Transcript

Speaker 1 [00:00:05] Welcome to the Colorado Magazine podcast. I'm Sam Bock, managing editor of the Colorado magazine, and I'm excited to bring you a special series all about our constitutional amendments. On this episode, History Colorado associate curator, Acoma Gaither, joins state historians council members, Dr. Claire Garcia and Dr. William Way for a conversation about the Civil War amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to our constitution. I hope you enjoy listening in on their conversation as much as I did. 

Speaker 2 [00:00:42] Hello, all right. This is Acoma Gaither and I'm the Associate Curator of Black History here at History Colorado. And today I am joined with Dr. Claire Garcia, Professor of English at Colorado College and Dr. William Way, Professor of History at the University of Colorado Boulder. And today we're gonna be getting in a discussion about the Civil War Amendment. Which are the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution today. These amendments were created right after the Civil War and during Reconstruction and truly reshaped the Constitution. And when we think about them, we really need to talk about how they abolish slavery. Defined citizenship and promised equal protections under the law, but they also raise some deeper questions. And that is what did and do freedom actually mean, who counts as a citizen, who has the right to vote, and what happens when constitutional promises are not fully enforced. So to start off, let's get to the basics. For listeners who might not be familiar the time is right after the Civil War and the country is torn apart and Now there are 4.5 million formerly enslaved people who are now free. So there are a group of lawmakers who are changing And and building a new foundation So dr. Way Can you Briefly walk us through what the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were. 

Speaker 3 [00:02:40] Yes Yes, I'd be delighted to do that because I think they're really important and certainly timely things to discuss at this moment in our nation's history. As you know, and as you just stated, they were passed right after the Civil War, and it was an attempt to confront what many of us, or many people, have called the nation's original sin of slavery, and to redefine what the United States could be moving forward from that point on. And together, these three amendments laid the groundwork for a country that aspired, at least in principle, to be both free and inclusive, a true nation of immigrants, as President John F. Kennedy noted. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. Abolish slavery across the United States, and finally putting a legal end to an institution that has shaped the country since 1619, when the first enslaved Africans arrived in Virginia. Then came the 14th Amendment in 1868, which did something, well, quite frankly, revolutionary. It defined citizenship at the national level, guaranteeing birthright citizenship. And promising equal protection and due process under the law. And in 1870, the 15th Amendment took aim at, well, political rights, prohibiting states from denying the vote. This is important, from prohibiting States from denying to vote based on race or history of enslavement. Now, I think it's important to note that these amendments didn't instantly create equality in practice. Their promises were often resisted. Undermined and delayed. At some point, I assume we'll be talking about things like the Black Codes, but they established a powerful constitutional foundation. One that later generations would draw on and what can only be described as a long protracted and continuous struggle for civil rights. I'd be happy to focus on any of the above amendments, but I think I will defer to my colleague, Clare. 

Speaker 4 [00:05:10] Yes, so for me, the 13th Amendment, granted as an amendment, it was revolutionary in how it dealt with, at least in principle, what has been called the United States original sin. But I really look at the 13 Amendment as part of an ongoing conversation that has been in place since 1619 when the first enslaved Africans set foot. On the soil that was going to become the United States. And that is, could one imagine a democracy without slavery with free black people as part of it? And so Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, and his notes on the state of Virginia and elsewhere realized that fundamentally, theoretically, slavery is incompatible with the principles of democracy. Yet even he couldn't imagine the participation of African descended people in a U.S. Democracy. And so, of course, the so-called Negro problem was that eventually when slavery, however it was going to be abolished or if it was gonna peter out or if the U. S. Economy could go forward without this vast pool of unpaid labor, provided by people who had no rights at all, but what a US democracy would look like with a population of free black people in it. And of course, there were some people who found it like Jefferson unimaginable, so had ideas about recolonization. Okay, they've worked for us, they've contributed their blood, sweat and tears, send them back to Africa, but of course a vast majority of African-American abolitionist and then later civil rights activists said, no, African-Americans have invested their labor, their aspirations, their blood, sweat, suffering in the building of this country. And so we have the rights, we should have the full rights to participate fully as citizens in this country, so I really see the 13th amendment as part of an ongoing conversation. Surrounded not just around the position of African-Americans, but is a truly multicultural, multiracial, perhaps even multilinguistic democracy possible in the United States. 

Speaker 2 [00:07:49] I was just going to ask about what the ratification process was like, if you could shed light on that. And of course, Dr. Wei, too, I'm curious what your thoughts on the 14th Amendment. 

Speaker 3 [00:08:03] Oh, yes. Let me first of all agree with Claire. The issue of the enslaved population would be integrated into the country. And in fact, could it in fact exist without them? One of the things I think we need to remind ourselves about is that the United States was, or would eventually be a vast continent and. It needed, quite frankly, people, lots of people in order to make this country a going proposition. And consequently, it had to take into consideration the fate of enslaved peoples, as well as welcoming immigrants to what then became the United States. And it also became clear that we had a seemingly insoluble problem with enslaved peoples, right? And consequently, the ratification of the amendments was, well. A difficult process, shall we say. In practice, they followed the rules, the so-called rules, the normal amendment process. But in practice, they were basically hammered into place with heavy political pressure because white Southern voters and leaders simply weren't gonna ratify them on their own. We have to face the fact that the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, stalled once the shooting stopped. The 14th Amendment, promising birthright citizenship and equal protection, was quite frankly flatly rejected by most former Confederate states. And the 15th, protecting Black men's right to vote, faced violent resistance from groups like the KKK, that is the Ku Klux Klan. In that context, Congress was well rationally- Well. Rationally concluded that if they waited for voluntary consensus, emancipation and Black citizenship would be gutted by what I referred to earlier as the Black codes and, of course, the unfortunate mob violence and, state-level obstruction, which, of course, speaks to the issue of the Civil War itself. So Republicans used the tools that they of the Republican Party used the tools that they had, such as military reconstruction, conditions on readmission to Congress, and the threat of keeping ex-Confederate states from rejoining the Union until they accepted the new constitutional order. In other words, coercion was necessary, at least in their eyes, because the old Southern ruling class was trying to restore as much of the antebellum. Racial hierarchy as possible. Without pressure, without federal pressure, the promises of freedom and equal citizenship would have remained largely on paper. 

Speaker 4 [00:11:29] Yes, and I think that you point out something very important, and that is that the ratification, the process of ratification was really a very delicate and multifaceted balancing act because the problem wasn't just the formerly Southern, the former slave holding states, the Southern States and the Confederacy. Anti-blackness and skepticism about the equality of African Americans was as much a question, even for some abolitionists, as it was for people in the Confederate states. So for example, the, I think, again, thinking of this, these amendments as part of larger ongoing conversations, the balance between states' rights and states' power. And that of the centralized federal government's power, when it came to protecting particular rights. And so, because voting rules and regulations fell under state power, that left gave a lot of leeway to states to figure out ways to disenfranchise African Americans, even if they were going against the spirit. Of the amendments and I think we can't underestimate the connections that people made between political power, economic power and social power and the deep anti-blackness that even northerners were afraid of roads that may lead to social equality and social intermixing and miscegenation and all these things that. That terrorized white Americans' imaginations, both North and South. So, I'm always fascinated by the kinds of compromises, political, social, even theological at times, that the ratifier, that the people who are working for ratification had to make, not just for constructing the proposals, but also for getting them ratified in the necessary three-quarter. Of the states. 

Speaker 3 [00:13:54] Yes, I agree with everything you just said. I really do. If anything, I'd like to add that the antipathy, or rather the concerns that they had extended to other folks. And that includes immigrants, immigrants of a particular sort from, say, southern and Eastern Europe, from Asia, and other places. Containing people of color, and also women. So there was a lot of things that they were concerned about. And these amendments had to grapple with all those concerns on an individual state as well as a national level. And sometimes I think how they managed to get them in place was, well, quite frankly, nothing short of a miracle. Because there was obviously a lot of resistance to it. And these days, you can see how politicians can easily succumb to biases, careerism, and other factors. 

Speaker 2 [00:15:10] Something that I find very fascinating about these three amendments is the amount of time, or the short amount of, time that it happened. You have the first one being ratified in 1865, the next one in, I'm sorry, 18, yeah, 65, 1868, and then 1870. So that's five years. It happened under three different presidents. So I'm just so fascinated with that. And I wanna talk a little bit about this resistance for the ratification of these amendments. How did white resistance and political backlash and racial terror shape what reconstruction could and couldn't achieve during this time? 

Speaker 3 [00:16:06] Mm-hmm Well, it is at least clear historically that the resistance that you have identified is the reason why they ended up with a 14th Amendment, because it became clear that the Resistance, as represented by the Black Codes, meant that they needed something more in order to achieve the goals that they originally had. You know, oh, and one of the goals that they had. Which is embodied in the 14th Amendment, is to answer the fundamental question of who gets to belong in the United States. We're talking about enslaved people but immigrant folks and, truth be known, women as well as equal citizens. The 14th Amendment answers that question. It's remarkably clear, deliberately so. If you're born here, you're a citizen, full stop. That was designed to take the power out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats who might otherwise try to decide who really counts as American. As you know, this problem has persisted to the present time. The Supreme Court reinforced this idea in landmark cases such as the United States versus Wong Kim Ok, confirming that birthright citizenship applies even to the children of immigrants. And that clarity matters. It creates a simple, bright line rule. Citizenship is based on birthplace, not race. Ancestry, wealth, or status. In doing this, the 14th Amendment helps prevent the emergence of a permanent underclass of people born in the United States, but denied full membership. Instead, it ties the nation together around shared civic ideals. I love our shared civic ideas. The laws, the rights, and responsibilities, rather than bloodlines or identity. I think that's one of the reasons why birthright citizenship remains a powerful legacy of reconstruction. It reflects a vision of the United States as a country with a single egalitarian standard of belonging. And that's an idea that continues to shape debates about citizenship and equality right up to the present day, right? We got, we got. We got issues that are being played out in the courts, grappling with this very, very issue and things. Well, being an immigrant myself, I'm very much concerned about the implications of this. 

Speaker 4 [00:19:03] May I offer an interesting example of the kind of complex negotiations and trade-offs that characterize the passage and then the ratification of the, the amendments and that is from Booker T. Washington, who at this time was the primary black leader after Frederick Douglass and the spokesman for on a national level for African-Americans. He was the first African-American leader who was invited to the White House, for example, to consult with the president. So his ideas had a lot of weight. And then a very famous, probably his most famous speech, which was at the Atlanta Exposition. Which was the equivalent of a world fair back then, where in this case, different states would show their products, their technological innovations, big world fair. And in his speech, he actually used immigrants as an example for keeping America American by and urging his audience, which was very mixed, from railroad titans to ordinary agricultural workers, but he advocated looking to African Americans to provide labor rather than to immigrants. And he, as a black man, a man who had been born into enslavement, though he was, I think seven or eight years old when. At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, a bit older, of course, for the ratifications, but that even he used anti-immigrant sentiment to advance African-American civil rights. And so whereas we think in a more holistic, and those who are thinking in terms of principles of democracy at the times think more holistically about inclusion, that Booker T. Washington as well as other. Activist on both sides of the issue of what to do with this great population of newly freed people of African descent in a U.S. Democracy, that even they were willing to pick and choose and sort of play off of different fears and threats of otherness. 

Speaker 3 [00:21:53] Well, that's a fine example of the compromises that people, especially engaged in political activities, have to make. We all understand that. People want to pursue their specific political agendas and often do it at the expense of others, including those who would otherwise be natural allies in a common cause. In many ways, what you just said. Reflected, if you will, the, well, nativist politics of the period. I mean nativism, one of its essential characteristics, is anti-foreignism, right? And when we say that we're talking about immigrants. And that's the reason why the 15th Amendment was so important. The 15th amendment is a very specific answer to the basic question, who should have a voice in democracy. Americans were arguing at the time and since, you know, over who should be counted as part of the nation. And I've always believed that the 15th Amendment helped to lay the basic definition of that. It drew a very clear line in order to shield immigrants from discrimination at the polls. It laid down a constitutional rule that they could not deny the vote because of a person's race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And this, of course, was aimed at securing African American male suffrage after the Civil War. It's one that helped to make citizenship meaningful at the ballot box. And of course, they've included Black voters as crucial allies in defending reconstruction. Well, so the 15th Amendment is very important, and it expands democracy in a profound way. But it does so in a narrowly targeted way, rather than broad protection for all the groups that were kept away from the polls. So it's... It's an issue we continue to struggle with. It's a little hard to read the newspapers without some of these today. 

Speaker 2 [00:24:26] I'd love to bring Colorado into this conversation, because, you know, Colorado was still very much a territory during this period, but how was Colorado connected to these larger national debates around citizenship and freedom and voting rights? 

Speaker 3 [00:24:50] Yes, Colorado, the one subject we know something about. Well, whenever we talk about Colorado, we necessarily have to talk about things like Westward expansion, what we today refer to as SEPCO colonialism. I think one of the first things we have to note is it did not directly cause the Civil War amendments, but it did shape the slavery debate, did it not? It, among other things, diverted national attention and resources away from. Enforcing the amendments. Anti-bellum expansion into territories from the Mexican war and beyond repeatedly raised the question of whether new lands would be free or slave, intensifying of course, sectional conflicts over slavery's future and contributing to the Civil War. You know, decisions like the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott ruling, both tied to slavery in the territories, helped discredit the old constitutional order and opened the space for a post-war constitutional settlement. Talking about the 13th and 15th Amendments that broke with federal protection of slavery. Those are the things that we inherited and had to- deal with, right? Had to deal with. Couldn't very well go through the Civil War and not address this fundamental question because the Civil war, contrary to what a lot of people say, was primarily about enslaved peoples and the institution of slavery, right. So during and After the war, federal policy put energy and resources into consolidating. What we in history usually refer to as the Trans-Mississippi West, right? We often talk about the Homestead Act. I'm very interested in things like the Pacific Railroad Act, in part because of the role that Asian immigrants played in it, the wars, what we often refer to it as the Indian Wars. These basically reflected the priorities, you know, settlement, settlement of the West and and railroads. They often, unfortunately, overshadowed and in some ways undermine our commitment to reconstruction. So this is a problem. So we played, in effect, an indirect role. I hate to blame us directly for undermining the reconstruction effort. But we certainly need to get our question graded in the right role. We should forget, by the way, that we enforce civil rights, or we tried to enforce civil rights in the South, but we also dispossessed Native nations in the West. 

Speaker 4 [00:27:53] I think here in Colorado we have a very recent example of how the Civil War amendments have continued to haunt us. So when Colorado abolished slavery in 1877, they preserved, just as the amendments did, the sort of carve out for incarcerated people, so that it banned indentured. Servitude or the 13th Amendment banned enslavement or involuntary servitude for all except those convicted of crimes or who were serving sentences. And so Colorado preserved that exemption for prisoners in 1877. And it wasn't until 2018 that the voters in Colorado approved getting rid of that exemption. But as recently as February, 2026, there was a decision on a case that involved, it was brought by a prisoner who claimed that prisoners who refused to do their work duties were sent to solitary confinement, were deprived of food, were deprived of the normal. Amenities that incarcerated people in Colorado have access to, and the judge actually ruled that it was involuntary servitude, that the way work is conducted in Colorado prisons was involuntarily servitude and thus unconstitutional, and that's February 2026 that that decision came down. I'm glad that 

Speaker 3 [00:29:46] We have Colorado courts and judges willing to, well, do the right thing, you know, do the right things as well as implement the law that goes back to the 13th Amendment. But having brought it up, I'd like to mention an example of the violation of, if you will, the 13th Amendment, which, as you just pointed out, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. And I'm referring to, in this instance, the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II. Historically, the worst mass violation of the civil liberties of American citizens. The Japanese were locked up, but they were not locked up as criminals, right? They were citizens of longtime residence, rounded up by an executive order in the name of military necessity. These days, we like to use the term national security without individual charges, trials, or convictions. They were found guilty by reason of their race. So now what this does is it lays bare to this tragic episode, lays bare a constitutional failure. The federal government could still strip a racial minority of liberty on a massive scale. And... The Supreme Court refused to use the 14 amendments due process or equal protection guarantees to stop it. This is not the first or last time that the Supreme Court has quite frankly failed to adhere to the laws of our nation. Only decades later, did the government finally own up, or admit how... Fragile these protections have been in a moment of racial fear, war hysteria, and the lack of political leadership. By the way, I'd like to also mention that our own Governor Carr was one of the few political leaders who was a profile and courage willing to stand up for the Japanese Americans. And in doing so, you know, he was standing up for the amendment itself, right? Things. Yes, so that's another instance in which a car rod can be singled out as stepping up and doing the right thing. 

Speaker 4 [00:32:27] That makes me think about the role of the Supreme Court in enforcing, interpreting, shaping our understanding of the Civil War amendments. And I'm especially interested because a lot of the cases that the Supreme considered in the late 19th century that had to do with the the Reconstruction Amendments were around tensions between states' rights and federal centralized power. And it's notable, Eric Foner and other historians have noted how the Supreme Court in the years following the couple of decades following the failures of Reconstructions that in African-American history, we call the nadir. Capital N-A-D-I-R, meaning sort of as worse things could go. But how often the Supreme Court would support states' rights or citizenship rights against federal protections. And so take the idea that the federal powers should protect federal rights. Saying that they should actually be the states had jurisdiction for these rights. And so the two examples are, of course, voting rights and rules for voting that were left completely up to the states. So even if state policies conflicted with the federally guaranteed right for citizens to vote, then the Supreme Court would side with the state. As long as they didn't explicitly say that we are doing this for racist reasons. And the other area was in violence, because as previously mentioned in this conversation, a lot of the resistance to both the amendments as well as the ways of thinking about democracy that the amendments represented, that there was a lot resistance and a lot that resistance was violent. That terror was used to express resistance, that many black people died were killed because of it. But very often in cases, for example, there was the Quickshank massacre where over 98 white men killed dozens of black men, but because they did not say they were doing it for racial reasons, even though all the victims were black and all the perpetrators were white and tensions were running high around voting in that particular town that the Supreme Court basically overturned the few convictions of the white perpetrators that survived. But they did it in the name of upholding state and individual citizenship rights and not wanting to expand. The powers of the federal government to enforce and protect its citizens who are trying to enact those rights. So I wonder what you're thinking about, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions around voting, I'm interested, William, in what you think about the Supreme Court's role in the enforcement, the refinement, the interpretation of the civil. War amendments. 

Speaker 3 [00:36:25] Hmm Let me say that a recent Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana versus Calais has created a catch-22. It says states can't dilute minority votes, but if they openly draw districts to fix that discrimination, those districts can be struck down as racial gerrymanders, right? And gerrymandering is much in the news. So the court leaves the Civil Rights Act on the books, but howls it out, making it much harder to stop states from weakening black and brown voting power through gerrymandering. The court has essentially eviscerated the Voting Rights Act, turning it into all but dead letter. So they can engage in these kinds of, you know, mental gymnastics, right, and things. Because on the one hand, you now, they're blocking, the creation of. Majority Black districts, even after the lower courts have found clear evidence that Black voters' powers have been diluted. I mean, the Supreme Court's decision is perverse. I think that's a polite word. I can use that one. It's perverse! The majority framed its decision as preventing discrimination, but in practice, it treated efforts to ensure for fair representation as a form of reverse discrimination against White voters, which is patently ridiculous. I think I could say that too, you know? Well, the result is striking, is a striking inversion. Law is meant to remedy exclusion or recast as a problem while existing racial imbalances are left intact. It's a decision that uses the language of equality not to expand democratic participation, but to limit it, you now? And that's a function of the political climate in which we live. It's rather unfortunate. But the one thing I know about politics, it does change. And our democratic system, hopefully, will still allow these changes to continue. You both. 

Speaker 2 [00:38:37] Brought up really good points. And I want to talk a little bit more about these failures. From your own perspective, do you think these failures are rooted in the language of the amendment, the Supreme Court's interpretations, political compromise, all of the above, right? And then how did the distinctions between like political rights and civil rights? Shape how the Supreme Court interpreted equality. 

Speaker 3 [00:39:11] Well, I'm for all of the above. 

Speaker 2 [00:39:13] Well, too. Dr. Garcia, I'm curious. You brought up a point about Black inferiority and how that continued to influence lawmaking and policy. How do you see that affecting interpretation and, you know, these rules coming down. 

Speaker 4 [00:39:36] Yes, I think it speaks to the ongoing tension in our country between democratic principles and values and actual social practices and policies and theories. And one thing that me struck me as I was looking at going back to the Civil War amendments and preparation for this conversation was how... As William, as Dr. Weiss said earlier, miraculous it was that in the context of what American society, both North and South was like in the 19th century and after the Civil War, that these aspirations could even be articulated much less ultimately approved. And the failures I think were rooted where, as they say, the rubber hits the road when theory and aspiration and abstract thinking about concepts such as equality, freedom, inclusion, meet long entrenched ideas and social practices. And so my students always are intrigued by the question of which came first, anti-blackness or slavery. Was it because a lot of white powers that be could not imagine, fully imagine black humanity? For them, that was a paradox. How could we be black and a human being at the same time? And there developed a whole elaborate science and ideological system to provide an answer or was it the state of slavery, the condition of slavery. That took away from the perception of Black humanity in the stage of slavery. And so I think that given a society that was so dependent on the idea of Black inferiority that what Orlando Patterson calls social death, that basically to be Black was to have no access to the rights. Or the institutions, or even human feeling with human beings who are different from yourself. And that how that squared with democratic principles of equality and inclusion is a mind bender for several generations of Americans. So I think that anti-blackness, deeply rooted and normalized in our society was one reason for the failures and also explains a lot of the Supreme Court. Decisions that would often put aside, like the bar was so high to show that something was racially motivated, either a policy or a conspiracy, or even Mississippi, when it was getting together its own constitution, that they publicly stated that they wanted to frame things to exclude the Negro. They use that terminology. Yet when a case, a voting case came to the Supreme Court from Mississippi, the Supreme court refused to see that it was racially motivated. They said there's nothing in here saying we are doing this to keep Black people from voting, yet of course the ambiance, the explicit conversations from which the Constitution emerged, that that was extremely important. And I think we can extend that to other groups. I mean, certainly immigrant groups, especially coming from Asia and China in particular, that there's this huge blind spot that makes it difficult to imagine how if citizenship is so tied up with concepts of human rights and humanity and the French rights of man. If one can't as a society recognize humanity in another, someone from other cultural traditions, other histories, other ways of understanding the fundamentals of human experience. And that's where I think the United States democratic ideals are tested. Can they be expanded? Can we truly be? Inclusive and respectful given how normalized racism and white supremacy has been in Western society. That's our challenge, but I think it's also our blessing. We are still, I believe, an example to the world and how you do that messy, challenging constantly learning work of implementing democratic ideals for all citizens. 

Speaker 3 [00:45:30] I'm glad you have ended with those remarks. I think it's very important that we remind people of who we are and aspire to be as a people and as a nation. Our burden is, well, our nation consists of human beings who are by definition flawed individuals, right? We have the so-called Well, we have a dark side that emerges periodically, and it requires a great deal of effort on our part to try to keep that in check, which is the reason why we try to establish institutions and laws. Ever since World War II, when we established institutions and laws to promote what we like to think of as freedom and democracy, but also human rights. That it represents progress on our part. But as we all know, progress is a matter of two steps forward, one step back. Although these days it seems like we're going one step forward and two steps back. Nevertheless, we continue to evolve as a nation. My hope is basically what you said. Is that we can continue to try to realize those ideals that, quite frankly, makes us exceptional as a nation. It's the very American creed that distinguishes us as a people and it's our commitment to that creed that quite frankly makes us an American. It's not our commitment to a particular race, a particular religion, you know, a particular ethnic group, you, know, that makes us an American, it's all. Commitment to the creed, you know, which promotes things like, well, racial equality, political empowerment for all people, right? Social justice. That's what makes us American. And we are being tested. I'd like to believe that we can pass this test. 

Speaker 2 [00:47:56] Thank you both so much for this really rich conversation and helping our listeners understand the Civil War amendments, not just as constitutional text, but as a living shared history. This has been great. Thank you. 

Speaker 3 [00:48:14] Thank you. 

Speaker 2 [00:48:15] Thank you. 

Speaker 1 [00:48:24] Thank you for listening to the Colorado Magazine podcast. For more constitutional conversations or to discover more Colorado history podcasts, go to historycolorado.org slash podcasts or search history Colorado on your favorite pod catcher.