SYMHC Classics: Hernandez v. Texas

00:00:02
Speaker 1: Happy Saturday, Everybody. Coming up soon on the show, we have an episode that touches on the history of a university that was originally established for white students only. At the time, though, US society was largely conceived as having two races, black and white, so students from other racial and ethnic groups were included at least to some extent earlier on, but we're classed as white while black students were specifically excluded. We have talked about the expanding and evolving definitions of racial and ethnic classification in the US, including changes to how the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted a few times on the show, and one of those is our episode on Hernandez versus Texas, which originally came out on September. So we're bringing that out as Today's Saturday Classic to give you some more context for that forthcoming episode. And yes, something that comes up in this episode. I do still hope at some point to do an episode on the g I Bill Welcome to Stuff You Missed in History Class, a production of I Heart Radio. Hello and welcome to the podcast. I am Tracy V. Wilson and I'm Holly Frying. So it's been a while since we've had a Supreme Court case on the show as a guest as a guest, right, uh, And that's become a theme sort of on on at least in terms of yours and my time on the show, Holly. We've had several Supreme Court episodes, and I think the last one that we had was one of the goofier ones because we talked about Butter versus Margarine. This one is not a goofier one. Today we are talking about Hernandez versus Texas, which got a brief mention in our past episode on Marcario Garcia, and that was the first Mexican immigrant to the United States to earn the Medal of Honor. And in addition to tying directly to civil rights for Mexican Americans, Hernandez versus Texas was also the first case to be argued before the Supreme Court by Mexican American attorneys, and it set off a whole new precedent and how the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was interpreted in terms of race and ethnicity. A lot of the stuff that we're talking about today generally applied more broadly to pretty much everybody of Hispanic or Latino descent, but specifically the people that we were talking about, our our Mexican Americans. So the other thing is this was decided it right before Brown versus Board, like a week or two before the decision came down in Brown versus Board. So in a lot of ways, it was completely overshadowed by that way more famous decision, although it was really important in its own way. And Hernandez versus Texas began with a murder, and the facts of that murder were really not in dispute. On August four, nine, one Pedro Hernandez, who by Pete, got into an argument with Gitano Espinoza, who was known as Joe at Chinko Sanchez's tavern in Edna, Texas. Edna is southwest of Houston and southeast of San Antonio, and sits roughly between those two cities. It's not clear exactly what started to this argument, but according to witnesses, at some point Espinoza started making fun of Hernandez because he had a club foot, and Hernando left the bar. He walked home, got a rifle, came back and shot Espinoza in the chest in front of witnesses. Espinoza died not long after reaching the hospital in less than twenty four hours after the crime. Hernandez was indicted for murder. Four days later, he was denied bail. Hernandez his mother went to Gustavo Garcia known as GUS, for help, and Garcia was a prominent civil rights lawyer in San Antonio. He served as a legal adviser to the League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC, which was the first civil rights organization and for Mexican Americans in the United States, and he served in that same capacity for the American g I Forum, which was formed in the wake of World War Two to help Mexican American veterans get access to the benefits they were entitled to under the g I Bill of Rights. I kind of want to do an episode at some point about the g I Bill, because the language in the bill didn't have anything related to race or ethnicity in it, but the way it was actually implemented it was a lot easier for white returning veterans to get access to the benefits that were involved and pretty much anyone else. So has a really complicated history in terms of how and who it allowed to get access to things like education and buying new homes and things like that. So by the time he agreed to represent Pete Hernandez, Garcia had been involved with some of the biggest civil rights cases for Mexicans and Mexican Americans in Texas. He had worked as a legal advocate for migrant workers in the Brasil euro program, which we've talked about on the show before. He had also been part of the team in del got O versus Bowlestrop Independent School District. They'll got O versus Bollstrop followed the California case of Mendez versus Westminster, which we've also talked about on the show, and it made segregation of Mexican American school children illegal in the state of Texas, with the exception of like first graders who genuinely needed some more English language instruction before they joined classes that were being taught in English. Garcia had also represented the family of Felix Longoria, who was killed in action in World War Two. When Longoria's body was returned home to Texas, the only funeral home in his hometown of Three Rivers refused to allow its chapel to be used for the service because in the director's words quote the whites would not like it after them, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson got involved. Longoria was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Joining Garcia and the defense team was Carlos can whose prior civil rights work included challenging restrictive covenants that we're keeping Mexican Americans from being able to buy land in San Antonio. Garcio is known as an incredibly eloquent and charismatic speaker, and Kindaa had a head for numbers and statistics, so when they worked together as a legal team, typically Garcia would be the one who argued the case in court, and Kadeta meticulously assembled all the research and the information that was needed to make that argument in court. Also on the team were John Jay Herrera known as Johnny, and James DeAnda, who practiced together in Houston, and Herrera and Garcia already knew one another, and they had actually worked together on Delgado versus Blastrop. So the reason this seemingly straightforward small town murder trial required a team of four attorneys, including some of the most well known civil rights lawyers working in Texas at the time, is that it was not just a simple criminal matter. While working out another case together in Fort ben County, Johnny Herrera had ily wondered to James Dandah why he had never seen a Mexican person on a jury there, And then when they looked into it further, they realized that there had been no one of Mexican descent on a Fort Been County jury in more than thirty five years. The same pattern was true in Jackson County, where Hernandez was going to be tried. Herrera was not the first person to make this observation. All Anglo juries had come up at least seven times in Texas court since nine There hadn't been a Mexican person on a jury, or, to be more specific, anyone who had a recognizable Mexican or Latin American surname in twenty five years in at least seventy Texas counties. Every attempt to address that disparity had been met with the same legal response from the state. Indiana's words, quote, well, Mexicans are Caucasians, and there were Caucasians on the jury, so what are you fussing about? Herrera's Indiana's client and Assito Sanchez had been found guilty of murder Carrera Indianda had appealed the conviction on the grounds that Sanchez had been discriminated against by the existence of this all white jury, but the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, making that same argument as a Mexican, Sanchez was white and the jury was white, so there was no discrimination. And at that point the team was out of funds. Sanchez was really reluctant to pursue the case any further. As well, he was afraid that he would get a harsher sentence if his conviction was overturned and he had to be retried. This Mexicans are white argument stretched back to the Treaty of Guadalupe had all Goo, which ended the Mexican American War in eighteen forty eight, and the war ended with Mexico seating a huge amount of territory, much of it inhabited by both Mexicans and indigenous people, to the United States. In Article eight, the treaty gave Mexicans living in United States territory a choice to quote the treaty quote, those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of the United States, but they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this Treaty, And those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States. The treaty went on to recognize the property rights of Mexicans and to state that those who became American would be quote admitted at the proper time to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution, and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction. Of course, this is just one aspect of this whole treaty, and it's also important to note that Mexico had given its indigenous population the rights of citizenship, but those rights were essentially ignored once the territory they had been living in became part of the United States. So even though in theory, if you had Mexican citizenship before, you were supposed to have American citizenship now that citizenship was denied the indigenous population that was living in former Mexican territory, and for the Mexican citizens of Spanish descent once that year was up after the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, unless they had specifically said they were retaining Mexican citizenship, they were to be considered American citizens. And all of this together meant that from a legal perspective, they were white. And we'll get to how the team built a legal defense around all of this after we first pause and have a little bit of a sponsor break. Throughout the murder trial of pet Hernandez, his legal team tried to establish that the absence of Mexicans on the jury was discriminate Tory. Their first effort in doing this was on October four, ninety one, when Garcia and Kindana tried to quash the original indictment because that indictment had been delivered by an all Anglo grand jury. As expected, no one was surprised by this. The court refused and the trial began as planned on October eight, and all Anglo jury was selected, and once that was done, the legal team filed a motion to quash. In the hearing that followed, they spent a lot of time trying to establish that, regardless of whether they were legally considered white, Mexicans were treated as a class apart. The team noted things like restaurants that posted no Mexicans signs and the recently ended school segregation, and they asked a number of witnesses things like, would you ever say a German Man and a white man? How about an Englishman and a white man? How about a Mexican and a white man? And even though the resulting answers provided solid evidence that Mexican residents of Jackson County were treated differently from Anglo residents, the motion was ultimately denied. I learned two really fascinating things while reading through all of this questioning during the hearing to quash the jury, uh And one of them was that at the time, a lot more people used the word Latin American rather than Mexican. Because people, I mean a lot of different reasons. The preferred language to talk about stuff changes over time. And that's normal, Like that's expected. Part of it was, uh that people were kind of concerned that if you said Mexican, that you might actually mean a Mexican national living in Mexico right now rather than a person of Mexican descent living in the United States. Um. And the other one was that apparently people still considered Bohemian to be a recognizable like ethnic class, and so some of the questions were like, would you say, oh, look, there's a Bohemian and a white man, And people were like, no, of course not, that's weird. I was like, that's never a thing I've even thought of. Uh, but I mean to be clear in case it's not obvious. People were like, no, I wouldn't say a German Man and a white man. Those are both white. And people would say, well, would you say a Mexican and a white man? Oh? Yeah. Like they built the case over a lot of questions, but in spite of that, they did not quash the jury. After the jury selection and all those pre trial motions that charges against Hernandez were read at one pm on October eleven, the jury went to deliberations at four thirty in the afternoon, and by eight pm that same night, they had reached a verdict, Hernandez was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Her Era Indianda had already tried to make a discrimination argument in their appeal of Anacito Sanchez's murder conviction, so the team started with that brief as the foundation for their appeal of Hernandez's conviction. They drew parallels to the systemic exclusion of black jurors, which the Supreme Court had already found violated the constitutional rights to do process in equal protection, and they also drew parallels to how mex Kins were treated quite differently from people of other nationalities who really were considered to be white. Cardena, who crafted a lot of the brief, also made the point that, in his words quote about the only time that so called Mexicans, many of them Texans for seven generations, are covered with the Caucasian cloak is when it serves the ends of those who would shamelessly deny this large segment of the Texas population their fundamental rights. So basically, nobody's really calling us white until it suits them to be like, well, you're not being discriminated against because you're white, you're different, until we have to defend ourselves. And then You're just like us. Hernandez's case was brought before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on November twenty one, ye with the team arguing that the lower court had aired in denying the motions to quash both the grand and petit juries. The Texas Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed that conviction on June eighteenth, nineteen fifty two, and the appeals courts to decision noted that the Fourteenth Amendments Equal protection clause applied to two classes only, quote, the white race comprising one class, and the Negro race comprising the other class. The Appeals court also repeated part of the decision that had had given in the Sanchez case, quote Mexican people are not a separate race, but white people of Spanish descent. That went on to specify quote in contemplation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mexicans are therefore members of and within the classification of the white race, as distinguished for members of the Negro race. The team tried to bring the jury selection issue back to the Court of Appeals on October two, but the court declined to hear it, so from there their next step would be to take this case to the United States Supreme Court, and although this had always been their goal, they recognized that it was an incredibly risky decision to try it. On a personal level, it was risky for Pete Hernandez. He had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison, and if the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, he would need to be retried. Like we said, it was clear that he had committed this crime, and if he was retried, he could potentially be sentenced to death. Going to the Supreme Court carried other risks as well. If the court did not find in Hernandez's favor, it would probably take at least a generation for another similar case to be heard. That meant that for a generation, Mexican Americans in many Texas counties would continue to face juries composed only of anglos. And since the whole issue was tied to whether Mexicans were white, there were plenty of imagined scenarios and consequences should the court decide that no, they were not. This risk was compounded by the fact that Peter Nandez's case was not particularly likely to elicit the court's sympathy. At the same time, as Hernandez's and Sanchez's cases were being heard in Texas. Civil rights cases involving black Americans were playing out elsewhere in the United States as well. These were often backed by national organizations like the n double a CP with experienced civil rights lawyers who were carefully selecting cases whose defendants were likely to be sympathetic and regarded by white justices as respectable and worthy of compassion. Like this has come up in a lot of past episodes, like the Mildred and Richard Loving were sympathetic people because they were a couple who loved each other and wanted to live together in Virginia. And Rosa parks Uh was sympathetic because she had a job and was like, I had a reputation for being, you know, a kind person who went to church. All of these things were part of deciding whose case would be presented to the Supreme Court. This was not the case with Pete Hernandez. He had murdered someone after a fight in front of witnesses. At the same time, a Supreme Court case seemed like an opportunity to try to right some of the wrongs within the court system, so the team filed their petition for a written of sertiorari with the Supreme Court on January one, nineteen fifty three. This is the document that formally asks the higher court to review the lower court's decision. And this was a day pass the deadline and typewritten when the Supreme Court's rules stated that they must be professionally printed. But the Court agreed to hear the case anyway, and on October twelfth, nineteen fifties three, it was scheduled for the next session. People were really worried that the fact that they turned it in a day late and typewrittens that have professionally printed was like an indicator of bad things to come. Arguing a case before the Supreme Court is expensive. To be allowed to do it at all, attorneys have to apply for and be granted admission to the Supreme Court Bar. This requires sponsorship from people who have already been admitted to the Supreme Court Bar. So, in addition to the application fee, the team, none of whom had ever argued before the Supreme Court before, had to find other attorneys who are already approved to sponsor them, and then pay a fee to apply. There are also filing fees for the case itself. And the team arguing the case is responsible for paying for all the pre the briefs to be printed, along with travel to Washington, d C. And food and lodging while there, and especially in the cases of attorneys who have private practices, the disruption of their businesses and income while they're gone. Hernand Is his team did not have a lot of money. They were basically a collection of local Texas lawyers whose own practices and incomes and stracy just suggested we're going to suffer while they were away. So the Robert Marshall Civil Liberties Trust contributed five thousand dollars to the cost of the proceedings, and local LULAC chapters made donations as well, and the rest of their budget was filled in by small donations from other civic organizations and even individual people. There are interviews with some of the folks that were involved in all of this who would talk about people who just really did not have any money coming up to them on the street and like handing them a dollar and being like, please use this to help pay for the case. Because their budget was so tight, they eventually decided that not all of them would go to Washington, d C. GARCIA Karenna, and Herrera would all go to Washington, while Danda stayed behind in Texas, both to try to save money on all of their costs and also to try to keep all of their law businesses functioning while the rest of them were away. Money became one of the sources of tension for the team once they actually got to Washington. Garcia was somewhat of a showman and had a flamboyant personality, and he hired a publicist and reserved a hotel suite that the rest of the team thought was beyond their budget. It wasn't just about luxury, though. At that point, the Double A CP and other organizations fighting for equal rights for Black Americans were national organizations with better funding and much better name recognition. Brown versus Board was national news, and Garca really wanted a similar national structure and recognition for Mexican Americans. Leading up to their arguments before the Supreme Court, Garcia himself also became a source of tension as well. He struggled with alcoholism, and the day before they were to argue, he vanished from the hotel and finally returned very late and heavily intoxicated. The rest of the team, while trying to sober him up, started to worry that the whole thing was going to fall apart. And after we take another quick break, we will talk about the Supreme Court argument and what happened afterward. Fernandez versus the State of Texas was argued before the United States Supreme Court on January eleventh, ninety four. The question before the court was is the equal protection of the law claws of the Fourteenth Amendment violated when a state tries a person of a particular race or ancestry before a jury in which all persons of that race or ancestry have been excluded from serving. The team's strategy was twofold. They would establish that Mexican jurors, specifically those with Spanish surnames, were being systematically intentionally excluded from juries in Jackson County, Texas, including in the trial of PETERR. Nandez. And they would also establish that the exclusion from jury service was part of an overall pattern of discrimination against Mexican Americans, treating them as a class apart from white citizens. Establishing that Mexican Americans were excluded from jury's was easy enough. They had plenty of documentation that almost fifteen percent of the county's population had Mexican or Latin American surnames, including eleven percent of the man over aged twenty one. About six or seven percent of the freeholders and the tax roles were of Mexican descent as well. Yet, in spite of all of that, zero people with Mexican or Latin American surnames had served on a Jackson County jury and twenty five years. They also had polenty of evidence of Mexican Americans in Jackson County not being treated as white. Until the decision in del got O versus blast Trop in September, Mexican children in Texas had not been allowed to attend school with white children. There was at least one restaurant with a posted sign that Mexicans would not be served, along with signs that said quote no chili, which meant exactly the same thing. But the most compelling piece of evidence of discrimination again against Mexican Americans that was presented before the Supreme Court came from Johnny Herrera's own experience, and it had also been part of that first motion to quash the jury in Hernandez's original trial. During that original trial in Jackson County. Herrera had gone to the restroom and he had found that there were two bathrooms. One of them was unmarked and the other was labeled colored men and under that ombre Zaki or men here. Meanwhile, the state of Texas argued that the lack of Mexican and Latin American surnames among jurors was just a coincidence, and that Mexicans were white, so the fourteenth Amendment did not apply. In other words, at the courthouse where the Texas legal system was arguing that Mexicans were white, there were segregated restrooms, one unmarked and only for white men, and the other marked for black and Mexican men. Garcia, who as we said, had come back to the hotel really late and heavily intoxicated, was pretty quiet during the earlier parts of the oral arguments, But after some of the justices asked a series of questions along the lines of whether Mexican Americans or citizens and whether they could speak English, he kind of revived. He started an incredibly eloquent legal argument that combined the histories of Mexico and the United States, including the fact that many of the families who were being affected by this systemic jury exclusion had been in Texas for generations before Sam Houston even showed up there. It was Unfortunately the transcript of this does not seem to exist anywhere anymore. But it was such a compelling listen that when his time was up, Chief Justice Earl Warren told him to continue and allowed him to talk for twelve more minutes. The Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision on May third, ninety four. By being denied a jury of his peers, including Mexican Americans, Pete her Nandez, had been denied Fourteenth Amendment protections and this denial was unconstitutional. As part of Earl lawrence majority opinion, he wrote, quote throughout our history, differences in race and color have defined easily identifiable groups which have at times required the aid of the courts in securing equal treatment under the laws. But community prejudices are not static, and from time to time, other differences from the community norm may define other groups which need the same protection. Whether such a group exists within a community is a question and a fact. When this existence of a distinct class is demonstrated, and it is further shown that the laws as written or as applied single out that class for different treatment not based on some reasonable classification, the guarantees of the Constitution have been violated. The fourteenth Amendment is not directed solely against discrimination due to a two class theory that is based on differences between white and Negro. He also went on to say, quote, but it taxes our credulity to say that mere chance resulted in there being no members of this class among the over six thousand jurors called in the past twenty five years. The result bespeaks discrimination, whether or not it was a conscious decision on the part of any individual jury commissioner. With the Supreme Court having issued its decision, the Texas Department of Corrections was notified that Hernandez would be remanded for a retrial on May seventh, nineteen fifty four. That was four days after the decision was announced. He was re indicted on September nineteen fifty four, and the trial was moved to another county after a successful petition for a change of venue. Garcia argued. The new trial, which was held on November fifteen and included two Mexican Americans among the jury. Hernandez was again found guilty, and this time sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was recommended for parole on June seventh, nineteen sixty, and Governor Price Daniel ordered his release on the next day. This was in part due to advocacy by Garcia, who recognized that Hernandez had knowingly risked his own life in pursuit of this civil rights school. As we said earlier, the facts of the case were clear and that he had committed murder, so by allowing this case to be appealed, he was knowingly risking a death sentence. Hernandez versus Texas was notable and influential in a lot of ways, since it set the precedent that the Fourteenth Amendments protections applied to Mexican Americans that laid the ground work for fighting other forms of discrimination against them, including things like housing and employment discrimination. The idea that the Fourteenth Amendment was not just related to a two class idea of race was also a huge deal. Before Hernando's versus Texas, most Fourteenth Amendment arguments were about black and white, not about any other race or ethnic group. But the application of those same rights and protections to Mexican Americans meant that in the United States. Race was not just a two class system. There were other classes as well, some of them not related to race in any way, who could be the targets of unconstitutional discrimination. To recap what we said at the top of the show, Hernando's versus Texas was also hugely important because it was the first Supreme Court case related to civil rights for Mexican Americans, particularly after the World War two era, and it was the first to be argued by Mexican Americans. People doing it weren't being backed by any kind of nationwide legal organization or a strategy. They were just a handful of local lawyers who were also Mexican American, of which there were not that many practicing in Texas. The four of them represented roughly of the Mexican American lawyers practicing anywhere in Texas at the time, So this was a groundbreaking first from a lot of different directions. Hernandez versus Texas continued to be the main precedent in civil rights cases for Mexican Americans until nineteen seventy one, when ces Naro's versus Corpus Christie Independent School Districts recognized Hispanics as a distinct minority group. With all the constitutional protections that apply to other minority groups applying to Hispanics as well. However, the core issue that started this whole case, which was the underrepresentation of Mexican Americans on juries, continues to be an issue. In nineteen seventy seven, the Supreme Court heard Costanata versus Pardita, which found that a defendant had been discriminated against in part because seventy nine percent of the county's population where he lived with Mexican American, but over an eleven year period, only thirty nine percent of those summons to be on the grand jury were Mexican American. Carlos Cadena served as the City Attorney of San Antonio until nineteen sixty one, when he joined the faculty at St. Mary's School of Law and became the nation's first Mexican American law professor. He was later appointed to the Fourth Court of Appeals and eventually became its Chief Justice, making him the first Mexican American to hold that position. He helped co found the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and became its first national president. He died of lung cancer in two thousand eleven. Johnny Herrera continued with his civil rights work for the rest of his career, eventually becoming the national LULAC president and working as its national legal advisor. He died after a stroke in nineteen eighty six. James DeAnda was appointed to serve as a federal judge under President Jimmy Carter. He died of prostate cancer in two thousand six. Gus Garcia sadly struggled with alcohol abuse for the rest of his life, which was later compounded by depression. He was in and out of hospitals, and he was disbarred after passing bad checks. He stopped attending meetings of LULAC and the g I Forum, and his behavior became increasingly erratic. He died on June third, nineteen sixty four, and he was forty eight. It's clear that Hernando's versus Texas broadened the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment's protections, but there continues to be some debate about how much it actually helped Mexican Americans. Most of its arguments had to do with surnames, which excluded people who had changed their last names or who, for example, were Mexican on their mother's side but had their father's Anglo surname, and at least for a time, it's set the precedent that people who were protected under the fourteenth Amendment were really only entitled to those protections when it was clear that their whole community was operating under a systemic state of discrimination, although that was later refined by other court cases and the whole thing wasn't framed as whether Mexican Americans deserved equal rights, but whether Mexican Americans were white. It's actually one of the most interesting things to me on a sort of intellectual level about this whole case. Um. A lot of people think of race as having some kind of inherently biological component, but it really is a it's a social construct. And if you look at the history of race in the United States, there's this whole negotiation of who is and is not allowed to be white, uh and a lot of it is fascinating and sometimes disturbing, And if you want a way more condensed look into how that has worked throughout the United States history. I strongly recommend the series Seeing White from the podcast Seen on Radio, which goes through the whole thing. Uh we It touches on a lot of things we've talked about on the show before, but in a lot more compressed time frame, like we have some of the same things we have talked about on the show, like some exact episodes that we have had on the show. They have talked about as well, but it's condensed over I think thirteen or fourteen episodes of their podcast. UM. I also didn't say, but Pete Hernandez sort of disappears from the historical record after he was paroled and at some point he clearly died, but it's it's not it's not otherwise clear exactly what happened to him after that, and regardless of all that other stuff that we just said, Bernando's versus Texas is UH an important and groundbreaking Supreme Court case that is just buried by Brown versus Board coming UH immediately after it. Basically like when I was looking for artwork related to this, there are so many pictures from Brown versus Board and basically none from this UM. It just did it did not get the kind of UH national attention and coverage that Brown versus Board did, although people at home in Texas were waiting by the radio to find out what the Supreme Court had decided. Like that people were as attached to finding out as like any other civil rights issues that directly pertains to a person, people will wait for to find out what the Supreme Court is going to announce on it. And that's definitely what happened in Texas with this particular case. Heay so much for joining us on this Saturday. Since this episode is out of the archive. If you heard an email address or a Facebook U r L or something similar over the course of the show, that could be obsolete now. Our current email address is History Podcast at i heart radio dot com. Our old health stuff works email address no longer works, and you can find us all over social media at missed in History and you can subscribe to our show on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts, the I heart Radio app, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Stuff You Missed in History Class is a production of I heart Radio. For more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H