Episode 4: Exclusion

Mark Oppenheimer 

Support for Antisemitism, U.S.A. comes from the Henry Luce Foundation and the David Bruce Smith Foundation.

Mark Oppenheimer 

In May 1877 Joseph Seligman and his family left Manhattan for their regular early summer vacation at the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga Springs, New York. Seligman was a symbol of Jewish upward mobility. He was born in Bavaria and migrated to Pennsylvania. He started off as a peddler then became a dry goods storekeeper then a clothing store owner, and eventually a banker who was so rich and successful that presidents like Lincoln and Grant sought him out for advice. He was a quintessential American rags to riches story. When Seligman arrived at the Grand Union Hotel, he was stunned to learn that its new manager had "given instructions that no Israelites" should be permitted to stop. Seligman was perplexed. Was it because Jews were dirty? Because they were rowdy? Were they known to skip town without paying their bills? The response was nothing like that. Seligman learned that the hotel's new manager Henry Hilton had simply concluded that Christians did not like the company of Jews. It was hurting business. Therefore, no Jews allowed.

Mark Oppenheimer 

I'm Mark Oppenheimer, and this is Antisemitism, U.S.A., a podcast about the history of antisemitism in the United States. This is episode four, Exclusion. Beginning in the late 1800s, anti semitism in the United States became more pervasive. It wasn't just that other Americans disliked Jews or held anti Jewish ideas. Now American Jews were suffering exclusion and discrimination. Thousands of Americans organized themselves to prevent Jews from even entering the country in the first place. By the 1920s, their campaign of racist, nativist, and eugenicist hatred had succeeded. What changed?

Mark Oppenheimer 

Two things. First, the American Jewish population grew really, really quickly. In 1850, there were around 50,000 Jews in the United States, in 1900, there were 1 million in 1930, there were about 4 million. The second big change was a sharpening of racial ideas about Jews. This is the idea that Jews no matter their religious beliefs, were ethnically or biologically inferior. Many non Jewish Europeans and Americans were deeply uncomfortable with Jewish emancipation and assimilation. Here's historian Mitchell Hart, author of Social Science and the Politics of Modern Jewish Identity.

Mitchell Hart 

And this produces extraordinary anxiety for many non Jews. As Jews integrate more and more in terms of their language, their culture, their social practices, their economic practices, as they become, as they were asked to do, through the terms of emancipation, you must become like us, the dominant majority says, you become like us in all sorts of ways you acculturate, assimilate, then we will grant you the rights of being fully French or fully German. And the Jews took this up most of them with a great deal of enthusiasm. This is what they wanted. They wanted to be Italians, they wanted to be French, they wanted to be German, they wanted to be American. And that's what they became.

Mark Oppenheimer 

You would think that other Germans or French or Americans would be happy about Jewish assimilation. After all, Jews were becoming more like everybody else. Ironically, however, this process of Jewish assimilation triggered alarms.

Mitchell Hart 

For those who were uncomfortable with notions of equality, and emancipation, and integration, racial thinking then steps in to argue that what really doesn't matter is external traits. And I have to pause here to say that this is what I think a lot of people don't understand about racial thought is that ultimately, it's not about exteriors. It's about the fact that for racial thinkers, the body, the physical body, the traits, the nose, the hair, the chests, whether it's concave or convex, all physical traits are indicative of internal traits, moral, intellectual, spiritual qualities, and potentialities, that's the key to racial thought. And so for racial thinking with regard to the Jews, if you no longer could rely on the external traits at a certain point, you could nonetheless, posit that the Jews are nonetheless still the same. Even if they change their exteriors, they nonetheless are still the same, because we now know that the real importance lies in the blood within the body, we would say in the genes. So either it's blood thinking, it's genetic thinking, it's notions of dissent or heredity. These are the things that matter. These are the things antisemites began to argue that determine who a people are.

Mark Oppenheimer 

In the United States, the main racial division was between white and black people. But it was never as simple as all that. Native Americans and Asian immigrants were also important in shaping the ways white Americans thought about race. And during the second half of the 19th century, as immigration ramped up, the ways that white Americans thought about race became really, really complex. They didn't simply equate European and white. Instead, they considered Italians, Slavs, Jews, and a host of other people as separate races. And these races threatened the purity of what they might call Nordic or Anglo Saxon or Protestant, or simply white.

Mitchell Hart 

When Jews from Eastern Europe, together with Southern Italians and other Eastern Europeans, Slavs, Poles and others, start to come in extraordinarily large numbers to the United States. This is for all sorts of reasons, first economic, and then fleeing political violence pilgrims. And they start coming in the millions in the 1870s 80s, that reaches its peak in the 1900s, and 10s. And this begins to really produce a racialized discourse or a set of narratives around the Jews. And they are treated in much the same way. There are interesting differences. But they are seen in much the same way as the southern Italians associated with mafia with violence, all of the stereotypes of southern Italians, of Slavs, and then of Eastern European Jews. All of these have negative stereotypes associated with them. This becomes part of a discussion around this idea of how to preserve the racial stock of old Anglo American Protestant families and the race. How do you preserve from the impurities and the dangerous infiltration of these inferior peoples? How do you protect us from this?

Mark Oppenheimer 

Within this racial hierarchy, the trajectory of some groups is pretty straightforward. By 1850, Americans of English and German descent generally thought about the Irish as a separate race. 50 years later, that was changing, and they increasingly saw Irish Americans as white. The same story repeats itself with Italian Americans a generation or two later. But the trajectory of Jews is more complicated. We could tell a story about American Jews becoming white or asserting whiteness, and that did happen, Jews were increasingly getting access to the privileges of white people. But at the same time, when Americans talked about Jews, they were starting to use language like the Hebrew race. This wasn't always negative or pejorative, Jews themselves and sometimes even Gentiles, figured that the Israelites must have had some positive racial characteristics to have survived for thousands of years. But at the same time, other Americans saw Jews as a degenerative race, one that shouldn't be allowed to enter the country or the bloodstream. There were a whole host of negative ideas about Jews having to do with their noses, or their hair, or their sexual proclivities, or their intelligence, or their susceptibility to certain diseases. It's a jumble of insults, and most of these tropes weren't new. But they were repackaged in this era of racial thinking as immutable, as coded in the genes. Even when other Americans encountered Jews who didn't fit the racial mold, these negative racial stereotypes were often lurking beneath the surface. It's against this backdrop of racialized thinking that Joseph Seligman and his family got turned away from the hotel in Saratoga Springs. According to historian Zev Eleff, author of Who Rules the Synagogue: Religious Authority and the Formation of American Judaism, the Grand Union Hotel wasn't an exclusive destination, but rather an attainable dream for upwardly mobile Americans.

Zev Eleff 

What's really interesting about him being banned are two things. Number one is that the Grand Hotel before Judge Hilton had become the manager, it was meant as a discount leisure site for all people. And the violence done to Jews wasn't that they were barred from a Protestant country club. To the contrary, they were barred from an agent of Americanization. This was precisely the luxury hotel in the hottest vacation spot in the United States that was meant for all people.

Mark Oppenheimer 

All people except people like Seligman. Hotel Manager, Henry Hilton claimed that he didn't hate all Jews, just Jews like Seligman. Hilton said he took no issue with Jewish families who had longer roots in America. He just didn't like new arrivals. Hilton told The New York Times

Henry Hilton 

he but plays the mounteback if he attempts to arouse the prejudices of the Orthodox Hebrew church by circulating any stories or insinuations to the effect that he was turned out of the Grand Union Hotel, simply because he belonged to that ancient faith. Such is not the case. Mr. Seligman is a Jew in the trade sense of the word. And the class of Jews he represents. While they are not forbidden to come to the Grand Union are not encouraged to come.

Mark Oppenheimer 

In other words, Seligman wasn't the right class of Jew. Hilton saw Seligman as a vulgar immigrant, no matter how much money he had, or how he dressed. This is a recurring theme in the history of American antisemitism. Someone accused of antisemitism will say that No, no, no, he only dislikes some group of Jews. It's just that that group happens to be most Jews. Going forward, many hotels and resorts made it simple. They just admitted no Jews at all. Here's historian Britt Tevis, author of Jews not Admitted: Anti-Semitism, Civil Rights and Public Accommodation Laws.

Britt Tevis 

For many historians, they point to this event as the jumping off point of antisemitism in the United States and what they like to call social antisemitism.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Social antisemitism, the exclusion of Jews from social settings, was usually a matter of individual discrimination. Hilton didn't like Jews, especially Jews like Joseph Seligman. Now keep in mind what else is happening at the time, this is a dozen years after the end of the Civil War. In 1875, Congress had passed a Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal to bar individuals from public accommodations because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 1875 Civil Rights Act had intended African Americans as its beneficiaries. New York State had a similar law. Did these laws also apply to Jews?

Britt Tevis 

When discussion plays out in the press, we see questions of can you exclude Jews because they're Jews? Or is this excluding somebody because of their race? If it's excluding someone because of their race, in that moment, it is both on a state and federal level illegal. But if it's not because of their race, or religion it is perhaps permissible. To defend himself, Hilton goes to the press and offers what would be his legal defense had this played out in court. And the defense he offers of himself is that he is excluding Jews because they are undesirable, because they are obnoxious because they are loud because it is a business necessity. He can't attract non Jewish guests if he permits Jews to frequent this hotel. He also denies that this is a violation of the Civil Rights Acts. He said those don't apply to me here. This isn't a normal hotel. This is a spa, a vacation space, a resort. Resorts don't belong under the heading of what Congress had in mind when they wrote this law.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Just to be clear, there was no New York or federal law that made it illegal to exclude someone from a hotel, restaurant, resort or place of employment because of religion. Hilton wasn't the only hotelier who didn't want Jews in his establishment. Arthur Corbin was a railroad mogul and property developer. He owned the Manhattan Beach Hotel near Coney Island. And a couple years after the Seligman affair, Corbin announced a similar policy for his hotel.

Britt Tevis 

And he comes out and says, no Jews, just no Jews. I don't like them. No Jews no Jews on my railroad and no Jews at my hotel. He repeats basically almost all of Hilton's rhetoric about why he's excluding Jews, but he doesn't even bother to say it's not it's not because of race or religion. He just says I just don't want them here. He doesn't even distinguish and try to make this a distinguish between the idea of the Seligman Jew, he says all Jews are like this. I don't want any of them here.

Mark Oppenheimer 

In fact, on a federal level, it soon became legal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race as well as religion. In 1883 the Supreme Court held that the 14th amendment's citizenship protections applied only to "state action of a particular character," not to the actions of hotels or restaurant owners. This decision gutted the 1875 Civil Rights Act, which had barred racial discrimination in public accommodations. Going forward, the legality of this sort of discrimination hinged on state law. New York, for instance, made it illegal to bar individuals from hotels, restaurants, and amusement parks on the basis of race, creed, or color. But even in New York, or other places with anti discrimination laws, it wasn't hard to make Jewish customers feel unwanted.

Britt Tevis 

So some of these other methods that hotel owners use to exclude Jews include weeding people out according to last name, keeping a list of Jews who have attempted to stay in their institutions and then sharing those names with other hotels. So that they basically collaborated in creating a group of people to exclude, allowing Jews to stay there if they asked but putting them in the least desirable accommodations and making sure that their stays are so uncomfortable that they never want to return. One hotel owner was constant. I don't know if they actually did this. But on the newspaper, they claimed that they would offer incoming guests little snacks that were pork. And if the person chose to eat the pork, they were permitted to stay. But if they didn't, they weren't permitted to stay because of the assumption that Jews kept kosher. And pork is not permissible for consumption for Jews who keep kosher. And so presuming that if someone didn't eat it, they must be Jewish.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Jews didn't always use the courts to respond to this mistreatment. For instance, Jewish clothing manufacturers stopped selling merchandise to Henry Hilton. And on a broader level, as anti Jewish exclusion became more common. Jews built their own hotels and resorts and clubs. Here's historian Jonathan Sarna, author of American Judaism: a History.

Jonathan Sarana 

I think that long term, we see Jews creating a kind of parallel universe, you won't let me come to these hotels. So I'll create other hotels where Jews are welcome. We're now barred from country clubs and business clubs. So we will create Jewish ones. You're soon going to see the creation of Jewish college fraternities, because Jews are not admitted to the other fraternities and sororities. That's what I mean by a parallel universe.

Mark Oppenheimer 

If a popular hotel in Saratoga Springs or in Coney Island wouldn't welcome them, Jews would go to resorts that their fellow Jews had built in the Catskills. It's difficult to wrap one's head around the extent of anti Jewish exclusion and discrimination during this period of American history. It wasn't universal, but it was widespread. One hotel in the Catskills printed in its advertisements, no Hebrews, no dogs. In the late nineteen teens, the Federation of Jewish Farmers of America began publishing a Jewish vacation guide, giving Jewish travelers a sense of which establishments would welcome them. This guide was a precursor to the better known Green Book that provided similar information to black Americans. To put it bluntly, Jews, like the Seligmans, only risked embarrassment when they tried to check into hotels where they weren't wanted. They didn't risk their lives as black people did. But restrictions on Jews were real. In 1947, the Anti Defamation League's New England branch found that nearly half of the regional hotels it surveyed excluded Jews. Joseph Seligman admired the Jewish philosopher Felix Adler. In 1897, Adler gave a lecture in which he talked about four different causes or strains of anti semitism. He categorized them as religious, national, economic and social. Adler suggested that the first three - religious, national and economic were minor factors in the United States. American Jews, he said only faced social antisemitism, which was mild, he thought, and benign. Other forms of antisemitism were hardly as absent as Adler indicated, as we'll discuss in the second half of this episode. Even so, the Seligman affair brings us back to the question of citizenship. What does citizenship entail? Well, it entails voting rights, the ability to hold public office and equal treatment under the law. But what about access to spaces generally open to the Public, what about equal access to institutions of higher education, or an equal chance to compete in the workplace. In the wake of the civil rights movement of the 1950s, and 1960s, most people would consider these things part and parcel of what it means to be an American citizen. They are no longer matters of social or private discrimination, and in reality, they never were. That's why states like New York had to pass laws that made it illegal to exclude people from hotels or restaurants on the basis of race, creed, or color. The simple fact is that until quite recently, American Jews were not secure in their rights as citizens. We'll talk about this more after the break.

Mark Oppenheimer 

By the early 1900s, many Americans were worried about the increasing numbers of Jews. They worried about the purity and the vigor of the nation's gene pool. They feared that the mentally ill, African Americans, and undesirable immigrants were polluting the country's blood and thus imperiling its future. When it came to undesirable immigrants, Jews were usually at the top of people's list. In response to these fears, supporters of eugenics proposed immigration restrictions, birth control, and the forced sterilization of undesirable individuals. These ideas had broad appeal across the political spectrum. Prominent supporters of eugenics included Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, telephone inventor Alexander Graham Bell, and Stanford President David Starr Jordan. In the years during and after the First World War, there were tremendous economic, political, and racial anxieties. In 1917, Congress passed an Espionage Act, which they use to prosecute not just spies, but also labor activists and pacifists. After the war, the economy staggered through a period of high inflation and high unemployment, and strikes, so many strikes. In 1919, there were hundreds of strikes every single month. In Seattle, a huge shipyard workers strike was supported by tens of thousands of other workers. And when there were strikes, there was at least the threat of violence, and the government would sometimes bring in troops to keep the peace and to intimidate striking workers. All of this played out in the context of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which had just created the world's first communist state. Vladimir Lenin was publishing appeals for European and American workers to join the revolution. Many Americans thought that behind every strike and every Labor protest lurked the Bolshevik Revolution. They also thought the Bolsheviks might be behind every bomb. Starting in April 1919, dozens of bombs targeted prominent Americans, including a senator, a Supreme Court justice, and businessmen like John D. Rockefeller, and JP Morgan. Most of the bombs were intercepted, none of the targets was killed, but there were injuries and the house of Attorney General A Mitchell Palmer was damaged. There was talk of more strikes and more violence in conjunction with May Day. These events became known as the Red Scare, and many Americans were terrified. For many of these fearful Americans, Jew and Bolshevik, were linked. In Russia, those who remained loyal to the Tsar blamed the revolution on Jews. Now, to be clear, some percentage of Russian Jews were Bolsheviks, not least because they hated the Tsar who had perpetrated so much violence against the Jews. But most Jews were not in the vanguard of the revolution. And that was especially true in the US. Jews were coming here for economic opportunity and to escape pogroms. They weren't coming to start a revolution. At the same time, there were prominent Jews among labor activists. So it was easy for people to scapegoat all Jewish immigrants with the taint of radicalism and Bolshevism. Here's Alan Kraut, the author of Silent Travelers: Germs, Genes and the Immigrant Menace

Alan Kraut 

Between the middle of the 19th century and the end of the 19th century, is that immigration is still very largely a state matter. It isn't until the end of the century in the beginning of the 20th, that the federal government becomes directly involved in the regulation of immigration. It's fairly easy to get into the United States. What would normally happen? Let's take a period after 1855 when Castle Garden is the main immigration depot in New York, ships would come in and immigrants would be taken for inspection at Castle Garden by New York State Immigration officers and volunteer physicians who would conduct medical inspections. And most of the time, there was admission, people could get into the United States relatively easily during this period.

Mark Oppenheimer 

If you could get to a port of entry, you might face a medical inspection. These inspections became more common as the years passed. They were first done on a state by state basis, and later by the US Marine Hospital service, which became the US Public Health Service. Until the early 1900s, if you didn't have obvious signs of tuberculosis or something else on the watch list, you got in. It didn't matter where you were coming from, whether or not you had money, or whether or not you had a job lined up. Now there is that big exception, which is in 1882, Congress had banned immigration from China. But for Europeans, the door was pretty wide open. And then, after World War One, everything changed.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Fear of revolution supercharged, nativist fears about the germs and the genes of immigrants. And this fear led to government surveillance of immigrant communities, especially Jews, and it prompted politicians to pass severe restrictions on immigration. A man named John B. Trevor, was central to both of these efforts. Trevor grew up wealthy in New York City. He graduated from Harvard Law in 1902. With too much time and too much money on hand, he joined groups like the Immigration Restriction League and the American Eugenics Society. Trevor served with the US Army during World War One, and became the officer in charge of the Army's Military Intelligence Division in New York. In his post with Army Intelligence, Trevor drew up ethnic maps of New York City's boroughs. He color coded the neighborhoods to show how they were populated by Italians, by Germans by the Irish and by, quote, Russian Jews. The Jewish neighborhoods in Trevor's maps were the big areas in red. They're like some sort of cartographic Red Scare. Trevor didn't especially care whether the Jews in question were actually from Russia, or whether they were from Poland or Belarus or Lithuania or anywhere else. To him, they were Russian Jews, and thus, they were dangerous because of their association with Soviet style revolution. Trevor figured that 90% of New York's radicals were Jewish. He also believed that their activities were orchestrated by Jewish bankers who controlled the Federal Reserve, and that the Wilson administration worked in tandem with counterparts in Russia. Here's historian Britt Tevis.

Britt Tevis 

For Trevor his number one problem were Jews because they represented this huge communist threat and he was sure that they were going to lead a revolution in the United States. For these reasons, he saw them as hugely problematic. He was so worried that he even was involved with an effort to draw up potential military plans should Jews on the Lower East Side try to lead this communist revolution. So how could the American military invade, if you will, Manhattan in the late teens and early 20s, to protect the federal government from this Jewish communist takeover?

Mark Oppenheimer 

In the spring of 1919, Trevor believed that there was a war brewing with New York's Jewish population. He asked the federal government to send guns and soldiers and he gave them a block by block plan for the city's defense. He called for a mobile machine gun battalion to be sent to quote, "the congested district chiefly inhabited by Russian Jews." And Trevor insisted that there was no time to waste. He predicted a general uprising in the coming days. Now, this perceived crisis never materialized. But powerful Americans took Trevor seriously. The army did send a few thousand rifles to New York. There were people in the army, and the New York State Legislature, and in Congress who listened to Trevor. And they took Trevor so seriously, because they shared his fear about what they considered colonies of foreign born radicals. And like Trevor, they were especially alarmed about Jews. And these men ultimately concluded that the best way to blunt the threat of Jewish Bolshevism was simply to make sure that fewer Jews entered the US.

Mark Oppenheimer 

When he returned to civilian life, Trevor continued to pursue his nativist and anti semitic agenda. He worked closely with Albert Johnson, the chair of the House Immigration Committee, who was also the president of the Eugenics Research Association. As far as Trevor and Johnson were concerned, immigration laws were a critical front to save the Nordic Anglo Saxon race. Under their influence in the 1920s, the United States gradually enacted laws that closed the country's doors to all but a trickle of immigrants. Representative Johnson appeared before his counterparts in the Senate. And he showed them Trevor's color coded map of Manhattan. And here's what he told them.

Albert Johnson 

The large red splotches show those whom we know as the Russian Jews, or Russians, or poles. It is immaterial from my standpoint, whether they call themselves Russians, or call themselves Jews. I have not the time to make the distinction between Orthodox Jews, racial Jews, and Russians. They are of that type which we call Semitic. I do not criticize the race or the religion. I call attention to the congestion.

Mark Oppenheimer 

That year, Congress passed what became known as the Johnson Act. It limited European immigration to 3% of the number of foreign born of each nationality according to the 1910 census. So what did that mean in practice, if in the 1910 census, there were 100,000, Polish born Americans, then going forward, there would be 3000 immigrants allowed in from Poland every year 3% of the total in the 1910 census. This would cut annual immigration from Europe by about two thirds. And remember, this was the first time Congress had ever limited immigration from Europe. Before this, when it came to Europeans, we had been an open borders country. But that wasn't good enough for Johnson and Trevor. In 1924, they got Congress to pass a more stringent law. And then, Trevor began working with Pennsylvania Senator David Reed to devise an even more ruthless system. In 1927, Congress capped the total number of immigrants at 150,000. Once that number was hit in a given year, nobody else was allowed into the country. These laws slammed the brakes on immigration, especially from countries in Eastern and Southern Europe, first and foremost, Italy and Poland, but also Russia, Latvia, Hungary, and the Balkans, many of these countries with big Jewish populations.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Here are a few things to keep in mind about these immigration restrictions. First, they didn't occur just because of John Trevor and a few other racists, these laws passed with overwhelming popular support. Second, nativism wasn't just antisemitism. During and after World War One, Congress expanded the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, and barred immigration from nearly everywhere in Asia. The mid 20s was also the peak of the second Ku Klux Klan, which was anti black, but also anti Catholic and anti Jewish. So anti semitism was only one ingredient in the toxic stew of early 20th century nativism. But anti semitism was a crucial and enduring ingredient. And many politicians saw Jewish immigrants as the preeminent threat. The concern that Jewish immigrants were disloyal, and could not assimilate, persisted longer than similar concerns about, say Italian immigrants. Here's historian Britt Tevis again.

Britt Tevis 

When we look at the discussions of the imposition of the 1921 Emergency Quotas Law, which then becomes the underlying basis for the 1924 law, we see discussions of the Jewish race. And we see discussions of why Jews are perceived as undesirable immigrants. And the discussions in the congressional records include language like calling Jews dirty, calling Jews diseased, talking about racial inferiority, talking about Jews' unwillingness and inability to till the soil, a classic idea that Jews can't really work. They do what they participate in the economy as middlemen. They act as leeches upon the economies in the countries where they live. And these are just a handful of the hopefully, apparently very, very racist rhetoric. In addition to being dehumanizing that we see appear in conversations about why we need the passage of these laws.

Mark Oppenheimer 

There wasn't a specific Jewish quota in these immigration laws, but because of the way they were crafted, the restrictions greatly reduced the number of Jewish immigrants. Over 2 million European Jews had come to the US in the prior half century. In peak years, more than 100,000 would come. But with these new restrictions in place, that number dropped to around 8000 Jews a year. And this had wide reaching effects. For the first time, more Jews from Eastern Europe emigrated to Palestine than to the US. And in the coming years, when Jews attempted to flee Nazi persecution, they found that the United States had shut the door.

Mark Oppenheimer 

Thank you for listening to Antisemitism, U.S.A. it's a production of R2 Studios part of the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. Visit R2studios.org for a complete transcript of today's episode and for suggestions for further reading. I'm your host Mark Oppenheimer. Antisemitism U.S.A. is written by John Turner and Lincoln Mullen. Britt Tevis is our lead scholar Jim Ambuske is our producer Jeanette Patrick is our executive producer. We'd like to thank Zev Eleff for being our lead advisor and we'd like to thank our advisory board members, Laura Shaw Frank, Riv-Ellen Prell, and Jonathan Sarna. Our graduate assistants are Rachel Birch, Alexandra Miller, and Amber Pelham. For this episode special thanks to Mitchell Hart, Zev Eleff,  Britt Tevis, Jonathan Sarna, and Alan Kraut for sharing their expertise. We're able to bring you this show through the generosity of the Henry Luce Foundation, the David Bruce Smith Foundation, and many individual donors like you. Thank you for listening, and we hope you'll join us for the next episode.