Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuffy Missed in History Class from dot Com. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the podcast. I'm Trac c V Wilson
Speaker 1: and I'm Holly Frying. We are going to spend a
Speaker 1: few episodes over the next few weeks talking about the
Speaker 1: two Supreme Court cases that, uh sort of in a way,
Speaker 1: book ended segregation in the United States and plus E
Speaker 1: versus Ferguson. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation was legal
Speaker 1: as long as the separate facilities were equal, and then
Speaker 1: many years later, Round versus Board of Education overturned Plus
Speaker 1: versus Ferguson and found that school segregation was unconstitutional. That
Speaker 1: decision was such a big deal and was so monumental
Speaker 1: and led to such a huge backlash. They were actually
Speaker 1: going to split that part of the conversation into two
Speaker 1: episodes later down the road. So those two facts about
Speaker 1: Plessy versus. Ferguson and Brown versus Board are things that
Speaker 1: most people who have studied the Civil rights movement or
Speaker 1: United States history in any way are pretty familiar with.
Speaker 1: But I think for me and for you, both both
Speaker 1: of us, and probably a lot of other people, the
Speaker 1: names of the cases and what they did is the
Speaker 1: beginning and the end of the conversation, like, I had
Speaker 1: no idea what the story was behind how these cases
Speaker 1: came to be or any of that until I really
Speaker 1: got into researching them for these episodes. So that's why
Speaker 1: we're going to spend some time on this to talk
Speaker 1: about who the people were involved in Plessy versus Ferguson
Speaker 1: and Brown versus Board, and sort of the journey that
Speaker 1: these cases took to come to the Supreme Court in
Speaker 1: the first place. So the context that we're going to
Speaker 1: start with today is actually the U. S. Civil War.
Speaker 1: There are people who will argue that the Civil War
Speaker 1: was not fought over slavery, that it was about states
Speaker 1: rights or economics. And while states rights and economics were
Speaker 1: certainly involved, the primary rights in questions in were the
Speaker 1: right to own slaves and the right to travel freely
Speaker 1: with slaves into states where slavery was illegal. The primary
Speaker 1: economic factor at issue was that the Southern economy really
Speaker 1: relied on slavery in labor intensive industries such as cotton farming.
Speaker 1: You could also make the argument that the Civil War
Speaker 1: was fought, oh the b over neither of those two things.
Speaker 1: That it was spought because the North wanted to preserve
Speaker 1: the Union of the States, but the South wanted to
Speaker 1: succede from that union. And while strictly speaking this is
Speaker 1: also true, the big factor that was driving states to succeed,
Speaker 1: which was specifically cited in the declarations of causes that
Speaker 1: were issued by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas, was slavery.
Speaker 1: This is all relevant because after the Union won the
Speaker 1: war in eighteen sixty five, slavery was abolished in the
Speaker 1: places where it was still legal. The federal government tried
Speaker 1: to rebuild the Southern infrastructure and encourage racial equality in
Speaker 1: a period that became known as the Reconstruction. Three amendments
Speaker 1: were added to the United States Constitution as part of
Speaker 1: this effort. The thirteenth Amendment formally abolished slavery. The fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment granted citizenship to anyone who was born in the
Speaker 1: United States or nationalized, which included former slaves, and the
Speaker 1: fifteenth Amendment read, in part, the right of citizens of
Speaker 1: the United States to vote shall not be denied or
Speaker 1: abridged by the United States or by any State, on
Speaker 1: account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. There
Speaker 1: was a lot more going on during Reconstruction all of
Speaker 1: the twists and turns could easily be their own whole
Speaker 1: series of episodes. But to make an extremely long story short,
Speaker 1: the South overall resented the largely Northern pressure to free
Speaker 1: slaves and give them the right to vote. This was
Speaker 1: especially true as black officials were elected to office in
Speaker 1: the South, and for a brief period of time, some
Speaker 1: progress was made towards rachel equality. As the Southern states
Speaker 1: were readmitted to the Union and the federal government had
Speaker 1: less influence on how those states were run, the states
Speaker 1: started passing laws that restricted African Americans right to vote
Speaker 1: by basically taking advantage of the fact that most of
Speaker 1: them had been slaves, and during their time as slaves,
Speaker 1: they had not been allowed to learn to read or write,
Speaker 1: or to earn money or to hold property. So new
Speaker 1: laws required that in order to vote, people had to
Speaker 1: pass a literacy test, or pay up poll tax, or
Speaker 1: own property, something that in general, white people in the
Speaker 1: South could do much more easily than black people could.
Speaker 1: Some of these tests were also virtually unpassable, but were
Speaker 1: only required for black voters, but their right to vote restricted,
Speaker 1: Black Americans lost many of their prior gains in terms
Speaker 1: of representation in the government. Afterwards, states, both southern states
Speaker 1: and border states enacted segregation laws that became known as
Speaker 1: Jim Crow laws, which separated black and white citizens in
Speaker 1: everything from hospitals to water fountains. Just the name Jim
Speaker 1: Crow was an insult. It came from a heavily stereotypical
Speaker 1: character in minstrel shows. These laws were enforced not just
Speaker 1: through the usual means of making arrests and bringing people
Speaker 1: to trial, but also through a social structure that insisted
Speaker 1: that black people be subservient to white people. The laws
Speaker 1: were also enforced more directly through intimidation and violence, up
Speaker 1: to and including murder. White supremacy organizations like the Ku
Speaker 1: Klux Klan really flourished, and violence against black citizens at
Speaker 1: the hand of white citizens became both commonplace and rarely prosecuted.
Speaker 1: Before we get into talking about a Jim Crow law
Speaker 1: and how it led to a Supreme Court ruling that
Speaker 1: legalized segregation, do you want to have a word from
Speaker 1: a sponsor? Sure stupendous, So to return to the story
Speaker 1: of Plessy versus Ferguson. One example of these Jim Crow
Speaker 1: laws was Louisiana's separate car law, and this law was
Speaker 1: to quote promote the comfort of passengers on their trains
Speaker 1: by provide quote equal but separate accommodations for the white
Speaker 1: and colored races. So anyone who boarded a car in
Speaker 1: Louisiana that was not meant for their race could be
Speaker 1: fined or jailed. Interracial couples were not exempt from the law,
Speaker 1: nor were black maids and servants who were traveling with
Speaker 1: white employers. Really, the only exception was nurses who were
Speaker 1: taking care of children of another race. This was signed
Speaker 1: into law on July tenth. Thanks to its sizable black population,
Speaker 1: including slaves, free slaves, and creoles of color, and to
Speaker 1: the Union's presence in New Orleans during much of the
Speaker 1: Civil War, New Orleans have become home to a large
Speaker 1: population of affluent, politically active black citizens. When the separate
Speaker 1: car law was passed, activists in New Orleans set to
Speaker 1: work immediately trying to put together a plan to challenge it.
Speaker 1: On September one, eighteen, prominent black and Creole New Orleans
Speaker 1: citizens formed the Citizens Committee to test the constitutionality of
Speaker 1: the Separate Car Law, or the Committoya. They got legal
Speaker 1: help from a white lawyer named Albion W. Tourge he
Speaker 1: was from New York and had been an abolitionist. Toorgey
Speaker 1: waved his fees and he promised to argue the case
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court. Shouldn't make it all the way there,
Speaker 1: since torge was both very busy and also very far
Speaker 1: away from Louisiana. They also had the help of a
Speaker 1: local lawyer named James C. Walker. The committee settled on
Speaker 1: a strategy of civil disobedience. They would find someone to
Speaker 1: break the separate car law and get arrested, and then
Speaker 1: they would take the case through the court system. This,
Speaker 1: they hoped would lead to overturning segregation, not just on
Speaker 1: Louisiana trains, but in all of the United States. Then
Speaker 1: they started looking for volunteers who the law would consider
Speaker 1: to be colored, but who looked white. Legal distinctions about
Speaker 1: who was considered to be part of which race really
Speaker 1: varied from state to state and through the years, and
Speaker 1: as a general rule, particularly in the South, the law
Speaker 1: of quired smaller and smaller amounts of African American ancestry
Speaker 1: to be considered colored, and eventually this came down to
Speaker 1: the one drop rule, meaning that in a lot of places,
Speaker 1: if a person had one drop of African blood that
Speaker 1: person was considered to be black. Candidates had to be
Speaker 1: law abiding citizens with good reputations, people who would not
Speaker 1: be dismissed as disreputable, and who had nothing in their
Speaker 1: background that could be that could become an easy excuse
Speaker 1: for not taking their case seriously. Their first attempts to
Speaker 1: break the separate car law was made by a man
Speaker 1: named Daniel did Dunes, and he was a musician. He
Speaker 1: was also the son of one of the members of
Speaker 1: the committee, and he was one eighth black. He boarded
Speaker 1: the first class car of a train on February and
Speaker 1: then he told the conductor that he was colored. He
Speaker 1: was removed from the train and arrested, but before the
Speaker 1: case could go to trial, the charges against him were
Speaker 1: dismissed because the state Supreme Court ruled in a different
Speaker 1: case that state segregation laws couldn't apply to interstate travel.
Speaker 1: Dating's tickets had been to Mobile, Alabama, so per the
Speaker 1: Louisiana Supreme Court, that ride was regulated by federal law
Speaker 1: and not state law. The committee had actually chosen an
Speaker 1: interstate ticket on purpose because they were hoping to draw
Speaker 1: on interstate commerce commerce laws in the case. The committee
Speaker 1: tried again, and this time. The man breaking the law
Speaker 1: was Homer Plessy, a thirty year old shoemaker. He was
Speaker 1: also one eighth African American, one of his great grandmothers
Speaker 1: had been black, and he had skin light enough that
Speaker 1: he would not be questioned boarding the car. He bought
Speaker 1: his first class ticket to Covington, Louisiana on the East
Speaker 1: Louisiana Railroad, so that the whole trip would take place
Speaker 1: within the borders of the state. Nobody raised any questions
Speaker 1: when Plus he boarded the first class car, and different
Speaker 1: accounts vary and exactly how the conductor came to know
Speaker 1: that he was legally a colored man and in the
Speaker 1: wrong place, and some of the versions Plus he just
Speaker 1: told him, and in others the conductor asked because he
Speaker 1: knew that the committee was sending someone to test the
Speaker 1: segregation law that day, and in others the conductor asked
Speaker 1: everyone in the car because it was part of his
Speaker 1: job to confirm the race of all passengers and that
Speaker 1: everyone was in the correct car on the train. Regardless
Speaker 1: of how it played out, and this information came to light,
Speaker 1: the train's conductor, J. J. Dowling, asked Homer Plessy to
Speaker 1: leave the train after learning his race, and even though
Speaker 1: the law designated separate but equal cars, there was not
Speaker 1: actually a car for black passengers on the train that day.
Speaker 1: Plus he refused, he was arrested by a private detective
Speaker 1: hired by the Committee and jailed. Members of the Citizens
Speaker 1: Committee pulled their money to bail Plusy out. Plessy's trial
Speaker 1: was set for October thirteenth, eighteen two. James Walker, who
Speaker 1: we mentioned earlier, argued that his arrest violated the thirteenth
Speaker 1: and fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Previous court rulings had
Speaker 1: expanded on the interpretation of the thirteenth Amendment not just
Speaker 1: to include literal slavery, but also quote badges of slavery
Speaker 1: and service ude, which is how an amendment that was
Speaker 1: set up to abolish slavery was being applied to the
Speaker 1: matter of being segregated on a train. But Lionel Adams,
Speaker 1: the attorney for the prosecution, argued that the Separate Car
Speaker 1: Act reduced racial tension and so it was actually good
Speaker 1: for the state. He also argued that because the separate
Speaker 1: cars were equal, it was not discriminatory to separate people
Speaker 1: into them by their race, although we're not clear on
Speaker 1: how that applied given that there was reportedly no actual
Speaker 1: car for black passengers on that particular train. Judge John H.
Speaker 1: Ferguson ruled in favor of the prosecution on November the eighteen,
Speaker 1: and the next step in the case was the appeal.
Speaker 1: But again, we're gonna pause for a second for a
Speaker 1: word from a sponsor before we dig into all of
Speaker 1: that juicy material. So let's let's get back to the story,
Speaker 1: which at the point is going to go to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Plus He's case went to the Louisiana Supreme
Speaker 1: Court first, which heard it on November the twenty two
Speaker 1: of that year. The arguments were essentially the same as
Speaker 1: what had been argued in the court before, and in
Speaker 1: what came as a surprise to no one, the court
Speaker 1: ruled that the law was not discriminatory because it applied
Speaker 1: equally to everyone. It would actually be four years before
Speaker 1: the case would get to the U. S. Supreme Corps,
Speaker 1: And as he had promised when originally agreeing to work
Speaker 1: with the Citizens Committee, albion Tourge planned to argue the
Speaker 1: case before the Supreme Court rather than appealing immediately. He
Speaker 1: actually decided to take some time to try to raise
Speaker 1: funds for the case and work out his strategy. In
Speaker 1: addition to that, he and the Committee were also hoping
Speaker 1: that by delaying a little bit, they would find themselves
Speaker 1: before a court that would see their case more favorably.
Speaker 1: Based on decisions that the court had already issued, justices
Speaker 1: in two were really not very likely to find that
Speaker 1: the separate car law was on the constitution all. The
Speaker 1: President was just not running in favor of this case.
Speaker 1: So the committee crossed their fingers that some of the
Speaker 1: justices would be replaced before they submitted their own case,
Speaker 1: and in eighteen two Supreme Court justices died and new
Speaker 1: appointees took their place. However, this did not look much
Speaker 1: better for Plessy in the Citizens Committee than the previous
Speaker 1: court had. One of the new justices was a former
Speaker 1: Confederate soldier and the other had a reputation for being
Speaker 1: quite conservative. The new court also set an immediate precedent
Speaker 1: of upholding other Jim Crow laws. Plus, in just those
Speaker 1: couple of years, the overall racial climate in the United
Speaker 1: States had gotten worse instead of better. So, in spite
Speaker 1: of the fact that things seemed to be kind of
Speaker 1: running against them towards a submitted the case which he
Speaker 1: prepared along with Walker and Samuel F. Phillips, and he
Speaker 1: submitted it four review towards the end of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court heard the case, which was now known as Plessy
Speaker 1: versus Ferguson in eighteen ninety six. In the written briefs
Speaker 1: and oral arguments, Tourge and team argued that the separate
Speaker 1: car law was unconstitutional in several ways, including the following.
Speaker 1: This is very much an abridged list, but first up,
Speaker 1: it violated the Fourteenth Amendment from several different angles by
Speaker 1: giving white citizens and the colored citizens different rights and
Speaker 1: protections under the law. Second, while proponents of the law
Speaker 1: claimed that it was for the comfort of both black
Speaker 1: and white passengers towards they argued that it was really
Speaker 1: for the comfort of white passengers at the expense of
Speaker 1: black passengers, and therefore discriminatory. He also argued that the
Speaker 1: law violated the Fourteenth Amendment to do process clause by
Speaker 1: giving train conductors the power of law enforcement while giving
Speaker 1: trained passengers no legal recourse about decisions the conductors made.
Speaker 1: And last that it created conditions of subjection and inferiority,
Speaker 1: which previous court decisions had interpreted to be in violation
Speaker 1: of the Amendment. Representing Louisiana's side was Alexander Peter Morse,
Speaker 1: whose legal specialty was federal appeals. He argued that the
Speaker 1: separate car law was designed to prevent problems and serve
Speaker 1: the common good, so, rather than making African American passengers
Speaker 1: second class citizens, according to him, it actually protected them
Speaker 1: from harassment and discrimination by white passengers. He also noted
Speaker 1: several prior cases in which the Supreme Court had had
Speaker 1: upheld States rights in the matter of segregation, and he
Speaker 1: said that the rights that issue in the separate car
Speaker 1: law were not civil rights at all. They were social
Speaker 1: rights which are not constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court announced
Speaker 1: its decision on May eighteenth. Of eight, Justice David J.
Speaker 1: Brewer excused himself from participating because his daughter had just died,
Speaker 1: and the remaining eight judges upheld the constitutionality of the
Speaker 1: separate car law in a seven to one ruling. Henry
Speaker 1: Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, which dismissed the idea
Speaker 1: that the separate car law violated the Thirteenth Amendment entirely.
Speaker 1: He also cited several cases in which the Court had
Speaker 1: upheld States rights to segregate, and he dismissed the idea
Speaker 1: that providing separate facilities was inherently discriminatory. This is the
Speaker 1: thing he wrote on that point. We consider the underlying
Speaker 1: fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption
Speaker 1: that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the
Speaker 1: colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so,
Speaker 1: it is not by reason of anything found in the Act,
Speaker 1: but solely because the colored race chooses to put that
Speaker 1: construction upon it. So it goes on to say that
Speaker 1: if quote, the colored race became the majority in the
Speaker 1: state legislature and enacted the same law, that white people
Speaker 1: would not think themselves inferior because of it. This was
Speaker 1: the point where I had to stop reading Supreme Court
Speaker 1: rulings and take a little break. That's probably for the
Speaker 1: best in terms of your usual stability. There's a lot
Speaker 1: that's really offensive in in the whole majority opinion, and
Speaker 1: and the part where it's like this, you guys are
Speaker 1: making a big deal out of it. This is on you,
Speaker 1: not on us. That was the part that made me like, uh,
Speaker 1: I feel like they haven't changed very much, because this
Speaker 1: feels like the stop playing the race card of the
Speaker 1: late ninetiesh injury. So the sole dissenter and all of
Speaker 1: this was John Marshall Harlan, who went against the majority
Speaker 1: with so much vigor that he became known as the
Speaker 1: Great Dissenter. His dissent accurately predicted what was going to
Speaker 1: happen next, which was the States were going to use
Speaker 1: this ruling as a justification to enact a whole lot
Speaker 1: more segregation laws, uh and to be more blatantly districted, discriminatory,
Speaker 1: feeling like they had the backing of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: in doing so. One of his statements like this quote,
Speaker 1: In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will in
Speaker 1: time proved to be quite as print as the decision
Speaker 1: made by this tribunal in the dread Scott case. So
Speaker 1: if you're not familiar with that one, that's dread Scott
Speaker 1: versus Sanford, when dread Scott, who was a slave, sued
Speaker 1: for his freedom, and the court decided that anyone with
Speaker 1: African ancestry, whether they were a slave or free, was
Speaker 1: not intended to be a citizen of the United States
Speaker 1: and therefore was not entitled to bring such a suit
Speaker 1: in federal court. The court also ruled that the federal
Speaker 1: government couldn't prohibit slavery in territory that it had acquired
Speaker 1: after the United States was founded. Harlan's descent also argued
Speaker 1: strenuously against the idea that segregation was good for race relations.
Speaker 1: To quote, sixty millions of whites are in no danger
Speaker 1: from the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The
Speaker 1: destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly
Speaker 1: linked together, and the interests of both require that the
Speaker 1: common government of all shall not permit the seeds of
Speaker 1: race hate to be planted under the sanction of law.
Speaker 1: What can more certainly arouse race hate, What more certainly
Speaker 1: create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races
Speaker 1: than state enactments, which in fact proceed on the ground
Speaker 1: that colored citizens are so far inferior and degraded that
Speaker 1: they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied
Speaker 1: by white citizens. That, as all will admit, is the
Speaker 1: real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana. Yeah,
Speaker 1: his whole tone is basically, Uh, It's completely obvious to
Speaker 1: everyone that the intent here is to subjugate an entire
Speaker 1: race of people and upholding this law is going to
Speaker 1: make it so much worse today. Plessy versus Ferguson is
Speaker 1: a pretty infamous and notorious Supreme Court case, but at
Speaker 1: the time it really did not make a lot of
Speaker 1: big news. The reaction of a lot of the media
Speaker 1: and of the majority as a whole was sort of
Speaker 1: well obviously um Afterwards, though, states really did begin passing
Speaker 1: more and more segregation laws, and in spite of the
Speaker 1: ruling being based on the idea that things were separate
Speaker 1: but equal, a lot of these separate facilities were not
Speaker 1: equal at all. They were often massively and deliberately inferior
Speaker 1: that from the facilities for white people, and a lot
Speaker 1: of people interpreted this ruling to mean that all discrimination
Speaker 1: and everything was legal, not just the separation of races
Speaker 1: into two separate but supposedly equal facilities. And while most
Speaker 1: of these laws were passed in the South, this was
Speaker 1: not exclusively a Southern phenomenon. Of the segregation laws in
Speaker 1: the United States were in the North, Midwest, and the West,
Speaker 1: and it also was not just about segregating African Americans
Speaker 1: in states with sizable populations of Asians, Mexicans, and Native Americans,
Speaker 1: for example, these populations were segregated from the white population
Speaker 1: as well since the Supreme Court had upheld the previous verdict.
Speaker 1: Homer Plessy then appeared before Judge Ferguson in Louisiana one
Speaker 1: more time until on January eleven. This was to lead
Speaker 1: guilty and to pay his fine for violating the separate
Speaker 1: car law. He spent the rest of his life working
Speaker 1: as a laborer and then a clerk, and then eventually
Speaker 1: he became an insurance salesman for an African American owned
Speaker 1: insurance company, Homer Plus. He died on March one. It
Speaker 1: would be almost sixty years before this decision was overturned,
Speaker 1: and we're going to talk about that, uh in another episode,
Speaker 1: and then in another episode after that, we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about what happened after it was overturned. And I'm
Speaker 1: going to change courses completely to talk about some listener mail.
Speaker 1: So this listener mail is from Neely, and Neely says, Hello,
Speaker 1: Holly and Tracy. I love the podcast and have wanted
Speaker 1: an excuse to be able to write and include picks
Speaker 1: of my fur babies. I lived an Anchorage for two
Speaker 1: point five years and my husband was born and raised
Speaker 1: in Homer, Alaska. His grandma homesteaded there and Fairbanks and
Speaker 1: likes to tell everyone she voted against becoming a state.
Speaker 1: I wanted to give you a quick correction on the
Speaker 1: start of the Ida Rod. The ceremonial start as an
Speaker 1: anchorage during for Rondie, but this is just the mushers
Speaker 1: coming through town to being announced. The actual race start
Speaker 1: is in Willow, Alaska. This is a common fact misquoted
Speaker 1: when the race is discussed. I also wanted to give
Speaker 1: you a few other fun facts. When you mentioned that
Speaker 1: you felt sorry for the musher who only had a
Speaker 1: fifty degree hut to warm in, I assure you it
Speaker 1: probably felt like a sauna. I remember a two week
Speaker 1: spell and anchorage when it didn't get above negative ten.
Speaker 1: One morning, I was walking to my car in my
Speaker 1: warmest gear and had to change into a light place
Speaker 1: because it was just much too warm. I got to
Speaker 1: my car to see that much too warm was four degrees.
Speaker 1: It was really all relative. Also google for Rondie. That
Speaker 1: is a hilariously Alaska event that includes not only the
Speaker 1: ceremonial race start, but fur ball, snowshoe football, and the
Speaker 1: running of the reindeer. Think running of the bulls. Only
Speaker 1: reindeer are pretty chilled, so they kind of just wander
Speaker 1: behind wondering what those crazy humans are doing. Another random
Speaker 1: non fact from my Alaska native from from Nome. You
Speaker 1: may want to fact checked. The town is named Nome
Speaker 1: because on a census report that asked for the name,
Speaker 1: it was written none because it was too small for
Speaker 1: a name. It was misreads Nome, and thus Gnome is
Speaker 1: Gnome uh And then Neely sent some episode suggestions. I
Speaker 1: did find that Gnome fact in a couple of places,
Speaker 1: but the reason it didn't make it into the episode
Speaker 1: is that I similarly had a hard time substantiating whether
Speaker 1: that was actually true. But the reason that I wanted
Speaker 1: to read this email is that, not very long after
Speaker 1: the Gnome Serium Run podcast aired, I had the experience
Speaker 1: of having to take a fifteen minute walk in a
Speaker 1: twenty degree below zero windshill and I went from that
Speaker 1: twenty or fifteen however many minutes, some minutes not that long,
Speaker 1: actually into an apartment that was seventy two degrees and
Speaker 1: I was immediately sweltering, And my absolute first thought was, yet, yeah,
Speaker 1: fifty degrees, that was fine. That guy on this serre
Speaker 1: run So if you would like to write to us
Speaker 1: about this or any other episode, where at History podcast
Speaker 1: at how stuff works dot com. Our Facebook is Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com plus missed in History, and our Twitter is
Speaker 1: miss in History. Are Tumbler is miss and History dot
Speaker 1: tumbler dot com, and are also on interest at pinterest
Speaker 1: dot com slash missed in History. We also have a
Speaker 1: spreadshirt store at ms in history dot spreadshirt dot com
Speaker 1: where you can find shirts and other cool stuff. If
Speaker 1: you would like to learn more about what we've talked
Speaker 1: about today, come to our parent company's website, which is
Speaker 1: how stuff Works dot com and put the word let's
Speaker 1: see in the search bar, and you will find an
Speaker 1: article called ten Overturned Supreme Court Cases which talks about
Speaker 1: this one in addition to nine others. You can also
Speaker 1: come to our website, which is missed in History dot
Speaker 1: com to see an archive of every episode we have
Speaker 1: ever done, show notes for every episode Holly and I
Speaker 1: have ever done, along with some other nice goodies, so
Speaker 1: you can do all that