and he paid no small price with his political views. he was really helpful to madison in the ratification convention getting virginia to ratify the constitution, but i think he became lonelier in the years past with views that were federal as opposed to the jefferson point of view. he speaks magnificently of it. i've only quoted a little bit there. he never wrote an autobiography of himself, but justice story, who was a contemporary of his on the court, delivered this wonderful essay about him after marshal died and incorporated a lot of what he had been given earlier by marshal. i think the part that i quoted really gets it why marshal was different and why a lot of the federalists were different from democratic republicans. it was what they had done during

the war. it was what they experienced. marshal was a virginian. he was a bit of a backwoods virginian, but he fought in a number of the battles in new jersey. but he became part of something that was a lot bigger than virginia. and he got to know people from many different states, many different backgrounds, and it changed, it changed him and he began to think of the united states as his country. not virginia. and he became to think of the government as the government of the united states, not the government of virginia. and of course, this gets revisited in the american civil war. this is exactly what's happening. the secession begins. these states are asserting the rights that they retained when they voluntarily became a part of the federal union. the view of lincoln was that's not true. you can't leave. you're in it, you stay in it. but it's primarily over the

belief of the southern states that they were the primary unit. they had given certain things to the federal government, but they hadn't absolutely given up their right to be virginians or south carolinians or whatever. i don't know if i'm answering your question well. marshal talked about it in a lot of different decisions. i can get a biography. >> you're -- let me just say this. not in any of his letters of advice to get the sort of answers you're looking for. >> came out of the church with the american flag and a woman said patriotic. i have two flags. but i thought about it because i look up the word fascism.

and i believe, this is me, i believe that americans born, americans and immigrants -- first let's talk about born americans. it's the lack of love for the nation. i don't feel there's a love. it's like i have this flag, it's like people look at me like what do i have a flag for. and as a teacher i bought the little flags. there's no r more. this is sad. but that's me. >> thank you for being who you are, really. yes, sir? >> did these letters touch on slavery and attitudes on slavery? i shouldn't say that. i think george mason in one of his letters discussed slavery a

bit. but i think for most of the southerners, slavery was a fact. they didn't see it ending. it would have been neat if i could have gotten letters from somebody like robert king carter who freed all his slaves or edward kohls. he comes along a little later. jefferson writes him and coles says i want to free my slaves. jefferson says it wouldn't be a good idea to do that. for a lot of different reasons. and coles gets the idea he needs to leave. he actually moves to what was then the west. he becomes an early governor of illinois. but frees his slaves as they are crossing the ohio river from slave territory to free territory. there were people that did it. here again, i think that letter of edward coles is beautiful. i think he really understands that slaves are human beings. they are entitled to every right that a human being has.

every natural right, which here again in the declaration of independence is well specified. during the revolution, he said the people that yelped most about liberty are the ones that are have a whip in the other hand and beat the slaves. something to that. >> last question. >> last question, okay. >> what was your thought process of collecting these advice letters? and also getting the letters. >> there are a lot of letters that should be in this. and in fact, this could be several volumes. if the the first one is perceived to have value, maybe we'll do another one. we have the letters. we have lots and lots and lots of letters. reasons for selecting what we selected i think comes down to

personal preference in many cases. making points that we think might be of interest to people. and dare i state the commercial motive. we include a lot of people who have homes that are still standing because they have booksto bookstores and it's an outlet for selling books that are not being published through traditional channels. and i think that's just recognizing what is. i would love to have some letters who followed oliver wolcott, followed hamilton and the secretary of treasury office. other people, there are a lot of interesting founders that would be fun to include some of their letters. thank you very much. it's been a real pleasure to be with you. [ applause ] on the next washington

journal, our guests include bob cusack, editor in chief of the hill newspaper. also karl smid from the aids institute to discuss federal funding and his group's role. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, here on c-span 3 we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, c-span 3 is the home to "american history tv" with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series. the civil war's anniversary visiting battlefields and key events. touring museums to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history book shelf with the best known history writers, the

presidency looking at the policies and commanders in chief. lextures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. and our new series featuring our government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3, created by the cable tv industry and funded -- watch us and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. next history in american studies professor joanne freeman talks about the concept of honor and led to his death in a dual with aaron burr. the awareness society hosted this event. it's 40 minutes. >> i have the pleasure to have introducing joanne freeman. she's got a long history with the museum and an even longer one with alexander hamilton. now 25 years ago, john hersag

approached a young woman working at the library of congress where the papers are lodged. this woman not even a grad student had already cure rated an exhibit. that became one of our earliest exhibits and that was joanne freeman. her history with hamilton is extensive. we have many here in the audience, but how many of you have read all 27 volumes of the papers several times? joanne has, she started early reading them as a teenager. her research to the hamilton in scotland as well as in saint kroi. she immersed herself in the culture by living there for several weeks. she has so much experience that she went and fired -- she did

this at a gun range calling this oddly satisfying, not much of a kick, but a nice full pop and a dramatic smoke of puff soon after. joanne, we have a historian trying to capture the mood and moment of what it was like several hundred years ago, and this actually extends through her ph.d. work that was done at the university of virginia, of all places. so a hamiltonen in jefferson country. that's immersing yourself in a different culture. joanne pulled that trigger in research of her book, which won the best book award from the society of historians of the early american republic. it also received high praise from her peers. joseph ellis called that book, quote, unquote, a landmark work. and writings appeared atlantic monthly was published and ranked

as one of the best books of the year. that's just a sampling of her work. she has numerous articles in peer review journals, op-ed pieces in "the new york times," appeared in a host of documentaries on the history channel, a number of radio programs including the bbc and npr, lectures at the smithsonian library of congress, the treasury department and colonial williamsburg. so it's no wonder that joanne was ranked as one of the top young historians. in conclusion, i quote words from 212 years ago. it's my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be. that's very good advice for a historian and joanne freeman explains history not as it ought to be, but as it was. and who said those words? of course, alexander hamilton.

it's my pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker, joanne freeman. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much for that very gracious introduction. i have to say i'm really pleased and honored to be here speaking to you today particularly at the end of what was an event-filled weekend celebrating and commemorating alexander hamilton's life and accomplishments and to be speaking here at the church where hamilton was raid to rest 210 years ago today. now my subject today is alexander hamilton as a man of honor. and i suppose rather i'm going to start by telling you what i'm not going to be talking about today before i launch off on what i am going to be talking about. i'm not going to be talking about what an honorable man

hamilton was, although he certainly was an honorable man. but instead what i want to talk about is what honor as it was understood in the 18th century meant to hamilton in a concrete way and how it shaped his thoughts and actions over the course of his life. and i want to do that in three parts. first, i'll talk about how the concept of honor shaped his sense of himself, particularly as a young man. then i'll talk about how the concept of honor shaped his politics and policies. and finally, i'll talk about how the concept of honor led him to the dualing ground and the dual that ultimately ended his life. now at this point, i'm very tempted to say that in today's world, we really don't understand or appreciate honor all that much. i see a lot of people nodding yes. it's not quite true, somewhat true, but it is true.gfñ that don't understand honor today as

someone like hamilton did in the 18th century. to an 18th century gentleman, his honor, his character was like a concrete possession. his most valued possession worth fighting for, worth dying for. it really represented the essence of who a man was. for politicians honor was even more important. in the 18th century before being a politician was seen as a job with job skills, men gamed political office space on their reputation on what people thought of their character, not based on job skills. so clearly a man's personal honor was even more important to someone who held or was hoping to hold political office. men who were viewed as honorable were trusted with power. now hamilton clearly em vibed this concept already as a very young man, even as a boy, as an

early letter that he wrote shows very well. and i have to say, as a historian, i sometimes thank the history gods when i find a particularly wonderful piece of evidence. i'm going to mention a few of them today in the course of my talk. and this letter i'm going to quote from is one of those pieces of evidence you thank the heavens for because it's the kind of evidence that brings a person or an idea to life in literally a sentence. and the letter is the first letter that we know of that hamilton wrote. it was written when he was a teenager, a child living in the west indys and yearning to get out into the world to make something of himself. writing to his best friend edward stevens, hamilton wrote, to confess my weakness, my ambition is prevalent that i condemn a clerk or the likes to

which my fortune condemns me and willingly risk my life though not my character to exalt my station. think about that last phrase for a minute. hamilton is saying he would willingly risk his life but not his character to assault his station, to better himself in the world. what he's talking about there is essentially honor. he would risk his life, but not his honor to better himself. that's something quite remarkable for a teenager to say. and it pretty much sums up a basic attribute of hamilton's life and personality. he was eager to make something of himself. he was willing to work hard, even to risk his life to do it, but he would quite literally guard his honor, his character, his reputation with his life. now that remarkable letter ends with an interesting sentence. at the end of the letter hamilton writes, i shall conclude saying, i wish there was a war. and as odd as that sentence may

seenl, it makes perfect sense in the context of hamilton's letter. for someone without connections or money, fighting as an officer in a war was a fine way to earn reputation and honor. it's hamilton's good fortune to come just as the revolution was getting off the ground and he became engaged with the struggle at an early point, a believer in the cause of the colonies who was well aware of the fact that he might very well be walking into the war that would enable him to make his name. and he assumed that the best way to make that name for himself was through an act of glory on the battlefield. now in the end, the most valuable boost to hamilton's reputation during his wartime career was not on the battlefield but at general george washington headquarters because working beside washington who even at the time was known as the nation's leading man, or as some people called him, the first man, working by his side was invaluable in countless ways as

hamilton's later career would show. even so he was bound and determined for his moment of battle field glory to really prove his reputation and, in a sense, to come away from the war with a concrete something in hand. so throughout the war whenever an opportunity for a field command came into view, hamilton put himself forward as the man for the job, but not until the battle of yorktown at the end of the war did e he finally get his moment of battlefield glory, persuading washington to let him lead a battalion to capture and supposedly when washington told hamilton he was going to have this opportunity, one anecdote has it that he rushed back to his friend, his second in command, yelling, we have it, we have it, which i love because it's one of those wonderfully human moments that show you people being people even in the middle of history unfolding. so hamilton was on his way but with the launching, honor took

on an entirely new meaning for him. for the rest of his life in addition to concerning himself with the preservation of his personal honor, hamilton would be focused on the new nation honor, on national honor, the reputation of the young united states in the eyes of the world. now as a brand new nation, the united states didn't have stability behind it. it had to prove its worth and status on the world stage. in the context of the late 18th century, there was no easy task. think about the world that the united states was trying to impress. the american constitution created a republic in a world of empires, monarchies and monarchs. the united states was something new on the world stage. although the fond e founders looked back for guidance, in essence, they were creating something new in the modern world. something untried, untested, and

fragile. and i think it's really easy to forget how new and experimental the young nation was during its founding years. you can certainly hear it in the comments in a lot of people at the time. so for example, here's james madison at the launching of the new government in 1789. he said, quote, we are in a wilderness without a single footstep to guide us. here's george washington that same year, i walk on untrodenned ground. and here's a senator from that period, william mcclay of pennsylvania, who had the same exact feelings in 1789. he wrote, the whole world is a shell and we tread on hollow ground every step. now if you think about it, those are three remarkably similar statements. it's like these three people woke up and conferred. the shaky ground, that's what it's like to be founding a country. all three men are describing the

exact same feeling. a fear that the ground is going to break beneath your feet at any moment. the new nation had a constitutional framework, but no one knew what kind of nation was going to emerge from it. the stakes of this political experiment seemed extremely high to the people involved in it because they truly assumed they were deciding for all time whether a republic was feasible in the modern world. and i think alexander hamilton puts it best in the first paragraph in his essay, and i'll confess to you i read this photograph in some way in almost every class ateach at yale because it captures the mood and spirit so well. these are hamilton's words: it seems to have been reserved by the conduct and example to decide the important question whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or

whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be rega regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made and the wrong election of the part we shall act may deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. now think about the sense of responsibility that goes along with that statement. they believe they are deciding for all time if you can put a bunch of men in a room, have them calmly create a just form of government and put it in motion in a calm and deliberate process of ratification. could this new experimental nation hold its own? and if so, how? who were its friends? who were its enemies? what were the implications of making friends and enemies of different countries? americans assumed that world empires nations were hovering over the new republic nearing

and licking its chops. the the best example of american fears about what the world thought of them in these early years is summed up in a hamilton document that is little known, but i think it's a really fascinating one. and it's a draft. it never left his desk and that's probably a good thing in the end as you'll hear as i describe what it is. in 1796 with the french revolution raging, hamilton deci decided he would try to decide a national field for the united states. and as i said, i think it's a memo. he drew it up for himself and he did nothing with it. it's fascinating it's like a glimpse into the mind of hamilton and a lot of people. . this is the image he suggests for the new united states. he wanted a globe with europe on one side and america on the other and he wanted a giant with one foot standing in europe and the other hovering over north america. in north america he wanted a figure in armor with a shield

and a spear basically doing this. so a national, he's creating this image of america fending off this frightening, threatening europe that's looming over it. it's a remarkable image. not the most graphically wonderful image, so i will also say that maybe graphic arts is not hamilton's forte. when i went back to look at this again before i came to give this talk again, i found something i hadn't noticed before. it's a very complicated image and he talks about armor and shields and then he says at the end of it, if it's not too complicated, we should add nep tune in the ocean. he really was enthusiastic. but clearly what that's bringing to life is the idea that the the united states was well aware of the watchful and even threatening attention of the world. so given that context, you can see how the new nation's

reputation, its national honor in the eyes of the world would have mattered. not only to hamilton, but to the founding generation. you can see hamilton worrying about national honor right after the war. in a letter that he wrote in 1783, he urged new york governor george clinton to treat loyalists fairly as the war came to a close. not to penalize them because it was a matter of national honor. american treatment of loyalists after the war would say a lot about the character of the new nation and hamilton wanted the nation to start off on the right foot. so hamilton was thinking about national honor almost from the launching of the new nations, but he really concerned himself with the preservation of national honor when he became the nation's first secretary of the treasury in 1789. hamilton was the man responsible for dealing with the new nation's enormous disorganized

gift, so he was responsible for establishing national credit. now hamilton's concern makes sense if you think about the meaning of the word credit. credit is essentially honor in another form. credit, a person with credit is trust worthy, a person with credit has a reliable and upstanding character. a nation's credit represents all of those things as well as its standing in the eyes of the world, a nation's reputation. so credit and national honor are very much bound together. that's precisely how hamilton understood the idea of national credit. e he assumed that it was fundamentally bound up with national honor. to hamilton a nation with bad credit was a nation without honor. as he put it in an unfinished report that he wrote, defending his financial person after he stepped down, bad credit, quote, process pated the national

honor. now given hamilton's utter conviction that bad credit meant national dishonor and given how firm firmly he believed his policies were best for the nation, and given how much he tied his own reputation to the founding of the nation, imagine how he felt when his policies were tampered with. so for example, in 1795 when congress didn't follow his suggestions concerning the nation's unsubscribed debt, hamilton went wild. as he put it in a letter to his friend, the unnecessary capricious and abominable assassination of the national honor by the rejection of the proposition in the house of representatives haunts me every step i take and effects me more than i can express. to see the character of the government and the country so exposed puts my heart to the torture. how listen to where he goes from

there. he goes on to say, am i then more of an american than those who drew first breath on american ground? what is it that torments me? am i a fool or is there a constitutional defect in the american mind? now that's a remarkable statement and it really shows you how national honor was an intensely personal issue for hamilton. a deeply felt personal issue that he bound up his identity with. in fact, hamilton took the defense of national honor so seriously that he chose a really interesting word to describe the sacrifice of national honor. he called it suicide. at least twice, hamilton insisted that not defending national honor was suicidal. as he put it in the defense of his funding system in 1795, not attending properly to the national debt at the launching

humiliated the united states before the eyes of the world, or as he put it, quote, it would have been an act of suicide in the government as a very commencement of its existence. not defending national honor was an act of political suicide. it's an idea that he used more than once when discussing national policy. now that idea that sacrificing honor is suicidal brings us to the topic of the third part of my talks this afternoon. hamilton's defense of his honor in the dual that led to his death in 1804 and the logic behind it. over time people have suggested that he was suicidal and if you combine that idea with an understanding of how the code of honor and work in the period you find that his duel was not that -- before we turn to hamilton's duel, i want to turn for just a moment to the code of

honor and duelling. now i have already said for an herbal national politician, honor was more than just a vague sense of self-worth. it was proving he was a leader. among men who were touchy about their reputation and had to be, rules of behavior became very -- where the wrong word might lead you to the duelling ground, there have to be clearly defined rules and standards so accidental insults can be avoided. the code of honor set out clear standards of conduct. words you were supposed to avoid, actions you were supposed to avoid, and when a line was crossed and honor was offended, the code of honor offensed a regulated woi of settling the dispute hopefully with negotiations but sometimes with gun play on a duelling ground. for example, there were a number

of what i suppose i call alarm bell words that you could never use in reference to another gentleman. words like liar, coward, rascal, scoundrel and pup pi. which is really lost all of its zing in the 21st century. everyone knew insulting a man with one of those words was as good as challenging him to a duel. it was a dare that demanded a response. to i guegnore it would be to dishonor yourself. by hamilton's logic, to commit political suicide. once a man felt dishonored, steps were followed. the man who would include five basic statements. first it would say i have been told that you insulted me. second, it would repeat the insult precisely. third it would ask is this

account true or false. fourth, it would ask do you have an explanation. fifth, it would demand an immediate response typically by denieding the respect due to a man of honor. now that kind of letter really almost a form letter was an alarm bell signaling that honor had been offended and the person writing the letter was willing to fight. as soon as you receive that kind of a letter, you were engaged in an affair of honor and your every word and action could result in a duel. this is typically the point where each man would appoint a second to represent him. a person who acted as a kind of lawyer, negotiating terms for his client, hopefully finding a way to forge an apology without humiliating the other party. these negotiations allowed honor to be satisfied without any violence. the point of an affair of honor was to demonstrate your willingness to die for your honor. not necessarily to engage in gun

play and not necessarily to kill your opponent, and it's counterintuitive, but true. the point of the duel is to prove you're willing to die for your honor. you don't need to have a gun in your hand to prove that. you need to prove you're willing to duel. you're not trying to kill your opponent, you're trying to prove you're brave enough to be there and take part in that it duel. willing to die for your honor. now once you understand political duelling in this way and recognize all of the letter sending and negotiations as an affair of honor, you discover there were many more affairs of honor in early america than most people think. for example, hamilton was involved in at least ten of these affairs of honor, which are in a sense, duels without gunfire before his duel with burr. in new york city alone in the 12 years surround iing the duel, there were at least 17 other political duels, many of them

interrelated. in other words, duelling was a larger trend. when you look at these political duels together, you notice some interesting patterns. most of them took place shortly after an election and they were deliberately provoked and a common ploy was one would call a self-interested politician. there's only one response to that sort of an insult, which was you're a liar. in most cases the loser of an election or one of his friends would provoke the winner or one of his friends into a duel. so what we're talking about here when we're looking at these political duels are not impulsive, irrational events, not guided by suicidal impulses or murderous rage, they were deliberately provoked and strategically timed. in other words, many early political duels were like counterelections. someone who was dishonored by an

election by losing an election tried to redeem his reputation with a contest of honor, a duel. so in essence, american political duels were deliberate attempts to prove one self-eligible for future. leadership. to protect one's honor and prove one's self a proven leader. remember that idea as we turn now to the hamilton duel. the year was 1804. burr was vice president of the united states, but his national political career was looking grim. president thomas jefferson didn't trust him and cut him out of his administration aware he wouldn't have a second chance at the vice presidency and ambitious for a pgs of leadership, he turned to state politics and decided to run for governor of new york. now hamilton at this point was a practicing lawyer in new york city. he was not particularly politically active, but he became more active when he learned the man he most distrusted in the world was running for governor of his own

state. by 1804 they had been political rivals for 15 years. both men were intense individuals, they were ambitious, they moved in the same social circle, they had many of the same friends. sometimes they even argued legal cases together as joint counsel. but according to hamilton, there was one central way in which two men were extremely different. hamilton was exceedingly ambitious so there was no de denying that and i don't think hamilton himself would have denied that. he felt he was guided by his search for honor and fame as it was understood in the 18th century. a desire to win glory in the eyes of posterity by serving the public good. so in a sense that man was self-interested because he wanted fame and glory, but he felt the best way to earn those things was through great acts of public service. he made no such claims. to me at the time, he didn't

seem to be bound by any grand political. he seemed to feed on the politics of the moment to get things done. many politic tigss were shocked at this. he didn't seem to have pesky political principles tying him down. he seemed to be an incredible useful person to have around during political battles for elections. now this is terrifying to hamilton. burr was talented, charming, just as ambitious, but in hamilton's view with seemingly no political restraint. no guiding star holding him back. to hamilton, that made burr a dangerous man. someone who had to be stopped. so hamilton focused on destroying the campaign. they were at a dinner party in new york. hamilton was there as well as another federalist who described the party in a letter. i'm going to give you a bad

paraphrase of the letter. you should have heard talk about. he says burr was a dangerous man who ought not to pull the reigns of government and i can detail to you a still more despicable opinion, which general hamilton expressed, but i won't because letters these days tend to get stolen from the mail by political enemies. it's stolen by political enemies so that happens in public. burr loses the election not necessarily due to hamilton's opposition, but he was humiliated by the loss. he began to feel desperate to prove he was still a deserving leader, especially to his supporters who were beginning to doubt him. why cling to burr as a leader if he couldn't offer influence?

some supporters said this quite literally, burr had to fight back. if he sat down in silence, what must have been the feelings of his friends? they must have considered him as a man to defend and unworthy of their support. so to prove himself a political leader, he to redeem his reputation. so he sent hamilton a letter on june 18th that included the five key phrases i mentioned. he said something still more despicable amount me. is this true or false? do you have an explanation? and reply promptly as i deserve as a man of honor. so this was a threat. and immediately hamilton would have known that he was now involved in an affair of honor and that there was the possibility that a duel might result. but hamilton was puzzled because

he was accused of saying something despicable but there was no specific insult for him to deny or explain. toham l tompb his insult seemed too vague and how do you apologize for something that vague? hamilton's response shows how torn hamilton was between his need to face burr's challenge and defend his honor as a gentleman and his natural desire to avoid a duel. trying to find his way out, he began his letter by debating the meaning of the word despicable, which burr took as an insulting grammar lesson and concluded by showing he wasn't afraid to duel if he had to. he wrote he would not be responsible for hearsay and would always face consequences for his actions. burr did not respond well to hamilton's letter. it revealed nothing of that

sincerity and delicacy which you profess to value. in other words, hamilton was not acting like a gentleman. it was a highly offensive insult that hamilton could not ignore. now hamilton couldn't back down. burr felt insulted. but before the duel, hamilton had one final decision to make. he wasn't sure if he would shoot at burr. to hamilton shooting at a man meant to do and for days he agonized about the decision and the night before the duel he made his choice. he would not fire at burr. as he explained, his decision resulted from what he called religious scruples and could not be altared. and hamilton was aware that this was a difficult decision for people to understand. for example, they might think he

was being suicidal. so he decided to explain himself and defend his reputation one last time in a statement addressed to posterity to be made public only in the event of his death. this is another one of those documents that as a historian you thank the heavens for. it's a remarkable explanation of his feelings at this moment of climax, of such a decision in his life. in his final statement, hamilton acknowledged all the reasons he didn't want to duel. his family, his debts, his religious and moral scruples and his desire u to live. he also explained why he felt compelled to fight. he had seriously insulted burr and he believed what he had said so he couldn't apologize particularly since burr had insulted him during the negotiations. but most fundamental of all, hamilton felt that as he put it, quote, all the considerations which constitute which men of the world denominate honor

impressed on me i thought a peculiar necessity not to decline the call. the ability to be in future in the public affairs which seem likely to happen would probably be inseparatable with public prejudice in this particular. which is a long way of saying hamilton expected a future political crisis of some kind and in his mind, if he did not satisfy public expectations of leadership, if he did not defend his honor, he would be dishonored, cast off and useless at the moment of crisis. not defending his honor would be self-destructive. you could say in a sense, suicidal. to be in future useful, he had to defend his honor. so on july 11th, 1804, hamilton in new jersey, hamilton was fatality wounded and died the next day. 210 years ago today, he was laid

doors. it was a tragic end to a remarkable life. a product of choices that made sense to him, although they might not make sense to us. that point, the fact that hamilton and actually every other founder made some choices that might seem flawed to us is where i want to close my comments today. because to really understand the founding generally, we need to understand and remember that they were people. sometimes flawed, sometimes selfish, sometimes selfless and farseeing. to deny that is to deny the meaning, and i suppose you could even say america's founding moment, these men weren't dem gods. they were real people, not sure what they were doing, sometimes on their best behavior, sometimes not. the human story of trial and error is the real story of our

nation's founding. if these very human people could accomplish great things, perhaps future generations could do so as well. it's the logic that inspired their greatest hopes for the future, the ultimate message that they hoped to impart. thank you very much. [ applause ] "american history tv" in prime time continues tuesday night with a look at jewish history. first the holocaust survivors of living in poland during world war ii followed by a passengers on the st. louis when leaving germany in an attempt to seek refuge from the nazis. and the lives of the american jews. all that tuesday night beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. here are some of the

highlights for this weekend. friday looking at the civil war. saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, the communique tors visiting a technology fair on capitol hill. sunday on q&a, political commentator, author and former presidential candidate pat buck nan. then books on hillary clinton, barack obama and edward snow den. and sunday morning at 10:30 we tour the literary sights of wyoming. on c-span 3, the kansas city nonarks. saturday at 6:00 p.m. and sunday on real america at 4:00 p.m. an interview with president herbert hoover. let us know about the programs you're hing. call us or leave your comments online. join the conversation.

"like" us on facebook, follow us on twitter. each week "american history tv" brings you lectures from colleges around the country. next hus ri professor watson jen son on the significance of local uprisings against the federalist-led u.s. government in in 1790s and how the unrest led to the accomplishment of political parties. from greensboro, this is a little less than an hour. >> so today's class is the political unrest of the 1790s. we have the notion that everything was fine. but there was far more than what met the eye. there was continued conflict. continued divisions within america that pit different citizens over the fate of the revolution, over what the revolution should look like.

there were different motivations for joining the battle against the british. people were opposed to the britt irk, but they could come together through that. what the revolution actually meant, this is where we see the divisions. dividing what had been not a united block, but one in which the divisions were not as clear. the discussion on the ratification, the drafting of the constitution. what is most important about our discussion of the institution. what did we learn from that. what are two clear sides that emerged as a result of -- yes? >> you have the federalists who support a strong central

government. >> great. so what we saw on the eve of the ratification and the eve of the vote for the constitution, people were discussing the document itself. there were deep divisions. if you're an american, you believe in the constitution. everybody believes in the constitution. but at this time in the 1780s as we saw not every american believed in the constitution. indeed some americans saw it as a centralization of power. e we saw that some of these folks were what was the name of the group that opposed the constitution? the anti-federalists tried to mobilize forces to try to ensure that it wasn't passed. we do see that the constitution was passed and ratified, but it was in large part due to mullification that was undertake on the part of the folks who were in favor of the

constitution. to placate the concerns of those people who saw the constitution as being something that would grow in size and take over power and centralize power. what the anti-federalists required was some sort of amendments. and these amendments were added 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 goveof 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. ille 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 plenty of evidence that alcohol can be for much of the american population still a problem. okay. so, we've talked about the extent of drinking. we need to talk about what it was that early americans were drinking. so here are the options. you have to think about what were gentlemen drinking and what were common people drinking. of these options up here, what did gentlemen of the early republic prefer? gentlemen like john marshall? >> madiro, which is that strong,

imported wine. it's pretty expensive, has a punch but not nearly as powerful as what common people preferred. of the options there, what did common people prefer? you're thinking beer because you're thinking in your own time. what do you think of those choices would be the most popular for common men in america of 1830? >> whiskey. >> whiskey, far and away. remember we talked about the whiskey rebellion, how people were upset about the federal government putting a tax on whiskey because that really hit home. that was a preferred item of consumption. now, that's a good question, why did they drink so much whiskey and very little beer? well, lot of it has to do with technology. go ahead [ inaudible question ] >> it has a warming effect, more so than beer.

that's important because lots of people working out doors. [ inaudible question ] >> it doesn't spoil as easily. now, there is no refrigeration in the early republic. you can't go to your refrigerator and get a nice, cold beer. you're going to drink a beer, it has to be freshly made and you have to drink it prettily quickly before it goes bad. now, people are moving around a lot, so they like something that's portable, something they can put in a flask and stick in their pocket. and whiskey is perfect for that. and it will keep for a very long time. so people drank a lot of whiskey and very little beer. and wine they mostly drank these very strong wines like madeira but wine drinking was a femme none of gentlemen rather than of common people. so, foreigners comments on the very great extent of drinking in thedidididów early republic.

one english visitor said that americans were, quote, certainly not as sober as the french or germans but perhaps about on the level with the irish. and americans recognize their own heavy drinking. john adams found it, quote, mortifying that we americans should exceed all over people in the world in this degrading, beastly vice of intemperance, end quote. intemperance meant drunkenness in the language of the time. george washington thought that alcohol was, quote, the reign of half the workmen in this country, end quote. but it's not just workmen. it's also gentlemen. for example, in 1790, the governor of new york gave a public dinner attended by fellow

gentlemen. there was 120 gentlemen attending and they consumed 135 bottles of madeira. 36 bottles of port. 60 bottles of beer. these would be bottles the same size as a wine bottle. so the rung total for those of you keeping score, 135 bottles of madeira, 36 of port, 60 bottles of rum and this was at one public dinner. partly the drinking is so heavy at these political banquets because they're offering toasts to almost everything. there would be a toast to the united states. a toast to the constitution. a toast to the heroes of the revolution. a toast to the president. a toast to the vice president. a toast to the american fair, by which they meant the women who were not attending the banquet. there would also be a toast often for every single state in the union.

now, that's quite a challenge when you're just at 13 states, but they keep adding stating to the union. indeed, i think this is one of their prime incentives for adding states to the union. let's let in kentucky. that will be another toast at the next banquet. and people are drinking everywhere and on all occasions. they drank at home and they drank at work. they drank at taverns. they drank at play. they drank for pleasure. and they drank to numb pain. they drank from the crack of dawn to the crack of dawn. it was standard for many men to begin the day with what was called an eye opener, which was a shot of whiskey. and then to continue through the rest of the day. a traveler declared, quote, americans can do nothing without a drink.

if you make acquaintance, you drink. if you close a bargain, you drink. they kwaurl in their drink and they make it up with a drink. they drink because it is hot. they drink because it is cold. if successful in elections, they drink and rejoice. if not, they drink and swear. end quote. so, now we've got a pattern. so we've got something that we need to explain. we have to address the why question. why is it that americans are drinking so much in this period of american history? what explanations would you want to put on the table for this? yes. >> maybe the water quality wasn't so good. >> water quality, poor water quality and that's certainly true. there was almost nothing in the way of public purified water.

which we take for granted today. how did you get your water in the early republic? you went to the well and got it. even in the cities. and in the cities you can imagine just how filthy the well water would get or if you're drawing water out of a river or out of a stream because they also double as se we ares. so drinking the water was not a popular option. what else would you put for an explanation? yes. >> is it because the cost of alcohol during that time is not very expensive? >> to say the least it's very cheap. it's the cheapest in all the world. now, why do you suppose alcohol would be so cheap in the united states? yes. >> production methods or importing is a lot cheaper. >> okay. you think they're mostly importing their alcohol or consuming domestically produced alcohol? mostly. madeira is imported but what about whiskey.

what is whiskey made from? grain. and what do americans grow a ton of, grain. they're the number one grain producing country in the world. it's an agricultural country. they have a lot of surplus grain. and often the grain growers are at a distance from market. say they're in western pennsylvania and they have got to get their produce over the mountains to market in philadelphia. you want something that's more portable and higher value per volume. and so distilling your corn crop into whiskey makes it much more marketable in the east. so, there is more whiskey being produced in the united states than in any other country in the world. when you've got a big supply, it means the price is going to be low. another factor is that governments didn't tax whiskey. you remember what happened when the federal government tried to

tax whiskey. it didn't go well. now, if any of you want to rush out and buy a bottle of whiskey right after this lecture, you're going to find it's pretty expensive. and you're going to find that most of the cost of that whiskey comes in the form of federal and state taxes. so, in the 20th century, governments got in the habit of levying taxes on whiskey and got away with it. but that wasn't the case in the early 19th century. so you had a very common product with virtually no taxation on it and that meant it was cheap and it was cheaper to get drunk in america than in any other country in the world. and many americans thought that was their primary liberty. so, we have bad water, what about drinking other things? what about drinking soda? or drinking juices, were those

options? >> sell zer did not exist. >> rare. >> fruit juices again, you have the refrigeration problem. so people might drink some juice right away during harvest season, but there's no way to store it except to turn it into alcohol. so you would turn apple juice into a hard cider or you would turn pear juice into a pear brandy. but there's very little to drink in america that's not alcoholic other than water and the water was bad. when they asked one new yorker what he thought about the local water, he said, quote, it's very good for navigation. in other words, you can sail on it but you don't want to drink it. okay. so we have the bad water. we have the fact that whiskey is quite cheap. any other explanations that you can think of for why people drink so much in this period of

time? yes. >> being drunk makes you feel better about whatever is happening in your life. >> certainly it does. okay. in the short term. so, there are stresses in this society. it's a very competitive society in terms of people seeking to make money and not everybody is going to succeed. there will be a fair share of failures. and so just the stress of this more competitive society is going to lead a lot of people to drink to console themselves or to drink to celebrate that they're successful. any other things that you can think of? yes. >> going back to the domestic production, the cost of transportation between out west and the cities of the east was a lot cheaper. >> okay. transportations costs are going down and transportations is being improved, particularly in this period of time with the

steamboat. but also early canals, such as the eerie canal which was completed in 1825. so that's helping to lower the cost of whiskey in the east when that whiskey is being brought from the west. now, let me also suggest to you that the high geographic mobility of americans contributes to this. that americans are moving around in pursuit of economic opportunity, not always finding it. and when they do move around, they're trying to form new social bonds with people. and they often found it easier to share a drink with some new acquaintance, to try to get to know them. and so almost every social occasion featured drinking. every corn husking, barn raising, funeral, marriage,

birth called for alcohol. one farmer remembered a country funeral in maine. quote, the minister could not stand to preach without holding on by the side of the door. the bearers could not walk straight or the mourners keep in line of procession. yet it was not noticed in those times, end quote. now, the same man recalled the local wedding. quote, we all took so freely of the good cheer that the minister forgot his verses. so after trying several kinds of poetry and ditties, he gave it up and said to the couple, you may consider yourselves married and i will come out some other day and finish the ceremony. now, these were stories that were told during the 1830s looking back on this earlier time, of very heavy drinking. now, another factor is what

americans ate. what do you suppose the diet was very heavy on in this period of time? lot of health food? no. what do you suppose people ate massive quantities of? meat. now, we come to the refrigeration issue. could you go to the refrigerator and pull out a steak? no. were there any grocery stores to go to? no. so, how did you preserve meat at that time? you salt it or you smoke it. in either case, if you eat a lot of that, you're going to be very thirsty. and then you're going to face the choice, water or whiskey and most americans will choose the whiskey. there was a belief that after you've had a heavy meal, heavy and salted or smoked meat that you need alcohol to settle your

stomach. now, americans were notorious for eating massive quantities of food. and eating it as quickly as possible. european visitors were just astonished. they would bring stopwatches to time american meals and they would just marvel to see these huge quantities of hams and beefsteak and bacon being bolted down in five minutes and then of course they have to settle their stomachs and it's with whiskey. one visitor noted, quote, as soon as food is set on the table, they fall upon it like wolves in an unguarded heard. yes. >> do they get a lot of alcohol poisoning? >> we're going to come to problems. i promise that. we're going to come down to those because none of this is going to be without problems.

and we're going to talk about social consequences. but in terms of causes, i also want to talk about the nature of work. there was the belief that alcohol helped people work outdoors. it helped them deal with extremes of temperature, either very hot or very cold. helped them cope with it raining or snowing. now, did most americans work outdoors or indoors at that time? >> outdoors. >> outdoors because what sorts of jobs did they have? they're farmers overwhelmingly. that's the number one occupation in america. 80%. then other common -- relatively few americans worked indoors at desk jobs. and so if you believe that this

helps you cope with the weather outside, you're going to be drinking on the job. and even people who worked in shops, let's say as black smiths or shoe makers, they also drank during the job. and the belief was that it helped people do their daily work. and so it was a common practice, it was almost universal that employers would provide alcohol. if you were a farmer and you hired farm laborers, those la r laborers expected that in addition to the pay you were going to give them that you were going to feed them a meal and provide them with alcohol so they could keep working. if you went into a shoe maker's shop, it would be the same story. the master would provide alcohol. it would be a bond between the master and the journeyman or the apprentice and it would keep the work going on. question? t -6 slaves? >> no. the slaves are the exception to

this. with the exception during harvest season. so it's a special bonus to get slaves to work harder during say the cotton harvest or the tobacco harvest by providing them alcohol at that season. but otherwise, masters are trying to deny alcohol to their slaves. but slaves can see the free people all around them drinking very heavily. so it becomes a goal to try to steal alcohol and share it with your friends in the slave quarters as an act of defiance. as a way to say, we're just as good as free people and we ought to be able to drink, too. now, in the military, the army and the navy had to provide alcohol. george washington's army often ran out of food for long stretches of time. his army never ran out of alcohol. and washington understood, as did all other commanders, that if you wanted to keep men in the ranks, the number one thing you

could do, even better than paying them, was to provide alcohol everyday. same thing in the navy. now we're going to see that this is going to start to change during the 1830s and it's going to produce a great deal of strain in social relationships between employers and the employees when employers try to cut off the providing of alcohol. alcohol. elections promoted alcoholic consumption. we might like to think that people would be sober when they are making their very important political decisions but in the early republic, most voters were not sober when this happened. indeed, the friends of different candidates would be at the polling places and they would have flasks of whiskey with them and they would be up slapping people on the back and offering free whiskey and encouraging them to cast their