Introduction that my wife and i are coming out with a book called founders advice. I know this has been done before. Secretary bennett did a number of years ago. The way he did it was considerably different than what were trying to do. I have a background was a historian but im married to a woman who was in business. She was in washington d. C. Working for a defense contractor and had the opportunity to go to seattle to work for a small start up company that had not yet gone public, microsoft. When she started with mike cros, when she started it was such a Small Company they could have employee meetings that small auditorium. A lunch time. She had an opportunity to listen to this man time and time again named bill gates who didnt talk about making good products or capturing market share but he talked about changing the world. I think for her that was such a heady experience and the experience of being in a company like that at that point in time was so remarkable that she began to real
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 transoconee republic and the transoconee 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 revolutionary 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 transoconee republic in 1794, the disagreement predated its actual emergence. It wasnt suddenly in 1794 the men decided thats enough and were going to do something about it. Instead, the origins of this disagreement between the federal government and these men from western georgia whats interesting here
Differences, what we read for today is its 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. Were 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 were going to discuss is the whiskey rebellion, which takes place in 1794 in pennsylvania. As well d
Least 17 other, many interrelated. So for example it wasnt a lone duel in and of itself but part of a larger trend. And when you look at all these political duels together you notice really interesting patterns. Most of them took place shortly after an election. And there were deliberately provoked. And a common ploy was one man would call another a selfinterested politician. And there is only one response to that sort of insult, which is you are a liar. And poof, you have a duel. It was very effective way of provoking. And many most cases the loser of an election would provoke the win ore are one of his friends into the duel. And what wore talking about here when looking at these duels. They were deliberately provoked and strategically timed. In other words Many American political duels were kind of like counter elections. Someone dishonored by an election, by losing an election tried to redeem his reputation by an aristocratic contest of hon e a duel. In essence american political du