Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Finkelman

President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship has reignited debates over the 14th Amendment and the meaning of citizenship in America. Legal experts Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School analyze the legal challenges surrounding birthright citizenship, explore the constitutional and historical arguments on all sides of this debate, and discuss its broader implications for immigration. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Trump v. CASA, Inc., United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2025) Trump v. Washington, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2025) Trump v. New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2025) Amanda Frost, You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers (2021) Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2025) Ilan Wurman and Randy Barnett, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship,” The New York Times (Feb. 15, 2025) Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-27 (April 14, 2025) Gabriel “Jack” Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 54 (April 8, 2021) Gabriel J. Chin, “America Has Freaked Out Over Birthright Citizenship For Centuries,” Talking Points Memo (Aug. 2015) Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025) Kurt Lash, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠. Support our important work. ⁠Donate

On May 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order which seeks to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. Legal scholars Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the scope of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.   Resources Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review (April 8, 2021)  Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.25-27 (April 14, 2025)  Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7 2025)  Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025)  Amanda Frost, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 25, 2025)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Baseball. America's favorite pastime. A wonderful game, with its share of controversy. On October 30th, 2024, the World Series wrapped with the LA Dodgers beating the NY Yankees 4-1 in the series. In the third game of the series, at Yankee Stadium, there was a controversial play involving LA Dodgers right fielder Mookie Betts and two New York Yankees fans, who tried to rip the ball out of the glove of Betts during a play- a prime example of fan interference. According to the Yankees, the fans were ejected from the game due to their “egregious and unacceptable physical contact." In this episode, Craig is joined by Dr. Paul Finkelman, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law to spotlight baseball, the law, and regulation. Craig & Paul take a look at everything from fan interference to who owns a ball. We will also discuss baseball and how it all relates to the Constitution, and the American legal system. Mentioned in this episode:  Baseball and the American Legal Mind by by Spencer W. Waller, Neil B. Cohen, and Paul Finkelman In Dispute on Legal Talk Network-The Chicago Black Sox Trial: How 8 Players Went From the Dugout to the Courtroom

Baseball. America's favorite pastime. A wonderful game, with its share of controversy. On October 30th, 2024, the World Series wrapped with the LA Dodgers beating the NY Yankees 4-1 in the series. In the third game of the series, at Yankee Stadium, there was a controversial play involving LA Dodgers right fielder Mookie Betts and two New York Yankees fans, who tried to rip the ball out of the glove of Betts during a play- a prime example of fan interference. According to the Yankees, the fans were ejected from the game due to their “egregious and unacceptable physical contact." In this episode, Craig is joined by Dr. Paul Finkelman, a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law to spotlight baseball, the law, and regulation. Craig & Paul take a look at everything from fan interference to who owns a ball. We will also discuss baseball and how it all relates to the Constitution, and the American legal system. Mentioned in this episode:  Baseball and the American Legal Mind by by Spencer W. Waller, Neil B. Cohen, and Paul Finkelman In Dispute on Legal Talk Network-The Chicago Black Sox Trial: How 8 Players Went From the Dugout to the Courtroom

CLICK HERE to listen to episode audio (5:32).Sections below are the following: Transcript of Audio Audio Notes and Acknowledgments ImageExtra InformationSources Related Water Radio Episodes For Virginia Teachers (Relevant SOLs, etc.). Unless otherwise noted, all Web addresses mentioned were functional as of 4-14-23. TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO From the Cumberland Gap to the Atlantic Ocean, this is Virginia Water Radio for the weeks of April 17 and April 24, 2023.  This episode, the sixth in a series on water in U.S. civil rights history, continues our exploration of water connections to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. MUSIC – ~23 sec – instrumental. That's part of “Mississippi Farewell,” by Dieter van der Westen.  It opens an episode on how Mississippi River water and public health were the context for the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the meaning and extent of the 14th Amendment.  One of three constitutional amendments passed and ratified soon after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment aimed to guarantee citizenship rights and legal protections, especially for newly freed Black people.  In 1873, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in three consolidated cases about wastes from livestock processing facilities in Louisiana; this ruling had decades-long implications for key parts of the 14th Amendment and for civil rights.  Have a listen to the music for about 25 more seconds, and see if you know the name of these consolidated Supreme Court cases. MUSIC – ~27 sec – instrumental. If you guessed The Slaughterhouse Cases, you're right!  As of the 1860s, some 300,000 livestock animals were slaughtered annually at facilities along the Mississippi River in and around New Orleans, upstream of water supply intakes, with much of the untreated waste from the process reaching the river.  Concerns over the potential for diseases from this water contamination led the Louisiana legislature to pass the Slaughterhouse Act of 1869.  This law authorized a single corporation to operate one slaughterhouse facility on the Mississippi downstream of New Orleans and required all butchers in the area to use that facility.  Butchers' organizations filed suit, alleging that the law infringed on their work rights in violation of the 14th Amendment's clauses prohibiting states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from denying people equal protection of the laws. On April 14, 1873, the Supreme Court issued its ruling, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Miller.  Miller's opinion upheld the Louisiana law, finding that that the slaughterhouse monopoly granted by the state was within the police powers to provide for public health and sanitation.  Justice Miller went further, however, in asserting that the 14th Amendment gave the federal government jurisdiction only over federal, or national, citizenship rights—that is, privileges and immunities—but not over rights historically considered to result from state citizenship.  Miller also asserted that the amendment's equal protection clause applied only to the case of Black people emancipated from slavery.  The Slaughterhouse Cases decision, along with other related Supreme Court decisions during the Reconstruction Era, created long-lasting legal barriers to federal government efforts against state-level violations of civil rights, such as racial and gender discrimination, voting restrictions, and failure to prevent or prosecute racially-motivated crimes of violence. Thanks to Dieter van der Westen and Free Music Archive for making this week's music available for public use, and we close with about 20 more seconds of “Mississippi Farewell.” MUSIC – ~22 sec – instrumental. SHIP'S BELL Virginia Water Radio is produced by the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, part of Virginia Tech's College of Natural Resources and Environment.  For more Virginia water sounds, music, or information, visit us online at virginiawaterradio.org, or call the Water Center at (540) 231-5624.  Thanks to Ben Cosgrove for his version of “Shenandoah” to open and close this episode.  In Blacksburg, I'm Alan Raflo, thanking you for listening, and wishing you health, wisdom, and good water. AUDIO NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “Mississippi Farewell,” from the 2022 album “Belin to Bamako,” was made available on Free Music Archive, online at at https://freemusicarchive.org/music/dieter-van-der-westen/berlin-to-bamako/mississippi-farewell/.  as of 4-12-23, for use under the Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International”; more information on that Creative Commons License is available online at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Click here if you'd like to hear the full version (2 min./22 sec.) of the “Shenandoah” arrangement/performance by Ben Cosgrove that opens and closes this episode.  More information about Mr. Cosgrove is available online at http://www.bencosgrove.com. IMAGE Birds' eye view of New Orleans in 1851.  Drawing by J. Bachman.  Image accessed from the Library of Congress' Prints and Photographs Online Catalog, online at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/93500720, as of 4-18-23.  EXTRA INFORMATION ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT The following information about, and text of, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was taken from National Archives, “Milestone Documents: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” online at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment. “Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens.  A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States,' thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people. “Another equally important provision was the statement that ‘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.'  The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the federal and state governments. “On June 16, 1866, the House Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the states.  On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.” Text of 14th Amendment Section 1. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. SOURCES Used for Audio Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, “Teaching American History/United States v. Cruikshank” undated, online at https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/united-states-v-cruikshank/. Jack Beatty, Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900, Vintage Books, New York, N.Y., 2007. Ronald M. Labbe and Jonathan Lurie, The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 2003. Danny Lewis, “The 1873 Colfax Massacre Crippled the Reconstruction Era,” Smithsonian Magazine, April 13, 2016. Linda R. Monk, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution, Hachette Books, New York, N.Y., 2015. Oyez (Cornell University Law School/Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law), “Slaughter-House Cases,” online at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us36. Melvin I. Urofsky and Paul Finkelman, A March of Liberty – A Constitutional History of the United States, Volume I: From the Founding to 1900, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 2011. John R. Vile, “Slaughterhouse Cases (1873),” Middle Tennessee State University/The First Amendment Encyclopedia, online at https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/527/slaughterhouse-cases. Other Sources on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Cornell University Law School/Legal Information Institute: “U.S. Constitution/14th Amendment,” online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv; and “Fourteenth Amendment,” online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0. Thurgood Marshall Institute, “The 14th Amendment,” online at https://tminstituteldf.org/tmi-explains/thurgood-marshall-institute-briefs/tmi-briefs-the-14th-amendment/. NAACP, “Celebrate and Defend the Fourteenth Amendment Resolution,” 2013, online at https://naacp.org/resources/celebrate-and-defend-fourteenth-amendment. U.S. House of Representatives, “Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress Referenced in Black Americans in Congress,” online at https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Constitutional-Amendments-and-Legislation/. U.S. National Archives, “Milestone Documents: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” online at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment. U.S. Senate, “Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment,” online at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm. For More Information about Civil Rights in the United States British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), “The Civil Rights Movement in America,” online at https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcpcwmn/revision/1. Howard University Law Library, “A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States,” online at https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/intro. University of Maryland School of Law/Thurgood Marshall Law Library, “Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights,” online at https://law.umaryland.libguides.com/commission_civil_rights. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, online at https://www.usccr.gov/. RELATED VIRGINIA WATER RADIO EPISODES All Water Radio episodes are listed by category at the Index link above (http://www.virginiawaterradio.org/p/index.html).  See particularly the “History” subject category. This episode is part of the series, Exploring Water in U.S. Civil Rights History.  As of April 17, 2023, other episodes in the series are as follows.Series overview – Episode 566, 3-1-21. Water Symbolism in African American Civil Rights History – Episode 591, 8-23-21. Uses of Water By and Against African Americans in U.S. Civil Rights History – Episode 616, 2-14-22. Water Places in U.S. Civil Rights History - Episode 619, 3-7-22.The 14th Amendment and Water-related Civil Rights Claims – Part 1: Introduction to the 14th Amendment – Episode 652, 4-3-23. FOR VIRGINIA TEACHERS – RELATED STANDARDS OF LEARNING (SOLs) AND OTHER INFORMATION Following are some Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) that may be supported by this episode's audio/transcript, sources, or other information included in this post. 2020 Music SOLs SOLs at various grade levels that call for “examining the relationship of music to the other fine arts and other fields of knowledge.” 2015 Social Studies SOLs Grades K-3 Civics Theme3.12 – Importance of government in community, Virginia, and the United States, including government protecting rights and property of individuals. Virginia Studies CourseVS.9 – How national events affected Virginia and its citizens. United States History to 1865 CourseUSI.9 – Causes, events, and effects of the Civil War. United States History: 1865-to-Present CourseUSII.3 – Effects of Reconstruction on American life.USII.8 – Economic, social, and political transformation of the United States and the world after World War II. Civics and Economics CourseCE.2 – Foundations, purposes, and components of the U.S. Constitution.CE.3 – Citizenship rights, duties, and responsibilities.CE.6 – Government at the national level.CE.7 – Government at the state level.CE.10 – Public policy at local, state, and national levels. Virginia and United States History CourseVUS.7 – Knowledge of the Civil War and Reconstruction eras. Government CourseGOVT.3 – Concepts of democracy.GOVT.4 – Purposes, principles, and structure of the U.S. Constitution.GOVT.5 – Federal system of government in the United States.GOVT.7 – National government organization and powers.GO

Paul Finkelman is a chancellor and distinguished professor of history at Gratz College. He discusses his book, Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court, which […]

While Greg is absorbed in teaching and grading the last two weeks of fall semester 2022, we are offering some memorable past episodes of the podcast. In this one, Dr. Paul Finkelman, distinguished historian of slavery and the law and the spring 2023 Rydell Professor at Gustavus, talks about the pro-slavery U.S. Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall's buying and selling of enslaved people, the proslavery jurisprudence of the antebellum Supreme Court, and the present-day monuments conflict.

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.

In 1844 New Orleans was riveted by a dramatic trial: A slave claimed that she was really a free immigrant who had been pressed into bondage as a young girl. In this week's episode of the Futility Closet podcast we'll describe Sally Miller's fight for freedom, which challenged notions of race and social hierarchy in antebellum Louisiana. We'll also try to pronounce some drug names and puzzle over some cheated tram drivers. Intro: In 1992, a Florida bankruptcy judge held a computer in contempt of court. The 1908 grave of Vermont atheist George P. Spencer is inscribed with his credo. Sources for our feature on Sally Miller: Carol Wilson, The Two Lives of Sally Miller: A Case of Mistaken Racial Identity in Antebellum New Orleans, 2007. Paul Finkelman, Free Blacks, Slaves, and Slaveowners in Civil and Criminal Courts: The Pamphlet Literature, 2007. Gwendoline Alphonso, "Public & Private Order: Law, Race, Morality, and the Antebellum Courts of Louisiana, 1830-1860," Journal of Southern Legal History 23 (2015), 117-160. Emily West, "The Two Lives of Sally Miller," Slavery & Abolition 30:1 (March 2009), 151-152. Carol Lazzaro-Weis, "The Two Lives of Sally Miller: A Case of Mistaken Racial Identity in Antebellum New Orleans," Journal of Southern History 74:4 (November 2008), 970-971. Frank Towers, "The Two Lives of Sally Miller: A Case of Mistaken Identity in Antebellum New Orleans," American Historical Review 113:1 (February 2008), 181-182. Scott Hancock, "The Two Lives of Sally Miller: A Case of Mistaken Racial Identity in Antebellum New Orleans," Journal of American History 94:3 (December 2007), 931-932. Daneen Wardrop, "Ellen Craft and the Case of Salomé Muller in Running a Thousand Miles for Freedom," Women's Studies 33:7 (2004), 961-984. Patricia Herminghouse, "The German Secrets of New Orleans," German Studies Review 27:1 (February 2004), 1-16. Marouf Hasian Jr., "Performative Law and the Maintenance of Interracial Social Boundaries: Assuaging Antebellum Fears of 'White Slavery' and the Case of Sally Miller/Salome Müller," Text & Performance Quarterly 23:1 (January 2003), 55-86. Ariela Gross, "Beyond Black and White: Cultural Approaches to Race and Slavery," Columbia Law Review 101:3 (April 2001), 640-690. Stephan Talty, "Spooked: The White Slave Narratives," Transition 85 (2000), 48-75. Carol Wilson, "Sally Muller, the White Slave," Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association 40:2 (Spring 1999), 133-153. Ariela J. Gross, "Litigating Whiteness: Trials of Racial Determination in the Nineteenth-Century South," Yale Law Journal 108:1 (October 1998), 109-188. Carol Wilson and Calvin D. Wilson, "White Slavery: An American Paradox," Slavery & Abolition: A Journal of Slave and Post-Slave Studies 19:1 (1998). Wilbert E. Moore, "Slave Law and the Social Structure," Journal of Negro History 26:2 (April 1941), 171-202. "Case of Salome Müller," Law Reporter 8:7 (November 1845), 332-333. Nina C. Ayoub, "'The Two Lives of Sally Miller: A Case of Mistaken Racial Identity in Antebellum New Orleans,'" Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 19, 2007. Carol Edwards, "Story of German Slave Girl 'Extraordinary,' But Is It True?", [Charleston, S.C.] Post and Courier, March 20, 2005. Mary-Liz Shaw, "'The Lost German Slave Girl' Unravels a Mystery of Old South," Knight Ridder Tribune News Service, Jan. 26, 2005. Gregory M. Lamb, "The Peculiar Color of Racial Justice," Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 25, 2005. Linda Wolfe, "Sally Miller's Struggle to Escape Slavery Ended in Celebrated Case," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 23, 2005. Debra J. Dickerson, "Making a Case for Freedom: Was a White German Girl Forced Into Slavery?" Boston Globe, Jan. 23, 2005. Jonathan Yardley, "The Case of Sally Miller," Washington Post, Jan. 20, 2005. "Strange Case in New Orleans," Alexandria Gazette, July 3, 1845. "City Affairs," New-York Daily Tribune, July 11, 1844. Madison Cloud, Improvising Structures of Power and Race: The Sally Miller Story and New Orleans, dissertation, Baylor University, 2015. Carol Wilson, "Miller, Sally," American National Biography, April 2008. Listener mail: David Lazarus, "Wonder Where Generic Drug Names Come From? Two Women in Chicago, That's Where," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2019. "Naming Law in Sweden," Wikipedia (accessed April 30, 2021). "Baby Named Metallica Rocks Sweden," BBC News, April 4, 2007. Meredith MacLeod, "Sweden Rejects 'Ford' as Name for Canadian-Swedish Couple's Son," CTVNews, Nov. 9, 2018. "Naming Law," Wikipedia (accessed April 30, 2021). "Naming in the United States," Wikipedia (accessed April 30, 2021). Tovin Lapan, "California Birth Certificates and Accents: O'Connor Alright, Ramón and José Is Not," Guardian, April 11, 2015. "AB-82 Vital records: diacritical marks" (as amended), California Legislative Information, Sept. 15, 2017. This week's lateral thinking puzzle was contributed by listener Charlotte Greener. Here's a corroborating link (warning -- this spoils the puzzle). You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at podcast@futilitycloset.com. Thanks for listening!

What can you say about a President who shuffled between four political parties and more or less destroyed them all, whose Southern sympathies ran right in the teeth of his Northern upbringing, and whose name was so nondescript clubs were created to remember to try to remember him? Well, plenty! Join us and Gratz College President Dr. Paul Finkelman, whose specialty just happens to be this episode's podcast subject ... because DB Comedy Remembers Millard Fillmore!This episode’s sketches were Written and Produced by:Gina BuccolaSandy BykowskiJoseph FedorkoSylvia MannPaul MoultonPatrick J. ReillyAnd Tommy SpearsThis episode’s sketches were Performed by:Gina BuccolaBrad DavidsonPaul MoultonSylvia MannPatrick J. ReillyTommy Spears And Louise ThomasThis Episode’s Historian: Dr. Paul FinklemanOriginal Music written and performed by Throop McClergAudio production by Joseph FedorkoSound effects procured at Freesound.orgDB Comedy Logo Designed by Adam L. HarlettELECTABLES logo and Presidential Caricatures by Dan PolitoTHE ELECTABLES concept was created by Patrick J. Reilly.CAST AND CREDITS COLD OPEN – Written by Paul Moulton            Doctor – Tommy            Sal - PaulMR. JONES – Written by Paul Moulton            Seward - Joe            Weed – Tommy            Jones – Patrick            Millard - BradTHE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER – Written by Paul Moulton            Barkeep - Louise            Millard – Brad            Daniel – PatrickTHOROUGHLY MODERN MILLARD – Written by Patrick J. Reilly            Singer – Patrick            Playwright – Sylvia            Composer - TommyTHE MILLARD FILMORE REMEMBERANCE SOCIETY – Written by Joseph Fedorko            Barry – Joe            Phyllis - Sylvia            Angela – GinaContributions to DB Comedy are graciously accepted by going to the DB COMEDY donation page at https://fundraising.fracturedatlas.org/db-comedy, who is the nonprofit fiscal sponsor of DB COMEDY. Donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.For more information on DB Comedy and THE ELECTABLES, visit DB Comedy’s web site, dbcomedy.com, or DB Comedy’s host page on Simplecast.com. Follow us on Facebook at DB Comedy.

Sources for this episode: Lois Brown. Pauline Elizabeth Hopkins: Black Daughter of the Revolution Hanna Wallinger. Pauline E. Hopkins: A Literary Biography Cary D. Wintz and Paul Finkelman. The Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance [The Pauline Hopkins Society] (http://www.paulinehopkinssociety.org) [Black Past article on Hopkins] (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/hopkins-pauline-elizabeth-1859-1930) [Library on Congress. The Grand Army of the Republic] (https://www.loc.gov/rr/main/gar/) [Robert C. Hayden. African Americans in Boston: More than 350 Years] (https://archive.org/details/africanamericans00hayd_0) William Wells Brown, 1814?-1884. Documenting the American South Additional resources [The Colored American Magazine] (http://coloredamerican.org/?page_id=548#hopkins) [N. King. Teaching Crime Fiction and the African American Literary Canon] (http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/67208/1/N%20King%20Teaching%20Af%20Am%20Crime%20Fiction.pdf) [Richard Yarborough, JoAnn Pavletich, Ira Dworkin, and Lauren Dembowitz. 'Rethinking Pauline Hopkins: Plagiarism, Appropriation, and African American Cultural Production'] (https://doi.org/10.1093/alh/ajy014) The four men elected in 1870 were Joseph H. Rainey, Robert C. Delarge, and Robert B. Elliott. Hiram Revels was elected to the Senate in 1869 and seated in 1870. [Oct. 19, 1870: First African Americans Elected to the House of Representatives] (https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/african-americans-house-of-reps/)

Dr. Paul Finkelman discussed the debates over slavery at the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson’s legacy as a slaveowner and perpetuator of slavery, and the roles John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Roger Taney played in protecting slavery as justices on the United States Supreme Court.

Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, a distinguished visitor to Gustavus, and the leading historian of slavery and the law, talks about the proslavery U.S. Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall's buying and selling of enslaved people, the proslavery jurisprudence of the antebellum Supreme Court, and the present-day monuments conflict. Click here for a link.

Date: February 10, 2010 Speaker: Paul Finkelman Topic: Lincoln and Emancipation - Chicago Civil War Round Table Monthly Meeting

It is reported that today about 7 billion people live on Earth, and no two of them alike.. Global citizens can be small and large and in many colours. We wear different clothes and have different ideas of beauty is also part of culture.WORKS CITEDBolander, Thomas (2013). "Self-Reference". The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 21 June 2016.Chang, Bok-Myung (2010). "Cultural Identity in Korean English". Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. 14 (1): 131–145.Crossley, J.N.; Ash, C.J.; Brickhill, C.J.; Stillwell, J.C.; Williams, N.H. (1972). What is mathematical logic?. London-Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 59–60. ISBN 0-19-888087-1. Zbl 0251.02001Cyril Edwin Black, ed. The Modernization of Japan and Russia: a comparative study(1975) Cyril Edwin Black, The dynamics of modernization: a study in comparative history(1966)David Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1966); Seymour Drescher, Abolition: A History of Slavery and Antislavery (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Paul Finkelman, and Joseph Miller, eds. Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery (Macmillan, 2 vol 1998)David A. Waldman and David E. Bowen (2016), Learning to Be a Paradox-Savvy Leader, Academy of Management -- Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 3, 316-327, doi:10.5465/amp.2015.0070 Doyle (1986)Eliason, James L. (March–April 1996). "Using Paradoxes to Teach Critical Thinking in Science". Journal of College Science Teaching. 15 (5): 341–44. (Subscription required (help)) Gilbert Rozman, Urban networks in Ching China and Tokugawa Japan (1974) Gilbert Rozman, The Modernization of China (1982)"Earthdance: Chapter 20 - The Indigenous Way". Archived from the original on 2007-09-05. Retrieved 2007-09-08.a systematic methodology in the social sciences involving the construction of theories through methodical gathering and analysis of data.This research methodology uses inductive reasoning, in contrast to the hypothetico-deductive model model of the scientific method.Faggiolani, C. (2011). "Perceived Identity: Applying Grounded Theory in Libraries". JLIS.it. University of Florence. 2 (1). doi:10.4403/jlis.it-4592. Retrieved 29 June 2013.Revised and Second Ebook edition and digital format, The Jews of Kurdistan and their Tribal Chieftains: A Study in Survival, Mordechai (Moti) Zaken (Jerusalem, 2015); Jewish Subjects and their Tribal Chieftains in Kurdistan: A Study in Survival (Leiden and Boston): Brill, 2007. ISBN 978-9004161900 Yahud Kurdistan wa-ru'as'uhum al-qabaliyun: Dirasa fi fan al-baqa'. Transl., Su'ad M. Khader; Reviewers: Abd al-Fatah Ali Yihya and Farast Mir'i; Published by the Center for Academic Research, Beirut, 2013; يهود كردستان ورؤساؤهم القبليون : (دراسة في فن البقاء) / تأليف مردخاي زاكن ؛ ترجمة عن الانكليزية سعاد محمد خضر ؛ مراجعة عبد الفتاح علي يحيى، فرست مرعي. زاكن، مردخاي، ١٩٥٨م-;خضر،Support the show (http://www.buzzsprout.com/429292)

As the impeachment hearings continue in Washington, New York has been at the center of President Donald Trump’s legal woes. From Federal cases concerning his family charity to investigations of business dealings with banks by State Attorney General Leticia James, the majority of his legal battles are being fought hundreds of miles from Washington—in the Empire State. On this episode of New York Now, host Ray Suarez sits down with two Constitutional law scholars—Paul Finkelman of Gratz College and Vincent Bonventre of Albany Law School—to discuss what the future may hold for the president’s legal troubles, and what role New York state might play in that future. Learn More: nynow.org

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History's podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice's proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America's founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History’s podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the American Society for Legal History's podcast Talking Legal History Siobhan talks with Paul Finkelman, President of Gratz College, about his book Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court(Harvard University Press, 2018). Finkelman is a specialist on the history of slavery and the law. He is also the author of more than 200 scholarly articles and the author or editor of more than fifty books on a broad range of topics including American Jewish history, American legal history, constitutional law, and legal issues surrounding baseball. The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War―Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story―upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice's proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life. Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime―a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks. Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America's founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Listen to the podcast of “The African History Network Show” with Michael Imhotep on 910 AM Superstation Detroit from Sunday, Jan. 13th, 2019, 9pm-11pm EST.  1) Dr. Claud Anderson, author of “PowerNomics” & “Black Labor, White Wealth” discusses “The Uniqueness and Exceptionality of Black People, The #UsTooMovement and his Pan-African Agenda”. 2) Dr. Paul Finkelman discusses “Thomas Jefferson & Slavery: Treason against the Hopes of Mankind”. He will be speaking at the CHWMAA on Tuesday, Jan. 15th. 3) R. Kelly is under Criminal Investigation, is suffering from Panic Attacks and his attorney claims Aaliyah lied about her age to R. Kelly. 4) “Surviving R. Kelly” sheds light on a bigger issue of Black Women being raped at higher rates and reported less.  Listen to The African History Network Show with Michael Imhotep, Sundays, 9pm-11pm EST on 910 AM WFDF in Detroit or around the world online at www.910AMSuperstation.com or by downloading the 910AM App to your smartphone or at www.AfricanHistoryNetwork.com and listen to the podcasts. 

Welcome to The Jewish Hour with Rabbi Finman, for January 13, 2019. In this episode, Rabbi Finman talks to the President of Gratz College, Dr. Paul Finkelman about his book “Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation's Highest Court” and the larger topic of slavery.      

"Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court" by Dr. Paul Finkelman by

In the United States, justice was never blind. Historian Paul Finkelman goes beyond legal jargon to illustrate how slavery was entangled with the opinions of the Court—and encoded into the Constitution itself. With host Hasan Kwame Jeffries. (Teaching Tolerance / Southern Poverty Law Center)

Constitutional historian Paul Finkelman explains the deeply racist bargains the founding fathers struck to unify the country under one document and discusses what students should know about how slavery defined the United States after the Revolution. With host Hasan Kwame Jeffries. (Teaching Tolerance / Southern Poverty Law Center)

This week at In The Past Lane, the history podcast, we look at how in the decades before the Civil War, proslavery southerners dominated US foreign policy and promoted a vision of an ever expanding empire of slavery, both within the US but also throughout the western hemisphere. I’ll speak with historian Matthew Karp about his new book, This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy. Let’s start with some key background to this period. Between 1820 and 1860, the US was an emerging industrial power with the rise of factories, railroads, and large cities. But in those same years, the US enjoyed the status of the world’s most prominent slave holding society. Between 1820 and 1860, the population of enslaved people grew from 1.5 million to 4 million. Cotton production soared from 400,000 bales in 1820 to 4,000,000 bales in 1860. As southerners liked to say, Cotton was King. But while slavery grew more prominent and profitable, it also grew more controversial. The abolitionist movement grew more vocal in its condemnation of slavery. As it did so, it helped spark controversy after controversy in the 1830s through the 1840s and 1850s – controversies that often dominated national politics. Most of us remember some of the key ones: the Gag Rule, the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott decision. Throughout these controversies over the future of slavery, proslavery southerners used their political influence to defend slavery and demand the right to extend it throughout the US. But as Matthew Karp makes clear in his book, these proslavery southerners did not confine to their vision of slavery’s future to the United States. They developed in these decades before the Civil War a bold and enthusiastic vision of slavery’s growth and expansion elsewhere in the world. And to make this vision a reality, proslavery southerners pushed for US territorial expansion. Hence, the war with Mexico in 1846 that allowed the US to seize what is now much of the western United States. Equally important, they also exerted their political power to use US foreign policy and military power to protect other slaveholding societies like Brazil, Cuba, and in the years before it was annexed by the US, the independent slaveholding republic of Texas. One of their top priorities was to thwart efforts by Great Britain to end the practice of slavery. For centuries, Great Britain was one of the world’s foremost participants in slavery and the international slave trade. But in the early 1830s, Great Britain abolished slavery in its empire and made global abolition a top foreign policy concern. This move infuriated proslavery southerners and made them suspect British plots at every turn - plots they were prepared to use US power to foil. So while proslavery southerners defended slavery and pushed for expansion within the United States, they also used American power to defend slavery in places far beyond US borders, and to push for its global expansion. Among the many things discussed in this episode:  How proslavery southerners shaped US foreign policy to protect slaveholding societies like Brazil and Cuba and to promote the global expansion of slavery. Why US proslavery policy versus British antislavery efforts resembled a 19th century Cold War. Why proslavery southerners feared Great Britain would push Texas to abolish slavery. How proslavery southerners were sectionalists in domestic policy, but nationalists in foreign affairs. How proslavery southerners rejected abolitionist claims that slavery was a relic of barbarism, arguing that history was on their side. More about Matthew Karp - website  Recommended reading:  Matthew Karp, This Vast Southern Empire: Slaveholders at the Helm of American Foreign Policy (2017). Drew Gilpin Faust, The Ideology of Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the Antebellum South, 1830-1860 (1982) Paul Finkelman, Defending Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the Old South: A Brief History with Documents (2003) Michel Gobat, Empire by Invitation: William Walker and Manifest Destiny in Central America (2018) Robert E. May, The Southern Dream of a Caribbean Empire, 1854-1861 (1973) Robert E. May, Slavery, Race, and Conquest in the Tropics: Lincoln, Douglas, and the Future of Latin America (2013). Related ITPL Podcast Episodes: Manisha Sinha talks about her book, The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition http://inthepastlane.com/podcast-episode-004-the-abolitionist-movement-more/ Music for This Episode Jay Graham, ITPL Intro (JayGMusic.com) Kevin McCleod, “Impact Moderato” (Free Music Archive) Lee Rosevere, “Going Home” (Free Music Archive) Blue Dot Sessions, “Sage the Hunter” (Free Music Archive) Jon Luc Hefferman, “Winter Trek” (Free Music Archive) The Bell, “I Am History” (Free Music Archive) Production Credits Executive Producer: Lulu Spencer Technical Advisors: Holly Hunt and Jesse Anderson Podcasting Consultant: Darrell Darnell of Pro Podcast Solutions Photographer: John Buckingham Graphic Designer: Maggie Cellucci Website by: ERI Design Legal services: Tippecanoe and Tyler Too Social Media management: The Pony Express Risk Assessment: Little Big Horn Associates Growth strategies: 54 40 or Fight © In The Past Lane, 2018

On this very special episode I'm joined by distinguished scholar and President of Gratz College, Paul Finkelman, author of the forthcoming book "Supreme Injustice" to discuss surprising new discoveries he's unearthed about John Marshall's relationship with the institution of slavery.Pre-order "Supreme Injustice" by Paul Finkelman (available 1/8/18): http://a.co/hOrNy2BHomepage of Gratz College: https://www.gratz.edu/Save 15% on any pair of Sudio headphones and support American Biography: https://www.sudiosweden.com/american"Star Spangled Banner" performed by Logan Hardin. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Join us for 1619: The Making of America conference at Norfolk State University. Page Laws explores the myths and truths behind the lives of two native women—Pocahontas and Tituba. Also: We get a rundown of the entire human history of slavery from Paul Finkelman. And: We hear the stories of three remarkable enslaved women in Canada who fought back. Later in the show: The story of Pocahontas has been told and retold for 400 years, from Captain John Smith’s early letters, to director Terrence Malick’s film, The New World. In a lively discussion, historians Helen Rountree and Camilla Townsend demystify the legend of Pocahontas and, in doing so, paint an engrossing picture of Indian life in the early 1600s.

Well, we spent last week beating up on Thomas Jefferson, so this week . . . we're going to beat up on him some more. We finish our conversation with Paul Finkelman of Albany Law School, who discusses not only Jefferson's hypocrisy over the slavery issue, but his deep racism and his illicit relationship with his slave Sally Hemings. After we finish our discussion with Paul, we have a first: an appeal of Constitutional Quiz! Actually, for you lawyers out there, it's more like a filing of an amicus brief by a third party, a professor at the University of Maine at Farmington, Jim Melcher. Jim thought that Eric, a contestant who failed to win a T-shirt some time ago, had actually given the correct answer to a quiz, while our preferred answer was actually wrong. After a full and fair hearing on the merits, the decision of the appellate panel was . . . .

Who? What? Are we talking about Thomas Jefferson? You bet. There is an ongoing debate among historians (and other people, lots of other people) about old Tom's place in American history. Everyone admires the Declaration of Independence and "all men are created equal." But then there's that slavery thing. Ouch. We'll talk with Paul Finkelman, author of "Slavery and the Founders," who is among Jefferson's harsher critics. Paul doesn't pull any punches. But don't worry, this is just one conversation among many that we've had, and will have again, about a remarkable, contradictory man who is arguably our most troubling Founder.

Sure, we think it's a great movie - politics, war, a constitutional amendment - who could ask for more? But is it historically accurate? Now that's another story. Paul Finkelman of Albany Law School -- the same guy who told us all about the Emancipation Proclamation -- helps us sort it out.

We all know that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves - or did he? And if he did, well then, how did he do it? Where, precisely, would a president find the constitutional power to free slaves, which were then considered "property?" Doesn't the Fifth Amendment require compensation when the government takes our "property?" We're confused. Fortunately, Paul Finkelman clears it all up for us. He's a great storyteller, and it's a fascinating tale. Tune in! Or, rather, download!