In 1864, America Voted in the Middle of A Civil War

A Very Brief History of Assassination Attempts at the Same DC Hotel

In 1981, shots outside the Washington Hilton nearly killed Ronald Reagan—and the aftermath boosted his popularity as the country rallied around him. More than four decades later, gunfire again erupted at the same hotel during events tied to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Donald Trump was in attendance and later evacuated. The suspect in the Washington dinner shooting ws just charged with attempting to assassinate Trump [https://apple.news/ATGCQHpcaTRmfTxLwNhfRDA] Same building. But a very different America. In 1981, there was broad national sympathy. Today, the reaction is immediate, fractured, and shaped by partisan media ecosystems ranging from calls for increased security via a White House Ballroom to conspiracy-laden speculation that this was a false flag event. In this video, I break down the eerie historical parallel and ask the real question: in a hyper-polarized era, do moments like this still unite the country the way they did for Reagan… or do they just deepen the divide? Spoiler: it’s far more likely to deepen the divide than unite the country. Get full access to Yo, Miss! at saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe [https://saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

A Legal History of Birthright Citizenship (In Under 3 Minutes!)

'It's a new world, it's the same constitution' More than 150 years ago, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified after the Civil War to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford and make one thing clear: if you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen. That principle has held for generations through waves of immigration, political backlash, and changing global conditions. So when today’s arguments try to say the world is different and the Constitution should bend with it, Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back with a reminder that cuts through the noise: it may be a new world, but it’s the same Constitution. Get full access to Yo, Miss! at saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe [https://saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Criticize the Government, Go to Prison: A World War I Lesson That Still Resonates Today

Every year I teach World War I, and every year my students are surprised to learn that the United States once made it a crime to criticize the government. Although this year, a lot of students were less surprised. The Espionage Act of 1917 despite its name had little to do with spies. Its most sweeping provisions made it a federal crime to obstruct military recruitment or say anything that might cause “insubordination” in the armed forces. It also gave the Postmaster General the power to deny mailing privileges to any publication deemed seditious, strangling anti-war newspapers before they could reach readers. The Sedition Act of 1918 went further, criminalizing any “disloyal, profane, or abusive” language about the government, Constitution, or military. Not actions. Just words. Socialist leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years for a speech encouraging men to resist the draft. Rose Pastor Stokes got the same sentence for writing a letter to a newspaper saying she opposed the war. Over 2,000 Americans were charged; roughly 1,000 were convicted. The Supreme Court largely approved. Justice Holmes coined the “clear and present danger” test in Schenck v. United States to justify the convictions, then later dissented in Abrams v. United States, warning the country against suppressing the free exchange of ideas. The Sedition Act was repealed in 1921. The Espionage Act was not. It remains law today. As a history teacher, I find this episode clarifying rather than distant. The mechanisms used such as vague statutes, postal censorship, equating dissent with disloyalty are not unique to 1917. They are a template. A blueprint. When we hear rhetoric today about punishing the press or treating criticism as betrayal, we are not hearing something new. I mean, just today, Trump posted the president posted [https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116272810363139207], “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party!” Trump also said Saturday [https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116268396341038197] that “Radical Left Democrats have hurt so many people with their vicious and uncaring ways” and that “Fascist Democrats will never protect America.” Tomorrow ICE agents are being sent to airports to assist airport security [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cede0qyvqz3o] as the DHS shutdown continues. Knowing the history doesn’t guarantee we do better. But not knowing it almost certainly means we won’t. Get full access to Yo, Miss! at saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe [https://saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Watching The Oscars Amid A Dying Empire

The Oscars unfolded this year against a backdrop of political division, declining trust in institutions, and a fragmented media landscape where shared cultural moments are increasingly rare. Once drawing more than 50 million viewers, the ceremony now competes in an endless attention economy shaped by streaming and social media. We break down the night’s biggest winners, including One Battle After Another taking Best Picture, with Michael B. Jordan (Sinners) and Jessie Buckley (Hamnet) winning the top acting awards—and what they reveal about the cultural moment. We also examine why so few speeches were overtly political, how the film industry itself is changing, the fading power of celebrity culture, and the ceremony’s “end-of-an-era” mood following the loss of major Hollywood figures. With Conan O’Brien’s self-aware hosting setting the tone, the Oscars felt less like the center of American culture and more like a glittering ritual happening in a country struggling to agree on reality. Get full access to Yo, Miss! at saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe [https://saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

In 1864, America Voted in the Middle of A Civil War

In 1864, the United States was literally in the middle of the Civil War. The country was divided. Hundreds of thousands had already died. The future of the nation was uncertain. And Abraham Lincoln still insisted that the presidential election happen. He believed that if the United States canceled elections because of war, democracy itself would be lost. Lincoln said that if the rebellion could force us to skip an election, it would prove that a government of the people could not survive a crisis. [https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/response-to-a-serenade-4/] So the election went forward. In the middle of a war. Soldiers voted from the battlefield. [https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/election-1864-and-soldiers-vote]The country debated the future. And Lincoln ran for reelection and won. [https://www.270towin.com/1864-election] By the way, Lincoln ran under the National Union banner against his former top Civil War general, the Democratic candidate, George B. McClellan who ran as the "peace candidate" In other words, if McClellan would have won the Election of 1864, he would have ended the Civil War. However, that’s what democracy looks like. We hold elections, even during perilous times. So when anyone suggests postponing elections because of a war they themselves helped start, history has a pretty clear answer. If the United States could hold an election during the Civil War, we can certainly hold midterms today. Get full access to Yo, Miss! at saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe [https://saribethrosenberg.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]