Episode 51: "O Women of America!"

Kathryn Gehred  00:04

Hello, and welcome to Your Most Obedient and Humble Servant. This is a Women's History podcast where we feature 18th and early 19th century women's letters that don't get as much attention as we think they should. I'm your host, Kathryn Gehred. This episode is part of our season on the wit. And today I am thrilled to be talking with Chloe Porche. Chloe is a PhD candidate in the Corcoran Department of History at the University of Virginia. She's doing research on 19th century black activism. And what's that? Did I say that I say 19th century black activism in my 18th and early 19th century podcast? Yes, I did. As I've said in the past, it's my podcast, I'm going to do what I want. Honestly, I think you're going to love what Chloe has to say. And I think that you'll be very interested in this subject. So first of all, hello, Chloe. 

Chloe Porche  00:53

Oh, it's so lovely to be here. I'm very excited.

Kathryn Gehred  00:56

Thank you so much for being on the show. I'm really happy to talk to you.

Chloe Porche  00:59

Oh yeah, typically, thanks for having me. This is a nerd dream. You know, like, my own work cool.

Kathryn Gehred  01:08

Speaking of nerdy, I met Chloe at a PowerPoint party. Oh, no, I met you earlier. But yeah, we connected at a PowerPoint party where we each had to give a talk on a subject and Chloe gave a fascinating talk on her thesis, and I gave an extremely bizarre talk about a nerdy fandom that I'm in. And so it's a miracle that she agreed to come on the show.

Chloe Porche  01:32

But also your PowerPoint stuck with me. I loved it. And I was just thinking about the other day, I was like, Man, that was a really good meme, she explained and like.

Kathryn Gehred  01:42

Well, thank you so much. Alright, so to actually get into the subject matter of episodes, so first of all, normally we do 18th century letters. And this is actually going to be a speech from 1893. Yes, it is a fabulous speech. And to sort of set up what we're going to be talking about, can you tell me a little bit about your dissertation called Slavery’s Ghost and the Spirit of Resistance: Black Women Look back on Emancipation in the Age of Jim Crow, 1865-1925. So tell me about it.

Chloe Porche  02:16

My dissertation, very broadly looks at how black women in the 1890s Around the turn of the 20th century, how they use their memory of emancipation and reconstruction, to advocate for both women's rights and black rights at the turn of the 20th century. It's very much a product on memory studies, but also on the intellectual history of emancipation and intellect. History is just a fancy way of saying we like to trace the ideas of people, the ideas and thoughts of people I love. The work gets really exciting. I get to look at a lot of really cool women that I did not know about, and it took me writing a dissertation in order to find them. And I was like, wait a minute, these women are incredible. Why don't more people know about them. So that's also another reason why I'm very excited to be on this podcast because it's the type of podcast that gives space for really cool women.

Kathryn Gehred  03:07

So this particular speech is by a woman named Francis ew Harper, introduce her to us.

Chloe Porche  03:14

She's from Baltimore, Maryland. She is quite frankly, so hard for me to sum up because of her sheer badassery. But I will do my best to try to keep it short and interesting. She was born in 1825 in Baltimore, Maryland, which at the time was a slave state. However, she was born to a free family. The names are Panther actually unknown. We don't know who her parents were, because they died when she was three years old. And then her aunt and uncle William Watkins, Jr. and Henrietta Russell Watkins, kind of adopted her and register as their own alongside their son named after his father. What I think is really neat about how she was raised in her family is that the Watkins family is considered a legacy activist family, William Watkins, Jr, who I'm going to refer to as Watkins Jr. was a really, really, really prominent activist in the antebellum era. Watkins Jr. and his wife, Henrietta Russell Watkins, were a part of the elite black middle class burgeoning in Baltimore, Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. At this time, the antebellum era had the largest free black population, and all throughout major cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, very small, but still growing class of free black elites. And they were primarily focused on activism so they were involved in abolitionist the abolitionist movement and the anti slavery movement. Watkins Jr. actually started an Academy for Young black folks to be educated. It was called the Watkins Academy for Negro youth. And this is actually where Francis Harper was educated. What's really unique about Watkins Jr, is that he received a classical education, and he was really, really, really passionate about ending slavery and gaining rights for more African Americans in a moment when black folks didn't really have citizenship. All of that to say that this had a serious impact on shaping and forming the ideas of Francis Ellen Watkins Harper.

Kathryn Gehred  05:19

It's interesting to talk about the fact that there is in early 1800s, a free black elite in someplace like Baltimore. Yeah, you mentioned that your dissertation is in a large part about memory, the whole loss cause myth that is so drilled in everyone's heads kind of erases what was a very real history of Yes, free black cities. And even as you say, free black elite communities. Yeah, in even in slave states, the difference between history and memory in some ways when memory is being warped by certain historical narratives. But then when you actually look at the actual documents and actual histories, there were free people there, there were they were a elite groups, it's super cool that this is an example of somebody who came out of that particular background.

Chloe Porche  06:01

Yeah. And also, thank you, you kind of reminded me of something that once I got used to I kind of forget, but when I was first studying the antebellum era, and like the Revolutionary era, at the beginning of my program, I didn't really realize and it wasn't commonly taught. And this is very true, I think across a lot of different types of curriculum about that there was like a free black population that existed between like 18 118 65, or 60. Yeah, we just aren't taught that at all. Nor are we taught that there was what we call an elite black community, and that it was kind of in some regards thriving in certain cities. There was also obviously a lot of violence and things that were going on that were kind of working against this community. But it's really neat to like learn that and that there was these thriving intellectual centers of black Americans. I do want to also say that when you hear scholars say, elite, black communities, and they're referring to those communities during the antebellum era, US defining the black community as elite is going to be different than what we might think of in terms of wealth, that has to do with wealth, it has more to do with access to education, and access to certain spaces. It's really more about how well educated they were their ability to be economically self sufficient, and their access to elite whites who maybe are also involved in abolitionist circles or anti slavery circles.

Kathryn Gehred  07:24

Yeah, I think that's a great distinction to make. It's not imagining free by a person like owning a plantation looking like Thomas Jefferson, like that's exactly,

Chloe Porche  07:32

exactly.  It's unfortunately not Bridgerton. Although I loved Bridgerton Not gonna lie.

Kathryn Gehred  07:42

As a fun fantasy. Yes, exactly.

Chloe Porche  07:46

But yeah, so my work throughout the 19th century really does focus on black elites. We can also say, black middle class, and that's almost interchanging with the black middle class and black elites. So that might be a helpful determiner in saying, equating the wealth with elite status. If you're black middle class in the 18th century, that's a big deal. You do have money, not to same levels like Thomas Jefferson, but you have enough money to be self sufficient, and you are well educated. I think there's also a misnomer about what does a black intellect look like? And this speech will help you kind of see that because you're like, Dang girl said, what? And that's what I found throughout my work. I keep being so excited and pleasantly surprised by how incredibly thoughtful these people were. And we're just not given that narrative. And so it's really cool to have that false narrative dispelled.

Kathryn Gehred  08:43

Yeah, by facts in history, like, exactly. So I feel like I took you off on a tangent there. But was there anything else you wanted to set up about Francis?

Chloe Porche  08:53

Yeah, the only thing that I would add to Francis is that she was many things. But she was most known for being an underground railroad operative. She was a prolific poet. That's just how she got her start as publishing poetry. She was also a creative writer and an essayist, and a lecturer. Now, what's really fascinating about her being a lecturer is that she made a living off of lecturing, which is kind of unheard of, for women, but for women, yeah, especially for black women. Yes, she made a living off of that. And she's also considered like a radical political and social activist all throughout the 19th century. So she was born in 1825. She died in 1911. The other thing that think many people might know her for is she published a novel in ancient India two year before the speech that we're going to read. And the novel is called Iola Leroy. And it's just a really great novel. She centers on the morality of the person and the importance of a person's morality. And that connection to Christianity in particular, which is a theme you see throughout most of her work her prowess as a speaker, public speaker, I think is also something that I really want to emphasize because again, she made a living off of being a lecturer. That's incredible, as a woman as much as a black woman.

Kathryn Gehred  10:11

That's a good introduction, just to sort of zone in on exactly what's happening at the time that she gave this address. So at this point, you said she's published a book that was fairly well received the year before this. So she's sort of known as a public figure and probably as a poet at this point.

Chloe Porche  10:27

She at this point, had a huge reputation. People really wanted to hear her speak. She was one of the few women to speak at what we call an emancipation celebration or freedom celebration, like Juneteenth. On August 1, 1834, the British Empire abolished slavery in the West Indies, there's a big deal, West Indies, excuse me, which was a big deal. And African Americans use that day to commemorate another marking of freedom. Every year, August 1, I had these big Emancipation Day celebrations. And in 1865, she spoke at one and very, very, very few women, black women spoke at these celebrations. So she was one who will actually allow to speak, she was very well known at this point.

Kathryn Gehred  11:11

What's going on politically at this time,

Chloe Porche  11:13

The major things to know about this particular historical moment is that so the speech was made in 1893. Reconstruction ended in 1877. After Reconstruction ended, you have the Jim Crow era starting. Reconstruction was the legal social and political changes that occurred following the American Civil War. And these changes occurred in an attempt to reintegrate the south back into the Union. The main thing to note about reconstruction are the passage of three amendments, we call them the Reconstruction amendments. That's the 13th 14th and 15th. Amendment. The 13th amendment abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment granted African Americans, what we call birthright citizenship. And where we get that idea, if you're born in the United States, you are an American citizen. And the 15th Amendment granted black men the right to vote, a bunch of black men were elected into office, federal, state and local office. And that's a huge deal. We just went from black folks being predominantly enslaved, 4 million being enslaved, to all those people being freed. And then some of these people being elected into office and wielding great political power. When reconstruction ended in 1877, we see a lot of those gains being pulled back and a lot of regression occurring. And that's when we see the Jim Crow era starting. We often hear Jim Crow laws, or Jim Crow south is a phrase we might often hear. And this was the extra legal ways that white southerners tried to disenfranchise black Americans, we started to see kind of waves of violence occurring since the start of the Ku Klux Klan, and other white supremacist domestic terror groups like the white knights surfacing. This is happening in the late 1870s, early 1880s. The other thing I think, is important to note about this moment, the specific backlash that Harper and black women in particular are experiencing is that in the 1880s, and 1890s, the way that people had constructed gender roles were changing rapidly. There were so many changes occurring throughout society, the Victorian standards of manhood and womanhood, were much less persuasive and increasingly difficult to achieve. And so you get both women and men actively participating in the process of trying to reform or redefine gender roles. In reforming gender roles, both manhood and womanhood, one of the things I started to occur is white intellectuals, were intentionally trying to create new ideologies that specifically target African Americans to kind of further justify taking away black men's rights, voting rights, and to further justify the violence that was occurring to black communities all throughout the South and the North as well in the West, but you get there was like a wave of articles that were published that were specifically targeting not just black Americans, but black women in particular.

Kathryn Gehred  14:22

Where did she give the speech?

Chloe Porche  14:24

The address was given at the Chicago World's Fair, which is also called the World's Columbian exhibition. This event in and of itself, I think, is quite fascinating. The Devil in the White City. Yes, yes. Exactly. The fair itself was like an international exhibit designed specifically to commemorate American progress. The participation of non white Americans was severely restricted and was figuratively and quite literally marginalized in terms of how the event was even set up. And it's specifically sought to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's discovery of the Americas. And the last thing that I'll add about this particular fare is that with this theme of celebrating Columbus's discovery of America, the organizers specifically intended to illustrate the progress of civilization in the new world. And to contrast that with the progress and the barbarism, quote, unquote, of the old world. So the New World for them was white Anglo Saxon societies and the old world was indigenous populations. At any one part of the African diaspora are of African descent, you see that in literally them creating what they call the White City, they actually wanted to call it the White City to uphold white racial ideation. And then they had the Midway Palisades on the side as kind of zoo exhibitions to demonstrate the barbarism of the quote unquote, Old World. So this is the context that French tower was making the speech in. So they have the big white city. And then they had the women's building which is tacked on to the margins, again, of the big white city that was supposed to display male white male dominance, not even we don't want women to like, not the women, please no. And so Francis Harper and five other black women were invited to speak, sort of invited to speak, they kind of had to push their way in to speak in the women's building. There was like several days where women were speaking in the women's building, and they were collectively called the world's Congress of representative women, women from all across the world, were actually invited to come speak. It was a group of white women who were in charge of selecting which women were coming to speak, though six black women they chose, they chose them because they viewed these women as quote, unquote, safe. They weren't gonna say anything that was gonna rile anyone's feathers. They were considered respectable, all these things. Just to reiterate, this was given on an international interracial platform. This is a mixed audience. She's saying this to mostly women, but also a mixed or diverse audience. So it's a big deal.

Kathryn Gehred  17:17

And let's dive in.

Chloe Porche  17:19

A speech given by Francis Ellen Watkins Harper in 1893, and it's titled Women's Political Future. "If before sin had cast its deepest shadows or sorrow had distilled its bitterest tears, it was true that it was not good for man to be alone, it is no less true, since the shadows have deepened and life’s sorrows have increased, that the world has need of all the spiritual aid that woman can give for the social advancement and moral development of the human race. The tendency of the present age, with its restlessness, religious upheavals, failures, blunders, and crimes is toward broader freedom, an increase of knowledge, the emancipation of thought, and a recognition of the brotherhood of man; in this movement woman, as the companion of man, must be a sharer. So close is the bond between man and woman that you can not raise one without lifting the other. The world can not move without woman’s sharing in the movement, and to help give a right impetus to that movement is a woman’s highest privilege.  Not the opportunity of discovering new worlds, but that of filling this old world with fairer and higher aims than the greed of gold and the lust of power, is hers. Through weary, wasting years men have destroyed, dashed in pieces, and overthrown, but to-day we stand on the threshold of woman’s era, and woman’s work is grandly constructive. As the saffron tints and crimson flushes of morn herald the coming day, so the social and political advancement which woman has already gained bears the promise of the rising of the full-orbed sun of emancipation. The result will be not to make home less happy, but society more holy: yet I do not think the mere extension of the ballot a panacea for all the ills of our national life. What we need to-day is not simply more voters, but better voters. To-day there are red-handed men in our republic, who walk unwhipped of justice, who richly deserve to exchange the ballot of the freeman for the wristlets of the felon; brutal and cowardly men, who torture, burn, and lynch their fellow-men, men whose defenselessness should be their best defense and their weakness an ensign of protection. More than the changing of institutions we need the development of a national conscience, and the upbuilding of national character. Men may boast of the aristocracy of blood, may glory in the aristocracy of wealthy, but there is one aristocracy which must never outrank them all, and that is the aristocracy of character; and it is the women of a country who help to mold its character, and to influence if not determine its destiny; and in the political future of our nation woman will not have done what she could if she does not endeavor to have our republic stand foremost among the nations of the earth, wearing sobriety as a crown and righteousness as a garment and a girdle. In coming into her political estate woman will find a mass of illiteracy to be dispelled. If knowledge is power, ignorance is also power. The power that educates wickedness may manipulate and dash against the pillars of any state when they are undermined and honeycombed by injustice.  I envy neither the heart nor the head of any legislator who has been born to an inheritance of privileges, who has behind him ages of education, dominion, civilization, and Christianity, if he stands opposed to the passage of a national education bill, whose purpose is to secure education to the children of those who were born under the shadow of institutions that made it a crime to read. To-day women hold in their hands influence and opportunity, and with these they have already opened doors which have been closed to others. By opening doors of labor woman has become a rival claimant for at least some of the wealth monopolized by her stronger brother. In the home she is the priestess, in society the queen, in literature she is a power, in legislative halls law-makers have responded to her appeals, and for her sake have humanized and liberalized their laws. The press has felt the impress of her hand. In the pews of the church she constitutes the majority: the pulpit has welcomed her, and in the school she has the blessed privilege of teaching children and youth. To her is apparently coming the added responsibility of political power; and what she now possesses should only be the means of preparing her to use the coming power for the glory of God and the good of mankind; for power without righteousness is one of the most dangerous forces in the world. Political life in our country has plowed in muddy channels, and needs the infusion of clearer and cleaner waters. I am not sure that women are naturally so much better than men that they will clear the stream by the virtue of their womanhood: it is not through sex but through character that the best influence of women upon the life of the nation must be exerted.  I do not believe in unrestricted and universal suffrage for either men or women. I believe in moral and educational tests. I do not believe that the most ignorant and brutal man is better prepared to add value to the strength and durability of the government than the most cultured, upright, and intelligent woman. I do not think that willful ignorance should swamp earnest intelligence at the ballet-box, nor that educated wickedness, violence, and fraud should cancel the votes of honest men. The unsteady hands of a drunkard can not cast the ballot of a freeman. The hands of lynchers are too red with blood to determine the political character of the government for even four short years. The ballot in the hands of woman means power added to influence. How well she will use that power I cannot foretell. More than the increase of wealth, the power of armies, and the strength of fleets is the need of good homes, of good fathers, and good mothers. O women of America! Into your hands God has pressed one of the sublimest opportunities that ever came into the hands of the women of any race or people. It is yours to create a healthy public sentiment; to demand justice, simple justice, as the right of every race to brand with everlasting infamy the lawless and brutal cowardice that lynches, burns, and tortures your own countrymen.  To grapple with the evils which threaten to undermine the strength of the nation and to lay magazines of powder under the cribs of future generations is no child’s play.  Let the hearts of the women of the world respond to the song of the herald angels of peace on earth and good will to men. Let them throb as one heart unified by the grand and holy purpose of uplifting the human race, and humanity will breathe freer, and the world grow brighter. With such a purpose Eden would spring up in our path, and Paradise will be around our way." 

Kathryn Gehred  25:46

I think that was a very rousing speech, particularly thinking of this in the halls of the White City to break up all the points that she makes. So what drew you to this speech?

Chloe Porche  25:55

This speech, it was like all six speeches, the women who spoke that religious drew me, and I remember reading them through for the first time, and being really shocked to hear what they're saying, what are they responding to? What are they referring to, but also it was just the language about humanity, and about everyone being connected and being one. I saw it across all six speeches. And I was like, Whoa, what's going on here? This is very interesting, because this is kind of like one of the first times not the first time but one of the first times you're really seeing on a public stage people talking about talking about human rights. What really drew me to this was just the power of the language, and even how much some of the things that was being said in her speech, and other other woman speeches still resonate today.

Kathryn Gehred  26:40

One of the things that struck me about it reading it is, like you talked about how it speaks to sort of the modern age, I think there still kind of is this discussion of whether in feminism of whether being a woman just makes you naturally morally better. And when I read the beginning of this speech, I was like, Oh, it seems like she's more of the like women are in the homes, making everything better, and giving women political power will just magically make everything good. But then she specifically says that, that she says, I'm not sure that women are naturally so much better than men that they will clear the stream by the virtue of their womanhood. And I'm like, Yes, exactly. But what she's saying is that women's role is to instill the morality, which is something that was definitely true at that time. And that started back in the 1800s, of the woman's places to sort of create this moral backbone. And I think that with her argument of taking political activity, taking that away from race or gender and making what she thinks in ideal world would be as if it comes from your moral strength. And what she's pointing out is that these men who are out there lynching other people should not have the vote do not have the moral qualities that is demanded. I think that is a great way to address what you're talking about, of a woman being political is not feminine enough things like that. She's saying, No, we're gonna we're gonna take all that away, and we're going to talk about morality. I thought that was brilliantly done.

Chloe Porche  27:56

Yeah, I agree. When I first read this through to that line stuck out to me that she's saying that she doesn't think that women are more naturally naturally better that they will clear the stream. But she does say we'll clean it clean up a little bit. But not it won't clear it but it will clean up a little bit. And I thought that was fascinating cuz she she takes some digs at men. And it's great. Like in the beginning, I was so tickled like damn, she came on at them to said, not the opportunity of discovering new worlds, but that of feeling old world was fair, in higher aims than the greed of gold and the lust of power. Women are going to be the ones who are trying to feel the old world was fair and higher aims. We're not out here trying to colonize the spaces and lining our pockets with gold. She's like, We're better than that. And I just was so tickled because she follows that with through weary wasting years, men have destroyed dads and pieces and overthrown. And then she introduces this incredible thing that becomes a phrase, she says, but today we stand on the threshold of a woman's era, and women's work is grandly constructive,

Kathryn Gehred  29:03

The part where she says I envy neither the heart or the head of any legislator who has been born to an inheritance of privileges, who has behind them ages of education, Dominion, civilization and Christianity if he stands opposed to the passage of a national education bill. I think that's a point that white people don't get a lot. I mean, she's talking about privilege, but she's like, I don't care if you have this privilege. I don't want that if you don't have the moral understanding or character. If you if you are so morally bankrupt, that you would oppose the passage of an education bill, then I don't want to be you that was just beautifully put. I feel like that is a sentiment that could easily again be made today.

Chloe Porche  29:37

Yes, Black woman at this moment are also contributing to this first wave of feminism and many of the women that are in my work, like this woman named Anna Julia Cooper are considered the mother of black feminist thought and Francis Harper is definitely part of that kind of cadre of women are they're making this insight on a public stage about the fact that black men are just wanting to play the roles, white men, and some white women are often the same thing. And because black women are both women, and they are also part of the black race, that intersectionality that crossing of those two intersections forces them to recognize something that their male counterparts and their white counterparts don't always record or would take more for them to recognize. If you know, do you know Audre Lord?

Kathryn Gehred  30:24

She's on my wall.

Chloe Porche  30:29

Phenomenal. So Audre Lord has this great little quote called the Masters Tools. We're not dismantle the Masters House branches, Harper and ultimately, at this moment are foreshadowing that little maxim of like, we don't want to be the master. And the tools of the master has given us don't allow us to dismantle the house. We're trying to say this is all really messed up. And we need to shift the conversation to morality, y'all. It's not raised. It's not sex. It's not class, its character, its morality, we need to focus on morality a bit more. Once I dug more into the speeches really drew me to what she was saying. And you see that across a lot of her work.

Kathryn Gehred  31:06

That sort of ties into I want to mention where she says that she is not for universal suffrage, that she wants there to be moral and educational tests, which at a moment when these tests are being used 100% to disenfranchise black voters in the South. That's an interesting statement.

Chloe Porche  31:22

She's looking at how people have been voting, the people who are voting, she's looking at how black men are being systematically disenfranchised, just after they were just in franchised. And she's seeing at this moment to 1892, the year before a woman named Ida B. Wells, who's another incredible badass black female activists that is so so cool and kicked out on forever, and I won't, but I'd be well known for starting the anti lynching campaign, and blue that onto a kind of a national and international stage, like what is lynching? Why is it starting now? Like what? What's really behind it? Francis Harper is keyed into this, this conversation that's like happening in a really large stage for the first time about lynching and saying that it's white men are lynching black men and black women in these really horrific, violent ways. And these people allowed to vote. So she's like clocking that she's saying that she's saying this is not right. So for her, if you are morally corrupt, you should not have this incredible power, this political power that should be taken from you. Yeah,

Kathryn Gehred  32:29

That makes a lot of sense. The context of giving women the vote was already shaking everything up so much that she sort of seeing this less as like, how are white people wouldn't use this to disenfranchise people and more of a lens of well, if we're going to enfranchise theoretically, who should we enfranchise? And her answer is people who have the character and moral capacity.

Chloe Porche  32:46

The main thing is that those last few paragraphs I think are so love, which is O women of America, into your hands, God has pressed one of the sublime miss opportunities that has ever come into the hands of women of any race or people. It is your job to create a healthy public sentiment to demand justice, simple justice as the right of every race to brand with everlasting infamy, the lawless and brutal cowardice that Lynch's burned and tortures your own countrymen." So right there, she's really been like, Look, you guys it is in your hands as a moral arbiters of the world to ensure that this violence in this brutal cowardice stops, it's our job as women it is our reading, we need to stop this and when we get the vote, we can use that power. This is at a time when lynching itself was people in the North were like that's kind of gross, maybe we shouldn't do that's horrible. That's pretty horrendous. But you know, it's you know, kitschy little southern thing is kind of how a lot of northerners and even black northerners and some blacks others had even viewed it. And it wasn't until IW Wells had to come on the scene and really demonstrate to people what was actually happening with punching, that that shifted. So the fact that Harper is saying this, at this speech is a big deal as well.

Kathryn Gehred  34:06

Thank you so much for coming on the show. Chloe

Chloe Porche  34:08

Thank you so much for having me. This was a blast and enjoy.

Kathryn Gehred  34:13

Oh, thank you. For my listeners, make sure that you check out these speeches. I will point out that we did edit this speech for length so we don't have all of her words in there. So if you want to read the full unabridged speech, I'll make sure that we cite to it in the show notes and I am as ever, your most obedient and humble servant. Thank you very much. Your most obedient and humble servant is a production of R2 Studios at the Roy Rosenzweig center for history and new media at George Mason University. I'm Kathyrn Gehred, the creator and host of this podcast. Jeanette Patrick and Jim Ambuske are the executive producers. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to listen to past episodes and check out more great podcasts from R2 Studios. We tell unexpected stories based on the latest research to connect listeners with the past so head to R2 studios.org to start listening.