and he became-- roth became the principal chief elected democratically following the constitution and rich was his chief counselor. then,-- this is in 1826 and alog comes the georgian threat from below, the jackson threat from the east and the question is what to do about the cherokee nation. is this to be preserved or exceeded two powers greater than their own and west out oklahoma

as jackson wanted or should they hunker down and resistant to the left. will come it broke in a surprising way. you think john roth at being essentially in the statesman who has great affinity for the whites might have exceeded white wishes and gone west on that basis. he did not. he categorically refused to go in another curiosity is that his constituency proved to be the full blood of the cherokee that the cherokee had responded to capitalism any way that most societies do, which is by creating these class striations that whenever the cherokee weight. the cherokee where no one was really materially different from anyone else, no one was better, no one was ours and they were all in it together. when capitalism comes and people are better, people are worse as

is the full bloods who was john ross is primary backers were the ones who committed to their traditional way and wanted to say in where they were and had no real concept of the larger threat because they were not one to either leave the nation or to learn too much about what was going on outside. they were particularly educated whereas whites and mixed bloods that the rich appeal to were more savvy. they were wealthy. they had money they could take with them out oklahoma and get started again there, so that was the divide. the upper class mixed blood said we can get out of town and be fine. we will start over. ross on the other hand said adamantly no. we shall never go. we will fight to the last man and i hear.

these are by the bones of our ancestors. of course, with the rich new was the truth of it, which was the powers outside the borders of the cherokee nation were far greater than anything the cape-- cherokee were capable of facing. they had a fledgling economy. they had no army to speak of, just 3000 aging warriors. of the had no natural allies among more powerful groups like the european nation to come to their rescue. it was hopeless situation and yet john ross was committed to this because he had the backing of the full bloods and he was kind of locked into their position in their own ignorant situation that he had to stick with them and so when the trail of tears became an inevitability the said it was too late for the cherokee to respond sensibly to

this. they were surprised and caught out. they never believed for a second these federal troops, 7000 of them were ever going to come for them and take them out of their houses, put them-- i forced them out along the path is west, 800 miles. they never thought it would happen and many of them were interrupted literally in the middle of dinner with the bayonet points when these federal soldiers being on the door rounding them out sending them to these boats are on the trails were holding them in what amounted to internment camps until more boats could come. it was one of the great tragedies of american history. absolutely devastating for the cherokee, but it's my position that it was going to be bad, but it didn't have to be that bad. the other tribes were able to remove and more orderly fashion. cherokee workup by surprise and

went on the trail of tears and thousands of them died en route and thousands of more died once they arrived in oklahoma from the disease and from famine as well. so, it was-- it's one of the great calamities and it's horrible to think that it didn't have to be so, but it was indeed -- that is the way the story went and then once they arrived in the west, the two men were turned against each other. they had been together, but the fed a blood feud between the two of them. it was at first personal and then it became more than personal. they each other faction. the factions were opposed that once they got to oklahoma the

fury that had built up among the cherokee people for having been abused in this way they wanted to blame one side or the other. i will not tell you what happened exactly, but i will tell you that one side set on the other with the most bitter bloodshed that you can imagine. it was a slaughter of one family from the other that they created a cobalt within the cherokee nation that lasted intensely for five or six years, hundreds of cherokee were slaughtered on the highways and there were reprisals and it took until 1846 where that matter to be resolved by a peace between the two families and engineered by president polk, but the dispute continue to simmer and then lowered again at the time of the civil war so that the cherokee uniquely among all the tribes,

there were many indians upon the civil war, but the cherokee were the only try that came in on both sides. why did they do this? for the same factionalism that had governed their behavior for the previous decades and they ended up fighting against each other under the name the confederacy or the union. really, it was the factional scribe. why get into this? long time ago, no one remembers. it's a piece of the hidden history. you might think it could just a hidden, and really it raised the question of what history is for, anyway. why do we care? what difference does it make that this happened? will, i have to say i stumbled on the story accidentally myself. i was looking into a question

about the civil war and learned the battle of fredericksburg that there were indians who fought. in fact they thought and died as indians, but once they were actually fighting for the union that once they were out of bullets and locked into their position it was hopeless. the confederates were descending on demand they covered over their heads with their blouses and saying were songs until the end came for them. so, moving. the extraordinary combination of really a clash of cultures and i thought how fascinating that is in and i learned what i just said that the cherokee were the only tribe to come in on opposite sides stemming from a disagreement, a few that had governed the nation really for decades before that. it seemed to me extraordinary that something would hold the nation in its grip for 40 or 50

years and then flour at intervals can lead to this explosion so much later. but, there is always with these stories this question that historians struggle with so much, which is this matter a relevance. who cares? why? what difference does this make? i will say a few things and that i would love to hear from you what your responses to this, what you are thinking about and what it might mean to you. there are three things that come to my mind when i think of this. one, the cherokee people had an extraordinary cosmology, a world view that i think we can all aspire to. also, we frankly find it unattainable and that is that the cherokee believes that the world fundamentally was in order

that there was a balance of opposites, that springwood balance against fall just as summer was against when her as north against south as a moon was against and that peace was against war and men were against women. the opposites were not antagonistic. they were balancing and that there was from this balance a sensible order and permanence that i think we all long for today. for the cherokee as for us that when the balance was disturbed, when there was a lunar eclipse, for example, and the moon suddenly disappeared from the night sky there was pandemonium, that there was a report from an irish traitor there watching who said he had never seen such a shrieking howling terror among the cherokee as there were at

that moment. some of them would plunge into the water to save themselves. will, what is this except who cannot identify with this today? who among us does not feel that our world for whatever reason from whatever perspective you look at it that it's not out of order in the same way and who does not feel a sense of confusion, bill, fear of uncertainty? well, that's what the cherokee had. another part was with the john roth-- ross and the rich. they had terrible disagreements as i said. they were pro- removal anti- removal. why can they work this out? will, some of it was this capital divide that they were upper-class have mark class, but another part was even more important, which was literally they didn't speak each other's language that they once spoke cherokee and the other spoke english.

they literally could not converse or could the two great statesman emanation could not talk and who does not think that that might be present today as well? and then finally there is a part of this that frankly looming away and that is once the story was done and the thought this was a story about the cherokee i discovered there was a novel written about a cherokee marriage or about a native american marriage and didn't specify what tribe and i happen to be reading a book and a happy to be reading a scholarly account and it mentioned that the marriage in question that was being referred to was the marriage of the ridges nephew, a

man named julius to a woman in litchfield, connecticut-- or in cornwall, connecticut named harriet gold. it was amazing moment for the cherokee because this man was there in cornwall, because that was the equivalent of the only college that the native americans could go to. it was like al for the cherokee and it was in cornwall and him ball when in love with one of the leading families daughters, harriet gold. kerry at was a cedric. her grandmother was the sister of the man that the sedgwick's think of is the founder of our clan so that their descendents and there were many with the most illustrious was a man named aurelius were also sedgwick's

and i wrote a story about this for the "new york times" about an interesting way when history touches against genealogy there are different approaches to history. genealogists have personal interests and are so fascinated by their ancestor who did this or that and historians don't care about the individual people they are looking for the bigger picture and so when i happen to combine these two qualities that i have a genealogical interest that i identify with harriet to gold, but as a whole story and i was looking at this from a larger and more neutral point of view that i suddenly felt this clash in myself and wrote about it. of course, i don't know if you see these things, but when you write something in the "new york times" you get all this commentary in the bottom. trolls we call it. [laughter]

the genealogists were up in arms because i was coming at it from a hoity-toity the story and prospective and historians were passed because i gave too much credit-- he can't get this right but, what it meant to me was that even this story, for me as a sedgwick of new england, i grew up in boston. my family has been in new england for generations, about as far from the cherokee as i could have imagined that even the sedgwick's and the cherokee had married out. to me-- it reminded me of something incredibly important about our country, which is so easy to forget, which is we are all family here, everyone is related. you wouldn't imagine it, but it's true. i have my connection to the cherokee, not just of the east,

but also on the west. i will leave aside allusions to elizabeth warren-- [laughter] i will let that sit right there. i don't want any angry tweets from the president, but i just want to sound that notes because i think that as an important thing about this story on telling and it's important about the country in which it resides. now, let it take my questions from you, if you have them. if not, i will just keep talking [inaudible] >> thank you for the presentation. i think i understand how sophisticated-- unsophisticated a character and help they could

not perceive how powerful the outside world was, but i don't quite understand how john ross failed to see that, so could you expound on that claimant i had to stand down on john roth. you know, i picked my favorites in this quick game, but i will cop to this. i think he was duplicitous. i think that he was being a politician playing to his base as we would say. in ignorance of the fact, which he plainly knew and one of the things-- one of the reasons i say that is that he converted to the removable side towards the end and he did so before-- for one reason only and that that was he was offered a lot of money to do it, that he was given the exclusive franchise in effect for the removal of the cherokee from the east to the west, charging them-- charging

the federal government somewhere in excess of a hundred dollars a head for a journey that cost him on the order of $20 a head and that he and his brother were the ones who got this money and it brought old the nation once it was discovered, but again that also felt along political lines that his backers refused to accept that he might've been on the take and his opponents looked at this as proof it was a bad thing and so i think that-- i think frankly that ross did no. i don't know how he could not have known, but i think he also wanted to hang onto power. i think it's as simple as that and also for politician if you make a strong stand on a particular position and its controversial if you double down

on it when it becomes more controversial it's very hard to move away from it when it becomes abundantly clear that you are in the wrong. i think that's what happened with ross. yes? >> : directed that, that i love this presentation your authenticity and personal journey through this story is inspiring and we can feel it and i just love it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> let's just stop right there. [laughter] i don't want to hear your question. please go ahead to. >> i read a lot about andrew jackson and i notice that you mention that andrew jackson appeared in the civil war as early as 1830, so could you expand on that. my next question is more important. >> i will try to remember it. >> i'm right here. major ridge was clearly a traditional cherokee that

somehow have the vision our ability to break out of his traditional mold to see what was impending. what did he have that enabled him to see that and how could we do something similar so we'll find ourselves, you know, in the wrong shoes in our lives? it seems pretty extraordinary. >> it is and i appreciate you saying that on his behalf because i have to say i'm a bridge partisan. he's not a perfect man by any means. i would send usually for a human being generally and for a cherokee in particular he was remarkably open-minded. this was a man who saw life as it was and wanted to see life as it was rather than as he wished it to be and that in his case-- i will give you an example. the missionaries that came into the cherokee nation with great determination, obviously to convert and educate and that the

ridge-- the cherokee word a bind because their traditional view of the world was not a winning proposition. they were on the losing side of history or so they thought because their gods-- they were in a terrible situation when smallpox came into the country and wiped out half of the population. their medicine men were simply unable to keep this at bay, so the question was our-- is their medicine any good and probably it wasn't. these white guys they seem to live through this bears must be better than they thought about this although a demo line that they had more guns, they had more numbers. probably their way of life must be better and a winning proposition. on top of that, their christian god must be more powerful than ours and that was the most challenging question of all that they worshiped the great spirit

and the great spirit seemed an odd to have anything on this christian god. well, so the ridge struggled with this and he was particularly troubled by the notion of sin, which is central to the christian perspective and it meant nothing to the cherokee. the cherokee had no notion of sin. they did stuff. stuff happened, that was it. [laughter] baby you are like this. [laughter] but-- he himself had gone through this extraordinary expense of he had been essentially enlisted to fight off a rather diabolical chieftain with the wonderful and unforgettable name of double head. double head was a small man, but extremely powerful and utterly vicious and that he was doing a

lot of the land in the cherokee nation. the cherokee didn't believe land could be owned or could they didn't think-- it was like opening sunlight or something you just couldn't do it. a double head thought differently that he would take this plan, sell it to the government on his own and take the spoils. well, the ridge said no you're not and they actually-- he killed him in a vicious battle i describe in wonderful detail. [laughter] in my book. anyway, he was very troubled by this. you know, this notion of sin and should have killed double head? was he in a position-- was he to decide if someone should live or die and that god mott-- might not like him for this and he didn't even know who this god was and as he thought about it it was absurd that anyone should worship a loser god who is like tortured on the cross in my quiet?

but, he believed the missionaries in the fervor of their belief and he struggled with it and i think that that good and evil like what did this mean and what was it about he really thought about this and the same thing and he was i think one of the driving forces behind creating a version of the washington dc which he traveled to several times to see. and that he believed that there were better things that he wanted to sort out what they were. so, i think there was just within him justice marvelous thing that a lot of people have, but not everyone called curiosity. i think that's really it, that he really was interested and it allowed him to be the prosperous figure that he was that he gave up the hunting ways of his tradition. he became an agriculturalist and also he had basically a plantation. he was one of the richest men in

the nation and he came by his wealth honestly. he was in doing a lot of the self dealings that john roth was. anyway that's the answer to that question and then the smaller question, which is about the larger question which is about how could andrew jackson have seen the civil war coming. is that right? part of it was that i think it was south carolina at the time was deciding that it had-- you know the states rights issue persist to this day as one of these curiosities and difficulties frankly with the constitution that all rights that are not enumerated in the constitution over to the states. the question is then who's right prevails in the south carolina would say well, our right prevails and screw you federal government and of course within that was the right to hold slaves.

who would be able to tell them from the outside not to conduct their lives the way they had always done and as they believed they should be allowed to do. that was-- abolitionists came flooding into the cherokee nation because to try and get the cherokee later on to stop having slaves, abolitionism became quite a forest-- force in the nation. is sort of picked up from an affiliation and natural feeling for native americans was extended to a feeling for african-americans. about two of them had eight interesting alliance and so that when you're dealing with the cherokee you are also in a certain way dealing with black slavery. jackson realized this was touchy and it could be explosive. remember, the missouri compromise had set up this perfect division between north and south and it you didn't want to tip the balance one way or the other or the whole thing

could fall apart and sure enough that's what happened. in the 50s they throw it out with the nebraska act, kenji-- kansas is put in play as a free state or as a slave state. katie, bar the door. he saw that coming. he was not wrong, i mean, he's often criticized for insisting, ignoring john marshall's ruling of the supreme court took the supreme court said this is a sovereign nation, the federal government should come to the rescue of the cherokee, pushback on these georgians, sorry. and that jackson said, you know, this famous line he may or may not have said, that's john marshall's opinion let him enforce it. well, that's in direct violation of the constitution, but he had his reasons which was if he did enforce it the whole country could go up in flames and he knew that and he was right, i mean, it was early to think that , but it was definitely smoldering.

next question? i hope you still like me. [laughter] we are so nervous up here. >> what can your research explains how john ross rose to this position and especially having read the fictional book, somewhat based on this and i think in that doesn't he can't that he was abandoned and adopted by a cherokee chief or something like that? is that at all part of the truce? >> was true of sam houston. not true of john ross. john ross was not adopted. he knew-- his parents were as far as i knew his genuine parents. they look a lot alike and i had never read that he was not. he is so true to that scottish ancestry you have to imagine there was blood loyalty that he was in his blood to be about way

>> i didn't ask it may be very well. if he didn't speak cherokee aside from not being able to communicate with the ridge how did he get the support of the cherokee? >> excellent question and i think frankly, the very fact that he couldn't speak cherokee worked peculiarly and paradoxically in his favor. i think that the cherokee view him as better than them and that only someone who was of that stature who had a kind of holiness almost was going to be able to deal with the federal government as an equal, that he had a command of this language that they didn't even know. that put him in a special category in their mind. otherwise, impossible to explain there are countless stories of him coming back to the nation. he would be on his horse-- this guy is like 5'6" with us had

added he would never have been in a loincloth. he never killed anyone, i mean, what kind of a chief is this? he comes back and he is there and the cherokee approach him like a god, totally hesitant, whispering, quiet, waiting for their moments and finally they are allowed to come up and touch his garment. .. that -- the average for all of

his talents and majesty didn't have. they understood what the rich were saying and oddly i think i counted against him. yeah. >> which you speak to the revolutionary war experience between england and the loyalists and perception that cherokees from the british side and how that might have contributed to the relationship? >> absolutely. that perception was accurate. they were on the english side. anything to get back up these white settlers. also, it stems from a visit that some cherokee chiefs paid to george the second in 1730. i'm aiming at the core como colo who was known as the little carpenter to the english went

with a couple of fellow chiefs at the behest of an english trader can rather sharp been named cuban. he and the name of the english king had wanted to create a new title a new position among the cherokee called the cherokee emperor purely to find someone to have a negotiation, a trade negotiation with. they wanted to speak with one guy from the tough guy come in the equivalent of the english king. it was so much easier for them. of course the cherokee had no emperor and no concept of trade negotiations. when they were asked to go across the ocean to london, that blew their minds. they had never seen the ocean. they had no idea what a sailing ship was. they couldn't imagine writing these waves for weeks, months, whatever it took to get over

there. once they arrived in the company of this king come and they know who was weirder. you have king george the second pair carrying the sector that was useless and gobble, but the jewel that he couldn't move without intended reaching for his fork. he was like a useless human being and there he was expelled by everyone. there is the part. the king had of course an open-air facility upon the alchemy where they have this glorious royal dinner one of the chief spotted in elk and he happened to have his bow and arrow with them he was ready to shoot me was like no, like sacred oak or something. if there was all clear why would you eat it was his thinking.

at the end of that comment they made the royal tour of the various theaters commit cathedrals and so forth and they were up by thousands of people. they came away with the feeling that for whatever else they were materially superior. but they have more stuff and there was more of them and that there was no way they were ever going to beat the english, but there was a way they thought the english may be able to help them. the strength of that 1730 meeting valid if there was ever a war that they would comment on the english side. they did this for us to get back at the american settlers in second at the english were going to be powerful and therefore able to help them. it didn't work out well. they were on the wrong side of

it every time. of course the english beat the americans. and then the english lost again in the battle of faith in 12. so that wasn't good. they actually turn to the spanish hoping that the spanish would be good allies. they were no better. this is another aspect of the limitations that they couldn't see well enough focus coming and they ended up on the short side of it too many times. >> i look forward to buying the book. >> you better. [laughter] spinet could you take us back to before the gold rush contextualized because they seem so different. >> i'm glad she said that. i like to throw this in. i didn't know exactly what i'm in now is the time.

i will confess something. i knew nothing about the cherokee woman started. i'm sorry this is my admission of ignorance, but that is the fact that i was the product of a conventional schooling if he didn't have this true native american about them from a native american active. the noteworthy in the american one later. here's the thing about the native americans that i didn't realize if you don't realize this either. it is grossly oversimplifying, but it's actually true that they were to broad classes of native american in america broadly. you have to remember that native

american came across premier asia in 20,000 b.c. there is this land bridge. i never understood. how could this happen. it is denser than the water actually causing the water to part and create alien passage from one continent to another and their intrepid souls from euro asia who walked across the open space. so hard to visualize either side, but they came across an filter down what became the united states down to south america on the tip of peru into canada practically every square mile of north america was

accounted for by one tribe or another. they fell into two categories. america still falls into two categories, east and west. let's start with the west. the west or the indians and most people know the apache, the these are the plains indians. these are the ones on horseback who have the feathers who are nomadic, chasing the buffalo and later resisting the railroads. the ones that you think. they are the classic warriors. the eastern indians are a totally different type. these are the woodland indians and the oddly parallel the colonists in that they were town builders. they stayed in residence permanently. they created a lasting social structures. they did not move around.

one tribe against another. and it lived for thousands of years. they split off at some point. i don't know when. but not many. and so these are social peep hole that there affiliations were paramount with them. and they believed in permanence because they were going to stay. they had no territory. they went where the buffalo were. in effect to the extent that the cherokee became farmers, they would stay put for that reason that was their land. they hunted a fairly narrow area. with these nomadic tribes, they

would go all over the western state and is a totally different deal. did i answer that question? >> there i was pretty much limited to the eastern. the difference in the northeast was started that your coy in new england and early settlers there in the experience was still utterly different for the massachusetts flag and someone they went to london in 1730. the northeast experience and the experience here was so different. >> you know, i'll be honest with you. i don't really know.

i really only know this one tribe. i can guess the landmass and there were two things that come to mind. the population centers in the 17th century word to the northeast. the new york, boston, the major cities south of philadelphia particularly. therefore the land was much larger. there is a sequester of encroachment for the southern tribes because the land was so than at first. in the northeast, the reason you have this tradition of thanksgiving at plymouth rock is

that the settlers and the indians were right there together for about point. they were in fact that in with each other. they were living together in the south. the cherokee has a separate ongoing civilization of their alum and when the white settlers came in, they came in in ones and twos. they didn't come in by the boatload and they came usually as traitorous first that they would set up little trading networks and that was going well so they bring their families in my families came in suddenly the integrity was breached in a few more would come in. it was because the southeast was thinly settled by whites. i am just riffing here. i don't know for sure.

>> under the divisions play out in 28 team? >> the divisions in the tribe or her own society here. >> well, it isn't just the nsa notes in my book that the cherokee have had a kind of awkward relationship with democracy. which is to say there is factionalism still within the tribe but that there was an issue to principal chiefs back where there was an investigation that was going to occur and the supreme court was in support of the investigation and the principal chief of the supreme court shut down and the doors locked. this event, on the national

american level, but i think it speaks to the fact that there is a way still that the cherokee have not fully embraced the democracy we aspire to ourselves in non-cherokee society or american society. it also speaks to the fact that democracy is difficult and requires a certain tradition. democracy didn't start. it goes back to the greeks and there's a bit of a tradition of it in europe. he was a new thing. again, there was operated by consensus. they didn't recognize that there might be factions within a group. they always talk it out. the group was small enough that they could do that. it was like a quaker meeting

that would have a town meeting and talk through some local questions. so when a political divide goes up, they didn't have a tradition in some ways they still don't have a tradition by which compromise can easily be created the dispute could not be resolved because it wasn't part of their worldview. when a dispute historically rose, they waited until they resolved itself in the nyack did. obviously that slows things down. it also speaks to the kind of society that they were engaged in that there weren't that many big issues. it wasn't like they were putting in a new subway line.

i was going to be the way it was. there was a continuity there and it spoke to the permanence of society that they treasured and could maintain because they were in balance. they have financial resources they need. they didn't believe in more. they believe in enough is enough is actually very sustaining. you can go on generation after generation if it's pretty much the same size population in pretty much the same needs of the population. but then capitalism comes in into this larger context of a whole new approach to life and remained throne. >> i love this. it's very dramatic.

>> the oddly charismatic already at odds during the fed. so what did he and his followers at the confederacy? >> no oddly. it was the followers that the rich are where the confederate in the great cherokee general, brigadier general stand away come you've got to like that. it's very pathetic by comparison. for which i apologize. the cherokee i think naturally had an affinity for the confederacy for the reasons they aspired to plantations, held slaves and were literally in the south. the roth sided with the union

again for political reasons because it was the union that he figured was going to be dispensing the federal money that they were going to be receiving for the sale of their lands. the money was channeled through the principle chief, but it came from the federal government. the federal government was the union. he decided at first he didn't know who was going to wind and when it became a little clearer that the union was going to end and i might add that the arm on him because they came to him and arrested him in that he then said i've always been a union guy. come have some tea. so he was able to walk that back as we say. he sat with lincoln. it was a glorious war for him. he spent in washington high society.

he married his girlfriend delaware, a quaker lady in mary's faithful are, gorgeous little thing. they try to pose as the elbow so they could have correspondence until he was found out. once he had a 17-year-old in his eyesight, and it became this quivering 17-year-old who just couldn't wait to get a date with this tiny. [applause]

[inaudible] >> and had kids to put through college. [inaudible conversations] >> do things in which i want to deal with, two of my passions. i'm an old history teacher so it's important to me and i love baseball. the drive into account because my kid recognized it to mean. this is the one in which he did his 3000th hit with her not.

krakauer is i can probably make it. i needed a paperback to go on eisenhower has always been a hero. i thought he was underrated value as president and people realize what a good job he actually did. also leading this country. three days in january technically is his last days and he gives his farewell address and turns power over to john kennedy. kennedy also goes back and is a short biography. there's some stories i had not heard before. that's always interesting and fascinating to me. third one we ran across this nation shall not endure. pick it up because of the author. that'll save you time to ever serve in the cabinet under

eisenhower. he was also the president of my church in another reason is the grandson. so there is a personal reason i want to go through this one. he talks about this nation in the future of politics in the united states. i'm looking forward to that one. the final one is really founded at the library and recommended by my staff. nobody knows your name by john feinstein. the cool part about this is it's going to be all about minor-league baseball players. they made a name for themselves in the honors. some may have got to the majors, but this is about those who belabored with the pay is not great and obviously in utah in my district we have to minor-league teams. once a rookie team, one is a

aaa. i love minor league baseball. i'm looking forward to definitely go through this book. >> outliving persevered differently than men. we sort of hang onto each other and cut it out together. how do we turn that into a strategic advantage? how do we make that more bad vastness?

>> i hadn't thought about it. i hadn't thought about that as a level. i've experienced in the last year and a half we've been having others back in a way that's remarkable. people used to say -- [inaudible] evidently it is. when president and he was like hey, let me explain to you. senator so-and-so when casey hunt checks in with them understand that. nicole could have said really?

wow. barack obama took care of iraq. that's good because you're talking about it a lot. you're the same situation i am in. then they reach out in. that's what i love about women. what i find now is can you help me. we are so excited, but you see who ran for senate in texas. i am doing this. can you help me? what this person or that person. she started one for some thing to run for office. i just fine that women are all in it and you know this is mine and don't touch it. q-quebec what can we do to support each other and what can

we do to fight back. you had a sense that the work place can be competitive maybe because it's always been dominated by men and women are more collaborative but so globally in collaboration will be more and more import. i feel like it's different. if you like it's happening with women. >> it does steve like they are on board, too. you don't exclude them from your success. so my news organization and i think they're more afraid of us because well, we're women. i just want to sort of end on what we continue on to. >> i did feel that i've had in my own life i've had amazing

mailboxes have been or is. they really helped me a lot. i thought they had the quality, like we were good. so, i am disappointed that we have more work to do. it is so inspiring to see it can be not just what we had hoped women could achieve good it is actually something more interest and because we are doing it in a different way and we are doing it our way. that means politics is going to be different in how we engage with the community is different. it's not anything i had seen or expect it. it might take a little longer, but it's going to be ultimately for men and women both amorphous

selling. >> book to a recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they are reading this summer. >> first of all i just finished a book, just last week. it was very enjoyable. it is called deadweight. he was one of the events as you remember it led to world war i penalties led to the united states get involved in world war i. both like to hear larson and his writing. i read one of his books previously, devil in the white city. i thought it was one of the best reads. i'm not a big fiction fan. i like nonfiction although in my childhood i liked fiction. in my adult life i've enjoyed nonfiction. i like this style of writing and is really an juried this and i've enjoyed finishing this. i've started another book

talking about general douglas macarthur in president harry truman during world war ii and the possibility of a nuclear war. i just started it this past week. i'm excited to read it as well. >> are there any books you recommend to fellow members of congress or any books you return to? >> i have. my favorite book of all-time is great expectations. i love it. i think i've read it three times. it's just one of my personal favorites. but as i mentioned before, devil in the white city was a fascinating read. i really enjoyed it.

.. c-span where history unfolds daily. in