Legislative compromise between pro- and anti-slavery parties in the run-up to the American Civil War
POPULARITY
4 episodes with Missouri Compromise
2 episodes with Missouri Compromise
3 episodes with Missouri Compromise
2 episodes with Missouri Compromise
3 episodes with Missouri Compromise
2 episodes with Missouri Compromise
2 episodes with Missouri Compromise
2 episodes with Missouri Compromise
2 episodes with Missouri Compromise
Commemorate Juneteenth and reflect on its origins, history, meaning, and traditions.Learn about the prevalence and acceptance of slavery in world history (such as in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Athens, Rome, Britain, England, and Europe) and its development in the colonies and the United States. Examine the cruel and barbaric slave trade and Middle Passage across the ocean from first hand accounts.Explore how some Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery, and George Washington emancipated his slaves. Learn how Thomas Jefferson trembled for the future of the country because of slavery, and how he banned slavery in the Northwest Territory and signed the law banning the slave trade in America. Learn how the opposition to slavery led to sharp divisions in the country, eventually exploding into the Civil War.Review how President Abraham Lincoln shifted his original position and supported the emancipation of the slaves as a wartime measure, and implemented emancipation through the first and final Emancipation Proclamations. Learn how the final Emancipation Proclamation only freed those enslaved by the Confederate States of America.Learn how many enslaved first learned of the Emancipation Proclamation for the first time on June 19, 1865 by virtue of Union General Gordan Granger General's Order No. 3 issued in Galveston, Texas after the Union army occupies the city, but only after the 25th Army Corps — primarily composed of African American Union troops — liberate Galveston.Review how slavery was finally abolished through the ratification of the 13th Amendment and treaties with Native American tribes (who held slaves) such as the Cherokee, Creek, and Chickasaw.Explore how June 19 becomes a new celebration - called Jubilee Day, Emancipation Day, and finally Juneteenth - and the celebration spread across the nation, and was finally recognized as a federal holiday in the wake of the George Floyd killing in 2021. Listen to several Juneteenth Presidential Proclamations by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.Focus on how commercialism is starting to creep into the Juneteenth celebrations.Highlights include Christina Snyder's book Slavery in Indian Country, The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America, Olaudah Equiano (Gustavus Vassa), the Great Awakening, chattel slavery, Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, Eli Whitney & the cotton gin, Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, Lincoln Douglas debates, "A House Divided" Abraham Lincoln speech, presidential election of 1860, Declaration of Independence, abolitionists, Fort Sumter, Civil War, Grand Army of the Republic, Horace Greeley, Gideon Wells, William Seward, Antietam, Gettysburg Address, Lincoln First Inaurual Address, Lincoln Second Inaugural Address, Richard Hofstadlter's American Political Tradition, bill of lading, General Robert E. Lee, Appotomattox Court House, CSS Shenandoah, Union General Gordan Granger General Order No. 3, and much more.To learn more about America & Patriot Week, visit www.PatriotWeek.org. Our resources include videos, a TV series, blogs, lesson plans, and more.Check out Judge Michael Warren's new book, The Revolutionary Words that Forged America - The Definitive Guide to the Declaration of Independence (Republic Books 2026).
On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the Mexican War of 1846 before introducing Wilfred McClay. Americans have overcome many challenges throughout our history, including the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, two World Wars, and the Cold War. Studying the great stories from our past inspires us to preserve the blessings of liberty in our day. Now you can study these stories with Hillsdale College. Hillsdale’s free online course, “The Great American Story: A Land of Hope,” explores the history of America as a land of hope founded on high principles. In presenting the great triumphs and achievements of our nation’s past, as well as the shortcomings and failures, it offers a broad and unbiased study of the kind essential to the cultivation of intelligent patriotism. The Mexican War of 1846 pushed the United States toward a civil war by reviving the national debate concerning slavery in U.S. territories—a debate that the Missouri Compromise had attempted to settle in 1820.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the Mexican War of 1846 before introducing Wilfred McClay. Americans have overcome many challenges throughout our history, including the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, two World Wars, and the Cold War. Studying the great stories from our past inspires us to preserve the blessings of liberty in our day. Now you can study these stories with Hillsdale College. Hillsdale’s free online course, “The Great American Story: A Land of Hope,” explores the history of America as a land of hope founded on high principles. In presenting the great triumphs and achievements of our nation’s past, as well as the shortcomings and failures, it offers a broad and unbiased study of the kind essential to the cultivation of intelligent patriotism. The Mexican War of 1846 pushed the United States toward a civil war by reviving the national debate concerning slavery in U.S. territories—a debate that the Missouri Compromise had attempted to settle in 1820.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
62 MinutesSafe for WorkGeorge Bagby is a content creator and publisher of long-forgotten books. George joins Pete to continue a series detailing the long lead up to America's Civil War.George's Twitter AccountGeorge's Pinned Tweet w/ Links George's YouTube ChannelPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.
Chuck Todd asks the most uncomfortable question in American politics: is the country's current dysfunction a problem that can be resolved at the ballot box, or are we living through a pre-Civil War style pressure buildup where fundamental divisions keep getting papered over rather than addressed? He draws a striking parallel between today's hyperpartisan era — where both parties are simultaneously fighting each other and tearing themselves apart internally — and the post-Jackson period of American politics, when the country flipped back and forth between parties without ever resolving the underlying wound of slavery. He traces the arc from the Compromise of 1850, when Millard Fillmore believed he'd saved the republic, through the repeal of the Missouri Compromise that led to Bleeding Kansas, to James Buchanan handing Abraham Lincoln a country already on fire — and asks whether modern America can heal its divides without mass violence. He closes with Lincoln's insight that you couldn't solve the divide by managing it — but insists it doesn't have to take a hot civil war to resolve America's fractures, even if it increasingly feels like the country still isn't ready to do the hard work of actually turning the page. Then, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan — the moderate Democrat, former tech entrepreneur, and Harvard-educated candidate for California governor — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a policy-dense conversation about what's wrong with California governance and how to fix it. Mahan argues that California has enormous resources but isn't delivering better results, and that the best form of resistance to Trumpism isn't performative opposition but good governance that actually improves people's lives. He walks through his record in San Jose — where he prioritized basic dignified shelter over expensive permanent housing and is now leading the state in reducing unsheltered homelessness — and makes the case that expensive housing is fundamentally a public policy failure driven by environmental review processes that needlessly slow construction. On AI, Mahan notes that Silicon Valley's libertarian tech culture has historically disengaged from civic life, but warns that AI is coming fast and California has both the responsibility and the opportunity to set guardrails that could become the national standard — particularly around transparency in government data use and serious law enforcement around data violations. The conversation gets politically candid as they navigate the tensions within the Democratic Party. Mahan argues that California Democrats can't blame anyone else for the state's governance failures, that every year revenue goes up faster than population growth yet outcomes get worse, and that highly organized interest groups end up wielding a veto over meaningful change. He opposes the proposed California billionaire wealth tax — not because he's defending billionaires, he insists, but because taxing the ultra-wealthy needs to happen at the federal level to avoid driving companies out of state — and disagrees with Newsom's handling of Proposition 36, arguing the state should force people into either treatment or jail rather than allowing open drug markets. On California's jungle primary, Mahan dismisses concerns about two Republican candidates advancing as overblown, pushes back on the idea he should run as an independent, and contends that Democrats need to update their platform and make government actually work rather than relying on "resistance warrior" posturing. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the creation of NATO in 1949 and asks whether an alliance built on stability and values can survive a transactional president like Donald Trump, and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CHUCKTODDCAST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/chucktoddcast Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 01:00 Reaction to March Madness 03:15 Nats are 2-1! 08:45 Trump orders TSA workers to be paid via executive order 09:45 Both parties are fighting each other, and also infighting 10:45 The house has the hardliners, the senate has the compromisers 11:15 Is the country ready to move on from dysfunction & hyperpartisanship? 13:30 For the 21st century, the country has flipped back & forth between parties 14:15 Similarities to the post-Jackson era of American politics 16:30 Problems and divisions were left unresolved 18:00 The wound over slavery was never healed, pressure kept building 19:00 Fillmore offered the compromise of 1850, thought he saved the republic 20:45 The Missouri Compromise was repealed, led to conflict in Kansas 22:30 Buchanon handed Lincoln a country already on fire 23:15 Can modern America heal its divides without mass violence? 24:15 8 million turned out for No Kings protests 25:45 CPAC was completely different universe compared to No Kings 27:00 Trump’s poll numbers are tanking on multiple issues 27:45 Democrats brand is still worse than Republicans in polls 28:30 We don’t seem to have the leaders we need to turn the page 29:15 The economy is a mess and it’s almost entirely Trump’s fault 30:15 The GOP hasn’t finished its own internal reckoning 31:30 It feels like America still isn’t ready to turn the page yet 32:30 The two parties have two fundamentally different visions for America 35:00 Will 2026 be a paradigm shift, or yet another pendulum swing? 36:00 Lincoln understood you couldn’t solve the divide by managing it 39:00 It doesn’t have to take a hot civil war to solve America’s divides 47:00 Mayor Matt Mahan (San Jose) joins the Chuck ToddCast 48:30 What got you into politics and made you want to run for mayor? 50:30 What are the other Dems in the race missing that you can bring? 51:45 California has a lot of resources but isn’t delivering better results 53:00 San Jose become the place where Palo Alto workers actually live 54:30 Why has San Jose lacked a real urban center? 55:45 Tech sector is very libertarian & didn’t really engage the community 58:15 Concerns that AI is coming quickly & can do both good and harm 59:45 If California puts guardrails on AI, that could become national standard 1:01:00 Government has responsibility to be transparent about AI data use 1:02:30 California has to create framework for AI security, regulation & transparency 1:03:15 The unknown of AI has created fear amongst the American public 1:04:30 The lack of trust in AI is because social media has been such a negative 1:06:00 There needs to be serious law enforcement around data violations 1:07:15 Media literacy & critical thinking need to be taught in public schools 1:08:45 What are you getting right in tackling homelessness in San Jose? 1:09:45 Prioritized basic dignified shelter over expensive permanent housing 1:11:00 San Jose is leading California in solving homelessness 1:12:00 California hasn’t built enough shelter or treatment facilities 1:13:00 Expensive housing is a public policy failure 1:13:45 Why does environmental review have to slow down construction? 1:15:00 Environmental impacts go far beyond just clean air & water 1:15:45 Technology can drastically speed up environmental review 1:17:00 Infill construction permits should be approved/denied in 30 days 1:18:30 Are tenant protection laws sufficient to protect ADU renters? 1:20:00 22% of new housing built in San Jose is ADUs 1:20:30 Are taxes too high in California? 1:21:15 California has one of the most progressive tax structures in the country 1:21:45 Gas tax is one of California’s most regressive, EV owners need to pay 1:23:15 A per vehicle flat fee for both gas & EVs makes the most sense 1:25:00 Every year revenue goes up faster than population w/ worse outcomes 1:26:15 What has Newsom gotten right & wrong? 1:28:30 Disagreed with Newsom on Prop 36 & force either treatment or jail 1:29:30 Highly organized interests end up getting a veto over change 1:31:30 Best form of resistance to Trumpism is good governance 1:32:30 The math problem for Democrats in California’s jungle primary 1:33:15 The concern over two GOP candidates winning is overblown 1:36:15 Voters are skeptical of both parties, why not run as an independent? 1:38:00 Democrats need to update the party platform & make government work 1:39:30 Voters frustrated with Trump gravitate towards “resistance warriors” 1:41:00 California Democrats can’t blame anyone else for California’s governance 1:41:30 Better ways to make tax code fairer than proposed billionaire wealth tax 1:42:30 Taxing the ultra wealthy needs to be done at the federal level 1:43:15 Opposing CA wealth tax isn’t defending billionaires 1:45:45 California’s governor race still shaping up 1:47:30 ToddCast Time Machine April 4th 1949 1:48:15 12 countries met to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 1:49:30 League of Nations didn’t have any binding enforcement mechanisms 1:50:30 Breakthrough came via the Vandenberg Resolution 1:51:30 Article 5 allowed constitutional discretion, made ratification possible 1:52:45 In 1955, West Germany was admitted, but it was uncomfortable 1:53:30 NATO has a simple purpose, deter the Soviet Union 1:54:00 NATO continued to grow eastward 1:56:15 Trump believes NATO should do whatever he wants them to 1:56:45 Trump has made NATO believe America’s help is conditional 1:57:45 Can an alliance built on certainty function in this era? 1:59:00 What happens to Ukraine portends whether NATO can survive 1:59:15 Ask Chuck 1:59:30 Why has job creation stopped being part of our political discourse? 2:03:30 What other points of leverage like the Strait of Hormuz exist in the world? 2:05:30 Trump conflates political asylum with insane asylums? 2:06:30 Democrats' problem less about leaders & instead poor messaging? 2:09:45 A 2/3rds vote in the senate as a check on the pardon power? 2:11:15 Will attorney John Morgan run for governor? 2:07:45 Thoughts of putting all parties on the same primary ballot?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chuck Todd asks the most uncomfortable question in American politics: is the country's current dysfunction a problem that can be resolved at the ballot box, or are we living through a pre-Civil War style pressure buildup where fundamental divisions keep getting papered over rather than addressed? He draws a striking parallel between today's hyperpartisan era — where both parties are simultaneously fighting each other and tearing themselves apart internally — and the post-Jackson period of American politics, when the country flipped back and forth between parties without ever resolving the underlying wound of slavery. He traces the arc from the Compromise of 1850, when Millard Fillmore believed he'd saved the republic, through the repeal of the Missouri Compromise that led to Bleeding Kansas, to James Buchanan handing Abraham Lincoln a country already on fire — and asks whether modern America can heal its divides without mass violence. He closes with Lincoln's insight that you couldn't solve the divide by managing it — but insists it doesn't have to take a hot civil war to resolve America's fractures, even if it increasingly feels like the country still isn't ready to do the hard work of actually turning the page. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the creation of NATO in 1949 and asks whether an alliance built on stability and values can survive a transactional president like Donald Trump, and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CHUCKTODDCAST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/chucktoddcast Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 01:00 Reaction to March Madness 03:15 Nats are 2-1! 6:45 Trump orders TSA workers to be paid via executive order 7:45 Both parties are fighting each other, and also infighting 8:45 The house has the hardliners, the senate has the compromisers 9:15 Is the country ready to move on from dysfunction & hyperpartisanship? 11:30 For the 21st century, the country has flipped back & forth between parties 12:15 Similarities to the post-Jackson era of American politics 14:30 Problems and divisions were left unresolved 16:00 The wound over slavery was never healed, pressure kept building 17:00 Fillmore offered the compromise of 1850, thought he saved the republic 18:45 The Missouri Compromise was repealed, led to conflict in Kansas 20:30 Buchanon handed Lincoln a country already on fire 21:15 Can modern America heal its divides without mass violence? 22:15 8 million turned out for No Kings protests 23:45 CPAC was completely different universe compared to No Kings 25:00 Trump’s poll numbers are tanking on multiple issues 25:45 Democrats brand is still worse than Republicans in polls 26:30 We don’t seem to have the leaders we need to turn the page 27:15 The economy is a mess and it’s almost entirely Trump’s fault 28:15 The GOP hasn’t finished its own internal reckoning 29:30 It feels like America still isn’t ready to turn the page yet 30:30 The two parties have two fundamentally different visions for America 33:00 Will 2026 be a paradigm shift, or yet another pendulum swing? 34:00 Lincoln understood you couldn’t solve the divide by managing it 37:00 It doesn’t have to take a hot civil war to solve America’s divides 42:30 California’s governor race still shaping up 44:15 ToddCast Time Machine April 4th 1949 45:00 12 countries met to create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 46:15 League of Nations didn’t have any binding enforcement mechanisms 47:15 Breakthrough came via the Vandenberg Resolution 48:15 Article 5 allowed constitutional discretion, made ratification possible 49:30 In 1955, West Germany was admitted, but it was uncomfortable 50:15 NATO has a simple purpose, deter the Soviet Union 50:45 NATO continued to grow eastward 53:00 Trump believes NATO should do whatever he wants them to 53:30 Trump has made NATO believe America’s help is conditional 54:30 Can an alliance built on certainty function in this era? 55:45 What happens to Ukraine portends whether NATO can survive 56:00 Ask Chuck 56:15 Why has job creation stopped being part of our political discourse? 1:00:15 What other points of leverage like the Strait of Hormuz exist in the world? 1:02:15 Trump conflates political asylum with insane asylums? 1:03:15 Democrats' problem less about leaders & instead poor messaging? 1:06:30 A 2/3rds vote in the senate as a check on the pardon power? 1:08:00 Will attorney John Morgan run for governor? 1:04:30 Thoughts of putting all parties on the same primary ballot? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We've launched a new project: FRTracker.app. It's a platform designed to help track what's happening across the regulatory state—rulemakings, agency actions, and the steady flow of activity coming out of administrative agencies.The goal is straightforward: make it easier to see what's changing, when it's changing, and why it matters.If you're an attorney, journalist, or researcher working in this space, we'd encourage you to take a look. And as always, feedback is not just welcome—it's essential. The website is FRTracker.app and we look forward to hearing from you or, if all is in order, your finding a way to make use of it in your practice area or work. Thanks so much!This Day in Legal History: First Official Meeting of the US Republican PartyOn March 20, 1854, the newly formed Republican Party held its first official meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The party emerged in direct response to the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, a controversial law that allowed new territories to decide the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty. This legislative shift effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise, which had previously set geographic limits on slavery's expansion.The outrage among anti-slavery activists, lawyers, and former members of existing parties led to a rapid political realignment. Legal debates at the time centered on Congress's authority over the territories and whether slavery could be restricted as a matter of federal law. These were not abstract questions—they went directly to the structure of the Constitution and the balance of power between federal authority and local control.The formation of the Republican Party reflected a growing belief that existing legal frameworks had failed to contain the spread of slavery. Within a few years, the party would become a major political force, culminating in the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. By his reelection campaign in 1864, however, Lincoln ran under the banner of the National Union Party, a wartime coalition of Republicans and pro-Union Democrats.That shift did not necessarily reflect a rejection of the Republican Party itself, but it did signal unease with factionalism and the limits of party identity during a constitutional crisis. The rebranding was a strategic and legal-political move: to broaden support for the Union, stabilize governance, and frame the election as a referendum on national survival rather than partisan ideology.The legal disputes surrounding slavery, territorial governance, and federal authority would ultimately be resolved not just through legislation or court decisions, but through war and constitutional amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution would later eliminate slavery nationwide, fundamentally reshaping American law.What began as a meeting in a small Wisconsin town became a turning point in the legal history of the United States, illustrating how statutory change can rapidly destabilize existing legal and political orders.A federal judge in Oregon ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot enforce a policy aimed at restricting gender-affirming care for minors, siding with 21 states and the District of Columbia. The challenged policy, issued by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., declared such care unsafe and ineffective and warned that providers could lose access to Medicare and Medicaid funding. The states argued the policy was unlawful because it bypassed required rulemaking procedures and interfered with their authority to regulate medical practice.Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai granted summary judgment to the states and rejected the federal government's attempt to dismiss the case. While the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it signaled that the policy will be formally invalidated, with further briefing ordered on the scope of relief. The states emphasized that the policy placed healthcare providers in a difficult position by threatening funding while conflicting with state laws that protect access to gender-affirming care.The federal government argued the policy was merely advisory and not subject to judicial review, but the court was not persuaded. State attorneys general described the ruling as a rejection of federal overreach and an affirmation that such healthcare remains lawful. The decision preserves access to care for transgender minors in the plaintiff states, at least for now.This case turns in part on whether the HHS policy qualifies as a “final agency action” that must go through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. The states argued that even if labeled as guidance, the policy had real legal consequences—namely, threatening loss of federal funding—making it effectively binding. Courts often look beyond labels to the practical effect of agency actions, and here the judge appeared to agree that the policy could not avoid APA requirements simply by being framed as a statement rather than a formal rule. This issue, central to the dispute, frequently arises in challenges to modern administrative action.HHS Can't Block Trans Care Under Kennedy Edict, Court Says - Law360A coalition of eight states has sued to block Nexstar Media Group's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna, even after the deal received approval from both the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission. The states argue the merger would create excessive concentration in local television markets, giving the combined company control over stations reaching roughly 80% of U.S. households. They contend this market power would allow Nexstar to raise prices for cable and satellite providers and reduce competition for broadcast content.The lawsuit also raises concerns about the impact on local journalism, with state enforcers warning that consolidation could lead to newsroom cuts and less coverage of local issues. DirecTV filed a parallel challenge, similarly arguing that the deal would increase costs, reduce competition, and lead to more frequent service disruptions.Despite these objections, the FCC approved the merger with conditions, including the divestiture of several stations and commitments related to pricing and local news. Nexstar defended the deal as necessary to sustain local broadcasting and improve its ability to deliver journalism at scale.The case highlights a growing divide between federal regulators and state enforcers, with states increasingly willing to challenge mergers even after federal clearance. It also reflects broader concerns about consolidation in media markets and its downstream effects on both pricing and the availability of local news.States Sue To Block $6.2B Tegna Acquisition Despite Feds' OK - Law360In this piece I wrote for Forbes, I look at the Netherlands' decision to outsource the core infrastructure of its value-added tax (VAT) system to the U.S.-based company FAST Enterprises. This is not just a software contract—FAST is responsible for operating, maintaining, and running key components of the Dutch VAT system remotely. Given that VAT generates roughly €1.5 billion per week in revenue, the arrangement creates a situation where a critical stream of government funding depends, at least in part, on a system controlled outside the country.I explain that this introduces a new kind of risk: technical dependency can quickly become financial dependency. If VAT collection is disrupted for any reason, the government cannot simply pause operations—it must borrow, and markets may react immediately. That turns what appears to be an IT issue into a fiscal and potentially geopolitical one.The broader argument is that this reflects a deeper shift in how states operate. What looks like routine modernization is actually a trade-off between efficiency and control. By adopting what I describe as “VAT-as-a-service,” the Netherlands has effectively externalized part of its tax infrastructure, raising questions about who ultimately controls a core sovereign function.I also place this in a geopolitical context, noting that reliance on foreign-operated infrastructure can create indirect leverage, even without any explicit “off switch.” The concern is less about intentional disruption and more about exposure—legal, regulatory, or systemic—that comes with cross-border dependence.Finally, I argue that this is not just a Dutch issue but a European trend, as governments increasingly rely on private and often non-domestic vendors for critical systems. The key takeaway is that tax infrastructure decisions should be evaluated not just on cost and efficiency, but on sovereignty, jurisdiction, and contingency planning.Dutch VAT-As-A-Service And The Quiet Outsourcing Of Tax SovereigntyApologies for a double dose of me today – I wrote a piece for Yale's Journal of Regulation Notice & Comment blog examining how regulatory obligations change during notice-and-comment rulemaking. The core argument is that most analyses look at the wrong unit—entire rules—when the real substance of regulation lies in the individual obligations imposed on regulated parties. By breaking rules down into sentence-level commands, the analysis tracks what actually happens to those obligations from proposal to final rule.The data shows that only about one-third of proposed obligations survive into final rules in a recognizable form, while most are eliminated altogether. Agencies are far more likely to remove obligations than to revise them, suggesting that rulemaking operates less like incremental editing and more like a filtering process. At the same time, final rules frequently introduce entirely new obligations that were not present in the proposal.When obligations do carry over, their core legal force—whether something is required, prohibited, or permitted—almost never changes. This indicates that survival tends to preserve substance, even as most proposed provisions disappear. The analysis also finds significant variation across agencies, with some making minimal changes and others heavily restructuring their rules.The findings challenge the assumption that proposed rules are reliable previews of final regulatory requirements. Instead, they suggest that stakeholders may be commenting on provisions that are unlikely to survive, while final rules may include new obligations that were never clearly proposed. This reframes notice-and-comment as a process that selects and reshapes regulatory commands, rather than simply refining them.The key legal insight is that the notice-and-comment process may not function primarily as iterative refinement, but as a filtering system that determines which obligations survive into binding law. This matters because administrative law doctrine assumes that public comments help shape final rules through feedback on proposed text. If most obligations are discarded rather than revised, it raises questions about whether the process provides meaningful notice of what will ultimately bind regulated parties. That directly challenges conventional assumptions about how rulemaking works in practice.Only One-Third of Proposed Regulatory Obligations Survive to the Final Rule, by Andrew Leahey - Yale Journal on Regulation 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
Missouri was admitted as a slave state while Maine, previously part of Massachusetts, was admitted as a free state to preserve the numerical balance in the Senate. In addition, Congress established a geographical boundary in the remaining Louisiana Purchase territory that meant slavery was prohibited north of latitude ...
On this week's episode Jon reviews Supreme Court Justices' opinions on tariffs (and declares "taxation without representation!") while Chris thinks about the panopticon, the surviellance state, and how being watched changes one's behavior. PLUS Olympics-- Elvis-- the Beatles-- the Clintons-- the Royal Family-- Earth, Wind, and Fire-- the Missouri Compromise-- and so much more! #AmericasBestPodcast
In which Linus Chan explores American citizenship, the law, and the long shadow of the Missouri Compromise. Certificate #24581.
We Like Shooting Episode 638 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Primary Arms, Night Fision, Die Free Co., Mitchell Defense, Rost Martin, and Swampfox Optics Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 638! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show! Sponsor Black Friday Deals - Gear Chat Nick - 1911 Project News 1911 project update Shawn - Lights Out for Bright Lights Cloud Defensive EPL Shawn - TitanX: The Future of Laser Training Weapons The article presents the TitanX, a new inert training pistol designed for realistic dry fire training, incorporating features like a resetting trigger and laser for instant feedback. It aims to improve shooting skills through advanced training analysis via the MantisX app. The introduction of the TitanX may enhance training for gun owners across all skill levels, providing a cost-effective tool for skill development while maintaining a focus on familiarity with popular firearm models. Bullet Points Shawn - Comparing Shooters Global SG Timer Models: GO vs 2 Shooters Global has launched two new shot timers, the budget-friendly SG Timer GO and the premium SG Timer 2, each designed for different types of shooters. Both come with advanced smart sensor technology and integrate with the Drills app for enhanced training features. The SG Timer GO is priced around $164.99, while the SG Timer 2 costs $329.99, reflecting their respective target markets. The article highlights a Black Friday sale for potential buyers. The introduction of these timers is likely to attract various shooters, offering more accessible options for improving training techniques. Shawn - Walther Halts PPK Series Production Walther Arms, Inc. has suspended production of its PPK, PPK/S, and PP handgun lines as part of a long-term modernization program, marking a pause in nearly a century of manufacturing. This break is intended to update the production processes while maintaining the traditional characteristics of the firearms. Existing stock will become the last available units for an extended period, potentially increasing interest and demand among collectors and users of the PP-series. No timeline for the release of updated models has been provided. Shawn - Primary Arms Launches Exciting Golden Ticket Giveaway Primary Arms is hosting a significant giveaway event from November 24 to December 1, 2025, offering customers a chance to win one of five premium LaRue rifle packages valued over $4,000 each with every purchase made. This promotion aims to enhance customer engagement during their Black Friday sales and may stimulate interest and participation within the gun community. Savage1r - Gideon Optics swag bag Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! Agency Brief Agency171.com Dred Scott v. Sandford "If Black people were citizens, they'd have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went." That's not me talking. That's Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857, explaining why the Supreme Court couldn't let Black Americans be citizens. Think about that. The Court admitted the Second Amendment was an individual right. They just didn't want certain people exercising it. So they ruled an entire race had zero constitutional rights. This is the story of how fear of an armed population led to the worst Supreme Court decision in history—and why it matters for every gun owner today. What's really on the line: Can the government decide who counts as "the people" with rights? If courts can strip rights from one group, who's next? Will slavery expand nationwide, or can it be contained? Does the Second Amendment mean individuals can bear arms, or just militias? Hidden stake: Southern states terrified of armed free Black people The entire future of constitutional rights—and the Union itself—hangs on one family's lawsuit. 1846: Dred and Harriet Scott sue for freedom in St. Louis Their owner took them to free territory (Illinois + Wisconsin) Missouri law = "once free, always free" Their real motivation: Keep their daughters from being sold away 1850: They win at trial. Declared free. 1852: Missouri Supreme Court reverses—protecting slavery politics over precedent 1856: Case hits U.S. Supreme Court Nation boiling over slavery and states' rights 7 of 9 justices appointed by pro-slavery presidents Initially planning narrow ruling—then they get greedy THE CONSPIRACY: President-elect Buchanan secretly contacts Justice Catron: "When will you rule?" Catron leaks insider info back Buchanan pressures Justice Grier: "Join the Southern majority" Grier caves March 4, 1857: Buchanan's inauguration—he promises the Court will "settle" everything He already knows the outcome March 6, 1857—THE BOMBSHELL: 80-year-old Chief Justice Taney delivers a 200-page ruling designed to end the debate forever: Black people can never be citizens—not even free Black people in Northern states They have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" Congress can't restrict slavery anywhere—Missouri Compromise unconstitutional Here's the 2A moment: Taney writes that if Black people were citizens, they'd have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." He uses this as proof they can't be citizens—the idea of armed Black Americans was too dangerous. What this reveals: The Court understood the 2A as an individual right, not just militia They feared an armed population—specifically armed Black Americans Gun control was a tool of racial oppression from day one They chose to strip citizenship rather than allow armed equality THE EXPLOSION: North erupts in fury Republicans see it as proof of "slave power conspiracy" (they're right) Abraham Lincoln rises: "What's next—making free states into slave states?" Four years later: Civil War begins 600,000 dead THE FIX: 13th Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery 14th Amendment (1868): Overturns Dred Scott—declares all Americans are citizens This becomes the foundation for applying the Bill of Rights—including the 2A—to state governments THE 2A CONNECTION Why every gun rights advocate should know this case: ✓ SCOTUS explicitly tied citizenship to the right to bear arms—they admitted it was individual, not militia-based ✓ The Court's fear of armed citizens drove their decision—they'd rather strip citizenship than allow armed Black Americans ✓ Gun control as racial control—disarming populations has always been about power, not safety ✓ The 14th Amendment's purpose: Overturn Dred Scott and protect rights against state infringement ✓ McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Supreme Court incorporated 2A against states by citing the 14th Amendment's reversal of Dred Scott and how Southern states disarmed free Black people THE 14TH AMENDMENT - Ratified July 9, 1868—specifically to overturn Dred Scott Section 1 (the critical part): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this did: ✅ Overturned Dred Scott — Declared ALL people born in the U.S. are citizens ✅ Protected rights against state infringement — States can't "abridge the privileges or immunities" of citizens ✅ Applied the Bill of Rights to states — Before this, only the federal government was bound by the Bill of Rights ✅ Made the 2A enforceable against states — This is why state gun bans can be challenged in federal court The 14th Amendment's Framers on the Right to Bear Arms: During congressional debates over the 14th Amendment, Republicans repeatedly cited Southern states disarming free Black people as a reason the amendment was necessary: Senator Jacob Howard said the amendment would protect "the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as...the right to keep and to bear arms" Congressmen cited "Black Codes" that banned Black Americans from owning firearms The amendment was designed to prevent states from doing what Dred Scott enabled: stripping constitutional rights based on race Modern Impact: McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments Justice Alito's majority opinion: Cited the 14th Amendment as overturning Dred Scott Discussed how Southern states used gun control to oppress freed slaves after the Civil War Concluded the right to bear arms is a "fundamental right" protected by the 14th Amendment's guarantee that states can't abridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens The direct line: Dred Scott says Black people aren't citizens and can't have rights (including arms) Civil War fought partly over this 14th Amendment passes to reverse Dred Scott and protect all citizens' rights 150+ years later, that same amendment is used to strike down state gun bans THE LESSON: The Constitution protects "the people"—not "some people." When courts decide rights don't apply to certain groups, nobody's rights are secure.
As America approaches its 250th birthday, American Potential is launching a new series, 50 Stars, 50 Stories, highlighting the unique history and culture of each state in the Union. In this first installment, host David From is joined by Jesse Mallory, Regional Director in Colorado, and Camelia Peterson, Legislative Liaison in Missouri, for a lively round of state trivia about Colorado, Missouri, and Hawaii—the three states that joined the Union in August. From the Missouri Compromise and the origins of the “Show Me State,” to Colorado's dramatic road to statehood, to Hawaii's path from kingdom to the 50th star on the flag, this episode blends fun facts with deeper reflections on state identity and freedom. Listeners will also hear about the important policy work AFP teams are leading in Missouri and Colorado to expand opportunity and protect taxpayers. This engaging mix of history, trivia, and grassroots stories sets the stage for a yearlong journey through America's states, reminding us of the diverse traditions and shared values that make up the fabric of the nation.
You'll be hard pressed to find a man who stood for his convictions more firmly than John Brown. John was an white abolitionist willing to do more to end slavery than any other man - of any color - in America in the 1850s. It wasn't enough for John to speak out against slavery, or to help freed slaves find freedom through the Underground Railroad. John felt that if slaveowners weren't willing to immediately free their slaves and renounce their ways, they deserved death. And he felt called by God to send them directly to their graves. For Merch and everything else Bad Magic related, head to: https://www.badmagicproductions.com
Commemorate Juneteenth and reflect on its origins, history, meaning, and traditions.Learn about the prevalence and acceptance of slavery in world history (such as in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Athens, Rome, Britain, England, and Europe) and its development in the colonies and the United States. Examine the cruel and barbaric slave trade and Middle Passage across the ocean from first hand accounts.Explore how some Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery, and George Washington emancipated his slaves. Learn how Thomas Jefferson trembled for the future of the country because of slavery, and how he banned slavery in the Northwest Territory and signed the law banning the slave trade in America. Learn how the opposition to slavery led to sharp divisions in the country, eventually exploding into the Civil War.Review how President Abraham Lincoln shifted his original position and supported the emancipation of the slaves as a wartime measure, and implemented emancipation through the first and final Emancipation Proclamations. Learn how the final Emancipation Proclamation only freed those enslaved by the Confederate States of America.Learn how many enslaved first learned of the Emancipation Proclamation for the first time on June 19, 1865 by virtue of Union General Gordan Granger General's Order No. 3 issued in Galveston, Texas after the Union army occupies the city, but only after the 25th Army Corps — primarily composed of African American Union troops — liberate Galveston.Review how slavery was finally abolished through the ratification of the 13th Amendment and treaties with Native American tribes (who held slaves) such as the Cherokee, Creek, and Chickasaw.Explore how June 19 becomes a new celebration - called Jubilee Day, Emancipation Day, and finally Juneteenth - and the celebration spread across the nation, and was finally recognized as a federal holiday in the wake of the George Floyd killing in 2021. Listen to several Juneteenth Presidential Proclamations by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.Focus on how commercialism is starting to creep into the Juneteenth celebrations.Highlights include Christina Snyder's book Slavery in Indian Country, The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America, Olaudah Equiano (Gustavus Vassa), the Great Awakening, chattel slavery, Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, Eli Whitney & the cotton gin, Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, Lincoln Douglas debates, "A House Divided" Abraham Lincoln speech, presidential election of 1860, Declaration of Independence, abolitionists, Fort Sumter, Civil War, Grand Army of the Republic, Horace Greeley, Gideon Wells, William Seward, Antietam, Gettysburg Address, Lincoln First Inaurual Address, Lincoln Second Inaugural Address, Richard Hofstadlter's American Political Tradition, bill of lading, General Robert E. Lee, Appotomattox Court House, CSS Shenandoah, Union General Gordan Granger General Order No. 3, and much more.To learn more about America & Patriot Week, visit www.PatriotWeek.org. Our resources include videos, a TV series, blogs, lesson plans, and more.Check out Judge Michael Warren's book America's Survival Guide, How to Stop America's Impending Suicide by Reclaiming Our First Principles and History at amazon, or other major on-line retailers.Join us!
“L” is for Lowndes, William Jones (1782-1822). Congressman. In his final important public work, William Jones Lowndes with Henry Clay led the successful effort in the house to pass the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
As America moved further west, the landscape of the nation changed—literally and figuratively. The states joining the Union during this period were shaped by rugged frontier life, political compromises, and vast, untamed territories. Some were carved from land acquired through war and diplomacy, while others sprang up from territories long inhabited by indigenous nations. Their names, just like their histories, reflect this time of expansion, conflict, and ambition. This part of the series picks up where we left off, starting with Missouri, the first state to be admitted following the Missouri Compromise, and continues as America pushed ever westward, building a new identity with each new state... Podcast Notes: https://ancestralfindings.com/westward-bound-the-next-states-and-their-names/ Genealogy Clips Podcast: https://ancestralfindings.com/podcast Free Genealogy Lookups: https://ancestralfindings.com/lookups Genealogy Giveaway: https://ancestralfindings.com/giveaway Genealogy eBooks: https://ancestralfindings.com/ebooks Follow Along: https://www.facebook.com/AncestralFindings https://www.instagram.com/ancestralfindings https://www.youtube.com/ancestralfindings Support Ancestral Findings: https://ancestralfindings.com/support https://ancestralfindings.com/paypal #Genealogy #AncestralFindings #GenealogyClips
This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott DecidedOn March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that deepened national tensions over slavery. The Court held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. In a sweeping opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court went further, declaring that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted the spread of slavery in certain parts of the country. The ruling was celebrated in the South but outraged abolitionists and many in the North, who saw it as an alarming expansion of pro-slavery power.The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, as it denied citizenship and legal protections to Black Americans. It also emboldened pro-slavery forces while further alienating the growing anti-slavery movement. The backlash contributed to the intensifying sectional divide that would lead to the Civil War just four years later. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress took steps to undermine the decision, culminating in the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, directly overturning Dred Scott. Today, the case stands as a stark reminder of how the law has been used to uphold racial injustice—and how later legal reforms can correct such profound wrongs.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against President Donald Trump's effort to withhold payments from foreign aid organizations for work already completed. The decision upheld an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, requiring the government to release nearly $2 billion in funds owed to contractors and grant recipients under USAID and the State Department. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices to form the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The Trump administration had paused all foreign aid on January 20, citing an “America First” agenda, which disrupted humanitarian efforts worldwide. Aid organizations sued, arguing Trump exceeded his authority by defunding programs approved by Congress. The administration contended that enforcing payments without proper review amounted to judicial overreach. Despite Ali's repeated orders, the administration largely kept the funds frozen, prompting legal battles over compliance. Plaintiffs warned that continued delays would cause “extraordinary and irreversible harm” to millions relying on aid. The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its order but instructed Ali to clarify compliance obligations. A hearing is scheduled for March 7 to determine the next steps.US Supreme Court won't let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | ReutersDozens of U.S. hospital systems and healthcare providers have filed lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield, alleging the insurer underpaid them by billions. These providers chose to opt out of a $2.8 billion class-action settlement in Alabama, which is awaiting final approval. The new lawsuits, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, argue that Blue Cross and its affiliates conspired to divide the market, reducing competition and driving down reimbursement rates in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs, including Bon Secours Mercy Health and Temple University Health, believe they could recover more through individual lawsuits than the settlement. Blue Cross has denied wrongdoing and declined to comment. The final approval hearing for the Alabama settlement is scheduled for July 29. This litigation follows a separate $2.7 billion antitrust settlement in 2020 for commercial and individual subscribers, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. Some large companies also opted out of that settlement to pursue their own claims.Hospitals line up to sue Blue Cross, opting out of $2.8 bln settlement | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license temporary nuclear waste storage sites, a case brought by Texas and oil industry interests. The dispute centers on a facility in western Texas, licensed by the NRC in 2021, which opponents argue poses environmental and security risks. Some conservative justices questioned whether "temporary" storage could last indefinitely, undermining efforts to establish a permanent waste site. Liberal justices focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing, as they did not initially challenge the NRC's decision through the agency's process. The case follows past failures to establish a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite significant federal investment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the NRC lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act, prompting the Biden administration to appeal—a move continued under Trump. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court hears Texas nuclear waste storage dispute | Reuters 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
Episode 53 - Antebellum Texas – Headed To Civil War Part 1 We call it the antebellum period in American History, but exactly what is that? The Antebellum Period in American history refers to the time leading up to the Civil War, specifically from the late18th century through 1861. The term "antebellum" means "before the war" in Latin, and it is often associated with the Southern United States. This era was marked by significant economic, social, and political changes, particularly in relation to slavery and the expansion of the U.S. territory. Some of the main or key features that help us to recognize the Antebellum Period are: Slavery and Tensions: I've talked about this issue and how prevalent slavery became in the state of Texas. How it served as an economic engine for Texas. The increase in slaves and slavery led to intense moral, economic, and political conflicts between the Northern and Southern states. One of the primary reasons for this tension was the North had begun moving toward industrialization and abolitionist movements were gaining strength. Westward Expansion: Remember I talked about manifest destiny and the role that played as the nation acquired vast new territory in the West. As a result, there were conflicts over whether new states should permit slavery, further heightening regional tensions. Economic Development: This was a big driving force and source of tension. The North and South developed distinct economies, the North focused on industry and urbanization while the South remained largely agricultural, relying on cotton production and slave labor. Social Reform Movements: The period saw the rise of various social reform movements, including abolitionism, women's rights, temperance, and educational reform. Key figures like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and others became prominent advocates for change. Needless to say, these types of movements caused great concern in southern states. Political Conflicts and Compromises: Efforts to balance the interests of slave and free states led to significant legislation, such as the Missouri Compromise (1820), the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). However, these efforts ultimately failed to resolve the underlying tensions. The Antebellum Period ended in 1861 when the Southern states seceded from the Union, and the outbreak of the Civil War. Last episode I spoke about the crisis of 1850 and how it proved there was strong positive feelings for the union in Texas, but it also revealed that in spite of its location in the southwest, many of its citizens still proudly identified with the Old South. During this period, especially during the first few years of statehood, more people started coming to settle in Texas. The census of 1847, which was a state census showed the population was 142,009. Only 3 years in 1850 later the official U.S. census showed a population of 212,592 people. Almost 70 percent of the state's 212,592 inhabitants were white, and the vast majority of them were settlers from other states. About 28 percent were black slaves and the rest were Hispanic or Indian. Native peoples were not counted in the official census of the U.S. until 1890. Those new Texas arrivals originated from the upper South and states that at one time were considered the frontier, primarily in the Northwest such as Illinois. They arrived by traveling through the Marshall-Jefferson area, those who travelled through the Nacogdoches area were largely from the lower South. Meanwhile the Gulf Coast, Galveston and Indianola were the main entry points for many from the lower southern states; along with a large percentage of foreign-born immigrants, especially Germans, who arrived in the late 1840s. For the most part, even though most historians don't think of these settlers as “true frontiersmen” they were true pioneers, because Texas was truly a frontier state.
In his new book, Decade of Disunion, Robert W. Merry explores the critical lessons from the 1850s when the United States faced a growing crisis over slavery. The Mexican War's vast new territories sparked debates on expanding slavery, clashing with the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Key events such as the Compromise of 1850, the 1854 repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the 1857 Dred Scott decision, and John Brown's 1859 raid heightened tensions, leading to violent conflicts and further division between North and South. Merry focuses on the contrasting roles of South Carolina and Massachusetts. South Carolina, reliant on slave labor, debated secession, while Massachusetts became an antislavery stronghold, questioning the Constitution's role in abolishing slavery. These states' actions widened the national divide, making disunion inevitable. In December 1860, South Carolina's secession following Abraham Lincoln's election triggered the South's departure from the Union. Through the lens of key figures, Merry underscores the fragile nature of democracy and the continuous effort required to sustain it. Robert W. Merry spent 45 years in Washington, D.C., as a Wall Street Journal reporter and executive at Congressional Quarterly, including 12 years as CQ's president and editor-in-chief. After CQ was sold to the Economist, he also served as editor of the polemical magazines The National Interest and The American Conservative. He is the author of six books on American history and foreign policy, including the forthcoming Decade of Disunion: How Massachusetts and South Carolina Led the Way to Civil War, 1849-1861. Buy the Companion Book Decade of Disunion: How Massachusetts and South Carolina Led the Way to Civil War, 1849-1861 Third Place Books
This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Justice Barry Anderson interview USAF Academy's professor emerita, Jeanne Heidler. Dr. Heidler discusses Henry Clay's legacy as a seminal figure in American history. She covers Clay's early life, his transformation from a Virginia farm boy to a leading statesman, and his being mentored in the law by Founding Father, George Wythe. Dr. Heidler explores Clay's key contributions to U.S. public service, including his diplomatic role in ending the War of 1812, as well as his legislative work during the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, and the Compromise of 1850. She addresses Clay's controversial role in the Election of 1824 and his tenure as secretary of state. She continues by discussing Clay's private life, his wife Lucretia, his conflicting positions on slavery, and his enduring impact trying to preserve the Union. In closing, Dr. Heidler reads a passage from her co-authored book, Henry Clay: The Essential American.
This Day in Legal History: Kansas-Nebraska Act PassedOn May 30, 1854, the U.S. Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a significant piece of legislation that allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery through popular sovereignty. This act, introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas, effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri.The Kansas-Nebraska Act led to a violent struggle between pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers in Kansas, a period known as "Bleeding Kansas." This conflict highlighted the deep divisions within the United States over the issue of slavery and pushed the nation closer to civil war. The act's passage demonstrated the growing power of the pro-slavery faction in American politics and underscored the weaknesses of legislative compromises in addressing the moral and political challenges posed by slavery.By allowing the possibility of slavery's expansion into new territories, the Kansas-Nebraska Act intensified the sectional conflict and contributed to the rise of the Republican Party, which was founded on an anti-slavery platform. The law's implications continued to reverberate throughout the nation, setting the stage for the eventual secession of the Southern states and the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861.Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has declined to recuse himself from cases involving Donald Trump and the January 6 Capitol riot, despite calls from Democratic lawmakers. These calls followed reports that far-right-associated flags were flown over Alito's homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Alito attributed the flag displays to his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, emphasizing her independent decision-making.In his letters to lawmakers, including Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Hank Johnson, Alito explained that his wife flies various flags and was responsible for the flagpoles at their residences. He mentioned that the upside-down American flag was flown during a neighborhood dispute and that he requested its removal, which his wife initially resisted. He also noted that the "Appeal to Heaven" flag flown at their beach house was meant to express a patriotic and religious message.Alito's response has intensified discussions about the need for an enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court. Johnson criticized Alito's explanation, calling for congressional action to ensure accountability. This controversy comes as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on significant cases related to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol riot.Alito, a key figure in the court's conservative wing, previously authored the opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion.Alito Rejects Democrats' Calls to Step Away From Trump Cases (3)Jurors in Donald Trump's hush money trial have begun their second day of deliberations, focusing on testimony from key witnesses, including Michael Cohen and David Pecker. Trump, charged with falsifying business records to cover up a payment to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election, has pleaded not guilty. Cohen, who facilitated the $130,000 payment, testified that Trump reimbursed him through disguised legal fees. The jurors requested transcripts of Cohen's testimony and Pecker's account of working with Trump to suppress damaging stories.The outcome of this trial could impact Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, though a conviction would not bar him from running or serving if elected. Jurors must reach a unanimous verdict, and a mistrial could be declared if they fail to agree. Manhattan prosecutors must prove Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Polls indicate a tight race between Trump and President Biden, with a potential conviction possibly affecting Trump's supportJurors to begin second day of deliberations in Trump hush money trial | ReutersQuarterback Jaden Rashada's lawsuit against the University of Florida highlights significant risks in the evolving landscape of name-image-likeness (NIL) deals in college athletics. Rashada alleges that Florida boosters and football coach Billy Napier reneged on a $13.8 million contract promised to him to play for the Florida Gators instead of the University of Miami. According to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the payment never materialized, leaving Rashada without the promised compensation.This lawsuit is the first of its kind, addressing fraudulent recruiting tactics involving NIL agreements and third-party collectives. These collectives pool alumni donor money for NIL deals, often resulting in unregulated and problematic agreements for young athletes. Attorney Janet Moreira highlighted the dangers of such unregulated collectives, calling for greater oversight to protect student-athletes.The case also comes at a time when the NCAA has agreed to a nearly $2.8 billion settlement to end antitrust lawsuits, including provisions for direct revenue sharing with athletes. This settlement marks a significant shift in the financial landscape of college sports, which has historically prohibited athlete compensation until recent legal changes.Rashada's suit claims that he was lured away from Miami by false promises, with payments from Florida boosters never materializing. The complaint points to long-time Gators booster Hugh Hathcock and Florida's NIL director, who allegedly made misleading assurances about the financial rewards Rashada would receive. This case underscores the ongoing challenges and complexities in the NIL era, where student-athletes must navigate a new and often treacherous financial landscape.Ex-Recruit's Fraud Suit Against Florida Coach Exposes NIL RisksJenna Ellis, former legal adviser to Donald Trump's 2020 campaign, has had her Colorado law license suspended for three years following an agreement with state legal regulators. This decision, approved by a Colorado Supreme Court disciplinary judge, stems from Ellis' indictment in Georgia for her involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Ellis pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and received five years probation. Her suspension begins on July 2.Ellis admitted to spreading baseless claims about election fraud and expressed remorse for her actions, acknowledging that she had been misled by senior Trump campaign lawyers. She emphasized the importance of election integrity and accepted her suspension, recognizing the harm caused by her actions.Jenna Ellis, ex-Trump campaign legal adviser, has Colorado law license suspended for 3 years - CBS News Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
GUEST HOST Bigg Bump on de facto Affirmative Action in med school! Oakland stoplight copper wire stolen! Mixed race, radical spirit! The Hake Report, Monday, May 27, 2024 AD — Memorial Day Bigg Bump COHOST LINKS: https://www.youtube.com/@biggbump | https://x.com/bigg_bump | https://www.instagram.com/bigg_bump | https://soundcloud.com/bigg-bump // TIME STAMPS (combined) * (0:00:00) Topics with Bigg Bump * (0:03:46) Hey, guys! USS Iowa tee, LA hat/tee * (0:06:44) Affirmative Action, UCLA med school * (0:13:07) Picking black or picking white * (0:15:35) Vulnerable suffer; Cry racism. * (0:17:37) Social justice in medicine. Dean Jennifer Lucero * (0:25:22) GREGGATRON: Affirmative Action culture * (0:29:35) GREGGATRON: Fave callers list. * (0:34:10) GREGGATRON: Addressing Mark, understand him now * (0:36:36) Bigg Bump: Older whites saw better blacks * (0:40:10) Oakland stoplights now stop signs: Copper wire theft* (0:49:51) STEPHEN, MD: Greggatron a D.I.A.N. (D—b Ig'n—t A— N—) * (0:57:15) STEPHEN interrupted — STREAM DIED! * (0:57:22) WE'RE BACK! Part 2 * (0:59:28) Here with Bigg Bump * (1:00:57) Mixed-race, radical spirit (Jesse Williams!) List: Compensating * (1:19:25) Blacks not from the South, mixed compensation * (1:25:33) JOE, AZ: Affirmative Action, critical thinking * (1:28:57) JOE: 3/5ths, Missouri Compromise * (1:25:48) JOE: Mark putting channel at risk * (1:38:41) JOE: Trump travel ban judge, threats * (1:37:51) JOE toots his own horn * (1:41:53) JOE vs Bigg Bump, Trump * (1:43:16) Bigg Bump - "Get This Truth" BLOG https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2024/5/27/bigg-bump-with-hake-on-memorial-day-mon-5-27-24 PODCAST / Substack HAKE NEWS from JLP https://www.thehakereport.com/jlp-news/2024/5/27/trump-spoke-to-libertarians-endured-booing-hake-news-mon-5-27-24 Hake is live M-F 9-11a PT (11-1CT/12-2ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 https://www.thehakereport.com/show VIDEO Rumble* - YT Pt 1 / YT Pt 2 - FB Pt 1 / FB Pt 2 - X Pt 1 only - BC Pt 1 / BC Pt 2 - Ody Pt 1 / Ody Pt 2* PODCAST Substack - Apple - Spotify - Castbox - Podcast Addict *SUPER CHAT on platforms* above or BuyMeACoffee, etc. SHOP Spring - Cameo | All My Links JLP Network: JLP - Church - TFS - Nick - Joel Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott DecidedOn this day in legal history, March 6th, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a landmark case that deepened the nation's sectional divisions and paved the way for the Civil War.The Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who resided in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. This decision effectively stripped Scott of any legal right to freedom.Furthermore, the Court declared the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories, unconstitutional. This decision, later overturned by the 14th Amendment, inflamed tensions over slavery and propelled the nation closer to civil war.The Dred Scott decision stands as a stark reminder of the dark chapters in American history and the ongoing struggle for equality. While the 14th Amendment later overturned this decision, its legacy continues to resonate, serving as a powerful symbol of the fight for justice and the enduring pursuit of a more perfect union.The EU is close to passing sweeping AI regulations impacting businesses globally. The law categorizes AI uses by risk, banning high-risk practices like subliminal manipulation. Companies developing or using high-risk AI, like job-screening software, will face stricter controls and registration requirements. Though the EU market is the target, the law's reach extends due to its size. Experts urge companies to prepare now, as the consequences for non-compliance mirror those of the EU's GDPR, which has resulted in hefty fines for tech giants. Companies need to assess their AI use to determine if they fall under the act, as some applications, like biometric characterization, navigate complex classifications. The EU AI Act marks a significant step in regulating AI, and businesses worldwide should be aware of its potential implications.EU Poised to Enact Sweeping AI Rules With US, Global ImpactThe SEC is finalizing climate reporting rules for public companies. While the initial proposal faced criticism for its low threshold for reporting weather and transition costs, the final version sets a higher bar based on materiality. Companies will still disclose financial impacts of climate events, but in a footnote rather than directly in financial statements. They also need to report greenhouse gas emissions with outside verification in phases, with larger companies starting sooner. This phased approach aims to balance providing investors with valuable information while avoiding excessive burdens on businesses. The final rules represent a significant step in requiring companies to address climate risks and their financial implications, aligning with similar initiatives in California and Europe.SEC Unveils Higher Threshold for Reporting on Climate CostsThe United Auto Workers (UAW) is making progress in organizing workers at foreign-owned auto plants in the South. Nearly a third of workers at a Toyota plant in Missouri have signed cards in support of the union. This is a key milestone as federal law requires at least 30% support to call for a union election. The UAW aims to add as many as 150,000 members through its campaign, which follows successful contract negotiations with the Big Three automakers.UAW Hits 30% Support at Toyota Missouri Plant in Key MilestoneA federal appeals court upheld the conviction of Michael Avenatti, the former lawyer for adult film actress Stormy Daniels, for defrauding her. Avenatti was accused of stealing nearly $300,000 in book deal proceeds from Daniels and forging her signature. He was sentenced to four years in prison for this conviction, which partially overlaps his sentence for extorting Nike. Avenatti is currently serving a total of 19 years in prison for various fraud and theft charges, and he is appealing this latest conviction.Court upholds Michael Avenatti conviction for defrauding Stormy Daniels | ReutersElon Musk sued OpenAI, his co-founded AI startup, claiming it strayed from its original mission and focused on profits. OpenAI denies the accusation and says Musk proposed a merger with Tesla and demanded significant control over the company, which they refused. They also claim Musk pushed them to raise more funds initially and later criticized their progress when he wasn't involved. OpenAI intends to dismiss the lawsuit and views it as the culmination of Musk's long-standing disagreements with the company.OpenAI seeks to dismiss Musk claims, says billionaire pushed for merger with Tesla | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
There are few hairstyles more divisive than the mullet. The hairdo has historically been scoffed at by the mainstream yet has thrived in its fringes. The mullet — known by some as "the Missouri Compromise" — has been associated with professional or aspiring hockey stars, 80s pro wrestlers and hair metal rockers. Barber Sir Carrawell and hairstylist Onawa Brown share their thoughts on the retro hairdo and why they think it's made it from the fringe back into pop culture.
Welcome to another episode. We will discuss the significance of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 with regards to the protection & westward expansion of slavery. Enjoy! Music Credit: FREEBEATS.IO (Youtube) IG: @apeacademypodcast Tik Tok: @apeacademy
The new President, James Monroe, who was elected in 1816, did not want the European powers meddling in the New World, now that they were no longer distracted by Napoleon. So in Monroe's Inaugural Address, he said this: In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.…With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.He's basically making the point that the US had not, and would not, intrude on any of the European disputes between the European powers. He's also making the point that the US hasn't interfered with existing new world colonies, which, OK, that's not exactly true, but the US really hadn't yet done anything in central America or South America. We had interfered, a lot, with other colonies in North America, and some in the Caribbean, too. Website: shortwalkthroughhistory.comemail: shortwalkthroughhistory@gmail.com
Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1054, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Abolitionism 1: Between 1830 and 1860, this system transported many runaway slaves to southern Ontario. the Underground Railroad. 2: Before the Harpers Ferry attack, he and his men killed 5 proslavers in Pottawatomie, Kansas. John Brown. 3: This 1787 ordinance included a fugitive slave clause. the Northwest Ordinance. 4: The first issue of this William Lloyd Garrison abolitionist paper was published January 1, 1831. The Liberator. 5: By means of the Missouri Compromise, this New England state was admitted as a free state. Maine. Round 2. Category: Historical Transports 1: The V-8 Ford in which this criminal couple were gunned down in 1934 became an instant attraction. Bonnie and Clyde. 2: Good grief! The Command Module and Lunar Module for Apollo 10 were named for these 2 characters. Snoopy and Charlie Brown. 3: It made its final flight in April 1928 when Charles Lindbergh presented it to the Smithsonian. the Spirit of St. Louis. 4: James Lawrence was referring to his frigate the Chesapeake when he gave this famous command in 1813. "Don't give up the ship". 5: When this "Express" train crashed in 1900, Casey Jones died with his hand still on the brake lever. the Cannonball Express. Round 3. Category: Divinity 1: Born from a golden egg, this multifaced god of creation in Hinduism mediates between Vishnu and Shiva. Brahma. 2: Shinto deities are called kami; Inari is the kami of this grain. rice. 3: The Mahdi is an anticipated messianic spiritual figure who will restore this faith to its rightful purity. Islam (or Muslim). 4: 1 John 4 says "God is" this and "perfect" this "casteth out fear". love. 5: When Christian Science refers to the supreme being, it uses the term "divine" this 4-letter word. mind. Round 4. Category: Driving Alexis 1: In 1912 someone must have driven Alexis Carrel to give his Nobel lecture on suturing these, arteries and veins. blood vessels. 2: If you're driving company founder Alexis Ohanian to Reddit's offices, head for the Tenderloin area of this city. San Francisco. 3: If you're driving this actress, it may be to the set of "The Handmaid's Tale". Alexis Bledel. 4: You'd want to drive the czarevich Alexis (born 1904) very carefully as he suffered from this condition. hemophilia. 5: Driving this author of "Democracy in America" may have been rough as he complained, "Trail infernal, carriage without springs". (Alexis) de Tocqueville. Round 5. Category: Genius: Picasso 1: Living in Barcelona in 1899, Picasso befriended fellow artists and dodged police looking for these radicals against all government. anarchists. 2: Young Picasso was influenced by bullfighting and the pageantry of this southern region that includes Malaga. Andalusia. 3: Many of Picasso's motivations are dramatized, like how the horrors of the Spanish Civil War inspired this masterpiece. Guernica. 4: As a young man, Picasso lived in Catalonia with a friend, painting and avoiding service in this 1898 conflict. the Spanish-American War. 5: The suicide of a close friend in 1901 stimulated the emotional expressiveness of this period of Picasso's work. the Blue Period. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used
Serving from 1817 to 1825, James Monroe's presidency was only the fifth presidency of the United States. Monroe's time in power saw the development of republicanism and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 signalled the growing cracks between north and south.But this was also the end of an era. Monroe was the final President of the United States to have been a Founding Father.He was also the last of the three presidents to have died on July 4th. To find out why this was a strangely fitting end to Monroe's life, Don spoke to Dr. Brook Poston, Associate Professor of History at Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas, author of 'James Monroe: A Republican Champion' and co-author of 'Parallel Lives: Romans and the American Founders'.Produced by Sophie Gee. Edited by Siobhan Dale. Senior Producer was Charlotte Long.Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free original podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians like Dan Snow, James Holland, Mary Beard and more.Get 50% off your first 3 months with code AMERICANHISTORY. Download the app on your smart TV or in the app store or sign up at historyhit.com/subscribeYou can take part in our listener survey here.
This week, Janey goes way off topic to talk about the history of the Oklahoma Panhandle, the Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, and the unofficial capital of the United States-- Beer City! Cheers!Oklahoma's Panhandle (Tiktok) Why Oklahoma has a Panhandle The Missouri Compromise (National Geographic) What Was the Missouri Compromise? History (presented by Paul Laudiero!) Texas Declaration of Independence (Texas State Library) “Bleeding Kansas” (PBS) “Bleeding Kansas: A Stain on Kansas History” National Park Service “Fire on the Mountain” by Terry Bisson John Brown's raid on Harper Ferry wikipedia Red River War wikipedia Chris Madsen wikipedia “Badmen in No Man's Land” History.net Support the showCheck out our books (and support local bookstores!) on our Bookshop.org affiliate account!Starting your own podcast with your very cool best friend? Try hosting on Buzzsprout (and get a $20 Amazon gift card!)Want more??Visit our website!Join our Patreon!Shop the merch at TeePublic!If you liked these stories, let us know on our various socials!InstagramTiktokGoodreadsAnd email us at sortofthestory@gmail.com
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit nealkatyal.substack.comHeather Cox Richardson is one of the most brilliant and accessible historians of our time. Her newsletter, Letters from an American, has over 1.1 million subscribers, and for good reason. And you'll see it here — she is discussing perhaps the most important case the Supreme Court has ever decided, Dred Scott. It's not an exaggeration to say that the Court's decision sparked the Civil War.There is so much difficult history to master to understand the case, and I've never heard it better explained than here. I mean, I've taught Dred Scott 20 times, but never with the incisive historical background she provides just in the first few minutes of the podcast. Many people gloss over the decision — it's a bit complicated and it's SO old. But it's really important, and Prof. Richardson helps break it down into something absolutely understandable.Dred Scott v. Sandford occupies a unique place in the annals of American history — that of the Supreme Court's worst decision. Ever. Disgracing the very idea of democracy, the 1857 ruling stripped freed slaves of citizenship, invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and officially defined slaves as “property” under the Fifth Amendment. While the decision is primarily known for its racial animus, constitutional hogwash, and egregious holdings, it also had the adverse effect of splitting the court. Indeed, in a sign of just how divisive Dred Scott was, nine separate opinions were issued — one by each justice. We also cover the reactions to the decision, including the remarkable views of Frederick Douglass.And in many ways, the Court's deep schism reflected a broader reality; Dred Scott ripped apart an already-divided country, pushing the United States towards a civil war that seemed all the more imminent with each passing day. I can't wait for you to listen to this.Much of the episode is available to everyone, on any podcast platform. Paid subscribers have access to the rest of the episode, along with written materials about the case (I've summarized the decision and provided an abridged version of it, along with the full written decision). Paid subscribers also will receive a bonus podcast discussion with Professor Richardson. I would so appreciate you becoming a paid subscriber, which covers the considerable production costs, as I'm not running any ads on the podcast at all. All profits go to charity. Thank you for listening!
For most the history of Maine begins with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, however another Maine existed long before. This Maine would be split in two, one half becoming New Hampshire, the other becoming its' forgotten sister colony of New Somersetshire. All the while, the owners of these Colonies, and members of the Council for New England were bent on the destruction of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/osoa/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/osoa/support
In the decades following the Civil War, African Americans reliably voted for the Republican Party, which had led the efforts to outlaw slavery and enfranchise Black voters; and white southerners reliably voted for the Democratic Party. When Black voters started to vote for Democratic candidates in larger numbers, starting with the 1936 re-election of FDR, whose New Deal policies had helped poor African Americans, Republicans began to turn their sights toward white Southern voters. By the 1964 Presidential election, Republican Barry Goldwater was actively courting those voters, winning five states in the deep South, despite his otherwise poor showing nationwide. Republican Richard Nixon successfully refined the strategy in his 1968 defeat of Democrat Hubert Humphrey. In the following decades, the Republican Party continued to employ the Southern Strategy, eventually leading to a complete realignment of the parties. Joining me for a deep dive on the Southern Strategy is Dr. Kevin M. Kruse, Professor of History at Princeton University, author of several books on the political and social history of twentieth-century America, and co-editor with fellow Princeton History Dr. Julian E. Zelizer of Myth America: Historians Take on the Biggest Legends and Lies about Our Past. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The episode image is a photograph of Richard Nixon campaigning in 1968; it is in the public domain and available via Wikimedia Commons. The mid-episode audio is the "Go, Go Goldwater" radio jingle produced by Erwin Wasey, Ruthrauff and Ryan, Inc. (EWR & R) from the 1964 presidential campaign; it is widely available on YouTube and is sampled here for educational purpose. Additional Sources: To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party, by Heather Cox Richardson, Basic Books, 2021. “The Kansas-Nebraska Act,” United States Senate. “Missouri Compromise (1820),” National Archives. “Whig Party,” History.com, Originally Published November 6, 2009, Last Updated July 29, 2022. “Republican Party founded,” History.com, Originally Published February 9, 2010; Last Updated March 18, 2021. “What we get wrong about the Southern strategy,” by Angie Maxwell, The Washington Post, July 26, 2019. “Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy,” by Rick Perlstein, The Nation, November 13, 2012. “How the Southern Strategy Made Donald Trump Possible,” by Jeet Heer, The New Republic, February 18, 2016. “Paul Manafort's role in the Republicans' notorious 'Southern Strategy,'” by Sue Sturgis, Facing South, November 3, 2017. “Candace Owens wrongly called GOP's Southern strategy a ‘myth,'” by Colby Itkowitz, The Washington Post, April 9, 2019. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
That's what your 8th grade education will tell you. Better yet, that's what every establishment history professor will tell you. It's wrong. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support
Eric Lager is an academic and entrepreneur who lives and teaches in South Carolina. A native of Illinois, Professor Lager obtained his Ph.D in antebellum American History from the University of Tennessee. He currently lectures at The Citadel–that famous Charleston military academy from which so many valiant rebels took their degrees! When outside the classroom, Professor Lager spends his time, well, outside! He is the founder and operator of a burgeoning little business, “Charleston History Walk, LLC”, to which you can find a link below. Combining a professional academic's subject mastery, and a Chicagoan-turned-South Carolinian's natural affability, Professor Lager offers a unique walking tour through one of America's most important and beautiful cities. From this episode, you'll learn…Why, of all places, hostilities broke out at Fort Sumter; Who shot first: The North or the South?; The forgotten “Star of the West”; The lead-up to the Civil War; The “Lame Duck” presidency of James Buchanan; Whether or not Buchanan did enough to prevent war in the winter of 1861; The political battles in which America was engulfed during the first half of the 19th century: The Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act, Dred Scott, etc.; A brief history of South Carolina; Why South Carolina is so historically naughty!; Nullification and secession; John Calhoun, Preston Brooks, and much more! Professor Lager's “Charleston History Walk” link: https://charlestonhistorywalk.com/Next time you're visiting Charleston, SC, be sure to register for one of his tours! Be sure to “like” this video, share it with a fellow history-lover, and subscribe to this channel, my most esteemed friend! Visit me at finneranswake.com where you can read my articles and send me a note at finneranswake@gmail.comIn need of relaxation? Looking to start a meditation practice? Check out my sister project, Pneuma by Daniel FinneranMy latest video is entitled, “How to Keep Calm in a Crazy World”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6RCvBM-ac0Subscribe to it for more sleep stories, meditations, wellness, and mindfulness.Cheers!
A compromise is arranged by everyone except the actual affected people.
Am 7. Dezember 1869 erschießt Jesse James kaltblütig den Bankinhaber John W. Sheets in Gallatin, Missouri. Diese Tat sollte der Auslöser für eine Propagandakampagne werden, die bis heute unser Bild des amerikanischen Banditen prägt. Doch wer war eigentlich Jesse James? War er wirklich ein mutiger Rebell im Kampf gegen ungerechte politische Umstände? Oder war er doch nur ein Verbrecher mit guter PR? Warum der Sezessionskrieg, der für Jesse und seine Bande niemals endete, bei seinen Verbrechen eine wichtige Rolle spielte und wie die Legende, die ihn umgibt, ihren Anfang nahm, hört ihr in dieser Folge von „Früher war mehr Verbrechen“. // Quellen & Shownotes // - Stiles, T. J., AK.: Jesse James. Last Rebel of the Civil War, New York 2003 - Charles River Editors; Notorious Outlowas oft he Wild West: The Lives and Legacies of Jesse James, Billy the Kid, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; 2013 - James, Jesse Jr.; Jesse James My Father; Cleveland 1899 - MassCommons; Jesse James, The Chivalry Of Crime & The Uses of Propaganda; Artikel vom 30. Januar 2018; https://masscommons.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/jesse-james-the-chivalry-of-crime-the-uses-of-propaganda/ - Britannica; Missouri Compromise; Artikel vom 3. Februar 2023; https://www.britannica.com/event/Missouri-Compromise - Legends of the Old West Podcast; Jesse James D.C., Ep. 1 - 9; 2020; https://open.spotify.com/episode/64D2RVkcZdKsLeEI54rClI //Serienempfehlung// Ken Burns; Der Amerikanische Bürgerkrieg; Dokumentation von 1990; (62) Der Amerikanische Bürgerkrieg - YouTube // Folgt uns auf Instagram // https://www.instagram.com/frueher.war.mehr.verbrechen/?hl=de // Karte mit allen „Früher war mehr Verbrechen“-Tatorten // https://bit.ly/2FFyWF6 // Mail //: https://linktr.ee/fwmv // Kaffeekasse //: https://ko-fi.com/fwmvpodcast GEMAfreie Musik von https://audiohub.de
On October 13, 2022, historian Robert Pierce Forbes took a fascinating look at Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia. When Thomas Jefferson used the term “my country,” he almost always meant Virginia. Nowhere is this truer than in his only published book, "Notes on the State of Virginia." Released while the United States was just taking shape, Notes profoundly influenced the perception of the infant republic by foreigners and countrymen alike. Through his subtle but powerful rhetoric, Jefferson made Virginia stand in for America as a whole, while revising the meaning of “all men are created equal,” thereby writing Americans of African descent out of the narrative of American liberty. Dr. Robert Pierce Forbes taught U.S. history at the University of Connecticut and was the founding associate director of Yale's Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition. He is the author of "The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America" and the editor of "Notes on the State of Virginia: An Annotated Edition." The content and opinions expressed in these presentations are solely those of the speaker and not necessarily of the Virginia Museum of History & Culture.
Listen to the Sun. Dec. 11, 2022 special edition of the Pan-African Journal: Worldwide Radio Broadcast hosted by Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of the Pan-African News Wire. The program features our regular PANW report with dispatches on the emergence of further details surrounding the passing of Congolese musician and political figure Tshala Muana in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); a Libyan man was arrested and transported to the United States in connection with a bombing which occurred in the United Kingdom decades ago; the South African Constitutional Court has dismissed a motion for reconsideration filed by the family of Chris Hani and the Communist Party (SACP) on the parole of Hani's assassin; and the Zambian youth killed in Ukraine fighting alongside the Russian military has been returned to the Southern African state. In the second and third hours we commemorate the 163rd anniversary of the state execution of anti-slavery fighter John Brown in Dec. 1859. We look back on the historical events leading up to the raid on Harper's Ferry such as the Fugitive Slave Act, Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott Decision, etc. and the role of these developments in contemporary society.
S1E10 - You may know him from the Monroe Doctrine, but he's so much more than his foreign policy reform! Monroe was our fourth Virginia enslaver president (that's 4 out of 5 so far, y'all), the last of the “founding fathers” (after this we promise to shut up about the American Revolution), and our first really outdoorsy president (he would have looooooved REI). Trent and Marissa also unpack the controversial seizure of Florida, the Missouri Compromise, and why July 4th is a scary day for ex-presidents! Email pardonme.presidentialpod@gmail.com to contact us or issue corrections (with sources, please). Produced and Edited by Trent Thomson and Marissa Macy Original music by Noise of Approval Graphic design by Darcey Mckinney Sources: James Monroe: A Life by Tim McGrath The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation's Call to Greatness by Harlow Giles Unger https://www.loc.gov/collections/james-monroe-papers/articles-and-essays/timeline/
WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives
Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics Taxation without Representation: Should DC be a State? What rights of self-determination do DC residents now enjoy? How are their rights now constrained? What are the obstacles to DC statehood? What is the history? What is the racial justice aspect to this issue? Against the backdrop of Maine’s own struggle for statehood and the Missouri Compromise, why should Maine people care? Anne Anderson, Chair of the League of Women Voters DC Full Rights Committee Chris Myers Asch, Visiting Instructor of History, Colby College, and co-author of the book, Chocolate City, A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital To learn more about this topic: League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia – YouTube With Liberty and Justice for All (Except DC) | League of Women Voters, May 2022 The Case for Statehood – DC History Center, with links to other great resources DC Statehood Explained | Brennan Center for Justice, March, 2022 epublicans Used to Back DC Statehood. What Changed? – The Atlantic, David Graham, June, 2021 The Long Fight for DC Statehood – JSTOR Daily, Livia Gershon, February, 2021 When Adding New States Helped the Republicans – The Atlantic, Heather Cox Richardson, September, 2019 Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation’s Capital by Chris Myers Asch and George Derek Musgrove, 2019 On the Road with the DC Statehood Toolkit, League of Women Voters of DC, November 2017 The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Maryann Ogonowski, Pam Person, Lane Sturtevant, Leah Taylor, Linda Washburn About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 7/15/22: Taxation without Representation: Should DC be a State? first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.
On Monday, May 2, 2022 Politico broke the story that a draft decision written by Chief Justice Samuel Alito (George W. Bush appointment to the court) intends to rescind the 1973 decision Roe vs. Wade which gave all women in the United the States the right to seek an abortion. We discuss some of our concerns with such a decision including: It is in and of itself, an unprecedented event that a decision is disclosed months prior to being published. Conservative appointees by the Bush and Trump administrations promised in their hearings that they would work within a framework that Roe v Wade is the law as a fundamental basis. Clearly, they were lying to the congressional committees overseeing their appointment. Can we have any truth in a country where Supreme Court appointees can lie to get their way? What happened to conservative disdain for ‘activist judges? We're worried for the consequences this decision has as a start. We know that culturally conservative groups have been aligned by design with large business interests to form the contemporary Republican party. Where does this go from here? Are we headed for a world where culture wars are won by the right as first step of appeasement, then rollbacks continue as they have or accelerate from the last 40 years to create the ultimate corporate welfare state? Co-host Scott M. Graves reminds us of the parallels to 1857's Dred Scott decision Let's offer an overview. The Dred Scott decision, formally Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford ruled that a slave who had resided in a free state and territory (where slavery was prohibited) was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had declared free all territories west of Missouri and north of latitude 36°30′, was unconstitutional. The decision added fuel to the sectional controversy and pushed the country closer to civil war. In plain English, the decision's core argument was that a black person in the US could not be considered a fully human being and one with all rights of US citizenship because in the US, white people were not willing to see them as such. This decision accelerated what was already by 1857 spiraling out of control following earlier compromises including the Compromise of 1850, the events of Bloody Kansas following the Kansas/Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Law, among others all leading to the election of 1860 and the secession of South Carolina in 1861. The Alito draft and the decision contained therein is similar in that it really appears to have the capacity to create a tipping point where citizens must earnestly fight to reverse the rollbacks of limiting specific groups of citizens of their rights. We start with news breaking today that our local Heywood Hospital is in talks with UMASS Memorial Health System to merge, a story broke by Worcester Business Journal and we offer our media minute on the premiere of our series on Gardner's Sludge Landfill Expansion.
When spouses Dred Scott and Harriet Scott sued for their freedom, on March 6, 1857 the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled against them and caused outrage by declaring the Missouri Compromise (which had been approved by Congress) unconstitutional as well as denying the right of ANYONE of African descent, free or enslaved, to be a U.S. citizen. Considered one of the worst court decisions ever made, it helped prime the stage for the Civil War.Sources:PBS video What Was the Dred Scott Decision?, 2019 book Dred Scott: The Inside Story by David Hardy, 2016's Dred Scott v. Sanford: A Brief History With Documents by Paul Finkelman, 2009 book on Harriet Scott called Mrs. Dred Scott: A Life on Slavery's Frontier by Lea Vandervelde.https://www.pbs.org/video/american-experience-what-was-dred-scott-decision/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/from-a-descendant-of-roger-taney-to-a-descendant-of-dred-scott-im-sorry/2017/03/06/d2871308-0286-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.htmlhttps://news.stlpublicradio.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2020-09-22/thursday-the-effort-to-make-dred-scotts-grave-a-place-worthy-of-pilgrimagehttps://www.nps.gov/people/harriet-robinson-scott.htm?utm_source=person&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=experience_more&utm_content=largeFollow on Apple, Google Podcasts, RSS.com, Amazon, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, and check out goodblacknews.org.
Men compromise with others' lives.
In this episode, I discuss the topics from the fourth and fifth weeks of the calendar. We talked about movies, books, black codes, and discrimination. And I give my final thoughts on how I feel the calendar went. I hope you enjoy the show. Time Stamps Week 4 Day 20: Black Codes: 0:55 Day 21: Alice Coachman: 4:13 Day 22: The Ways of White Folks by Langston Hughes: 6:16 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Langston-Hughes https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/langston-hughes https://poets.org/poet/langston-hughes https://www.amazon.com/Ways-White-Folks-Stories-Classics/dp/0679728171 Day 23: How Gender and Race discrimination are different: 8:06 Day 24: Rest and Recharge: 18:35 Day 25: Missouri Compromise: 21:10 Day 26: Love and Basketball: 22:43 Week 5 Day 27: Henrietta Lacks: 26:51 Day 28: Spoken Word: 30:25 --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tatiana-mclaurin/message
In a deadlocked Senate in 1819, tensions rose as Missouri attempted to join the United States as a slave state. Calls for disunion and threats of a civil war grew while many feared adding Missouri would give slave states a congressional majority. Forty years before the American Civil War started, the Missouri Compromise helped to keep the United States together but also set us on the path to Civil War. In this episode, we take a look back on the issues surrounding adding states prior to the Civil War including the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and Dred Scott v. Sanford 1857. And of course we discuss the recent Joe Rogan controversy and the attempt to remove his podcast from Spotify. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/blurredpoliticallines/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/blurredpoliticallines/support
In this, the 3rd of a 4 part discussion with Dr. Wilfred M. McClay, Charlie and Dr. McClay discuss the legacy of perhaps America's greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. How did the Missouri Compromise and the "fire bell in the night" challenge the 16th U.S. President? How could the issue of slavery possibly continue without resolution until the Civil War? How was the Mexican American War crucial in laying out the precursors to the American Civil War? And finally, how did Lincoln preserve and defend the rule of law and the Constitution itself? All of this and more is covered on todays' special Hillsdale College partnership episode of The Charlie Kirk Show. Take the entire course for yourself by visiting CharlieforHillsdale.com For more information, please visit CharlieForHillsdale.com to sign up for your free Hillsdale course. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Nikki gives Karyssa a history lesson about one of the worse presidents elected, that god damn doughface Franklin Pierce. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto The tragic life of Franklin Pierce video - https://youtu.be/owi0kopvmeo
A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751 The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Case Against Abortion: https://thefourthway.transistor.fm/episodes/43-the-case-against-abortion-the-foundational-question Dear Scott, What is this quelled inside me? I cannot really say.It's certainly not dread, Scott. That came on another day.It feels more like fuzzy warmth. A rashly rationed rationalityStanding partially on reason's leg, to support desire's partialityBut of desire, why condemn it so? This, nature's guide to truth.For survival, reason validates these means and ends that we intuitYet at moments my intuitions falter, as I see my fallible humanityUntil I'm brought back to reason's side, guided by infallible HumityI'm reminded that man has no plan except that which does play out.Each's goal, oneself. Nothing else. Even altruism, a selfish route So what is this quelled inside me? I still can't really say. But damn it, I don't care to know. I'll say what I want anyway.And if you care not to agree, I'll take care not to care.For the winner won't win on empathy's plea, but by exerting more force than other can bear.So what do I want for society? Or should I say, what do I want for me? I want no restraints that impede my class. I want the power to be beyond freeI want to restrict those who are far removed from me. I want to remove their ability to impede.And as the Humian that I truly am, I'll strip away their humanityIf those in my way are no longer like me, then there's no person to consider – Like all obstacles that come before me, I discard them as rubbish, refuse, litter.But to throw things away seems so absurd. Nothing but cavalier waste.For it's not only meat that gives utility, but also bone, sinew, hair, carapace. So what of this class that's so unlike me? Those without presence, no cries? While too burdensome it is to provide their support, surely them we can still utilizeWe need not mandate that others preserve these lives, if the voiceless become hindrance, In order to punish some for taking same life, though really punishing for inconvenienceWe also need not apply personhood to this group, these dejected who are so like usTo subjectively choose some objective ground to define humanity so it includes usSo if I have right to take this life, then this life is mine to own.But since this my life can't speak on its own, why not give its owners their vote?I propose that we count all voiceless at hand as three fifths woman and man,To keep them inhuman, yet still useful to me, as I further my narcicized plan. So what is this quelled inside me? I finally think that I can say.It's certainly not dread, Scott. But it's just as inhumane. Sincerely, NatashaYuri The title is a reference to the Missouri Compromise. Basically, it was a compromise whereby the United States allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state, despite relatively strong objections, and a notion in some that it just wasn't right. Throughout this poem I will be making many slavery references, in hopes that I can parallel it to the abortion issue. Speaking to the abortion issue, the first line of the poem alludes to the major question that must be asked in the abortion debate: “what is inside the mother?” This is the second reference to slavery, in the case of Dred Scott. Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom on the grounds that he should be considered a citizen, or at least a free man. This was not only due to his “inalienable” rights as a human being, but the government's own laws. At one time, Scott's owner traveled with Scott through free territory, where by law, Scott was a human being with rights. So even on the government's own grounds, they were hypocrites. In regard to abortion, we end up asking a similar question of humanity. What is inside the mother? Here, she admits that she does not know. I liked the play on words at the end here, but I also think it describes well the stupidity and gutlessness of the lack of a stand for morality against slavery. People thought through things very rashly. Instead of thinking about the big picture for the nation, they did what was going to get them through the moment. And while compromises were made, people rationalized their reasoning in an attempt to justify themselves. Playing off number four, it seems as though people leaned on the voice of reason as their pillar of foundation, as their desires were shortsighted. They want their generation to be at peace in the land, even if it means war within morally. Slavery was not affecting the majority group – the group in power. There wasn't much of an incentive to take slavery away, as it was very lucrative and not hurting those who mattered (WASPs who owned land). Desire won out over moral reason and long-term thinking. Desire, however, is often partial, leaving out those whose desires don't align, or those who impede the success of the majority's desires. Moral reasoning is intended to uphold inalienable rights, but when used only in part, it is often crafted to prop up desires. While most would agree that slavery was a bad thing, as it was shortsighted, how can we say it was wrong? Desire is what nature has given us, and what has evolved to guide us towards survival. If it weren't for the desire to eat, I'd starve. If it weren't for the desire to have sex, our species would die out. Desires are the life force of humanity's survival. It is impossible for desires to be remain faulty, as if they were faulty, they wouldn't survive and get passed on to future generations. The only way a desire can be faulty is if it is no longer useful. However, its existence for any significant period of time implies that it at one point was indeed useful, and therefore not wrong by naturalistic standards based around survival. So how can we condemn slavery other than from our limited frame of reference? Slavery bolstered an economy, created rich traditions, etc. Likewise, how could we condemn abortion if we are upholding someone's choice, preventing a poor quality of life, or lowering the crime rate? [ http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ ] Who can judge? When one thinks about desires, they can seem so wrong. How can one really endorse the atrocities that occur as a result of slavery? It causes one to question morality, knowing how imperfect human minds and actions are. But then we turn to David Hume and the reason he brings to the table. He shows that a naturalistic worldview truly does uphold desires, whatever they may be. These two lines are loaded. First, as alluded to in footnote 5, whatever happens, happens. If it survives any length of time, and especially if it abounds, it was “good,” or at least truly good for survival at some point in time. Nature cannot produce anything unnatural from a naturalistic standpoint. So whatever happens is natural, and what is natural cannot be described as “good” or “bad.” Those are prescriptive terms, and we can only be descriptive about nature. Any prescription is our own imposition. I go on to mention, however, that man does play a plan in a Humian world. Man is a being that perpetuates himself out of selfish motives. That is what is natural and what drives man. We do what we do only if it benefits us. This is true even in altruism. I help my fellow man because I want them to help me if I ever need help. I vote for laws against robbery and murder not because I wouldn't do it if it benefitted me and I could get away with it, but because I don't want someone to be able to do it to me. EVERYTHING we do is done only if we perceive it as being beneficial to us. Those that don't seek their own good most likely don't reproduce, and their DNA dies out. There is a great clip of Christopher Hitchens saying this in a debate with his brother. It is extremely calloused, but a very honest admission of the outworking of his worldview [1:13:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjQs_QjSwc&feature=youtu.be ]. In the end, it is survival of the fittest. Whatever ideas correspond the most with reality's notion of survival, will survive and flourish. If bad ideas survive, the species dies out. So in this naturalistic world, it's not really a grounded morality that exists and says slavery is wrong or right. The only reason slavery is wrong at the moment is because the majority disagrees with it, at least in most of the Western world. Why? Because we don't have a monochromatic ruling class anymore. Romans made slaves of their enemies, as did many other groups. But who is an American or a German? The racial and ethnic barriers are so convoluted now, we can't distinguish enough to discriminate. This familiarity and lack of precise identity prevents us from subjugating others, as we ourselves can identify more with them and don't want to be subjugated ourselves by a deteriorated notion of human rights. Race can no longer be rationalized as a different class due to globalization and familiarity, as well as science, DNA, etc. So whatever the majority believes at the time and at least prop up with some semblance of logic - this is what is right or wrong. This means we can't judge those in the past or be judged by those in the future. Numbers and perspectives win. We're all selfish. Here we go back to the selfishness. I want what is best for me. So in fighting for freedoms, I am going to fight for freedom so far as it upholds my class – or those who are like me and to whom I can relate. If those in my class are hurt, that means I could be next. I will fight for anyone who is similar to me, as that is upholding my rights. And anyone who attempts to get in my class's way, I will fight tooth and claw to prevent that impediment. I want to be more than free to do as I please on my own, I want to be free to do as I please, period. This is true, even if it means I impede what others want – and often especially if I impede what others want. My goal is not to uphold humanity, but to uphold any group that is similar to me, so I don't risk threatening my own goals. The more similar to me, the more threatening it is directly to me when they are impeded. However, if a group is not similar to me, I want to be able to subjugate them and use them to my advantage. Throughout history, people have enacted the above idea in a very common way. We see the same thing in slavery that we saw in the Holocaust. If we can diminish the status of a human to being lesser of a human, or non-human, we can treat them as objects to use for whatever means we please. Stripping away humanity – or that which would make a group similar to us – is the first step to great atrocities. As stated previously, if a being is no longer a person, or less of one, I can use them as I please. But if I'm truly a Humian, naturalist, narcissist, surely I've learned my lesson from history. While it's great to subjugate people for my causes, just destroying them is a waste. I need to milk every ounce of worth out of this chattel, just as the Native Americans used every part of an animal carcass. The subjugated group has no voice. That's what the majority power is. But even though we don't want to provide a soapbox for the oppressed to speak from, we can still utilize them. Since these slaves are property, I can do with them as I please – provided they are my property. The death of a slave is of no consequence, even if I murdered him/her/it. However, that's what I do with my own property – the good Humian I am. It's mine to decide, and I don't want anyone else deciding for me. For this reason, it is not hypocrisy when another pays with their life or wallet for killing one of my slaves. How can someone be punished with death for killing my slaves, if I can kill a slave with no consequence? While many would say it seems a “life for a life,” the slave murderer is really being punished for inconveniencing another of his own class. He is impinging on the slave owner's inalienable rights. He is taking away their freedom to use their property as they see fit. In this naturalistic world, we cannot allow those who feel they can impose their decisions on others within their class. This action is essentially an assertion by them that they are above our class, which is a significant threat that must be obliterated immediately. While it does seem like slaves are so human, they're not. They look similar, understand language, etc. But what is it to be human other than a term that the majority group defines to benefit them? So while the majority can make up objective grounds for defining humanity (i.e. two eyes, white, male, etc), they make up these terms subjectively. They do it without grounds to do so, other than the fact that they can. To utilize this property even more, why not make me the mouthpiece of the slaves? Certainly since I own them, whatever I choose to do with them is the best, so I best know what they should say. By standing up for my rights and my voice, I'm ensuring that they live in a system where I can be free to provide for them in the best way I see fit. This is the final reference to slave law. It is a reference to the 3/5 Compromise, where Congress allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes (this was actually better for slaves than counting them as 5/5 a person, as it gave slave states less of a vote). However, we're basically putting a fraction of personhood on slaves to keep them in a class that is dissimilar to ours, yet counting them as person enough to warrant “their” voice being heard. This keeps them subjugated, while at the same time, giving me more power. I don't know if I should keep the ending as is, or end it with [just as inhumane] or [it is inhumane]. These final two lines highlight the whole analogy I'm trying to make here. While I'm blatantly talking about slavery, if you read through the poem again in the mindset of abortion parallels, I think you'll see similar rationales there in many ways. I'll list a few of them here. 1) The aborted are unarguably human beings, yet the majority places a subjectively objective rationale onto when personhood begins. They usually do this with a utilitarian argument, which is subjectively employed. It's very simple to show that this statement is true, using any biology book. Life begets life and like begets like. We see zygotes are alive, and that life came from sexual reproduction of two human beings. Therefore, we have a human life in the zygote. To deny this is either to deny that the zygote is alive, which is preposterous, since it fulfills all the requirements for life (energy, reproduction of cells, response to environment, etc). The only other way to deny the life's importance is to say it's not human, but that's just as preposterous. What is the life then – bear, pelican, or some other animal? 2) The freeing of slaves hurt their masters financially, just as a child may cause difficulty for its mother if brought to term. However, inalienable rights don't depend on the feeling of any human being, but are rather intrinsically tied to all human beings. Just as the feelings of a slave owner have nothing to do with the question of a slave's inalienable rights, so the feelings of a mother have nothing to do with her child's inalienable rights. If rights are tied to humanity – a static thing – then rights follow humanity regardless of anyone's feelings or difficulty. So if a fetus is a living human being with inherent human rights, the feelings of the mother should have nothing to do with the conferring of those rights. 3) Hypocrisy exists in the legal system, where the aborted aren't human beings, yet causing a mother to lose a child is considered a murder. 4) A child born prematurely is considered a living human being, and could not be dispatched legally. Yet some abortions occur up into the second trimester, and partial birth abortions were at one point legal as well. This seems to be a huge double standard. 5) The aborted are voiceless, which makes their demise very easy to overlook for most. They are a class redefined like slaves and like Jews during the Holocaust. There are a ton of other parallels you can find, but those are some of the basics that are easy to explain here. Perhaps when I have more time I'll go through and expound on more.Finally, if you look through the beginning of each stanza of the poem, you'll notice that each begins by asking about what is inside Miss Yuri, or questions what the class is. The four responses the speaker gives are essentially 1) I don't know, 2) I don't care, 3) Let's take advantage of them, 4) I have thrown off my humanity, and any stable grounding for it. In the end, Miss Yuri's compromise was that to get what she wants most – good for herself – she had to throw off that which gave her a grounded identity. She threw off her God-given humanity, and denied the image she was intended to bear. And when she did, she lost all grounds for meaningful morality, love, altruism, empathy, anything else objective, and anything other than narcissistic, descriptive actions. Ironically, selfishness destroys the image humanity is intended to bear, and prevents humanity from being what it was truly intended to be. It's counterproductive, yet so seductive. So Miss Yuri's attempt to take away the humanity of the class she wanted subjugated did nothing but chip away at her own humanity and her society. Preying on man's innate selfishness and calling upon one's fellow man to indulge himself at the cost of other humans in the class is the absolute opposite of fighting for anyone's rights - women's or otherwise. It's the denial and suppression of human rights, and the deterioration of one's own image-bearing soul and humanity. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Enormously powerful, intensely ambitious, the very personifications of their respective regions--Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun represented the foremost statemen of their age. In the decades preceding the Civil War, they dominated American congressional politics as no other figures have. Now Merrill D. Peterson, one of our most gifted historians, brilliantly re-creates the lives and times of these great men in this monumental collective biography.Arriving on the national scene at the onset of the War of 1812 and departing political life during the ordeal of the Union in 1850-52, Webster, Clay, and Calhoun opened--and closed--a new era in American politics. In outlook and style, they represented startling contrasts: Webster, the Federalist and staunch New England defender of the Union; Clay, the "war hawk" and National Rebublican leader from the West; Calhoun, the youthful nationalist who became the foremost spokesman of the South and slavery. They came together in the Senate for the first time in 1832, united in their opposition of Andrew Jackson, and thus gave birth to the idea of the "Great Triumvirate." Entering the history books, this idea survived the test of time because these men divided so much of American politics between them for so long.Peterson brings to life the great events in which the Triumvirate figured so prominently, including the debates on Clay's American System, the Missouri Compromise, the Webster-Hayne debate, the Bank War, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, the annexation of Texas, and the Compromise of 1850. At once a sweeping narrative and a penetrating study of non-presidential leadership, this book offers an indelible picture of this conservative era in which statesmen viewed the preservation of the legacy of free government inherited from the Founding Fathers as their principal mission. In fascinating detail, Peterson demonstrates how precisely Webster, Clay, and Calhoun exemplify three facets of this national mind.-James Bradley holds an M.A. in history from New York University, has been a journalist and editor for more than 20 years, contributing to The Village Voice, The New York Observer, and New York Newsday, among other publications. He has been an editor at Time Inc. since 1998. For five years, he was the senior project editor of The Encyclopedia of New York City, published by Yale University Press, now in its second edition. Bradley is currently under contract with Oxford University Press to complete a biography of Van Buren. He has a home in the Hudson Valley and often visits the Van Buren National Historic Site in Kinderhook to do research.
Charismatic, charming, and one of the best orators of his era, Henry Clay seemed to have it all. He offered a comprehensive plan of change for America, and he directed national affairs as Speaker of the House, as Secretary of State to John Quincy Adams--the man he put in office--and as acknowledged leader of the Whig party. As the broker of the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850, Henry Clay fought to keep a young nation united when westward expansion and slavery threatened to tear it apart. Yet, despite his talent and achievements, Henry Clay never became president. Three times he received Electoral College votes, twice more he sought his party's nomination, yet each time he was defeated. Alongside fellow senatorial greats Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun, Clay was in the mix almost every moment from 1824 to 1848. Given his prominence, perhaps the years should be termed not the Jacksonian Era but rather the Age of Clay. James C. Klotter uses new research and offers a more focused, nuanced explanation of Clay's programs and politics in order to answer to the question of why the man they called "The Great Rejected" never won the presidency but did win the accolades of history. Klotter's fresh outlook reveals that the best monument to Henry Clay is the fact that the United States remains one country, one nation, one example of a successful democracy, still working, still changing, still reflecting his spirit. The appeal of Henry Clay and his emphasis on compromise still resonate in a society seeking less partisanship and more efforts at conciliation.––-James C. Klotter is Professor of History at Georgetown College and State Historian of Kentucky. The prize-winning author, coauthor, or editor of some eighteen books, he was the executive director of the Kentucky Historical Society for many years.---Support for the Age of Jackson Podcast was provided by Isabelle Laskari, Jared Riddick, John Muller, Julianne Johnson, Laura Lochner, Mark Etherton, Marshall Steinbaum, Martha S. Jones, Michael Gorodiloff, Mitchell Oxford, Richard D. Brown, Rod, Rosa, Stephen Campbell, and Victoria Johnson, as well as Andrew Jackson's Hermitage in Nashville, TN.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
