gentleman podcast and his guest Keith Taillon invite you into one of the most historically exclusive spaces in New York City -- the romantic and peaceful escape known as Gramercy Park. This small two-acre square, constructed in the 1830s, has been called “America's Bloomsbury”. Taking the reference from London's famous neighborhood once home to many great writers and artists, New York's Gramercy Park has similarly included noted cultural icons as architect Stanford White, actor Edwin Booth and the great politician Samuel Tilden. Wandering along the park today it's easy to gain a view back into the past — many of the original Greek Revival brick townhouses and brownstone mansions remain, some still in private hands. The park in the center is one of the most unique places in America — it is a private park, not a city property and its upkeep has been managed since its inception in the early 19th century by the property owners around the park itself. Writer and historian Keith Taillon joins Carl for this episode to look back into this hidden pocket of New York City's past and unlock its history. Visit the website for images and other information about Gramercy Park 

It's February 4th. This day in 1877, a hastily assembled commission is meeting to try and sort out the very messy aftermath of the previous fall's election between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes. Hayes won the popular vote, but in the end, they would hand the election to Hayes after a bargain with southerners that effectively ended reconstruction. Jody, Niki, and Kellie discuss why the 1876 election was so close, how a few rogue states were able to hold the process hostage — and what the bargain meant for the promise of reconstruction in the South. Sign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch! Find out more at thisdaypod.com This Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX. Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories. If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.com Get in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypod Our team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

In its quest to be remembered by car rental customers, Avis once proudly proclaimed, "We're #2. We Try Harder." It was a brilliant campaign that highlights the challenges of being second. No one remembers you. Kurt and Jon are both second children so they've been dealing with this challenge forever. (Some people even start a podcast to overcompensate.) So Jon and Kurt set out to make sure the silver medalists from history and pop culture get their due. Come learn about Michael Wilding, Twice a Prince, Samuel Tilden, and so many others who just missed out on immortality and why. Jon and...what's the other guy's name? The guy who's second in the Smart Drivel title? Ah, it's on the tip of my tongue. Anyway, enjoy the episode.

You may have heard about the messy, chaotic and truly horrible presidential election of 1876 -- pitting Democrat Samuel Tilden and Republican Rutherford B Hayes -- but did you know that New York City plays a huge role in this moment in American history?Tilden, the governor of New York, was a political superstar, a reformer famous for taking down Boss Tweed and the corrupt machinations of Tammany Hall. From his home in Gramercy Park, the extremely wealthy governor could kept himself updated on the election by a personal telegraph line.In a way, the presidential election came to him -- or at least to his neighborhood. The Democratic national headquarters sat only a few blocks south, while the Republican national headquarters made the Fifth Avenue Hotel (off Madison Square) its home.All this would have made the 1876 national election somewhat unusual already -- New York City seemed to be at the center of it -- but the strange series of events spawned by a most contentious Election Day would send the entire country into pandemonium.Not only was democracy itself on the line, but the fate of Reconstruction was also at stake. As were the rights of thousands of Black Southerners.How did shadowy events which occurred at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in the early morning hours of November 8, 1876, change the course of American history? How did a flurry of telegrams and months of political chicanery cause an end to the country's post-Civil War ambitions?FEATURING: A visit to Tilden's mansion on Gramercy Park, now the home of the National Arts Club!PLUS: How was Daniel Sickles involved here? RECOMMENDED LISTENINGRECOMMENDED READING

Samuel Tilden is visited by throngs of supporters who want him to proclaim from his balcony that he is President. His answer takes place in a closed meeting, but we are privy to the moment thanks to a political reporter's account. 1876 is the key historical example of an election in American history so bitterly contested, with wrong committed on both sides: Democrats intimidated voters, Republicans responded by ignoring vote returns and merely claiming they won the states. It might have meant a return to rifles, at least in some areas of the country. It definitely was getting hot in D.C. William C. Hudson was able to witness the actions of that candidate when urged by partisans to start an extra-constitutional movement. Also a meeting between Grover Cleveland and Theodore Roosevelt witnessed by the same reporter. It finds T.R. not so happy with the result. From political reporter of the 19th century William C Hudson comes too stories with resonant power today. We are part of Airwave Media Network Want to advertise? sales@advertisecast.com OUR SPONSOR IS SHORTFORM - To get a 5 days of unlimited access and an additional 20% discount on the annual subscription, join Shortform through my special link, shortform.com/myhistory or click the link in the description. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Out of respect for the January 6th Committee Hearings we are rerunning our January 6th episode for kids as we learn more about what Trump did and didn't do. Parent/teacher advisory: this special episode of lne.news focuses on sensitive political topics. You might want to listen with your child or student or check-in with them afterwards. It's January 12, 2021. BoxerBlu comforts his son about the incident that happened at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Out of respect for the January 6th Committee Hearings we are rerunning our January 6th episode for kids as we learn more about what Trump did and didn't do. Parent/teacher advisory: this special episode of lne.news focuses on sensitive political topics. You might want to listen with your child or student or check-in with them afterwards. It's January 12, 2021. BoxerBlu comforts his son about the incident that happened at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Malcontents living among us constantly peddle “systemic racism” as justification for why America sucks and why the whole oppressive “system” needs to be torn down.Here’s why that’s BS.

Matthew Wurstner tells the history of America's stolen election, rife with fraud, corruption, and questionable implications for the American democratic experiment--all in the 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/riversidechats/message

For our November special, we the two back to back elections of 1872 and 1876, both equally bonkers. Horace Greeley, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and a few people you may recognize from episodes past!

During this rocky presidential interregnum, many historians have been looking back on the election of 1876, the Compromise of 1877, and the legacy of New York Gov. Samuel Tilden. To learn more, we called up Dr. Robert Chiles of the University of Maryland Department of History. Chiles is also co-editor of New York History.

Just What Does the Constitution Do in the Case of a Tight Election?Since 1789, there have been 58 presidential elections. The Supreme Court was directly involved in settling a dispute in the 2000 contest between George Bush and Al Gore, and five Justices sat on a commission that decided the 1876 race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. https://youtu.be/rDiSGBjW_m0Other than that, the Court can get involved in settling disputes about the electoral process, such as about gerrymandering and voting rights, but it is rare for a presidential election to be disputed after Election Day in the nation’s highest court.The 2000 and 1876 elections were disputed over vote counting and the legitimate slates of electors chosen for the Electoral College. In the recent 2000 dispute, Bush led Gore by a narrow margin in the state of Florida when the popular votes were first counted. Gore disputed the vote count and process; ultimately, the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore that using different vote-count standards within Florida violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and that a vote-recount couldn’t be completed by a December 12 deadline. (Ginsburg was on the minority of both parts of the decision.)The 1876 scenario was unique in that the presidential election saw disputed groups of electors submitted by four states. Each of the states, Florida, Oregon, Louisiana, and South Carolina, sent two rival slates of electors to Congress to be counted. Since Congress was deadlocked on party lines, it negotiated a compromise solution: a special commission of 15 people to decide the election. The commission consisted of five Senate members, five House members, and five Supreme Court Justices. In the end, it was the vote of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley that gave the election to the Republicans as part of a compromise to end Reconstruction.An 1887 law changed how Congress can settle such a dispute without invoking a special commission including Supreme Court Justices in the process. The House and Senate would each serve as a referee, with the governor of the state in dispute as a tie-breaker if Congress can’t agree on which slate of rival electors to choose.So how could the 2020 election wind up in front of the Court?Currently, the specter looms of a potential court fight over vote recounts in states where the results are very tight. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 states and the District of Columbia have automatic recount provisions that kick in when elections are very close, and 43 states allow losing candidates to ask for a recount. And any dispute in the lower court system can wind up in the Supreme Court.Complicating that disputed-voter scenario is if there was a split on the Supreme Court. The more politically cynical court watcher could conclude that the court would favor a Republican candidate, but in the unpredictable 2020 election, it would be hard to even guess at the Court’s possible voting in that scenario.Even Though Donald Trump has added so many new justices in his short 4 years in office.Today the #Qiew is going to discuss the Constitution and give our take on the matter.#Qiew #GoRighthttps://www.spreaker.com/user/9922149/just-what-does-the-constitution-do-in-th_1

Just What Does the Constitution Do in the Case of a Tight Election?Since 1789, there have been 58 presidential elections. The Supreme Court was directly involved in settling a dispute in the 2000 contest between George Bush and Al Gore, and five Justices sat on a commission that decided the 1876 race between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden. https://youtu.be/rDiSGBjW_m0Other than that, the Court can get involved in settling disputes about the electoral process, such as about gerrymandering and voting rights, but it is rare for a presidential election to be disputed after Election Day in the nation's highest court.The 2000 and 1876 elections were disputed over vote counting and the legitimate slates of electors chosen for the Electoral College. In the recent 2000 dispute, Bush led Gore by a narrow margin in the state of Florida when the popular votes were first counted. Gore disputed the vote count and process; ultimately, the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore that using different vote-count standards within Florida violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and that a vote-recount couldn't be completed by a December 12 deadline. (Ginsburg was on the minority of both parts of the decision.)The 1876 scenario was unique in that the presidential election saw disputed groups of electors submitted by four states. Each of the states, Florida, Oregon, Louisiana, and South Carolina, sent two rival slates of electors to Congress to be counted. Since Congress was deadlocked on party lines, it negotiated a compromise solution: a special commission of 15 people to decide the election. The commission consisted of five Senate members, five House members, and five Supreme Court Justices. In the end, it was the vote of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley that gave the election to the Republicans as part of a compromise to end Reconstruction.An 1887 law changed how Congress can settle such a dispute without invoking a special commission including Supreme Court Justices in the process. The House and Senate would each serve as a referee, with the governor of the state in dispute as a tie-breaker if Congress can't agree on which slate of rival electors to choose.So how could the 2020 election wind up in front of the Court?Currently, the specter looms of a potential court fight over vote recounts in states where the results are very tight. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 20 states and the District of Columbia have automatic recount provisions that kick in when elections are very close, and 43 states allow losing candidates to ask for a recount. And any dispute in the lower court system can wind up in the Supreme Court.Complicating that disputed-voter scenario is if there was a split on the Supreme Court. The more politically cynical court watcher could conclude that the court would favor a Republican candidate, but in the unpredictable 2020 election, it would be hard to even guess at the Court's possible voting in that scenario.Even Though Donald Trump has added so many new justices in his short 4 years in office.Today the #Qiew is going to discuss the Constitution and give our take on the matter.#Qiew #GoRighthttps://www.spreaker.com/user/9922149/just-what-does-the-constitution-do-in-th

Welcome to the history of computing podcast. Today we're going to talk about the use of big data in elections. But first, let's start with a disclaimer. I believe that these problems outlined in this episode are apolitical. Given the chance to do so I believe most politicians (or marketers), despite their party, would have jumped on what happened with what is outlined in this podcast. Just as most marketers are more than happy to buy data, even when not knowing the underlying source of that data. No offense to the parties but marketing is marketing. Just as it is in companies. Data will be used to gain an advantage in the market. Understanding the impacts of our decisions and the values of others is an ongoing area of growth for all of us. Even when we have quotas on sales qualified leads to be delivered.  Now let's talk about data sovereignty. Someone pays for everything. The bigger and more lucrative the business, the more that has to be paid to keep organizations necessarily formed to support an innovation alive. If you aren't paying for a good or service, then you yourself are the commodity. In social media, this is represented in the form of a company making their money from data about you and from the ads you see. The only other viable business model used is to charge for the service, like a Premium LinkedIn account as opposed to the ones used by us proletariat.   Our devices can see so much about us. They know our financial transactions, where we go, what we buy, what content we consume, and apparently what our opinions and triggers are. Sometimes, that data can be harnessed to show us ads. Ads about things to buy. Ads about apps to install. Ads about elections. My crazy uncle Billy sends me routine invitations to take personality quizzes. No thanks. Never done one. Why? I worked on one of the first dozen Facebook apps. A simple rock, paper, scissors game. At the time, it didn't at all seem weird to me as a developer that there was an API endpoint to get a list of friends from within my app. It's how we had a player challenge other players in a game. It didn't seem weird that I could also get a list of their friends. And it didn't seem weird that I could get a lot of personal data on people through that app. I mean I had to display their names and photos when they played a game, right? I just wanted to build a screen to invite friends to play the app. I had to show a photo so you could see who you were playing. And to make the game more responsive I needed to store the data in my own SQL tables. It didn't seem weird then. I guess it didn't seem weird until it did.  What made it weird was the introduction of highly targeted analytics and retargeting. I have paid for these services. I have benefited from these services in my professional life and to some degree I have helped develop some. I've watched the rise of large data warehouses. I've helped buy phone numbers and other personally identifiable information of humans and managed teams of sellers to email and call those humans. Ad targeting, drip campaigns, lead scoring, and providing very specific messages based on attributes you know about a person are all a part of the modern sales and marketing machine at any successful company.  And at some point, it went from being crazy how much information we had about people to being - well, just a part of doing business. The former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix once said “From Mad Men in the day to Math Men today.” From Don Draper to Betty's next husband Henry (a politician) there are informal ties between advertising, marketing and politics. Just as one of the founders of SCL, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica had ties with royals having dated one and gone to school with others in political power. But there have also always been formal ties. Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestick was the first colonial newspaper in America and was formally suppressed after its first edition in 1690. But the Boston News-Letter was formally subsidized in 1704. Media and propaganda. Most newspapers were just straight up sponsoring or sponsored by a political platform in the US until the 1830s. To some degree, that began with Ben Franklin's big brother James Franklin in the early 1700s with the New England Courant. Franklin would create partnerships for content distribution throughout the colonies, spreading his brand of moral virtue. And the papers were stoking the colonies into revolution. And after the revolution Hamilton instigated American Minerva as the first daily paper in New York - to be a Federalist paper. Of course, the Jeffersonian Republicans called him an “incurable lunatic.” And yet they still guaranteed us the freedom of press.  And that freedom grew to investigative reporting, especially during the Progressive Era, from the tail end of the 19th century up until the start of the roaring twenties. While Teddy Roosevelt would call them Muckrakers, their tradition extends from Nellie Bly and Fremont Older to Seymour Hersch, Kwitny, even the most modern Woodward and Bernstein. They led to stock reform, civic reforms, uncovering corruption, exposing crime in labor unions, laying bare monopolistic behaviors, improving sanitation and forcing us to confront racial injustices. They have been independent of party affiliation and yet constantly accused over the last hundred years of being against whomever is in power at the time. Their journalism extended to radio and then to television. I think the founders would be proud of how journalism evolved and also unsurprised as to some of the ways it has devolved. But let's get back to someone is always paying. The people can subscribe to a newspaper but the advertising is a huge source of revenue. With radio and television flying across airwaves and free, advertising exclusively became what paid for content and the ensuing decades became the golden age of that industry. And politicians bought ads. If there is zero chance a politician can win a state, why bother buying ads in that state. That's a form of targeting with a pretty simple set of data.  In Mad Men, Don is sent to pitch the Nixon campaign. There has always been a connection between disruptive new mediums and politics. Offices have been won by politicians able to gain access to early printing presses to spread their messages to the masses, those connected to print media to get articles and advertising, by great orators at the advent of the radio, and by good-looking charismatic politicians first able to harness television - especially in the Mad Men fueled ad exec inspired era that saw the Nixon campaigns in the 60s. The platforms to advertise become ubiquitous, they get abused, and then they become regulated. After television came news networks specifically meant to prop up an agenda, although unable to be directly owned by a party. None are “fake news” per se, but once abused by any they can all be cast in doubt, even if most especially done by the abuser.  The Internet was no different. The Obama campaign was really the first that leveraged social media and great data analytics to orchestrate what can be considered to really be the first big data campaign. And after his campaign carried him to a first term the opposition was able to make great strides in countering that. Progress is often followed by lagerts who seek to subvert the innovations of an era. And they often hire the teams who helped with previous implementations.  Obama had a chief data scientist, Rayid Ghani. And a chief analytics officer. They put apps in the hands of canvassers and they mined Facebook data from Facebook networks of friends to try and persuade voters. They scored voters and figured out how to influence votes for certain segments. That was supplemented by thousands of interviews and thousands of hours building algorithms. By 2012 they were pretty confident they knew which of the nearly 70 million Americans that put him in the White House. And that gave the Obama campaign the confidence to spend $52 million in online ads against Romney's $26 million to bring home the win. And through all that the Democratic National Committee ended up with information on 180 million voters. That campaign would prove the hypothesis that big data could win big elections. Then comes the 2016 election. Donald Trump came from behind, out of a crowded field of potential Republican nominees, to not only secure the Republican nomination for president but then to win that election. He won the votes to be elected in the electoral college while losing the popular vote. That had happened when John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson in 1824, although it took a vote in the House of Representatives to settle that election. Rutherford B Hayes defeated Samuel Tilden in 1876 in the electoral college but lost the popular vote. And it happened again when Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison in 1888. And in 2000 when Bush beat Gore. And again when Trump beat Hillary Clinton. And he solidly defeated her in the electoral college with 304 to her 227 votes.  Every time it happens, there seems to be plenty of rhetoric about changing the process. But keep in mind the framers built the system for a reason: to give the constituents of every state a minimum amount of power to elect officials that represent them. Those two represent the number of senators for the state and then the state receives one for each member of the house of representatives. States can choose how the electors are instructed to vote. Most states (except Maine and Nebraska) have all of their electors vote for a single ticket, the one that won the state. Most of the states instruct their elector to vote based on who won the popular vote for their state. Once all the electors cast their votes, Congress counts the votes and the winner of the election is declared.  So how did he come from behind? One easy place to blame is data. I mean, we can blame data for putting Obama into the White House, or we can accept a message of hope and change that resonated with the people. Just as we can blame data for Trump or accept a message that government wasn't effective for the people. Since this is a podcast on technology, let's focus on data for a bit. And more specifically let's look at the source of one trove of data used for micro-targeting, because data is a central strategy for most companies today. And it was a central part of the past four elections.  We see the ads on our phones so we know that companies have this kind of data about us. Machine learning had been on the rise for decades. But a little company called SCL was started In 1990 as the Behavioral Dynamics Institute by a British ad man named Nigel Oakes after leaving Saatchi & Saatchi. Something dangerous is when you have someone like him make this kind of comparison “We use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler.” Behavioural Dynamics studied how to change mass behavior through strategic communication - which US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Robert Hastings described in 2008 as the “synchronization of images, actions, and words to achieve a desired effect.” Sounds a lot like state conducted advertising to me. And sure, reminiscent of Nazi tactics. You might also think of it as propaganda. Or “pay ops” in the Vietnam era. And they were involved in elections in the developing world. In places like the Ukraine, Italy, South Africa, Albania, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, even India. And of course in the UK. Or at least on behalf of the UK and whether directly or indirectly, the US.  After Obama won his second term, SCL started Cambridge Analytica to go after American elections. They began to assemble a similar big data warehouse. They hired people like Brittany Kaiser who'd volunteered for Obama and would become director of Business Development.  Ted Cruz used them in 2016 but it was the Trump campaign that was really able to harness their intelligence. Their principal investor was Robert Mercer, former CEO of huge fund Renaissance Technologies. He'd gotten his start at IBM Research working on statistical machine translation and was recruited in the 90s to apply data modeling and computing resources to financial analysis. This allowed them to earn nearly 40% per year on investments. An American success story. He was key in the Brexit vote, donating analytics to Nigel Farage and an early supporter of Breitbart News.  Cambridge Analytica would get involved in 44 races in the 2014 midterm elections. By 2016, Project Alamo was running at a million bucks a day in Facebook advertising. In the documentary The Great Hack, they claim this was to harvest fear. And Cambridge Analytica allowed the Trump campaign to get really specific with targeting. So specific that they were able to claim to have 5,000 pieces of data per person.  Enter whistleblower Christopher Wylie who claims over a quarter million people took a quick called “This is Your Digital Life” which exposed the data of around 50 million users. That data was moved off Facebook servers and stored in a warehouse where it could be analyzed and fields merged with other data sources without the consent of the people who played the game or the people who were in their friend networks. Dirty tactics.  Alexander Nix admitted to using bribery stings and prostitutes to influence politicians. So it should be as no surprise that they stole information on well over 50 million Facebook users in the US alone. And of course then they lied about it when being investigated by the UK for Russian interference and fake news in the lead to the Brexit referendum. Investigations go on.  After investigations started piling up, some details started to emerge. This is Your Digital Life was written by Dr Spectre. It gets better. That's actually Alexandr Kogan for Cambridge Analytica. He had received research funding from the University of St Petersburg and was then lecturing at the Psychology department at the University of Cambridge. It would be easy to make a jump that he was working for the Russkies but here's the thing, he also got research funding from Canada, China, the UK, and the US. He claimed he didn't know what the app would be used for. That's crap. When I got a list of friends and friends friends who I could spider through, I parsed the data and displayed it on a screen as a pick list. He piped it out to a data warehouse. When you do that you know exactly what's happening with it.  So the election comes and goes. Trump wins. And people start asking questions. As they do when one party wins the popular vote and not the electoral college. People misunderstand and think you can win a district due to redistricting in most states and carry the state without realizing most are straight majority. Other Muckraker reporters from around the world start looking into Brexit and US elections and asking questions.  Enter Paul-Olivier Dehaye. While an assistant professor at the University of Zurich he was working on Coursera. He started asking about the data collection. The word spread slowly but surely. Then enter American professor David Carroll, who sued Cambridge Analytica to see what data they had on him. Dehaye contributed to his Subject Access request and suddenly the connections between Cambridge Analytica and Brexit started to surface, as did the connection between Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign, including photos of the team working with key members of the campaign. And ultimately of the checks cut.  Cause there's always a money trail.  I've heard people claim that there was no interference in the 2016 elections, in Brexit, or in other elections. Now, if you think the American taxpayer didn't contribute to some of the antics by Cambridge Analytica before they turned their attention to the US, I think we're all kidding ourselves. And there was Russian meddling in US elections and illegally obtained materials were used, whether that's emails on servers then leaked to WikiLeaks or stolen Facebook data troves. Those same tactics were used in Brexit. And here's the thing, it's been this way for a long, long time - it's just so much more powerful today than ever before. And given how fast data can travel, every time it happens, unless done in a walled garden, the truth will come to light.  Cambridge Analytica kinda' shut down in 2017 after all of this came to light. What do I mean by kinda? Well, former employees setup a company called Emerdata Limited who then bought the SCL companies. Why? There were contracts and data. They brought on the founder of Blackwater, Mercer's daughter Rebekah, and others to serve on the board of directors and she was suddenly the “First Lady of the Alt-Right.” Whether Emerdata got all of the company, they got some of the scraped data from 87 million users. No company with the revenues they had goes away quietly or immediately.  Robert Mercer donated the fourth largest amount in the 2016 presenting race. He was also the one who supposedly introduced Trump to Steve Bannon. In the fallout of the scandals if you want to call them that, Mercer stepped down from Renaissance and sold his shares of Breitbart to his daughters. Today, he's a benefactor of the Make America Number 1 Super PAC and remains one of the top donors to conservative causes.  After leaving Cambridge Analytica, Nix was under investigations for a few years before settling with the Federal Trade Commission and agreed to delete illegally obtained data and settled with the UK Secretary of State that he had offered unethical services and agreed to not act as a director of another company for at least 7 years.  Brittany Kaiser flees to Thailand and is now a proponent of banning political advertising on Facebook and being able to own your own data.  Facebook paid a $5 billion fine for data privacy violations and have overhauled their APIs and privacy options. It's better but not great. I feel like they're doing as well as they can and they've been accused of tampering with feeds by conservative and liberal media outlets alike. To me, if they all hate you, you're probably either doing a lot right, or basically screwing all of it up. I wouldn't be surprised to see fines continue piling up.  Kogan left the University of Cambridge in 2018. He founded Philometrics, a firm applying big data and AI to surveys. Their website isn't up as of the recording of this episode. His Tumblr seems to be full of talk about acne and trying to buy cheat codes for video games these days.  Many, including Kogan, have claimed that micro-targeting (or psychographic modeling techniques) against large enhanced sets of data isn't effective. If you search for wedding rings and I show you ads for wedding rings then maybe you'll buy my wedding rings. If I see you bought a wedding ring, I can start showing you ads for wedding photographers and bourbon instead. Hey dummy, advertising works. Disinformation works. Analyzing and forecasting and modeling with machine learning works. Sure, some is snake oil. But early adopters made billions off it. Problem is, like that perfect gambling system, you wouldn't tell people about something if it means you lost your edge. Sell a book about how to weaponize a secret and suddenly you probably are selling snake oil.   As for regulatory reactions, can you say GDPR and all of the other privacy regulations that have come about since? Much as Sarbanes-Oxley introduced regulatory controls for corporate auditing and transparency, we regulated the crap out of privacy. And by regulated I mean a bunch of people that didn't understand the way data is stored and disseminated over APIs made policy to govern it. But that's another episode waiting to happen. Suffice it to say the lasting impact to the history of computing is both the regulations on privacy and the impact to identity providers and other API endpoints, were we needed to lock down entitlements to access various pieces of information due to rampant abuses.  So here's the key question in all of this: did the data help Obama and Trump win their elections? It might have moved a few points here and there. But it was death by a thousand cuts. Mis-steps by the other campaigns, political tides, segments of American populations desperately looking for change and feeling left behind while other segments of the population got all the attention, foreign intervention, voting machine tampering, not having a cohesive Opponent Party and so many other aspects of those elections also played a part. And as Hari Seldon-esque George Friedman called it in his book, it's just the Storm Before the Calm.  So whether the data did or did not help the Trump campaign, the next question is whether using the Cambridge Analytica data was wrong? This is murky. The data was illegally obtained. The Trump campaign was playing catchup with the maturity of the data held by the opposition. But the campaign can claim they didn't know that the data was illegally obtained. It is illegal to employ foreigners in political campaigns and Bannon was warned about that. And then-CEO Nix was warned. But they were looking to instigate a culture war according to Christopher Wylie who helped found Cambridge Analytica. And look around, did they?  Getting data models to a point where they have a high enough confidence interval that they are weaponizable takes years. Machine learning projects are very complicated, very challenging, and very expensive. And they are being used by every political campaign now insofar as the law allows. To be honest though, troll farms of cheap labor are cheaper and faster. Which is why three more got taken down just a month before the recording of this episode. But AI doesn't do pillow talk, so eventually it will displace even the troll farm worker if only ‘cause the muckrakers can't interview the AI.  So where does this leave us today? Nearly every time I open Facebook, I see an ad to vote for Biden or an ad to vote for Trump. The US Director of National Intelligence recently claimed the Russians and Iranians were interfering with US elections. To do their part, Facebook will ban political ads indefinitely after the polls close on Nov. 3. They and Twitter are taking proactive steps to stop disinformation on their networks, including by actual politicians. And Twitter has actually just outright banned political ads.  People don't usually want regulations. But just as political ads in print, on the radio, and on television are regulated - they will need to be regulated online as well. As will the use of big data. The difference is the rich metadata collected in micro-targeting, the expansive comments areas, and the anonymity of those commenters. But I trust that a bunch of people who've never written a line of code in their life will do a solid job handing down those regulations. Actually, the FEC probably never built a radio - so maybe they will. So as the election season comes to a close, think about this. Any data from large brokers about you is fair game. What you're seeing in Facebook and even the ads you see on popular websites are being formed by that data. Without it, you'll see ads for things you don't want. Like the Golden Girls Season 4 boxed set. Because you already have it. But with it, you'll get crazy uncle Billy at the top of your feed talking about how the earth is flat. Leave it or delete it, just ask for a copy of it so you know what's out there. You might be surprised, delighted, or even a little disgusted by that site uncle Billy was looking at that one night you went to bed early. But don't, don't, don't think that any of this should impact your vote. Conservative, green, liberal, progressive, communist, social democrats, or whatever you ascribe to. In whatever elections in your country or state or province or municipality. Go vote. Don't be intimated. Don't let fear stand in the way of your civic duty. Don't block your friends with contrary opinions. If nothing else listen to them. They need to be heard. Even if uncle Billy just can't be convinced the world is round. I mean, he's been to the beach. He's been on an airplane. He has GPS on his phone… And that site. Gross. Thank you for tuning in to this episode of the history of computing podcast. We are so, so, so lucky to have you. Have a great day. 

The two candidates have been selected. In keeping with the traditions of the day, their followers and friends hit the campaign trail on their behalf. Both sides have their platforms and both sides engage in the typical political mudslinging that we all know and love. But there is an added undercurrent. The Bourbon Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they have zero commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans, just the white ones that will vote for them. As for the others, well… But things aren’t going to go smoothly and those three recalcitrant unreconstructed States throw a monkey into the wrench. Now nobody is clear on who won, because Democrat Samuel Tilden has 51% of the popular vote, but that is not how we elect a President. Republicans control the three States executives and Legislatures, and they aren’t about to allow the intimidation and suppression of voters that has been rampant to allow Tilden to win. The Bourbon Democrats are screaming bloody murder and in that vein, the make it clear that everybody had better decide that their man won or else. Tilden or Blood! And it’s just the beginning.

Matt and Scott join the Professor to discuss another insane Gilded Age election, this time between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden.

St. Louis itself has been the home of a number of national political conventions dating from the 19th and into the 20th century. Five in fact, starting with the democrats in 1876.Samuel Tilden was nominated by the democratic party, you know of course because; you have never heard his name in connection with the presidency that he didn`t win and instead the presidency went to Rutherford b. Hayes.Undaunted by the loss, the democrats returned to St. Louis in 1888 nominating Grover Cleveland, who won.Then in 1896; the GOP came to town, nominating William McKinley, who also won.There was a lot of hoopla surrounding these conventions, there were parades and there were horns and there were demonstrators of all kinds who had causes for which they were advocating.The democrats returned again in 1904, but got little notice thanks to the World’s Fair in forest park.But they came back again anyway in 1916. Sending Woodrow Wilson back to the White House with a cause to champion thanks in part to his experience in St. Louis.There were women who demonstrating for female suffrage who were lining the street and the point was made clearly, as the men walked from the Jefferson hotel to the Coliseum that were was a very powerful and strong group of people; who were very much in favor of suffrage for women and of course female suffrage came not too long after that.In 1896, it wasn’t just the republicans who came to St Louis, in July of that year, the city also hosted conventions for the Bi-Metallic party. Which wanted to put the united states on a gold and silver standard and the Populist Party; who ended up nominating the same man as the democrats, William Jennings Bryan. Who despite having the backing of two political parties, still lost the election.

Thom summarizes his rankings for the losers of the period of American history from 1860-1892: Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge, John Bell, George McClellan, Horatio Seymour, Horace Greeley, Samuel Tilden, Winfield Scott Hancock, James Blaine and James Weaver.  He also discusses some interesting 'nearly also-rans': William Seward, Salmon Chase, Cassius Clay, Roscoe Conkling, Thomas Hendricks, Thomas Bayard, Benjamin 'Beast' Butler, and the various third parties of the era, from the Women's Equality Party to the Prohibition Party. 

Steve Kass sits down with Architectural Historian Francis Marrone to discuss the history of the Gramercy Park area and it's illustrious residents including Edith Wharton and Samuel Tilden, who's house the NAC calls home. Marrone was the 2012 recipient of the Arthur Ross Award of the Institute of Classical Architecture and Art, and a 2016 recipient of the Landmarks Lion Award of the Historic Districts Council. He teaches at NYU and his essays on architecture have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, City Journal, American Arts Quarterly, the New Criterion, Humanities, and the New York Times.

Welcome back to The Emancipation Podcast Station - the place to hear about history researched and retold through the eyes of Middle school and HS students. Last time on the show…   Today we discuss the causes of the Civil War. Let’s dive in.   Introduction to the Gilded Age Why was it called the Gilded Age? And Who coined the term.   Hunter- The gilded age in American was the late 19th century, from 1870 to about 1900. The name of this point in time was used in the early 20th century, and was derived from writer Mark Twain’s 1873 novel the Gilded Age: A Tale Of Today, which started an era of social problems covered by a thin gold gilding. Skylar - The Gilded Age began in 1865 and Ended in 1898. The gilded age was a time where everyone was focused on the development of the United states, mainly industrial type things. The Gilded age didn’t mean the golden age but more of a cover, like everything is perfect but really it’s not. Ricky-Ricky-The Gilded Age was an age in the 1870s to the early 1900s it was a time of economic growth for American citizens and non-immigrants. In wages Rose from $380 from 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%. The widespread industrialization led to a real wage growth of 60% in between 1860 and 1890. - Blake (gabe)- The Gilded age was a time period in which hard times fell on the american and immigrant people.   Gabe - The Gilded age was a time where americans economy went good and bad in a way because industry grew but money not so much.     - Ethan - The Gilded Age was the time that America began to revolutionize their industrial world. Mark Twain coined the term “Gilded Age” which meant the time seemed pretty good but was truly miserable. Someone who profited from the Gilded Age was John D. Rockefeller, who was the founder of oil. Oil was just 1 of the “titans of industry” which were steel, banking, and oil. The miserable part would probably be that they got their money mostly through corruption. Ben- And with every urban explosion there were poor people, in apartments without heating or even light, it was 5 cents a night, which doesn’t sound like much, but they were poor and money was different then it is now. They had to fit as many people as possible to get the most out of the room too.   The Gilded Age and the Second Industrial Revolution Name one invention that came out of the Second Industrial Revolution. Hunter- The Second Industrial Revolution, also known as the Technological Revolution, was a time of quick industrialization in the last third of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th. Some of the inventions are of the following the swiss army knife, barbed wire, dynamite, and the motorcycle. Oh and some of my personal favorites are the Maxim Machine Gun, and the colt .45 M-1911. Skylar - The Second Industrial Revolution went on in the same time as the Gilded Age. This was time for mass production of things, as well as communicating about business tractions, materials, all that weren’t existing before. The Bessemer Process was a big deal in this time, it made steel easy and quicker to produce, so trains became more of a option for transporting things before. During this time the US had more railroads than all of Europe combined. Ricky- As everyone said the Second Industrial Revolution was basically a time when a bunch of new inventions were made that revolutionized the industrial system like as Skylar said it made steel a lot easier to produce creating easier ways to create a railroad system. A lot of inventions like petroleum gas, electrification was a big thing, Machine Tools like drills and saws, chemical tools like ammonia, and chlorine, rubber, bicycles, the invention of automobiles, some fertilizers, telephones, and a lot of scientific knowledge, as well as the making of new weapons as Hunter said like the Colt 45 M119 pistol, the Thompson submachine gun which shoots 45. ACP rounds which is famously said to be used by high-ranking gangsters, the M1 Garand which is a 30 caliber round.                                                                        4. Gabe - as Hunter and Ricky said we Developed a lot of technology in the gilded ages second industrial revolution. But railroads helped increase income and production because we used them for transportation shipping goods all across america.   - Blake(ben) - As everyone has said previously this was a big time for the early United States which revolutionized building and processing for wealthy businessman looking to get a start in the material industry. - Ethan - The Second Industrial Revolution took place in 1870-1914. Some say it went up to the start of World War 1. This Revolution was also known as the Technological Revolution. During this revolution things like the telephone and electricity were made. This revolution wasn’t just in America, but in Britain and Germany. Lesser known countries were France, Italy, and Japan. - Ben - After the first industrial revolution they had all these new things so they refined it and made it better.   Social Darwinism in the Gilded Age What is Social Darwinism and do you think there is any truth in it? Skylar - Social Darwinism is just basically seeing what people are on the outside. Social Darwinism says that the poor have less worth that a higher class rich person. It’s judging people for what’s on the outside and your social class rather than judging someone for what’s on the inside like being kind. Acting like a snob means you have more worth to someone who believes in Social Darwinism, when in reality they are worth less for judging people just by how much money they have, or how they look. Ricky-- Social Darwinism is the idea and belief that it is survival of the fittest. It stole the term from Darwinism evolution and plastered itself all over politics as social Darwinism. Gabe - Social Darwinism started in the gilded age because people started applying his idea that the strong rule the weak to people in there life and so on. - Blake(hunter) - Do I seriously have to do this one? Oh boy. Social Darwinism was a terrible thing it basically said that white people are better than others and that humans evolved from apes. - Ethan - Social Darwinism, in more proper terms, was seeing natural selection in the people around us. Anyone that considered themselves a Social Darwinist did not go by any such term. The term Darwinism wasn’t really used much except by people that were opposed to it. Ben- It got the term Darwinism because Charles Darwin studied evolution, so since people believed in survival of the fittest, like the theory of evolution, the called it darwinism. America moves to the city Why did most of America start moving to cities and leaving farms? Skylar - In 1790 nearly everyone lived in the country or on a farm. Due to The Second Industrial Revolution, growing population, and new machinery the United States needed more room to expand into the countryside to make big cities for railroads and new jobs. By 1920 only 28% of people lived in rural areas and the majority lived in the larger cities. Ricky- -a majority of people lived in rural areas than in urban areas, but then suddenly 11 million people migrated from rural areas to urban areas along with 25 million immigrants pouring in to the country.   Gabe - Another thing that happened which was people started urbanizing living in urban places it started in the 1800s and it made its ascent from there until 1920s where more people lived in urban areas then actual rural areas. And here is a quote from thomas jefferson who said “once we start piling upon one another in large cities  as in europe   We will become as corrupt as europe”.   - Blake(hunters) - America began to enter industrialization and because of this more people moved to bigger cities to find work and be prosperous. - Ethan - In 1920 more Americans lived in cities than on farms. This was kind of the transition between farm life and the urban living of today. In 1890 28% of the population lived in urban environment. - Ben - It started all the mass population you see in the popular urban cities around the world today. People were obsessed with industrial industry and thought it would be more profitable to move to cities. The Knights of Labor   What were the Knights of Labor and what do you think about them? Good or bad? 1.Hunter- The K of L, officially Noble the Holy order of the Knights of Labor, Was the largest and one of the most important American labor organizations 1880. It’s most important leaders were Terence V. Powderly and step-brother Joseph bath. The Knights promoted the working man, rejected socialism and anarchism, demanded the eight-hour day, and promoted the producersethic of republicanism. The Knights of Labor was a union founded in 1869. They promoted 8 hour work days and wanted to end child labor. It was mostly white men in this union, but immigrants, african americans, as well as women were welcome to be members. By 1886 the Knights of Labor had over 700,000 members and supporters. Ricky-- The Knights of Labor had officially crashed and disbanded near 1886 following the Haymarket Square riot. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was growing at the time which then eventually took over. Gabe - So the knights of labor were a group who promoted like skylar said 8 hour work days and were in a union which aloud individual industrial workers to go on strike if they were not paid well or treated correctly. Another thing is that the person who started protesting 8 hour work day was also the one of the founders of socialism Ben- The skilled and simple workers of the country together to promote a safe and healthy work schedule and environment, there were people like this in the past but not as influential as the knights. - Ethan - They basically told the working class they had to work 8 hours a day and they rejected any possible anarchy or socialism. They were founded by Uriah Stephens and by 1884 had 100000 members. - Blake - Unions were a group of workers organizing to gain better wages, less hours and more employee benefits. The Populists What was the Populists agenda? Did they succeed? Skylar - The people who were called populists were an agrarian-based movement trying to better the conditions for the farmers and agrarian workers of the United States. In 1876 the farmers alliance was made to help end the crop-lien system that put many farmers into poverty, this movement began in Texas. The crop-lien system operated in the south were cotton was grown. Any sharecroppers, tenant farmers, black, and white people who didn’t own the land that they worked, would have to take out loans to be able to purchase supplies had to pay back their loans with cotton. Ricky- in 1892 a homestead strike broke out in the carnegie steel company steel works. Which caused a gun fight between unionized workers and a group of hired men to break the strike. The workers lost. Gabe - the populists were a Group of people who wanted to help farmers and help  those people that were not and industrial worker someone who farmer worked off his land but didn't make much because of the industrial work Ben- After the end of slavery the farmers had a hard time making as making as much money as before, they now had to actually hire workers and even if they hired that costed a lot of money and they still wouldn’t have as many people as before. - Ethan - A.K.A the People’s Party or Populist Party. Their goal was to improve life for farmer-like workers and they were disbanded very quickly. - Blake - (Hunter’s) Money was a troubling problem for the farming south so farmers supported a new party called the Populists Party who supported the farming economy. 7.Hunter- the Populists were an agrarian-based  political movement. The South after the Civil War What happened to the farming economy, why? Skylar - The period of Reconstruction lasted from 1865 to 1877. During this time 3 newly adopted amendments were passed, the Thirteenth Amendment to end slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment that promised the African Americans the right to have citizenship in The United States Of America, and the Fifteenth Amendment that guaranteed black men the right to vote. Ricky- Everything was topsy turny for the south, because their “country” was destroyed and their social system was wrecked and they had extreme hate from the north.   Gabe - The South crashed economically because they were built on selling tobacco and cotton  and since the prices dropped the south was economically destroyed.   Ben- Just because slavery ended doesn’t mean racism did, some is still here today, and people are doing things about it. But the end of slavery was pretty cool. Allowing people of color to now vote and be American citizens. Some of the industry based on slavery like farming and other labor tasks sort of crashed since they now had to hire workers and pay them. - Ethan - As we have said the discrimination did not end but the South did not truly let things go. The economy changed drastically since slaves were gone. - Blake - Well we still had some problems even after the war as even though we passed laws to stop discrimination against African Americans the south was able to pass laws that would stop them from doing things such as voting we’ll talk about these laws later. Life after slavery for African Americans What happened to racism, did it get better or worse? Why do you think that Skylar - When the civil war was over life got a lot better for the people living in the United States. African Americans became free in 1865 and was put into the Amendments as the 13th amendment. Which made a huge difference in everyone’s lives, especially the cotton plantation owners in the south because they would no longer have free labor. Ricky- life for African Americans, as Skylar said, “got a lot better”. After the emancipation proclamation/13th amendment African Americans worked on railroads, owned shops, and even got to vote (black men).   African americans became as the same as any white person there was no “an african american person couldn't do this because blank” anymore. There was a african american named george washington carver who made 300 different products from peanuts. Another named Booker T Washington started a University.   Ben - There were still some restrictions on what they could do though, they still couldn’t testify against white people, serve in a jury, or serve in some state militias. - Ethan - All their bad treatment didn’t completely disappear because the idea of slavery was still fresh in people’s minds so while they weren’t whipped as slaves anymore, they still were discriminated. - Blake - Just like I said before this wasn’t a good time for African Americans even though we had passed anti-discrimination laws southern states were still able to get around these laws. The Compromise of 1877 Why did the compromise have to happen? What was the final factor that gave Hayes his victory. What was the main deal in the Compromise? Skylar - The Compromise of 1877 was put into place to resolve a Presidential election that took place a year before. There was a dispute between the democrat Samuel Tilden and republican Rutherford Hayes. This dispute was obviously over who was going to become the next President of the US. Samuel J. Tilden won with 247,448 votes, but votes in 3 states were being disputed. These states were in the South and were, Florida, Louisiana, as well as South Carolina. This lasted 4 months then this compromise was put into place. Ricky-ricky-The compromise was put in place because of a dispute because Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote, but Rutherford B Hayes won the electoral vote. So the Democrats agreed that he would be president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South also granting of home rule in the south.   Basically the exchange in this compromise was that Rutherford B Hayes would become President and the south would get home rule and federal troops with withdraw from the south   - Ethan - The compromise was seemingly a president in exchange troop withdrawal.   Ben- With most debates the best option is a compromise, it will make both sides an equal amount of happy or sad. And with the destruction of the souths economy everyone was reconstructing their businesses.   - Blake - The compromise of 1877 was basically meant as a tiebreaker for the previous presidential election which had also affected African Americans Jim Crow The origins of Jim Crow - introduction Origins of Jim Crow - the Black Codes and Reconstruction Origins of Jim Crow - the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments Origins of Jim Crow - Compromise of 1877 and Plessy v. Ferguson What are the Jim Crow Laws and what did they encompass, why did people think there was a need to put those laws into place? Skylar - Jim Crow laws were racist laws. Saying for example, this bathroom is for blacks and this is a special one for whites. Jim Crow laws were really popular in the South from the 1870 through the 1960. Nearly 100 years. Most schools, restaurants, bathrooms, buses, stores, ect. Were using these laws to keep African Americans out of their places of business. If a black man had a business that was making good money some nieve white men would burn their homes/shops down because they were jealous. If a white and black person were together they’d hang the black person in the middle of town which is so crazy. Ricky- a Jim Crow was a stock character, used for getting a point across to the General Public, a Jim Crow was used in Minstrel shows as a means of communication to people who did not know how to read. And now it's where we go into extremely racist territory, hm Crow was a white person who put whatever black stuff all over their face to look like a black person and to act like a black person for the plays that they had of the book Uncle Tom's Cabin - Ethan - These laws enforced racial segregation. Like saying that they were equal but separated. Jim Crow was also a character used in some plays which was an ethnic depiction of the white man's idea of a black person. Ben- Ending slavery didn’t end racism that’s for sure, I’d say only 80% of the laws making slaves free were really only 80% freedom. It just shows how people have socially adapted and even though there are still bad things happening today, it’s a lot better than before. - Blake - So y’all basically covered everything and give me crap for writing about something already used so i’ll just be going over the basics. Jim Crowe was a derogatory term used to describe African Americans it was also used as a name for a set of laws set by white people to legally segregate. That’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us in this emancipation from the box, that is learning.

Welcome back to The Emancipation Podcast Station - the place to hear about history researched and retold through the eyes of Middle school and HS students. Last time on the show…   Today we discuss the causes of the Civil War. Let’s dive in.   Introduction to the Gilded Age Why was it called the Gilded Age? And Who coined the term.   Hunter- The gilded age in American was the late 19th century, from 1870 to about 1900. The name of this point in time was used in the early 20th century, and was derived from writer Mark Twain’s 1873 novel the Gilded Age: A Tale Of Today, which started an era of social problems covered by a thin gold gilding. Skylar - The Gilded Age began in 1865 and Ended in 1898. The gilded age was a time where everyone was focused on the development of the United states, mainly industrial type things. The Gilded age didn’t mean the golden age but more of a cover, like everything is perfect but really it’s not. Ricky-Ricky-The Gilded Age was an age in the 1870s to the early 1900s it was a time of economic growth for American citizens and non-immigrants. In wages Rose from $380 from 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%. The widespread industrialization led to a real wage growth of 60% in between 1860 and 1890. - Blake (gabe)- The Gilded age was a time period in which hard times fell on the american and immigrant people.   Gabe - The Gilded age was a time where americans economy went good and bad in a way because industry grew but money not so much.     - Ethan - The Gilded Age was the time that America began to revolutionize their industrial world. Mark Twain coined the term “Gilded Age” which meant the time seemed pretty good but was truly miserable. Someone who profited from the Gilded Age was John D. Rockefeller, who was the founder of oil. Oil was just 1 of the “titans of industry” which were steel, banking, and oil. The miserable part would probably be that they got their money mostly through corruption. Ben- And with every urban explosion there were poor people, in apartments without heating or even light, it was 5 cents a night, which doesn’t sound like much, but they were poor and money was different then it is now. They had to fit as many people as possible to get the most out of the room too.   The Gilded Age and the Second Industrial Revolution Name one invention that came out of the Second Industrial Revolution. Hunter- The Second Industrial Revolution, also known as the Technological Revolution, was a time of quick industrialization in the last third of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th. Some of the inventions are of the following the swiss army knife, barbed wire, dynamite, and the motorcycle. Oh and some of my personal favorites are the Maxim Machine Gun, and the colt .45 M-1911. Skylar - The Second Industrial Revolution went on in the same time as the Gilded Age. This was time for mass production of things, as well as communicating about business tractions, materials, all that weren’t existing before. The Bessemer Process was a big deal in this time, it made steel easy and quicker to produce, so trains became more of a option for transporting things before. During this time the US had more railroads than all of Europe combined. Ricky- As everyone said the Second Industrial Revolution was basically a time when a bunch of new inventions were made that revolutionized the industrial system like as Skylar said it made steel a lot easier to produce creating easier ways to create a railroad system. A lot of inventions like petroleum gas, electrification was a big thing, Machine Tools like drills and saws, chemical tools like ammonia, and chlorine, rubber, bicycles, the invention of automobiles, some fertilizers, telephones, and a lot of scientific knowledge, as well as the making of new weapons as Hunter said like the Colt 45 M119 pistol, the Thompson submachine gun which shoots 45. ACP rounds which is famously said to be used by high-ranking gangsters, the M1 Garand which is a 30 caliber round.                                                                        4. Gabe - as Hunter and Ricky said we Developed a lot of technology in the gilded ages second industrial revolution. But railroads helped increase income and production because we used them for transportation shipping goods all across america.   - Blake(ben) - As everyone has said previously this was a big time for the early United States which revolutionized building and processing for wealthy businessman looking to get a start in the material industry. - Ethan - The Second Industrial Revolution took place in 1870-1914. Some say it went up to the start of World War 1. This Revolution was also known as the Technological Revolution. During this revolution things like the telephone and electricity were made. This revolution wasn’t just in America, but in Britain and Germany. Lesser known countries were France, Italy, and Japan. - Ben - After the first industrial revolution they had all these new things so they refined it and made it better.   Social Darwinism in the Gilded Age What is Social Darwinism and do you think there is any truth in it? Skylar - Social Darwinism is just basically seeing what people are on the outside. Social Darwinism says that the poor have less worth that a higher class rich person. It’s judging people for what’s on the outside and your social class rather than judging someone for what’s on the inside like being kind. Acting like a snob means you have more worth to someone who believes in Social Darwinism, when in reality they are worth less for judging people just by how much money they have, or how they look. Ricky-- Social Darwinism is the idea and belief that it is survival of the fittest. It stole the term from Darwinism evolution and plastered itself all over politics as social Darwinism. Gabe - Social Darwinism started in the gilded age because people started applying his idea that the strong rule the weak to people in there life and so on. - Blake(hunter) - Do I seriously have to do this one? Oh boy. Social Darwinism was a terrible thing it basically said that white people are better than others and that humans evolved from apes. - Ethan - Social Darwinism, in more proper terms, was seeing natural selection in the people around us. Anyone that considered themselves a Social Darwinist did not go by any such term. The term Darwinism wasn’t really used much except by people that were opposed to it. Ben- It got the term Darwinism because Charles Darwin studied evolution, so since people believed in survival of the fittest, like the theory of evolution, the called it darwinism. America moves to the city Why did most of America start moving to cities and leaving farms? Skylar - In 1790 nearly everyone lived in the country or on a farm. Due to The Second Industrial Revolution, growing population, and new machinery the United States needed more room to expand into the countryside to make big cities for railroads and new jobs. By 1920 only 28% of people lived in rural areas and the majority lived in the larger cities. Ricky- -a majority of people lived in rural areas than in urban areas, but then suddenly 11 million people migrated from rural areas to urban areas along with 25 million immigrants pouring in to the country.   Gabe - Another thing that happened which was people started urbanizing living in urban places it started in the 1800s and it made its ascent from there until 1920s where more people lived in urban areas then actual rural areas. And here is a quote from thomas jefferson who said “once we start piling upon one another in large cities  as in europe   We will become as corrupt as europe”.   - Blake(hunters) - America began to enter industrialization and because of this more people moved to bigger cities to find work and be prosperous. - Ethan - In 1920 more Americans lived in cities than on farms. This was kind of the transition between farm life and the urban living of today. In 1890 28% of the population lived in urban environment. - Ben - It started all the mass population you see in the popular urban cities around the world today. People were obsessed with industrial industry and thought it would be more profitable to move to cities. The Knights of Labor   What were the Knights of Labor and what do you think about them? Good or bad? 1.Hunter- The K of L, officially Noble the Holy order of the Knights of Labor, Was the largest and one of the most important American labor organizations 1880. It’s most important leaders were Terence V. Powderly and step-brother Joseph bath. The Knights promoted the working man, rejected socialism and anarchism, demanded the eight-hour day, and promoted the producersethic of republicanism. The Knights of Labor was a union founded in 1869. They promoted 8 hour work days and wanted to end child labor. It was mostly white men in this union, but immigrants, african americans, as well as women were welcome to be members. By 1886 the Knights of Labor had over 700,000 members and supporters. Ricky-- The Knights of Labor had officially crashed and disbanded near 1886 following the Haymarket Square riot. The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was growing at the time which then eventually took over. Gabe - So the knights of labor were a group who promoted like skylar said 8 hour work days and were in a union which aloud individual industrial workers to go on strike if they were not paid well or treated correctly. Another thing is that the person who started protesting 8 hour work day was also the one of the founders of socialism Ben- The skilled and simple workers of the country together to promote a safe and healthy work schedule and environment, there were people like this in the past but not as influential as the knights. - Ethan - They basically told the working class they had to work 8 hours a day and they rejected any possible anarchy or socialism. They were founded by Uriah Stephens and by 1884 had 100000 members. - Blake - Unions were a group of workers organizing to gain better wages, less hours and more employee benefits. The Populists What was the Populists agenda? Did they succeed? Skylar - The people who were called populists were an agrarian-based movement trying to better the conditions for the farmers and agrarian workers of the United States. In 1876 the farmers alliance was made to help end the crop-lien system that put many farmers into poverty, this movement began in Texas. The crop-lien system operated in the south were cotton was grown. Any sharecroppers, tenant farmers, black, and white people who didn’t own the land that they worked, would have to take out loans to be able to purchase supplies had to pay back their loans with cotton. Ricky- in 1892 a homestead strike broke out in the carnegie steel company steel works. Which caused a gun fight between unionized workers and a group of hired men to break the strike. The workers lost. Gabe - the populists were a Group of people who wanted to help farmers and help  those people that were not and industrial worker someone who farmer worked off his land but didn't make much because of the industrial work Ben- After the end of slavery the farmers had a hard time making as making as much money as before, they now had to actually hire workers and even if they hired that costed a lot of money and they still wouldn’t have as many people as before. - Ethan - A.K.A the People’s Party or Populist Party. Their goal was to improve life for farmer-like workers and they were disbanded very quickly. - Blake - (Hunter’s) Money was a troubling problem for the farming south so farmers supported a new party called the Populists Party who supported the farming economy. 7.Hunter- the Populists were an agrarian-based  political movement. The South after the Civil War What happened to the farming economy, why? Skylar - The period of Reconstruction lasted from 1865 to 1877. During this time 3 newly adopted amendments were passed, the Thirteenth Amendment to end slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment that promised the African Americans the right to have citizenship in The United States Of America, and the Fifteenth Amendment that guaranteed black men the right to vote. Ricky- Everything was topsy turny for the south, because their “country” was destroyed and their social system was wrecked and they had extreme hate from the north.   Gabe - The South crashed economically because they were built on selling tobacco and cotton  and since the prices dropped the south was economically destroyed.   Ben- Just because slavery ended doesn’t mean racism did, some is still here today, and people are doing things about it. But the end of slavery was pretty cool. Allowing people of color to now vote and be American citizens. Some of the industry based on slavery like farming and other labor tasks sort of crashed since they now had to hire workers and pay them. - Ethan - As we have said the discrimination did not end but the South did not truly let things go. The economy changed drastically since slaves were gone. - Blake - Well we still had some problems even after the war as even though we passed laws to stop discrimination against African Americans the south was able to pass laws that would stop them from doing things such as voting we’ll talk about these laws later. Life after slavery for African Americans What happened to racism, did it get better or worse? Why do you think that Skylar - When the civil war was over life got a lot better for the people living in the United States. African Americans became free in 1865 and was put into the Amendments as the 13th amendment. Which made a huge difference in everyone’s lives, especially the cotton plantation owners in the south because they would no longer have free labor. Ricky- life for African Americans, as Skylar said, “got a lot better”. After the emancipation proclamation/13th amendment African Americans worked on railroads, owned shops, and even got to vote (black men).   African americans became as the same as any white person there was no “an african american person couldn't do this because blank” anymore. There was a african american named george washington carver who made 300 different products from peanuts. Another named Booker T Washington started a University.   Ben - There were still some restrictions on what they could do though, they still couldn’t testify against white people, serve in a jury, or serve in some state militias. - Ethan - All their bad treatment didn’t completely disappear because the idea of slavery was still fresh in people’s minds so while they weren’t whipped as slaves anymore, they still were discriminated. - Blake - Just like I said before this wasn’t a good time for African Americans even though we had passed anti-discrimination laws southern states were still able to get around these laws. The Compromise of 1877 Why did the compromise have to happen? What was the final factor that gave Hayes his victory. What was the main deal in the Compromise? Skylar - The Compromise of 1877 was put into place to resolve a Presidential election that took place a year before. There was a dispute between the democrat Samuel Tilden and republican Rutherford Hayes. This dispute was obviously over who was going to become the next President of the US. Samuel J. Tilden won with 247,448 votes, but votes in 3 states were being disputed. These states were in the South and were, Florida, Louisiana, as well as South Carolina. This lasted 4 months then this compromise was put into place. Ricky-ricky-The compromise was put in place because of a dispute because Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote, but Rutherford B Hayes won the electoral vote. So the Democrats agreed that he would be president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South also granting of home rule in the south.   Basically the exchange in this compromise was that Rutherford B Hayes would become President and the south would get home rule and federal troops with withdraw from the south   - Ethan - The compromise was seemingly a president in exchange troop withdrawal.   Ben- With most debates the best option is a compromise, it will make both sides an equal amount of happy or sad. And with the destruction of the souths economy everyone was reconstructing their businesses.   - Blake - The compromise of 1877 was basically meant as a tiebreaker for the previous presidential election which had also affected African Americans Jim Crow The origins of Jim Crow - introduction Origins of Jim Crow - the Black Codes and Reconstruction Origins of Jim Crow - the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments Origins of Jim Crow - Compromise of 1877 and Plessy v. Ferguson What are the Jim Crow Laws and what did they encompass, why did people think there was a need to put those laws into place? Skylar - Jim Crow laws were racist laws. Saying for example, this bathroom is for blacks and this is a special one for whites. Jim Crow laws were really popular in the South from the 1870 through the 1960. Nearly 100 years. Most schools, restaurants, bathrooms, buses, stores, ect. Were using these laws to keep African Americans out of their places of business. If a black man had a business that was making good money some nieve white men would burn their homes/shops down because they were jealous. If a white and black person were together they’d hang the black person in the middle of town which is so crazy. Ricky- a Jim Crow was a stock character, used for getting a point across to the General Public, a Jim Crow was used in Minstrel shows as a means of communication to people who did not know how to read. And now it's where we go into extremely racist territory, hm Crow was a white person who put whatever black stuff all over their face to look like a black person and to act like a black person for the plays that they had of the book Uncle Tom's Cabin - Ethan - These laws enforced racial segregation. Like saying that they were equal but separated. Jim Crow was also a character used in some plays which was an ethnic depiction of the white man's idea of a black person. Ben- Ending slavery didn’t end racism that’s for sure, I’d say only 80% of the laws making slaves free were really only 80% freedom. It just shows how people have socially adapted and even though there are still bad things happening today, it’s a lot better than before. - Blake - So y’all basically covered everything and give me crap for writing about something already used so i’ll just be going over the basics. Jim Crowe was a derogatory term used to describe African Americans it was also used as a name for a set of laws set by white people to legally segregate. That’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us in this emancipation from the box, that is learning.

Comic historian Thom Woodley dissects the back stories, politics and failures of the men who lost presidential elections. In this episode, epic 1876 loser Samuel Tilden, who had the election stolen right from under his beaklike nose.  

Historians have often noted that our Founding Fathers didn’t like democracy. Our second president, John Adams, once said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our fourth president, James Madison, wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” The election of 1876 would prove to be one of the greatest tests of American democracy. Learn about this pivotal moment in American history in this episode of This American President. If you want to learn more about today’s episode, check out the book Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and the Stolen Election of 1876 by Roy Morris Jr and By One Vote: The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876  by Michael Holt.