tv Book Discussion on Jacksonland CSPAN July 12, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am EDT
the last candidate hillary. what is the best strength? she is indestructible. she is the most resilient political figure in america. she is like queen elizabeth who became queen in the post-world war ii england and his queen today we've had four popes and one queen. it's like the cornea and band that no one told you you had.
she's been in our field of vision since 1992 but think of what she has survived in the course of that. think of all of the scandals and controversy. she is the grandmother of obamacare and it didn't stick and she got back up off the floor. the scandals of the second term she ran in new york against rick who wasn't a candidate that made a bad mistake and she jumped on it. ten years the first lady of arkansas she did care about health. she is a wonderful grandmother come of a dreadful candidate but she doesn't have to engage. they have money, they have most of the media, they have a machine and they have the math, they have the voter vault of team obama but mostly they have their resilience.
she really can absorb anything so here's what i want to do when i do that debate. here's what i did when i wrote this i tried to put myself in this mind. i'm going to ask the questions of the republican candidates to help the voter understand who is best equipped to beat hillary clinton because that's what matters the most if you are a republican primary voter. so i'm looking for the scenes. would you enforce the drug laws in colorado and washington state some say yes and some say no. i've asked and will you break the rules of the filibuster in order to repeal obamacare some say yes and some say no. in the final analysis i have to figure out how to frame this way are you the one that can beat the queen? because all the other stuff is secondary if you don't plan.
[applause] now from politics and prose bookstore in washington, d.c.. npr provides a dual biography of andrew jackson and cherokee leader john ross in the lead up to president jackson signing of the indian removal act of 1830. this evening is the great steve who i'm sure is already familiar to many of you. certainly those that that listened to national public radio.
he has been in the presence for 19 years and for over a decade now he's been one of the hosts of the morning edition, and the news program in the united states. i take your word for it. [laughter] >> and steve appeared here three and a half years ago when his first book was published instant city which chronicled today and he's back now to talk about the second book. in it he goes not abroad but back in time in the united states to the era of andrew jackson and he tells the story not only of jackson that of john ross, the tribal chief of the cherokee once military comrade the spam ended up on opposing sides with epic struggles over land seizure and resettlement of
the native american tribes that severely tested america's young democracy. it was a transformative chapter in the nation's development and also a very tragic one and as steve notes in his acknowledgments, authors have grappled with that period and its protagonist in different ways at different times since. he's been per trade as a hero of democracy and a relevant and indian hater and rob is both the moses of his people and an egotist and the exposing of the trail of tears has been treated as either a practical and affordable response to the needs of white settlement with the shameful low point in american history. steve recounts this complex emotional story in a very well researched, balanced, confident and lively way. heartbreaking and regrettable as
the episode was in it continues to raise that made the present-day societal tensions between those that espouse the rule of the majority, and those that champion the rights of the minority chicks steams book not just the tail of the past but a lesson for the present and the future. ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming steve. [applause] >> thank you and good evening. it was a good introduction i attempted to just stop and leave it there and ask you to buy the book. thank you very much. it is an honor to be here at what i know having traveled around is one of the best independent bookstores in the united states. [applause] one of the most vital it is an honor to know also that there are one or two colleagues from
npr here tonight. i've learned so much from my colleagues and benefit so much working with my colleagues and i even get to take credit for some of their work which is very nice. every now and again i run into somebody on the street and they say that was a great show this morning. it was amazing. and i have to say thank you. but i was off today. they just kind of assume i'm there. it is the name maintained on the incredible work behind the scenes. sometimes i'm there and sometimes i'm not. and it is an honor to be here tonight for the first public event for this book. i've been honored to fling this book out into the world for quite some time in fact i've had an image in my mind is actually singing it.
i won't do that because my wife is in the third row and i wouldn't like to injure her. [laughter] this is a story of two men from andrew jackson and john ross. it's a story of their battle over land, and it's a story of american democracy set in an era when the democracy that we now began to take shape. it was almost 200 years ago but it feels present when you begin to get into the material. we did a small signing of some books yesterday at npr and there were some people lined up and within a few minutes someone introduced herself and said that she had greek indian ancestry it better have cherokee and a connection to jackson family and then a woman hands me a book and says what you please sign it for a man that named his
son after andrew jackson. then a little fun with a man from knoxville tennessee which is one of the places i'm supposed to go for this book you know andrew jackson is from tennessee and i speak about the theater that i know nothing until this man told me that it is hardly a building that's been there since the early 18 hundreds and the people that have been there before me include andrew jackson. this feels very present come and it feels when you get into the material as well. even if it's a distant place going into the story feels to me sometimes like being in a dream, where you see people and recognize that they are doing different things and people that were not normally together in your life are together. everything is recognizable but at the same time it's foreign. it begins with john ross at the
age of 22 on a river journey on the tennessee river which is exact in and out of the state from alabama and other states on the way to ohio and mississippi. he is going in the current which is the only practical way to go on about. going through what has been known as the wilderness and anyone studying would have seen for men on board. she was black haired, black eyes slight of hand them. each of some. each of his companions could be described as a cheery key interpreter and a servant as the man was called but ross was harder to categorize. he was the son of a scottish trader who lived there for generations into their homeland in the southern appellations. he's an aspiring trader himself,
yet he also had a solid claim to his identity in india. a man of mixed race he had grown up among cherokee children and they received a new name in adulthood. he was said to be a species of bird. they said: he that prevents a good name. from now on i will answer only the name she says. whether he was a white man or indian, became a matter of life and death december 28, 1812. in kentucky as ross later recorded, he was hailed by the party of white men. the men on the river bank called for it to come closer. ross asked what they wanted. give us the news. something bothered him about the men. i told them we have no news worth their attention and now he
would yield a purpose. their purpose. one shouted that they had orders nearby to stop every vote sending a week of defending the river to see if the indians were on board if they were not permitted. come to us and we will come to you. >> he didn't come. if those two are not indians, one of the men shouted referring to two of his crew. the man added he would kadre company to pursue and kill them. the man spoke some spanish to try to persuade the vitamin of that but didn't succeed. finally they said that it was an indian boat and mounted their horses and galloped off. it was 1812 and the united
states declared war on britain earlier this year and a number in a number of nations effectively taken the british side created a prison up against the settlers that they felt were pressing them and taking their land. they wouldn't pause to find out that they were actually loyal to the united states and the cherokees could only travel in one direction. they have little chance to escape on the pleasant reception downstream. now this always feels modern jimmy. he decided on a precaution he writes in that the vote. he told the horsemen there were no indians on board and that best chance of safety was to make it appear true, so he modified the racial composition of his crew leaving only those that could pass as non-indian. ross could pass as could the
cherokee interpreter and mixed blood per flight and put indian. only he was a full blooded cherokee with no chance to fool anybody. his presence might even cause the others to be perceived as it begins. this apparently was his thinking because he confided it was good to have it out of the boat. this old man was set off over land and told to meet the craft leader and they put the polls in the water and shoved the boat towards whatever lay ahead. they had a disagreeable walk of about 40 miles probably a long the bank opposite from where they had seen the horsemen. finally he rejoined the downstream and they voted to receive haven for the
individuals that could tell friend from foe. reflecting on this afterwards he said he was convinced that the independent manner in which i answered had confounded their apprehension of being an indian boat. they were supposed to be children of the woods. they were expected to dress respectfully as older brothers. which means that the future leader of the cherokee nation. you see here evidence of how the tremendously diverse united states was at this young moment. you see the country which gives a coalition of different kinds
of people who are trying to figure out their identity in a changing world and figure out their place in the changing world and sometimes for their own safety to obscure their identities in the changing world to figure out how it all works. it's a dynamic country and growing in a tremendously rapid pace of growing up by millions of people every decade the country was two or 3 million at the time the revolution it was something like 12 million by around 1830. growing massively and the growing population was moving west. and of the iconic men moving west, the frontier leader was andrew jackson. we know him as a kind of hero of democracy because he came from very poor beginnings. his father died shortly before he was born that his mother died when he was in the early teens
during the american revolution he started life with almost nothing. there was one point when he received an inheritance indicated what he would do if it was a natural thing to do is go to charleston south carolina and gamble it all away he then tried to take a living got drunk and crawled along the way. there are stories of him partying every night in the tavern with his friends and when they were dead they decided to mark the occasion by turning the tables and chairs in the fire place picking them apart for lincoln in the fireplace and setting everything on fire smashing every plus bottle be emptied in the course of an evening. fascinating guy self educated, became a lawyer. he would study with another
lawyer and start arguing cases. in the cases didn't go well for andrew jackson he would challenge them to do is end it would sometimes be negotiated away to nothing and sometimes not so much. he made it all the way west to tennessee which was pretty far west in the far west in the late 17 hundreds and early 18 hundreds. everything over was regarded as the last. he made all the way to nashville and became a farmer which is a kind way to say he was a plantation slave owner. he became a politician but he was always something of a wild man were seen as something as a wild mammal wild man although they are given a book giving the book that he had remarkable self-control and a terrible temper when he thought that suited his interest.
controversy followed the politician although his ownership of slaves was unremarkable in tennessee and sometimes engaged in slave dealing. a business even slave owners considered disreputable and he had challenged other men to dole's a practice that remained common but a legal. jackson led an exchange of insults with a man asking him to a duel and the result to kill his opponent. jackson let the other men shoot first. yet it remained standing according to the best accounts of the dual. if took time to be sure before firing a fatal shot and return. the antagonist is a popular
young man whose death stand at the jackson's reputation and that was already covered by scandal. it was widely known he'd been together with rachel his wife for years. rachel and andrew left as husband and wife in 1790 to 91 even though it didn't arrive until 1793. they had to be remarried to clean up the doubts about the status of that they cultivated the conventional family life. with no children of their own they adopted her son from rachel's relatives. when jackson traveled his wife wrote him letters urging him to write home and he wrote back to express regret that he could not. the muddled circumstances proved to be connectors to get andrew jackson. he took the council of what he wanted, with his friends desired and what it felt to be right.
he was guided less by the norms of society then what he considered just often capitalizing the word. for his marriage the most romantic he was willing to edward decades of whispers and insults. a darker manifestation of the same characteristic came out of the slave trading. the social convention that it was acceptable but that only low-down characters would engage in the slave trade would have been just a sort of elaborate hypocrisy by which jackson was used to being governed. readers could wish that it was all this hypocrisy by rejecting both practices. instead he embraced them both when it suited his interest. his approach to slavery foreshadowed his approach to the federal indian policy would reject what he saw as its false piety and rewrite the policy in a way that suited people like
himself. i want to see something say something else about him here. for the first 45 46, 47 years of his life, the record of his career suggests that the talented man thrashing about in the dark to locate a letter that no man of his backgrounds have ever claimed. his speeches made an impression the house of representatives. they became a justice on the tennessee supreme court. one election as the major general commanded the militia but for years couldn't find a voice to fight. he was very disappointed by this. he tried to start. like many he speculated in land. he bought and sold the rights to tens of thousands including land along the mississippi river that became memphis.
their rights to indian land and then press the politicians to clear it up of indians. it was more dreamy eyed and he was an when they unraveled, jackson struggled to avoid bankruptcy and the risk of the debtor's prison. all of that was before the war of 1812 when the military and diplomatic triumphs opened new horizons for the man within the real estate background and business connections. during the war he was a general in command of the army and when army and when it was over come here played his relentless energy to the conquest of acreage and that is the heart of the story of jackson land. it's about the land. it begins and continues more than 20 years after and we trace the efforts as a general and
then as president of the united states to clear the native american nation from the eastern half of what we now think of as the united states. one was the cherokee nation central north georgia and several surrounding states. now when you buy this book and i know you are all going to buy this book you will see a number of maps which i will want you to keep in your head because in the early 19th century, the land issue, quite a few future american states could be represented on two mutually incompatible maps. mutually exclusive maps. there was a white man's map and an image and map. the white man's map somewhat resembled the map of the united states today.
we had the territories distinguished by straight lines drawn right across the map and then you have a method indian nations. much of the same land usually delineated by the types of bridges were rivers or other natural landmarks. it was the same land twice. and the federal government in washington for many decades recognized both maps. it had its reasons to embrace ambiguity. the legal reality there was a united states and land that was recognized to be lumped launched in the united states and their indian nations since before the arrival of european settlers. the ambition was the map of the
united states into the heart of the story is how that conflict over the course was resolved and in my mind that titanic struggle between two flaws human beings at the center of it all again and again. i want to read one more bit of jackson land and then invite some of your questions. i just want to mention that there are a lot of different ways land was contended over during these 20 years. there were wars and massacres and more often there were treaties bribes paid deals made and people pushed aside in the sometimes they pushed back. i want to recount one bit of an episode from 1820. this is a time when john ross is a little bit older.
andrew jackson is still a general. he's now a major general of the united beats army basically. and he's rising in the leadership of the cherokee nation on his way to becoming the principal chief of the cherokee nation. the cherokees as some of you know have made an effort to modernize the society to make it more compatible with the civilization they had changed. as john ross rose one of the things he took the lead in doing as the constitution for the cherokee nation modeled on the united states. it begins we the people of the cherokee nation. you can see when you put them side-by-side can see the influence their, and you can see
what ross was trying to do. he wanted to make the tricky nation territory or eventually a state. he actually said in the letter we consider ourselves a part of the public of the united states. although there was some opposition in the nation whose leaders have chosen to try to join this new country that was approaching them. i come to think of them as people like immigrants assimilate into a new country accept the country was coming to them. they were trying to keep from being deported to the country which had come to them. in 1820 they still controlled a substantial amount of land in north georgia, tennessee alabama, north carolina near my friend marshall's home. i see marshall here this evening. thank you for wearing a tie.
it makes me less an heiress. [laughter] >> john ross was part of the leadership attempting to defend the land and you had people that were described as squatters. white families living up to the charity delete cochair key and staying there until someone kicked them out. the cherokees asked the united states on the degree to do something about this that they were legally required to do and this required john ross to write a general jackson and ask for help. amazingly he didn't have any troops to spare for the job. they were busy doing other important things. it's clear that the leaders of the united states wanted one thing to happen. they wanted indian nations to move. finally, jackson suggested that if they wanted to clear the
squatters off the land they should just give it to themselves into so they started a military unit or reorganized would have been in existence called the cherokee white horse into this group of calgary went out under the command of john ross and went to the first form of a man named atkinson who had threatened if anyone came to kick them off the land so they came into they arrived at the farm and found no one around. they didn't know if somebody was hiding in the woods were so anybody was. it had been abandoned as if people had just left. and they set about destroying the crops that have been accumulative on this farm. you have to destroy things or people simply wouldn't leave.
john ross had been waiting for that response. the sound of gunshots from the was it was one-man one-woman and they wrote the letter and atkinson came across the river. he came across the river to defend by the shedding of tears. this had more effect on the minds of the men that if he had resorted to those threatened. his conviction of error and the acknowledgment etc. induced me to permit him to recross the river to the website but because
the territory with a few sheep and keeps. ross was angry and felt they were part of a grand plan which they were. but he couldn't do the maximum. he let them get away with his livestock. the strategy of gaining for someone with a central project of the frontier elite not just anyone that would risk their life to improve the land that might go back he'd probably take in the tricky property because he couldn't afford the abundant real estate that was on sale nearby in alabama.
ross let the man go. he wrote all of this in the letter to andrew jackson reporting what he had done. it's what jackson thought of it. he almost certainly disapproved. jackson believed it was a mistake to allow them to depart with their livestock. they simply wait until the troops move on and then returned. while jackson showed little enthusiasm he had none at all for giving a child badly or giving anyone a chance. if they were to be removed they
should be irresistibly done. once they finally arrived he would deliver them to the newest lawn and for prosecution and here was a subtle but significant difference between these two men who would contend for land over the years that followed. they could show mercy and respect and have empathy for others. he could never have succeeded as a politician otherwise. but those qualities were governed by his ruthlessness. he must never lose a fight. he must always uphold his authority. he proved to be fiercely and stubbornly competitive. but there were moments when he met his stubbornness give rise to generosity and that is what he would seek over the next 18 years leading up to what we learned about in school trail of
tears. you discover there is so much more to it and it is closely related to the time at which we live. the book is tracks in my hand. thank you for coming. scott. is this the only microphone? would you say your name? >> you said this is a long-standing interest of yours. where is that coming from? three or four years ago i grew a little discouraged about the state of politics and that drove
me in a couple of different directions one of the ways. america was drunk on life for the 19th century. i discovered it was coming back and i bought a few bottles of wine. i have always been fascinated by this period. i began researching and found or page about an element or a school or junior high school and it felt very visceral and alive to me even now.
this is my description of the land of the american south which andrew jackson obtained in a variety of other means. it's all the alabama, that part of georgia, tennessee, north carolina. it's much of mississippi. it's a lot of land and it's the city where i work. it's washington, d.c.. it's the white house or the executive mansion as it was called then. it's the house of representatives, this kind of temple of democracy which in those days meant that the capital. the statutes were sent from every state of the union one of whom is sequoia the inventor of the language sent here from oklahoma which is where they
ended up after they were expelled partly because of a road in that room which was received of by the supporters and defined by president andrew jackson in 1830. so to me this became an opportunity to look at my day job in a completely different way to understand both the similarities and differences between this time and that time to be at this moment when the country is changing so rapidly, demographically and other ways. there's so many different kinds of people from all around the world who come here and our continuing challenges to work through the differences in the democracy, respect the rights of every minority while also maintaining ourselves as one
nation. please go ahead man. >> on the pbs news hour you said there was an alternative expansion strategy that jackson could have used but it was very difficult. i would like to do with alternative strategy was and how much they pursued its. >> it was an honor and if you get a chance to check it out at improved a lot in recent times. it's a fair question. what else could be done. there was a massive push to move
westward. it was a movement of poor white farmers like in the story and it was also removed by let us call them entrepreneurs who wanted to expand the territory that was available for the slave plantations. they wanted to own them and so slaves that were getting too numerous and virginia and they wanted to broaden the market. it was irresistible it seemed a social force. similar things are happening in the north as well. it was central that together nations be the other nations be cleared from its land as soon as possible. any president was claimed to be forced to deal with it. jackson's predecessor john quincy adams had a different view of indians in a different policy that ended up being
effectively co-opted out of the last last man to georgia because end of georgia because the pressure was so great from below and in the 1820s we are talking civil war be ready to fight for your rights. there is a message from 1825 from the governor of georgia talking about how there is a conspiracy of washington elites, new york liberals, the unelected justices in the supreme court and the attorney general whose the mouthpiece of an untrustworthy president plotting against the state of georgia to take away that georgia slaves. this is actual message. i'm here freezing but that is the meaning of.
>> and georgia was insisting on its land. any president was going to have to deal with that. andrew jackson did have one alternative that was discussed which was the continually older policy that went back to the days of president george washington, which was to encourage donations to civilized into so the tools to sell them stuff and hope. consumer capitalism. so there was an old policy that was regarded as more humane.
in the status of south carolina over different issues he would also have had to risk civil war in the state of georgia over the question of indians. there was an alternative that it would have been extremely difficult. also by the way john ross's alternative was to make some kind of territory or state as part of the union but that would have required completely different racial attitudes and those that existed at the time. anybody else have a question? go right ahead sir. >> i was just wondering have there been any meaningful reparations paid for the past
atrocities and would you support such a policy? >> now. if it had been meaningful reparations paid now i should mention that part of the story is through the great resistance they managed to get paid for their land in the end. they were paid at the time $6 million in change which was a fraction of the value but they were paid something. but as they got the land back, no. in 2009 dated get an apology. how many people knew the united states was apologized for this treatment in the 19th century? okay some people knew. it was done in the quietest way possible. it was a bipartisan measure. i want to see sam brownback of kansas may have been behind this. it was attached to a defense authorization bill and quietly signed by president obama.
but there's language saying we are really sorry about this whole damn thing and other various abuses but the language also state that the apology may not be used as a legal basis to recover land. some charities remained in the trail of tears which you learned about that happened. you can still find them in cherokee north carolina. i didn't take a survey that i spoke with one of the past is past we don't want our land back. we want the truth to be told. it was an eloquent statement. and instead of hiding in the hills you now go in and it's a
tourist town. the restaurants say indian owned which is a good thing come into the casino. so there hadn't been reparations of any kind. there has been in certain places and integration may be a little bit like john ross would have wanted. >> would you agree on the monetary reparations or would it be -- >> thank you for asking. i'm going to duck that as a journalist i would be interested if someone makes a serious play. i would think that at a minimum what he wants to assure is that your citizens are fully integrated into american life in the way that they want to be and that the rights are respected. i would think it's plausible.
it's been brought over to many times for that to be possible although i should mention much of the land that was cleared for the settlement is now empty again because if you wanted to go back to alabama you could probably find a spot and some have. there are some reservations back in alabama. >> they played a role in the education of many of the most influential as well as the supreme court cases. did you reach any conclusion whether their influence ultimately served a positive or negative influence? >> that's the last part. you are right about the fact that it's a huge part of the story and another way that this felt very modern as the early 18 hundreds was the period of the
religious revival in the united states of spreading religious interest and political power into there were missionaries who went among the heathen as they were called just as they went to hawaii and china to try to convert which i think for many people at the time was synonymous. they were missionaries that lived among the charities. i would say they were in many ways positive because they flipped them. they were supposed to change the natives and they won some converts. but they were also persuaded that the cherokees had rights that should be respected and so they became messengers from the indian world back to the white
world and said peace people are being abused and must be protected. it was sometimes a patronizing view they didn't always have respect for the people whose rights they wanted to respect but sometimes they did. they helped the cherokees to plug-in to a really powerful network of publishers and politicians and preachers who fought for the rights and defended the rights of very vocal and creative ways. the religious political activists at the time were fascinating because there was a kind of religious right that we would recognize as published morality and the biggest big thing is that everything should stop on sundays and the big campaign was to stop the delivery of the sunday mail. it i was outraged they could be picked up on sundays.
when andrew jackson was elected they wrote him a letter and this is the hero of the battle of new orleans the greatest war hero of his day and the preacher said in the letter if he would just stop the sunday mail service he would finally distinguish himself as a patriot. so there was a recognizable kind of religious right focused on public morality but often the very same people were performing acts that we would associate with perhaps the modern religious after pacifist left. they would've denounced the war and the perceived financial cost of the war of 1812 for example in the same way people in recent years measured at the cost in dollars in iraq as a way to build up a position and they
also quite vocally and in many cases quite eloquently fought for indian rights and one of them suggested to a number of women that perhaps they should campaign for indian rights and a number of them did even though women couldn't vote they started the campaigns against the country and appears to be the first example of mass political action in the united states it was on behalf of indians. it did not succeed of course but it was noticed and it was memorable and many people failed to protect them and moved on to a different cause and became abolitionists of slavery. one of the leaders at this petition movement was a woman named catherine who was an educator whose little sister was. beecher stowe who later wrote uncle tom's cabin which was
hugely influential in changing what people's attitudes about slavery. >> someone else with a tie this is awesome. thank you. >> you spoke about the slavery that the likes of others want to bring over but also can you speak about the cherokees themselves who i believe owned slaves, and the other question i had was regarding if you could speak a little bit about the supreme court case with john marshall. it's been absolutely. i'm just delighted by the depth of knowledge and the questions. thank you for reminding me of that fact. while they were busy copying of their practices the practices they took up slavery and john ross himself according to any evidence i found as a slave
owner. he didn't write very much at all that his personal life but there is evidence and you can kind of see his slaves by inference and some of the things he wrote in his letters. that is a bitter and difficult and complicated legacy. i have seen efforts to minimize it a little bit and there may have been a reason to minimize a little bit. it appears that in some of the native nations some of the african-americans even if they were classed as slaves they may have enjoyed more freedom than in the society. in the seminole tribes particularly in florida some of them rose to positions of considerable leadership that it occurs to me that it's slavery. there's only so much you can do with that and i would imagine if you are on the large plantation owned by the major cherokees
figure i can't imagine that your life was that much better or different than if you were on a white transplantation 50 miles away. that is part of the legacy here absolutely perfect the story and it's fascinating to me that it remains part of the story. when the cherokees integers were removed, the elites but owned slaves were allowed to take the slaves. they've continued to live out west in oklahoma and it's a continuing news story which we come across from time to time and cover from time to time because now rather than being a huge disadvantage it can be a financial advantage because maybe now your tribe has a good casino independent there are questions about whether the african-american cherokees or the african-american creek skip to be classed as indians which legally they should be or not and there are different tribes devoted to exclude from their own midst. it's a complicated story.
it's an ongoing story, and it's one of the reasons that i think of this as a story of 20 x. but flawed man. this is a story of human beings which i think is another reason that it's a story about democracy. we are all human. we are all sinners. we all mess up. then off to the extent that we all mess up. we all have different views and we'll argue with each other through the democratic process and, our hope is that even though so many of us are wrong, over the long run or different arguments will produce a result that is right or at least better than it used to be. thank you. any other questions? >> john marshall, of course, thank you very much. the most influential chief justice was named chief justice i believe in 1801 by the
retiring president john adams. in the 1830s he was still there. he'd been in the army army and decades later still chief justice. you are right it's one of the race to take ways to take advantage of the democratic process. they started their own newspaper, they spread their propaganda, they built white allies like the christians i was describing and they also suit in the supreme court. they sued once and lost, they sued another time and they one. marshall wrote a ruling that you can find the whole thing on google. marshall was looking up to see the history and wrote that it was obvious that they owned the land that they owned and they had the right to whatever and
they have the right to govern themselves. under the umbrella of the federal government because the nation in that area sign the treaties by that time saying they were at the end of the protection of the federal government. it's funny the word prediction was in these treaties and there were advocates of the removal would say that means we can do with them as we think best. and marshall has a line in his ruling where he says the word protection does not imply to the destruction. and essentially the ruling was ignored. the state never even sent a lawyer to defend the case and claimed the supreme court had no jurisdiction and ignored the
findings and it would have required a strong president to impose the ruling on them. the president of the time was andrew jackson. he was a strong president but was angry about the ruling and it was some political machinations to make the case dissolved. >> this may be apocryphal he stated that marshall had his ruling but let us see if he can enforce it. hispanic yes, that is a very famous statement he may not have exactly said. it was written in a book by horace greeley whether andrew jackson ever said john marshall made his rule by don't we enforce it, maybe he didn't actually say that at another scholar that i quote in the book found five or six other contemporary statements made which basically mean all the same thing.
one more okay great. >> knowing what you know that you support the removal from the 20 billion-dollar bill? [laughter] >> i've answered that question asked and answered no. it would look very nice with john ross on it. then you flip it over and you have on the other side andrew jackson. it was part of a great and important story that shouldn't be forgotten. this is different than a campaign that has a lot of publicity that i think is brilliant to put a woman on the 20-dollar bill. [applause]