Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  July 25, 2015 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT

12:00 pm
going on, being done by adults. i read in the book the biggest -- the reason it broke is they it -- they had millions of dollars, they were rich, they didn't hire a law firm or lobbyists, they didn't get a general to sit on their board. ..
12:01 pm
>> this is a statement on how pathetic things really are in government, they imagine themselves to be solving a great case in a quote, in the global war on terrorism. getting three kids in miami beach, stopping them from shipping ammo to afghanistan was them winning the global war on terrorism. and that literally is how it was discussed inside government. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> and now from politics & prose bookstore in washington d.c., npr's steve inskeep provides a dual biography of andrew jackson and cherokee leader john ross in the lead-up to president jackson's signing of the indian removal act of 1830. >> our featured attraction, of
12:02 pm
course, this evening is the great steve inskeep who i'm sure is already familiar to many of you. certainly, those of you who listen to national public radio. he's been an on-air presence there for 19 years, and for over a decade now he's been one to have hosts of "morning edition," the most widely-heard radio news program in the united states. i take your guys' word for it right? and steve appeared here at p and p three and a half years ago when his first book was published, "instant city," which chronicled a day in the life of karachi, pakistan. and he's back now to talk about his second book, "jackson land." in it steve goes not abroad, but back in time in the united states to the era of andrew jackson. he tells the story not only of jackson, but of john ross, the tribal chief of the cherokee.
12:03 pm
once military comrades, these two men ended up on posing sides of an epic struggle over land seize sur and resettlement of native american tribes that severely tested america's young democracy. it was a transformative chapter in our nation's development and also a very tragic one. and as steve notes in his acknowledgments, authors have grappled with that period and its protagonists in different ways at different times since. jackson has been portrayed variously as the hero of democracy and a malevolent indian hater, ross as both the moses of his people and a stubborn egotist. and the expulsion of the indians or trail of tears has been treated as either a practical inevitable response to the needs of white settlement or a
12:04 pm
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 that episode was, it continues to resonate in present-day societal tensions between those who espouse the rule of the majority and those who champion the rights of the minority which makes steve's book not just a tale of the past, but a lesson for the present and future. ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming steve inskeep. [applause] >> thank you and good evening. that was such a good introduction, i'm tempted to just stop and -- [laughter] leave it there and ask you the buy the book. thank you very much. [laughter] it is really, really an honor to be here at what i know, having traveled around, is one of the best independent bookstores in
12:05 pm
the united states. [applause] and one of the most vital. it's an honor also the know that there are one or two colleagues from npr several colleagues i guess from npr here tonight. i learn so much from my colleagues i benefit so much from working with my colleagues, and i even get to take credit for some of their work, which is very nice. [laughter] every now and again i run into somebody be on the street, and they say that was a great show this morning, it was amazing! and i have to say, thank you, i was off today. [laughter] they just kind of assume i'm there, you know? it's david green it's actually renee mountain, it'sen incredible reporting behind the scenes, and sometimes i'm there and sometimes i'm not but it's an honor to work with them. and it's an honor to be with you here tonight for my first public event for this book.
12:06 pm
i have been eager to fling this book out on the world for quite some time. in fact, i've had an image in my in my mind of actually flinging it. [laughter] i won't do that because my lovely wife carol is in the third row, and i would not like to injure her. [laughter] this is, as bradley so eloquently said, a story of two men, andrew jackson and john ross. it's a story of their battle over land, and it's a story of american democracy. it's set in an era when the democracy that we know began to take shape. it was almost 200 years ago but it feels ever present when you begin to get into the material. we did a very 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 creek indian ancestry, and another person had cherokee
12:07 pm
ancestry, and then another person had cherokee ancestry and a connection to andrew jackson's family. and then a woman hands me a book and says would you please sign it for a man who named his son after andrew jackson. then today i was on the telephone with a man from knoxville, tennessee, which is one of the places i'm supposed to go for this book. you know that andrew jackson is from tennessee. and i'm supposed to speak in a theater called the buy jewish theater about which i knew nothing until this man told me it is hardly a building that's been there since the early 1800s, and the people who have been in that building before me include andrew jackson. this feels very present. and it feels very present when you get into the material as well. even though it also is a distant and different place. going into this story sometimes like being in a dream where you see people that you recognize, but they're doing
12:08 pm
different things. or people who are normally not together in your life are suddenly together. everything is recognizable but at the same time foreign. it begins with john ross at the age of 22 on a river journey on the tennessee river which zigzags in and out of the state of tennessee through alabama and some other states on the way to the ohio and then the mississippi. he's going with the current which is really the only practical way to go on a boat. and going down river through what is then wilderness. and i write here that anyone covertly studying the boat would have seen four men onboard. ross was black-haired, brown-eyed, slight but handsome. each of his three companions could be described in a phrase, a cherokee interpreter an older cherokee man and a servant, as the man was called, but ross was harder to categorize. he was the son of a scottish
12:09 pm
trader whose family had lived among cherokees for generations in their homeland in the southern appalachians. ross at age 22, was an aspiring trader himself yet he also had a solid claim to his identity as an indian. a man of mixed race, he'd grown up among cherokee children, and in keeping with cherokee custom received a new name at adulthood. said to be a species of bird. my 10-year-old now goes around saying call me that, call me that. that's a good name, i like that. from now on i will only answer to that name, she says. [laughter] whether he was a white man or an indian became a matter of life and death on december 28th 1812. in kentucky, as ross later recorded in a letter, we was hailed by a party of white men. the men on the river bank called for the boat to come closer. ross asked what they wanted.
12:10 pm
give us the news! something bothered ross about the men. i told them we had no news worth their attention. and now the white men revealed their purpose. one shouted that they had orders from a garrison of soldiers nearby to stop every boat descending the river to examine if any indians was onboard, as they were not permitted to come about that place. come to us, the men concluded or we will come to you. ross didn't come. damn my soul if those two are not indians one of the men shouted, referring to two of ross' crew. the man added that he would gather a company of men to pursue and kill them. ross claimed that one of his companions was spanish not indian. the man spoke some spanish to try to persuade the white men of that but didn't succeed. finally, the men said that it
12:11 pm
was an indian boat and mounted their horses and galloped off. ross had to assume the men were serious. it was 1812. the united states had declared war on britain earlier that year, and a number of indian nations had effectively taken the british side. they'd risen up against the white settlers who they felt were oppressing them and taking their land. the frontier was in turmoil. the white horsemen would not pause to find out that ross' cherokees were actually loyal to the united states. and the cherokees on that boat could only travel in one direction. they had little chance to escape if the men on horseback arranged an unpleasant reception downstream. now this is one of the moments that feels very modern to me. ross decided on a precaution. he whitened the boat. he told the horsemen there were no indians onboard and the best chance of safety was to make that claim appear true.
12:12 pm
so he modified the racial composition of his crew, leaving only those who could pass as non-indian. ross could pass as could the cherokee interpreter who, like ross, was an english speaker and a mixed-blood parlance for part white and part indian. the servant who may have been a black man, would be ignored. only the old man was a full-blooded cherokee with no chance to fool everybody. this apparently, was ross' thinking, because he confided later in a letter we concluded it was good policy to let the old man out of the boat. this old man was set off over land and was told to meet the craft later. the remaining crew put their poles in the water and shoved the keel boat toward whatever lay ahead. they spent two anxious days on the water, and the old man had a
12:13 pm
disagreeable walk of about 30 miles probably along the bank opposite from are where they'd seen the horsemen. finally, the old man rejoined the boat downstream, and they floated to a safe haven on the ohio river which was manned by professional soldiers who could tell friend from foe. the horsemen never reappeared. reflecting on this afterward ross said he was convinced that the independent manner in which i answered the horsemen had confounded their apprehension of being an indian boat. indians were supposed to be children of the woods in a common phrase of the era dangerous but not so bright and expected to address white men respectfully as elder brothers. ross, a cherokee, had talked back to the men in clear and defiant english which means that the future leader of the cherokee nation had passed as white. you see here evidence of how
12:14 pm
tremendously diverse the united states was at this very young moment. you see here a country in which there is a collision of different kinds of people who are trying to figure out their identities in a changing world figure out their place in a changing world and sometimes for their own safety obscure their identities in a changing world. trying to figure out how it all works. it's a dynamic country in the early 1800s. the it's growing at a tremendously rapid pace going up by millions of people every decade. the country was only two or three million at the time of the revolution, was something like 12 million by around 1830. growing massively and that growing population was moving west. and the iconic man moving west, the iconic frontier leader was andrew jackson. we know him as a kind of hero of democracy because he came from
12:15 pm
very poor beginningsing. his father -- beginnings. his father died shortly before he was born. his mother died when he was in his early teens of cholera during the american revolution. he started life with almost nothing. there was one point when he received an inheritance and he did what you would do with an inheritance if you were a parentless teenager. you go to charleston, south carolina, and you gamble it all away. [laughter] he then moved west to try to make a living. got drunk and brawled along the way. there are stories of him partying all night in a tavern with some of his friends, and when they were done, they decided to mark the occasion by burning the tables and chairs in the fireplace, breaking them apart, throwing them in the fireplace and setting everything on fire and smashing every glass bolt that they -- bottle that they had emptied in the course of the evening. fascinating guy.
12:16 pm
self-educated. became a lawyer in the way that people became lawyers on the frontier. in fact, in most of america at that time you would study with another lawyer and pretty much figure it all out yourself and start arguing cases in court. when the cases did not go well for andrew jackson he would challenge rival lawyers to duels. [laughter] which would sometimes be negotiated away to nothing and sometimes not so much. and i want to describe a moment after andrew jackson had made it all the way west to tennessee which was pretty far west in the late 1700s and early 1800s. jackson was born in 1767. anything over the appalachians was regarded as "the west." he made it all the way to nashville. he became a farmer, which is a kind way to say that he was a plantation slave owner. he became a politician but he was always something of a wild man or seen as something of a
12:17 pm
wild man although i argue in the book that he had remarkable self-control when he thought it suited his interests and had a terrible temper when he thought that suited his interests. controversy followed the whip-thin politician with the wiry hair. although his ownership of slaves was unremarkable in tennessee he sometimes engaged in slave dealing, a business that even slave owners considered disreputable. he also endured criticism for his continuing tendency to challenge other men the duels, a practice that remained common but illegal. in 1806 jackson led an exchange of insults with a nashville man escalate into a duel and result toll kill his opponent. to kill his to appointment. jackson let the other man shoot first, took a led ball near his -- realize ball near his heart that would remain in his body for the rest of his life yet remained standing, according
12:18 pm
to the best accounts of this duel. he took time to be sure of his aim before firing a fatal shot this return. unfortunately for jackson his antagonist was a popular young man whose death stained jackson's reputation, and that reputation was already colored by scandal. it was widely known that he had been together with rachel, his wife for years before she completed her divorce from an abusive husband. rachel and andrew lived as husband and wife from 1790 or '91 onward even though the formal decree ending her previous marriage didn't arrive until 1793. they had to be remarried in 1794 to clear up doubts about their status. but having married they cultivated a conventional family life. with no children of their own they adopted their son andrew jr., from rachel's relatives. when jackson traveled, his miserable wife wrote him letters urging him to to hurry home. he wrote back tenderly to express regret that he could not.
12:19 pm
the muddled circumstances of his marriage proved to be characteristic of andrew jackson. he took counsel of what he wants, what his friends desired and what he felt to be right. he was guided less by the norm to society than what he considered just as he wrote in his letters often capitalizing that word, j-u-s-t. for his marriage to rachel the most romantic act of his life, he was willing to endure decades of whispers and insults. a darker manifestation of this same characteristic came out in his slave trading. the social convention that it was acceptable to own human beings as property but that only lowdown characters would engage in the slave trade would have been just the sort of elaborate hypocrisy by which jackson refused to be governed. modern readers can wish that he resolved this hypocrisy by rejecting both practices. instead, he embraced them both when it suited his interests. his approach to slavery
12:20 pm
foreshadowed his approach to federal indian policy. he would reject what he saw as its palls piety and re-- false piety and rewry it in a way that -- rewrite it in a way that suited people like himself. i want to say something else about him here. for the first 45, 46, 47 years of this man's life, the record of jackson's career suggests a talented man thrashing about in the dark trying to locate a ladder that no man of his background had ever climbed. his speeches made an impression in the house of representatives. he was tennessee's first congressman, but he left his seat. served briefly in the senate but quit that too. became a justice on the tennessee supreme court. won election in 1802 as major general of the tennessee militia but for years couldn't find any wars to fight. he was very disappointed by this. he tried to start wars, didn't succeed. like many a westerner, he
12:21 pm
speculated in land. he bought and sold the rights to tens of thousands of acres including land alongside the mississippi river that eventually became memphis. it was common for speculators to buy the rights to indian land in the west and then press their politicians to clear it of indians, pressure that jackson as a politician himself was well connected to applying. but he made the mistake of dealing with men more dreamy-eyed than he was, and when one of his land sales unraveled, jackson struggled to avoid bankruptcy and the risk of debtors' prison. all of that was before the war of 1812 when his military and diplomatic triumphs opened new horizons for a man with a real estate background and business connections. during the war he was a general in command of an army. when it was over, he applied his relentless energy to the conquest of acreage. and that is the heart of the
12:22 pm
story of "jackson land." it's about the land. it begins in the war of 1812, continues for more than 20 years after. and we trace jackson's efforts as a general and then as president of the united states to clear native american nations from the eastern half of what we now think of as the united states from east of the mississippi. primarily five powerful nations in the south, one of whom was the cherokee nation centered on north georgia and several surrounding states. now, when you buy this book -- and i know you're all going to buy this book, right? -- you'll see a number of maps which i will want you to keep in your head. because in the early 19th century, the land at issue, quite a few future american states, could be represented on two mutually incompatible maps. mutually exclusive maps.
12:23 pm
there was a white man's map and an indian map. the white man's map somewhat resembled the map of the united states today. you had all these states and territories, many of them distinguished by straight lines drawn right across the map. and then you had a map of indian nations. much of the same land, usually delineated by squiggly lines representing the tops of ridges or rivers or other natural landmarks. it was the same land twice. and the federal government in washington for many decades recognized both, recognized both maps. it had its reasons to embrace ambiguity. the legal reality was the indian map. there was a united states, there was land that was recognized that belonged to the united states along the coast and there were indian nations which had been independent nations
12:24 pm
since before the arrival of european settlers. the ambition was the white man's map, the map of the united states. and the heart of this story is how that conflict over the course of more than 20 years was resolved. and the, in my mind, titanic struggle between two heroic but flawed human beings who were at the center of it all again and 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 were a lot of different ways that land was contended over in these 20 years. there were wars, there were massacres, more often there were treaties treaty negotiations, bribes paid, deals made, people coerced and threatened. and pushed aside and sometimes they pushed back.
12:25 pm
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 states army, basically in charge of the south. and ross is rising in the leadership of the cherokee nation. he's on his way to becoming the principal chief of the cherokee nation. cherokees, as some of you may know, had made an effort to modernize their society to make it more compatible with white civilization, this encroaching white civilization. they had changed their clothing they had changed their architecture, they had changed their style of business. they were even on their way to changing their government. as john ross rose in cherokee leadership one of the things that he took a lead in doing was creating a constitution for the cherokee nation modeled on that of the united states.
12:26 pm
it begins "we the people of the cherokee nation." you can see when you put them side by side, you can see the influence there, and you can see what ross was trying to do. he wanted to make the cherokee nation a kind of territory or eventually a state within the union, within the united states. he actually said in a letter we consider ourselves a part of the great family of the republic of the united states. this was a group of people whose leaders at least -- although there was some opposition within the nation -- whose leaders had chosen to try to join this new vast country that was approaching them. i've come to think of them as people who were like immigrants assimilating to a new country except the new country was coming to them. and they were trying to keep from being deported from that country which had come to them. in 1820 they still controlled a substantial amount of land in
12:27 pm
north georgia tennessee alabama, north carolina. near my friend marshall's home. i see marshall here this evening. thank you for wearing a tie. i'm glad one other person wore a tie, that's great. makes me less embarrassed. [laughter] john ross was part of the cherokee leadership attempting to defend that land, and you had people we would describe as squatters; white families who were moving onto cherokee territory and simply grabbing farms, setting up farms and staying there until someone kicked them out. the cherokees asked the united states military to do something about this as they were legally required to do. this required john ross to write general andrew jackson and ask for help. amazingly, general jackson did not have any troops to spare for this job. they were busy clearing shrubs on a highway and doing other important things. it's clear that the leaders of the united states wanted one
12:28 pm
thing to happen, they wanted indian nations to move. finally, jackson suggested to the cherokees that if they wanted to clear the squatters the intruders as they were called off their land they should just do it themselves. so they started a military unit or reorganized a military unit that had been in existence for some time called the cherokee light horse, and this group of cavalry went out under the command of john ross and went to the first farm of a man named atkinson. who had threatened in various ways violent opposition if anyone came to kick him off his land. and so the cherokees came and they arrived at the farm and found no one around. they didn't know if somebody was hiding in the woods, they didn't know where anybody was. the farm had been abandoned food lying around as if people had just left. and the cherokee light horse sat about destroying the crops that had been accumulated on this farm.
12:29 pm
you had to destroy things, or people would not simply would not leave. but this is the remarkable thing that happened. as his men set aflame the food stores at the farm john ross had been waiting for the response. the sound of hooves, the gunshot from the woods. but what he saw -- when he saw figures approaching at length, it was not a party of white gunmen, it was one man one woman, some children. and ross wrote in a letter, "atkinson came across the river river -- which was the boundary -- came across the river with his wife and family to defend it, to defend his farm not by the force of powder and lead, but by the shedding of tears." this unexpected weapon of defense had more effect on the minds of the men than if he had resorted to the manners threatened. the measures threatened.
12:30 pm
his conviction of error and pitiful acknowledgments etc., etc., induced me to permit him to recross the river to the white side -- that's what he called white territory -- unmolested with a few sheep and geese. his crop was all destroyed. ross was angry, ross felt that white intruders were part of a grand plan to grab cherokee land, which they were. but he couldn't do the maximum to this man. he let the man get away with his livestock. he watched atkinson go away driving his livestock before him, which was probably all he owned. though the strategy of gaining great strips of land for white settlement was a central project of the frontier elite, illegally occupying indian land was a job for the poor not just any farmer who'd risk his life, labor and possessions to improve land that might be snatched back. this white farmer had probably taken cherokee property because
12:31 pm
he could not afford the abundant real estate that was on sale nearby in alabama. atkinson did not even have the support of relatives or other white tennesseans because nobody had rallied to help defend his farm. surely his poverty was evident to ross as soon as his weeping family appeared. and ross let the man go. ross wrote all this in a letter to andrew jackson. reporting what he had done and ended it "i have the honor to be sir your very obedient, humble servant, john ross." while jackson's reply to this note, if any has not survived, it is easy to calculate from other letters what jackson thought of it. he almost certainly disapproved. andrew jackson would never have let atkinson walk away. jackson believed it was a mistake to allow white squatters to depart with their livestock. the squatters would simply wait until the troops had moved on and then return.
12:32 pm
while jackson showed little enthusiasm for removing white settlers, he had known at all for doing a job badly or giving anyone a chance to flout his will. if white settlers were to be removed at all the job should be thoroughly done. once his troops finally arrived, he would order them to hold white settlers and deliver them to the nearest civilian lawman for prosecution. and here was a subtle but significant difference between these two men who would contend for land over the years that followed. andrew jackson could show mercy and respect. he could 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. ross too, proved to be fiercely and stubbornly competitive. but there were moments when ross let his stubbornness give way to
12:33 pm
generosity and, ross hoped to justice. which is what john ross would seek over the next 18 years leading up to what we learn about in school, the trail of tears. i appreciate what bradley said at the beginning that this is much greater detail of a story that perhaps you think you know. and you discover there's so much more to it, and it is so closely related to the time in which we live. the book is "jackson land." thank you very much for coming and i'll -- [applause] i'll welcome you to take your questions. there is a microphone here -- is this the only microphone? so go ahead and line up there. and if you do me a favor would you say your name so that we can get to know each other a bit and go ahead and ask a direct question. go ahead sir. >> sure. my name is bruce. you said this is a longstanding interest of yours. where is that coming from? >> some of it comes from my day
12:34 pm
job. i feel this is something that is very closely connected to the news that i cover. i know this will shock you but three or four years ago i grew a little discouraged about the state of politics in this country. [laughter] and that drove me in a couple of different directions. one of the ways it drove me was to rye whiskey. [laughter] america was drunk on rye for the whole 19th century. i discovered it was coming back, i bought a few bottles of rye. i bought a few more bottles of rye. but it also drove me into history more directly. i'd always been fascinated by the 1830s by this period when american democracy began. and i began researching and found this story which i'd learned a paragraph or a page about in elementary school or junior high school sometime in school i have a memory of studying this for a minute. and it felt really visceral and really alive to me even now.
12:35 pm
and i began researching it and learning more and more. and it felt really current. "jackson land," the name that i give to this book, is my description of the land of the american south which andrew jackson obtained through wars, treaties and a variety of other means. it is all of florida, it is most of alabama it's a good part of georgia, a good part of tennessee, part of a north carolina. it is much of mississippi tennessee, kentucky, western tennessee, kentucky. it's a lot of land. it's also this city where i work. it's washington d.c. it's the white house or executive mansion, as it was called then. it's the house of representatives, this kind of temple of democracy which men in those -- met in those days in statuary hall at the capitol. have you guys been there? just a beautiful semicircular building now filled with statues sent from every state of the
12:36 pm
union, one of whom is sequoia the inventer of the written cherokee language who was sent here by oklahoma which is where cherokees ended up after they were expelled from the appalachians. partly because of a vote in that room statuary hall, to very narrowly approve a bill called the indian removal act which was conceived of by jackson's administration, passed narrowly by his supporters and signed by president andrew jackson in 1830. so to me, this became an opportunity to look at my day job in a completely different and deeper way. to understand both the similarities and differences between this time and that time. we're in this moment where the country is changing so radically, so rapidly demographically and in other ways. there's so many different kinds of people from all around the world who have come here and are
12:37 pm
continuing -- our continuing challenge is to work through our differences in a democracy respect the rights of every minority while also maintaining ourselves as one nation. please go ahead, ma'am. >> okay. my name's jennie finch. >> hi. >> steve, on the pbs "newshour" you said there was an alternative expansion strategy that johnson -- that jackson could have used, but it was very difficult. i'd like to know what that alternative, kinder strategy was and how much if at all, he, you know pursued it. >> of course. first, thanks for mentioning the "newshour". yes, i was on last night. judy woodruff talked to me, it was an honor to talk to her and that program is really great. it's changed and improved a lot
12:38 pm
in recent times. it's a fair question what else could be done? it was a rapidly-growing country. the white population was rapidly growing. there was a massive push to move westward. it was a movement of poor white farmers like atkinson in our story. it was also a move by let us call them entrepreneurs who wanted to expand the territory that was available for slave plantations. they wanted to own slaves and grow cotton and make a fortune. they wanted to sell slaves that were getting too numerous in virginia. they wanted to broaden the market, they wanted to move west. there was this irresistible, it seemed, social force driving for land particularly as things were happening in the knot -- in the north as well. and the question for jackson or any president is what to do about that. the state of georgia was particularly central in demanding that cherokees and other native nations be cleared from its land as soon as
12:39 pm
possible. any president was going to be forced to deal with that. jackson's predecessor, john quincy adam had a different view of indians and a different policy but ended up being effectively co-opted in prying the creek nation out of their land, their last land in georgia because the pressure was so great from below. and the georgians even in the 1820s -- that's-off that's how far back we're going -- were talking of civil war, stand to your arms, be ready to fight for your rights. there is a message from 1825 from a governor of georgia talking about how there's a conspiracy of washington elites, new york liberals, the unelected justices of the supreme court an attorney general who's the mouthpiece of an untrustworthy president plotting, plotting against the state of georgia to
12:40 pm
take away georgia's slaves and not even pay for them. this is an actual message from the governor of georgia. i'm paraphrasing, but that's the meaning. and georgia was insisting on its land. any president was going to have to deal with that. andrew jackson did have at least one alternative that was seriously discussed at the time which is simply continue the old policy. there was a policy that went back to the days of president george washington which was to encourage the indian nations to civilize as white people saw it, to sell them the tools to the raise their living standards which actually could be good for native nations to sell them that stuff and hope that as they changed their ways from being hunters who needed lots of land, they'd become farmers who didn't need nearly so much land. and what do you know, they would owe money for all the nice clothes and stuff that they
12:41 pm
bought and maybe they'd sell white people some land. it was a win/win. consumer capitalism. so there was an old policy that was regarded as more humane that nations like the cherokees actually did grab on to and get some benefit from. and an alternative was to try to continue that policy. but it would have had to have been ferociously done. jackson, as president risked civil war anyway with the state of south carolina over different issues. he would also have had to risk civil war with the state of georgia over the question of indians. there was an alternative but it would have been extremely difficult. there also by the way i'll mention, was john ross' alternative which was to make the cherokee nation some kind of territory or state as part of the union, but that would have, that would have required completely different racial attitudes than existed in the united states at the time. thank you. anybody else have a question?
12:42 pm
go right ahead sir. >> how are you? >> hi. >> my name is kevin. >> kevin? >> yes, sir. i was just wonder have there been any i'm just curious meaningful reparations paid for the past atrocities, and would you support such a policy? >> no. have there been meaningful reparations paid? now, i should mention that part of this story is that the cherokees through their great resistance, through their many years of resistance managed to get paid for their land in the end. they were paid at the time $6 million and change which was a fraction of its value but at least they were paid something. but have they gotten the land back? no. in 2009 they did get an apology. how many people knew that the united states has apologized to indians for mistreatment in the 19th century? okay, some people knew. that's awesome. it was done in the quietest way possible. it was a bipartisan measure. i want to say that sam brownback, of kansas who was
12:43 pm
then in the senate, may have been behind this, a republican. it was attached to a defense authorization bill -- [laughter] and quietly signed by president obama, no ceremony, no formal anything. but there's language in the law saying we're really sorry about this whole land thing and other various abuses. but the language also states that the apology may not be used as a legal basis to recover land. i will say some cherokees remained in the eastern united states. they fled the soldiers who finally came for them in 1838 as the trail of tears which you learned about in school, happened. they remained on their land. you can still find them in cherokee, north carolina. i certainly didn't take a survey but i spoke with one who said the past is past, we don't want our land back. what we want is the truth to be told. it was an eloquent statement.
12:44 pm
and i will say that in cherokee north carolina instead of having to hide in the hills as they had to do for a period after 1838, you now go into cherokee, and it's a tourist town. there are moccasin shops. [laughter] tomtom shops restaurants that say indian owned which is now a good thing and a giant harrah's casino. so no, there have not been reparations of any kind, but there has been in certain places a kind of integration into american life. maybe a little bit like john ross would have wanted. >> quick follow up. >> sure. >> would you agree of a policy of monetary reparations, or would it be, you know -- >> thank you for asking. i'm going to duck that as a journalist, but i'll be interested if someone makes a serious play. i would think that at a minimum what you want to assure is that your citizens are fully integrated into american life. in the way that they want to be.
12:45 pm
and that their rights, that their rights are respected. i would think that some kind of monetary something is plausible. recovering the land is probably not. it's been bought over and built over too many times probably for that to be possible. although i should mention when you go into alabama much of land that was cleared for white settlement is now empty again because, you know, rural areas have emptied out. it's become forest again. if you were a member of the creek nation and wanted to go back to alabama, you could probably find a spot. and some have. there are now small creek reservations back in alabama. sure. yes, sir. >> bill montross. christian missionaries played a role in of the most influential cherokees' education as well as the supreme court cases. did you reach any conclusion as to whether their influence ultimately served a positive or negative influence? >> oh, that is a fascinating
12:46 pm
question, the last part, positive or negative. you're absolutely right about the facts. that's a huge part of the story, and another way that this felt very modern to me. the early 1800s was a period of religious revival in the united states, of spreading religious interests and also spreading religious political power. and there were missionaries who went among the indians among the heathen as they were called just as they went to hawaii and china and other places, any place they could get to try to convert the heathen to christianity. or to civilization, which i think for many people at that time was synonymous. and there were missionaries who lived among the cherokees. i would say that they were, in many ways, positive for the cherokees because the cherokees flipped them. these were representatives of the white world to the native world who were supposed to change the natives and they won
12:47 pm
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 these people are being abused and must be protected. it was sometimes a patronizing view of protection. they didn't always have respect for the people whose rights they wanted to protect but sometimes they did. and they helped the cherokees to plug in to a really powerful network of publishers and politicians and preachers who fought for their rights and defended their rights in very vocal and creative ways for years. the religious political activists of the time are fascinating because there was a kind of religious right that we would recognize as focusing on public morality. their big thing was that there
12:48 pm
really ought to be a sabbath. everything should stop on sundays, and their big campaign for years and years was to stop the delivery of the sunday mail. it was an outrage that the mail could be picked up by people at post offices on sundays. we were all going to hell because of that. one preacher when andrew jackson was elected wrote him a letter, and this was the guy who was the hero of the battle of new orleans, the greatest war hero of his day and he's -- the preacher said in the letter that 23 he would just -- if he would just stop the sunday mail service while he was president he would finally distinguish himself as a patriot. [laughter] jackson was offended by these people for some reason. [laughter] 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 left or pacifist left. they would denounce war. they would add up the perceived
12:49 pm
financial cost of the war of 1812, for example, in the same way that people in recent years measure the cost in dollars of the war in iraq as a way to build opposition. and they also quite vocally and in many cases eloquently fought for indian rightings. and one of them, a guy named jeremiah e relates, suggested to a number of women that perhaps they should campaign for indian rights. and a number of them did even though women could not vote. they started petition campaigns across the country, and it appears to me to be the first example of mass political action by women 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 of the same people after they failed to protect indians moved on to a different cause and became abolitionists and opposed slavery.
12:50 pm
the, one of the leaders, one of the organizers of this women's petition movement is a woman named katherine beecher who was an educator whose little sister was harriet beecher stowe who later wrote "uncle tom's cabin" which was hugely influential in changing white people's attitudes about slavery. more questions. go right ahead sir, good evening. someone else with a tie, this is awesome. thank you. [laughter] >> you spoke about the slavery that the white settlers wanted to bring slavery to that indian the cherokee lammed. >> yes. >> but also can you speak to about the cherokees themselves who owned -- i believe owned slaves and plantations. and the other question i had was regarding if you could speak about the supreme court case with john marshall. >> e absolutely. i'm just -- oh, absolutely. i'm just delighted by the depth of knowledge in these questions. thank you for reminding me of
12:51 pm
that fact that, yes indian nations -- while they were busy copying other white practices -- took up slavery. and john ross himself, according to any evidence that i've found was a slave owner. he didn't write very much at all about his personal life, but there is, there is evidence. and you can kind of see his slaves by inference in system of the things that he wrote -- in some of the things that 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 reason to minimize it a little bit. it appears that in some of the native nations some of the african-americans, even if they were classed as slaves, may have enjoyed somewhat more freedom than in white society. in the seminole tribes particularly in florida some of them rose to positions of considerable leadership. but it occurs to me that it was still slavery.
12:52 pm
there's just only so much you can do with that. and i would imagine that if you were on the large plantation owned by major ridge who was a major cherokee figure and a major character in this book, i can't imagine your life was that much better or different than if you were on a white man's plantation 50 miles away. that is part of the legacy here absolutely part of the story. and it's fascinating to me that it remains part of the story. when the cherokees and others were removed the elites who owned slaves were allowed to take their slaves. they have 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 to be an indian, it can be a financial advantage to be an indian because maybe your tribe has a good casino. and then there are questions about whether the african-american cherokees or the african-american creeks get
12:53 pm
to be classed as indians, which legally they should be, or not. and there are different tribes that have voted to exclude black people 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 two heroic but flawed deeply flawed men. this is a story of human beings which i think is another reason that it's a story about democracy. we're all human we're all sinners, we all mess up. hopefully not to that extent, but we all mess up. we all have different views. we all argue with each other through the democratic process and our hope is that even though so many of us are are wrong over the long run our different arguments will produce a result that is right. or at least better than it used to be. thank you. any other questions? >> [inaudible] >> john marshall.
12:54 pm
>> >> oh, john marshall, of course. thank you very much. yeah john marshall, the most famous, probably 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 was basically one of the founding fatherrings. he'd been in george washington's army and in the 1830s decades later, he's still chief justice. and you're right the cherokees sued. it's one of the ways they took advantage of the democratic process. they started their own newspaper, they spread their own propaganda, they built white allies like the christians that i was describing, and they also sued in the supreme court. they sued once and lost, they sued another time and won and marshall wrote a ruling which you can read excerpts in the book, you can find the whole thing on google. it's not hard. and it's a remarkably clear ruling in which marshall, who was old enough to have seen the
12:55 pm
whole history of the united states as a country wrote that it was obvious that native nations owned the land that they owned, that they had the right to whatever land they had not lost through treaties or wars or purchases of some kind, that they could not be forced to move without their consent and that they had the right to govern themselves. under the umbrella of the federal government because the nations in that area had signed treaties by that time saying that they would be under the protection of the federal government. it's funny, the word "protection" was in these treaties, and there were p advocates of indian removal who would say, well, they're under our protection, that means that 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 destruction. and he just writes that this is obviously true, that the cherokees specifically have rights.
12:56 pm
and, essentially, the ruling was ignored. the state of georgia, which was the defendant never even sent a lawyer to defend the case, claimed the supreme court had no jurisdiction, ignored the findings. it would have required a strong president to impose this ruling on them. the president at the time was andrew jackson who was a strong president but was angry about the ruling and inclined to do nothing. and in the end what he did was some very quite machinations to sort of make the case dissolve, to make the case go away. >> i had heard and this may be apocryphal that marshall had his ruling, let him see if he can enforce it. >> yes. that's a very famous statement that he may never have exactly said. it was written in a book by horace greeley decades later and historians have ever said you know, judge marshall has made his ruling let him enforce it. maybe he didn't actually say
12:57 pm
that, but another scholar whom i quote in this book, found five or six other contemporary statements which jackson made that all mean the psalm thing. >> shall we -- >> one more question. >> one more okay, great. >> p.j.. >> hi. >> knowing what you know, would you support the removal of jackson from the $20 bill? [laughter] >> i have answered that question sir. [laughter] asked and answered. no. i wrote a thing for "the new york times" the other day in which i suggested that the $20 bill would look very nice with john ross on it. [laughter] and then you flip it over, and you have on the other side andrew jackson. my argument being that each of these were flawed men who fought in the democratic system and it's part of a great and important american story that should not be forgotten. this is different than a
12:58 pm
campaign that's gotten a lot of publicity that i think is brilliant to put a woman on the $20 bill. [applause] yeah, go for it, that's great. they've been brilliant. it's a great idea. obviously, i've suggested putting two people who are not women on the $20 bill -- [laughter] and is so my proposal is a little bit broader than that. it suggests putting two figures on every bill. pairing up the four founding fathers on their on a couple of bills and then pairing up people on all the bills so that in effect they tell a story. people of the same era who had different perspectives. you could have ulysses s. grant on one side of the $50 bill whose armies effectively ended the civil war and on the other side you could have harriet beecher stowe whose book helped to start the civil war. you could have civil rights figures on both sides on both sides of a bill. you could have rosa parks on one size and cesar chavez on the other. it's an opportunity, i would think, to think really broadly
12:59 pm
about the incredible diversity in this country. we'll never capture every kind of demographic person on a handful of bills which we're probably going to stop using in a few years anyway. but if you put a couple of different figures with different perspectives then the bill itself tells a story of democracy which is what we're really about in this country. ms. -- [applause] >> thank you very much. [applause] >> speaking of money -- [laughter] steve will be out here happily signing. so please form a line, and please remember to fold up your chairs. ..
1:00 pm
our look at barnes & nobles nonfiction books with dead wake about the lusitania. texas senator and 2016 republican presidential candidate ted cruz is next, with his autobiography time for truth. and in "the quartth" joseph ellis examines the lead up to the constitutional convention and the signing of the bill of
1:01 pm
rights. that's a look at current nonfiction best sellers according to barnes & noble. >> next up on booktv, ann coulter argues that immigration is the greatest issue facing the united states today and contends that america's immigration policy is deeply applaud. she is joined in conversation with ben shapiro who opens up the program on commentary on current presidential candidates. >> hi, everybody. thank you for coming. it's wonderful to see you here, a special evening with ann coulter, sorry for the slight delay in timing. there's relocation from the nixon library here because of the size of the ven rue, and we wanted to make stewart anyone who went to in nixon library got over here. and a fair number of people did that in the mean jim you have to listen to me talk because they
1:02 pm
pay for that and you don't. so want to ask -- let's do a quick straw poll. those are fun and useless. how many hands for jeb bush. you can be on. we won't stone you. it will be all right. nobody is that brave. okay. let's see the hands for ted cruz. okay. looks like a quarter of the audience. how about donald trump. [cheering] >> okay, and i'll give you two more candidates and we don't all the way down the list because it well be 10:00 before we get here. i won't ask about jim gillmore. how about marco rubio. okay. fair up in for rubio and then scott walker, who announced today. very interesting. very interesting. there's a big crowd for scott walker walker announces today
1:03 pm
but seems to me that obviously an odd amount of enthusiasm for donald trump and it's odd in one sense and obviously not odd in another. it's odd in the sense that donald trump is by no measure a conservative. if you look at his record, he is not a conservative. two years ago he was cite sizing mitt romney for being too conservative on immigration saying there lead toed to be a pathway to citizenship, donald trump a few years back was pro choice and now he is pro life. we don't know where he is on same-sex marriage. he has proposed not just an income tax he proposed a wealth tax, which means 14% wealth tax all of your asset 14% would be 0 gone. south you have real estate holdings you have to liquidate. he is not a conservative but there's a big outpouring for support for donald trump and the reason for that is, two reasons both of them are good, one is better than the other.
1:04 pm
the first reason is because donald trump has been smacked by theft, and when somebody is smacked by the left we good to this must be the greatest person who ever lived. which explains both the love for donald trump and the continuing love for sarah palin. palin says a lot of good things but there's this kind of outsized support for sarah palin largely because she would so unfairly attacked and maligned by the media. so everybody says we're with sarah because the media hates her. it's an okay reason. the real reason why people support donald trump is because his capturing of the moral narrative in the country right now. because when you watch scott walker -- i don't know how many actually listened to or watched his announcement today show of hands. so a few -- fair number of people saw it. if you watch -- i watched scott quarterbacker's announcement today, and when i watched it, it was very nice. all this stuff about his record
1:05 pm
and how he had broken he unions and had a vision for the country and he was going to take on foreign policy. very nice stump speech. delivered it as well as scott walker can. he was articulate. not a very firey guy even-keeled delivery, and did it without notes. it was impressive in that sense 45 minutes up like trump without notes is coherent and had a linear structure to it. but there was one problem with what scott walker did. you can tell the problem when you listen to hillary's speech this morning. she gave a speech in new york at the news school, and in the speech which is all about her economics plan, hillary clinton dropped one line about scott walker. she only dropped one line, one about rubio and one about bush and one walker. and her line about walker was interesting. she said, scott walker wants to -- i believe the word she used was something like squash the unions.
1:06 pm
stomp. stomp the union. exactly. and then she suggested that it was mean-spirited. that was her whole appeal. and it her speech was about 40 minutes long and full of all these very obscure policy proposals about the continuing -- about continuing interest rates on income tax, all this stuff that nobody carolina about, the buffett rule which nobody understands or cares about. the only thing that was designed to do was to elicit an emotional fear response in people who are members of the left. that's what it was designed to do. and that is what the entire left does. what the entire left does about trump, for example. they say, donald trump trump hates hispanics and latinos and thus donald trump wants to hurt you. this is what the confederate flag debate was about. who cared be the confederate flag. hasn't been relevant for 50 years and before that for 100 years. the south lost the civil war. news bulletin. and the fact that this became a
1:07 pm
massive cause celeb is because what the leftes attachmenting to do -- very clever -- is white guy, white racist, shoots nine black people in charleston, the entire country says this is evil. white people should not shoot black people because it's racist and evil and tremendous outpouring of support everybody is unified and theft goes, we can't have that because if peep real realize we don't need to the government, we won't vote for the left. so somehow they have to find a way of dividing people. the way they divide people is specifically by going out of their way to find causes that they can then blame on people. cooperate do go with, he is a republican. the want it with he likes confederate flags. and a lot of runs like confederate flags therefore republicans secretly believe likes this guy and want to shoot black folks. this is the logic they use. trump doesn't like illegal
1:08 pm
immigration and wants to kill latino s. i promise you nothing that donald trump ever said murdered a woman in san francisco and what donald trump did -- this is something republicans should -- instead of shaming trump republicans should -- we'll bring ann over but what we what republicans need to does recognize that what does trump does and so effective at in his own kind of brusk and rough way is donald trump says there is a villain to the story. there's a villain to the story. and we have to face down the villain to the story there are bad guys and good guys and you can either be on the side of the bad guys or the good guys, and by doing that he channels the anger everybody feels. we feel like there are bad guys and good guys. we're not all well-meaning people. there are people who want what is worst nor country. and because trump says that, he generates a lot of sympathy for himself, and the other republicans don't have to agree with donald trump on anything or everything. they should wreck prices the
1:09 pm
power of what trump is doing and the power of narrative and pick up on that and use tight their best advantage. now, ann is going to come over and then we'll get started so we'll be ready to go. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> ready to go? i'd like to bring up -- big round of applause for ben. come on up here, ben. [applause] >> without further adieu let's please give a nice orange county county welcome to miss ann coulter. [applause]
1:10 pm
[applause] >> this will be a rarity, both read the book and now we can have a substantive talk about it. >> that will be unusual. why. >> people have their own questions they want to ask. so obviously why don't i start with the question that co-host asked you the other week. >> i'll strangle you like i tried strangle him. >> my co-host asked you about the title of your book -- yikes because liberals are unimaginative how many times will have but for your title is so provocative. you try to get people to read your books. i'm thinking an interesting title works better than. i keep wanting to e-mail thomas sole one of my heroes and tell
1:11 pm
me you got to let me come up with the titles for your book. you're my favorite writer, bus this basic economic? >> the recent i think -- the reason people are reacting to the book is because we're in a catch-22 and i want you to address this. the left refuses to talk about the topic until someone says something inflammatory, at which point they won't stop just yelling that people are saying inflammatory things instead of talking about the topic. >> very common. >> how do we break through that? >> i think it's a worse catch-22 than that. we're in a pincher movement. if it were just the american people against the democratic party we would win. if were just americans against the media we could win. but it's the american people against the democrats again the businesses against the republicans. just to get this topic immigration, talked about it's nearly impossible, and i think people don't realize how much
1:12 pm
the media sets the agenda of what you even think about. we could go out to a bar right now and ask people what your position on what happened in ferguson what is your position on gay marriage? what's your position on global warming. they all developed positions thought about it. immigration, well, guess you folks in california have thought about it. but it's really interesting how much the media determines the -- these are the items we're allowed to talk about on today's menu and you may not choose any items off the menu, which is why, although apparently i called him a clown i am so happy to see donald trump in the race because wow he is changed the agenda. we're talking about immigration now. they're lying about immigration but that's better than not talking about it at all. so. >> speaking of donald trump he has gone -- he has had a big jump in the polls.
1:13 pm
you don't back donald trump for president. >> i totally do. >> oh, really. >> yeah. >> okay. >> he's got an advance copy of my book, obviously red an advance copy of my book. he said that at a private meeting friday night. he was very generous. he said it his sister always tells him you have written more books than you have read, donald. and he told a crowd about this size but i read adios america and all you've should, too, so i thank him for that. i with he would mention it more on tv. it would help him. i want people to read my book. i'm one after the few authors who writes their own book. i'm the only author who research her own books books and it's shorter than it looks. it's fun though chapters are shorts and at the end they're even shorter. there are 120 pages of footnotes so way shorter than it looks so you can read the book, to please read the book.
1:14 pm
>> it i written in language that even democrats can understand. and so let's start from the very beginning. you say this is the greatest the facing america and this is a hard sell for a lot of even republicans and conserve thieves have portland told that isis is the greater the rest, russia, or taxation or social policy. why is immigration the greatest the. >> i'm assuming a lot of you are republicans or conservative gem democrats and feels like we have been overwhelmed with wave after wave of loss, obama is elected. obama is re-elected, there's obamacare upheld twice by the supreme court gay marriage foisted on us. obama withdraws our troops from iraq am ferocious support over the iraq war and i can't bleach obama gives away our victory. i hate him more for that than i hate him for obamacare. none of this had to happen. it is all the result of teddy kennedy's 1965 immigration act.
1:15 pm
without the 1965 immigration act, the post 1970 immigrants, very different from the pre1970 immigrant soyuz don't want to hear any weeping about your grandfathers. we'll get back to that. most 1970 immigrants are what got obama elected in the first place. he could not have been elected without to the post 1970 immigrants who have been voting 8 two 2 for the democrats. without the 18965 immigration act, romney would have won a bigger victory against obama than reagan did against carter. and in 1980. probably some of you weres a surprised as i was the day at 3:00 a.m., election night thought he was going to win that. get used to saying that more. i thought we would win that election. how did get obamacare. al franken was the 51st vote. hough did he win? he cheat but wouldn't have been point shouting distance of
1:16 pm
cheating but for hundred thousand sew mam liz now living in minnesota who were instructed by the muse him congressman you must all vote for al franken. without obama as president we won't have sonya sotomayor on the supreme court, all these losses didn't have to happen. so whatever you think most important issue is, it's not. even now i get this sense -- and from talking to people, democrats and especially work class democrats saying i have had it. the democrats have gone to far this historia, taking down confederate soldiers and changing the name of the jefferson monument and fake rape cases and gay marriage. i'm voting republican. hell fire well rain down on the democrats. that might well happen but americans are about to be outvoted buy volters by foreign voters the democrats have brought in. that's only talking about the political aspect because i'm
1:17 pm
assuming this audience cares about the political aspect, and why should you care about this issue more than anything else. certainly if you're a republican. it's more than that in order to bring in voters who will vote, eight to two for democrats we're bringing in extremely primitive cultures and this is what my book covers in order to make it short and readable. 100 pages not -- footnotes. i cut 200 pages a month before we went to press but what i wanted to keep in, and i thought it was important to keep in, were gang rape, child rape, insist rape, we are bringing in peasant cultures. it happens that lattin america is the peasant culture close to us. but theser very common behaviorses are driving drunk and dumping your crap on the ground. it's changing our culture in way that the rich don't experience. it's never coming to knob hill in san francisco. probably not coming to newport
1:18 pm
beach or park of anyway. they get the cheap maids. americans are bearing the cost in terms of taxes and schools being overburdened in massive school lunch programs, the hospitals are going bankrupt, no it's ordinaries americans who are paying the cost, and i would add here are african-american. anybody in the media check -- i've been instructed to stop saying african-americans -- american blacks -- because that is what i mean. i'm not talking at good guy whose father is a kenyan. american blacks. [applause] >> and they're the ones coming occupy the socioeconomic ladder who are just getting a foothold whose jobs are being wiped out. seen the black teenage unemployment rate? we have an obligation to our fellow americans and our fellow
1:19 pm
hispanic americans, who are also competing for those low-wage jobs. but the rich don't care about that. they want the cheap labor they want you to bay for it, and they act like they're the ones speak lupe the maid. she would like her wage raised. lupe decided to immigrant to america and not to honduras or pakistan. lupe wanted to live in america. i would like to live in america. but the elites don't. they want to live in brazil, where there is a very, very rich upper crust, and the rest of us are their servants, and that it what your seeing, you have seen since the deluge of these very peasant cultures on america in order to give the democrats votes and the rich cheap labor. you have seen massive increase in income inequality, and which state has the most income inequality? you're in it. california. which state has the least income inequality? utah. one of the most nonknow
1:20 pm
chromatic states. so liberals pretend they care about income inequality and the working class and raising the minimum wage. here's an idea for raising the minimum wage, stop dumping low wage workers on the country. then it will rise naturally through the laws of supply and demand as it has in australia and new zealand. so d. >> there's a lot there obviously. do you want to the -- want the david brooks -- idon't read david brooks. >> his only audience are the all team be "new york times" who hired david brooks. david brooks, over the weekend suggested that donald trump was using textbook xenophobe ya in order to drive out the vote and suggested any antiimmigrant rhetoric and talking about different cultures that are not as good as western civilization would be seen know phobia. how should people in the audience counter that. we get this regularly.
1:21 pm
>> well, i suppose if you're only talking about people who have no right to live here, yeah you bet i'm seen know opposed. i'm not afraid of them. i think they're wrecking the country. they're wrecking the country for the people already here. the racism question, which i talk about a lot in my book -- no no, the reason americans are sensitive to the race issue particularly is because of the legacy of slavery and jim crow. that is why we have civil rights laws. that's why we have affirmative action and set-asides. then suddenly one day out of the blue -- people used to talk about integration. you don't discriminate against black people, we lad to spend 100 years teaching the democrats not to do. but that is all about american blacks. it's not about someone who has never set foot in this country before. it's liberals who are the racists who say you're all braun, we'll treat you like
1:22 pm
american blacks and it's really kind of shocking. i don't know if -- maybe some of you noticed jesse jackson used to stand at the border denouncing denouncing the illegal immigrants coming across. cesar chavez defoundded them as wet baecks, driving down the wages of the poor, but today you can arrive from the sudan yesterday, you will get affirmative action applying to college, get affirmative action applying for government business loans. one of the tricks, the cheap labor devoteees pull, win talking about the jobs being created by images. i should start by saying -- i've said this before -- whenever it comes to immigration it is always like the first line of anna careen na. the truth is always true in the lies are lies in their own ways. so you always have to look at the studies to see what the lies
1:23 pm
and is one of of the lies about immigrants create so many jobs. that's based on how many small business loans they get. well they get affirmative action for that. bogey kind of chasing your tail here and by the way, how many businesses were successful. as for xenophobia -- what was his name, david brooks -- i get million confused with barack -- he and the rest of the manhattan elites and the farmers in need of cheap labor refusing to mechanize, there has to be a restriction at some point. there's the seen phobic -- happen people in the world -- they wouldded all like to live here and collect welfare in america and have a nice life here. we're not talking them all so at some point liberals are cutting them off too they will cut them
1:24 pm
off as soon as everybody person they know who went to college or at least one of the better colleges -- has a maid, a nanny a pool boy gardener, once those needs are taken care of, that's it. sorry, bangladesh, you're not coming in. so i'm just saying, how about we cut it off to help americans already here now. the people who live here now. [applause] >> so in your book you talk a lot about the demographics of winning in terms of conservatism and you mentioned how romney would have won an overwhelming victory if not for the inundation of people from different populations glute by the '65 act. let me ask you from the michael medved perspective. he will argue we have to do comprehend immigration reform, we should be sorter on the border we should do all of this and bring in more immigrants and find a pathway to citizenship
1:25 pm
because if we don't the hispanic population in the united states is the fastest growing population even through natural growth and birth. what do we do in 20, 30 years to win elections as the white population in the united states decreases. >> a couple of things. i don't know how we do be any softer on the border. programs we could fly them in directly from central america. 0 i'm sorry obama is doing that. we are flying them in so they don't have to go through that arduous journey through mexico. handing them a voters registration card. point two it is certainly the case right now that if 71% of hispanics had voted republican in the 2012 election mitt romney still would have lost. if four% more whites had voted republican romney would have won, and the analogy -- the point, i guess i make in my book is california in 1994. the demographics of the entire country are about what they were in californiain' 1994, when pete
1:26 pm
wilson won a huge come from behind victory by tying himself with titanium cordses to proposition 187, an anti-illegal immigration measure. would have cut illegal immigrants off from getting any government services to go back to how mass immigration of low-skilled works, not popular with black americans -- proposition 187 won a majority of blacks, whiteses, asia, 30% of hicks ex-even people who were struggle the democrat were voting for proposition 187. pete wilson got 20% of the black vote that year across the country -- the average month congressional republicans was only eight percent. so there's your path to victory republicans. and then you've got to shut it down because point three well, okay then we're just -- i don't know -- fiddling on the titanic because hispanics don't care about am in the city. they're already in, and of all the issues, we're not going to
1:27 pm
win the hispanics. this idea that there's some sort of hispanic unity it's something believed exclusively by white liberals. and the rnc apparently. talk to your maids once in a while. dominicans hate the putter reek cans the mexans it has the blacks. there's no unity here. the reason immigrants post 1970 have been voting for the democrats is because they're poor they're in need of government services, they come from one party states. they're used to block voting for a particular group. the people's revolutionary party over mexico ruled mexico for 71 years. just tell me what the symbol is. i have to go vote for it. the reason we have poor people voting for democrats is because that's what they do. and it's not just poor people. and it's not just brown people. look at piers morgan if you want
1:28 pm
to see how immigrants would vote. by definition any immigrant to america makes america less free because we're the freest country in the world. it's like any immigrant to finland makes finland less white. a definitional matter. when people move, look at poor vermont, used be to rock ribbed republican vermont. a bunch of new yorkers move up there and now they have bernie sanders as a senator. a lot of states have flipped when new yorkers have moved into them. maybe we should build a fence around new york. [applause] >> but the point is you always think and yes there are some immigrants who are coming and want to vote like an -- as i say in the book, who don't need 60 years of seeing what the democrats do. they understand them right away start voting republican right away. glad to have them.
1:29 pm
most of them are bringing their status politics with them, they're going to get more benefits under the democrats than under republicans. that's why they're voting for democrats, not because we're mean about having a border. >> in your book you talk about at length -- i thought that it was fascinating because i didn't know this. the complete lack of government statistics when it comes to illegal immigrant crime. you figure that should be an easy thing to look up and then as you detail, it's almost impossible to find any real government statistics on this stuff. >> yes yes. this is one of the advantages of doing my own research. this book wasn't going to be about immigration. i have a great idea for a book and i'd written a couple of chapters drafter emt them and my immigration chapter and i go to look up basic facts, how many immigrants in prison. two weeks. of looking and i'm a researcher. ...
1:30 pm
lies are lies in their own way. start reading the report and thing here it is the report titled, immigrants, how many immigrants are in prison and you start reading the report and every year except 1925 hispanics are counted as that is one report. the another one, the plo congressional investigators had to ask the gao to count, to tell us because the department of justice to intensive it. prisons didn't have it. the g a o have done a couple
1:31 pm
mapped investigations but on closer examination they are counting illegal and legal immigrants which i think we should do in the federal prison but in the much larger state system they are counting lee illegal immigrants, only illegal immigrants in state reimbursements, only illegal immigrants for the state reimbursement who have committed one felony or two misdemeanors'. we are not getting a near babies, the children of the one or the one that is not even children, the amnesty by reagan. i want to mel. i think we have a right to know and the last few weeks, thank you donald trump, he brought to the fore, the shooting in san francisco people i thinking how many are there? incidentally i spent the weekend, a lot of money looking at these reports. i don't know, sure you have seen some of this, keep aggressively asserting on tv, studies show
1:32 pm
immigrant, bit less crime than americans do. i know that is not true. what i don't know is how they are lying so i wanted to know and get the report. new york city has a lot of immigrant and i don't see a lot of crime here. that is not a study. that is not science. it is restorative. geraldo was making that argument and geraldo is not a stupid man. the facts must not be very good. i tried looking for the studies and put in sometimes you get a reference to the name of a researcher and i was looking on nexus to see where are these studies, can i see when they are saying and a professor from such and such university of justin study and it turns out first-generation immigrants commit far less crime but they are all hidden, track down the
1:33 pm
study they are all hidden behind a walls. i a lorie kane for it nexus, scribe's a billion different services of first i wasted two hours thinking come on you won't make me pay $50 for this study. i have to keep paying $50 to skim down, find out what the lie is which is what i will tell you about in my column this week. they are not looking at americans. they are looking at criminal americans. there are different ways of doing it. but one guy the big headline, he is quoted in the dallas morning news and the new york times my study shows first-generation immigrants far less crime than americans, native-born americans. you see what he looked at, he is looking at the trajectory as he says the bass population,
1:34 pm
juvenile offenders. this is someone who has already been convicted of a crime which he admits might be steady began with 45% blacks 33% hispanic and 13% what? that is not a cross-section. and the criminal population. a city at random of native-born americans versus immigrant. let's take the troy. i am sorry, the use think i am not going to point out that the black underclass has a very high crime rate? i am going to point it out. we went immigrant 1/2, to not just be the black crime rate. i want them beating the norwegian prime rate. why should -- skipping all
1:35 pm
passages, at end the criminals coin. we have our own criminals. we don't need more. because again the topic sentence on any discussion of immigration, it is a government policy like any other, it ought to be used to benefit the people if you are bringing in one child molester, one trunk driver, one person who needs government services or english-language lessons, paid for by the taxpayers that is not helping the people already here. as long as they keep talking about the hard-working ones that don't commit crimes and working so hard and supporting their family of four and sending half of their in dollar and our salary home, they're very admirable, how does that help america? it doesn't. they are using schools and services and hospitals and medical services and housing aid and immigrants to america legal
1:36 pm
and illegal are sending $20 billion back to mexico every year. that is funding carlos flynn has saved the new york times from bankruptcy, another chapter in my book, carlos flynn makes money, especially illegal immigration, $20 billion off of the cost of immigration. $20 billion being sucked out of the american economy, many that will never be used to buy an american product or hire an american worker to purchase an american house. or ted an american busboy. being sucked out of the american economy. take the cutest route from american taxpayers to the u.s. government to the low-wage immigrants who need the support from the taxpayer. that is why they take those low-wage jobs. and his grandmother who then buys carlos flynn products.
1:37 pm
he owns 40% of the companies on the mexican stock exchange. and a buyer carlos flynn product and it goes into carlos flynn's pocket. let's write a check to carlos flynn. >> for people who don't know and i didn't know until i read your book, the story of american immigration, your referenced it earlier as a jew, my grant grandparents daughter in 1907 and the easy thing to buy into, illegal immigration bad, legal immigration good, parents and great-grandparents' came away, explain why that is not the case, legal immigration needs to be curtailed? >> your people are great, others the way they vote. joy of brains, really helps the country. >> want to vote that way, my
1:38 pm
people. this -- >> as example, printing 70, immigrant or as any immigration policy would require better than us. that is what we want. we want immigrants way better than us. immigrant screen 1970 were more educated, made more money got more houses and 30% of them went home. just take that fact alone. 30% could not make it and went home. skipped across the world and skimmed the cream from the rest of the world. the 1965 act at the same time as the great society programs when america was transformed into a massive welfare state. that is going to change the sort of immigrant you are getting, the 1965 act did that through a series of complicated rules to bring in people from cultures as different from ours as possible land as a war as possible because again the work for the rich and the democrat.
1:39 pm
nobody goes home. why would anybody go home? go on welfare. and they ought voting 8-2 for the democrats. what do we do >> talk about this one of the -- ted cruz is gut on immigration except legal immigration, at visas, high-tech visas for people who don't pay attention closely. explain the problem, why that needs to be curtailed according to your book? >> a lot of republicans get stuck on this issue, i won't attack ted cruz for it because so many people, i am going to ask to get a shock collar for sean hannity and a few other people who interviewed me because they keep talking about illegal immigration. the first chapter of my book i talk about amnesty because that ends the country overnight and it is lights out. the rest of my book doesn't
1:40 pm
particularly distinguish the immigrant in fresno and minnesota engaging in massive amounts of human smuggling, child rate credit card theft shooting hunters because they don't understand private property, this is explained with great sensitivity and the minnesota papers. they're all legal immigrants, somalis voting for al franken and going back to fight with isis they are all legal. we are talking about the legal immigrants coming gin, the ones the most republicans have a soft spot for mostly because we are live to about a high iq, gigantic brains and the only time i mention iq in my book is to quote the ones who want of the cheap labor such high iqs, it is stunning. visas are being used in the worst cases to bring in concubines for one of our model
1:41 pm
immigrant in san francisco, he bought 12-year-old girls from their parents for sex, brought the man on visas, one died, this happened -- is in the book like 2001-2002. i follow the news very closely. when i came across this i came across my friends many of whom followed the news closely and said did you hear about this case in san francisco? the indian immigrant bringing all the men girls he bought from their parents for sex, and brought in his busboys, had a lot of restaurants, that story was not broken by the san francisco chronicle, the police india brushed it under the rug. it was broken by at high school journalism class. they had not attended columbia journalism school. it is against journalistic
1:42 pm
practice. the report of facts that are unpleasant about model immigrant so he is bringing in bus boys, janitors and concubines entered the age 1 be. there is one category of how it is utter fraud. other category:hot even the ones doing the computer programming work, they're not stars, they doing standard computer programming work, unfortunately americans could do the same work but they want to be paid. the way the h1b vis the works is it is tied to a particular employer. if you come to work for mark zuckerberg and paypal gives you a better offer you can't leave without risking losing your visa, so you are tied to a particular employer. it is what is known in the law as indentured servitude which this country abolished 100 years ago. now the rich are bringing it back. we keep telling college students you got to major in one of the
1:43 pm
stem seals science, technology engineering, math the stem graft, american stem graduates, half are not employed in stem fields, their salaries have not gone up for a decade because bill gates and mark zuckerberg are bringing in the computer programmers, type away in their little cubbyholes for 12 hours, collapse, go home and go to sleep, justice and for the rich. >> on a free-trade side there could be a counter argument from the free-trade side which is you don't bring immigrant from their relocate what you have done to call centers so what does the counter to the free trade argument i understand you are worried about american wages but american companies could leave and relocate in hong kong and higher everybody there for cheap wages. >> i don't think they will. we will see. the reason i knew to look these
1:44 pm
high iq mostly indians writing about indians being the stars of silicon valley, so one thing indians don't have a problem with his self-esteem. the reason i knew to look was one of my friends runs a company, thinking of relocating call centers as many of you discovered to in the and he was the one who told me in diaz has a very flat bell curve and that is why i looked up. what is the average indian iq? we by and large meet the smart ones the state as panama, the sudan, more low-wage work for the poor and as for the trade issue particularly, the trouble of having them over there but to the extent that happens i don't know. someone else can deal with that
1:45 pm
but i know americans aren't getting the job. i don't have a strong position on free trade. that has never been my thing. i am suspicious because the same people who were so obsessed with who have been lying to me for 20 years about immigration who say we need these trade deals like nafta. i never thought of being a conservative, making sure mark zuckerberg makes more money. >> with regard to media your referenced a few times, when criticism your book has gotten is anecdotal evidence, and shooting in san francisco. >> talk about how the media treats these stories.
1:46 pm
it is amazing. >> the san francisco case, we did find out it was generally mentioned in the article he was deported, and in the extensive research i found two other cases or two cases and now this one where we found very early on that the illegal immigrant who killed an american was an illegal immigrant so the headline may have been texas man. the other one was the porkies director was driving pacific palisades with his 22-year-old son. and smashed and killed him and his son. immediately the illegal alien and his passenger were fined. there were articles, the l.a. times was saying it was an illegal alien. i e-mail some of my friends in hollywood and said why would
1:47 pm
this -- i don't know. maybe they considered porky at such a reprehensible movie that anything that doesn't reflect badly on the illegals that didn't come out and the other one happen the year earlier, an actress in the inner west village apartment, adrienne shelly and she was murdered by an illegal alien and a week later immediately we all knew the only thing that separates those cases from most cases i read about is they happened in places where liberals might be. i look back to my point that the rich are perfectly willing to pay the cost of bringing in cousin cultures. they don't pay the costs. they move their maids out to the suburbs and they come in to clean house and go back and fill up your schools and hospitals end rate your kids.
1:48 pm
>> in your book one of the big issues you take on a side from the media bias is the fecklessness of the gop on this issue. why do you think the gop is pathologically incapable of taking on this issue in any real way? >> i used to think it was cowardice which now i think it is pure stupidity. pure stupidity. and actually it could be so many things. one other thing the anecdotal examples, chapter 7 is where you will see the chapter written through tears of frustration and rage of how i described looking for basic crime facts. i think i do have some good facts that are not anecdotal but u.s. marshall's most wanted list. take a look at that one. new york state prisons, prisons really do have to know they may not publish it but they do have
1:49 pm
to know different ethnic groups because they get into huge gained brawls. i have a list of where people are from the new york prisons. the main way i use the anecdotes' is not to approve the point but to attack the media. and sprinkled throughout the. and the mainstream media article, my comments throughout and completely convinced some farm boy is, these little 14-year-old girls and only when you read the court transcripts there all along the. with model -- that was never mentioned in the new york times.
1:50 pm
and and actual cases of shocking anus gained rate. and for no reason, and they did not know about this case. the ugliest most shocking
1:51 pm
gained rate. and an illegal immigrant or mexican relation this is the largest number of death penalty cases in texas which wasn't shy about the death penalty for half a century. was a pretty big case. there was one article in the new york times about the case but never did our media mention mexican immigrants much less illegal immigrants from mexico until they use the fact that the greatest was a mexican to spring him from the death penalty. the first time ten years later and a full description of the first engine i found was in a texas case. that is how you describe the most brutal gang rapes i ever read about. the point of the anecdotal evidence isn't to prove the crime point but to prove our media is shockingly corrupt and lying to you and you are going to have to demand immigration
1:52 pm
about detonation formation about immigration and back to the city of the republic. after -- the fact that donald trump has struck such accord do any of them have eyes? don't they want to win? this is apparently a popular topic. i gave a speech in ontario, calif. last week. nice people like you, some of the might be crew supporters, walker announced today, they have all little chat about that. i mentioned in question and answer my fondness for donald trump and the room exploded, as they were so happy. [applause] >> i can say i believe he will
1:53 pm
be the nominee for those who follow my work assiduously. republicans don't get distracted by someone who hasn't been a governor, won't be the nominee. i don't know with trump. none of the impact upon this. is wide open. you know my secret plan, this comes out in the last chapter of the book. the one guy with a 20 year fantastic record on immigration is mitt romney. i was very disappointed when he criticized donald trump. my new hero. >> when mitt romney comes in on a hang glider in the middle of the race, seventeenth candidate and bumps rick santorum of it will be easy. >> people will see that debate, mitt romney was the best we ever had. maybe he can take donald trump's place as the nominee. if it is jeb bush or marco
1:54 pm
rubio, not in an angry or threatening way, you have to vote for marco rubio or hillary over those two, they are soul objectives to -- their sole objective is to open the border and pass amnesty. at least with hillary she wants to socialize any other industries that have been socialized, lose wars force abroad, take your children away make abortion mandatory, gay marriage mandatory perhaps. a lot of items on her agenda whereas jeb and rubio single-handedly focus on opening the border, if donald trump is not a nominee i hope he does run in the third party candidate.
1:55 pm
>> >> at least twice the size, that topic was not at issue in 2013 election. the question is what should republicans have, what should they do god forbid hillary clinton wins or somebody else on the republicans cited doesn't care about that issue, or republicans told congress. what did they not do at the beginning of the year. let's take the point what was the 2014 election allowed. tom, and in arkansas be a popular sitting democratic senator by running against him on obama's executive amnesty. ben nelson took out a field of candidates i am sure were popular with the wall street
1:56 pm
journal, businessman who thinks amnesty is a fine idea and more than the two of them combined, but the famous election of david brad lidge and a member of the leadership of congress and also throw in scott brown in massachusetts, if we were ranking raises buy level of difficulty, the rest of them are doing somersaults compared to this guy who has to a triple layover off of the shallow an end of the pool. scott brown did incredibly well by raising the amnesty issue. is possible with voters, not popular with the most of the people who control media. and wendy defunding of obama's executive amnesty came up, the republicans tried to fight it and they did filibuster for three weeks but unless you were
1:57 pm
reading breitbart you didn't know about it. there was no media attention to it. and now they portrayed on trade my objection to the trade deal is backed or amnesty that allows not only free movement of goods the free movement of people and a company can say i need so many low-wage workers coming in to take these jobs. republicans have a winning issue if they would just talk about it. the rule is there are a lot of bad republicans, there are no good democrats. there are a fair number of republicans in the house and senate who are fantastic on amnesty, need to push demand and elevate them that people need to be more like them. and we should take out one, this is what voters in do, they should stop being stupid.
1:58 pm
we need to take out one, maybe john boehner, just one of them. [applause] >> as you know f you assiduously followed my work i rank of to vote for the republican don't go for the tea party candidate because bad things happen when democrats controlled congress. that is why it was fantastic, a lot of these tea party candidates. half of them they haven't run for anything before. we need to find a place where there was a good candidate to challenge of bad republican. and hang want to encourage the others. >> every republican -- what happens if we can't actually do
1:59 pm
anything. it feels like on every front the president of the united states is doing whatever the hell he wants. the supreme court obviously does not care about rule of law doing whatever they please, congress is abdicating whatever authority they have, handing over the cash. what do citizens do and how fast will this turn ugly? >> that is a good question. i don't think it will turn any uglier than it is. i feel like most americans are hunkered down hoping it will go away. it is not going to go away. the winning have to follow is pete wilson in 1994. it is americans who have shot down three amnestys in the last decade but it wasn't because some major network or newspaper was a leading you to it. the american people somehow buy quote or quote find out they are doing it again, and has amnesty.
2:00 pm
three times shutdown the congressional switchboard. you may switch down your tv network switch boards and make clear this is what we want to hear about because this is all that matters in so many ways even to the democrats i assume this audience, i talk about how it is just the end of the republican party. nationally. ..

22 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on