before congress in 1935 pleading for enough money so that his army would have enough bullets for 100,000 soldiers. we are not talking about bombers or complex weapons. we are talking literally about enough bullets to man 100,000 army. i can will understand if you are not for a strong military, american presence overseas which we don't necessarily need but i do think that a strong defense of america ward off problems. ..

>> i'll run down to sears roebuck or whatever and get a set of tires, you were out of lung. and the only way you could get another set of tires was to go before the government's tire board and prove that you had an essential reason for getting a new set of tires. likewise, radios, bicycles, clocks -- even clocks, the common american could no longer purchase after the spring of 1942. all those mechanisms were used in the war effort. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. and now, daniel blake smith recalls president andrew jackson's seizure of cherokee nation land and the cherokees' forced migration that resulted in the deaths of thousands during their journey from the southeast united states to oklahoma territory known as the trail of tears.

it's about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thanks a lot. it's great, i've had the chance to be here at this wonderful independent bookstore. i just gravitate every time i have a chance to be in a place like malaprop's. just about a week ago my book had its first publication date, or as i prefer to call it, the launch, more dynamic and exciting. here's hoping you like what you hear and it's worthy of a lawn. i thought what i would do this evening ask showcase my work and start by reading a brief interpret from the book so you can get a flavor for what i'm getting at in the book and, hopefully, be coaxed into wanting to buy it yourself. and then i'll turn to some other general comments and then be glad to take questions because

i'm eager to learn from my, from readers. the assassins boldly rode up at day break not bothering to disguise their faces. the night before, june 21, 1839, more than 100 angry cherokees had met at the council grounds near present-day oklahoma. amid boiling tempers, a group of men scribbled three names on a list; major ridge, john ridge and elias ya butte know. none of the accused was there, so all three were quickly found guilty. their crime? betraying the cherokee nation by selling tribal lands without approval. and the penalty was death. early the next morning three assassination parties of 25 armed men each headed toward their separate destinies. the home of john ridge, park hill where elias butte know worked and little rock creek

near the arkansas border where major ridge, john's father and elias' uncle, would soon be crossing. certain of the justice of their mission, they feared no retribution. in their minds the history of their people not only sanked, but demanded their actions. they had to die. on a single day the assassins, all members of the party who had fiercely resisted removal out west, targeted the three men who had sold the cherokees' sacred land to cooperate with the forced removal of the tribe to oklahoma. all the yearses of outrage over removal and the bitter quarrels between the parties erupted in a violent day of blood revenge that was nearly operatic in sweep and tone. the murderous reprisals of june 32, 1839, were a violent coda in the haunting and powerful story of heartbreak and loss, conflict and controversy that is the trail of tears. arguably, the most tragic interracial event in american history, the trail of tears has

sometimes been called an american holocaust or genocide. it was neither. no one wanted, let alone planned for cherokees to die in the forced removal out west. but it did dramatize not only the loss of sacred lands, but also the failure of democracy and justice for an entire people. ironically, the most successful civilized tribe. few stories from the american past reveal in such devastating terms the consequences of unchecked greed and racial oppression. cherokees were hardly the only indians to experience the pain and loss of forced removal. dozens of other tribes in the united states underwent similar suffering. but because of the cherokees' unique accomplishments as a well educated people -- they had a written language and set up the first indian-language newspaper, the cherokee phoenix. because of all of that, we have come to view their anguish as emblematic fur all native -- for all native peoples in the '

'30s. their 1837 constitution, after all, was modeled after the u.s. constitution. so in some ways the principle tragedy of the trail of tears lies in the heart-wrenching treasury they felt at the hands of the united states. most accounts of this powerful story focus on the easily identifiable villains, victims and heros. from the indian-fighting andrew jackson to his land-hungry southern white co-conspirators, the villains are easy to spot. the cherokees themselves are often depicted as hopelessly naive in their believe that thanks to their successful embrace of a civilized life, they would be spared from the relentless determination to take over indian lands in the southeast. center stage is the main protagonist, chief john ross, for his laudable, tenacious struggle to save the homeland and keep the tribe together. well, such a narrative is accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.

a further perspective takes us into the minds and hearts of those cherokees who fought each other just as fiercely as they took on andrew jackson over what they saw as the very soul of the cherokee people. what they were fighting over in the 1820s and '30s was nothing less than what it meant to be a good cherokee, a patriot amid the critical struggle over removal. the removal crisis plunged the cherokees into a profound and sometimes violent quarrel over the issue of patriotism. from the 1820s on, a series of painfully difficult questions haunted the cherokee people. was it possible for a cherokee to be a full citizen of the american nation, and yet remain connected to tribal traditions and ancestral land? given the obvious hunger among southern whites for indian land, should cherokees have placed their hopes on assimilation or the independence of the cherokee nation regardless of geography? what could a patriotic cherokee do if only choices were clinging

to a homeland that white settlers were bent on overrunning or recreating the nation in a distant land? in short, if you could not save both your homeland and your people, which one mattered most? which one could you possibly surrender? and what made you the more faithful cherokee, the more loyal patriot; fighting to save your home or to save your people? well, those are the questions i posed in the book's introduction where that excerpt's taken from, and it goes back in time to washington and jefferson's administration and begins this saga on a hopeful note. indian policy aimed at peace and establishing a civilization program that is remaking indians as red citizens of a white republic. hunting and fur trading, the principle livelihood of most tribes especially those in the southeast, would be replaced by the more civilizing occupation of raising crops and livestock.

abandonment of huge indian hunting grounds for small farming plots would free up enormous tracts of indian land, land that whites clearly coveted. washington and jefferson both contended that indian life was uncivilized not because of some inherent inferiority, but was they -- but because they had not yet been able to imagine a better future for themselves and their children. ignorance, not race, had made them uncivilized heathens. but with the right education and proper training, they could become full ally aim -- fully assimilated society. federal agents were sent out as middlemen to protect the indian boundaries and set up trading posts where indians would exchange their furs and skins for horses and plows. just as significantly, missionaries in the late 1790s began arriving in indian country as well armed with religious values and domestic tools for remaking native americans. evangelical protestants,

baptists, methodists and presbyterians fanned out into indian country setting up schools and missions where indian boys were taught to become farmers and artisans, and indian girls learned to sew, weave and cook. and most important, missionaries hoped to introduce christianity, the the telltale mark, whites believed, of a civilized people. thus, jefferson's indian policy viewed as hopeless all indians who claimed to their savage ways as nomadic hunters. their only hope, he insisted, came from selling their lands, accepting white values and becoming respectable farmers and u.s. citizens. this more positive, enlightened approach to indian/white relations may have offered hope to the cherokees, but it was meant to feel like their last hope. it could not have been lost on the cherokees or any other tribe subject to the civilization program that becoming civilized was their only alternative to destruction. it's against these ideological

civilization backdrop that two of the most promising young men in the cherokee nation grew to maturity. and they are key features, protagonists in the book, john rung and elias boudinot. they could not have better symbolized what the program was all about. boudinot's father and his wife had left the town after the american revolution destroyed much of the region and moved near rome, georgia. there along with brother major ridge, he cleared fields, built a log cabin, planted orchards just as the federal indian agents had urged cherokees to do. life in the valley differed radically from the sort of activities their families had experienced years before. the communal clan-based village had been replaced by self-sufficient, isolated households. determined to take advantage of the benefits of the civilization

program, boudinot's father enrolled the 6-year-old elias in spring place mission. the same mission school that his cousins john and nancy ridge along with other indian children were attending. a cherokee with a sensitive demeanor, elias boudinot was from the beginning a remarkable, gifted student. meanwhile, his cousin john under the ambitious guidance of his father major ridge moved from spring place to the braynard mission near chattanooga where he quickly developed a reputation as the best student at the school. john was a thoughtful young man with an inquiring spirit. in 1817 elias and john were invited to continue their studies at a new school in cornwall, connecticut, set up by the american board of commissioners for foreign missions, sort of a multicultural, liberal new england establishment. and for their experiment in assimilating young indians, the leading men of cornwall could not have selected better

prospects better than boudinot and ridge. they came from homes already exposed to the strong missionary effort, and both boys were brilliant students, intent on becoming as civilized as white culture would allow. well, at cornwall they may have intended a full and complete assimilation of white culture, but what they got was quite unexpected and, in the end, disastrous. while in school there, the young men fell in love with two prominent local white girls and even more infamously married them. much to the shock and anger of the entire cornwall community. it was an anger that culminated in the couples being burned in effigy on the town square. the outrage in cornwall over the boys' interracial marriages, needless to say, served to disillusion boudinot and ridge about any dreams of assimilation with white america. boudinot's intensely personal and humiliating encounter with white racism at cornwall made a mockery of the idea that the two

cultures could peaceably comingle. and the very heart of what the school stood for, that education and christianity would foster equality between the two races now rang hollow. a few years before his controversial marriage, john ridge had pridefully noted in a letter he wrote to james monroe, president james monroe in 1822, my father and mother are both ignorant of the english language, but it is astonishing to see them exert all their power to have their children educated just like the whites. the promise of cornwall and the hopes of piewd know and ridge -- boudinot and ridge like the effigies on town square had now gone up in the flames. when newlyweds john and sarah ridge and elias and harriet boudinot returned home to indian country in 1825, they nonetheless immersed themselves in trying to better the cherokee people. john ridge became a successful lawyer while elias took off on a lecture tour to make the case for indian advancement, raise funds for a national academy and

establish a press and printing office. and boudinot soon became closely acquainted with a newcomer to cherokee nation, samuel worcester, an excerpt linguist from vermont. they began a strong friendship grounded in a strong christian faith and a desire to improve the cherokees. the two men conceived of a new cherokee newspaper that would be printed in both english and cherokee. it would publish laws of the cherokee nation as well as spread news about it people's progress in education, religion and the literary arts. it was called the cherokee phoenix. they set up a shop for the newspaper in the new cosmopolitan cherokee capital december 1827. the cherokee phoenix was the first newspaper ever published by or for indians and printed, at least in part, in an indian language. the first issue, february 1828, contained excerpts in english and cherokee from the

just-completed cherokee constitution, the lord's prayer, and an editorial by boudinot. recognizing that most whites still viewed all indians as little more than savages, boudinot focused on indians' capacity for progress as justification for a hopeful future. indians with the proper advantages are as capable of improvement in mind as any other people. but his optimism, even as he declared it from the pages of the phoenix, would soon become suspect. in fact, what proved more prophetic was the greed of their white neighbors. when a cherokee boy discovered gold on cherokee land in the summer of 1829, land-you can hungry georgia januaries invaded in crowes. the cherokees bitterly complained, but it became quickly obvious that the invading whites aided and abetted by a president, andrew jackson had just been elected the year before, a president who shared their convictions that indians occupied lands that properly belonged to their white

neighbors. these settlers would relentlessly pressure the cherokees to move out west. and the pressure hit them externally, not just externally from the federal government and from greedy georgia yangs, but also from within. by the summer of 1832, a full-blown split had emerged over what became known as the cherokee question. not only how do you respond to the obvious lack of support from the federal government, georgia's continuing encroachments, but how do you deal with the growing divisions within the cherokee nation itself? this is what the book focuses on the most. on one side of this huge divide stood chief john ross who, by the way, was only one-eighth cherokee, looked about as cherokee as i do, and i'm one-eighth cherokee. and, in fact, had to have his perfectly-spoken english speeches be translated by a cherokee interpreter everywhere he went. and yet he was most supported by the traditionalists in cherokee society, the full-blood cherokees. because he told them something that really mattered to them and they wanted to hear which was

that the cherokees must, no matter what, remain in their homeland at all costs. remiewl must be resisted. anyone who enforced, let alone participated in negotiating a treaty was, in effect, a traitor. a great majority of cherokees intent on staying in their homes supporting ross' unrelenting stance of resistance to removal. a smaller but highly voc portion of the cherokee people had come to believe removal represented the only alternative to the nation's eventual degradation at the hands of what boudinot called an overwhelming white population who consider the cher chiefs as their -- cherokees as their inferiors. several cherokees comprised the leadership of what became known as the treaty parties because of their willingness to negotiate a treaty to emigrate to new lands out west where they believed the cherokees had the best chance to survive as a people. by the summer of 1832, an escalating war of words grounded

in the fierce conviction of both parties swirled through cherokee nation. and much of that debate at this critical moment turned on the question, what should a good patriot do for his people. chief john ross and elias boudinot, as you may begin to figure out, answered that question in wildly different, contradictory ways. ross argued that members of the treaty party you were a small minority opposed to the of the people who were attempting to sell out their sacred homeland without the authority to do so. boudinot fought back about the appearance of having a vast majority opposed, the only reason the people sided with ross was because their chief had not seen fit to speak honestly with them about the grave dangers that lay ahead if they resisted removal. ross, boudinot claimed, was preventing discussion and debate leaving his people ignorant of their true condition. a large majority of the people, boudinot argued, would prefer to

move if true state of their condition was proposerly made known to them. he and his friends insisted they were the true friends of the cherokee people, desperately seeking answers and a new strategy. boudinot did not hesitate to use his position to openly debate the issue, but ross -- who viewed the paper as the official organ of the cherokee nation -- would not tolerate such dissent. the phoenix, ross said, should present only the provisions voiced by the constitutional voices of the cherokee people, namely himself. clearly fearing that the white political leaders might on this quarreling as aen expression of weakness in the struggle to resist removal, ross instructed boudinot in the summer of 1933 to stop publishing dissenting opinions in the paper. outraged, boudinot resigned from the phoenix. to stay on, he said in a final editorial, would place him in an unacceptable position. i do conscientiously believe it to be the duty of every citizen to reflect monothe dangers --

upon the dangers with which we are surrounded, to view the darkness, our prospects and the evils with which we are threatened to take over all these manners. only a fee discussion among -- free discussion among ourselves, he said, would lead to the clear will of the people. ross still needed the newspaper to spread his anti-removal message, so he replaced boudinot with his brother-in-law, elijah hicks. promptly announcing boudinot's resignation represented a drop in the bucket, boudinot had become detached from the nation and was now no more a patriot. there's nothing in my letter of resignation, boudinot fired back, my motives certainly were of the most patriotic kind. in one word i may say that my patriotism consists in the love of the country and the love of the people. that's not really one word, but that's what he's saying. his position could not have been

plainer. the cherokee people were facing a devastating loss. better to relocate where they can survive as a people than stubbornly resist the inevitable and lose both their land and their souls. our lands, or a large parse of them, are about to be seized and taken from us, he wrote. now, as a friend of my people i cannot say peace, peace when there is no peace, i cannot ease tire minds with any expectation of a calm when the vessel is already tossed to and fro and threatened to be shattered by an approaching tempest or as his cousin john ridge put it,a man sees a cloud charged with rain, thunder and storm and urges the people to take care s that man to be hated or respected? the way boudinot saw it, the cherokees faced a grim, existential decision that had three choices. stay and fight for their lands against overwhelming odds, submit to an oppressive white population and suffer a moral death, or avoid the first two by removal. but with the majority of cherokees remaining strongly

attached to their homeland, boudinot understood he was fighting an uphill battle and facing a harsh reality x. for boudinot that reality pointed to but one question; how is one to love one's country that was december -- destined for destruction? we consider the lot of the exile immeasurably more to be preferred man a submission to pressive laws and inevitable ruin of the cherokee people. boudinot's challenge, then, to ross ran deeper than simply speculating on the likely outcome of removal. an ardent christian, boudinot's convictions about the fate of his people were inextricably link today high moral values, values planted and nurtured as a young man when he, like john ridge, was under the influence of white e evangelicals. boudinot had been consumed with the idea that the cherokee's advancement hinged not simply on material progress, but on spiritual and moral immaterial improvement as well. so he was especially irked ross seemed to suggest the cherokees live inside some prosperity and

happiness and the treaty advocates for ruining that bucolic world. most cherokees, boudinot believed, were suffering from everything from alcoholism to spiritual and moral despair. if ross and his supporters would honestly face the conditions, they would discover a people desperately in need of a new start. rook at the mass, look at the entire population as it now is and say can you see any indication of a progressing improvement, anything that can encourage a philanthropist? to boudinot and the ridges, remaining on the homeland not only denied their inevitable fate of removal by the u.s. military, it also flew in the face of a powerful moral imperative; the cherokee people left surrounded by the basic elements of white culture continue fronted immorality. you will find an argument in every shop in the country, you will find its effects in the blood key tragedies frequently -- bloody tragedies frequently occurring and in the tears and groans of the

widowless and fatherless, homeless, naked and hungry. a genuine patriot seeks to save his people's soul, not simply its land. and so for him and the ridges, that meant resettling out west where the cherokee people would reconstitute themselves in peace as a vir choose and prosperous nation. ironically, as sort of a side note, in choosing removal, boudinot and ridge put important distance between themselves and their missionary friends who had done so much for the cherokee cause. samuel worcester, perhaps boudinot's closest white friend, believed like john ross that the 1835 treaty that boudinot and the treaty party had put together was a mistake and signing it was, at best, misguided. other missionaries also criticized boudinot for his position on the treaty, and once they arrived in oklahoma in 1839 pleaded with him to apologize for his error. if boudinot and the ridges relentlessly pursued the cause

for removal out last week, ross and the mass of the cherokee people focused exclusively on protecting the homeland as the critical work of the true patriot. when he was not attacking the treaty party for its traitorous conduct, ross tirelessly fought for a way to pub hi size the unfair flight of the cherokees and, in the end, to negotiate better financial settlements for the removal once it actually happened. keeping his people united and together, to be sure strictly under his own leadership, became ross' unwavering goal. and in taking on the treaty party, ross could point to the vast majority of cherokees who supported him in resisting removal. he spoke for the many traditionalists among his supporters when he said that removal would tear the cherokee people from their ancient and intimate connections to an ancestral mountains and streams. a loyal cherokee, ross insisted, would never trade away the homeland without tribal approval, but this, he claimed, was precisely what the signers of the treaty had done.

ross, just as acculture ated as boudinot and john ridge, but he refused to pressure cherokees to change their beliefs and ways of life. where dude know saw removal as -- boudinot saw removal as salvation, ross viewed it as destroying the distinctive, traditional cherokee identity. as i said, it's true that most cherokees didn't rally behind boudinot and the rest of the treaty party. the cherokee nation continued to consist of traditionalists who embraced plans government, subsistence agriculture and shamans and remained suspicious of christianity. the treaty's party cherokee nation, in contrast, envisioned industrious farmers, formally ec r educated, dedicated to the principles of christian faith and republican government. only a small portion of such a world, in fact, had developed in cherokee country by the 1830s, giving rides to the notion that men like boudinot and ridge were tragic figures who surrendered

their lives on behalf of an imagine the mare -- imaginary nation that did not yet exist. these clashing notions represented fundamentally-colliding visions over the future of the cherokee people. for ross and his supporters, standing up against an oppressive federal government allied with all the greedy white settlers in the south was necessarily tied to saving the homeland and preserving the traditional livelihoods of the people. but for boudinot and his friends, such a perspective falsely assumed that a cherokee society was in a sound and prosperous state before the crisis over removal. what distinguished the vision of the treaty party from ross' party was on the focus as well as to what exactly needed saving. where the treaty party saw a disturbing moral decline, ross and his friends found comfort and security in maintaining the sacred tie toss the cherokee traditions, to the mountains and streams of their homeland that

removal would e eradicate. for ross a good and faithful cherokee was someone who protected that homeland because without such a physical touchstone, the very essence of the cherokee people would be destroyed. however faithfully raz and his adherents defended these meaningful connections to the land, they paid far less attention to what would happen to the cherokee people if they were to successfully resist removal and remain in the east. overrun by white settlers and forced toly as subjects and the laws of georgia, north carolina and tennessee, cherokees would soon lose their distinctive identity amid assimilation into a white-dominated society. and to boudinot such a fate was, as he put it, too revolting to think of. in that sense the treaty party, especially boudinot and john ridge, were calling important attention to race and the need for a completely independent cherokee nation. thus, remain anything their homeland -- remaining in their homeland would, as he put it,

only rivet the chains and fasten the manacles of their servitude and keg rah gaition. such a vision for his people's future, he believed, led inevitably toward becoming extinlt or merge inside another race, more ignoble and more detested. may god preserve us from such a destiny. it was, of course, the tenacity of the treaty party that shaped the destiny of the cherokee nation in the struggle over over removal. boudinot and the ridges had no way of knowing that removal would lead to a trail of tears that would cost 4,000 lives and enormous suffering. ..

for his part ralph lost the battle for removal but the commitment to keeping his people together as a unified and sovereign nation remains a powerful legacy. is the finding moment in the cherokee and american past. for the nation at large the trail of tears offered devastating commentary not only on greed and power but also the increasingly racial world of jacksonian america. by the 1830s only white america especially in the south could lay claim to citizenship and racial entitlement. property owning well-educated men and women no longer constituted sufficient proof of worthiness for participating in the public realm. what had to be white. dealing with both african-americans and native americans andrew jackson at his southern supporters practiced a

form of the belief in the permanent inferiority of all nonwhites black and indian. most looked the other way or agreed with their brethren. boudinot and john ridge discovered this painful reality during their wrenching experience in cornwall. as the trail of tears demonstrates race remained a key social divide. making much of america a white man's country. thank you. [applause] i will be glad to take questions and commentary, whatever you like. [inaudible]

>> then it states it took them to -- [inaudible] >> that is a very -- the forbid be digital anecdote to make a point. most persuasive one. i don't know what the writer had in mind. his adopted son. it is fair to say that he protected him and treated him kindly but if you look at the way he was treated in the house it is like a pet. a loved and honored pet but apec nonetheless. people would look at him. probably suggests getting too

psychoanalytic -- jackson had mixed feelings about the indian people, not evil people but not developed enough. they needed someone to watch over them. a paternal president which he did for the entire indian people in the country. i used that to make my larger point about jackson that the paternalism of the southeast indians had to undergo could have been a microcosm of the way he treated them, has kindly as -- if you go out west, the mean white culture won't be around, to practice their own ways leaving aside the fact we want your land and it is with a lot of money and we don't consider you civilized enough to be sitting on them. we have settlers who will make some big bucks. get out. from a paternalistic point of

view. the adoption of this little boy, and adoption -- did not mean that indian people were equals of whites. in my view. >> john ross -- what happened to him -- >> boudinot's wife died the year before they went on the trail of tears. he remarried another missionary, white missionary woman. she went on and pushed for his revenge and her husband's death. the new england woman had died the year before. worked in a family general store, capt. low-profile,

privately grieved what happened. there were a lot of retribution activities and murderous reprisals on both sides because you might be surprised to learn that john ross -- to have these people arrested the girl executed. the execution is interesting, had historians quarrel -- those were not assassins. those were executioners. to execute the law that if you sell tribal land without tribal approval you deserve to be executed. that wasn't tribal law but was a blood revenge. i made a decision that this was an assassination, not an execution. the very language you use to talk about it can get caught up in arguments. if they deserve to die -- by the

letter of the klan law. >> there is a sense that with the rise of casinos, justice is being served a little bit to get back what was taken from them. how much truth is there that in fact they try to control the casino operation instead of being controlled? >> it is a source of income to a lot of nations so much so that that affects decisions about who belongs -- who are true members of their nation. is there blood quantum? if you can't prove it you don't have a right to a payoff as part of the prestige of the casinos. makes for an interesting political problem. to do you decide is the fate of

the cherokee tribe or creek nation? >> it is a sign -- it was set aside that in my personal opinion i'm not a scholar or deputy to casino ownership and all the rest and an earlier historian, didn't strike me as -- may be a bit of financial interchange on the part of people -- i don't know if it is intentional but it is kind of fortunate because of the opportunity but doesn't seem like it is so far from the closeness to nature and people who work the land and hunted it for -- to be working casinos. 20th century payoff for the degradation they suffered. >> is it 99%?

>> the cherokees no -- they should have a protest called occupy america because they were here first. they have long since been viewed as forgotten people. not really part of the conversation when you think about it. came up in the news, the cherokee did recently, the new tribal chief. they got the issue of disenrolling african slaves. 2% were african slaves. a good part of the republican leadership among the cherokee people, we want to narrow our membership. they were not part of the cherokee nation so they proceeded to disenroll them. the internet and so forth and the guy that took that position, same last name as i do, chad smith lost in the most recent

elections. it is really perverse to eliminate the business of the friedman as members of the cherokee nation. that is kind of what is going on. nobody including the cherokees struggle over what is right and what does it mean today, constantly fought over. >> in the eastern band going 180 that you see people like john ross, considered an indian so kind of get benefits -- the damage done by their ancestors. >> they try to find a bag off between the queasiness they can with tribal membership and keep the wallabies off a list. my great great grandmother definitely a cherokee.

very difficult to prove cert and all the rest to become a kind of a cottage industry to figure that out. to financial payoff. it is not just -- a card says i am a cherokee but so much every year from the casinos. it is considerable. >> tribal land in the united states from the american nation, the trouble government communicated with tribal government and the government governing states and the two government's got together and citizens of the tribal land, are they all american or are they citizens of the nation? do they have american rights

also? how does it work? >> they are american citizens but also members of their own nation. they treat with the federal government, not the state. the bureau of indian affairs is to they deal with the federal government. the people who are a sovereign nation, this is one of the things going on in the trail of tears. desperately pleading 4 was never going to happen and that is let it stay here as an independent sovereign nation which we are and somehow -- honor tribal laws and independence and sovereignty. they were not about to do that. how disrespectful can you be? that is why the cherokee deal with the federal government. >> american indians did become a u.s. citizen. >> u.s. citizens who are members

of an independent nation. >> a sovereign nation -- the citizenship of their tribe? >> i think is the u.s. passport. a dual citizenship thing. they -- talk about u.s. transport. . travel internationally wouldn't work. they can say go to the t s a and say i love member of the cherokee nation. you have to have a u.s. passport. [inaudible] >> it is a conceit, not legal entity. no indian nation making and deal with the government of germany,

it has become an internal understanding and way of operation in the united states to one of the fact that it is on reservations, better news is we are still an independent sovereign nation because we were here first and we are a sovereign nation. kind of a standoff but that is what we have made of it. >> i wonder if you have a philanthropic call, for so many different groups. in the case, you seem to have important meaning. understand how to use that. >> i wanted to broaden the meeting not to the point of confusion but what patriotism is. not something we decided affects

protestants on july 4th. it means a love of your people and the land and fissures between those two. entirely appropriate to use it so people will understand there's a lot to paint themselves as good or bad patriots apart from what we think of has i am sure most americans at this time thought it would be crazy to think of patriotic americans unless they became assimilated citizens. we are not intended. doesn't have america written on it. and love of your own people at your own culture and much more appropriate and i hope people will see that as an instructive part of the book and the beautiful way to make a distinction they haven't thought of before. usually it plays out in terms of andrew jackson, bad guy and

other supporters, these are poor and helpless passive indians taken out west. a lot of turmoil going on and the cherokee were active participants. to fight literally to fan mail to find out the best way to handle it. >> what do you see in the future, with the cherokee people? >> they are very resilient. i am one eighth cherokee myself. they are one of the most adaptable nations ever and they have gone through a lot. the western and the people divided only by land, i fully expect 70,000 in the cherokee nation in northeast oklahoma,

they lay claim to it was documentation to prove it. they are survivors if nothing else. they will be an active part of the american political scene whether or not we come around to treating them equally is a different matter. thank all of you for coming. i appreciate it. and get a chance to answer questions and talk about something i hear a lot about. [applause] >> for more information visit the author's website, danielblakesmith.com. you are watching boudinot weekend on booktv. a visit with local author j. lee thompson on his book "beyond the book: an exhibition of the brian lamb booknotes collection" 18 about roosevelt's expedition to africa and europe.

>> did it roosevelt first decide he wanted to go to africa? >> he was a fan of africa for many years. 1907-1908 he came to the end of his presidency, taking an extended vacation away from all. made a decision to go to africa instead. a long time hunter and conservationist. they called him the old lion. >> how long after his presidency did he leave? >> three weeks. very short. handed over the reins to his friend william taft and he basically made president. taft was supposed to carry out his policies while he went abroad. he was gone the third week in march. the expedition was organized by

the smithsonian. a cutting edge scientific expedition. he went to africa for year, then went to europe few months after that. he was gone 15 months. his son kermit was the photographer. call to my side partner in the operation in the dedication of his book. kermit was 20, 19 or 20 years old. a little bit adventuresome, maybe too much for his father and went off by himself at times. photography was very important. roosevelt said the expedition may be the most important thing would be the photographs they took because they may record of how animals lived on the ground at the same time they were taking big game charts. the smithsonian expedition brought back 11,000 from

elephants down to in vertebrates. for long time the natural history museum had a huge hall for exhibit which they have taken down. only one thing left of significance on display and that is the white rhino which he shot. a tiny little tag. for long time verities dioramas. they shot family groups. that isn't what you did in those days. you took family groups and put them in dioramas and painted backgrounds. you can see this in museums today. that ended up being a very good thing. people at the smithsonian said the president is trying to get the biggest trophy. on the remains that they have as benchmarks for what is going on today. he was looking at birds, the man

was interested in everything. people try to portray this as a game butchering expedition. you wanted to make sure that b sending back his articles hugh was also an imperialist and went to the british empire. he spent 12 months in the british empire. so he meant people on the ground and talked to about what his views were and what britain should be doing and took the bully pulpit with him. the man could not stop giving

his opinion. the book has the subtitle, "theodore roosevelt abroad: nature, empire, and the journey of an american president". lots of things going on. he was never able to do one of thing. he was a human -- inventor of multitasking. which we talked about. he read a book every day. the pigskin library, which he had a specially made. and the writing he wrote a book, called african game trails, a series of articles which he published. some smithsonian naturalists, two of them collaborated. a book about african games. he met his wife and his daughter

in a very picturesque place down the nile that he went to cairo and made a speech about the anti british empire which irked a lot of egyptian nationals and he went to europe. he promised that he would give a second honeymoon if she let him go on this safari. they made a deal. they went to italy to recreate their honeymoon in 1885 but the chorale wouldn't let them. they were basically mob because he was a star. he was a media star around the world. even though he wasn't president, didn't want to meet with kings and queens but did, fell over himself to come to the palace and cellist lori and regaled them with tales of the spanish-american war and being

president and also -- he was this cowboy and had a cowboys' string from his days as a rancher. >> did he like that attention? >> he was a political animal. loved being in the spotlight. there is the old story that he wanted to be at every wedding and corpse every funeral. in european history like he was still president. everyone expected him to go back to the united states and the president again and he met with leaders of the time. the sort of introduction i'm doing right now about roosevelt in the great war. kaiser wilhelm of germany and a loose cannon, a leader like himself. they were very similar. he got to be the only civilian to have a german army parade in front of him. he sat on horseback for several

hours at one of the palaces as he went to england and was working -- one thing he did in europe was working for andrew carnegie, the world's wealthiest man, while he was in europe roosevelt gave his belated nobel prize in 1906 for settle in the war between russia and japan so at the time the tradition was the president didn't leave the country. if you were president you were supposed to be there being president. he didn't give his speech so he gave it belatedly in 1910 and fled out the idea of an international league. something is rival woodrow wilson will play out a few years later. roosevelt is seeing this bellicose warrior type but in fact he had a slow and speak

softly and carry a big stick. he spoke softly like the united states navy had managed to keep the country out of the war while he was president. the peace emissary business leaders to edward vii died, the king of england, he gets to go to england hand gets to be the emissary of the united states at the funeral so he gets to dress up in a tuxedo. he looks like a pink one among all wills. they have these plumed hats and outfits with metals. standing out as usual. you are not going to do that. won a few people who could tell

him what to do. in england, the seat of power. the league gives another speech. he promised people on the ground in africa that he would support them. the british government -- he made a speech at the guildhall, very famous old building in london in which he basically told the british they were not being strong enough. >> what convinced him to come back into office? >> he never meant to move away. he let william taft run is the show because of the state at home everyone would say you are t r's puppet? taft fell into the orbit of conservative people in the republican party and the lot of things which roosevelt and friends writing letters about

what is going on. had to do with conservation. he was going to come back but needed to straighten things out. he was in africa. he came back. he decided to run again on this trip because people -- in letters he said i made a mistake. shouldn't have left taft in as i did. he made the decision later in 1911-1912. he dies in january of 1919 sort of unexpectedly. everybody believes republicans in 1920 if he got the nomination. just like woodrow wilson, people in 1920 were tired of performers and tired of activism. was interesting is what he might

have done. another thing about roosevelt is he resonates down today. president obama made a speech. and progress of stuff. there's an interesting amalgamation, tried to put in place reforms, and it is a message which comes down to us today. he just had charisma and personal magnetism. he sounds like an emergence of fdr. we heard fdr's speeches the only if you've roosevelt's survived. he sold what he is doing. he is noa