on to the constitution and eventually the first ten became the bill of rights and they were ratified in 1791. so what we saw was conflict. conflict that eventually led to the passage and ratification of the constitution. but it wasn't as though everyone was on board. we get a sense of the divisions based on the ratification vote alone. which states did not vote to ratify? north carolina. we remember north carolina and rhode island, two states that said we're not sure we're in favor of this. now eventually nine states did ratify and e eventually the constitution would become the law of the land, would become official, through there were struggles. struggles over its radification. not everyone agreed. now if we think about the constitution somehow the ratification of the constitution somehow smoothing out all the

differences, what we read for today is it's clearly not the case. what we see is in the 1790s, many of the divisions, many of the concerns that people who viewed the constitution in -- these folks came to see this still as a problem in the 1790s. the ratification of the constitution did not do away with these divisions. instead they continued to manifest themselves. . and we can see them manifest themselves in a variety of ways. we're going to talk about three ways today that are two clear examples. examples that highlight the ways in which certain individuals, american citizens decided that they were going to rebel against the constitution and the federal government. in the 1790s we see two examples where rebels decided -- perhaps they decide to try to form their own more perfect union, their

own country. one of these events takes place, or both of them take place in 1794. the first of them that we're going to discuss is the whiskey rebellion, which takes place in 1794 in pennsylvania. as we'll discuss, it's a far larger protest. not exclusively to pennsylvania. the second incident that we see in which the -- a group of citizens decide to rebel. they decide to oppose the federal government. this occurs in georgia. it's called the transconey republican. now these two examples highlight the divisions that were

emerging, especially among groups in the west. the western parts of the states towards the federal government. these two examples, as i said, highlight continued opposition to the federal government. they said portions of the american public were not happy with the way power had been centralized in the hands of the whiskey rebels and the trans-ocone, rebels. on the one hand, it was about an excise tax, a tax they felt that was imposed upon them unfairly. for the trans-oconee republicans, what they viewed as the key problem to try to spur them to leave the united states is they didn't agree with the federal government's ability to conduct diplomacy with the indians. in particular what they wanted

to see was the federal government remove all of the indians of the southeast and expel them, push them west of the mississippi river. many of these rebels in the trans-oconee had fought in the revolutionary war and fought against the indian tribes that neighbored georgia, the creek and cherokee. during the war there had been brutal instances of combat, of warfare between the settlers in georgia and what we see as the indian tribe surrounding. after the war, after the pa patriots emerged victorious, what many of the republicans thought they should be pushed west and allow for white expansion, for american expansi expansion. so these two examples highlight, as i said, the wo fact that there are these divisions to centralize power in the hands of the federal government. though they are different, they both demonstrate the precarousness of the american

experiment. both of them demonstrate. we from our vantage point we look back and we know that america is going to be this great power. it's inevitable. they didn't know that at the time. in the 1790s this was just an experiment by a group of people who are on the other side away from europe on the over side of the atlantic. much of europe looks on thinking this is going to fall horribly wrong. it's going to go horribly wrong. this new experiment they weren't sure how it would turn. as the 1790s unfolded, what we see is them trying to uncover, trying to shake the events. now to give us a sense, i want to start off just to give us a sense of what kind of division we're talking about and how they manifest themselves. we're going to see a map here. we're going to talk about the whiskey rebels first in

kentucky. the whiskey rebellion in kentucky. it takes place in the summer of 1794 but it grew out of a disagreement that went back to 1791 and emerged as a full-blown crisis in the summer of 1794 but the origins of the disagreement that would lead to this blowup, this flare of the whiskey rebels emerges in 1791 and connected to the excise tax, the excise tax. in 1791 alexander hamilton helped to push through what was, as the secretary of the treasury, he convinced congress to impose an excise tax on distillers. he convinced them to impose an excise tax on distillers of whiskey. he thought this would be one of the best means, one of the best means of keeping the nation together. he devised this plan as a mean to keep the nation united.

he believed that we had talked about how the states had gotten deeply in debt over the course of the revolution in an attempt to try to pay for the war. we talked about the inflationary spiral. we talked about how the currency had become virtually worthless. that the continental congress issued currency and it had fallen apart. in an attempt to try to ensure that the nation that the experiment continued, what alexander hamilton believed is if the federal government purchased the debt, it would help the federal government and also help the states by relieving them of their debts. but it would also make sure that people outside of the government would have a stake in the government. part of the way he managed alexander hamilton managed to not ensure but devised a plan he would be able to get support from many of the people he

believed were necessary to keep the nation alive, to keep it going, what he devised was a plan in which the currency would be paid back in its full credit. the value of much of the -- if you were a merchant or trader, you could go out and buy this currency for cheap. for pennies on the dollar. that's how much it was worth at this time. when alexander hamilton implemented his new policy that would have the states sell back their debt to the federal government, we see much of the currency increased in value tremendously. if you were smart enough to purchase this currency at a low rate to pennies on the dollar and the federal government wasç% going to give you full face value, it meant an increase in what you were going to get. you were going to get a dollar for the dollar that you made 70 cents on that purchase. what we see is that many of the people with money who were necessary to help fund the

government would buy in, hamilton believed. he expected the creation of a new national debt would give creditors a stake in the economic stability of the nation. hamilton's program proved to be a boom to specklators, merchants and men from port cities. they accumulated large amounts of currency and much was purchase purchased at depressed prices, which meant that the policy would bring them considerable wealth. now the whiskey tax, we can see how there is a shift in the people who are actually going to have to pay it off. it's the financiers who are going to make money off this deal. but the government as it pays it out, where are they going to get the funds to pay back this money? they decided they would get it from an excise tax on whiskey. that meant that certain parts of the country would bare a disp disproportionate tax to pay for the government's investment, to pay for the government's debts.

i brought this map up here to give us a sense of the kinds of, enlarge it, what we can see herp that indicates where there's majority -- federalists and anti-federalists majority and evenly split areas. what we can see is that there are certain patterns that develop. we see certain patterns. look to pennsylvania, one of the places we'll see this playout with the concern of the excise tax plays out, we can see that it's very mixed. there are strongholds of federal support and strongholds of anti-federal supports and large areas divided. what we get a sense of from this map has we have been discussing, there was no unanimity surrounding the constitution and this would continue to play out. people who had been opposed to the constitution once it passed they were not necessarily on board with the powers that would then be granted to the federal government. now, as i said, what we see is

this new excise tax that is going to be imposed -- and this is really the spark that pushes the whiskey rebels to action. at first what we see is after the enactment of the law in march of 1791, we see that protests break out throughout the appalachian region, really from pennsylvania all the way down to georgia in the western section, the appalachians and west of the appalachians what we see are residents in these areas protesting. they're up in arms, many of these western farmers. the reason is that many of the folks that lived there relied upon whiskey production. whiskey production was a core part of what they did. now, many of these folks were grain farmers. whether it was wheat or corn, they grew different kinds of grain. and what they did with the surplus grain after they had use what had they needed, they would make it into liquor and you would make it into liquor because it made sense. think about grain, grain is bulky and different to travel. it's difficult to transport.

if you wanted to bring it to market, it entailed quite a bit of cost to put it on a wagon and bring it across. but you could distill down your grains into liquor very quickly and make it much easier to move. right? you could also drink it, as well. so there are these benefits that we see that come from distilling excess grains down into liquor. now, what the excise tax would have done would have charged these people, would have charged them, it would have imposed a tax on what they were doing. now, before many of these farmers had sup limited their incomes relying upon distilling liquor but now they found they faced a tax. and the tax was equal to about 25% of the retail value of the liquor, about 25% of the retail value of the liquor. which meant that the profit that would go to the farmers pretty much evaporated once the tax was imposed. now, as i said, throughout the western sections of pennsylvania, maryland, virginia, north carolina, south carolina, georgia, all the way

through these appalachian areas, what we see is there are unrest. expands into western part of kentucky and virginia. but of all the places where we see it really take hold the strongest, where we see the protests reach its most radical stage was in western pennsylvania. it was most radical in western pennsylvania. the opposition there was centered in the western section of the state and the counties of allegheny, washington, fayette and westmore land counties. you have to know that it's western. western areas. we can see that in the western section of pennsylvania, what do we see in terms of the support for the constitution? it's mixed, right? pretty significant portion of western pennsylvania once we get to the other side of the mauntss is actually opposed to it. this is before the imposition of the ratification of constitution. so, this is prior but what we

can see is that these long-standing grieve answers. they continue to fester and manifest themselves. imagine you didn't support the constitution, now you have a new federal government which now is taxing you. what does that seem a whole lot like? >> who? >> it seems a whole lot like the british, which is what many of the western protesters said. what they complained about was taxation without local representation in this instance. they didn't believe their local interests were being properly represented. they had no say in the passage of this tax. so, what we see is throughout 1791 and 1792 we see residents of appalachian who are opposed to the tax, they are protesting in a range of different way, many of the ways they were protesting was reminiscent of the revolution. we think about the various ways -- what are some of the ways we saw protests conducted during the revolutionary era? >> riots.

>> urban, riots, land riots, urban riots, proud politics as they were also known. we can think about the ways in which they sometimes expressed their intimidation. think about what holton saw? what did ann holton see in such graphic detail? tar and feathering, right? we can think about the tar and feathering which was not something like we saw on loonny toons. this was a brutal, brutal treatment, a brutal punishment. so what we start to see are similar actions that had been conducted in the 1770s and 1780s, think of shea's rebels. we can see the similar kind of activity being mounted, slowly but surely in western pennsylvania. now, many of the folks who are engaging in this sort of dissent, this opposition, they were revolutionary veterans. these are men who had gone off and fought in the war, either served in the militia or the continental army and now they had come back home hoping to establish themselves, hoping to

live life in the new republic they had helped to create. many of them now felt as though their sacrifice in some ways was being ignored as this tax was imposed. one of the militant factions, there are various factions within western pennsylvania, one of the more militant groups was named the mingo creek association. the mingo creek association. they led much of the organized resistance to the collection of taxes. now, at first what i said, what you see are the protesters followed the same basic script that had been provided by the revolution. they even used the same kind of rhetoric in their demands and complaints. they organized two conventions shortly after the passage of the excise tax. and they did this in pittsburgh. they did it to make their demands clear. they wanted to articulate their demands. after organizing these conventions they petitioned the state government in philadelphia. they also sent a petition to the

u.s. house of representatives. and for all of their efforts what they saw is that the federal government decided that they could work with the people. congress could work but they dropped down the tax by a penny, which was negligible by most of the opponents in their view. this meant nothing. it didn't change the outcome. what they needed was a serious revision. so, imagine we have these men in western pennsylvania who are up in arms, up in arms that their treatment to the federal government from this new tax that has been imposed from far away with the federal government. so many of them, it smacked of the same sort of issues they had fought against. the same sort of issues seemed to be coming back. when the conventions in other kinds of protests failed to bring about the response they had hoped for, the resistance grew more intense and violent in western pennsylvania. the protesters at this point, they began to evolve into rebels. but august of 1792, what we see is that local leaders of the

movement decided to block federal agents, federal officials from conducting their business that is from enforcing the laws. they made it impossible for federal officials to conduct their official duties in western pennsylvania, which included, among other things, collecting taxes. they made it so hostile, the environment, that the tax collectors were fearful of traveling in this area because it was known that their presence was not accepted. local residents also organized themselves into committees of correspondence, like the kmees of safety during the revolution. and they targeted those who favored or disobeyed the law. if you obeyed the law. excuse me. if you were a propoen innocent of the law, you could find yourself like being a loyalist, tarred and feathered for supporting the wrong side. usually they were agents of the federal government, but you could still face intimidation if you didn't belief it was that bad a thing or obeyed the law.

these efforts, as i said, included tar and feathering and tax collectors and authority. with little to stop them, they became increasingly brazen in their actions. the official in charge of collecting the tax in western pennsylvania, a man named john neble. he admitted that he could not go into washington county, which was the center of the opposition. he could not go there just to see what was going on for fear of his life. he thought he would get killed by these whiskey rebels that were growing in power, they were growing in numbers and they were growing in their assertiveness. the conflict came to a head in 1794, in the summer of 1794, when u.s. marbles traveled to western pennsylvania to serve ritz to 60 distillers who had refused to pay the tax. these are men who said, no, we're not going to do it. so these agents of the federal

government, these marshals went to deliver ritz telling them not only would they have to, if convicted, pay a penalty, they would also have to -- this punishment inflicted upon them but they would also have to travel all the way from western pennsylvania, they would have to travel, of course, over land all the way to philadelphia where the federal court was. this was not only -- this was insult to injury in many ways. it was one thing to have to pay the tax and be forced into it, but then to have to travel overland from western pennsylvania to the coast, meant an imposition, a hardship on these men. not only would they have to stop working but they would have to pay for themselves to get out there. now, when the agents arrived, word quickly spread within these communities and very quickly what we see is a 500 man, 500 man local militia formed under the leadership of a former veteran, a former revolutionary veteran a man named jack mcfarland. jack mcfarland. so, imagine what we see here,

the situation. we have these marshals who are trying to hand out these ritz to these distillers, people find out about it and they start mobilizing. and they mobilize to confront these tax agents. that's exactly what they did. led by mcfarland, they went to neble's house and they attacked his house. this is a representative of the federal government. and they attacked his house and a melee ensued. it in midst of this me lay, jack mcfarland was killed. to many folks who were living there he becomes s a martyr to t movement. in the weeks that followed, support for these rebels grew among the distillers and among poor people, among people who were landless and had anger towards the wealthy. people were coming together for a variety of different reasons because they viewed federal

power as something that was growing too strong and proved positive was the excise tax. but it tapped into deep hostility that was there just simmering beneath the surface in western pennsylvania as society went through these changes. it wasn't only distillers by the end, it was also small farmers who didn't own stills. it was poor landless men, men who had grievances for one reason or another. at its peak, act 7,000 men formed this group of rebels. they were the core of this group of rebels. now, not long after they attacked the rebels attacked john neble's house, word reached washington. word reached president washington and he responded cautiously. he responded cautiously. he sent representatives to meet with the rebels while at the same time prepared to move militarily against them. on august 7th, 1794, washington

announced with quote his deepest regret the beginning of a military action against the rebels, a military action now against other americans. at the lead of a 13,000 man army composed of militia men provided by virginia, maryland, new jersey and eastern pennsylvania, washington moved to subdue the rebels. the first and only time an acting president has actually commanded the u.s. military from the front. we think about the president being the commander in chief. well, in this instance he was literally the commander in chief at the head of this army that was moving to the interior of and many in his cabinet and many others in his administration believed was an insurrection. it was an insurrection. in fact, some of the people who were part of this rebel group, they were speaking act it in those sort of terms. they were thinking about leaving

the union, leaving the united states. contemplating radical actions. they created their own flag even just to give us a sense of their seriousness. they had their own flag, which they hoped to begin a new country, six counties, five counties from pennsylvania and one county from virginia would form this new unit. but this is among the most radical of the rebels, not everyone agreed with this. there were some who were more moderate. they were radical rebels who were calling for a break. now, after mobilizing the army, washington led the forces to the center of the state, as i said. by the time the army reached western pennsylvania in october of 1794, however, the insur recollection had disintegrated as words of washington's forces reached the rebels. this gigantic force of 13,000 men who was larger than the army that washington actually commanded for most parts of the

american revolution for the war of independence. this was a larger army that he had under his command at this point than he had had during the war of independence. when the rebels heard about this overwhelming force they fled. they left. it didn't make sense to engage washington and the federalized militia. in the end, about 10 men were sent to philadelphia for this and put on trial. and two were convicted and sentenced to death but they were later pardoned by washington. so, the whiskey rebellion, what's the significance and importance of this rebellion? well, it set severe limits or at least the response of the federal government. it set severe limits on public opposition to federal policies. in the early 1790s, many americans still assumed it was legitimate to protest unpopular laws using the same tactics which they blocked the parliamentary measures like the stamp act in 1765. by firmly suppressing this

challenge to national authority, washington served notice that citizens who resorted to violent or other extralegal means of political action would feel the full force of the federal authority. what we see is a change. right? that may have worked in the 1760s. but the same sort of actions that they had acted upon in the 1760s would no longer be allowed in the united states. what we see is a change. now i would like to talk a bit about the trans-oconee republic and the trans-oconee republic is something dear to my heart. this is something i ran across when i was writing my book on georgia. it was this episode i had never heard of. it involved a revolution hero much like we heard with mcfarland who decided he had enough of his country and was going to start his own country

shortly after the nation had just begun and this startled me. this left me scratching my head. i had to dig deeper. what i uncovered was this amazing story. like the whiskey rebellion, the disagreement that led to the creation of the trans-oconee republic in 1794, the disagreement predated its actual emergence. it wasn't suddenfully 1794 the men decided we had enough and that's it, we're going to do something about it. instead, the origins of this disagreement between the federal government and these men from western georgia -- what's interesting here. i want you to see the map now. so, what do we see with georgia in terms of their support or lack of support? >> very unorganized. >> very un -- >> unorganized. >> this here is indian land. this is native american land. i'll show a map. we think of this all being georgia. look what georgia claims. georgia claims all the way to the mississippi. they clearly can't do that.

what they'll end up with is about this much. but in 1790, this was the extent of georgia. i have more maps to actually show many. but what do we see with the blue? what does the blue cig niffy? >> huge support for the federalists. in fact, what we know is that georgiaens very much supported -- they very much supported the constitution. they very much supported the constitution. yet they found that their support eventually proved to be misplaced in the eyes of many of the georgens. so, as i said, in 1787, 1788 the georgens ratify the constitution once it arrived and seasoned it back and do so for a variety of reasons. one key reason is that they have native americans that are surrounding them. they're also the weakest link. they're at the very bottom of the nation. they're vulnerable to attacks from spanish florida or attacks from the water and they also

have large numbers of slaves. they're very vulnerable in georgia. georgia was one of the last states actually to participate in the continental congress. they weren't sure if they were going to join the party, but once they had joined, they were the first ones, one of the first states to say we want in when it came to the constitution. and it had to do with protection or the need for security. so, they were quite surprised when they found that in 1790 president washington signed a treaty with the creek indians, the same creek indians with which the western farmers of the georgia had been fighting for decades. in 1790, washington, president washington, reached an negotiated settlement, a treaty with the creek indians. and he could do this because he had been newly entrusted with powers by the recently ratified constitution. and with these powers, he

negotiated this peace treaty with the delegation of chiefs that represented some of the creek indians. this treaty would be contested later on, but it was viewed as legitimate by the president and his administration. now, the creek indians were the most powerful indian tribes of the southeast with a group of over 10,000 warriors. for decades the creek indians had managed to successfully play the various european powers off against one another and to resist defeat. and the creek held the balance of power in the region up until the revolutionary war. president washington understood that the united states having just fought a war of independence was in no shape to take them on. president washington and members of his administration then, the treaty with the creek, this treaty of 1790 represented a major achievement. it freed the united states up from continued conflict in the southeast so that the nations army could instead focus its

energies on subduing the indian tribes of the ohio river, north of the ohio river in an effort to expand the nations borders further west. now, this treaty that was negotiated in 1790, the treaty of new york, it was celebrated by many, many americans, most americans thought this was a very good idea. but there were some who didn't. and many of those who did not agree with it were georgiaens. particularly those men who lived in this area in the appalachians. now, you remember we talked about the proclamation of 1763 which had drawn the line down the appalachian mountains and mandated that settlers could not move to the western side of the appalachians. well, some of the folks who were most in favor of creating a new nation so they could push west of the appalachians were indeed these same farmers from georgia.

now, in exchange for peace, president washington had given up claims to land that were included in georgia's charter. so, when we signed the treaty in 1790, what he did was give away this land that georgiaens believed that was actually their's. even though they didn't control any of it, they felt it was their's. many white georgiaens felt betrayed by the president's actions. some called into question his right to do it in the first place. in the 1780s prior to the ratification of constitution, georgia state government completed several treaties with the creek and cherokee indians in the 1780s in which they made all sorts of land sessions. many of these treaties were done under fraudulent terms around fraudulent conditions. what happened with the ratification of the congress is that the federal government took over the power to negotiate with indians. so those treaties that had been made between georgia and the

creek and georgia and the cherokee were nullified. they meant nothing. so the georgiaens found that this federal government now, not only was it siding with the indians in their mind, it was also nullifying land sessions that they had received, which, of course, made them angry. they were incensed that the president validated these agreements and restricted their settlement to the earlier boundaries east of the oconee river. now, this is a picture of what georgia looked like in 1790. all this land that we usually think of as being georgia was actually in the hands of the native americans. and what we see is that there was a line. and this line that you see represented the border. what the rebels wanted to do was cross over the border. it's actually a river, the oconee river. they wanted to cross over the river and take possession of land that was -- that general washington or president washington excuse me had ensured would remain in the hands of the

creek indians as a result of the treaty of 1790. now, the georgiaens had intended to use this land that was presently labelled as indian land. they wanted to provide war bounties that had served during the state militia during the war. without access to this land they were unable to fulfill its obligations and soldiers were forced to wait. their state, as i said, had been one of the first to ratify the constitution. they supported it specifically because they thought it would benefit themselves. now, instead of benefitting themselves they found that their participation with the constitution was coming back to haunt them. instead of protecting them against the indians it was enabling the federal governments to prechbtd them from coming on to indian lands. they were quite alarmed at what had taken place. of all the georgiaens it was the

residents of the back country who were most upset at the treaty of new york and the federal government's actions. they lashed out at the decision and even began to question whether they wanted to remain citizens of a nation that they felt had abandoned them in their time of need. thousands of settlers chose to ignore the terms of treaty and poured across the boundary, across the oconee river to the creek indians land. this prompted creek warriors to attack. and the result was frequent bloodshed and violence as the two groups launched raid after raid after counterraid. as growing numbers of settlers suffered at the hands of creek warriors, the settlers looked to the federal government for protection but none was forthcoming. in fact, the secretary of war at the time, a man named henry knox, what he believed, he viewed the settlers, in fact, the white settlers as the biggest impediment to peace.

they didn't view the indians as being the problem. the settlers who kept treszing, pushing the boundary. they were the ones to worry about. as a result, the settlers in georgia grew disillusioned with president washington and the federal authorities. now, in georgia, the leader of this movement, the resistance, the leader of this resistance was a man named elijah clark. he was a revolutionary veteran, a hero during the american war of independence. and after he had returned home, but he had continued to engage in the defense of his beloved georgia. he became a militia leader. a brigadier general in the militia and he called for troops and expected some support from the federal government. but he, like others, grew disillusioned with what was taking place. and eventually in early 1793 he gave up his commission in the georgia militia. he said he didn't want to be part of it. instead, what he did was join

the french government. he became part of the french army. he resigned for a commission in the french army. now, there was a french official traveling through the back country of south carolina and georgia trying to drum up support among these alienated back country settlers who were so angry at washington and the federal government. they tried to drum up support to get them to go travel back down from fla florida -- from georgia but they wanted to do was travel back down from georgia. they were going to travel from georgia to -- let's go back one more. -- they were going to travel along the line of georgia and they were going to go to florida where they were going to launch an expedition to take over florida with the support of the french. this is like a pie in the sky kind of raid. but this was enough for general elijah clark, who was this leader, this hero within the

revolutionary -- with the revolutionary war. he was a hero in the aftermath as they fought against the indians, but here he was willing to leave his state and leave his country to take a chance on invading france in the summer of 1794, the spring of 1794 he along with french support was going to invade, excuse me, florida and take over spanish florida. well, when he and all the men he had mansiaged to mobilize, they worked their way through to get to florida. but when they got there, they realized that the french were no longer participating. changes had taken place and the french were no longer going to support this enterprise. so he had hundreds of men with him there waiting to engage in this attack and they didn't know they were mad as hell and so what they decided to do was just travel back, travel back to where they came from. way further up in the northern counties. but they stayed on the indian side of the river. they stayed on the western side of the oconee. not coming into the american

side. when they got up far enough across from where many of them lived in places like green county and washington county, what they did was just set up shop and they began to build fortifications. they decided that they were going to create something new. they had had enough of the united states and they decided at this point to build a new republic. the trans-oconee republic. they built up fortifications. they started luring other men across the border. and hundreds came to join them. he had a lot of support from the back country. lot of back country residents were quite pleased with what he was doing, even if they did not join him. but ultimately his venture failed. now, as he set to work, clark was the leader and he began building, as i said, this trans-oconee republic. in addition to the fortifications, they also began work on a constitution so this little fledgling entity had a constitution, it created a committee of safety and it started planning elections. now, we laugh at this.

we think what a crazy affair. what are you thinking, you little tiny fledgling colony, what are you going to do? but we have to remember at this time, america was this radical experiment and it was unclear that america was going to survive, that the united states was going to make it. this was another fledgling experiment. for people like elijah clark or mcfarland, what they thought was this is legitimate. i have had enough problems with the government i helped to create. i'm therefore going to leave and take myself elsewhere where i can create something new and tap into those same revolutionary impulses that led to the revolution but seemed to have been dill luted by the conservative backlash that followed after the revolution. now, in 1794 in the may of 1794 is when it began and lasted until september of 1794. over the course of this period of time, what we see is that president washington found out about what was taking place and immediately tried to deal with it. he sent orders to the governor

in georgia. but the governor didn't act right away. he wasn't sure he had the power to actually do it because there was so much support for these back country rebels. instead he waited and waited and eventually he had to act because washington pushed him so hard. eventually he sent troops into the back country. these are militia men from the state and the soldiers managed to convince the men who had joined the trans-oconee republic to give up and come back across the oconee river and go home. none of the men were ever charged or convicted of any sort of crime. these are men who created -- they committed a treesen, but everything was smoothed over. they came back over and they pretended it didn't happen. the militia men destroyed all the fortifications, they burnt it all up and they just proceeded as though nothing had ever happened. now, these two rebellions the whiskey rebellion and the trans-oconee republic, they were both part of a wave of opposition to the federalist

party and its rule that took root in the mid 1790s. both represented efforts by americans to secure their own visions of an american revolution. which they believed had been undermined by the federal government. in addition to conflicts over the limits of federal authority, americans also sharply divided over diplomacy. now, one key division to emerge over this period of time was over the french revolution. the french revolution broke out in 1789 and americans for the most part were thrilled. it proved, it vindicated their notion they created something superior a new political system. and they could point to france where it seemed to take root and spread. so they felt very good about themselves. most americans, there was a consensus on it. but in the early 1790s what happened in france is that the revolution became far more violent and became more politically radical. now, what accompanied this was the executions of thousands of

aristocrats and other opponents of the french revolution. this included king louis the xvi and his wife. they killed thousands of aristocrats and opponents of the revolution but they also killed significant numbers of just folks who were opposed to it and the king and queen. we see reactions in the united states splinter. for some folks, especially the federalists, these men who were part of the administration, washington's administration, men like alexander hamilton, they were horrified by what they saw. absolutely horrified by what they saw in france. it proved that revolution, republics needed to be minded. you couldn't just let people take hold of the political system. they had to be monitored. the republic, the federalists argued needed to be in charge. the best men needed to be in charge of the republic. they saw this as democracy run

amok. but on the other hand, you had a whole different group of people, many not federalists, many were opponents of the federalists but were also in favor of the french revolution. they didn't focus on the violence, they didn't focus on the negative aspects, they saw the political possibilities. people had previously had no control were having a much greater say in the political process and that's what they focussed in on. they thought about their own american revolution and extent to which it had been compromised in their mind. we think about the men who had played such a role in calling for a radical overhaul of the political process and system and yet it seemed like in many ways it had returned to the status quo before the war. so, they looked at the war in a very different -- the revolution in a very different way. many of these folks were farmers, small farmers. so a very different group.

and these folks tended to hang out and would meet in democratic republican societies. and these are groups that emerged over the course of the french revolution largely as a result of the controversy. what we see is that these groups would continue to grow. now, initially americans had believed there was no place for politics, no place for parties in american politics. they didn't believe in factions. they believed it would corrupt the system. the constitution framers believed it would corrupt the system. they didn't plan for it. but by the 1790s what had emerged were ideological differences over what the revolution meant and the future of the revolution. and these ideal logical divisions deepened into the creation of the party system, the first party system, which emerges at this time. on the one hand, you had the federalists who were backed by george washington, but then you had the emergence of the another

group, the republican party, not the republican party of today but the republican party that was backed in large part by thomas jefferson, who called for a very different vision of what society should be like. one that took into consideration the work of the small men, whether it was yeoman agriculturalist or artisans. but what you see emerges in the 1790s are distinct differences over what the revolution should look like. this political unrest, which began before the revolution continued during the revolution and would continue to manifest itself in the 1790s and after world. what is essential to remember, however, is that this unrest, these divisions were a part of the process from the get-go. all right, folks. good luck on your exams. and i will see you next monday. more now from our lectures in history series with university of california profession sor, alan taylor. he talks about the amount of

alcohol consumed by americans and how the tem presence movement came about in the 1830s when alcohol consumption was at its highest level in the nation's history. this is 50 minutes. okay. now, we've been talking in this class about the american republic, which is a radical experiment for its time. there were very few republics in the world. and so this is a risky venture because it expects a lot of people. in a monarchy, the duty of the people is essentially to obey. but in a republic, the citizens must participate. they need to vote. they should follow issues. they should be involved in campaigns. and so a republic asks much more

of people. and this is the foundational generation for this american republic. and yet this is also the peak period for alcoholic consumption in america. so there is this paradox in that this is a period where the political thinking, the political ie deology said that we need an eelectorate with virtue. an elek rat where the people are committed to the well being, to the common good of the country. and should be willing to set aside their self interest to advance that common good. that's the concept of virtue. and yet this is a period when people are also drinking as never before. and you can see the statistics here that historians have come up with. that in 1790 the per capita

alcohol consumption in the united states in the equivalent of gallons of 90 proof alcohol -- now, what does 90 proof mean? everybody knows the answer to that. don't they? i ask you about alexander hamilton's fiscal policy and there are crickets in here. but i ask what 90 proof is and half the class knows the answer to that, 45% alcohol. so, per capita, that's also a term, what does per capita mean? yeah. >> per person. >> okay. so in the u.s. population, if we say per capita, that includes women and children including newborn infants. so we're taking the whole quantity of alcohol apparently consumed in 1790 and dividing it by the total population and we get 3.5 gallons per person.

now, i think we can conclude that men were drinking most of this, were drinking more than the infants. and were probably drinking much more than the women were. so, we can assume that men's consumption was probably on the order of 16 gallons per year of the equivalent of the 90 proof alcohol. now, that is higher than it was previously during the colonial era, and yet it will go up. you see, by 1830, it's up to 4 gallons per capita in u.s. so, this is a period of peak consumption of alcohol in american history. now, you're wondering how you measure up. well, the last statistics that i have is for the year 2007 and it shows that alcohol consumption in this country is half of what it used to be. and yet there's ple