largest is all led by people who were nativeborn to the island. so that doesn't save them the problem of slavery is slavery itself. but more specifically why they thought they were good agricultural laborers they had a relationship with the gold coast they had trade relations developed over generations so they knew how things operated how to network in place so they were familiar with how things that would work. they didn't necessarily have all the choices they wanted but they were responding as much to supply as to their own demand. second, there was a certain kind of admiration to recognize these people the british by the late 17th century had become quite militaristic themselves. so they recognize something they could my are in the people and that could serve upon them it is crude when i say this and i apologize but it's almost like the way people want to domesticate wild horses it's more upon the person who can domesticate so that is the sense of the cora monty's. but the british have idea of the marshall race when the poon job he is a charact

so they are wrong ultimately about these nativeborn populations being more docile i'll just said thewas one of the largest in the british empire's all led by people -- people nativeborn to the island not by africans at all. so that does not save them. the problem slavery slavery itself and people resist slavery. but, more specifically, why they felt the core monty's particularly good agricultural laborers, one they had a long relationship the british have been tracing on the gold coast for some time and that trading relationship develop their over generations. so they kind of knew how things operated, they had a network in place there. and so they were familiar with how things would work, and that facilitated the trade. so they didn't necessarily have all the choices they wanted to go wherever they did. they were responding as much to supply as to their own demands. so that's one thing. the second thing is they had a certain kind of admiration because they recognize these martial people as being familiar in some ways. the british had by the late 18th century an early 20th had been qu

white, nativeborn, and middle-class or wealthy, you had the best chance of getting relief. they assumed women needed more help than men. will suffer more because they are not used to suffering. whether you are talking about the earthquake in south carolina or hurricane betsy in new 1960's, even if the federal government is overseeing relief and the assumption is everybody's needs should be taking care of. put into local hands, it tended to be white, middle-class. they could clearly take care of their people before anyone else. the assumption is basically everybody wants help. >> i am interested in what happens after disasters occur. you mentioned what happened in new york. you are looking at this dramatic picture of the johnstown flood and you think about the flooding of houston. when saddam hussein left kuwait and blew up all of those oil rigs. and flooded the persian gulf with oil. when we get past a number of news cycles we are off to the next issue. what do we know going back to this about how long it took to it that newshy is organizations and folks don't seem to hang

concern over the arrival of a large number of immigrants whose cultural practices irritated the nativeborn. lincoln understood that ethnic prejudices and intolerance endangered the entire nation. in a letter to a longtime friend, joshua speed, he explained why he could not embrace the party. i am not a know nothing, he wrote. how could i be? how could anyone who abhors the oppression of neighbors be in favor of degrading classes of white people? he lamented what he viewed as the party's abandonment of the declaration of independence. our progress and degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rampant, he continued. as a nation, we began by declaring that all men are created equal. we now practically read it as , all men are created equal except negroes. where's the know nothings get control, it will read all men created equal except negores and foreigners and catholics. when it comes to this, i would prefer emigrate to seven country where they make no pretense of loving liberty. to russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy. tangible evidence

the author proved without a shadow of a doubt that if you nativeborn and female and middle class or wealthy, you had a chance of getting relief. people were giving out the relief assuming they needed more help -- women need more help than men. they were gonna suffer more because they're not used to suffering. things this weird kind of , there examples with you're talking about south carolina in 1880 in charleston or talking about hurricane betsy new 19 60's, even if the federal government is overseeing relief in the assumption is of course everybody needs to be taken care of, once that money gets put --o local hands, they take they would clearly take care of their people. i think the assumption is basically most people want help if they are suffering. interested in what occur. after disasters you mentioned the beginning what happened in new york. and there's this dramatic picture of the johnstown flood and you think about the flooding of houston. when saddam hussein left kuwait and blew up the oil rigs and flooded the persian gulf with oil. when we get past a certain number of new cycles, t

americans, the immigration debate i think should center around whether or bringing in her making nativeborn americans better off. that's a different debate. host: what is secession light? guest: what i was think might be a solution to our problems. secession light i describe as a greater grant of authority to the states or to a group of states over a whole bunch of issues. it's what the brits offered ireland in the 1880's, it's the way in which all of the former british colonies have left peacefully, gained their independence. it's a form of self-rule. so may be rather than just breaking of the country, maybe the thing to do is keep the country together but allow the pieces in different parts of it to have greater control over what they want to do. host: is that legal under the constitution? guest: everything is legal under the constitution if you amend it. something to get the game going which would be inactive secession and then that begins a discussion. no state has the right of secession, no state had that right in 1861 and they don't have it today. because the voters in other states co