when we look at the discipline disparities, there were disparities in terms of how people were selected into discipline, but there were disparities also on how they were treated in the discipline process. and many times the parents with more resources, what we call sort of the cultural capital and social capital to exert their power on administrators would do things like negotiate away something like their child having drugs in the school. they would say things like, well, my child had the marijuana, but it really wasn't possession because possession means you mean to distribute it, and they didn't really mean to distribute it, they just had it, and it was in their hands, but it wasn't really theirs. so let's not call it possession, because they really have a bright future, and we expect them to go to a great college, and if you, you know, put it down as possession, it's not going to happen. and so these were some of the dynamics that occurred across sort of the academic context, but also in the disciplinary domain that led to advantage and disadvantage at the school. >> host: so despite the best

intentions, what improvements did you suggest to retiring principal maurice weber? >> guest: well, one of the things that we wanted to get across is that it's not so much that people intend to do bad things. teachers don't go into education because they want to create achievement gaps, they don't go into education because they want some students to do well and others not to. but they do live in a society where race permeates everything about the society, right? where the inequalities persist across a number of domains, and schools are no different. and part of the way this happens is not necessarily by the sort of old-fashioned racism where you have people organizing in the streets in ways that reproduce racial inequality, but the sort of day-to-day dynamics that people engage in when they're talking to someone, what they expect of them is and how that sort of manifests itself almost at a subconscious level where people act on their racial beliefs even when they don't intend to. and those are some of the

mechanisms that led to performance expectations for black students and latino students being lower. those are the things that led to discipline referrals for black and latino students being higher, and the cumulative impact of those things over time really sort of shaped this inequality in the context of the school. >> host: so teachers are really on the front line again here. >> guest: i think they are. i think teachers are, in part, on the front line. and particularly, you know, given the fact that we're focused on what's happening inside the school. you know, for the society as a whole, there are a lot of things we could do outside of schools to make a difference. we could create, you know, family policies and other kinds of social safety nets that would mean that families weren't struggling as much. but in the context of riverview where we have mostly middle income families, this racial dynamic seems to be a really powerful and important one. and teachers are on the front lines to some extent, as are administrators, in the fact that they have to be able to deal with these processes of opportunity hoarding. they have to be able to figure out politically how to respond to the powerful parents in the community who are pushing for, essentially, the monopolization

of resources for their own kids and be able to push against that in the way that suggests that, you know, this school is for all the students who attend, not just for your kids, and, you know, sort of move away from the sort of zero sum game sort of idea that some parents bring to the educational process. >> host: in your book, "despite the best intentions," did you find recommendations for students as well? >> guest: well, i think the recommendations were more likely to be focused on the adults in the context of the school. for students i think the big thing that they need to do is to recognize that some of these dynamics play out, right? when you're in an environment that doesn't value your presence or when you're in an environment that sort of expects less of you, you have to be sort of socialized to understand that discrimination will exist and to build on the historical patterns of how african-americans and latinos have struggled to make those environments work for them despite the discrimination,

right? and so there's a rich history of people fighting for educational access, the civil rights movement, of the creation of schools in the south for african-americans, of struggles for latinos to access education particularly in the southwest and in california, and that history is very helpful for young people to be able to recognize that while discrimination exists, i can overcome it. it's called race-related socialization, and it's the kind of socialization that families can engage in, but it's also the kind of education that schools can engage in that teaches people that even though they may face discrimination and may face low expectations, those things can be overcome and have been. >> host: professor diamond, are there lessons that you learned in your view that you can take to other schools, all-white schools, all-black schools, private schools, etc. >> guest: yeah. i mean, so that's really the next step in this work. i'm working with a number of schools in madison now using the book itself as, actually, a

common read for teachers. so i've met with the first and is second-year teachers in madison twice this year. last year i met with all of the principals from the school district four times to talk about race and inequality. i'm working at a particular k-5 school in madison now where we're doing a yearlong set of professional development opportunities around race and inequality where we really try to unpack, you know, what does race mean, how does it impact our daily interreactions, and -- interactions and how can we engage in things that make a difference. right now we're moving from the book itself to use the book for helping schools address the inequalities that they see. and i'm excited about that work, and there's been a lot of investment from people in k-12 environments to really see the book as an opportunity to engage around those kinds of efforts. >> host: where did you grow up, and what was your k-12 environment like? >> guest: i grew up in lansing, michigan, near michigan state university, and my k-12

experience was one that was, you know, partly about being on front lines or just behind the front line of integrating of schools in this town. so i dealt with some racial discrimination, i dealt with situations where i wasn't allowed to go to certain places, i faced discrimination in my school in contexts, and there were racial dynamics that were happening in the context of my schools. but i also hit the sweet spot in some sense in terms of the integration of my high school where we had a nice mix of students from many different backgrounds, and it was a rich environment for understanding how we can get along with each other. we had folks who were conservative and liberal, we had folks who were black, white, latino, christian, jewish, muslim. and we were all in the same environment. and i think that was a rich experience. so one of the goals of "despite the best intentions" is to really think about, you know, in these environments what's working well but also what's not working and what can we do to make those environments stable

and productive places for young people to sort of learn how to participate in a democratic society with people who don't always look like them. >> host: "despite the best intentions: how racial inequality thrives in good schools." amanda lewis of the university of illinois chicago and john diamond of the university of wisconsin madison are the co-authors. thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. >> you're watching booktv, television for serious readers. watch any program you see here online at booktv.org. >> and another program from the recent texas book festival in austin. steve inskeep presents a dual biography of president andrew jackson and cherokee chief john ross.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. good morning and welcome to austin, texas, and for the 20th anniversary of the greatest book festival in the country, the texas book festival. [applause] thank you for being here. my name is brian sweany, and i am always proud and delighted to be part of this festival. i'm the editor of texas monthly magazine, and thank you for being here today and for our wonderful, wonderful author and journalist and friend steve inskeep. [applause] we all listen to him every single morning as a longtime cohost of morning edition on npr, but as you also know -- go ahead, thank you. but as we also know, he is an accomplished author and journalist in his own right having previously written a very well-received instant city for

which he was here at the book festival several years ago and a new book which is absolutely terrific called "jacksonland." please welcome to the texas book festival steve inskeep. c [applause] >> thank you. thank you. >> it is very nice to be sitting next to your voice. [laughter] i have the theme from morning edition playing in my head. i suspect you get that all the time. >> yes, yes. there are actually lyrics to that song. about not wanting to be up in the morning. s [laughter] >> let's start, i have a couple ways i want to start into this book, but where i want to begin is something that you write in terms of coming into the subject matter at hand which is very powerful, and it's critical not only to sort of the formation of the united states, but also something that remains a very controversial topic. you say writing this book

required me to join a centuries-old argument. so tell us about that argument r and what you found yourself wandering into. at you found you wandering into. >> people have argued over andrew jackson and particularly the removal of the indians for a couple of centuries now. it was great to hear the brilliant historian h.w. brand, not talking about ronald reagan, men struggle to get perspective on years after his death because partisan passions were so strong in his time, they're so strong about andrew jackson two centuries later and when you go through the 200 years of history there are periods when andrew jackson is under the federated and next to george washington in the pantheon of american heroes and we are now in a period where and rejected's reputation is under the terrible. my book investigates some of the things that made his refutation

deservedly quite so bad in many ways but he is an extraordinary and complex figure whose life was so jammed with the events but it is hard to get your brain around all. i pair him up with john ross, a man much less known than he should be and what i would like to think of as the flight of two men battling over real-estate and a democracy and each of those is vitally important, jackson is an incredible character, john ross, the principal chief of the cherokee nation in the early 1800's is also an amazing character. they fought over the control of land, the land that became the deep south of the united states and the redoing it just is our democratic system was devolving, taking the shape that is recognizable today and innovated themselves and made some of the area's uses of the media and other tools of our democracy.

it is a fight that is vaguely known, people learn about it in elementary school. i had a page on it at some point in elementary or junior high school but when i got into the details of this story had discovered i did not know the story at all. it is an amazing tale. >> tell us a little bit, most of us are familiar with and rejection, certainly the notions around him and his legacy, maybe not as much for john ross. help us set the stage because as we begin this book ross and jackson, ross is serving in regiment under jackson's command. i want to talk about how their destinies match, where they worked together and how eventually they come into conflict. >> and amazing story because this is the early 1800s, period when the new united states was expanding westward across the continent, further and further into indian land coming in the nation and they were legally recognized as such. not like the indians were just

wandering savages, they were recognized by treaty and by law has possessing and having sovereignty over large chunks of land that are now much of the american south not to mention most of the rest of what we now think of as the united states. these guys came into conflict because two civilizations were coming into conflict, the cherokees had been there for centuries, there was this much larger, infinitely dynamic, growing and incredible country that was swamping them, overloading the cherokees and jerryes were responding to this essentials the acting as though they were immigrants to a new country except the new country was coming to them. they attempted to adapt. they adopted white man's close, white man's agriculture, i am saying the white man because that is the best we to describe, short-handed describe what is going on, european-style, up the adopted the american style of government.

one of don ross's innovations' was he was a primary author of the cherokee constitution which was partly modeled on the constitution of the united states. the cherokees were seeking to assimilate with the united states but also maintain their own sovereignty and their own identity as cherokees. that makes this an incredibly modern story. think about this country and how much it is changing and how we are struggling with the question of how do we blend so many kinds of people into one nation, how do we ensure everyone's individual rights while also making sure we fit together as one nation? it is a struggle now, it is a revelation to discover how much it was a struggle then, how central that was to our political process than and john ross became a leader in trying to establish the cherokee place in the world. andrew jackson was a representative of this newer country, this new system, this new way of being and he was an

incredibly effected representative of it. there are many things jackson did that are not admirable. one thing that is hard not to admire is his determination and persistence. he thrashed around for much of his life, made a lot of money, enslave the lot of people frankly but did not make a grand success he wanted to have until he was in his late 40s. now that i am in my 40s i appreciate that. in any case, he continued on, his health was terrible, we see him in the war of 1812 getting a chance to be a general, going through what was then wilderness will proceed by white men as wilderness what is now alabama. his house -- his health was terrible, suffering from dysentery, terrible mutt digestive problems. the only way to relieve the pain sometimes was to have someone not go for handling of a small tree and free himself over the

tree and the position gave him some relief, he would pull himself back together, and lead his men off to destroy indian village. the end results is not good. unit won a tremendous victory in the battle of horseshoe bend in what is now alabama defeating a rebel faction of creek indians, two things are better -- some of the soldiers were indians. there was a regiment called the charity regiment which had been raised to the united states. the charitys much like african-americans or later generations were resolved to prove the allegiance to the unaided states by fighting for the united states and putting their lives on the line. young's john ross in his early 20s at this time was one of those who signed up for the cherokee regiments and one of the fighters in the battle of horseshoe bend. two guys start off on the same side and john ross would have

said they were always on the same side. andrew jackson really really really wanted real-estate and represented a whole system, for the american south, brought them into conflict more than 20 years afterward. >> one of the key themes of american merit, starting at the beginning and heading west to manifest destiny. you say more than almost any other person in american history, andrew jackson is responsible in some way for the deep south as we know it. >> composed of land that andrew jackson had a huge hand in obtaining for the united states through conquests through treaties, legislation, president of the united states to 1887.

is the prequel to the civil war, no way you can imagine the civil war without the creation of the deep south. it became many of the battlefields of the civil war. it is up for equal to the state where we are now because the techniques jackson employ it would be added to and adapted for places further west and many of the same people in the state of texas obtain land further west in california who are acolytes, advisers, former soldiers. >> let's go back a little bit to jackson and ross. one of the things that this book does is traces in some way, how you viewed jackson complicated legacy that is handed down and how his reputation has changed over the years. dimension to the battle of horseshoe bend and in that

victory, there is water on both sides, an initial slaughter of the settlement that precipitated this battle but at the end of it as you say as jackson is commanding native american troops in that regiment, there is an order from the tribe that is left over, jackson does what? >> talk about complicated. jackson is a complex legacy, you often get a response to that. >> when dealing complex? genocide, nothing complex about that. >> people feel -- it was a complicated figure. there was the slaughter of creeks in a village the course of this laurent men, women and children were killed. it is alleged that the women fought back as well as the men, the suggestion is some were legitimate targets.

you have men, women and children being killed, hundreds of people and only 80 survivors and one of the survivors was an infant whose parents had been killed. we only have this story from white forces which is something we have to underline about a lot of these historical tales but the story we have from white sources is that the infant was offered up to the surviving greek women and the creek women said you should just kill that baby because the parents are dead. they didn't want the baby. it is said that the baby was taken to andrew jackson. andrew jackson was himself an orphan. you can think of him as an orphan of the revolution. his father died shortly before he was born in 1767, is mother died during the revolutionary war, she had contracted cholera after caring for american prisoners in south carolina. he was an orphan, an orphan of work and felt a connection with

this baby who was an orphan of work and heat sent the baby home. it is said that andrew jackson adopted this indian child. the actual record doesn't quite give him credit for that. is more complicated than that. there is a letter he wrote his wife rachel, when he sent the baby home, he sent the baby, the letter and i'm paraphrasing but this is pretty close. i sent you an indian baby for andrew, their adopted son. so it seems he was sending this baby home almost as a ploy or a plate for his life's son, but the child was raised in the jackson house hold, died eventually of tuberculosis as a teenager but was part of the jackson house hold for quite some time. this was the man who could feel the human connection with indians, regarded some indians as france, was regarded by many

indians as a friend did he care about as human beings? perhaps not ahead personal intimate connections. >> what a the real reasons that after that war he was writing letters on behalf of soldiers. >> this is important to realize. he is described as simply an indian a year. let's make that a little more complex. he had cherokee's as soldiers, he respected the mass flight is a respected their abilities and promised them, this is in 18 third team, at 1814, he promised these members of a racial minority equal pay and benefit

right soldiers. inevitably they didn't get it. after the war, he met some cherokee widows who told them they had not received proper death benefits as the widows of white soldiers and the went to bat for them. he wrote a letter on their behalf to the war department and demanded fed a be equal be treated, he said i made that promise to them believing it was just and this is clearly an important word to andrew jackson, he believe in the idea of treating people just we. that he should be treated with justice and other people should be treated with justice. in many instances we would not agree with his idea. >> and you go on to make the point for those episodes which are perhaps are puzzling based on what we know, there may be a sense that for those that andrew jackson saw as on his side or part of what he is interested in, fine, but those people that were in his way or presented an

obstacle or standing in the way of something he wanted to do he was a completely different view. >> exactly right. he could have empathy for other people until the moment that they were an obstacle. >> tell us a little more, shift gears, for me certainly the great unsung hero in this book who i know little about was in fact john ross. tell us what happened coming out of this period of american history when they became the essentially adversaries. what was the notion of that? >> i am impressed you heard anything about john ross. i did not know the name three or four years ago. in chattanooga, tenn. it was a commercial spot, trading spot on the tennessee river. he was the son and grandson of

scottish traders who came to trade with cherokees, he was also the son and grandson of cherokee women. if you slice that is ancestry he was actually only one 8 for charity, but that was not particularly important to charitys. it was a matrilineal society and the indian blood was on his mother's side. there was an unbroken string of cherokee women there and it was easy for people to accept him as cherokee but it was the fact that he was a man of mixed race who could also be said to be a man of mixed culture whose identity as a charity strengthened over time but most commonly wore white man's close the we would identify as white man's clothes who was literature in english, who may have had a little bit of charity but certainly not enough to carry off a big speech. if there was a political event people would gather as we have gathered, c-span would come in

1832, little technology a little different than but people would gather by the thousands and according to this what has survived john ross has given his speech sentence by sentence in english and would be translated sentence by sentence into cherokee and the cherokee elites within the standard english and the masses would understand cherokee. this was a man who did not even fluently so far as we can tell speak the language of his cherokee ancestors and yet he had neck-and-neck in, a political connection with his people in this time when the united states was becoming more democratic and the cherokee system was clearly affected by those democratic wins. there was a cherokee elite, ross was a member of that elite but he found himself opposed to many of his own fellow in the cherokees who wanted to give up and move west, the master class did not want to go anywhere and ross became a political leader,

democratic leader representing that will of the masses. >> another point you make it in some ways used in this narrative forward and say what can we learn from this period of american history, what the jackson and frosty just? the idea that jackson represents a very strong arm of the majority of those in power and ross represents the flight of minority and how that -- >> john ross was accused the innovative figure. i'm not sure even he realized how innovative he was and i don't think history has recognized him. from the very beginnings of this country there was a question about the great principle of majority rule and the principle of minority rights. the founding father concerned themselves with this but they were mostly thinking about it in a different way. they worried about the rule of the majority being too powerful, they worried about the rights of minorities being trampled upon but the minorities they worried

about was the minority of men with money. they were afraid someone was going to take away their money or take away their slaves and they didn't want to be trampled upon by an uncontrolled majority and that is one of the reasons they build so many checks and balances into the constitution. andrew jackson came upon the scene representing a much stronger notion of majority rule, the majority should just ruled period, end of story and if you want to know what the majority is thinking or wants on any issue happens to be whatever and rejectiorew jackson wants a moment. john ross said we are racial minority, we want our rights protected and they had rights by treaty, rights to their land, rights to some sovereignty in

the broader fabric of the united states and ross did accept himself as a member of the great family of the united states but they wanted their rights to be preserved and they argued in the democratic system, argued in congress, argued in the press, suit before the united states supreme court, won before the supreme court with the ruling ignored and troops came to take them away, they engage in what we could call civil disobedience. it is an amazing story that is a prequel that prefigures many things that will happen much later in american history with other racial minorities. >> we think about it today, our a story like this speaks to where we are right now with many of the issues we struggle with today, issue is this nation and our culture have always struggled with. where do you fall right now on the current debate? we have seen in terms of jackson's place on the $20 bill,

we heard recently the change of jefferson jackson dinners, the notion -- we are in this debate, how do we properly acknowledge or memorialize a whatever the right word is jackson, where does he fall? what is the proper way to think of his legacy? >> i got a chance to read about this in the new york times and put forth a proposal having to do with the $20 bill. you guys must have heard of women on 20s movement which is really impressive, a brilliant thing, get jackson of of there, that is the two sided thing, they want to promote women but they also specifically want jackson gone because of his record with native americans, because he was a slave owner. that is completely understandable. i have a slightly different proposal, the proposal i have made is we should put john ross on the $20 bill. go ahead.

go ahead. [applause] >> and put andrew jackson on the other side. and then goes through the other bills and put pairs of people on all of them, different kinds of people so you can see in each bill a story, the fact that jackson and ross to were opposed to each other for more than 20 years which tells a great american story. and you could do that with the bills and include other kinds of people, you could have put the $50 bill, the man whose armies won the civil war, you could have on the other side harriet beecher stowe whose novel uncle tom's cabin did as much to start a civil war as grant's armies did to end it. you could tear abraham lincoln with frederick douglass, the escaped slave who fraud lincoln to hurry up and end slavery, who argued lincoln was moving too slowly and hesitantly, they are incredible american stories you

could tell that way. for some reason the treasury department didn't take my advice when they decided to change the currency. and chose instead to focus on alexander hamilton on the 10. this is for their own mechanical reasons, worried about counterfeiting, they change the bill from time to time, and they are actually thinking of some way to get the woman and alexander hamilton both on the bill, there are two sides to the bill, treasury secretary jack lew set on in the are the of the day they end up with something like that but i thought the outcry over redact was revealing and revealing as to why andrew jackson might still belong on our currency even through his misdeeds that i investigate in this book. alexander hamilton was a great american, a great treasury secretary, a man who established the credit of his country but he is also arguably a bit of a creepy figure who believed in a large public debt, borrowing

lots of money because he wanted rich men to loan money to the government so that rich men would have an interest in upholding the government. he was really interested in a positive way but also in a way we worry about economic inequality, in an unsettling way, making sure the wealthiest people and the government had the same interests and it might be a different interests, andrew jackson was not very smart on banking, destroyed the bank of the united states and yet in terms of the politics was the exact opposite of that and was more in favor of the people having a say and the people having power. let's remember jackson himself was a member of a wealthy elite and believed whatever he wanted was what the people believe that he spoke up for the people and became a representative of an era when ordinary people, ordinary white people were taking a larger and larger role in democratic politics. he had a vital role to play in

our system. >> i don't know the we can see it but we may have a few images to show. >> there is an image, someone shot me down because i can't see if i am wrong, we're looking at a plantation, the remnants of a plantation called for cuts of cypress. forks of cyprus outside florence, alabama. it is in land that andrew jackson captured from indians and that is vital to understand, he was creating the deep south for the spread of the plantation economy which was the slave based economy. this is an all-american story and troubling american story and a vitally important american story. let's look quickly at our main characters here. there is a portrait of andrew jackson. this is shortly after his victory at the battle of was issue binge and the battle of new orleans and you see here my favorite thing about this portrait is you see the lines on his face and you can sense

beneath the uniform of painfully thin guy there. this is a stick man in uniform whose health was terrible and yet something about his will power drove him forward even though he had bullets in his body. by the time he took office as president he had two. in his body, one from a dual where he had been shot and killed, the other man, the other in a gunfight in a hotel in nashville, neither of them were winds from combat. he got them as part of ordinary civic interaction. >> let's look at a couple maps. the first i labeled white man's map, this is a map of the united states as it looked in 1812 and you could see some of the state's taking shape there and there is a territory called mississippi territory that is going to the mississippi and alabama, toward the south, florida is owned by spain but got matt is very recognizable.

that was an imaginary map, the white man's map as i call it. there is a different matter that had more legal force headed been followed, it is the next map we will look at. i call it the indian map, legally recognize, you could see the states are different shapes, georgia is the different shapes, smaller, tennessee is a different shape, the territory doesn't exist at all. you can see it? i will keep pictures, i do it on the radio. i will keep talking. [applause] >> mississippi territory doesn't exist, georgia is a little sliver along the coast and along the river, tennessee is smaller, north carolina is smaller, mississippi doesn't exist at all and instead you cavs five indian nations including the cherokee nation and their land recognized by treaty, they were legally

recognized by the united states, the white man's mad and the indian map were recognized at the same time by the united states and this book "jacksonland" bling is about how that was resolved so legally binding map, the indian map was slowly replaced by this imaginary map of the united states and that became the real map. >> have we lost his entirely? >> one last picture i want to ask you about, if you go to jacksonland today, what you might see representative, do you -- >> if you doubt that andrew jackson made the deep south, was the single most important author of the deep south just look around because there is jacksonville, fla. jackson, mississippi, jackson county, alabama, jackson county, n.c. jacksonville, alabama. i am missing some. i could go on for awhile.

he was recognized as the man who made that part of the country. part of what he did was through tree and war and other ways, pride indians out of there but i wanted to be understood jacksonland to say in the 21st century in spite of jackson's best efforts includes indians. you can applaud that. there is a cherokee, n.c. in the western part of the state, some indians resisted being removed by the united states were eventually allowed to stay and today they have a legally recognized reservation and rather and hiding in the hills cherokee is a tourist town where you can go to a moccasin shop or the casino and it is of lovely place. the photo, the photo that you referred to shows signs that you are entering the cherokee indian reservation. another sign saying you are

simultaneously entering jackson county, north carolina. that is jacksonof land. street signs in english and cherokee and recognition of the place, a restaurant advertises itself as indian own selling indian tacoss which are awesome and a sign for a church, our lady of guadalupe catholic church, they have the mack in spanish because of another wave of immigrants, changing that region once again and suggesting the .. as americans face of absorbing and recognizing the rights of

newcomers to this country. >> we have about ten minutes or so left. if anybody would like to ask a question of steve we have a microphones right here in the center. i will say we are live on c-span, before we begin, and begin the book is "jacksonland: president andrew jackson, cherokee chief john ross, and a great american land grab" the author if steve inskeep. he will be at the book signing can't before we finish this session. as i say we have ten minutes left to go. let's start with you. what is your question? >> great job on npr. [applause] >> as you know in the 1940s arthur/injured published a major book on jackson called the age of jackson. he was known as a great historian and became very much a

part of the kennedy administration. in that book, you know that too because you did a l o mentioned, one tiny mention of cherokee, and it involves some minor things. but author'sarthur schlesinger won the pulitzer prize that year for history, the book, which boggles the mind. can you explain how that could happen? >> yes, because it is part of his two century long argument. there was a period where jackson was revered and he was described as wise and humane and harley with focusing on. in later years that cherokee perspective began to surface. by the time of's licensure, the 1940s when he was writing this book, there was a lot of information about what happened to the indians, and it was considered wisest if you

were going toare going to venerate andrew jackson to ignored and not talk about it at all. and that is what he did. it was the time of franklin delano roosevelt, and their explicit references to the new deal, it is clear he was setting up jackson as a predecessor to his hero and his time. now, people always do that whenever we are talking about history we are talking about then and now. you could accuse me of the same thing, i suppose because i'm thinking about changing america and i find a completely different story/injected, but i would argue that this version where you include indian removal, confront jackson as a slave owner is the more honest. the more honest representation and one that he himself would have been comfortable with because he was not very private about any of this stuff. >> you touched on just a minute ago the similarities

between jackson and jefferson. and some historians will tell you that the real author of the indian removal policy was not jackson but thomas jefferson. >> much that is correct about that. quoting by jefferson. he was fined to his credit if they chose to become citizens. he felt it was the right