Our Founding Fathers were merely men, but they utilized their strengths and conquered their weaknesses to propel themselves into godlike statuses that molded each and every one of them into prominent historical figures. Katori Hall explained this perfectly when she said “We expect our leaders to be godlike. But I feel that when people try to sanctify leadership it puts it out of the realm of regular people. And that’s where the greatest leaders come from – from the people.” Our Founding Fathers harnessed their personal strengths and weaknesses, but this alone wasn’t enough to help them to succeed.
1.Robertson states the founding fathers were politicians because they understood how to compromise, maintain political support even while conducting unpopular political activities, and balance conflicting demands. This is epitomized in James Madison because even when he did not achieve his whole goal, he still settled for “half a loaf rather than none.” His use of political strategy and willingness to compromise, shows that he and the rest of the founding fathers were not just political philosophers, scientists, or speculators, but politicians. 2.Robertson remarks some of the key reasons the founding fathers were successful in forming a new government is because during the time period they were framing the constitution there were volatile,
It will make the reader view the importance of each of the founding fathers differently in a good way. There are many emotions as the readers go through the book because of the struggles and what each of the founding fathers went through to be what they are today. I feel like we are missing those little important facts in our history today. The book is very convincing because being well sourced to the arguments that point out. Joseph J. Ellis has made sure for the reader to understand the history by explaining what our history is today, and giving the different point of views of the situation to support his argument.
Rough Draft Politicians for two hundred years have invoked the Founding Fathers to defend their beliefs. It is understandable that as a society we place figures like Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson on a pedestal, as leaders of American independence they merit that recognition. Implying though, that the Founding Fathers ideas were in unanimity with each other would be a simple and mistaken assumption. These men, while intellectual giants in their own right, found little common ground on public, economic, and social policy. Heated debates, slander, and disagreement are as defining of the construction of the country as democratic elections.
United States won its independence and formed a lasting republic through events and actions in history. The book, Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis, is about how the events and people of the revolutionary era has “shaped the subsequent history of the United States, including our own time”(pg.3). Ellis focuses on a few founding fathers that contributed to America’s revolutionary success. These founding fathers are Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John and Abigail Adams, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Ellis divides the book into seven sections, each section tells a story of an event that influenced history.
Throughout his book Founding Brothers, Joseph J. Ellis explores the relationships between founding fathers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton as brothers more than as fathers. By doing this, he highlights the difference in ideas and opinions between the greatest minds of the post-revolutionary era, and how they all struggled against each other to shape the nation in the way they thought best. Although most of these figures worked together to win the American Revolution, developing a successful government was an entirely different matter full of arguments and feuds. Between 1789 and 1799, many tensions emerged within the newly forming United States government, the primary ones presented by Ellis being the differentiation
Wood suggests that behind the legacies of our founders, is a critique of our own leaders. The Founders organized a model system that would not require a disinterested leader to run it, but as time has gone by, history has shown that in fact we do need a leader of their sort to effectively run our government. The revolutionary characters had a transforming power of intellectualism and policy that led to their own demise as Wood has
Washington 's Farewell Address was one of the most significant statements of American political values of the time period, that gives advice and information on the necessity and importance of the unification of the nation, the Constitution and rule of law’s value, and the problems that existed in the political parties. In his Farewell Address, George Washington revealed some of the tribulations and conflicts undermining the republic’s stability and success. Washington 's main voice of concern was for the well-being of the eight-year-old Constitution, and it’s need for perseverance. He believed that the strength of the Republic was being threatened by outside forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and meddling from the
Throughout the course of the founding of America, the founding fathers had many disagreements. Luckily, with due time, many of these arguments were settled. For Americans today, it should be clear to see that Madison was wrong in his prediction of what a faction would be. However, Madison had a very good reason as to why he thought the government should prevent these from occurring. This short essay will help explain both sides of the story.
The traditional American idealism of the founding fathers portrays them as patriotic freedom fighters. However, the context of a historical narrative is relative to the perspective from which it is given. For this reason, there are other perspectives in which the founding fathers can be characterized. From the British perspective, the founding fathers were not patriots, but rather seditionist, and insurrectionist. It is even arguable that the founding fathers from a modern perspective could be labeled as domestic terrorists.
In the correspondence letters, the two founding fathers reminisced about their past relationship, talked about one another’s health and how things are changing as they were getting older. They then discussed their concerns about the Union and Christianity’s role in their liberty. They talked about religion and how the world would be without religion. I found their conversation about religion not being in this world interesting because they displayed their opinions and beliefs freely. In the end, I think they both realized it would be a bigger issues if religion was not in this world.
In his essay ‘The founding fathers: a reform caucus in action', John P. Roche describes the Founding Fathers as practical politicians that were indeed acting on behalf the citizens they represented. Roche states the founding fathers kept in mind everyone's rights while making the Constitution. He explains how James Madison drafted the Virginia Plan. Roche describes it as a ‘Political Masterstroke'.
The founding fathers were smart men who the world looked up to because of their smart decisions, actions, that directed the U.S. to what it is today. But sadly in today’s society most people either have forgotten the things they did for us, or they just do not care. The founding fathers were great men who led this country to victory in war and on the political front. And often early U.S. history is portrayed as moving smoothly for the colonies turning into the a country of its own , but in reality it was just the opposite. George Washington our first president had problems figuring out ways to control the new nation as it progressed under his leadership.
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.
“On the Faults of the Constitution” was a speech written by Benjamin Franklin to try to explain the weaknesses of the Constitution. In his speech, he states some of things about the Constitution that he believed were weak, but I also realized that he also started to point out certain strengths in the Constitution. In certain parts of the speech, the beginning, Benjamin Franklin basically explains how the Constitution is not really good, that it is bad and tries to explain the weaknesses, but towards the end, Benjamin Franklin’s viewpoint goes off of what he wanted to first state. In the beginning of his speech, Benjamin Franklin says, “I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present; but, sir, I am not sure I shall never approve of it, for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”