American politician
POPULARITY
26 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
16 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
5 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
3 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
4 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
4 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
4 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
2 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
2 episodes with William Jennings Bryan
"Worlds Famous Orations Vol II Rome," compiled by William Jennings Bryan and Francis Whiting Halsey in 1906, presents a captivating collection of the most renowned speeches from great Roman statesmen, including Cicero, Seneca, and Julius Caesar. This volume not only showcases the eloquence and persuasive power of these historical figures but also reflects the enduring themes of rhetoric, leadership, and civic responsibility that continue to resonate today. By exploring the art of oration, listeners can gain insights into the values and challenges of ancient Rome, which parallel many of the issues we face in contemporary society.
This Day in Legal History: The Scopes “Monkey Trial” OpensOn July 10, 1925, the trial of John T. Scopes opened in the sweltering courthouse of Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes, a young high school teacher, stood accused of violating the state's Butler Act, which made it a crime to teach human evolution in public schools. The case became one of the most famous trials in American history—less because of what happened to Scopes, who was a willing test defendant recruited by the ACLU, than because of the collision it staged between two national figures and two worldviews.On one side was William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate and champion of the anti-evolution cause, who argued for the prosecution. On the other was Clarence Darrow, the era's most celebrated defense attorney, who took the case to defend academic freedom and the teaching of science. The trial's most dramatic moment came when Darrow called Bryan himself to the stand as an expert on the Bible and cross-examined him mercilessly on its literal interpretation. Scopes was convicted and fined $100—a verdict later overturned on a technicality—so in the narrow legal sense, the anti-evolution side won.But the significance of Scopes lies elsewhere. It was one of the first trials broadcast live on national radio, a spectacle that turned a local misdemeanor into a referendum on faith, science, education, and the reach of the state into the classroom. It sharpened the enduring constitutional questions—about what government may compel or forbid teachers to teach—that would return decades later in cases like Epperson v. Arkansas, which finally struck down anti-evolution laws under the First Amendment. Scopes is a reminder that some trials matter less for their judgments than for the arguments they force a country to have out loud.The Justice Department has sued Maryland, alleging that the state's sanctuary policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The suit targets Maryland's Community Trust Act, which limits how state and local officials may cooperate with federal immigration authorities—for example, by declining to honor routine detainer requests to hand people over. The government's core theory is preemption: it argues that under the Supremacy Clause, states can't erect policies that interfere with federal immigration law. Maryland and Attorney General Anthony Brown will counter that states have no obligation to affirmatively help enforce federal law—a principle known as anti-commandeering. This is the twenty-first such suit the administration has filed against sanctuary jurisdictions, part of a coordinated campaign, and it teed up the recurring constitutional question of where federal supremacy ends and a state's right to withhold its own resources begins.DOJ sues Maryland, alleges state policies interfere with immigration crackdown | ReutersProposed rule changes would require greater public disclosure when federal grand juries refuse to indict—an unusually pointed reform prompted by a string of rejected charges. Grand juries almost never decline to indict; the old line is that a prosecutor could get one to “indict a ham sandwich.” Yet over the past year, grand juries in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington rejected charges in politically sensitive cases, including a failed effort to indict six sitting members of Congress. In response, the federal court in Chicago adopted a rule filing a redacted version of the foreperson's rejection form on the public docket, and D.C.'s chief judge ordered that the judiciary be notified whenever a grand jury turns the administration down. Because grand jury proceedings are ordinarily secret, “no true bill” outcomes usually vanish without a trace. The significance is transparency: these measures would let the public see how often the government tries to charge people and fails—turning the grand jury's quiet power to say no into something visible.Proposed rules call for DOJ disclosure when grand juries reject indictments | ReutersThe elite law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is heading into a rare legal-malpractice trial in Florida next week, defending against claims seeking more than $200 million. The case comes from former Patriot National CEO Steven Mariano, who alleges the firm botched its legal work on a corporate stock transaction more than a decade ago; Simpson Thacher denies liability and argues that market forces, not its advice, caused the losses. What makes this notable is simply that it's going to a jury at all. Malpractice claims against top-tier firms are almost always settled quietly or dismissed before trial, because both sides have strong incentives to avoid airing the details of a soured client relationship in open court. A verdict here could ripple outward—shaping how firms handle risk, how professional-liability insurers price transactional work, and how future clients frame malpractice claims against their own lawyers.Simpson Thacher prepares for rare malpractice trial in Florida next week | ReutersAnd finally, President Trump has removed the last sitting members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the bipartisan federal agency that helps states administer elections. All three commissioners were pushed out at once—the two Democratic members fired by email, the Republican member asked by phone to resign—leaving the four-seat commission entirely empty. That vacancy is the whole point: with no commissioners, the EAC cannot take official action, and because replacements require Senate confirmation, the agency could be sidelined for months heading into the midterms. The EAC isn't a powerhouse—it sets voluntary voting-system guidelines and distributes election funding—but it's a piece of the federal election infrastructure, and emptying it entirely is unprecedented. Voter-advocacy groups and Democratic election officials called the move reckless, and it raises the same structural question running through this week's news: how much a president may reshape or disable the machinery that oversees elections in the run-up to a vote.Trump terminates Election Assistance Commission members | 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
This week, Kelly is joined by historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer to discuss his book The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire. They dig into the Spanish-American War, the fierce imperialist vs. anti-imperialist debate it sparked, and how those same arguments still echo through American foreign policy today. Find The True Flag here: https://www.amazon.com/True-Flag-Theodore-Roosevelt-American/dp/1627792163 Timestamps: 0:00 – Introduction 0:13 – Introducing Stephen Kinzer and The True Flag 2:21 – What Was the Spanish-American War? 6:22 – The Imperialist Case: Roosevelt and Lodge 11:05 – The Philippines and the Rise of Insurgency 17:36 – The Anti-Imperialist Senate Debate 24:01 – Mark Twain's Anti-Imperialist Crusade 27:08 – William Jennings Bryan's Complicated Role 31:18 – The Legacy of 1898 Today 34:02 – Closing Thoughts Diplomatic Immunity is produced by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University. The views expressed herein do not represent the views of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy or Georgetown University.
Weekend Edition for July 4-5, 2026 Show Notes: Give to the June 1517 Podcast Network Fundraiser! Learn more about the 1517 Podcast Network Fundraiser 1517 Podcasts 1517 on YouTube 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts 1517 Events Schedule 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education Germany / Switzerland - Study Tour What's New from 1517: By Water and the Word by Brian Thomas: Being Family by Dr. Scott Keith A Reasoned Defense of the Faith by Adam Francisco Stretched: A Study for Lent and the Entire Christian Life by Dr. Christopher Richmann The Essential Nestingen: Essays on Preaching, Catechism, and the Reformation More from the hosts: Dan van Voorhis Follow 1517: Instagram X/Twitter Facebook SHOW TRANSCRIPTS are available: https://www.1517.org/podcasts/the-christian-history-almanac CONTACT: CHA@1517.org Facebook Twitter Audio production by Christopher Gillespie (outerrimterritories.com)
rWotD Episode 3346: 1904 United States presidential election in Wisconsin Welcome to random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Thursday, 2 July 2026, is 1904 United States presidential election in Wisconsin.The 1904 United States presidential election in Wisconsin was held on November 8, 1904, as part of the 1904 United States presidential election. State voters chose 13 electors to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.Wisconsin during the Third Party System was a Republican-leaning but competitive state whereby historically anti-Civil War German Catholic counties stood opposed to highly pro-war and firmly Republican Yankee areas. However, following the Populist movement, whose inflationary monetary policies were opposed by almost all urban classes and viewed as dangerously radical by rural German Catholics, Wisconsin's upper classes, along with the majority of workers who followed them, completely fled from William Jennings Bryan’s agrarian and free silver sympathies.Wisconsin would henceforth become almost a one-party polity dominated by the Republican Party. The Democratic Party became entirely uncompetitive outside the previously anti-Yankee areas adjoining Lake Michigan in the eastern part of the state. As Democratic strength weakened severely after 1894 – although the state did develop a strong Socialist Party to provide opposition to the GOP – Wisconsin developed the direct Republican primary in 1903 and this ultimately created competition between the “League” under Robert M. La Follette, and the conservative “Regular” faction.Neither Republican incumbent Theodore Roosevelt nor Democratic nominee Alton B. Parker would campaign in Wisconsin, as the state had been amongst the most Republican in the nation in the presidential elections in both 1896 and 1900. No official polls were taken in the state, but Frederick W. Cotzhausen, a lifelong Milwaukee Democrat, said during October that the state would vote strongly for Roosevelt.Wisconsin would vote powerfully for Roosevelt, who defeated Parker more than two-to-one, and beat William McKinley’s 1896 performance by almost four percent. Roosevelt was the first Republican since Abraham Lincoln in 1860 to win Calumet County.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:25 UTC on Thursday, 2 July 2026.For the full current version of the article, see 1904 United States presidential election in Wisconsin on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Bluesky at @wikioftheday.com.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Ivy.
"World's Great Orations Vol IX America - II," compiled by William Jennings Bryan, presents a rich collection of speeches from prominent early American orators spanning the years 1818 through 1865. This volume captures the fervent spirit of a nation in the midst of profound change, showcasing the eloquence and passion that defined its formative years. Listening to these speeches today offers a powerful reminder of the enduring ideals of democracy, freedom, and the pursuit of justice that continue to resonate in contemporary discourse. Bryan's compilation serves not only as a historical record but also as an inspiration for those seeking to understand the art of oratory and its impact on society.
So how did the cartoon win? In the summer of 1925, in a hot courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee, William Jennings Bryan agreed to defend a law against the teaching of evolution. Clarence Darrow put him on the stand and took him apart in front of the country. A newspaperman named H. L. Mencken filed dispatches that turned the old orator into a national figure of fun, and the dispatches were funnier than they were fair. Then Bryan died, five days later, and Mencken wrote an obituary that buried the man before the grave was dug. The prose was brilliant. It was also a kind of murder, a reputation killed while the body was still warm. A play came along a generation on, Inherit the Wind, and finished the job. The meme was sealed, and it has been copying itself ever since.
Destiny is not a matter of chance; it is a matter of choice. It is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved. - William Jennings Bryan Check out John Lee Dumas' award winning Podcast Entrepreneurs on Fire on your favorite podcast directory. For world class free courses and resources to help you on your Entrepreneurial journey visit EOFire.com
The law is riddled with things "everybody knows" that aren't actually true. In this April Fool's-themed episode, Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis discuss several legal myths, half-truths, and courtroom fictions—from rules of evidence to constitutional assumptions to a Scopes Monkey Trial mythology that is more Hollywood script than record.Key points:Miranda warnings aren't in the Constitution—but they're constitutionally required anyway: The specific warnings don't appear in constitutional text; they're a prophylactic rule. Yet they're binding—even Congress can't touch them.Dual citizenship was never authorized—it emerged by accident: No Congress ever passed a statute permitting dual citizenship. Great Britain and German have asserted jurisdiction via conscription of the children of their subjects—even though born in the U.S. This is context directly relevant to Trump v. Barbara arguments this week."One phone call" is Hollywood fiction: California Penal Code § 851.5 grants at least three completed calls within three hours of booking, plus additional calls for custodial parents.Circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence: DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial; CALCRIM 223 instructs juries to treat both types equally.The Scopes Trial was staged, and the textbook taught eugenics: Think this was religious fundamentalism vs. science? Think again. The evolution text in question, George William Hunter's Civic Biology, ranked races hierarchically and endorsed selective breeding. William Jennings Bryan is regarded a buffoon, but his actual argument was more about local curriculum control than creationism.Buck v. Bell has never been overruled: Remember the monstrous 1927 opinion upholding compulsory sterilization? Still good law. Technically.What legal tropes get irk you?
Aughie and Nia introduce listeners to the storied history of William Jennings Bryan, lawyer, orator, and perennial presidential candidate.
William Jennings Bryan said, "Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice!" You see, we make decisions and those decisions impact our destiny! There are times when we make decisions we regret, but there is a decision that you never regret. It impacts our life and the life of our children!
It's Friday, March 13th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Why some Iranians dance during war Why are some Iranians dancing while war is unfolding in their country? For more than 47 years, the Islamic regime ruling Iran has governed through fear, oppression, and bloodshed, reports International Christian Concern. The hands of this regime are stained with the blood of thousands of Iranian and American citizens. It has been one of the world's leading sponsors of terrorism, spreading violence far beyond Iran's borders. At home, it has relentlessly persecuted Christians — executing some, imprisoning many, and forcing countless others into exile. Believers have been torn from their families, their homes, and their homeland, scattered across the world simply because they chose to follow Jesus Christ. When some Iranians celebrate or dance these days, it is not because they love war. It is because they have lived for decades under a darkness that few outside the country can fully comprehend. For many Iranians, these moments carry the fragile hope that the long night of oppression may finally be nearing its end. And freedom might be dawning once again. Congress hopes to Safeguard Women from Chemical Abortion On Wednesday, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri took to the podium in the Senate Judiciary hearing room to deliver a clear message: the abortion pill Mifepristone is not just risky — it's “inherently dangerous.” And it's up to Congress to regulate it, reports The Washington Stand. At a press conference, the Missouri senator unveiled his new legislation, the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act. This bill seeks to strip Mifepristone — the drug responsible for the majority of U.S. abortions — of its longstanding approval from the Food and Drug Administration. According to recent data from the Guttmacher Institute, chemical abortions made up 63% of all abortions in 2023, with the trend only accelerating in the years since. Senator Hawley didn't hold back, blasting the FDA for letting mail-order shipments flood the country, wiping out state-level protections for the unborn and leaving women to face severe complications. HAWLEY: “In 11% of cases, women who take the drug, Mifepristone for use in an abortion experience a serious adverse health event. Now, that's the technical term. What it means, in practice, is internal infections, sepsis, hemorrhaging, a trip to the emergency room, a life-threatening condition. In 11% of cases!” Hawley added, “It is time for Congress to do something about this racket, And it is a racket. It is time for Congress to ban the use of Mifepristone for abortion, and it is time for Congress to give the victims — the survivors — … the right to recover.” He framed the fight as a double victory: shielding vulnerable women from what many see as a profit-driven chemical experiment and protecting unborn life when the courts and agencies will not. Call your Congressman today and urge him or her to vote for The Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act. The number is 202-224-3121. That's 202-224-3121. You can call and get a live operator 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and simply leave a message. The manufacturers and distributors of this heinous Abortion Kill Pill are well described in Isaiah 59:7. “Their feet rush into sin; they are swift to shed innocent blood. They pursue evil schemes; acts of violence mark their ways.” Armed man rammed truck into Michigan synagogue On Thursday, authorities say a man, armed with a rifle, rammed his truck into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, before the vehicle caught fire, prompting an active shooter response, reports NewsNation. Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said the synagogue's security team engaged the suspect with gunfire after he breached the building and drove down a hallway. The suspect was later found dead. His body was badly burned. BOUCHARD: “No kids, this is the important thing, no kids or no staff was injured whatsoever. One of the lead security people was hit by the car and was taken to the hospital for treatment. That individual should be okay.” The sheriff said the suspect appears to have been the only person in the vehicle. CNN host makes humiliating on-air correction after getting NYC terror attack story wrong During a “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City” rally on Saturday, two men were arrested for throwing improvised explosive devices at anti-Islam protesters. Authorities later discovered these men were inspired by the Islamic State terrorist group. The incident took place outside Gracie Mansion, the official residence of New York Democratic Mayor Zohran Mamdani. However, CNN's Abby Phillip, host of “NewsNight,” claimed on Tuesday that the men were not targeting the crowd, but the mayor, a Muslim himself, reports The Western Journal. PHILLIP: “Two Republicans say Muslims don't belong here after an attempted terror attack on New York Mayor Zohran Mamdami.” Samuel Short wrote, “The intent was obvious as CNN and Phillip would love to blame anyone who criticizes Islam as a violent terrorist. Oh, the irony.” On Wednesday morning, Phillip published a correction on the social media platform X. She also issued a correction on air Wednesday night. PHILIP: “This morning I issued a correction first thing in the morning, on X, for a mistake that I made in last night's show. But I also wanted to do so on air as well. “I incorrectly said that the bombs that were thrown by ISIS-inspired suspects in New York over the weekend were directed at Mayor Mamdani. They were not. I failed to catch and correct that mistake in real time, and I take full responsibility for that.” Former Southern Baptist Convention President entered hospice Former Southern Baptist Convention President Steve Gaines, age 68, has entered hospice care, over two years after he was diagnosed with kidney cancer, reports The Christian Post. Bellevue Baptist Church Pastor Ben Mandrell, who replaced Gaines as lead pastor of the Cordova, Tennessee-based megachurch last year, wrote a letter to the congregation earlier this week explaining the situation. He wrote, “Steve has faithfully served the Lord and shepherded so many people through the years. He's been a great pastor, mentor and friend. Let's honor him and his family by lifting them up before the Lord.” Butler Bill, which prohibited teaching evolution, signed into law And finally, on this day, March 13, 1925, Tennessee Governor Austin Peay signed the "Butler Bill” which prohibited the teaching of the false theory of macro evolution in public schools. The law was introduced by Tennessee House of Representatives member John Washington Butler, for whom the law was named. The law was challenged and upheld later that year in a famous trial in Dayton, Tennessee called the Scopes Trial which involved a raucous confrontation between prosecution attorney and Christian leader, William Jennings Bryan, and prominent defense attorney and religious agnostic, Clarence Darrow. On parental rights, Bryan said, “The parents have a right to say that no teacher, paid by their money, shall rob their children of faith in God.” On the nature of evolution, Bryan said, "The first objection to Darwinism is that it is only a guess and was never anything more. It is millions of guesses strung together.” And, on his Christian worldview, Bryan said, "I would rather begin with God and reason down than begin with a piece of dirt and reason up.” Sadly, William Jennings Bryan died five days after the Scopes Trial concluded. The Butler Law was not repealed until 1967. Genesis 1:1 declares, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, March 13th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.
This Day in Legal History: Butler ActOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved the Butler Act, a statute that made it unlawful for public school teachers to present any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation. The law specifically prohibited teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of life, reflecting growing tensions between scientific ideas and religious beliefs in early twentieth-century America. Tennessee lawmakers framed the statute as a way to protect traditional moral values in public education. Critics, however, immediately argued that the law restricted academic freedom and undermined the teaching of modern science.The controversy quickly escalated when a young teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to challenge the statute. Scopes was charged with violating the Butler Act after he allowed evolution to be discussed in his classroom. His prosecution led to the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial drew national attention and featured two of the era's most prominent legal figures: Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution. Their courtroom clash turned the case into a dramatic public debate over science, religion, and the role of government in shaping school curricula.Although Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100, the trial exposed deep cultural divisions within the United States. Media coverage portrayed the proceedings as a symbolic struggle between modern scientific thinking and religious fundamentalism. Over time, the Butler Act came to be seen by many as an example of government overreach into education and intellectual inquiry. Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her ongoing challenge to a suspension imposed by her fellow judges. In a petition filed Thursday, the 98-year-old judge argues that the D.C. Circuit wrongly ruled that courts cannot review many challenges to judicial suspension orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman contends that the statute should allow review when suspension decisions violate the law or the Constitution. Her petition claims the lower court misinterpreted the law by blocking challenges to actions that exceed the authority granted under the statute. Newman argues that her suspension effectively removes her from the bench without impeachment, which she says undermines constitutional protections for judicial independence and lifetime tenure.The Federal Circuit's judicial council first suspended Newman in 2023 after concerns that potential mental or physical health issues made her unable to perform judicial duties. The suspension followed her refusal to undergo medical evaluations requested by her colleagues and was characterized as serious misconduct. Although the suspension was initially set for one year, it has been renewed twice. Newman appealed through the internal judicial review process, but a national committee of judges upheld the suspension in 2024. She also challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that parts of the judicial discipline law are unconstitutional. Both a district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, relying on a statutory provision stating that disciplinary orders under the act are final and not subject to judicial review. Newman now asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether courts may still review suspension orders that allegedly exceed legal or constitutional limits.Judge Newman Takes Suspension Battle To Supreme Court - Law36098-year-old judge asks US Supreme Court to hear case over her suspension | ReutersThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of developing regulations for prediction markets, issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and asking the public for input on how the industry should be governed. The agency said the move is intended to support innovation while ensuring prediction markets operate within the framework of the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in regulation has grown as more companies apply to register as designated contract markets, with many applications coming from prediction market platforms. These platforms allow users to trade on the outcomes of events such as sports games, elections, and entertainment awards.The CFTC is seeking feedback on several issues, including whether margin trading should be allowed, what types of event contracts might be harmful to the public interest, and whether individuals with insider knowledge should be restricted from trading on certain outcomes. At the same time, the agency released staff guidance reminding platforms to avoid contracts that could be easily manipulated, such as those tied to specific player injuries or actions by a single referee. The guidance also explains that platforms can list new contracts through a self-certification process, although the CFTC can intervene if it believes a contract violates the law.The regulatory effort comes amid ongoing legal disputes about who has authority over prediction markets. The CFTC maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction, while several states have attempted to regulate or restrict these platforms under gambling laws. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would ban certain types of event contracts, including those related to violence or death, and strengthen rules against insider trading on prediction markets.CFTC Proposes Prediction Markets Rule - Law360CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction MarketsThe Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California seeking to block the state's Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) regulations, arguing that the rules unlawfully interfere with federal authority over vehicle fuel economy standards. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, targets California rules adopted in 2012 that require automakers to sell increasing numbers of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. Federal officials claim the regulations effectively force manufacturers to meet stricter nationwide standards and function as a quota system for electric vehicles.According to the complaint, California cannot impose its own limits on vehicle emissions because the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives the federal government authority to set fuel-economy standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The administration argues that California's requirements could increase vehicle prices, reduce consumer choice, and disrupt the national auto market. Federal officials also say Congress revoked certain Clean Air Act waivers in 2025 that previously allowed California to enforce some emissions rules.California leaders strongly dispute the lawsuit and say the state is defending policies designed to reduce pollution and expand access to cleaner vehicles. State officials argue the federal government is attempting to undermine California's environmental regulations and its efforts to lead the transition to cleaner transportation. The lawsuit is part of a broader series of legal disputes between the federal government and California over vehicle emissions standards and electric-vehicle mandates.Feds Sue To Stop California's ‘Illegal' EV Regulations - Law360U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told a federal court that it is making progress on a system to refund about $166 billion in tariffs that were ruled unlawful. According to a court filing, the agency's four-part refund system is between 40% and 80% complete, with the review portion the most developed and the mass-processing component the least finished. The system will include an online portal where importers and brokers can submit claims for reimbursement.The filing was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade in response to an order from a judge directing the government to begin refunding tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs in February. The Court's decision invalidated tariffs collected since February 2024 but did not explain how refunds should be handled. CBP previously suggested building a new system to process claims rather than using its existing process, and officials say the new portal could begin accepting applications as soon as mid-April.More than 330,000 importers paid the tariffs on roughly 53 million shipments, though only about 21,000 importers are currently registered to receive refunds. Refunds will go only to the companies that originally paid the tariffs, and there is no legal requirement that businesses pass the money on to consumers. Some companies, including FedEx, have said they will reimburse customers, while Costco indicated it may lower prices using the refunded funds. Meanwhile, new legal disputes are emerging as businesses and states challenge additional tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court ruling.US customs agency says building system for tariff refunds is 40% to 80% complete | 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
Send a text(REPRISE from AUG 2025) Today I welcome a familiar voice and a longtime friend—Dr. Randall Balmer. Back in the day, when we were “Trinity Men,” he was “Randy” to me. Today, he's Dr. Balmer—historian, author, professor, and one of the leading voices on religion in America. He earned his graduate degrees at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Princeton, and Union Theological Seminary, and this marks our third interview together.Randall recently published a powerful piece in the Los Angeles Times about the 1925 Scopes Trial—often remembered as the showdown between Genesis and Darwin. He reminds us that the trial wasn't supposed to be about evolution at all, but that's where it landed. William Jennings Bryan thundered that “if evolution wins, Christianity goes.” Clarence Darrow countered, “It's not Scopes on trial—it's civilization.” Nearly a century later, the questions linger.Randall also brings us into his latest book, America's Best Idea: The Separation of Church and State. It's a sweeping story—Roger Williams's “hedge of separation,” Jefferson's Danbury letter, Madison, Adams, and the First Amendment—all the way to today's battles over vouchers, religious schools, and the religious right. Along the way, we'll talk about court rulings, culture wars, and the ongoing debate over whether America is a Christian nation—or a nation that protects the freedom of every faith, and of no faith at all.It's always a rich conversation when Dr. Balmer joins me, and today is no exception. Come on along with us! SHOW NOTESSupport the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com
A daily quote to inspire the mind, gratitude to warm the soul, and guided breathing to energize the body. Quote: "Destiny is not a thing to be waited for, but a thing to be achieved" - William Jennings Bryan. Gratitude: Life. How cool is that I'm actually here, in this world, living? Guided Breathing: Equal Breathing. Visit TheDailyRefresh.com to share your unique piece of gratitude which will be featured on an upcoming episode, and make sure to watch the tutorial of how to make The Daily Refresh part of your Alexa Flash Briefings! Call to action: If you're not listening to this on your Alexa, you should be! Visit TheDailyRefresh.com and click on the word Alexa in the Nav bar for a tutorial on making The Daily Refresh one of your Flash Briefings.
Neil Lanctot describes the sinking of the Lusitania forcing Wilson to navigate war demands, leading to William Jennings Bryan's resignation and the rise of Edith Galt's significant influence on the president. 3
"72% of Americans say they hate big corporations—including Republicans." — Charles DerberIt's not just the right that's reacting against liberal democracy. Some progressives are also embracing populism. Charles Derber, longtime professor of sociology at Boston College, has a new book called Fighting Oligarchy: How Positive Populism Can Reclaim America. Rather than a dirty word, he argues, populism is an inevitable political response to the brutality of today's economy. We're in a disguised depression, he fears. Sixty percent of Americans say they feel one paycheck away from oblivion.72% of Americans say they hate big corporations, Derber reminds us. Not just Democrats—Republicans too. Such hostility to large capitalist enterprises thus represents a kind of political supermajority. And Derber, a man of the left, sees this as fertile ground for what he calls positive populism. It's a politics that connects economic grievance to democratic renewal, the way the 1890s Populists did, the way the New Deal did, the way Martin Luther King did when he insisted you couldn't fight for civil rights without fighting against war and capitalism.But can positive populism coexist with American capitalism? Derber says no. American capitalism is too oligarchic, too individualistic, too hostile to collective identity. It's not compatible with positive populism and thus, in Derber's mind at least, not compatible with survival. But that doesn't involve a Soviet-style elimination of the free market. It means something more like Northern European social democracy: strong unions, universal healthcare, a government that actually intervenes on behalf of ordinary people.The trap, Derber warns, is nostalgia for the pre-Trump era. Going back to the supposedly "consensus" years of Bush, Obama and Clinton is a circuitous way of getting to another Trump. Today's street demonstrators—from Minneapolis to Los Angeles to New York City—understand this. According to Derber, demonstrations against ICE and MAGA are associating the immigration crackdowns with corporate oligarchy, and authoritarian political power with the economic power of big capitalism.And so positive populism will prevail. At least according to Charles Derber. Fight the oligarchy! Five Takeaways● We're in a Disguised Depression: Sixty percent of Americans say they feel one paycheck away from disaster. This isn't radical rhetoric—it's mainstream public opinion.● Hatred of Corporations Is Bipartisan: 72-73% of Americans—including Republicans—say they hate big corporations. Derber sees this as fertile ground for positive populism.● Positive Populism Has Precedents: The 1890s Populists united white and Black workers. The New Deal gave ordinary people a stake. MLK linked civil rights to economics. These are the models.● Going Back to Pre-Trump Is a Trap: If Democrats return to Bush-Obama-Clinton centrism, they'll get another Trump. The resistance understands this. The establishment doesn't.● American Capitalism Is Incompatible: Positive populism can't coexist with American-style oligarchic capitalism. It needs transformation—not elimination of markets, but European-style social democracy. About the GuestCharles Derber is a professor of sociology at Boston College and author of more than twenty books, including Fighting Oligarchy: How Positive Populism Can Reclaim America and Bonfire: American Sociocide, Broken Relationships, and the Quest for Democracy. He is an old friend of Keen on America.ReferencesPeople mentioned:● Pepper Culpepper is an Oxford political scientist whose book Billionaire Backlash argues that backlash against billionaires could strengthen democracy.● Hélène Landemore is a Yale political scientist whose book Politics without Politicians makes the case for direct democracy.● William Jennings Bryan ran for President four times on a populist platform but, Derber argues, sold out the movement's anti-corporate thrust.● Martin Luther King Jr. argued that civil rights couldn't be separated from economic justice and opposition to war—a form of positive populism.● Bernie Sanders and AOC are examples of positive populists within the Democratic Party today.Historical references:● The 1890s Populist Movement united farmers and workers against the first Gilded Age oligarchy. Lawrence Goodwyn called it "the democratic moment."● The New Deal represented a form of positive populism with significant government intervention in markets and encouragement of union organizing.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:
Historian David S. Brown joins the Chuck ToddCast to unpack why Theodore Roosevelt remains a gravitational force for understanding American power—and why his era echoes so loudly today. Drawing from his book In the Arena, Brown explores what pulled him to Roosevelt, how TR reshaped the presidency, and the surprising parallels (and sharp limits) between Roosevelt and Donald Trump. From narcissism and disruption to populism, primaries, and the rise of the imperial presidency, the conversation digs into how Roosevelt’s wealth, ambition, and genuine concern for the working class produced a uniquely transactional style of politics at home and abroad. The episode also zooms out to ask what Roosevelt might make of modern challenges like AI, extreme wealth concentration, and great-power competition—and whether he’d thrive or flounder in the television age. Brown traces Roosevelt’s foreign policy legacy in Latin America, the roots of American global policing, and how early 20th-century realignments mirror today’s fractured coalitions. The discussion closes with a hard look at the political center, the future of the Trump coalition, under-studied presidents, and how Americans should think about their country as it approaches its 250th anniversary. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. 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! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 David S. Brown joins the Chuck ToddCast 02:00 Teddy Roosevelt is a magnet for historians 03:15 Research process for writing “In The Arena” 04:30 What drew you to Teddy Roosevelt as a book subject? 07:15 Large number of similarities between Roosevelt and Trump 08:15 Both Trump & Roosevelt are narcissists 09:15 Trump doesn’t have the crossover appeal of Roosevelt 10:30 Presidential primaries started under Roosevelt 11:45 Roosevelt was the rich guy who went after rich guys 14:00 Roosevelt never called himself a populist 14:30 Roosevelt wanted to do right by the working class 16:00 How would Roosevelt handle AI & concentration of wealth? 17:15 Roosevelt was very transactional in foreign affairs 17:45 He manufactured a separatist movement in Colombia 20:00 America didn’t have power to enforce Monroe Doctrine until 1900 21:15 Roosevelt wanted to police governments in western hemisphere 22:45 Goal was to indebt Latin American countries to the U.S. 23:30 He was always considered a disrupter despite wealthy connections 25:45 Roosevelt became a regular politician in 1884 26:15 Roosevelt was not a fan of William Jennings Bryan 27:45 Roosevelt was jealous of Bryan’s oratory skill 28:45 Would Roosevelt struggle in the TV era? 30:45 The imperial presidency originated under Roosevelt 33:15 Wilson & Roosevelt lamented not leading during seminal event 34:30 A Roosevelt government likely enters WW1 earlier 35:30 Roosevelt might have started the U.N. framework sooner 37:30 Political realignment was happening under Roosevelt 38:15 Parallels between now & Roosevelt era? 40:00 Roosevelt & Trump are mavericks not embraced by old guard 42:00 Multiple variables will affect the future of the “Trump coalition” 44:00 How do you define “the center” in American politics? 45:30 There are more base Republicans than Democrats, Dems need moderates 47:00 How much of the electorate resides in the political center? 48:15 The parties themselves are basically multi-party coalitions 50:15 Which president do we not have enough scholarship on? 54:00 How should citizens celebrate the 250th anniversary of AmericaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, Chuck unpacks what may be the most brazen presidential corruption scandal in modern history—Donald Trump allegedly selling U.S. foreign policy to the UAE for personal gain—barely registered in the public conversation, drowned out by louder, more sensational distractions. The discussion explores why Trump’s election-interference rhetoric breaks through while substantive corruption stories vanish, how media incentives favor spectacle over consequence, and why Trump responds selectively to political, market, and institutional pressure. Chuck argues that while some democratic guardrails still hold, the deeper danger isn’t a dramatic coup but the slow erosion of norms—one where kleptocracy becomes normalized, foreign policy is treated as a personal asset, and Congress, not voters, remains the only institution capable of stopping it before the damage becomes irreversible. Then, Historian David S. Brown joins Chuck to unpack why Theodore Roosevelt remains a gravitational force for understanding American power—and why his era echoes so loudly today. Drawing from his book In the Arena, Brown explores what pulled him to Roosevelt, how TR reshaped the presidency, and the surprising parallels (and sharp limits) between Roosevelt and Donald Trump. From narcissism and disruption to populism, primaries, and the rise of the imperial presidency, the conversation digs into how Roosevelt’s wealth, ambition, and genuine concern for the working class produced a uniquely transactional style of politics at home and abroad. The episode also zooms out to ask what Roosevelt might make of modern challenges like AI, extreme wealth concentration, and great-power competition—and whether he’d thrive or flounder in the television age. Brown traces Roosevelt’s foreign policy legacy in Latin America, the roots of American global policing, and how early 20th-century realignments mirror today’s fractured coalitions. The discussion closes with a hard look at the political center, the future of the Trump coalition, under-studied presidents, and how Americans should think about their country as it approaches its 250th anniversary. Finally, Chuck gives his ToddCast Top 5 states Democrats need to target prior to 2032, when census reapportionment will greatly change the electoral college math needed to win the presidency and answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. 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! Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 02:00 Worst presidential corruption scandal ever couldn’t break through 03:15 Trump sold American foreign policy to UAE for personal gain 04:15 Story was jaw dropping, but was completely overshadowed 05:30 Trump’s threat to federalize elections broke through over corruption 06:30 Should you worry about what Trump is saying, or what he’s doing? 07:30 Trump is desperate to sell the lie that he won in 2020 08:15 Election inference rhetoric can be as powerful as election interference 09:30 Trump shutdown Kennedy Center because he was being humiliated 10:45 Trump was losing control of Kennedy Center narrative, made a spectacle 11:45 Trump has turned America into a kleptocracy, THAT should be the story 13:15 The corruption story disappeared from news cycle after a couple days 14:00 Editors lean on stories that get more traction rather than importance 15:00 Some of the guardrails still work, some of the time 15:45 After two deaths in Minneapolis, Trump backed down a bit 16:30 Trump does respond to political pain in polling 17:00 Trump didn’t pick a sycophant for Fed Chair, cares about markets 17:45 Trump responds to three types of pressure 19:30 Worried less about Trump’s election rhetoric than his foreign policy 20:00 Trump doesn’t have the power to override state elections 20:45 Trump’s election threats supercharge opposition turnout 21:30 Voters won’t be the check on corruption, congress has to be 22:30 Democracies don’t fall from coups, they erode 23:15 The scariest stories get attention, the most consequential get ignored 27:45 David S. Brown joins the Chuck ToddCast 29:45 Teddy Roosevelt is a magnet for historians 31:00 Research process for writing “In The Arena” 32:15 What drew you to Teddy Roosevelt as a book subject? 35:00 Large number of similarities between Roosevelt and Trump 36:00 Both Trump & Roosevelt are narcissists 37:00 Trump doesn’t have the crossover appeal of Roosevelt 38:15 Presidential primaries started under Roosevelt 39:30 Roosevelt was the rich guy who went after rich guys 41:45 Roosevelt never called himself a populist 42:15 Roosevelt wanted to do right by the working class 43:45 How would Roosevelt handle AI & concentration of wealth? 45:00 Roosevelt was very transactional in foreign affairs 45:30 He manufactured a separatist movement in Colombia 47:45 America didn’t have power to enforce Monroe Doctrine until 1900 49:00 Roosevelt wanted to police governments in western hemisphere 50:30 Goal was to indebt Latin American countries to the U.S. 51:15 He was always considered a disrupter despite wealthy connections 53:30 Roosevelt became a regular politician in 1884 54:00 Roosevelt was not a fan of William Jennings Bryan 55:30 Roosevelt was jealous of Bryan’s oratory skill 56:30 Would Roosevelt struggle in the TV era? 58:30 The imperial presidency originated under Roosevelt 1:01:00 Wilson & Roosevelt lamented not leading during seminal event 1:02:15 A Roosevelt government likely enters WW1 earlier 1:03:15 Roosevelt might have started the U.N. framework sooner 1:05:15 Political realignment was happening under Roosevelt 1:06:00 Parallels between now & Roosevelt era? 1:07:45 Roosevelt & Trump are mavericks not embraced by old guard 1:09:45 Multiple variables will affect the future of the “Trump coalition” 1:11:45 How do you define “the center” in American politics? 1:13:15 There are more base Republicans than Democrats, Dems need moderates 1:14:45 How much of the electorate resides in the political center? 1:16:00 The parties themselves are basically multi-party coalitions 1:18:00 Which president do we not have enough scholarship on? 1:21:45 How should citizens celebrate the 250th anniversary of America? 1:25:00 Chuck’s thoughts on the interview with David S. Brown 1:25:30 Democrats will lose seats after 2030 census 1:28:00 Parties can work for realignment & flipping states 1:28:45 House of Representatives needs to be doubled in size 1:30:15 Base voters expect immediate results, leaders need to think long-term 1:30:45 Democrats need a Project 2032 and invest to win 5–10 new states 1:31:30 ToddCast Top 5 states Democrats should be targeting NOW 1:32:30 #1 North Carolina 1:35:00 #2 Texas 1:36:45 #3 Kansas 1:38:45 #4 Georgia 1:39:45 #5 Arizona 1:40:15 Honorable mentions 1:41:30 Democrats should use “first in the nation” primary status to advantage 1:42:15 Democrats had 12 states submit for first in the nation status 1:44:15 Tennessee as first in the nation would be interesting 1:46:15 Tennessee’s electorate seems gettable for Democrats eventually 1:48:30 Democrats have a major problem come 2032 if they don’t address it now 1:49:15 Ask Chuck 1:49:30 Thoughts on moving from network to independent journalist? 1:53:45 How to avoid being fatigued by the news and keeping hope alive? 1:54:15 Trump threatening troops to protect Iranians while attacking Minnesota? 1:59:00 What’s your take on NIL & transfer portal in college football? 2:03:30 Basis for your confidence in Jon Ossoff & thoughts on Auburn coach? 2:08:00 What issues will be top of mind for voters leading into midterms?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Randy sits with Jim Koehler and Myron Lloyd to discuss the legacy of Williams Jennings Bryan, who lead the Prohibition Movement and prosecuted the Scopes Trial.
Randy sits with Jim Koehler and Myron Lloyd to discuss the legacy of Williams Jennings Bryan, who lead the Prohibition Movement and prosecuted the Scopes Trial.
Three-time Democrat Nominee for President, William Jennings Bryan, was born in the small town of Salem, Illinois. Myron Lloyd and Jim Koehler from the William Jennings Bryan Boyhood Home discuss his life on Our Christian Heritage.
Three-time Democrat Nominee for President, William Jennings Bryan, was born in the small town of Salem, Illinois. Myron Lloyd and Jim Koehler from the William Jennings Bryan Boyhood Home discuss his life on Our Christian Heritage.
SHOW SCHEDULE1-19-20261914 FLAG DAY WITH WILSON, BRYAN, ROOSEVELT Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. Carwardine discusses President James Buchanan's January 4, 1861, national fast day, intended to unite a fracturing nation through prayer and repentance. While old-school Presbyterians like Charles Hodge supported this call for divine intervention, the effort largely failed to forestall war. The event highlighted three distinct groups of religious nationalists: conservative Unionists, anti-slavery Republicans viewing slavery as a national sin, and pro-slavery theologians defending the institution on scriptural grounds. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. Carwardine explains that President-elect Lincoln did not view Republicans as overly aggressive, positioning himself as a constitution-respecting centrist rather than a radical. Lincoln opposed slavery's expansion but acknowledged its constitutional protection where it already existed, believing the South was misled by elites and would eventually return to the Union. Ironically, Lincoln and Buchanan, though political opposites, worshiped at the same Washington church, sharing an old-school Presbyterian background. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. In September 1861, Lincoln proclaimed a fast day, carefully avoiding specific references to slavery to maintain political unity. Carwardine details the conflict surrounding General Frémont's unauthorized emancipation order, which Lincoln revoked to prevent losing loyal border states like Kentucky. Consequently, anti-slavery nationalists used the pulpits to criticize Lincoln's caution, demanding the war become an explicit crusade against the "gigantic crime" of slavery rather than just a restoration of the Union. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. The discussion turns to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech," which explicitly defined racial inequality as the Confederacy's foundation, a stance widely condemned in the North. Carwardine notes that despite earlier tensions, Lincoln viewed his fast days as successful, utilizing them and meetings with religious delegations to gauge public sentiment and prepare the ground for eventual emancipation. Lincoln valued these interactions to influence and learn from denominational leaders. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. Carwardine details the intense political opposition Lincoln faced in 1863 following the Emancipation Proclamation. He highlights Clement Vallandigham, a "Peace Democrat" leader who viewed the war as unwinnable and Lincoln as a "Puritan despot." Carwardine explains that the Democraticcoalition was fractured by religion, specifically between Catholics and Protestants, yet united in opposing the administration. Lincoln ultimately banished Vallandigham to the Confederacy to neutralize his influence. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. Carwardine discusses James McMaster, the Catholic editor of the Freeman's Journal, characterizing him as an extraordinary polemicist who was imprisoned for his "vituperations" against the war. McMaster argued the war denied the rights of free men and refused to retract his views upon release. The segment also features Samuel "Sunset" Cox, a Democrat who famously attacked New England Puritanism as the source of the nation's meddling and moral extremity. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. The discussion turns to the Union's "low point" in August 1864, where Lincoln expected to lose the election to Democrat George McClellan. Carwardine describes the Democraticcampaign as "brokenbacked" for pairing a general with a peace platform. However, the fall of Atlanta revived Union hopes. Carwardine emphasizes how pastors articulated a "higher cause"—the preservation of a unique republican government—to justify the war's terrible "bloodletting" and sacrifice. Guest: Professor Richard Carwardine. Carwardine analyzes the war's conclusion and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, which framed the conflict as divine judgment for the shared offense of slavery. He notes that Lincoln intended a Reconstruction based on charity and "absence of malice," rather than punishment. By 1865, Lincoln's views had evolved to support citizenship for African American veterans, though his assassination left the specific blueprint for the nation's reintegration unfinished and uncertain. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. In 1925, the Tennessee legislature passed the Butler Act, banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. At Robinson's drugstore in Dayton, local booster George Rapier and others recruited 24-year-old science teacher John Scopes to violate the law as a test case to generate publicity for the town. Although Scopes was knowingly guilty, the ACLU backed the defense to challenge the law's constitutionality regarding the separation of church and state. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. The ACLU, seeking to defend religious liberty and raise its profile, seized upon the Scopes case. While the board considered prestigious constitutional lawyers, the notorious Clarence Darrowvolunteered his services pro bono because he viewed the Butler Act as bigoted. Despite the ACLU's hesitation regarding Darrow's controversial reputation from the Leopold and Loeb trial, Scopes insisted on having the "street fighter" Darrow defend him against William Jennings Bryan. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. Clarence Darrow was a celebrated attorney known for his "downhome" jury appeals and defense of the marginalized. Mentored by progressive John Altgeld, Darrow built a reputation defending labor unions, socialists like Eugene Debs, and the poor against powerful corporations. However, his career suffered a "bad patch" following the McNamara brothers' bombing case in Los Angeles, where Darrow himself faced trials for allegedly bribing a juror, leaving him with a checkered reputation. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. Three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan joined the prosecution to revive his political career and defend fundamentalism. Famous for his populist "Cross of Gold" speech, Bryan had become rigid in his views, advocating for prohibition and a literal reading of the Bible. He viewed the trial as a platform to combat the theory of evolution, which he believed deprived children of a moral center and denied the miracles of creation. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. Fundamentalist Judge John T. Raulston presided over the trial, enjoying the publicity brought by loudspeakers and radio coverage. The defense included civil liberties lawyer Arthur Garfield Hayes, a secular Jew, serving as a constitutional anchor. Meanwhile, William Jennings Bryan arrived as a celebrity in a pith helmet, though Scopes noted Bryan ignored his own diabetes by overeating at dinner, revealing a disconnect between his fundamentalist beliefs and medical science. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. The defense suffered a major setback when the judge ruled that their scientific experts could not testify before the jury, forcing them to read affidavits into the record instead. H.L. Mencken, the acerbic journalist who dubbed the event the "Monkey Trial," covered the proceedings. Sympathetic to Darrow and critical of Bryan's "fanatic" views, Mencken influenced public perception, though the jury remained shielded from the scientific evidence the defense hoped to present. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. During a stifling heatwave, the trial moved outdoors where Darrow executed a shocking maneuver by calling prosecutor William Jennings Bryan to the witness stand. Darrow interrogated Bryan on his literal interpretation of the Bible, questioning stories like Jonah and the whale. Bryan faltered, admitting creation "days" might be metaphorical periods, which undermined his fundamentalist position and allowed Darrow to humiliate him regarding his knowledge of history, geology, and world religions. Guest: Brenda Wineapple. The trial ended abruptly with a guilty verdict, denying Bryan his closing speech; he died days later, likely due to heat, stress, and diabetes. John Scopes eventually became a geologist and lived a reclusive life, refusing to exploit his fame. Darrow's later career fluctuated, including a controversial defense in the racially charged Massie trial in Hawaii, before his death in 1938, leaving behind a complex legacy beyond the "Inherit the Wind" narrative.
Guest: Brenda Wineapple. During a stifling heatwave, the trial moved outdoors where Darrow executed a shocking maneuver by calling prosecutor William Jennings Bryan to the witness stand. Darrow interrogated Bryan on his literal interpretation of the Bible, questioning stories like Jonah and the whale. Bryan faltered, admitting creation "days" might be metaphorical periods, which undermined his fundamentalist position and allowed Darrow to humiliate him regarding his knowledge of history, geology, and world religions.1860 SPENCER TRACY AS CLARENCE DARROW, "INHERIT THE WIND."
Guest: Brenda Wineapple. Fundamentalist Judge John T. Raulston presided over the trial, enjoying the publicity brought by loudspeakers and radio coverage. The defense included civil liberties lawyer Arthur Garfield Hayes, a secular Jew, serving as a constitutional anchor. Meanwhile, William Jennings Bryan arrived as a celebrity in a pith helmet, though Scopes noted Bryan ignored his own diabetes by overeating at dinner, revealing a disconnect between his fundamentalist beliefs and medical science.1925 SCOPES TRIAL CARTOON
Guest: Brenda Wineapple. Three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan joined the prosecution to revive his political career and defend fundamentalism. Famous for his populist "Cross of Gold" speech, Bryan had become rigid in his views, advocating for prohibition and a literal reading of the Bible. He viewed the trial as a platform to combat the theory of evolution, which he believed deprived children of a moral center and denied the miracles of creation.1922 WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
Guest: Brenda Wineapple. The ACLU, seeking to defend religious liberty and raise its profile, seized upon the Scopescase. While the board considered prestigious constitutional lawyers, the notorious Clarence Darrow volunteered his services pro bono because he viewed the Butler Act as bigoted. Despite the ACLU's hesitation regarding Darrow'scontroversial reputation from the Leopold and Loeb trial, Scopes insisted on having the "street fighter" Darrow defend him against William Jennings Bryan.1925 CLARENCE DARROW QUESTIONS WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN.
Guest: Brenda Wineapple. The ACLU, seeking to defend religious liberty and raise its profile, seized upon the Scopescase. While the board considered prestigious constitutional lawyers, the notorious Clarence Darrow volunteered his services pro bono because he viewed the Butler Act as bigoted. Despite the ACLU's hesitation regarding Darrow'scontroversial reputation from the Leopold and Loeb trial, Scopes insisted on having the "street fighter" Darrow defend him against William Jennings Bryan.1925 CLARENCE DARROW WITH PRINCIPALS IN DEFENSE AT THE TABLE WHERE THE SCOPES TRIAL WAS DESIGNED
PREVIEW FOR LATER TODAY Guest: Brenda Wineapple. Wineapple describes William Jennings Bryan arriving in Dayton, Tennessee, like a movie star. Wearing a pith helmet against the heat, the former Secretary of State and three-time presidential candidate viewed himself as the "Great Commoner" and a man of the people, there to save the world from atheism.1912 WILSON AND BRYAN
PREVIEW FOR LATER TODAY Guest: Brenda Wineapple. In a shocking legal maneuver during a blistering heatwave, defense attorney Clarence Darrow called prosecutor William Jennings Bryan to the witness stand. Wineapple explains that while his own team was horrified, Bryan accepted the challenge, believing it offered a forum to broadcast his biblical expertise and ideas to the world.1925 DAROW IN DAYTON
“The Quiet Texan Behind the Oval Office: Colonel Edward Mandell House” Welcome to Episode 82 of the Hidden History of Texas, Yes, I took the holidays off and feel refreshed and ready to go here in 2026. I hope each and all of you had a wonderful holiday season. Now it's time to get back into it. If you pay attention to the world of political news, then you've probably heard the name Steven Miller. If you haven't, he's a primary advisor to President Trump. There are some who think that Mr. Miller is the most powerful person in Washington. That he wields more power and influence inside the administration than anyone else. He is what some call the power behind the throne, and they are surprised that someone like this exists. However, it's not rare at all, throughout history there have been men who were incredibly powerful but whom most people can't name. The question becomes, how on earth does a person rule a nation, a country without actually being the ruler? How does someone rule without ruling? It's important to understand that real power doesn't always sit at the top. Many times, the real power is held by a person that many people are unaware even exists. Real power operates quietly, seemingly in the shadows, through trust and access. One such person's name was Edward Mandell House, and of course, he came from Texas.” And at one point during World War I, he was one of the most influential men in Washington. He either shaped or helped shape American foreign policy. He was never elected to office. He held no cabinet position, and he most certainly did not have a public mandate to do what he did. Who was Edward Mandell House? He was born in Houston on July 26, 1858, to Mary Elizabeth (Shearn) and Thomas William House. He was the youngest of seven children. Thomas, his father, was one of the leading citizens of Texas. He was a wealthy merchant, a banker, and a landowner. As did many wealthy children in that time period, Edward had a privileged youth. Growing up he met many prominent people who visited his family's large homes in Galveston and Houston. He also spent time enjoying life at his father's sugar plantation near Arcola Junction. And like many Texas boys, he rode, hunted, and admired the gunfighters of the era. He would often roam the flat, vast coastal plain near Houston. After his mother passed away on January 28, 1870, his father sent him away to boarding school. First a school in Virginia and then to one in New Haven, Connecticut. He was not a serious student, but he made several connections that would serve him well in life. It was also there that he became intrigued with politics. He and his closest friend, Oliver T. Morton (the son of Senator Oliver Perry Morton of Indiana), became fascinated by the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 and the crisis that followed it. (If you think there are allegations of election fraud now, you should really look into how crooked elections have often been in our nation's past) The two young men traveled to New York and Washington studying the events that were taking place. This might have been one of those moments in time when seeds of a person's destiny are planted. This election and the intrigue that surrounded it and how political power is really wielded seems to have left a lasting impression on the young House. In the autumn of 1877 while attending Cornell University, his father became ill and he returned to Texas to attend to him. In 1880 after the death of his father, he decided to remain in Texas and help manage the estate. In 1881 he married Loulie Hunter of Hunter, Texas. The young couple honeymooned and spent a year in Europe after which they returned to Houston. A Return to Texas It was during this time that House began to supervise his family's extensive landholdings which were spread throughout Texas. He moved his family to Austin in the fall of 1885 for two reasons. First, he wanted to escape the heat and humidity of Houston, (I can attest to that, I left Houston for the same reason) and he wanted to be closer to his cotton plantations. During the period of the late 1880s and early 1890s, he rose to a position of prominence in Austin society and expanded his business activities to include farming and land speculation. With Austin being the state's capital and House having extensive business holdings throughout the state he was drawn into state politics due to his friendship with then Texas Governor Hogg. In 1892 the governor was facing a formidable challenge for renomination and then reelection due to opposition from conservative Democrats and Populists. House stepped in and took control of and directed Hogg's campaign. Using his business acumen, he established a network of contacts with influential local Democratic leaders, then managed to manipulate the electoral machinery, and finally bargained for the often-overlooked votes of African and Mexican Americans. His skills helped Hogg triumph in what was a bitter, three-way race. On July 20, 1893, Hogg rewarded House with the honorary title of "lieutenant colonel." The press soon shortened the title to "colonel." This campaign seemed to wet House's appetite; however, he was more fascinated with the process of politics than with the substance. He went on to build his own faction-"our crowd," he called it, which became a powerful force in Texas politics. He was an ambitious political operator, not politician, and he was skilled in organizing and inspiring others. He preferred to work mostly behind the scenes. By doing so, it helped him develop ties of loyalty and affection with his close associates. This also enabled him to use patronage (favors) to rally party workers behind his candidates. From 1894 to 1906 House's protégés served as governors of Texas. He and his associates managed the gubernatorial campaigns of Charles Allen Culberson, Joseph D. Sayers, and Samuel W. T. Lanham. He was particularly close to Culberson, and House directed the 1898 campaign that sent Culberson to the United States Senate. Over the years he served as a political counselor, often dispensing advice and controlling patronage for all three governors. “House learned early that true power doesn't need a podium, it simply needs proximity. It needs access” Life in Washington Remember how as a youth, House had become intrigued by the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876 and that intrigue instilled in him some grand dreams. Tiring of being involved with state politics, he began to crave a place on the national level. (One thing to remember is that in those days the Democrats were the conservatives, and the Republicans were the moderate and liberals.) House was a fiscal or financial conservative, and he was irritated and discouraged when in 1904, the democratic nominee Alton B. Parker was defeated by Theodore Roosevelt. In the 1908 presidential election, he was further discouraged when Republican candidate William Howard Taft defeated democratic party candidate William Jennings Bryan. Rather than stay, House travelled to Europe where he tried to find peace of mind and dabbled in spiritualism. After returning to the United States in time for the lead up to the 1912 Presidential election, House was living in New York. It was then that several of Woodrow Wilson's allies, including William McAdoo, who knew of House's political organization, met with him to gauge his support. House agreed to meet with Wilson and hosted him for a visit in late November 1911. The two men felt an immediate rapport, bonding over shared views and backgrounds, with House noting how pleasant Wilson was. As a result, a close friendship was formed that lasted for decades. House used his network to help Wilson win the democratic nomination for president in the 1912 election. His influence secured the forty votes of the Texas delegation and the approval of William Jennings Bryan for Wilson's candidacy. The election of 1912 was one of chaos and if you read most history books about that race you will see it described as a bitter contest between Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Williams Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs. Roosevelt ran on what was called a "New Nationalism" platform that called for social insurance programs, reduction to an eight-hour workday, and robust federal regulation of the economy. Wilson's platform was labeled the "New Freedom" platform, and it called for tariff reduction, banking reform, and new antitrust regulations. Incumbent President Taft ran an almost quiet campaign that emphasized his idea of "progressive conservatism". Eugene Debs was a proud socialist and he spent most of his time denouncing the other three by claiming that Wilson, Roosevelt and Taft were all financed by different factions within what were called the capitalist trusts. He also maintained that Roosevelt in particular was a demagogue who only used socialistic language because he wanted to insure that the capitalist establishment had control. Wilson won a close election, and this is when House as a person who is interested in real power, not flash, not headlines, but real power showed what he was capable of. He refused any official appointment but was responsible for the appointment of several Texans to cabinet positions. Thus, he was able to quickly and firmly establish himself as the president's trusted adviser and confidant. Since he had travelled extensively in Europe Wilson leaned heavily on House for advice on foreign affairs. House was establishing the fact that real power grows where trust replaces accountability. Wilson trusted House and that was all that mattered But what is that kind of power? What was the nature of House's power? House had what we refer to as Power Without Portfolio. He had no official department; he wasn't and didn't need to be confirmed by the Senate. One important difference between then and today, he was never under any public scrutiny. Of course,
The first time a presidential convention was held in Arkansas was in 1931 and it's never happened again since. Sound like a nothing-burger? You're wrong! This is a major something-burger because we're going to survey the life of William Hope "Coin" Harvey, his free silver ambitions, his own personal health retreat town of Monte Ne, and his brief time as Presidential nominee for the Liberty Party. Join us for a long, strange trip into northwest Arkansas and beyond! Plus, the MouthGarf Report and, of course, a little I See What You Did There!Sources:https://www.vintagebentonville.com/national-presidential-convention-held-in-monte-ne.html#gsc.tab=0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hope_Harveyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_silverhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Party_(United_States,_1932)Please give us a 5 star rating on Apple Podcasts! Want to ask us a question? Talk to us! Email debutbuddies@gmail.comListen to the archives of Kelly and Chelsea's awesome horror movie podcast, Never Show the Monster.Get some sci-fi from Spaceboy Books.Get down with Michael J. O'Connor and the Cold Family and check out his new compilation The Best of the Bad Years 2005 - 2025Next time: First Episode of Chainsaw Man
Send us a textToday I welcome a familiar voice and a longtime friend—Dr. Randall Balmer. Back in the day, when we were “Trinity Men,” he was “Randy” to me. Today, he's Dr. Balmer—historian, author, professor, and one of the leading voices on religion in America. He earned his graduate degrees at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Princeton, and Union Theological Seminary, and this marks our third interview together.Randall recently published a powerful piece in the Los Angeles Times about the 1925 Scopes Trial—often remembered as the showdown between Genesis and Darwin. He reminds us that the trial wasn't supposed to be about evolution at all, but that's where it landed. William Jennings Bryan thundered that “if evolution wins, Christianity goes.” Clarence Darrow countered, “It's not Scopes on trial—it's civilization.” Nearly a century later, the questions linger.Randall also brings us into his latest book, America's Best Idea: The Separation of Church and State. It's a sweeping story—Roger Williams's “hedge of separation,” Jefferson's Danbury letter, Madison, Adams, and the First Amendment—all the way to today's battles over vouchers, religious schools, and the religious right. Along the way, we'll talk about court rulings, culture wars, and the ongoing debate over whether America is a Christian nation—or a nation that protects the freedom of every faith, and of no faith at all.It's always a rich conversation when Dr. Balmer joins me, and today is no exception. Come on along with us! SHOW NOTESSupport the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com
“D” is for Dorn, William Jennings Bryan (1906-2005). Congressman.
This week on The Learning Curve, co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and Ret. MN Supreme Court Justice Barry Anderson interview Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and Pepperdine Law's, Prof. Edward Larson. Prof. Larson marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” a landmark case in America's long-running debate over science, religion, and public education. Drawing on his acclaimed book Summer for the Gods, Prof. Larson provides historical context for the trial, which centered on high school teacher John Scopes, charged with violating Tennessee's Butler Act against teaching evolution. Larson explores the cultural tensions of the 1920s—religious fundamentalism, immigration, and rapid social change—that set the stage for the courtroom showdown between famed attorneys Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. He describes the media frenzy, the dramatic legal arguments, and the trial's verdict, offering insights into how the case became a defining moment in American civic life. He highlights the ongoing role of public schools, the enduring clash between modern science and religious belief, and the trial's lasting legacy. Prof. Larson closes the interview with a reading from Summer for the Gods.
Send us a textI'm honored to welcome Dr. Edward J. Larson to this episode of the podcast. Dr. Larson is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, a landmark work that reexamines the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial with fresh insight and scholarly depth.In our conversation, Dr. Larson challenges the familiar narrative popularized by Inherit the Wind, revealing the Scopes Trial as far more than a simple clash between science and religion. It was, in fact, a complex cultural moment shaped by political ambition, regional identity, national media, and the anxieties of a rapidly modernizing society.We explore key figures—Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan, and John Scopes—and their roles in this iconic legal battle. Dr. Larson offers fascinating context around Bryan's progressive credentials, his anti-evolution stance, and his public persona as a speaker and political leader. We also discuss the broader implications of the trial for American legal and educational systems, and how its legacy continues to inform today's debates over religion in public life, science education, and Christian nationalism.Dr. Larson reflects on his personal and academic journey, from his early years to his study from college, to grad school, to law school, and his doctoral dissertation on the history of science. He shares what inspired his deep investigation into the Scopes Trial—ultimately culminating in the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. This episode is both thought-provoking and timely. I invite you to join me for a meaningful conversation that sheds new light on a pivotal moment in American history. SHOW NOTESKen's Substack: Scopes in 2025Support the showBecome a Patron - Click on the link to learn how you can become a Patron of the show. Thank you! Ken's Substack Page The Podcast Official Site: TheBeachedWhiteMale.com
Sweet poison? New doubts cast over safety of erythritol; Is Greek yogurt a good way to enhance protein intake? Comparing whey, soy, and pea protein isolates; When taking supplements, is it advisable to take periodic breaks to enhance their effectiveness? Tommy John surgery pioneer and longtime Mets medical director dies at 68; Ivermectin, once branded useless “horse paste,” may prove a new weapon against malaria; New findings challenge notion that humans and apes share 99% of their DNA.
The beloved children's novel The Wonderful Wizard of OZ has been celebrated as the quintessential American fairytale. But, many believe that the book is more than just a pleasing adventure story for kids. It's been argued that hidden in the text is a subtle allegory that satirizes the politics of late 19th century America. Some believe that the author L. Frank Baum used his fantasy story to make a point about the election of 1896 and the candidates William Jennings Bryan and William McKinley. However, many Baum biographers have disputed this claim. Was L. Frank Baum writing a populist parable or does that idea stem from a deep misunderstanding of his politics? Tune-in and find out how dorm-room bonding rituals, the Great Gig in the Sky, and Sebastian's greatest moment of synchronicity all play a role in the story.Class starts soon, so enroll today! For a limited time, IDEO U is offering my listeners 15% OFF SITEWIDE! Go to ideou.com/OFH.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The boys drink and review Brookeville Beer Farm's Dew Point Pale Ale then discuss the 100th anniversary of the Scopes monkey trial. Called "the trial of the century," the Scopes trial pitted tradition against modernism. Due to the influence of H.L. Mencken, who covered the trial, it was one of the first big media events. It became a cultural flashpoint whose influence went far beyond the details of the case, which was the fact that John Scopes violated Tennessee law by teaching evolution in school. Mencken ensured that the trial was seen as a clash between modernism and religious fundamentalism. Key players were Clarence Darrow, for the defense (pro evolution), and William Jennings Bryan, for the prosecution (anti-evolution).
Dr. Rick Townsend of the University of Texas, Dallas Still Unrefuted The post William Jennings Bryan's Arguments Against Darwinism – Dr. Rick Townsend, 7/28/25 (2091) first appeared on Issues, Etc..
On the 100th anniversary of the famous Scopes Trial in Tennessee that gained national attention dealing with teaching the Theory of Evolution in schools, many folks may still wonder exactly what the Catholic Church teaches about Evolution and Creation.
July 2025 marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes Trial – a trial that exposed profound divisions in America over religion, education, and public morality. This was a legal case in Dayton, Tennessee, where high school teacher John Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution, violating the state's Butler Act. The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law that prohibited public school teachers from teaching any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation, specifically targeting the teaching of evolution. But believe it or not, this entire trial was orchestrated. Local leaders had the teacher volunteer to be charged as a publicity stunt to boost the town's economy and gain national attention. But it soon gained far more attention than anyone expected, as it touch a nerve on the national clash between an increasingly secular scientific establishment and religious fundamentalists. Battle lines were drawn in the courtroom. Clarence Darrow, a renowned agnostic lawyer and advocate for civil liberties, defended Scopes, while William Jennings Bryan, a prominent Christian populist, three-time presidential candidate, and anti-evolution crusader, prosecuted, highlighting their contrasting worldviews. The trial became a media sensation due to its clash of science versus religion, drawing hundreds of reporters, radio broadcasts, and public fascination with the dramatic courtroom exchanges, particularly Darrow’s cross-examination of Bryan. To discuss the legacy of the case is today’s guest, Brenda Wineapple, author of “Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial that Riveted America.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Was the Scopes “Monkey Trial” ever really about science—or was it a staged showdown with a hidden agenda? In this episode of All Rise, we talk to Dr. Rick Townsend, a historian of ideas whose groundbreaking dissertation uncovers the real story behind one of the most famous courtroom dramas in American history: the 1925 Scopes Trial. For a century, we've been told it was the moment science defeated religion. But what if the real battle wasn't evolution vs. creation—but parental rights vs. elite control? Dr. Townsend walks us through how the trial was orchestrated, how William Jennings Bryan became a media caricature, and how a false narrative took root that still shapes educational debates today. We also explore Mahmoud v. Taylor, a 2025 Supreme Court decision that echoes the same themes 100 years later. Are we still fighting the same battle—just with different labels? Whether you're a believer, skeptic, or just someone tired of being told a one-sided version of history, this episode will change the way you think about the “Monkey Trial”—and what's really at stake in the classroom. Dr. Rick Townsend's PhD Dissertation, "Reconsidering Bryan: William Jennings Bryan's Advocacy of Causes Using Rights-Based Arguments," can be accessed at https://utd-ir.tdl.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3aa73f5e-5985-4a20-8a04-7131c391dffb/content. Dr. Townsend's recent article in Salvo Magazine, "Still Unrefuted," about the anti-evolution arguments of William Jennings Bryan: https://salvomag.com/article/salvo73/still-unrefuted. Salvo Magazine's most recent issue, which includes Dr. Townsend's articles along with several others', can be accessed here: https://salvomag.com/issue/current (note that this link will only go to the correct issue while it is the "current" issue. For future reference, this is issue #73 from Summer 2025). You can keep up with Dr. Townsend through his LinkedIn page at www.linkedin.com/in/rick-townsend-271b2920.
Give to help Chris continue making Truce I made these episodes a few years ago, but since it is the 100th anniversary of the Scopes "Monkey" trial, I thought we should revisit them! Tennessee was the first state in the United States to crack down hard on the teaching of evolution in public schools. Others had dabbled, but Tennessee went all the way. The ACLU wanted to challenge the validity of the case in the courts. In order to do that they needed an educator to teach it, get busted, and be brought to trial. At the same time, the town of Dayton, TN, needed a boost. After the biggest employer closed down, it faced serious economic trouble. What if the men of Dayon could manufacture a court case to draw the attention of the nation? They found a young teacher named John Scopes and convinced him to participate in their scheme. They booked Scopes, even though he probably never taught evolution. The ACLU had its case. Soon, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow hopped on board, and it went from a publicity stunt to something for the history books. This is the event that some historians (wrongly) point to as the death of Christian fundamentalism in the United States until it was revived by the Moral Majority. One man fighting for the biblical idea of creation and another for godless atheism. But the real history is far more complex. Edward Larson, professor at Pepperdine University, joins us to discuss the trial and his Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Summer for the Gods”. Helpful Sources: “Summer for the Gods” by Edward Larson Rhea County Heritage and Scopes Trial Museum Worth a visit! Court Transcript of the Scopes Trial (easy to find online) “A Godly Hero” by Michael Kazin Discussion Questions: What events led to the Scopes trial? Why did the ACLU feel they had to try the Tennessee Law? Who should decide what is taught in schools? Teachers? Parents? Lawmakers? Or some combination? What were William Jennings Bryan's motives for joining the prosecution? What were Clarence Darrow's motives for joining the defense? Should prayer be allowed before a trial about religion? Should Christians get involved in what is taught in schools? To what degree? Dayton, Tennessee's plan to boost tourism William Jennings Bryan's crusade against Darwin Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
One hundred years ago, in July 1925, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was arrested for teaching evolution. John Scopes' guilt was never in doubt, but his sensational trial was the center of national attention, pitting modernists against traditionalists, the defenders of Darwin's science against Christian fundamentalists. In this episode, historian Michael Kazin recounts what happened inside the courtroom and why it still matters. The culture wars of the early twentieth century echo in our society today, as the Democratic Party has lost rural America. Further reading: The Trial of the Century is 100. Its Lessons Could Save the Democrats by Michael Kazin (New York Times) A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan by Michael Kazin (2006)
On the sweltering morning of July 10, 1925, 200 newspaper reporters, newsreel film producers, and radio broadcasters flooded the county courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee. Hot dog vendors, preachers, and trained chimpanzees jammed the streets. The sleepy hamlet had transformed into a national spectacle almost overnight. The nation's media had come to Dayton for the start of the trial of John Scopes, the local high school teacher accused of violating the state's ban on teaching evolution. Crowds flocked to witness the famous orators William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow go to battle, in what was already being hailed as the “Trial of the Century.”Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to American History Tellers on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-history-tellers/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In 1925, the famous politician and presidential contender William Jennings Bryan returned to the limelight to lead a new crusade against the teaching of evolution. With Bryan's support, Tennessee became the first state to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools.The American Civil Liberties Union resolved to challenge the anti-evolution law in court, and the small town of Dayton, Tennessee volunteered one of their own: a shy 24-year old high school science teacher named John Scopes. What became known as the “Scopes Monkey Trial” would bring together two of America's most famous orators in a case that would captivate the nation, and pit modern science against religious conviction.Be the first to know about Wondery's newest podcasts, curated recommendations, and more! Sign up now at https://wondery.fm/wonderynewsletterListen to American History Tellers on the Wondery App or wherever you get your podcasts. Experience all episodes ad-free and be the first to binge the newest season. Unlock exclusive early access by joining Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Start your free trial today by visiting wondery.com/links/american-history-tellers/ now.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comRobert is a journalist and historian. He served as president and editor-in-chief of Congressional Quarterly, the editor of The National Interest, and the editor of The American Conservative, and he covered Washington as a reporter for the WSJ for more than a decade. He has written many history books, including the one we're discussing this week: President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. It's a lively read, a fascinating glimpse of fin-de-siècle American politics, and of a GOP firmer on tariffs — but a hell of a lot more virtuous than it is under Trump today.For two clips of our convo — on McKinley's heroism during the Civil War, and the reasons he differs so much from Trump — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: Robert's journalist dad and his conservative influence; his own career as a journo; McKinley's roots in Ohio; his abolitionist parents; his mentor Rutherford B Hayes; his time in Congress; the economic depression of the 1890s; the debate over the gold standard; McKinley's “front-porch strategy” besting the great populist orator William Jennings Bryan; his underrated presidency; his modesty and “commanding quiet”; his incremental pragmatism — in the spirit of Oakeshott's “trimmer”; ushering in American empire; the Spanish-American War; the sinking of the Maine; taking over the Philippines; annexing Hawaii; leaving Cuba to the Cubans; the Panama Canal; McKinley's strong support of tariffs; his later pivot towards reciprocity in trade; his lackluster record on race relations; his assassination by an anarchist; Teddy taking over; his bombast contrasting with his predecessor; trust-busting; McKinley's remarkable marriage; his wife's epilepsy; HW Bush; and if a McKinley type of conservative could succeed in today's GOP.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Chris Matthews — who just revived “Hardball” on Substack, Tara Zahra on the revolt against globalization after WWI, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, Arthur C. Brooks on the science of happiness, Paul Elie on crypto-religion in ‘80s pop culture, and Johann Hari coming back to turn the tables and interview me for the pod. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
"PREVIEW: Colleague John Cochrane of Stanford explains how extending the working age will strengthen the country. More tonight." 1900 WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
