During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

@George,

Don't worry about it.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

oristarA wrote:
The success of American Independence demanded some degree of anti-Christianity to undermine the morale of the then Great Britain.

That is utter bullsh*t.

By the way, it was Great Britain then, and it's still Great Britain.

It is not a strong point; rather, it betrays your weakness, Setanta.
If you just want to be bad-mouthing, JTT will be justified to bombard you with every kind of language, and he's always READY.
So list out your reasons before you attack.
Here's one:
How to understand Jefferson, one of the founding fathers when he pointed out :"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"?
Christianity as the National Religion of Great Britain, it was the vital element of the spirit of the people under the command of the King. To weaken it was to help establish of an independent America.

BTW, your grammatical opinion is accepted.

0 Replies

I have no idea what you are babbling about with regard to JTT, but that doesn't matter, as i don't bother with that hateful piece of human garbage.

It is bullshit because, first, you don't distinguish between christianity and specific sects of christianity. At the time of the American revolution, Massachusetts and Connecticut both had established churches--in their case, Congregationalists, the descendants of the Puritans. Rhode Island had been a have for religious refugees from Massachusetts and had no establishment--it's population were from various dissenting sects. New Hampshire was largely Congregationalist, but had no established church. New York, New Jersey and Delaware had no established churches, either, but were largely inhabited by members of the Dutch Reformed Church in the first two cases, and Lutherans in the last case. The English speakers in those colonies were largely Baptists and Presbyterians, although not exclusively so. Pennsylvania was, in fact, the private property of the Penn family, and they were Quakers--but they were religiously tolerant, and there were many christian sects there, including a lot of German charismatic sects. Mayland had been a haven for Catholics, but by then, most of the population who weren't convicts were members of the Anglican Church. Virginia had an Anglican establishment, which by then was resented by much of the population, who were from a variety of dissenting sects, those who were not convicts. North Carolina had formerly had a large population of Huguenots, the newer population being various dissenting sects. Neither South Carolina nor Georgia had a religious establishments. The ascendancy in both states were Anglican, the bulk of the populations were various sects of dissenters.

The elder Arthur Schlesinger estimated that as much as a third of the population of colonial America were "unchurched," that is to say, not members of any congregation. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the Americans then were christian. Your remark was naïve and simplistic, and history is never as simple as people like to pretend. It would never have occurred to the Americans to attempt to "destroy christianity" in Great Briaian. This is what comes from shooting your mouth off when you know nothing about the subject. If you were honest with yourself, you'd know that y0u know nothing about the subject.

Thomas Jefferson was not nearly to important nor as influential as he thought he was. He enjoys a much better reputation two hundred years later than he did in his own lifetime.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have no idea what you are babbling about with regard to JTT, but that doesn't matter, as i don't bother with that hateful piece of human garbage.

It is bullshit because, first, you don't distinguish between christianity and specific sects of christianity. At the time of the American revolution, Massachusetts and Connecticut both had established churches--in their case, Congregationalists, the descendants of the Puritans. Rhode Island had been a have for religious refugees from Massachusetts and had no establishment--it's population were from various dissenting sects. New Hampshire was largely Congregationalist, but had no established church. New York, New Jersey and Delaware had no established churches, either, but were largely inhabited by members of the Dutch Reformed Church in the first two cases, and Lutherans in the last case. The English speakers in those colonies were largely Baptists and Presbyterians, although not exclusively so. Pennsylvania was, in fact, the private property of the Penn family, and they were Quakers--but they were religiously tolerant, and there were many christian sects there, including a lot of German charismatic sects. Mayland had been a haven for Catholics, but by then, most of the population who weren't convicts were members of the Anglican Church. Virginia had an Anglican establishment, which by then was resented by much of the population, who were from a variety of dissenting sects, those who were not convicts. North Carolina had formerly had a large population of Huguenots, the newer population being various dissenting sects. Neither South Carolina nor Georgia had a religious establishments. The ascendancy in both states were Anglican, the bulk of the populations were various sects of dissenters.

The elder Arthur Schlesinger estimated that as much as a third of the population of colonial America were "unchurched," that is to say, not members of any congregation. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the Americans then were christian. Your remark was naïve and simplistic, and history is never as simple as people like to pretend. It would never have occurred to the Americans to attempt to "destroy christianity" in Great Briaian. This is what comes from shooting your mouth off when you know nothing about the subject. If you were honest with yourself, you'd know that y0u know nothing about the subject.

Thomas Jefferson was not nearly to important nor as influential as he thought he was. He enjoys a much better reputation two hundred years later than he did in his own lifetime.

The core of your argument is the last paragraph above.
He "was not nearly to important nor as influential as he thought he was"?
But he's elected as the President of the United States by American people. Do you think the People were blind while you, Setanta, are sharp-eyed? No true. History has told us the success and significance of the leadership of Jefferson Administration. The founding document, the Declaration of Independence, serves as a witness while you, a fiery tempered veteran, are groundless.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

No, that's not the core of my argument, and sadly, i'm not surprised that you think so. The core of my argument was to show that Americans were overwhelmingly christians, so your claim that they wanted to destroy christianity in Great Britain is bullsh*t. That was the core of my argument.

As for the side line about Jefferson, yes Jefferson was twice elected President of the United States. So was Grover Cleveland--have you ever heard of him? So was William McKinley--have you ever heard of him? Do you know how Jefferson got elected? Do you know why he was re-elected? In fact, do you know anything substantive about American history? I doubt it.

EDIT: No, history does not "tell" us any such thing about Jefferson's administration. Partisans of Jefferson may think so, but i don't, and neither do a lot of other people, including people here. You bought the BS about Jefferson, but that doesn't mean that you know anything about him.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Jefferson was the father of American hypocrisy, Ori, and much worse. He was an amoral piece of crap. In that he also set a grand precedent for many more prezes to follow.

------------------
Thomas Jefferson: Typical Teabag Hypocrite
July 5, 2014
By Harvey Gold
On July Fourth, the people of the United States celebrate the high-blown expressions on human rights that Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence – especially the noble phrase “all men are created equal.” But Jefferson really didn’t believe that or much else that he said and wrote during his lifetime. He was, in reality, a skilled propagandist and a world-class hypocrite.

Yet, rather than subject Jefferson to a rigorous examination for his multiple hypocrisies, many Americans insist on protecting Jefferson’s reputation. From the Left, there is a desire to shield the lofty principles contained in the Declaration. From the Right, there is value in pretending that Jefferson’s revisionist concept of the Constitution – one favoring states’ rights over the federal government – was the “originalist” view of that founding document..

So, Jefferson – perhaps more than any figure in U.S. history – gets a pass for what he really was: a self-absorbed aristocrat who had one set of principles for himself and another for everybody else. Beyond the glaring contradiction between his “all men are created equal” pronouncement and his racist views on African-American slaves, he also lectured others about the need for frugality and the avoidance of debt while he lived a life of personal extravagance and was constantly in arrears to creditors.

Jefferson also wrote provocatively that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” That is one of Jefferson’s famous quotes repeated endlessly these days by both the right-wing Tea Party and would-be leftist revolutionaries.

But Jefferson’s bravado was more a rhetorical flourish than a principle that he was ready to live or die by. In 1781, when he had a chance to put his own blood where his mouth was – when a Loyalist force led by the infamous traitor Benedict Arnold advanced on Richmond, Virginia, then-Gov. Jefferson fled for his life on the fastest horse he could find.

Jefferson hopped on the horse and fled again when a British cavalry force under Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton approached Charlottesville and Monticello. Gov. Jefferson abandoned his neighbors in Charlottesville and left his slaves behind at Monticello to deal with the notoriously brutal Tarleton.

In other words, Jefferson may have been America’s original “chicken hawk,” talking cavalierly about other people’s blood as the “manure” of liberty but finding his own too precious to risk. Nevertheless, Jefferson later built his political career by questioning the revolutionary commitment of Alexander Hamilton and even George Washington, who repeatedly did risk their lives in fighting for American liberty.

But what Jefferson’s many apologists have most desperately tried to obscure was his wretched record on race. Some pro-Jefferson scholars still talk about his rhapsodic depictions of the natural beauty of Virginia in his Notes on the State of Virginia, but they skirt the book’s sickening racism, including his pseudo-science of measuring the skulls of African-Americans to prove that all men were not created equal.

A Question of Rape

For generations, these apologists also have challenged slave Sally Hemings’s late-in-life remembrance to one of her sons, Madison Hemings, describing how Jefferson had imposed himself on her sexually in Paris after she arrived in 1787 as a teen-age slave girl attending one of his daughters.

According to Madison Hemings’s account, his mother “became Mr. Jefferson’s concubine [in Paris]. And when he was called back home she was enciente [pregnant] by him.” Jefferson was insistent that Sally Hemings return with him, but her awareness of the absence of slavery in France gave her the leverage to insist on a transactional trade-off; she would continue to provide sex to Jefferson in exchange for his promise of good treatment and the freedom of her children when they turned 21, Madison Hemings said.

The traditional defense of Jefferson was to portray Sally Hemings as a promiscuous vixen who lied about her relationship with the Great Man to enhance her humble standing. After all, whose word would you believe, that of the estimable Jefferson who publicly decried race mixing or a lowly African-American slave girl?

For decades, the defenders stuck to that dismissive response despite the curious coincidence that Hemings tended to give birth nine months after one of Jefferson’s visits to Monticello – and the discovery of male Jefferson DNA in Hemings’s descendants.

Still, the Jefferson apologists raised finicky demands for conclusive proof of the liaison, as if it were absurd to envision that a relatively young man – then in his mid-40s, a widower since his wife died in 1782 – would have initiated a sexual relationship with an African-American female, even an attractive light-skinned mulatto like Hemings (who was the illegitimate daughter of Jefferson’s father-in-law and thus Jefferson’s late wife’s half-sister)..

http://liberalbeef.com/2014/07/05/thomas-jefferson-typical-teabag-hypocrite/

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I have no idea what you are babbling about with regard to JTT, but that doesn't matter, ... .

Twarn't me that volunteered to take part in the massive war crimes of Vietnam, Set, that was you.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

No, that's not the core of my argument, and sadly, i'm not surprised that you think so. The core of my argument was to show that Americans were overwhelmingly christians, so your claim that they wanted to destroy christianity in Great Britain is bullsh*t. That was the core of my argument.

As for the side line about Jefferson, yes Jefferson was twice elected President of the United States. So was Grover Cleveland--have you ever heard of him? So was William McKinley--have you ever heard of him? Do you know how Jefferson got elected? Do you know why he was re-elected? In fact, do you know anything substantive about American history? I doubt it.

EDIT: No, history does not "tell" us any such thing about Jefferson's administration. Partisans of Jefferson may think so, but i don't, and neither do a lot of other people, including people here. You bought the BS about Jefferson, but that doesn't mean that you know anything about him.

Let's see whether Setanta knows of Jefferson better than John Adams did in the quotation below.
Remember, Adams was the 2nd President of the United States. He said to Jefferson: " I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise"!
It is "wonderful" that Setanta is smarter than Adams. Cool

Quote:

Declaring Independence" , Revolutionary War, Digital History, University of Houston. From Adams' notes: "Why will you not? You ought to do it." "I will not." "Why?" "Reasons enough." "What can be your reasons?" "Reason first, you are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second, I am obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third, you can write ten times better than I can." "Well," said Jefferson, "if you are decided, I will do as well as I can." "Very well. When you have drawn it up, we will have a meeting."

Of course we're all ears to hear you talking about how Jefferson's being elected President (Links or post them in here).

1 Reply

@JTT,

I've read it through.
Typhoon has brought blackout to our disctrict and just recovered.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

You seem to think that the American electorate is some kind of political oracle, nearly infallible. Nixon was elected and re-elected; Reagan was eleced and re-elected; for Christ's sake, Warren G. Harding got elected. When Adams says that he is unpopular, we go right to the heart of why Jefferson was elected. When French agents were known to have demanded tribute from the United States in what became known as the XYZ affair, Adams got Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Act. Then he used the act to lock up newspaper editors who were critical of his administration. By the time of the 1800 election, Jefferson's dog could have gotten elected in preference to John Adams.

There were no political parties as we know them at the time the constitution was sent out to be ratified. Those in favor of the ratification became known as Federalists. Adams was a Federalist. But those opposed, of whom Jefferson was a prominent figure, were known as anti-Federalists, but being against something is hardly a basis for a political party. Jefferson was in France then, and did not return until 1789, with the constitution had been ratified and the government formed. So he helped to organize the Democratic Republicans as a party to oppose the Federalists. Referred to as the Republicans, his party became the only plausible national party in the wake of Adams unpopularity. From 1800 until 1828, the Presidents of the United States were all members of the Democratic Republican Party. It's hardly much credit to either Jefferson or the American electorate that he was re-elected.

You want links? Go look it up for yourself. You read a couple of things online and you consider yourself expert. I guess that's why you came up with that horseshit to the effect that Americans wanted to destroy christianity in Great Britain at the time of the revoluton--which was, although you seem to have forgotten, why i called bullsh*t on you in the first place. Once again, you don't know a goddamned thing about American history, and rushng out to read a thing online does not supply that deficiency.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You seem to think that the American electorate is some kind of political oracle, nearly infallible. Nixon was elected and re-elected; Reagan was eleced and re-elected; for Christ's sake, Warren G. Harding got elected. When Adams says that he is unpopular, we go right to the heart of why Jefferson was elected. When French agents were known to have demanded tribute from the United States in what became known as the XYZ affair, Adams got Congress to pass the Alien and Sedition Act. Then he used the act to lock up newspaper editors who were critical of his administration. By the time of the 1800 election, Jefferson's dog could have gotten elected in preference to John Adams.

There were no political parties as we know them at the time the constitution was sent out to be ratified. Those in favor of the ratification became known as Federalists. Adams was a Federalist. But those opposed, of whom Jefferson was a prominent figure, were known as anti-Federalists, but being against something is hardly a basis for a political party. Jefferson was in France then, and did not return until 1789, with the constitution had been ratified and the government formed. So he helped to organize the Democratic Republicans as a party to oppose the Federalists. Referred to as the Republicans, his party became the only plausible national party in the wake of Adams unpopularity. From 1800 until 1828, the Presidents of the United States were all members of the Democratic Republican Party. It's hardly much credit to either Jefferson or the American electorate that he was re-elected.

You want links? Go look it up for yourself. You read a couple of things online and you consider yourself expert. I guess that's why you came up with that horseshit to the effect that Americans wanted to destroy christianity in Great Britain at the time of the revoluton--which was, although you seem to have forgotten, why i called bullsh*t on you in the first place. Once again, you don't know a goddamned thing about American history, and rushng out to read a thing online does not supply that deficiency.

Have some common sense, Setanta.

Just think about where you've got all these information from. Jefferson lived two hundred years ago before you're born. If you deem that they are very clear in your memory, you'd better show us the sources of them so that we see how reliable they are. A message delivered by an MIT professor is usually far more dependable than that by an ordinary member in your community. Did your teachers tell you all these? Or your parents did so?

The question is serious that it demands your serious attitude and serious work. Links to the sources will make you more trustworthy if they are serious works of serious people. I have own share of duties. But complete your own please.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

I called bullsh*t when you claimed that Americans were trying to destroy christianity in Britain. All this BS about Jefferson is just a smoke screen for you to avoid addressing that. I don't give a rat's ass if you understand American history (you clearly don't), and i'm not going to waste my time trying to teach Little Miss Can't Be Wrong.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

links to the sources will make you more trustworthy if they are serious works of serious people. I have own share of duties. But complete your own please.

None of us are writing doctorate themes on this website so that all statements need to be reference and with special note of statements of facts that are widely accepted by historians.

Quote:

Jefferson lived two hundred years ago before you're born.

Two hundred years is yesterday as far as record history go and Jefferson let one hell of a lot of written material behind that for the most part are available on the internet so we all can know him far better then some still living persons by way of his writings.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I called bullsh*t when you claimed that Americans were trying to destroy christianity in Britain. All this BS about Jefferson is just a smoke screen for you to avoid addressing that. I don't give a rat's ass if you understand American history (you clearly don't), and i'm not going to waste my time trying to teach Little Miss Can't Be Wrong.

Sounds that you're good at setting up a strawman. Reread what I posted there:

Quote:

oristarA wrote:
The success of American Independence demanded some degree of anti-Christianity to undermine the morale of the then Great Britain.

Have you ever noticed what Contrex said - something like "we have a national religion that no one believes." That is, today's Christianity in Great Britain is far from being popular. It implies that Jefferson's strategy worked and still works.

Your horseshit-like insolence has smeared American Value, claiming that the foundation of America was built on sand - you unreasonably denied the outstanding services of those founding fathers. So what? Have you ever heard this: publish or perish? You've not written a **** that is worthy to be recorded in history, yet Jefferson's democratic ideas have lived and will live in eons.

To be frank, you've surely goddamned read a lot about American history, but you obviously don't know how to organize them in a scientific way.

2 Replies

@oristarA,

You're living in fantasy land--not only does your English deteriorate when you rant, but you show no logic, either. The claim that American independence depended upon some degree of "anti-Christianity" to undermine the morale of Great Britain is not materially different from how i characterized it. It appears that you still don't get it that Americans were christians, too, and were propagating no anti-Christianity. It was no straw man.

I haven't disparaged the founding fathers. I entertain an extremely low opinion of Thomas Jefferson, certainly. However, Jefferson was out of the country for the constitutional convention, for the political fight over it's ratification, and for the First Congress, which sent to the states the amendments which, when ratified, became the bill of rights. To regard him as a founding father is silly. He was largely a force for discord and political division in the United States. So your claim to the effect that " unreasonably denied the outstanding services of those founding fathers" is the straw man here. I only "smeared" Jefferson.

You don't know a goddamned thing about historical synthesis, you don't know a goddamned thing about American history, and your English sucks.

4 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

He was largely a force for discord and political division in the United States

do nations generally send over as ambassadors those who are out of alignment with the consensus? To the most important postings?

Your argument sucks.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

As though you know anything about American history yourself. When Jefferson was sent to France, he had never held a government post in the United States government. He was sent by the Continental Congress, because the constitutional convention had not yet been convened. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin had been sent to Europe first. Franklin went to Paris, and Adams went to Spain in 1777. He then joined Franklin in Paris in 1779. Jefferson went there in 1784, and replaced Franklin when he returned in 1785.

Jefferson was opposed to the ratification of the constitution, but he could only oppose it by correspondence. When he returned, he accepted Washington's offer to be Secretary of State, even though he opposed most of the policies of Washington's government, especially those of Alexander Hamilton. While a member of Washington's cabinet, he worked to undermine the policies of his government, once again, especially those of Hamilton. During the debate over ratification, the only organized group were those supporting the ratification, and they were known as the Federalists. Those opposing ratification became known as the anti-Federalists, but you can't very well organize a party based on what you don't like. It was Jefferson who organized the Democratic Republicans, usually referred to then just as the Republicans. Jefferson's party would dominate the United States for more than two dozen years--from 1800 to 1828 the United States was basically a one party state, as far as presidential politics went. John Adams was the sole Federalist president. Although the Federalist remained strong in the northeast and sent large delegations to Congress, they would never elect another president.

You know as little about American history as Oristar. Jefferson became a force for dissention and division in the United States after he returned from France, dipshit.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're living in fantasy land--not only does your English deteriorate when you rant, but you show no logic, either. The claim that American independence depended upon some degree of "anti-Christianity" to undermine the morale of Great Britain is not materially different from how i characterized it. It appears that you still don't get it that Americans were christians, too, and were propagating no anti-Christianity. It was no straw man.

I haven't disparaged the founding fathers. I entertain an extremely low opinion of Thomas Jefferson, certainly. However, Jefferson was out of the country for the constitutional convention, for the political fight over it's ratification, and for the First Congress, which sent to the states the amendments which, when ratified, became the bill of rights. To regard him as a founding father is silly. He was largely a force for discord and political division in the United States. So your claim to the effect that " unreasonably denied the outstanding services of those founding fathers" is the straw man here. I only "smeared" Jefferson.

You don't know a goddamned thing about historical synthesis, you don't know a goddamned thing about American history, and your English sucks.

Who's silly? Open your eyes wide and see:

Quote:

Top 10 Founding Fathers
Significant Figures Who Helped Found America
By Martin Kelly

The founding fathers were those political leaders who were part of the American Revolution and the founding of the new nation after independence was won. There were many more than ten founders that had a huge impact on the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. However, this list attempts to pick the top ten founding fathers who had the greatest impact. Honorable mentions not included were John Hancock, John Marshall, Peyton Randolph, and John Jay.

1. George Washington - Founding Father
2. John Adams
3. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, was chosen to be part of a Committee of Five that would draft the Declaration of Independence. He was unanimously picked to write the Declaration. He was then sent to France as a diplomat after the Revolution and then returned to become first the vice president under John Adams and then the third president.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/tp/foundingfathers.htm

Quote:

►
Founding Fathers, the most prominent statesmen of America’s Revolutionary generation, responsible for the successful war for colonial independence from Great Britain, the liberal ideas celebrated in the Declaration of Independence, and the republican form of government defined in the United States Constitution. While there are no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, membership in this select group customarily requires conspicuous contributions at one or both of the foundings of the United States: during the American Revolution, when independence was won, or during the Constitutional Convention, when nationhood was achieved.

Although the list of members can expand and contract in response to political pressures and ideological prejudices of the moment, the following 10, presented alphabetically, represent the “gallery of greats” that has stood the test of time: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, George Mason, and George Washington. There is a nearly unanimous consensus that George Washington was the Foundingest Father of them all. ... (163 of 3,752 words)

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269535/Founding-Fathers

Search "the founding fathers of the United States" in Google. See how many hits you will get? Countless links honor Thomas Jefferson as one of the greatest founding fathers...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're living in fantasy land--not only does your English deteriorate when you rant, but you show no logic, either.
.......
You don't know a goddamned thing about historical synthesis, you don't know a goddamned thing about American history, and your English sucks.

How better is your English? A bit better?
I remember how you deemed the English writing of a native-born American professor as that of a non-English speaker.
In general, your power of judgement is lost when you are hot-headed.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I haven't disparaged the founding fathers. I entertain an extremely low opinion of Thomas Jefferson, certainly. However, Jefferson was out of the country for the constitutional convention, for the political fight over it's ratification, and for the First Congress, which sent to the states the amendments which, when ratified, became the bill of rights. To regard him as a founding father is silly. He was largely a force for discord and political division in the United States. So your claim to the effect that " unreasonably denied the outstanding services of those founding fathers" is the straw man here. I only "smeared" Jefferson.

How many historical facts do you know? See the Constitution Facts:
(It shows how little you know about Jefferson)

Quote:

United States (U.S.) Founding FathersThe U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

Many of the United States Founding Fathers were at the Constitutional Convention, where the Constitution was hammered out and ratified. George Washington, for example, presided over the Convention. James Madison, also present, wrote the document that formed the model for the Constitution.

Other U.S. Founding Fathers were not there, but made significant contributions in other ways. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia by carrying on correspondence with James Madison. John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote "Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America." Thomas Paine wrote the influential pamphlet "Common Sense," which immeasurably influenced the philosophy reflected in the Declaration of Independence. One of the U.S. Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, was initially opposed to the very idea of the Constitution! He wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. However, when an agreement was made to add a "bill of rights" to the Constitution, Henry fought hard for its ratification.

The term "framers" is sometimes used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution. "Founding Fathers" often refers to people who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However, the notion of a "framer" or a "Founding Father" is not easily defined. For purposes of this website, "Founding Fathers" are individuals who had a significant impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly. The following list is by no means complete, but it does identify people who played a large role in the development of the Constitution at this crucial time in American history.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-founding-fathers/

1 Reply

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know