my point is rather that i think see the book above all as an attempt to inventory and explain the killing policies which then might help people make the larger comparisons. but at these particular levels, like the one you describe, i compare throughout the book. there are all kinds of imperative judgments. what you say is interesting. it reflects what i think the common view is, the germans were precise, they were prussian officials and so on. the soviets were sloppy. who knows it was all carelessness. it turns out not to be true. :

>> because they didn't. reality intervened very quickly. and the same is true with the holocaust which is one of the reasons why it's such a difficult subject. people think there has to be, you know, there has to be a plan with proper paragraphs with hitler's signature at the bottom and, of course, there is no such thing. hitler and himmler talked about this themselves, there are thousands and thousands of indications about what they talked about, but one is never going to find a plan which says, you know, this is the way the holocaust is going to happen. it doesn't exist, but of course that doesn't mean the holocaust didn't happen or that they didn't want it to happen. the germans had big, ambitious plans and then in practice in their killing policies, there's a lot of communication back and forth where the center gives general ideas what's going to happen. the people down at the bottom report back as to what they've

done, and the center either gives an indication you should go forward, or you should stop, and it's usually go forward. but it's not the kind of careful memoranda you might expect at all. whereas on the soviet side though there was no master plan to kill millions of people, when there is the intention to kill millions of people or thousands or tens of thousands, it's extremely well documented. they recorded things, they thought the revolution was on their side. they put things in filing cabinets, and they're still this archives. lenin would order some executions, and he would write, for the archives. and then it's still in the archive. so for the famine there was no plan to kill such and such millions of people, but we do have the conversations between stalin and cag mauve slip where he says we must export as much as possible after they both talked about the conditions in ukraine, and stalin says yes. forterror we have the numbers.

we have the quotas that went down from the center, ask we fulfilled these quotas, and can we would like a higher number. that is all recorded in excruciating detail, in much greater detail than we have on the german side which i didn't expect either, but that's the way it actually looks. or with katin, for example. it's excruciatingly clear, the documents which stalin signs give in precise detail what they're going to do. >> wasn't quite clear to me from your presentation what you felt the relationship was between the femme, ther if record and can the -- terror, and the subsequent holocaust. in other words, did the stalinist policies that took place in the early 1930s or even starting in the smaller famine in the 1920s, do you

feel those events aided and abetted the subsequent nazi policies as they moved across eastern europe? >> well, there are relationships, and i try to document l them in the book. i wouldn't say that there's a relationship which is a straightforward as that. it's surely the case that the famine was known about at the time, right? it was known about at the time this a way it wasn't after the war during the cold war. there's been new research by ukrainian historians which make it very clear. it wasn't known about right when it was happening, but it's in spring of '33 when ukrainian dias pa organizations, i ukrainians in poland are trying to draw world anticipation to the famine. they're writing letters to president roosevelt who was at

the time, of course, just about to begin official diplomatic relations with the soviet union. i stress that because it's known about in germany. and the fact that the famine happens is one of the reasons, i would say it's a second-tier reason why european politics become polarized. the famine for those who are anti-communist, the famine is one more argument for being anti-communist. hitler uses it in electoral speeches. but it's not a major argument, it's a second-tier argument. it's one of the reasons why politics are polarized, but it's not the main reason. the famine is one of the reasons why west ukrainian nationalists are anti-communists. it's one of the reasons why romanians are anti-communist, because famine victims flee into poland and romania as well, so people in those countries have experience with famine victims. it's a real palpable event which contributes to anti-communism.

and to that extent i but no greater extent it's one of the reasons people are willing to believe german rule might be better. more of them historical and back to the first world war. there's, in the book i try to press a kind of more subtle and maybe more far-reaching claim which is that especially ukraine was at the center of attention to both the soviets and the nazis. for both of them it was a kind of key region for the transformation of the systems. from the soviet point of view, you had to be able to master ukraine in order to export grain, get capital, industrialize the system. it was a bread basket for that reason. from the nazi point of view, and i wished i'd talked more about this in the talk. what the nazis mean to do is to use the collective farm, to keep the collective farm, but to use it to divert food to germany and western europe and just to let the bell rue sans and ukrainian

city dwellers starve. that is their plan. so for both of them ukraine is at the center of things. and ukraine is at the center of hitler's vision of an eastern empire. and it is part of his, part of his view of how this is going to happen is that he's going to destroy the soviet state by killing lots of leading jews because, in his view, the soviet union is a jewish state. so the plan of conquest to control ukraine involves this terror and mass murder of jews, again, from the nazi point of view. and in that sense the two events, in that sort of underlying sense where both regimes see ukraine as the key to an economic transformation which by it nature is going to cost many millions of lives. in that sense the two events are related. but that's a kind of structural argument which i have to develop slowly chapter by chapter by chapter.

>> i'd like to thank you. >> my pleasure. >> for a very interesting analysis, and we look forward to the next one. >> thank you, walter. [applause] >> think snyder -- timothy snyder is the author of several books including the reconstruction of nations and "the red prince." for more information about his new book, "blood lands," visit perseus books group.com/basic. >> host: author and former cia analyst and head of the cia's bin laden unit michael shower has a new book coming out. it's a boig iffy on osama bin

laden, and michael sawyer joins us to preview his book. one of the things you write in your book is something i'd like you to expand on. bin laden is not the caricature that we made of him. indeed, if i only had ten qualities to enumerate in drafting a biographical sketch of him, they would be pious, brave, generous, intelligence, charismatic, patient, visionary, stub bonn, egalitarian and most of all, realistic. >> guest: yes, sir. i think he's very much an enemy who we immediate to respect because of his capabilities. much like the allies felt about rommel during world war ii. they know they needed to kill him, but they had to be respectful of his ability to fight them. and i'm afraid what we have gotten from some authors and most politicians is a caricature of bin laden as either a

criminal or a thug or somehow a neolist or a madman. and i don't think that's true, and it retards our ability to understand the enemy we face. >> host: what's the danger in your view? >> guest: well, the danger is we underestimate capabilities of the man. bin laden runs an organization that is absolutely unique in the muslim world, for example, because it's multiethnic, multilinguistic. and there is no other organization like it. it's more like a multi-national organization than it is a certainly a terrorist group. we also, the danger -- another danger we face is simply that we underestimate the patience, the piety and most especially, the motivation of bin laden. he is truly within the

parameters of islam. he is now somehow a renegade or someone who is outside of islam or making -- or hijacking the relation. big. he is a pious what is called sunni muslim. and his appeal comes from the fact that he is believably defending the faith against what is deemed by many muslims as an attack from the west. >> host: well, knowing that or presuming that he is within the muslim faith and tradition, what should the u.s. strategy be? >> guest: well, i don't know exactly when our strategy should be, but i think before you can have a strategy you need to have the american people onboard or in terms of understanding what the enemy is about. we have spent, now, 15 years as of this coming august when bin laden declared war on us 15 years ago in august, 2011.

and we have spent all of those years telling the american people that we're being attacked because we have liberty and freedom and women in the workplace and because we have elections or one or more of us may have beer after work. and that really has nothing to do with the enemy's motivation. if we were fighting an enemy who simply hated us for what we, how we lived our lifestyle and i how we thought, the threat would not even rise to a lethal nuisance. because there wouldn't be enough manpower to make it more than that. we're really fighting an enemy who is opposed to what we do, what the u.s. government does. and until we really understand that, i don't think it's possible to form a strategy. >> host: you have a subchapter in your book called "luring america," and you talk about how osama bin laden wanted to lure or the u.s. to fighting in

afghanistan. >> guest: yes, sir. he worked very hard from 1996 when he declared war on us until 2001, and i think we frustrated him on several occasions. he wanted us on the ground in afghanistan so they could apply -- they, the mujahideen, the al-qaeda people, the taliban people -- they could apply the same military force against us that they applied against the red army in the 1980s. believing that we were a much weaker opponent than the soviets and that a fairly limited number of deaths would persuade us to leave eventually. and so the attacks on us in saudi arabia in 1996 and 1995, in east africa in 1998, on the uss cole in 1999 were all designed, but failed, to get us into afghanistan. but 9/11 did the trick for them.

>> host: in your upcoming book, mr. sch everything uer, you also talk about some of the other books that have come out on osama bin laden and his family. what do you think of those, lawrence wright, etc. >> guest: i think many of those books are very worthwhile, and what i tried to do was to take a different tack than those books so i wouldn't be repeating what had been written already. steve cole's book is an excellent book, i think. there are a number of very good books on bin laden, jason burke wrote one, a british journalist. and the problem i had with those books were they were primarily books that were based on what other people had said about osama bin laden. not what he had said or done himself. and i have found over the past decade that whenever bin laden speaks, he's very often described as ranting or raving

or issuing yet another diatribe. and so i thought that i would take the primary sources based on interviews, statements and speeches he made and can write a book based on what he said and see how it turned out. and i think, very frankly, that when you take the primary sources which number in my archive and i certainly don't have every one that's available, but i have over 800 pages. when you take that information, the man that e merges -- emerges is not like the bin laden that emerges in be lawrence wright's book or steve cole's book as sort of someone who is mentally disturbed or hateful of our lifestyle. but, rather, a man who is very clear about what he believes, what he intends to do. and most especially matches

words with deeds which is very unusual for any politician in this day and age. >> host: because of your background with the cia, did this need to cleared with the c? >> guest: yes, sir. everything that i write whether it's a book or an article, even if i was a poetry writer which i am not, for the rest of my life it has to be cleared by the cia. this book was reviewed twice, once before i sent it to the publisher and then once after it was reviewed and we had made changes that the publisher wanted, or the editor wanted. so the agency -- i'm very careful to try to respect my obligation to have that reviewed before it's published. >> host: was anything taken out? >> guest: no, nothing was taken out, sir. in fact, i've worked with the agency now for six years since i retired, probably have published, well, two books and probably 200 articles, and i've really only had four or five

things taken out by the agency over that amount of time. and i have to say that at least on four of the five occasions they were correct and i was wrong. they're simply looking to protect class tied information and sources and -- classified information and sources and methods, and they've been very good to work with. i found very, very accommodating and very helpful. >> host: three different presidents have chased osama bin laden. are you surprised we haven't found him? >> guest: well, i think we have found him certainly between 1998 and 2001 mr. clinton had 13 opportunities to either capture him or kill him. ask certainly mr. bush's general had the chance to capture him or kill him at tora bora in december of 2001. i think now especially in the last five years, sir, it's not surprising that we haven't gotten him.

first, like any other thing in life if you have an opportunity to do something and you don't do it, sometimes the opportunity doesn't come around again. but second, we have so massively undermanned our operations in afghanistan that there's simply not enough american soldiers and intelligence officers to go around. they have so many tasks and so few people to do them that i don't think it's a surprise that we haven't got him at this point. >> host: well, that said, what would you like to see the u.s. do in afghanistan, beef up or pull out or what? >> guest: i think, sir, that we've been this too long. i don't think we have enough soldiers in the u.s. military if we committed every ground troop that was available to really rectify the situation. and america as a society no longer knows how to fight a war, no longer has the stomach for it. we have lost, you know, less

than 2,000 people in afghanistan from a population of 310 million, and we are, we are rapidly, rabidly wanting to leave. my own i view is that we should have fought and won this, but i am -- there. but i am a hawk only if we intend to win. and i'm afraid mr. bush and mr. obama have never been able to define a winning strategy. and so my own view is that it's not worth another, another american marine or another american soldier's life to stay there. the one thing i would add, though, is when we leave, it will be a tremendous defeat for the united states. however we dress it up, if we say the afghans had their chance, and they couldn't do it, if we say that we have somehow satisfied what we went there to do, with we may fool the american people, but we will not

feel the muslim world. when we leave afghanistan without accomplishing what we said we were going to, it will be viewed as the mujahideen defeating the second superpower. and all that can -- that can only mean, rather, that the muslim world will be more galvanized against us, and more young men will flow to the battlefields wherever they are, and certainly more will take up arms inside the united states. >> host: michael scheuer's new book, osama bin laden, had been in bookstores in february 2011. >> booktv is on twitter. follow us for regular updates on our programming and news on nonfiction books and authors. twitter.com/booktv. >> former governor of virginia, george al l eleven, former s.t.a.r.t. from virginia, george

allen. what can washington learn from sport? >> it can learn a great deal, and i learned a lot growing up on the sidelines and at training camp and playing sports myself. probably the overarching thing washington can learn from the world of sports is that in sport bees where someone's from doesn't matter. what matters is can you help the team win. it's a meritocracy where everyone has that equal opportunity to compete and you can seed. not guaranteed results, but equal opportunity which is what our country was built on. you would never see the way washington operates redistributing from the winners to those who are not winners. if it were up to washington, they'd take one of the steelers six super bowl trophies and say, oh, these poor detroit lions. they've never made it to a super bowl, let's give them a trophy. no, you have to earn it in sports. there's accountability. and then personal responsibility. there's measurement. you know who's winning and

losing. and there's also in sports a competitiveness that you're always looking how you can improve yourself and how you can make your team better. and for team america we need to be looking at what our economic policies, tax policies, energy, education policies which are mostly state not federal, but what can we do to make sure that everyone in america has that opportunity to compete and succeed? i have a chapter in the book that you never punt on first down. well, we've been punting as a country on first down since the 1970s. sports teams love to say, we're number one, we're number one. well, america actually is number one when it comes to energy resources thanks to our plentiful coal as well as natural gas and oil resources. but the leaders in washington look at these resources a as a curse. think other country would consider them a blessing, so we need to unleash our resources and the resources of our

creative people rather than continue to get jerked around by hostile dictators, oligarchs and cartels. >> is the competition getting fiercer between team republican and team democratsome. >> well, it sure has been, but that's decided by the people. the fans decide who has the best idea, and the fans get to vote every two years, four years or maybe six years. and the fans were not happy with what's going on in washington. who in the heck has been cheering about anything coming out of washington for the last several years? other than strauss berg who was a pretty mucher with the -- pitcher with the nationals baseball team, there hasn't been much to to cheer about. but people love their high school, their college, their pro teams. and the people said we want a change. they see what's going on in washington by any measurement whether it's debt or whether it's the lack of jobs, washington, the policies in washington whether it's bailouts under president bush or this health care monstrosity or

stimulus spending that doesn't create job or counterproductive energy policy, none of that's working. so the voters, the people, the fans, the ticketholders so to speak, the owners of the governments that want to change and they made that change in the election. and now those who have been elected, the number one thing they needed to do is keep their promises, keep their promises they made to the people, and that will at least start getting our country back in the right direction. >> do you miss being in the arena? >> i do from time to time. susan and i have been very active, and bob mcdon's governor's race last year and helping out congressional candidates in southwest virginia and robert south side and keith in northern virginia. so we're involved. plenty of people have encouraged me to get back into it, and we'll consider that. but right now i've tried using

this book, i'm trying to find a fresher, unique way of sharing people ideas that make good sense, that they understand that'll make sure that team america is in a better with position to be ascending so that everyone has an opportunity to achieve their american dream. >> the afterword is by former congressman j.c. watts, the forward is by the former l.a. rams' deacon jones. >> the his last year he played with the redskins. my older brother is deacon. my sister named her second kid after deacon, her first one afro man gabriel. and j. c.'s our oldest daughter's favorite speaker. so it's very nice of both of them. there's a lot of good stories in there, and ronald reagan who's the one who actually got me interested in politics because as governor he would come to the l. a. rams' e football practice, and i'd say, now, here's a

politician who knows what's important. and then he asked me to be chairman of young virginians for reagan in 1976 when i was at uva, and that's what got me involved in this politics. and it's really because of ronald reagan became governor the same year we moved out to california when my father was coaching the rams. so there's a lot of good, fun stories in there. >> george allen is the author of "what washington can learn from the world of sports." booktv covered a previous event with governor allen, senator allen. if you go to booktv.org, you can watch the full event in it entirety. >> in the outbreaks i did take over five and a half years to write this as my wife reminded me repeatedly. and it was really a labor of love. it's about an organization called the epidemic intelligence

service, and a friend of mine went through this and told me about it. and when he -- well, first, he sent me an e-mail, and he said, you ought to write a history of the eis. and i wrong back and said, thanks, andy. what is the eis? i don't know what it is. when he told me the the epidemic intelligence service, i thought, wow. this is nonfiction? there really is such a thing as the epidemic intelligence service? and there is. it's part of the cdc. it began in 1951 in the middle, and i'll show you the guy who started it. alexander langmuller was at the communicable disease center. it's always been the cdc. he had this idea that he wanted to get young doctors out into the field immediately, within 24 hours of being note tied that there was an -- notified that there was an epidemic.

they would have their bags packed, and it sounds exciting, but guess what? nobody realized that was an interest withing area because at that time it appeared that the new antibiotics were going to wipe out all the bacterial diseases and that we were getting more and more vaccines, they were going to deal with the viruses. people said, alex, you're going into a dying field. forget it. and he said, no, i think you're wrong. and he was correct, as you know. we haven't exactly advantage wished all of the microbes of the world. but he couldn't get anybody to be interested in joining this group because it was considered a dead end. fortunately, we were in the middle of the korean war, and there was a doctor draft, and so the doctors department want to go into the -- didn't want to go into the army, and when they joined the eis, it gave them an out. they spent two years in this program rather than two years in the military. by the time the doctor draft ended with the vietnam war, it

had become a well known organization, and they didn't need the doctor draft to get people into it. anyway, he was a bigger-than-life character. if you read the book, you'll see that he sort of -- his daughter said that when he walked into a room, that you could feel the room tip towards him. he was arrogant, he was intimidating, the eia officers were very afraid of him. i call this his silverback pose. and he was also brilliant and visionary, and he led the eis not only into dealing with microbes and infectious decides, in other words, but into many other areas as well which i'll be talking about. >> now, a.j. langguth recounts andrew jackson's forced removal

of indian tribes in the southeast. the author recalls the arduous travel of the cherokees as they were led by bayonet point from their former home to the oklahoma territory. a.j. langguth presents his book at the atlanta history center. this is an hour, 20 minutes. >> usually on an evening like this i i talk off the cuff, but tonight i want to cite some material from my book, and since i was a reporter for a number of years, it would just be too ironic to misquote myself. [laughter] so i've prepared a little something which i can repair to. one thing i'd like to start with is tell you how pleased i've been in doing the research for this book with to be received --

this book to be received by such spectacularly informed and helpful people at your archives and at your libraries around the state. i particularly remember dawn hampton in rome, georgia, and a miss kitty rutherford in calhoun. they were really splendid for me. but the person i was particularly impressed by and the location and maybe, i hope, a number of you know it is the nuashota state historical site presided over at that time by a dr. donna meyer. and now because of the budget constraints i understand that all of these sites can be curtailed in some cases and even closed in others. but the nuashota site was a wonderful exhibition of what

life was like among the cherokees up until the 1830s. and when i was there, you saw troops of georgia school children coming through and really learning about their history in the most dramatic way, and they seemed enthralled by it. so this, now, is probably inappropriate, but i'd like to make a pitch for the support group. it's, if you decide that you should support the nuashota site, you can reach it -- this is all one word -- friendsofjap parks.org. and then you designate nuashota as your chapter. so that's the end of my commercial. my own interest in the removal of the cherokees started some years ago when i finished a book on the war of 1812. and it ended with a spectacular

victory in new orleans by andrew jackson. you know, one of the great military victories of all times, seven or eight american casualties. you don't get that very often in many wars, and, of course, it made jackson a huge legend among the american people as well it might. so i have felt for a long time that because we usually get our american history in the tenth grade and reluctantly we miss the epic swim of our -- sweep of our own history. it's a great, great story, and that's what i've hoped to tell in my book. for example, you take george washington. i think the case can be made without any chauvinism that

washington was one of the great men of all time, not just american history, a great, great man. and similarly, jackson was a great general. now, in doing my research i found that writing about jackson's life after his military exploits presented quite a different picture from what, from the celebration i really had enjoyed writing about when he succeeded so triumphantly. but the most troubling aspect of his presidency, to me -- and there were others, but one was his determination to force the cherokee nation off its land. and that's what i'd like to talk to you about tonight.

i had already suspected even before that his very well publicized sympathy for the common man sprung from a sense that jackson had from an early age that the elites at the time, the virginia planters and their allies in the north looked down on him. and they did. albert gallotin who was a swiss and very sophisticated man who probably helped us stay afloat more than anyone else financially during the war of 1812, he summarized jackson as a rough backwoodsman. and thomas jefferson was even more dismiss i have.. dismissive. he said he remembered his time in congress, and he said he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. i have seen him attempt it repeatedly and as often choke with rage.

so it has seemed to me that jackson was motivated in part by a desire to revenge himself on that kind of person. and he succeeded very much when he took on the bank of the united states. you remember that he was opposed to it, he thought that it was run by drafters and rich people for the benefit -- for their benefit, not for the country. he was able to destroy it temporarily and to put in its place what were dismissed as pet banks, little banks in the various states. now, i was happy to leave to economists the whole ins and outs of this story, but what we can't overlook is the fact that in the year after he left office, the economy suffered a

huge collapse. and there was misery because of his victory. and i think in many ways the same thing happened with the cherokees. he succeeded in his aim, but misery followed in the it wake. one of the things that struck me and i hadn't anticipated it at all was that reading about this whole period and thinking about it and immersing myself in it, it brought up all kinds of questions about guilt. and i started to think about individual guilt, collective guilt, historical guilt, even geographical guilt. and i'd like to talk about that

with you a little later this evening because i think those questions have more relevance to our recent history than the cherokees. first, though, we can review -- and i'm apologetic about this because many of you in a setting like this know this information very well, but for those who don't, for those like me who came late to the subject, we could review the state of the cherokee nation when jackson appeared on the scene. five tribes had lived for centuries in this particular corner of the continent, and that was long before ce sew toe arrived -- desoto arrived from spain in 1540. later we called them the five civilized tribes because they seemed to be the people who adapted best to the white culture.

besides the cherokee, you know, there were the choctaw, chickasaw, seminole and the creek. the cherokees lived in the valleys of what are now tennessee, carolinas and georgia. travelers who came to this section of the world in the mid 1700s found the cherokees to be unusually attractive and amiable people. they were taller than the white settlers, and they spoke in a language that sounded to the european ear like singing. the cherokee wives reveled in hard work. they tended to the communal farmland, they did all of of the chores around. their husbands hunted during the season, and then with their wives' encouragement, rested the rest of the year. so you can imagine that the early french traders found this very attractive. and they oftentimeses took these

soft-spoken women as wives. they also learned that they could strike a very hard bargain with the cherokees by plying them with liquor. and when the english traders replaced the french, they brought rum with them. the cherokees had developed an ethical code that held that anything was forgiven that you did when you were drunk except murder. murder was the one exception. anything else if you were drunk, that was of reason enough. the northern missionaries began to come south, and they were appalled to find that the cherokees held slaves. the slaves were originally taken from other tribes in battle, but as hunting became harder on the plains and as cotton became an attractive crop, the cherokees

began to buy african slaves like their white counterparts. also in those early days the united states was buying up large tracts of land from the various indian tribes. the cherokees became alarmed enough at the inroads into their holdings that they instituted something they called the blood law. and it held this, that if a cherokee sold any property, traded any property under a treaty without the permission of the entire cherokee council, they could be murdered. they should be murdered. they could be murdered without any legal penalty of any sort. so that was very briefly the state of the cherokee nation when andrew jackson appeared on the scene. by the time he was elected

president, jackson had a new grievance. and i would say a very legitimate one. he felt that he had been cheated out of the presidency in 1824. what happened was he won the popular vote, he won the majority of votes in the electoral college, but he did not win enough of votes in the college to be declared president. so the race was thrown into the house of representatives. now, if we remember the year 2000, we remember that that kind of disputed election can rankle long after it's officially been decided. and that was certainly the case with jackson. he felt, he felt victimized. then in 19, well, 1824 that same

year, the reason john quincy adams was able to become president even though he placed second to jackson in the areas that should have counted was that henry clay would come in fourth. and a very extraordinary man, clay. part of the pleasure of writing this book was to get to know more about him. but he distrusted a military man as president, and he particularly held the common assumption about jackson, that he was not fit for the office of what they called chief magistrate. and so he met confidentially with john quincy adams, which they struck -- and they struck a deal. and the deal was ha if clay -- that if clay threw the votes he

controlled to adams, enough to put him over the top and make him president, adams would appoint clay as secretary of state. and in those days that was about as sure a path to the presidency as you could have. it was done. it was unusual because these two men had met and gotten to know each other very well in the peace treaty negotiations in brussels that ended the war of 1812. and they didn't like each other at all and for good reason. john quincy adams and, i think, we have to have a grudging affection for him. but he was very stiff-necked and self-righteous. and henry clay was exactly the opposite. they shared quarters in brussels, and when adams was getting up in the morning to start his early prayers, henry

clay was roll licking in after a night of drinking and cards. so they were temperamentally very opposite, but they found that they had common political interests, and that was enough for them to strike the bargain. it did happen, clay threw his votes to adams, and adams then did appoint him secretary of state. this outraged all of jackson's partisans but no more than jackson himself. he was, he had a formidable temper, but it was really -- he was truly outraged. and he began to talk about this as the contemptible bar gain. and -- bargain. and it was a label that stuck. people, they had no proof, but it was pretty self-evident without proof although you find historians who will still say, oh, no, we don't know that they did this.

well, you have to be, i think, quite innocent about politics to believe that the just happenstance. but what happened was, of course, jackson then is not president for the next four years but more determined than ever to get the prize. and the campaign of 1828, you know, when we despair about some of the things, the charges and countercharges of our time, we should remember that campaign. the jackson people called john quincy adams a pimp. and their reason was -- i mean, john quincy adams, is so preposterous. [laughter] but the reason was that when he was the american ambassador to the court of st. petersburg that he procured women for the czar. now, you know, it's -- the into

basketball supervision the -- if there had been television and anyone had laid eyes on john quincy adams, they would have known how preposterous this was. but, you know, it happened. [laughter] and the charges were made. not that the other side was immune. the adams people called jackson's mother a prostitute. his wife an adult press and claimed that he had negro blood. so i think we can say that in this area we've made a little progress. [laughter] at any rate, he then, finally, got the job he wanted, jackson. and it was, it was of fascinating to the other party

to see the celebration this set off in the united states. as daniel webster's brother noted, he said, you know, it's as though jackson has come to save the country from some great menace, and the menace was just hapless john quincy adams. but there was that sense that he was going, jackson was going to defend the common man against the e elites. they didn't call them elites, but that's -- that was the sentiment. and, of course, we found out to the cherokees' dismay, that that election also meant the end of the cherokee territory, cherokee nation. let me read a summary of what jackson, the speech jackson gave when he was sworn in 1829.

jackson's inaugural address lasted a scant ten minutes. perhaps intentionally his remarks on the issue of the day were vague. he made no mention of slavery since it had played no part in the campaign and only one newspaper, the new york american, had condemned jackon for owning slaves. instead, the national debate centered on the tariffs. but then soon afterwards jackson outlined his proposal for removing the cherokees from georgia. and the uproar that followed that ignited, again, the simmering dispute, the dispute that had never gone away over slavery. so although i wouldn't ever argue that it was a straight line from jackson's behavior with the cherokees to the secession movement decades later, you can see that there

was a beginning. the north organized, and they organized against the roam that jackson had made. but they also were opposed to slavery, and the georgians knew that this was only a salvo in a rodder battle to come. broader battle to come. when wilson lumpkin, you, perhaps, many know of him, when he went to congress from georgia in 1827, his goal was to ec pell the cherokees from georgia. that was his goal. and he described his legislation, however, as indian reform. that was the way. but his opponents knew what his crusade was about. he put it this way, northern

fanatics, male and female, had gone to work and got p -- gotten thousands of petitions protesting against the removal of the poor, dear indians from the states where they were located to west of the mississippi. now in president jackson lumpkin had a powerful ally. jackson had convinced himself that he was doing the cherokee a favor by insisting that they move. there was increing friction between the white settlers, excuse me, the white settlers and the cherokee, and jackson felt that his humane answer was to force the cherokees to live their -- leave their traditional tribal land. what he didn't ever hear was the response p of the cherokees

themselves including school children. they learned that they might be driven west. their teacher told them, study hard because you may be going where there are no schools. and one buy but -- one boy asked about the white settlers. they've got more land than they use. he said, if the white people want more land, met them go back to the country they came from. but jackson believed and persuaded himself that the majority of the cherokees actually agreed with him. that they were being held back by the wealthy cherokees, often times with a lot of white heritage. in fact, john ross, one of jackson's chief opponents, was only one-sixteenth cherokee. and he had to to use a translator when he spoke to the

tribe in its language. so in jackson's view just as he had fought the northern establishment, the plantation owners all his life, he was now again on the side of the common man. this time the common indian. the problem is that he got it wrong. as it turned out, those partially white indians with the wealth and education saw early on the futility of of challengig him. and they were the ones who voluntarily did move west. and the people that john ross represented were the very poor and uneducated cherokees who, however, put great store in the land where their ancestors were buried, and they haven't p been

converted as many of the wealthier cher cues have been to christianity. they still maintained their original faith, and in that faith the spirits that they worshiped would come and protect them, and they wouldn't be driven off the land. so he really didn't understand his opponents. the fact was that if john ross had agreed to leave, this mass of cher e keys -- we're talking, now, 16, 17,000 -- would have risen up and deposed him as their chief. so he was doing the bidding of his constituency. now, as jackson prepared to introduce his legislation, as you can imagine the anxiety among the cherokees was running

high, and i think it's interesting, i found it interesting, to quote from a chief of 80 years who said this: when i sleep in forgetfulness, i hope my bones will not do deserted by you. he had heard that the united states government planned to break its treaties. it shall not be without our consent or by the misconduct of our people. as he yes, ma'am in additioned, the chief introduce -- to describe the relations between the federal administration. he said the tribe was linked to the unite by a golden chain of friendship. that that chain was made when our friendship was worth a price. and if they act the tyrant and kill i for our land, we shall many a state of unoffending

innocence, sloop with thousands of our or -- sleep with thousands of our departed people. that ensis dance on passive resistance at first surfaced ten years earlier when wrong one -- they made it clear that they would never take arms imebs the united states government. order -- on the other hand, the government never believed that and periodically the army would be put on alert because there were awe lance armstrongs that the kerr chiefs were prepared to fight. as it turned out, the cherokees kept their word, and no battle ever happened. now, the first year of jack soften's presidency was relatively track quill on this front because he was so distracted by what have been called the petticoat wars.

do youthe story? -- do you knowe story? he decided that his sainted wife who had died just before he took off, that she was devastated that she found out chef of being branded as an adult rest. she's an unusually appealing figure to me. she was a plain frontier woman, he smoked a pipe. it was a love match. but she had married early and to uproot, and jackson who was a border in the homeless cues her, took her out of the state and then found out that the marriage was not considered legal. as soon as they could they

married again and lived very happily together. but she hated politics, she hated the idea of going to washington and being subjected to the kind of life that was lived this. and so -- lived there. so when she e died, jackson was desolate. he spent the night at her coffin and never, i think, fully recovered. as a result, when his secretary of war married a very spirited woman named margaret eaton, the instinct in jackson that i, for one, admire of loyalty and a kind of almost unreasonable dedication to his friends kicked inmented and hulk the sowd dc hulk the when the society

matrons decided that peggy easton who was the daughter of a boarding houseman and probably a good deal more flirtatious than society permitted at the time. they decided that she was a loot woman, and they refused finish a loose woman, and they refused to receive her even though she was the weich of his secretary of war. well, jackson took this up as a cause for the whole first year of his administration. he did everything to try to get her received. he told the cabinet members whose wives wouldn't accept her that if they didn't force their wives to do it, hollywood fire them. they responded that he had no business interfering with what their wyoming did. an became a huge, huge scandal.