epa is only involved in actually a small percentage of those. why? because the authority to look at these is spread among a number of agencies, and epa can you break it down so that we have an idea of what the problem really is with some of these mines that may affect the health and welfare of our communities? we can do our best but i can tell you that the ones we follow are the ones on the national priorities list and the ones where we work with states to address what we consider to be an imminent threat or a need for emergency response. the upper animus was in that category. i would like to see if you can answer some of this for the whole committee. i am glad mr. bishop is worried about fish and wildlife and the endangered species. that s something that is near and dear to a lot of us. with that, your budgeting. how much budget do you require to be able to do a job to maybe look at avoiding what happened at las animus? we have an entiermevironmentd that allo
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 penn
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 th
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 govern
least 17 other, many interrelated. so for example it wasn t 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 self-interested 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