Podcasts about Fifteenth Amendment

This Day in Legal History: Smith v. AllwrightOn April 3, 1944, the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in Smith v. Allwright, reshaping the landscape of voting rights in the American South. The case centered on Lonnie E. Smith, a Black voter from Texas who was denied the right to vote in the Democratic Party's primary election due to a party rule that only allowed white voters to participate. At the time, the Democratic primary was the only meaningful election in many Southern states, as the party dominated politics, making exclusion from the primary tantamount to disenfranchisement.The Texas Democratic Party argued that, as a private organization, it had the right to determine its own membership and voting rules. However, the Court, in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, held that primaries were an integral part of the electoral process and could not be exempt from constitutional scrutiny. The justices concluded that excluding Black voters from primaries violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.This ruling effectively overturned the Court's 1935 decision in Grovey v. Townsend, which had upheld the use of white primaries. The Smith decision marked a critical step toward dismantling the legal architecture of Jim Crow voter suppression. While states continued to use other tactics to limit Black political power, the ruling energized civil rights activists and laid the foundation for future litigation.By reasserting federal authority over state electoral practices, Smith v. Allwright signaled a turning point in the judicial battle against racial segregation and disenfranchisement. It also demonstrated the Court's growing willingness to confront systemic racism in voting, a commitment that would deepen during the civil rights era. This case is remembered as one of the pivotal moments in the long struggle for voting rights in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court largely upheld the FDA's authority to deny applications for flavored vaping products, supporting actions taken during the Biden administration under the 2009 Tobacco Control Act. The unanimous ruling rejected arguments from companies like Triton Distribution and Vapetasia LLC, which claimed the FDA unfairly imposed new testing requirements and ignored their marketing plans. These companies had applied to sell flavors like “Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies” and “Killer Kustard Blueberry.”The Court found the FDA's approach consistent with its earlier guidance, despite claims from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the agency had pulled a “regulatory switcheroo.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, agreeing with most of the FDA's decisions but sending the case back to the appeals court to reassess whether the agency erred in refusing to consider the companies' marketing plans—an element the FDA had previously called “critical” for evaluating youth appeal.Though the ruling solidifies the FDA's regulatory role, its long-term impact is uncertain. President Trump, in furtherance of his undying effort to always be on the wrong side of everything, has promised to “save vaping,” though his campaign never clarified what that means in terms of future regulation. The case, FDA v. Wages and White Lion, leaves the appeals court to decide whether any procedural missteps by the FDA were ultimately harmless.Supreme Court Largely Backs Biden-Era FDA on Flavored Vapes (1)Elon Musk's time in Washington as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) appears to be nearing its end. Both Musk and President Trump have hinted that his departure is imminent, with Trump noting that DGE itself “will end.” Originally designed as a temporary advisory panel to cut federal costs, DGE has morphed into a more integrated part of the government, staffed with Musk allies tasked with canceling contracts and slashing budgets.However, signs of a wind-down are emerging. DGE staff are being reassigned to federal agencies, layoffs are underway, and the organization's influence seems to be diminishing. Musk, a special government employee limited to 130 working days per year, is approaching that limit, though neither he nor the administration has confirmed when his tenure will end.Musk's recent political involvement also took a hit when his preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court lost, despite significant financial backing and a campaign visit. Tesla's 13% drop in quarterly sales adds further pressure. Trump praised Musk's contributions but acknowledged his corporate obligations, suggesting a graceful exit is likely rather than a public fallout.DGE had once shared leadership between Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, but Ramaswamy left to run for Ohio governor. While Musk boasted about aiming to reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars, critics say the group's progress has been overstated. Despite speculation, Trump hasn't committed to keeping DGE operational post-Musk, indicating the administration may be moving to a new phase of governance.Musk could be headed for a Washington exit after turbulent times at Trump's DOGE | AP NewsPresident Donald Trump announced a new agreement with law firm Milbank, marking another chapter in the growing divide among U.S. law firms over how to handle pressure from his administration. According to Trump's Truth Social post, Milbank initiated the deal, which includes a commitment to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for causes like veterans' support and combating antisemitism.The agreement comes amid a broader Trump administration effort to punish firms that have opposed or challenged his policies. Several law firms—such as Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block—have filed lawsuits seeking to block executive orders they claim were retaliatory and violated constitutional protections of free speech and due process. Federal judges recently issued temporary blocks on parts of those orders.In contrast, other firms including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Willkie Farr have opted for settlement-style deals with the administration to avoid similar sanctions. Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, reportedly described the agreement as aligned with the firm's values and praised the productive talks with the administration.This situation underscores a growing rift in the legal community: some firms are resisting what they see as political coercion, while others are choosing cooperation to preserve their standing with the federal government.Trump reaches agreement with Milbank law firm | ReutersPresident Trump announced a sweeping new tariff policy during a Rose Garden press conference, unveiling a "reciprocal" trade strategy aimed at countering what he described as decades of unfair treatment by U.S. trading partners. Holding a copy of a government report titled Foreign Trade Barriers, Trump declared that the U.S. will now impose tariffs that are approximately half the rate other countries charge American exports—but with a minimum baseline tariff of 10%, and many rates going significantly higher.Countries hit with new tariffs include:* China: 34%* European Union: 20%* Japan: 24%* South Korea: 25%* Switzerland: 31%* United Kingdom: 10%* Taiwan: 32%* Malaysia: 24%* India: 26%* Brazil: 10%* Indonesia: 32%* Vietnam: 46%* Singapore: 10%Trump also confirmed a 25% tariff on all foreign-made automobiles, stacking on the above-referenced rates, effective at midnight, and pointed to motorcycle tariffs as a key example of longstanding trade imbalances. He argued that U.S. manufacturers face rates as high as 75% abroad, while the U.S. imposes just 2.4%.The president justified the move as necessary to protect American jobs and industry, singling out countries like Canada and Mexico for benefiting from U.S. subsidies and defense spending. Detroit autoworker Brian Pannebecker spoke in support, calling Trump's actions a hopeful step toward revitalizing shuttered factories.While Trump emphasized that the tariffs fall short of full reciprocity to avoid overwhelming allies, he made clear the era of what he called “economic surrender” was over. The announcement included plans to sign an executive order formalizing the new tariff regime, which boosted U.S. stock futures as markets reacted positively to the aggressive trade stance. Oh no I'm sorry, I got that wrong: stock futures tanked.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Chrissie explains the third of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fifteenth. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts221 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis.Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavid You can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/BQN

Source: Henry Wilson in Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 40th Congress, 3rd session (1869), 153-154, February 8, 1869. https://archive.org/details/americanhistoryt00ivunse/page/492/mode/2up  

Introduction to Statutory Law. Statutory law refers to laws passed by a legislative body, such as Congress, at the federal level or state legislatures. These laws address a wide range of issues, from criminal offenses and civil rights to environmental regulations and tax policies. Significance: Statutory law plays a crucial role in shaping constitutional interpretation. It can define and clarify the rights and responsibilities of individuals, government agencies, and other entities. Additionally, statutes can fill gaps in constitutional law or provide specific guidance on how to implement constitutional principles. Example: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal statute that addresses discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It complements the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by providing specific protections against discrimination in areas such as employment and public accommodations. Relationship Between Statutory Law and Constitutional Rights. The relationship between statutory law and constitutional rights is multi-faceted. Statutes can reinforce constitutional rights, provide remedies for violations, or expand upon constitutional protections. Key aspects of this relationship include: 1. Reinforcing Constitutional Rights. Statutory laws can reinforce and clarify constitutional rights. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, further upholding the principles of the Fifteenth Amendment. 2. Providing Remedies for Violations. Statutes often provide remedies for individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated. They can establish mechanisms for legal action, such as lawsuits, to seek redress when rights are infringed upon. 3. Expanding Constitutional Protections. In some cases, statutory laws expand upon the protections provided by the Constitution. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for instance, extends protections to individuals with disabilities in various areas, ensuring equal access and opportunities. Significance: Statutory laws are tools that legislators use to address specific issues and challenges in society. They can be instrumental in enforcing constitutional rights, providing redress for violations, and adapting the legal framework to evolving social and technological changes. Example: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a federal statute that ensures that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. It operationalizes the constitutional principle of equal protection and nondiscrimination for students with disabilities. Major Federal Statutes Impacting Constitutional Law. Several major federal statutes have had a significant impact on constitutional law. Let's explore a few of these statutes and their implications: 1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark statute prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It addresses issues related to employment, education, and public accommodations, reinforcing the principles of equal protection and due process. Significance: The Civil Rights Act has been a cornerstone of civil rights law, enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. 2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Voting Rights Act aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting. It provides mechanisms to ensure that individuals are not denied the right to vote on the basis of race or language minority status. Significance: This statute enforces the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. 3. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, public services, and public accommodations. It ensures equal access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Amendments Beyond the Bill of Rights. 1. The Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, is a pivotal component of the post-Civil War amendments. It prohibits the denial of voting rights based on an individual's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Significance: The Fifteenth Amendment sought to enfranchise African American men who had been denied the right to vote in many parts of the United States due to racial discrimination and the legacy of slavery. It was a significant step toward achieving civil rights and political participation. Example: The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in voting, draws its authority from the Fifteenth Amendment. It outlawed discriminatory voting practices like literacy tests and poll taxes. 2. The Nineteenth Amendment. The Nineteenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, granted women the right to vote. It marked a substantial expansion of suffrage and women's rights. Significance: The Nineteenth Amendment recognized the importance of gender equality in a democracy and extended the right to vote to over half of the U.S. population, promoting a more inclusive and representative democracy. Example: The women's suffrage movement, characterized by activists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, played a significant role in advocating for the Nineteenth Amendment. 3. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It was a response to concerns about young people being drafted into the military to fight in the Vietnam War while not having the right to vote. Significance: This amendment recognized that individuals aged 18 to 20 who could be drafted into the military should also have the right to vote. It underscored the importance of equal representation and participation in the democratic process. Example: In the case of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Congress's authority to lower the voting age, setting an important precedent. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions. The interpretation of constitutional provisions is a dynamic process that shapes how the Constitution is applied to contemporary issues. The Supreme Court plays a central role in this process by rendering decisions that clarify the meaning of the Constitution. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Landmark Supreme Court cases have significantly influenced the interpretation of the Constitution. Here are a few examples: Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case established the principle of judicial review, giving the Supreme Court the power to declare laws or actions of the government unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This case declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine. Roe v. Wade (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, based on the right to privacy. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This case held that political spending by corporations is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment. Precedent in Shaping Constitutional Law. The doctrine of precedent, often referred to as "stare decisis," plays a critical role in shaping constitutional law. It means that courts should follow previous decisions, particularly those made by higher courts, when deciding similar cases. Significance: Precedent ensures consistency and predictability in the legal system. When a case is decided based on precedent, it helps maintain the rule of law and ensures that similar cases are treated similarly. Example: The principle of "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), setting a new precedent that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comTen years ago this week, the Court issued one of its most important, and devastating, decisions. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down key aspects of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This week's episode gets into the case with the legendary John Legend. It's a fitting time to do this, since I just found out I won Moore v. Harper in the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, a case that made clear that many election shenanigans are subject to serious court scrutiny. And the episode begins with a discussion of the Hunter Biden indictment and some reflections on the end of the Supreme Court Term and what to expect. There's a ton of bonus material for paid subscribers too, including John Legend's reflections on his childhood dreams and how he made the transition from a consultant at Boston Consulting Group to the mega star he is today. Please consider subscribing, and I'm giving all profits to charity.Shelby County begins back in the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement. During this time, the country was deeply divided, and Jim Crow laws were rampant throughout the South. In states such as Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and others, African Americans were systematically denied their right to vote. States and counties weaponized a whole arsenal of different voter suppression tactics. Some were overt, like poll taxes to literacy tests. And others were really subtle, like changing the polling hours for an election in a minority neighborhood the day before the election took place. Or moving the polling place across the street without telling anyone.In response, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which was the single most important piece of voting rights legislation in American history. The Act contained many provisions, but perhaps the two most powerful were Sections 4b and 5. Taken together, these two provisions said that states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting practices must get federal court or federal DOJ approval before changing their voting laws. That meant any change – whether trying to have a literacy test or moving a poll across the street. Because Congress knew that there was no limit to the terrible ingenuity of racists who wanted to block people from voting.Now this didn't impact the whole country.  Section 4b, it limited the preclearance requirements only to those states and counties which, prior to the 1964 presidential election, had a voting test in place and less than 50 percent voter registration. This is known as the “Coverage Formula.” In 1965, the formula covered nine states and a few dozen counties that tended to be the most racially discriminatory.The Voting Rights Act (or VRA, as it's called) was passed in 1965 and set to expire after five years. So, the Act was reauthorized in 1970. It was reauthorized yet again in 1975, 1982, and, in 2006. Each time the Act was reauthorized, it was challenged in Court. Time and again, however, the Supreme Court upheld the law; the Court pointed to the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting and gives Congress “the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”But then President Obama won the Presidency. And I was tasked with representing the federal Government in defending the Voting Rights Act. It was my 4th Supreme Court argument ever.  My boss Elena Kagan had a long confirmation process, and so instead of her as Solicitor General arguing it, the task fell to me. I worked my tail off.  But it was hard to argue about the persistence of race discrimination 3 months after the nation elected its first black President.  In any event, I threw myself in, and gave what I think was a pretty bang-up argument. I knew the Act had the blood of patriots on its pages – that Selma and the bridge were a deep part of its history.  And I made much of the argument looking directly at Justice Clarence Thomas, because I really wanted his vote.  Well, in any event, we did save the constitutionality of the VRA, in an 8-1 decision.  The one dissenter: Clarence Thomas!In that 2009 decision, called Northwest Austin v. Holder, the Court said that the VRA could stand.  But it said that it was worried the government would have to justify the coverage formula – that it hadn't been updated in 50 years. And so, over the next years, these largely Southern States argued that the coverage formula was unfair.  And so that's the issue in Shelby County.The Court heard the case, and issued a sweeping 5-4 ruling. Writing for the Majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that the coverage formula was outdated and violates the fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the states. He pointed to the changes in voting registration numbers between 1965 and 2006 (when the VRA was reauthorized). For example, in Alabama in 1965, white voter registration was 50 percent higher than Black voter registration; in 2006, that difference was less than one percent. In Mississippi, there was a 63 percent difference between black and white voter registration in 1965, but in 2006, Black voter registration exceeded white voter registration by 3 percent. In short, the Chief Justice concluded that the Coverage Formula no longer addresses current voting disparities, and therefore must be unconstitutional. He writes the following: “In 1965, the States could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the Nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were…”Justice Ginsburg wrote a phenomenal dissent, one I go into some detail talking about with John Legend. There's no better person to talk about and explain these concepts—John has spent years thinking about and supporting voting rights.If you want a bunch of background material on the Shelby County case, including a short summary of the decision, a longer abridged one, and the full text of the decision, you can find it all at https://nealkatyal.substack.com/

On paper, every American has the right to vote and – thanks to the Second Amendment – to bear arms. But in reality, says Carol Anderson, both these rights are undermined by the racism which is so deeply rooted in American society. And that, in turn, undermines democracy.Anderson is a professor of African-American studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and an influential voice on civil and voting rights in the U.S. She joined us  in May 2022 to talk about her two most recent books, 'The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America' and 'One Person, No Vote'. The Second Amendment, she contends, is not about guns, but about anti-Blackness. And the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave every American the right to vote no matter their “race, color or previous condition of servitude”, is under assault.Support the show

The constitutional amendments that followed the Civil War fractured the women's movement. Indeed, debate over the Fifteenth Amendment reopened the suffrage and gender issue, splitting the women's movement. Listen for more! Center for Civic Education

The third installment of the new trilogy drops.

Audio of the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States (1965) About six months before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, two very similar cases were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day in January - United States v. Mississippi and Louisiana v. United States - both cases were regarding state voting laws that prevented African Americans from voting. Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States in which the Attorney General of the United States sued the state of Louisiana in a federal court, claiming that the state had violated the Fifteenth Amendment of the US Constitution for denying African-Americans the right to vote through unfair voter registration requirements specifically tailored for that purpose. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, they held that Louisiana's bogus voter suppression laws indeed violated the Fifteenth Amendment. And, in case you were wondering, the Court issued a similar decision in the Mississippi case argued that same day.   Music by Epidemic Sound    

“E” is for Eight Box Law [1882]. The Eight Box Law of 1882 was an election law designed to ensure white supremacy in South Carolina without violating the Fifteenth Amendment—which barred states from depriving their citizens of the vote on the basis of race.

"The suffrage movement Lucretia Mott Lucretia Mott Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony These debates and discussions culminated in the first women's rights convention, held in July 1848 in the small town of Seneca Falls, New York. It was a spur-of-t" "--START AD- #TheMummichogblogOfMalta Amazon Top and Flash Deals(Affiliate Link - You will support our translations if you purchase through the following link) - https://amzn.to/3CqsdJH Compare all the top travel sites in just one search to find the best hotel deals at HotelsCombined - awarded world's best hotel price comparison site. (Affiliate Link - You will support our translations if you purchase through the following link) - https://www.hotelscombined.com/?a_aid=20558 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."""" #Jesus #Catholic. Smooth Radio Malta is Malta's number one digital radio station, playing Your Relaxing Favourites - Smooth provides a ‘clutter free' mix, appealing to a core 35-59 audience offering soft adult contemporary classics. We operate a playlist of popular tracks which is updated on a regular basis. https://smooth.com.mt/listen/ Follow on Telegram: https://t.me/themummichogblogdotcom END AD---" "he-moment idea that sprang up during a social gathering of Lucretia Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran social activist, Martha Wright (Mott's sister), Mary Ann McClintock, Jane Hunt, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the wife of an abolitionist and the only non-Quaker in the group. The convention was planned with five days' notice, publicized only by a small unsigned advertisement in a local newspaper. Stanton drew up the “Declaration of Sentiments” that guided the Seneca Falls Convention. Using the Declaration of Independence as her guide to proclaim that “all men and women [had been] created equal,” she drafted 11 resolutions, including the most radical demand—the right to the vote. With Frederick Douglass, a former slave, arguing eloquently on their behalf, all 11 resolutions passed, and Mott even won approval of a final declaration “for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” Sojourner Truth Sojourner Truth Yet by emphasizing education and political rights that were the privileges of the upper classes, the embryonic feminist movement had little connection with ordinary women cleaning houses in Liverpool or picking cotton in Georgia. The single nonwhite woman's voice heard at this time—that of Sojourner Truth, a former slave—symbolized the distance between the ordinary and the elite. Her famous “Ain't I a Woman” speech was delivered in 1851 before the Women's Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, but Truth did not dedicate her life to women's rights. Instead, she promoted abolitionism and a land-distribution program for other former slaves. In the speech, Truth remarked, “That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman?” Although Seneca Falls was followed by women's rights conventions in other states, the interest spurred by those first moments of organizing quickly faded. Concern in the United States turned to the pending Civil War, while in Europe the reformism of the 1840s gave way to the repression of the late 1850s. When the feminist movement rebounded, it became focused on a single issue, women's suffrage, a goal that would dominate international feminism for almost 70 years. Susan B. Anthony Susan B. Anthony After the American Civil War, feminists assumed that women's suffrage would be included in the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited disfranchisement on the basis of race. Yet leading abolitionists refuse

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)  In Arizona, voters can either vote in-person at a precinct or vote center – or they can receive a ballot by mail with various options for returning it. Arizona counties can choose either a vote center or a precinct-based system for voting in person. Counties who choose the vote-center system permit registered voters to vote at any polling location in the county. Counties who choose the precinct-based system permit registered voters to vote only at the designated polling place in their precinct – and about 90% of Arizona's population falls under this option. Under this precinct-based system, if a voter arrives at a polling place and is not listed on the voter rolls for that precinct, they can cast a provisional ballot. But, after election day, when election officials review all provisional ballots, if officials determine the voter voted out of precinct, the county just chucks that ballot straight in the trash. The Democratic National Committee challenged this policy, claiming that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since it adversely and disparately affected Native American, Hispanic, and African American citizens of Arizona. Then, in 2016, Republican legislators passed H.B. 2023, criminalizing the collection and delivery of another person's ballot. The DNC challenged H.B. 2023, arguing that – because it was enacted with discriminatory intent - it violated Section 2 of the VRA as well as the Fifteenth Amendment. At trial, the district court found in favor of Arizona on all claims. The DNC appealed, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. And then, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court “clearly erred.” So, the two questions before the Supreme Court in this case were whether Arizona's out-of-precinct policy violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act And whether Arizona's H.B. 2023 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the Court said no to both.   Music by Epidemic Sound.

This week on Hashtag History, we will be discussing the racist History of the State of Oregon. While many states across the United States have incredible racist History, Oregon is the only state in the country to enter the Union with a Black exclusion law, quite literally banning Black people within its borders. When they became a State in 1859, they entered as a Free State - meaning that slavery would not be permitted within its borders - but that's not because these people were on the right side of History. No, Oregon was so deeply racist that they didn't even want to look at Black people; enslaved or not. Oregon would not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment - the Amendment that provided equal protection of the law and gave citizenship to all Black people, including those formerly enslaved - until 1973! They also didn't ratify the Fifteenth Amendment - which gave Black men the right to vote - until 1959! And although Portland, Oregon's most populous city, has long had the reputation of being very liberal and progressive, it continues to rank as one of the whitest big cities in America. According to the most recent national census, Oregon's demographics show that nearly 83% of the state population is white with less than 2% Black. For Portland specifically, about 75% of the city is white and less than 6% is Black. We are going to be diving into all the things this week: How Oregon was quite literally established as a White Utopia from the onset, how white surpremacy hate groups (particularly the Ku Klux Klan) thrived - and continue to thrive - there, the gentrification and displacement of Black Americans (particularly in Portland), and what the State has done to combat this dark History. Follow Hashtag History on Instagram @hashtaghistory_podcast for all of the pictures mentioned in this episode. Citations for all sources can be located on our website at www.HashtagHistory-Pod.com. You can also check out our website for super cute merch! You can now sponsor a cocktail and get a shout-out on air! Just head to www.buymeacoffee.com/hashtaghistory or head to the Support tab on our website! You can locate us on www.Patreon.com/hashtaghistory where you can donate $1 a month to our Books and Booze Supply. All of your support goes a long ways and we are endlessly grateful! To show our gratitude, all Patreon Supporters receive an automatic 15% OFF all merchandise in our merchandise store, bonus Hashtag Hangouts episodes, a shoutout on social media, and stickers! Check out Macy's delicious wine here → https://glnk.io/rpln/hashtaghistory-podcast #macyswineshop THANKS FOR LISTENING!

How did Frederick Douglass become the most photographed man of the nineteenth century? In this episode of the FedSoc Films Podcast, Samantha interviews Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute, who appears in our film Image of an American: Frederick Douglass and the Right to Vote, a short documentary about Frederick Douglass' journey from the Thirteenth Amendment to the Fifteenth Amendment.Thanks again for listening to the FedSoc Films Podcast! Be sure to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform.Watch the full film, Image of an American: Frederick Douglass and the Right to Vote, here: https://youtu.be/SCiXNg8wCJA Learn more about Timothy Sandefur here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/our-team/timothy-sandefur/ As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.Visit https://fedsoc.org/ to learn more!Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter:https://www.instagram.com/fedsoc/https://www.youtube.com/thefederalistsocietyhttps://twitter.com/FedSoc

Melissa interviews Elie Mystal about his new book, Allow Me To Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution.P.S. Melissa, Kate, and Leah will be on The Problem with Jon Stewart this Thursday, June 9th! Don't miss it.

Legal challenges to disfranchisement. Although African Americans quickly began legal challenges to such provisions in the 19th century, it was years before any were successful before the U.S. Supreme Court. Booker T Washington, better known for his public stance of trying to work within societal constraints of the period at Tuskegee University, secretly helped fund and arrange representation for numerous legal challenges to disfranchisement. He called upon wealthy Northern allies and philanthropists to raise funds for the cause. The Supreme Court's upholding of Mississippi's new constitution, in Williams v Mississippi (1898), encouraged other states to follow the Mississippi plan of disenfranchisement. African Americans brought other legal challenges, as in Giles v Harris (1903) and Giles v Teasley (1904), but the Supreme Court upheld Alabama constitutional provisions. In 1915, Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement due to Supreme Court cases. From early in the 20th century, the newly established National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took the lead in organizing or supporting legal challenges to segregation and disfranchisement. Gradually they planned the strategy of which cases to take forward. In Guinn v United States (1915), the first case in which the NAACP filed a brief, the Supreme Court struck down the grandfather clause in Oklahoma and Maryland. Other states in which it was used had to retract their legislation as well. The challenge was successful. But, nearly as rapidly as the Supreme Court determined a specific provision was unconstitutional, state legislatures developed new statutes to continue disenfranchisement. For instance, in Smith v Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court struck down the use of state-sanctioned all-white primaries by the Democratic Party in the South. States developed new restrictions on black voting; Alabama passed a law giving county registrars more authority as to which questions they asked applicants in comprehension or literacy tests. The NAACP continued with steady progress in legal challenges to disenfranchisement and segregation. In 1957, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to implement the Fifteenth Amendment. It established the United States Civil Rights Commission; among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination. As late as 1962, programs such as Operation Eagle Eye in Arizona attempted to stymie minority voting through literacy tests. The Twenty-fourth Amendment was ratified in 1964 to prohibit poll taxes as a condition of voter registration and voting in federal elections. Many states continued to use them in state elections as a means of reducing the number of voters.

Milestones of national franchise changes 1789: The Constitution grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population). 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to "free white persons." In practice, only white male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, and the vote. 1792 to 1838: Free black males lose the right to vote in several Northern states including in Pennsylvania and in New Jersey. 1792 to 1856: Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (New Hampshire) to 1856 (North Carolina) during the periods of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy. However, tax-paying qualifications remained in five states in 1860—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina. They survived in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island until the 20th century. In the 1820 election, there were 108,359 ballots cast. Most older states with property restrictions dropped them by the mid-1820s, except for Rhode Island, Virginia and North Carolina. No new states had property qualifications although three had adopted tax-paying qualifications – Ohio, Louisiana, and Mississippi, of which only in Louisiana were these significant and long lasting. The 1828 presidential election was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states. By the end of the 1820s, attitudes and state laws had shifted in favor of universal white male suffrage. Voter turnout soared during the 1830s, reaching about 80% of the adult white male population in the 1840 presidential election. 2,412,694 ballots were cast, an increase that far outstripped natural population growth, making poor voters a huge part of the electorate. The process was peaceful and widely supported, except in the state of Rhode Island where the Dorr Rebellion of the 1840s demonstrated that the demand for equal suffrage was broad and strong, although the subsequent reform included a significant property requirement for anyone resident but born outside of the United States. The last state to abolish property qualification was North Carolina in 1856. However, tax-paying qualifications remained in five states in 1860 – Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware and North Carolina. They survived in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island until the 20th century. In addition, many poor whites were later disenfranchised. 1868: Citizenship is guaranteed to all persons born or naturalized in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, setting the stage for future expansions to voting rights. 1869–1920: Some states allow women to vote. Wyoming was the first state to give women voting rights in 1869. 1870: The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents states from denying the right to vote on grounds of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era began soon after. Former Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws and amendments to effectively disfranchise African-American and poor white voters through poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other restrictions, applied in a discriminatory manner. During this period, the Supreme Court generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South. 1887: Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making the men technically eligible to vote.

Sunday MemoirsMinisters in MedicineW.H.C. StephensonDoctor and PreacherSunday Memoirs  takes a look back in the past to find inspiration for the future. We will take time to share great inspiring accounts and building moments of the Black Church and others, depicting religious traditions and spiritual awakenings that contributed to the foundation of the church and our faith today.  At times we will share inspirational words to educate and encourage individuals on their journey of faith in God.For the month of May, starting this Sunday we will introduce a series called "Ministers In Medicine", focusing on the preachers that risk their lives in many cases during enslavement to spread the message of the gospel and start some of our greatest churches and traditions of the day while at the same time practicing medicine. We start our journey with W.H. Stephenson. W. H. C. Stephenson (c.1825 – April 6, 1899) was a doctor, preacher, and civil rights activist in Virginia City, Nevada, and Omaha, Nebraska. He was probably the first black doctor in Nevada and worked for the rights of blacks in that city. He was noted for his efforts in support of black suffrage in Nevada at the passing of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. He helped found the first Baptist church in Virginia City. He moved to Omaha in the late 1870s and continued his medical, religious, and civil rights work. He founded another Baptist church in Omaha, and was a prominent Republican and activist in the city.These preachers did what they could during the 1800's to help the community of the enslavement.  Although it had been through some hard changes and some endured harsh times in history, the black church and the preacher himself has always been a  safe haven for people of African descent during the unrelenting onslaughts of enslavement, racist bigotry, Jim Crow and other forms of oppression and suppression from before the Civil War all the way through and past the Civil Rights Movement. Even today, it still rings true of some preachers and their churches being a pillar in the community. Although,  preachers today must ask, are we still influential to our communities and making sure that they are taken care of any every way possible medically and spiritually? Can we look back at some of the preachers during enslavement and learn from their relentless faith in God and apply this to today? Its a challenge, but we must ask and face the truth.Click the link below to get  the book: "BH365: An Inclusive Account of American History" https://bit.ly/Joannbh365Check us out on social media: (Black History 365 Education)FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeMusic By: Kirk Whalum, Title Song: Wade In the WaterEdited by: Juels N. Evans, Sound EngineerPicture/Content: Blackpast.com and WK

“E” is for Eight Box Law. The Eight Box Law of 1882 was an election law to ensure White supremacy in South Carolina without violating the Fifteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the amendment's validity in Leser v Garnett. Maryland citizens Mary D. Randolph, "'a colored female citizen' of 331 West Biddle Street", and Cecilia Street Waters, "a white woman, of 824 North Eutaw Street", applied for and were granted registration as qualified Baltimore voters on October 12, 1920. To have their names removed from the list of qualified voters, Oscar Leser and others brought suit against the two women on the sole grounds that they were women, arguing that they were not eligible to vote because the Constitution of Maryland limited suffrage to men and the Maryland legislature had refused to vote to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. Two months before, on August 26, 1920, the federal government had proclaimed the amendment incorporated into the Constitution. Leser said the amendment "destroyed State autonomy" because it increased Maryland's electorate without the state's consent. The Supreme Court answered that the Nineteenth Amendment had similar wording to the Fifteenth Amendment, which had expanded state electorates without regard to race for more than fifty years by that time despite rejection by six states (including Maryland). Leser further argued that the state constitutions in some ratifying states did not allow their legislatures to ratify. The Court replied that state ratification was a federal function granted under Article V of the U.S. Constitution and not subject to a state constitution's limitations. Finally, those bringing suit asserted the Nineteenth Amendment was not adopted because Tennessee and West Virginia violated their own rules of procedure. The Court ruled that the point was moot because Connecticut and Vermont had subsequently ratified the amendment, providing a sufficient number of state ratifications to adopt the Nineteenth Amendment even without Tennessee and West Virginia. The Court also ruled that Tennessee's and West Virginia's certifications of their state ratifications was binding and had been duly authenticated by their respective Secretaries of State. As a result of the Court's ruling, Randolph and Waters were permitted to become registered voters in Baltimore. Another challenge to the Nineteenth Amendment's adoption was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Fairchild v Hughes, because the party bringing the suit, Charles S. Fairchild, came from a state that already allowed women to vote and so Fairchild lacked standing.

Application. In the year of the 150th anniversary of the Fifteenth Amendment Columbia University history professor and historian Eric Foner said about the Fifteenth Amendment as well as its history during the Reconstruction era and Post-Reconstruction era: It's a remarkable accomplishment given that slavery was such a dominant institution before the Civil War. But the history of the 15th Amendment also shows rights can never be taken for granted: Things can be achieved and things can be taken away. Reconstruction. African Americans called the amendment the nation's "second birth" and a "greater revolution than that of 1776" according to historian Eric Foner in his book The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. The first black person known to vote after the amendment's adoption was Thomas Mundy Peterson, who cast his ballot on March 31, 1870, in a Perth Amboy, New Jersey referendum election adopting a revised city charter. African Americans—many of them newly freed slaves—put their newfound freedom to use, voting in scores of black candidates. During Reconstruction, 16 black men served in Congress and 2,000 black men served in elected local, state and federal positions according to Columbia University history professor Eric Foner. In United States v Reese (1876), the first U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifteenth Amendment, the Court interpreted the amendment narrowly, upholding ostensibly race-neutral limitations on suffrage including poll taxes, literacy tests, and a grandfather clause that exempted citizens from other voting requirements if their grandfathers had been registered voters. The Court also stated that the amendment does not confer the right of suffrage, but it invests citizens of the United States with the right of exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, and empowers Congress to enforce that right by "appropriate legislation". The Court wrote: The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone. It prevents the States, or the United States, however, from giving preference, in this particular, to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Before its adoption, this could be done. It was as much within the power of a State to exclude citizens of the United States from voting on account of race, & color, as it was on account of age, property, or education. Now it is not. If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment, there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination: now there is. It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is an exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Under the express provisions of the second section of the amendment, Congress may enforce it by "appropriate legislation".

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments. In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress repeatedly debated the rights of the millions of former black slaves. By 1869, amendments had been passed to abolish slavery and provide citizenship and equal protection under the laws, but the election of Ulysses S grant to the presidency in 1868 convinced a majority of Republicans that protecting the franchise of black male voters was important for the party's future. On February 26, 1869, after rejecting more sweeping versions of a suffrage amendment, Congress proposed a compromise amendment banning franchise restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude. After surviving a difficult ratification fight, the amendment was certified as duly ratified and part of the Constitution on March 30, 1870. United States Supreme Court decisions in the late nineteenth century interpreted the amendment narrowly. From 1890 to 1910, southern states adopted new state constitutions and enacted laws that raised barriers to voter registration. This resulted in most black voters and many poor white ones being disenfranchised by poll taxes and discriminatory literacy tests, among other barriers to voting, from which white male voters were exempted by grandfather clauses. A system of white primaries and violent intimidation by white groups also suppressed black participation. In the twentieth century, the Court began to interpret the amendment more broadly, striking down grandfather clauses in Guinn v United States (1915) and dismantling the white primary system in the "Texas primary cases" (1927 thru 1953). Voting rights were further incorporated into the Constitution in the Nineteenth Amendment (voting rights for women) and the Twenty-fourth Amendment (prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided federal oversight of elections in discriminatory jurisdictions, banned literacy tests and similar discriminatory devices, and created legal remedies for people affected by voting discrimination. The Court also found poll taxes in state elections unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections (1966). Text. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Congressional and executive enforcement. As its first enforcement legislation, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteeing black Americans citizenship and equal protection of the law, though not the right to vote. The amendment was also used as authorizing several Freedmen's Bureau bills. President Andrew Johnson vetoed these bills, but Congress overrode his vetoes to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Second Freedmen's Bureau Bill. Proponents of the Act, including Trumbull and Wilson, argued that Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment authorized the federal government to legislate civil rights for the States. Others disagreed, maintaining that inequality conditions were distinct from slavery.  Seeking more substantial justification, and fearing that future opponents would again seek to overturn the legislation, Congress and the states added additional protections to the Constitution: the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) defining citizenship and mandating equal protection under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) banning racial voting restrictions. The Freedmen's Bureau enforced the amendment locally, providing a degree of support for people subject to the Black Codes. Reciprocally, the Thirteenth Amendment established the Bureau's legal basis to operate in Kentucky. The Civil Rights Act circumvented racism in local jurisdictions by allowing blacks access to the federal courts. The Enforcement Acts of 1870 & 1871 and the Civil Rights Act of 1875, in combating the violence and intimidation of white supremacy, were also part of the effort to end slave conditions for Southern blacks. However, the effect of these laws waned as political will diminished and the federal government lost authority in the South, particularly after the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction in exchange for a Republican presidency.

February 3, 1870. The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified, guaranteeing black men the right to vote. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This program will discuss the poem "It is the Veteran" and the article "It isn't the Veteran." The poem "It is the Veteran": It is the veteran, not the preacher who has given us freedom of religion. It is the veteran, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press. It is the veteran, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech. It is the veteran, not the campus organizer who has given us freedom to assemble. It is the veteran, not the lawyer who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the veteran, not the politician who has given us the right to vote. It is the veteran who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag and whose coffin will be draped by the flag. The author lists four of the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment of Bill of Rights: religion, speech, press, and assembly; he neglected to include “petition for a redress of grievances.” He then lists our right to a fair trial, as stated in the Sixth Amendment. He then lists our right to vote, as listed in the Fifteenth Amendment. Most, but definitely not all, veterans salute the flag and take their oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Freedom is a gift from God, not from man. The Declaration of Independence affirms this fact in the second sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The veteran does not give us our liberties, nor does the government. Our government is formed to protect our liberties, as stated in the third sentence of the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Veterans, at least most, have sacrificed to preserve and protect our liberties. The veteran did not give us our liberties; God did that. The veteran preserved and protected our liberties. Some soldiers gave the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, as did a high school friend of mine, Bob Hutchinson, who was killed while serving in the US Army as an infantryman during the Vietnam War. Others, such as my brother Gary, who was wounded while serving as a US Army infantryman during the Vietnam War. I served as a helicopter pilot for the Marine Corps in Vietnam during the Vietnam War; although I was shot at, I returned unscathed. Finally, we have veterans such as Lloyd Austin, the current Secretary of Defense and retired US Army general, and General Mark Milley, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who seem to be diligently working to destroy our military and persecute and punish, through the ghoulish vaccine mandates, the most loyal and patriotic soldiers. The mandatory vaccine policies that Austin and Milley are implementing that will undermine the health of our military personnel, thus placing our nation in grave risk, vividly illustrate that not all veterans are worthy of adulation. Proverbs 14: 34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. 2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. The author of the article “It Isn't the Veteran,” Patintheworld.com (he does not give his name) seems to have the philosophy of the scornful. Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. 2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts. He does not believe that our rights come from God or the veteran but come from agitation by the disaffected. He supports Black Lives Matter, a violent group run by avowed Marxists and occultists. Five people died during the January 6, 2021 demonstration at the US Capitol, but the only death by violence was that of Ashli Babbitt, callously shot by a Capitol Police Officer. Never forget Ashli Babbitt. The program title, Liberty and Posterity, comes from the US Constitution, the preamble of which states that one of the reasons for writing and ratifying the Constitution was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” our posterity being our children and descendants not yet born. As a reminder, on the Liberty and Posterity program, we view all events and activities in relation to reality, truth, and Biblical morality. If you have a problem with that, the problem is on your end, not ours. My email address is freedom@libertyandposterity.com. © Copyright 2021 Liberty and Posterity

The Thirteenth Amendment (1865) abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime, and authorized Congress to enforce abolition. Though millions of slaves had been declared free by the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, their post Civil War status was unclear, as was the status of other millions. Congress intended the Thirteenth Amendment to be a proclamation of freedom for all slaves throughout the nation and to take the question of emancipation away from politics. This amendment rendered inoperative or moot several of the original parts of the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) granted United States citizenship to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction". It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. These limitations dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. This amendment, according to the Supreme Court's Doctrine of Incorporation, makes most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments as well. It superseded the mode of apportionment of representatives delineated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and also overturned the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857). The Fifteenth Amendment (1870) prohibits the use of race, color, or previous condition of servitude in determining which citizens may vote. The last of three post Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, it sought to abolish one of the key vestiges of slavery and to advance the civil rights and liberties of former slaves. The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) prohibits the government from denying women the right to vote on the same terms as men. Prior to the amendment's adoption, only a few states permitted women to vote and to hold office. The Twenty-third Amendment (1961) extends the right to vote in presidential elections to citizens residing in the District of Columbia by granting the District electors in the Electoral College, as if it were a state. When first established as the nation's capital in 1800, the District of Columbia's five thousand residents had neither a local government, nor the right to vote in federal elections. By 1960 the population of the District had grown to over 760,000. The Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) prohibits a poll tax for voting. Although passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments helped remove many of the discriminatory laws left over from slavery, they did not eliminate all forms of discrimination. Along with literacy tests and durational residency requirements, poll taxes were used to keep low-income (primarily African American) citizens from participating in elections. The Supreme Court has since struck down these discriminatory measures, opening democratic participation to all. The Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971) prohibits the government from denying the right of United States citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age. The drive to lower the voting age was driven in large part by the broader student activism movement protesting the Vietnam War. It gained strength following the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v Mitchell (1970). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Hello and welcome to the show today! In our study of Acts chapter 10, we have been taking a look at a Roman centurion by the name of Cornelius, who we see is striving in every way that he can to follow God. But he does not yet know about Jesus. But he is drawing near to God in the best way that he knows how. And that is something that God will always honor. God promises in… James 4:8a (NKJV)— 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Well that is what Cornelius has been doing. And so therefore Jesus is preparing to draw near to him in a powerful way. Now it says in… Acts 10:3-8 (NKJV)— 3 About the ninth hour of the day {([3:00 p.m.])} he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?” So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. {(So we see that God is acknowledging that what Cornelius intended has in fact been the reality. [Cornelius' prayers, devotion, faith, and goodness were like a fragrant offering rising up to God.] And God is about to reward him. Now the Angel continues, saying:) 5 Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.” 7 And when the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier from among those who waited on him continually. 8 So when he had explained all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa. The Right Servant— Now you can definitely sense how military-minded Cornelius is. After the angel gives him these instructions, he immediately obeys. Now God could have had him send for Philip, who was already in Caesarea (Acts 8:40), but he doesn't; because remember [it was Peter, not Philip, who had been given the “keys.” {And what this shows us is that} God not only works at the right time, but He also works through the right servant, and both are essential.] There are people God isn't sending to others because His intention is to send them to you. You are the one He wants to open the door for them. The question is, are you and I going to respond to that call? Peter's Preparation— Now it was not only necessary for Cornelius to be prepared for this event; Peter had to be as well. After all, [he had lived as an orthodox Jew all of his life (Acts 10:14).] And because of that (being a product of his culture) he did not see the Gentiles as a part of God's salvation plan. For the Jews of the time there was a strong barrier between them and the Gentiles; and they considered them aliens and strangers [as far as the Jewish covenants and promises were concerned (vv. 11-13).] However, we know that that barrier was [broken down at the cross (Eph. 2:14–18).] And now [“There is no difference” either in condemnation (Rom. 3:22–23) or in salvation (10:12–13).] A Seed In The Declaration— And you know, a very similar circumstance took place when the United States was founded. God no doubt inspired Thomas Jefferson to write these incredible words into our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Now you'd think that this would mean that America (from the moment it was conceived when that Declaration was signed on July 4, 1776) would be a nation free of racism and slavery (which is often a product of that racism). But no, it took a long time for that to trickle down. It wasn't until almost a hundred years later that the Thirteenth Amendment finally abolished slavery in 1865. And it wasn't until 1870 (5 years later) that the Fifteenth Amendment gave African Americans the right to vote, which was a landmark decision. And then in 1954 there was another landmark decision made by the Supreme Court. And that was the Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education, which ended segregation in public education. And then in 1964 of course you had the Civil Rights Act, which gave equal opportunity to all. Now did any of these decisions fix all our problems or completely eradicate racism? No. But each of them was another step in the right direction. And when you take a step back you can see how God placed a seed in the minds of our founding founders (some of whom owned slaves) and caused that seed to grow and eventually bring freedom and desegregation to our land and a recognized equality that has become so complete that on January 20, 2009 we inaugurated our first African-American president. And whether you liked his politics or not, that (for many people) was a milestone because it revealed just how unified the United States had become under the idea that all of us are equal. Now we have a long way to go still, but that equality (for much of our history) has been recognized as having its roots in the very the nature of God Himself, in whose image we are created. Losing The Seed— Now unfortunately that concept has been vehemently attacked in recent years. And that is sad, because it was that concept that got the ball rolling in the right direction to begin with. And without that foundational belief in our being created in the image of a loving God, we will always be open for that racism to creep back in. Because without God, there is nobody to hold us accountable for how we treat one another. And if naturalism is true (the belief that we were only created through natural processes) and we are all just highly evolved primates, who is to say that one race is not better than another? Actually that's exactly what Evolution teaches in its doctrine of the Survival of the Fittest. There are some people who are lower on the evolutionary food chain and may even need to die so that the fittest can survive. That was one of the key fundamental ideas that drove the Nazis. And they ended up committing the most heinous acts imaginable on other human beings not because they were insane (though many of them were) but because they took these evolutionary ideas to their logical conclusion. Now not everyone who rejects God will embrace that kind of hatred, because all of have demonstrated at least some of the effect of our having been created in the image of God; but anywhere from which the fear of God has been removed, history will always repeat itself. Because you will have lost the very foundation that supports every individual's inherent worth. And furthermore, it is only through Jesus that we can be renewed in the image of our Creator and receive the spiritual equipment we need to overcome our evil tendencies and defeat racism. And that is what was starting to happen in our passage today; and things will eventually progress to the point where Paul can write in… Colossians 3:11 (ESV)— 11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. But this was a big transition; one that God had to prepare Peter for. And so it says in… Acts 10:9-16 (NKJV)— 9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour {(12:00 noon)}. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. Unclean— Now what was going on with this vision, and why did God choose to use this imagery to teach Peter to start to see the Gentiles as He did? Well, keep in mind that the text says Peter was hungry. And so what better way to “speak to his condition” (as the Quakers used to say) than to give him a vision involving food. He's longing for food and so God gives him food; just not the food he was expecting. He is given food that (according to Jewish dietary regulations) was ceremonially unclean. And [the distinction between “clean and unclean foods” was a major problem between the Jews and the Gentiles in that day. In fact, {we will see in the very next chapter that} Peter's Christian friends {actually} criticized him for eating with the Gentiles (Acts 11:1–3)! {And so} God used this centuries-old regulation (Lev. 11) to teach Peter an important spiritual lesson.] Peter Refuses— Now (though it shouldn't have) this command to eat ceremonially unclean food came as quite a shock to Peter. And he politely but vehemently refuses God! And though he meant well, it was still wrong for him to respond the way he did. As Dr. W. Graham Scroggie wrote, “You can say ‘No,' and you can say ‘Lord'; but you cannot say ‘No, Lord!'” If He is truly our Lord, then we can only say “Yes!” to Him and obey His commands.] But God is very merciful and patient with Peter, which should be an encouragement to us because He is just as patient with us. But the angel responds to Peter. Verse 15… Acts 10:15 (NKJV)—15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” Both Unclean— Now I want you to hear this, because this is very important. The lesson here is not that the Jews were clean and the Gentiles were just as clean. No, it was that both Jew and Gentile alike are unclean in the sight of God. Both needed cleansing. The Jew is just as unclean and in need of the cleansing of God as the Gentile is. And the reason that is important for us to understand is because what this [meant {was} that a Gentile did not have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian.] The Jew was not at some kind of higher spiritual level just by being a Jew. No, ALL of us need the cleansing work of Jesus Christ. Now Peter doesn't understand the meaning of the vision right away, but (as we saw with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, God's timing is perfect. It says in… Acts 10:17-20 (NKJV)— 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there. 19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.” Doubting Nothing— And that [phrase “doubting nothing” (Acts 10:20) means “making no distinctions.” You find it again in Acts 11:12, and a similar word is used in Acts 11:2 (“contended with him” = “made a difference”). Peter was no longer to make any distinctions between the Jews and the Gentiles.] And it says in… Acts 10:21-23a (NKJV)— 21 Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?” 22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.” 23 Then he invited them in and lodged them. Who's Your Cornelius?— You know, this story has so much to say to us about allowing God to challenge and re-shape our world-views. Even we as Gentiles who (by God's grace) have been grafted into His family can still look down on others. We can become exclusive in our thinking. And I don't think there are many of us here today (if any) who are openly racist or prejudice; who would say there is a person or a people group that we hate or openly reject. But I don't think this passage is just about not openly rejecting people. Sometimes we reject by neglect. And the way we reject by neglect is by simply choosing to overlook people. And I think that for each of us, there probably is a Cornelius in our life that needs what we have in Christ Jesus, the Good News of the Gospel. The question is, are we willing to go to them? Are we willing to cross whatever barriers we have to in order to introduce them to Jesus? As we close today, I want to challenge you to ask God to show you the Cornelius in your life; and after revealing that person to you, ask Him to give you the courage and strength to reach out to them with the love and message of Jesus Christ. Because if you do, they will be blessed, you will be blessed, and the Church will be blessed. Let's do so. Amen.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution gave African American men, including those who had been former slaves, the right to vote. While the amendment seemed simple, the US Supreme Court has interpreted it in a variety of ways in the past 150 years since it was ratified to the Constitution. This is what you need to know. Podcast Show Notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/the-fifteenth-amendment-the-constitutional-amendments/  Click Here to listen to the weekly podcast: https://ancestralfindings.com/podcast Weekly Giveaways: https://ancestralfindings.com/drawing Genealogy eBooks: https://ancestralfindings.com/ebooks Hard To Find Surnames: https://ancestralfindings.com/surnames Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings https://www.instagram.com/ancestralfindings https://www.twitter.com/ancestralstuff Support Ancestral Findings: https://ancestralfindings.com/donation #Genealogy #AncestralFindings #Amendments

The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution gave African American men, including those who had been former slaves, the right to vote. While the amendment seemed simple, the US Supreme Court has interpreted it in a variety of ways in the past 150 years since it was ratified to the Constitution. This is what you need to know. Podcast Show Notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/the-fifteenth-amendment-the-constitutional-amendments/  Click Here to listen to the weekly podcast: https://ancestralfindings.com/podcast Weekly Giveaways: https://ancestralfindings.com/drawing Genealogy eBooks: https://ancestralfindings.com/ebooks Hard To Find Surnames: https://ancestralfindings.com/surnames Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings https://www.instagram.com/ancestralfindings https://www.twitter.com/ancestralstuff Support Ancestral Findings: https://ancestralfindings.com/donation #Genealogy #AncestralFindings #Amendments

Although African Americans quickly began legal challenges to such provisions in the 19th century, it was years before any were successful before the U.S. Supreme Court. Booker T Washington, better known for his public stance of trying to work within societal constraints of the period at Tuskegee University, secretly helped fund and arrange representation for numerous legal challenges to disfranchisement. He called upon wealthy Northern allies and philanthropists to raise funds for the cause. The Supreme Court's upholding of Mississippi's new constitution, in Williams v Mississippi (1898), encouraged other states to follow the Mississippi plan of disenfranchisement. African Americans brought other legal challenges, as in Giles v Harris (1903) and Giles v Teasley (1904), but the Supreme Court upheld Alabama constitutional provisions. In 1915, Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement due to Supreme Court cases. From early in the 20th century, the newly established National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took the lead in organizing or supporting legal challenges to segregation and disfranchisement. Gradually they planned the strategy of which cases to take forward. In Guinn v United States (1915), the first case in which the NAACP filed a brief, the Supreme Court struck down the grandfather clause in Oklahoma and Maryland. Other states in which it was used had to retract their legislation as well. The challenge was successful. But, nearly as rapidly as the Supreme Court determined a specific provision was unconstitutional, state legislatures developed new statutes to continue disenfranchisement. For instance, in Smith v Allwright (1944), the Supreme Court struck down the use of state-sanctioned all-white primaries by the Democratic Party in the South. States developed new restrictions on black voting; Alabama passed a law giving county registrars more authority as to which questions they asked applicants in comprehension or literacy tests. The NAACP continued with steady progress in legal challenges to disenfranchisement and segregation. In 1957, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 to implement the Fifteenth Amendment. It established the United States Civil Rights Commission; among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination. As late as 1962, programs such as Operation Eagle Eye in Arizona attempted to stymie minority voting through literacy tests. The Twenty-fourth Amendment was ratified in 1964 to prohibit poll taxes as a condition of voter registration and voting in federal elections. Many states continued to use them in state elections as a means of reducing the number of voters. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Episode discussion topics Our right to vote is under siege by proposals across 43 out of 50 states in the Union (Washington Post, March 11, 2021). This is one of the rare cases DC is fortunate not to have a statehouse. We provide a May round-up on what's passed, below under the more info section. First, we review a "brief" timeline on the Hokey Pokey dance for who could vote when and where within the United States. Thank you to Wikipedia for the info. (Full list here, accessed Jun 4, 2021). 1789 The Constitution of the United States grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[1] However, some states allowed also Black males to vote, and New Jersey also included unmarried and widowed women, regardless of color. Since married women were not allowed to own property, they could not meet the property qualifications.[2] 1791 Vermont is admitted as a new state, giving the vote to men regardless of color or property ownership.[5] 1807 Voting rights are taken away from free black males and from all women in New Jersey.[2] 1870 The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents states from denying the right to vote on grounds of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era began soon after. Former Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws and amendments to effectively disfranchise African-American and poor white voters through poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other restrictions, applied in a discriminatory manner. During this period, the Supreme Court generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South.[17][18] Women in Utah get the right to vote.[21] 1882 Chinese-Americans lose the right to vote and become citizens through the Chinese Exclusion Act.[11] 1883 Women in Washington Territory earn the right to vote.[24] 1887 Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making those males technically eligible to vote. Women in Washington lose the right to vote.[24] Women in Utah lose the right to vote under the Edmunds–Tucker Act.[25] Kansas women earn the right to vote in municipal elections.[20] Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, and South Dakota grant partial suffrage to women.[13] 1913 Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.[31] White and African American women in the Territory of Alaska earn the right to vote.[32] Women in Illinois earn the right to vote in presidential elections.[25] 1914 Nevada and Montana women earn the right to vote.[20] 1917 Women in Arkansas earn the right to vote in primary elections.[20] Women in Rhode Island earn the right to vote in presidential elections.[25] Women in New York, Oklahoma, and South Dakota earn equal suffrage through their state constitutions.[25] 1918 Women in Texas earn the right to vote in primary elections.[33] 1920 Women are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied to non-white women. 1924 All Native Americans are granted citizenship and the right to vote through the Indian Citizenship Act, regardless of tribal affiliation. By this point, approximately two thirds of Native Americans were already citizens.[35][36] Notwithstanding, some western states continued to bar Native Americans from voting until 1948.[37] 1943 Chinese immigrants are given the right to citizenship and the right to vote by the Magnuson Act.[39] 1948 Arizona and New Mexico are among the last states to extend full voting rights to Native Americans, which had been opposed by some western states in contravention of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[37][40] 1961 Residents of Washington, D.C. are granted the right to vote in U.S. Presidential Elections by the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution.[11] 1962-1964 A historic turning point arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren made a series of landmark decisions which helped establish the nationwide "one man, one vote" electoral system in the United States. In March 1962, the Warren Court ruled in Baker v. Carr (1962) that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.[45] In February 1964, the Warren Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population.[46] In June 1964, the Warren Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that each chamber of a bicameral state legislature must have electoral districts roughly equal in population.[47][48][49] 1964 Poll Tax payment prohibited from being used as a condition for voting in federal elections by the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[30] 1965 Protection of voter registration and voting for racial minorities, later applied to language minorities, is established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[11] This has also been applied to correcting discriminatory election systems and districting. In Harman v. Forssenius the Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes or "equivalent or milder substitutes" cannot be imposed on voters.[30] 1966 Tax payment and wealth requirements for voting in state elections are prohibited by the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.[23] 1970 Alaska ends the use of literacy tests.[44] Native Americans who live on reservations in Colorado are first allowed to vote in the state.[50] 1971 Adults aged 18 through 21 are granted the right to vote by the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was enacted in response to Vietnam War protests, which argued that soldiers who were old enough to fight for their country should be granted the right to vote.[31][51][52] 1973 Washington, D.C. local elections, such as Mayor and Councilmen, restored after a 100-year gap in Georgetown, and a 190-year gap in the wider city, ending Congress's policy of local election disfranchisement started in 1801 in this former portion of Maryland—see: D.C. Home rule. 1986 United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other citizens overseas, living on bases in the United States, abroad, or aboard ship are granted the right to vote by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.[59] 2013 Supreme Court ruled in the 5–4 Shelby County v. Holder decision that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section 4(b) stated that if states or local governments want to change their voting laws, they must appeal to the Attorney General.[62] Call to Action:  Email or call your Congressional Senator to voice your support for  HR1 - For the People Act of 2021 which passed the House and sits on the doorstep of the Senate. Now is a critical time. Also, it's worth mentioning that a more focused bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seems to have enough support to pass the Senate, as of this moment anyway. Find out what it takes to vote in your county and get it taken care of, then vote in candidates who support everyone's access and right to vote. Your hosts: Michael V. Piscitelli and Raymond Wong Jr. More info According to Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021 by the Brennan Center for Justice, states have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session. Between January 1 and May 14, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. At least 61 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 18 state legislatures. Just to illustrate the variety of voting conditions available to citizens across the thousands of counties among the 50 states, here's a chart.  :-) Please feel free to share your thoughts through our Contact Us page or on Facebook. Learn more and reach out Head to Citizens Prerogative for additional information and log in or sign up to leave a comment. Don't forget to join our free newsletter and get 10% off at our shop! Go the extra mile by supporting us through Patreon. Please contact us with any questions or suggestions. Special thanks Our ongoing supporters, thank you! Our sponsor CitizenDoGood.com. Graphic design by SergeShop.com. Intro music sampled from “Okay Class” by Ozzy Jock under creative commons license through freemusicarchive.org. Other music provided royalty-free through Fesliyan Studios Inc. 

Episode 109: On Easter Sunday, 1873, a band of Klansmen and Confederate veterans committed one of the most sickening acts of violence of the Reconstruction era. In the Colfax Massacre white supremacists murdered mover 100 people in an attempt to overturn to Louisiana gubernatorial election of 1872, and cement the grip of white supremacy over the SouthTwitter: Link Patreon: LinkSources and Further ReadingThe 1873 Colfax Massacre Crippled the Reconstruction Era: LinkThe Colfax Massacre (1873): LinkThe failure of Reconstruction was a ruthless act of sabotage: LinkWhat If Reconstruction Hadn’t Failed?: LinkDemocracy and the Origins of the American Regulatory State, Chapter 5. The Election of 1868: LinkEnforcing the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870-1877: LinkEnforcing the Enforcement Acts: The Department of Justice in Northern Mississippi, 1870-1890: LinkThe Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction: LinkThe Colfax Massacre: The Untold Story of Black Power, White Terror, and the Death of Reconstruction: LinkThe Colfax Massacre a Forgotten Chapter of Violence: LinkFind a Grave, Colfax Riot Memorial: Link“The Liberty of the Nation is in Jeopardy”: Views on the Battle of Liberty Place F ty Place From Beyond Dixie: Link

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and the consolidated case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court will address issues raised under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. Under Section 2—which restates and expands the protections of the Fifteenth Amendment—"no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure” may be imposed in a manner that is intentionally discriminatory or has a disparate impact on a racial or language minority. In this case, the DNC challenged two of Arizona’s voting procedures: discarding out-of-precinct provisional votes where the ballot itself was filled out properly and disallowing third parties to collect and deliver completed vote-by-mail ballots. The DNC argued the provisional ballot rule has a disparate impact on African American, Native American, and Hispanic citizens and the ban on third party delivery was enacted with discriminatory intent. On appeal, the Arizona Republican Party challenges the Ninth Circuit’s finding of discriminatory intent and argues that race neutral and generally applicable voting laws which offer all citizens an equal opportunity to vote do not violate Section 2. Although Arizona won at the District Court level and a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the Ninth Circuit reheard en banc and reversed, finding the District Court clearly erred. Featuring: -- Professor Derek Muller, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law

A case in which the Court upheld Arizona's policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter's designated precinct and Arizona's law permitting only certain persons to handle another person's completed early ballot against challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and (2) whether Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.

The Civil War Amendments were passed in response to attempts by former Confederate states to limit the rights of African Americans. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment recognized African Americans as citizens and forbade states from denying due process or equal protection of the laws and from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens. The Fifteenth Amendment protected the rights of African American men to vote. Center for Civic Education

Throughout history, women have been forgotten, taken for granted, and seen as objects to be used rather than humans with opinions to be heard. Now, with the election just a few days ahead, it is important to recognize that it will be the female vote that will evolve our country.   Dr. Venus walks it back slowly this week to provide resources and a timeline on how Black Men got the chance to vote before White Women. She then discusses the importance of Democracy, and why Black Men supporting Trump falls in line with voting in the name of individualism rather than for the good of the collective. In this political climate, everyone has skin in the game, something to lose, and each side can affect the other drastically. It's our job to make the right decisions for our happiness.   Key Takeaways: [2:05] In 1870, Black Men received the right to vote, but it is important to note that they received this right based on gender. It was not until the 19th Amendment that women received the right to vote. White Men gave Black Men the right to vote, but it was still indoctrinated in the system of White Supremacy, rooted in the patriarchal ideas that men are smarter and know better than women.   [4:05] It looked as though Black Men were included in the right to vote fully, but there were many structures that kept them from doing so, such as taxes, literacy tests, and lynchings.   [7:06] When Black Men support Trump, Dr. Venus believes they are identifying with his fundamental beliefs of looking out for yourself, doing what suits you best, and treating women as second class citizens. There is a riff in the Black community that is gender-based and rooted in feeding the beast of White Supremacy and White Masculinity.   [15:39] No matter who you vote for, it is important that you educate yourself on why you are voting for them, and how they align with your values.   [23:42] This current political climate has turned many people against each other, where true Democracy is letting each other have different opinions and exercising the right to vote based on how a candidate matches up with your values and priorities. We don’t have to agree with what others are saying, but it’s important that everyone has a voice.   [33:31] Patriarchy and bigotry are still very alive these days, but that does not discredit the power of our voice. We can choose to vote and exercise our right to Democracy from a place of power rather than reaction.   Quotes: “You have to look at the values of the people you are aligning with. That includes your candidate.” “As women of all races, we identify with other women. If my sister hurts whether I have money or not and she is in need of welfare, we identify as though that could be us.” “I have a high value of women of all races having control over their body.” “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire “If you want your children to thrive and understand that their voice matters, you have to act it out first.”   Mentioned:  Dr. Venus Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram  “Hot Mess Millionaire” Amazon Pilot  ”Hot Mess Millionaire” Complete Series (https://www.youtube.com/c/DrVenusOpalReese) Join the conversation! Hot Mess Millionaire Facebook Group Free Gift When You Join The Truth Tribe The Black Woman Millionaire Hot Mess Edition    Register to Vote Online   *****VOTING RIGHTS BY STATE: For Convicted Felons   RESOURCES When Did African Americans Actually Get The Right To Vote The 19th Amendment didn’t give women the right to vote Its language — and effects — were much narrower. Suffrage in America: The 15th and 19th Amendments 'It's a Struggle They Will Wage Alone.' How Black Women Won the Right to Vote The gender gap in black views on Trump, explained 24 percent of black men approve of Trump. Just 6 percent of black women do. Why?   IMPORTANT DATES In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States. Citizenship gives people privileges, immunities, equal protection, and due process of law in theory but not in practice. https://www.nps.gov/articles/whose-voice-is-heard.htm   The Fifteenth Amendment of 1870 said that the government cannot keep a citizen from voting based on his "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". The purpose of this amendment was to enfranchise African American men but it was undermined with death threats, Black Codes, and other forms of terror to deter voting. https://www.nps.gov/articles/whose-voice-is-heard.htm   It was not until 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment forbid the denial of voting rights on the basis of sex, that women had the right to vote but there were loopholes around enforcing this amendment. The same tactics used on Black Men. https://www.nps.gov/articles/whose-voice-is-heard.htm   Activism for women’s voting rights did not end in 1920, and the advocacy of women of color like Fannie Lou Hamer and Diane Nash helped lead to perhaps the biggest voting rights victory of all, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Should the newly freedmen have the right to vote? Yes, said the Reconstruction Congress, and with the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, the problem is solved.Or is it?This episode features the outstanding vocal talents of Marvin Cummings portraying John Mercer Langston, Attorney Quintin McGhee portraying Thaddeus Stevens, Attorney Yvonne Godfrey as Maria Chandler and Susan B. Anthony and Attorney Saundra M. Davis portraying Frances Ellen Watkins Harper.Be sure to catch REVEALED: BEHIND THE HIDDEN LEGAL FIGURES podcast blog post each Wednesday for more in-depth information about the historical figures in this episode and watch the "What I Learned" video on YouTube each Thursday.Derrick Alexander Pope, J.D., HostTerrass Misher, ProducerTo find out more about Hidden Legal Figures, or to support the podcast, go www.hiddenlegalfigures.com.Join us on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/showcase/hidden_legal_figures and follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/HLFpodcastHidden Legal Figures is licensed for the exclusive use of The Arc of Justice Institute, Inc. The Arc of Justice Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, public educational institution. Hidden Legal Figures: The Podcast copyright © 2020 by Derrick Alexander Pope. All rights reserved.

The history of black suffrage in the United States, or the right of Black Americans to vote in elections, has had many challenges. The enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 extended the right to vote to Black men. Black women would not vote until the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. However, these constitutional amendments did not always translate into the ability to vote. As the National Election quickly approaches the Less of a Man crew comes together to discuss voting history and trends, party alignment, the Presidential Debate, national policy and the importance of casting your vote.

In theory, the Fifteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African American men. But discriminatory laws, physical intimidation, and economic reprisals kept African Americans from exercising that right. Center for Civic Education

On this week's episode, hosts April Dawson and Irv Joyner are joined by Attorney Tomas Lopez, who serves as the Director of Democracy North Carolina, and Professor Jarvis Hall of the North Carolina Central University Political Science Department. This week's discussion will entail an in-depth discussion surrounding the Fifteenth Amendment, which granted African Americans the right to vote, and the role in which the 1965 Voting Rights Act played in furthering such right.

This week, I am joined by my friend and colleague Ph.D. Candidate in American History Lisa Lamson. We talk about how her dissertation topic has evolved since she got to Marquette University. The history of Baltimore and how an education system for African American girls developed in the city. We also discuss whether Baltimore is southern, and how regionality can be fluid. A great talk, even if she does slander the good name of Sweet Tea. A fascinating conversation I hope you will join us for. Image citation: Citation! "The 15th Amendment." reduced version of Kelly's large print "The Fifteenth Amendment, Celebrated May 19th, 1870" (no. 1870-4), Published in American political prints, 1766-1876 / Bernard F. Reilly. Boston: G.K. Hall, 1991, entry 1870-5. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA DIGITAL ID: (color film copy transparency) cph 3g02399

Just because we don't take sides doesn't mean we don't encourage you to exercise your Fifteenth Amendment. It's Super Tuesday and these pandering nincompoops remind us of everything that is wrong with our despondent system and why it's important to vote.

Erik and Aicila hope you will be inspired to dive into the rich cultural landscape that is Black History. Since 1976, every American president has designated February as Black History Month and endorsed a specific theme. The Black History Month 2020 theme, “African Americans and the Vote,” is in honor of the centennial anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment (1920) granting women's suffrage and the sesquicentennial of the Fifteenth Amendment (1870) giving black men the right to vote.Promo: Time Sensitive: http://bit.ly/2TqrTDjMember Big Heads Media NetworkThe undefeated 44 | http://bit.ly/2tUlGXjWikipedia Black firsts | http://bit.ly/2OQJT85Milestones in Black History | http://bit.ly/2w9TUH2The Black Origins of Punk Music | http://bit.ly/2uzYT3AHistory of Black History month | http://bit.ly/39y7enaASALH | http://bit.ly/2Hou705Why Feb for Black History Month? | http://bit.ly/39CtNal★ Support this podcast ★

Clara Ester, an eyewitness to the assassination of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be the guest speaker on Thursday, February 27, 2020, at Regular Baptist Church. Ms. Ester rushed up the stairs of the Lorraine Motel, in Memphis, TN to help Dr. King after he was shot, on April 4, 1968. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and the service starts at 7:00 p.m. at 901 5th Street, Gretna, LA 70053. The theme for the program is "African Americans and the Vote”. Admission is free and open to the public. Organizations and individuals that have been instrumental in promoting voting rights will be honored during the program. The 2020 honorees are Jeremiah Group, Voice of the Experienced (VOTE), Rho Pi Omega Chapter, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., MLK Task Force, Inc., Clara Byes, and Cedric Floyd. Regular Baptist Church also hosted a dynamic Black History Month Concert featuring Landry Walker and Edna Karr High School Choirs on Thursday, February 13, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. The Regular Baptist Church History Museum will be open after the February 27, 2020 program and also after the 8:30 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. church services from February 17 to March 1, 2020. This year in addition to the 153-year history of RBC, there will be a special museum exhibition that will chronicle the African American vote as we celebrate the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment, ratified August 18, 1920, giving women the right to vote and the 150th anniversary of the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, giving the right to black men to vote after the Civil War. Afrocentric attire is always appropriate at RBC during the month of February. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lisa-c-phillips/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lisa-c-phillips/support

  EPISODE SUMMARY Violence, intimidation, and murder were not enough. In this episode, the hosts discuss how southern states used legal structures post Reconstruction to nullify rights embodied in the Fifteenth Amendment. White primaries, poll taxes, literacy tests, and other “legal” policies worked to virtually eliminate Black Americans from the voting rolls. A FEW KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS EPISODE To download the transcript, CLICK HERE LINKS IN THIS EPISODE CLICK HERE TO LEAVE FEEDBACK Follow Ellis Conversations on Twitter Follow Judge Ronald Ellis on Twitter Follow Jamil Ellis on Twitter Follow Jamil Ellis on LinkedIn OTHER EPISODES OF INTEREST

On this day 150 years ago, the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified to give all male citizens the right to vote regardless of their race.

We WILL find a new world order! But not this week.The Confederacy of Andropolia | The United States of Sebmerica | The Democracy of ZanstraliaLet us know what you think about how we deal with these issues by contacting/arguing with us on social media!Please consider supporting us on PatreonLike us on Facebook!Follow us on twitter @worldorderpodEmail us: anewworldorderpodcast@gmail.comOr visit our Website: www.thatsnotcanonproductions.comHosts: Sebastian Briguglio, Andrew Szosler & Zane C WeberRecorded and Produced by Zane C Weber Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

#real_talk_w_mrq #Byron_Allen_Vs_Comcast #real_talk_w_mr_q_the_war In this episode, Mr. Q take a closer look of how the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment are being used in ongoing case against Comcast brought on by Byron Allen. Byron Allen V. Comcast: https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/06/20/byron-allen-levels-up-to-the-supreme-court-in-20-billion-comcast-appeal/#3fcfb89a7125 Roland Martin: https://youtu.be/nHRXsXLzht0 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilWarAmendments.htm The Black Farmers and Agriculturist Association: https://rollingout.com/2019/01/07/thomas-burrell-how-black-farmers-court-wins-are-modeled-to-cure-poverty/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/mr-q-the-war-machine/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mr-q-the-war-machine/support

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.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 expanded the rights conferred on citizens through the Fifteenth Amendment. Under it, suffrage was opened to women, men, racial minorities, and removed the previous requirements to vote. The excerpted analysis is narrated by Emma Black. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-bannecker-letter/support

After the Civil War, Congress passed a bundle of Amendments which came to be known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Their purpose was to address the mass racial inequality that plagued the still forming nation. But did they work? And are they still relevant today? Helping us unpack the last Reconstruction Amendments - the Fifteenth - is Khalilah Brown-Dean, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Quinnipiac University. 

The Women's Loyal National League, also known as the Woman's National Loyal League and other variations of that name, was formed on May 14, 1863, to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would abolish slavery. It was organized by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, its president, and Susan B. Anthony, its secretary. In the largest petition drive in the nation's history up to that time, the League collected nearly 400,000 signatures on petitions to abolish slavery and presented them to Congress. Its petition drive significantly assisted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the U.S. The League disbanded in August 1864 after it became clear that the amendment would be approved. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Loyal_National_League) The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments. In the final years of the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era that followed, Congress repeatedly debated the rights of the millions of black former slaves. By 1869, amendments had been passed to abolish slavery and provide citizenship and equal protection under the laws, but the election of Ulysses S. Grant to the presidency in 1868 convinced a majority of Republicans that protecting the franchise of black male voters was important for the party's future. On February 26, 1869, after rejecting more sweeping versions of a suffrage amendment, Congress proposed a compromise amendment banning franchise restrictions on the basis of race, color, or previous servitude. After surviving a difficult ratification fight, the amendment was certified as duly ratified and part of the Constitution on March 30, 1870. The amendment created a split within the women's suffrage movement over the amendment not prohibiting denying the women the right to vote on account of sex. Information sourced from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) Body sourced from youtu.be/FCl2BmbqCRM Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage downloaded and edited by Jason at PublicAccessPod producer of Public Access America Podcast Links Review us Stitcher: goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: goo.gl/gPEDbf YouTube goo.gl/xrKbJb YouTube

On America’s 237th birthday, what is the state of our freedoms? Two law professors reflect on the controversies over privacy rights and voting rights. As we celebrate another year of Independence, Americans are asking what happened to the Fourth Amendment protections of privacy and the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee of voting rights. Law Professor Michael Greenberger, a homeland security experts, explains what the leak of national security secrets may mean. Law Professor Michael Higginbotham reflects on changes in affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. And Bill Press interviews the acting secretary of labor, Seth Harris. Michael Greenberger Law Professor Michael Greenberger is an expert on homeland security issues. And he warns that the National Security Agency’s sweep of phone numbers and emails is, indeed, “a serious Fourth Amendment  question.” http://www.michaelgreenberger.com Michael Higginbotham Civil rights law expert Michael Higginbotham says it was a a “sad and tragic week” at the Supreme Court. He warns that educational opportunity for minorities will be limited, and tremendous discrimination at the ballot box is going to go unchecked. http://www.fmichaelhigginbotham.org Seth Harris Bill Press and his guest, Acting Secretary of Labor Seth Harris. http://www.dol.gov Jim Hightower Serve bankers or serve the poor? Congress reinterprets Jesus

Long before Marvel Comics created Spiderman, a spiderman was created by the Ashanti tribe of western Africa. The frequent trickster (and sometimes victim of other animals' tricks) has appeared in many aliases, and in many other parts of the world, including the Caribbean, Central America and the U.S. Sometimes he appears as a spider, sometimes a man, and sometimes both. In the Southern U.S., “he” sometimes turned into Aunt Nancy. In our story for this month, he retains his original name and gender, even though he has been transplanted to Jamaica, mon. And alas, it's another one of those cases (like “Anansi Goes Fishing”, which we're currently performing on tour) where he ends up on the short end of the storytellers' stick. We thought an Anansi story would be particularly appropriate for Black History Month, otherwise known as February. (In Great Britain, it's celebrated in October.) The month, which was originally just a week, traces its roots back to 1926, when prominent historian Dr. Carter Woodson began crusading to remedy the way his fellow African-Americans had been neglected in the history books. February is also the anniversary of the Fifteenth Amendment granting African-Americans the right to vote, and the swearing in of Hiram Revels as the first African-American member of the U.S. Senate. And February contains the birthday of the early civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois, who along with Dr. Woodson, helped found the NAACP in 1909—during, would you believe it, the month of February. And you thought this month was just for presidents, groundhogs and chocolate. We come to you from Western Florida, a state in which we've been sojourning for the past couple of months. But we're on our way north and gradually back to the West Coast, to the region where we started. We hope you do your share of reading during Read Across America Week, the first week in March. Happy Listening!Dennis (Narrator, Hog, Monkey) and Kimberly (Anansi, Goat) Links Mentioned in this Podcast Kall8.com for voice mail service - use our # for reference if you sign up: 800.429-6576 Details for Share the Love of Reading are at Myownbook.net Read Across America Week Library Lover's Month On Twitter we are @activated The Program Room by Monty Harper - podcast for Youth Services Librarians A!S Flier for 2009-10 touring productions to share with your favorite school or library. (PDF format)