Who was the most influential of the founding fathers???

No matter what his personal character, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the pre-eminent statement in human history of the rights of man. Madison contributed much by taking on the subcommittee assignment of writing the Constitution (along with Gouverneur Morris and others). Washington was in many ways a personal representation of the American ideals, as, when at the end of the war, as a victorious general at the head of an army most of whom regarded him highly, instead of parlaying this into personal power, returned his commission to the pathetically weak Confederation Congress and went home.

Without doubt, or question, George Washington stands alone. Beside him Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and Mason are almost insignificant ... and they tower above midgets like Jefferson. Almost without exception that small band of Federalists who drafted the Constitution were giants. Jefferson could turn a pretty phrase, was an amiable host (especially if you were a French Revolutionary), and had excellent taste in wine. That about sums his good qualities up.

Jefferson's entire career of political writing involved restating the theses of others, without attribution. There is nothing wrong with adopting the ideas of others for their utility. There is something very wrong with presenting the ideas and the form of their expression of others as one's own--something which Jefferson did consistently throughout his career. He did not write the Declaration of Independence as it is currently known. His draft, which relied heavily upon plagiarism, was reduced by more than half and heavily edited before it was presented for adoption.

I could not agree more with Asherman's assessment. George Washington is without any equivalent example known in history, the most honorable powerful man who ever lived, displaying the most integrity in adherence to a principle. When he rode into Annapolis, Maryland, and surrendered his commission to the Continental Congress on December 23, 1783, his action was unparalleled in history. No other successful military leader has ever stood, sword in hand, at the head of a victorious army, and on a principle of personal honor and political rectitude, surrendered his power to the legally constituted civilian authorities--nevermind a body as incompetent as the Continental Congress.

Without the monumental integrity of Washington, the nation as constituted likely would never have existed.

Thanks for your input guys. Didn't they offer to crown Washington as King???

So the Federalists were more representative of our ideals??

BTW, Jefferson did have some clever inventions though huh??

What about Thomas Paine???

I believe that there is no good evidence that any serious proposition was ever made to make Washington a monarch. Given that he appears to have been shooting blanks, he would have had no dynastic successor, so the effort would have foundered at his death. In fact, he stepped down at the end of his second term in office precisely because he did not wish to be "President for life" and to annoint his Vice President as successor for life--we know this because it is to be found in more than one place in his correspondence.

There was an organization formed after the revolution known as the Society of the Cincinnati. These were mostly former officers of the Continental line, although members of the militia were well-represented. Mostly, these were disaffected people who felt that the nation owed them more.

The society was named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the scion of an old and venerable family of Rome, of the order of Patres. His nephew had been impeached for treasonous correspondence with the Veiians (then the principle Roman enemy) and Cincinnatus pledged his very valuable property as bond for the appearance of his nephew in court, reserving only a small farm on the Janiculum (a hill across the river Tiber to the north, it was then uninhabited, and the crown was the site of the Campus Martius, where the city legion assembled and drilled). His nephew had been in treasonous correspondence, and he absconded--which made all of the property of Cincinnatus forfeit. So, he retired to the Janiculum to become a simple farmer and continue to support his wife and himself (his children were grown and out on their own). As a member of the Quinctii, he would have been honored in any event, but this rectitude of behavior was such that he was even more revered, and it is said in the history of Titus Livius that he served five times as Dictator (an emergency office) and always behaved with probity, surrendering the fasces, the symbol of office, as soon as the emergency had passed. This is crucial, because only the Dictator could carry a fasces with an axe bundled in it (his aides, the lictors actually carried the fasces), meaning he had the power of life and death, the ultimate power. The image below is of a statue in Cincinnati, Ohio, showing Cincinnatus surrendering the fasces preperatory to returning to the plow.



The Society of the Cincinnati offered the presidency of their organization to Washington. All of his life, Washington had railled against "faction" (what we would know as political parties and smoke-filled rooms), and he demonstrated once again his probity, refusing the office and publicly condemning the organization. The Society of the Cincinnati, at their web site (yes, they still exist, and they have a web site) claim that he was their first president. They carefully word it, that he was the first person elected president, and they don't say that he turned the office down.

Washington's refusal to join and lead the organization and his public condemnation of the organization and its goals lead them to change the name of their new settlement on the Ohio River from Fort Washington to Cincinnati. I think that not only is there no evidence that Washington ever sought monarchical power, but that he would not have accepted it had it been offered to him.

Jefferson's inventions were mostly flawed inspirations, not well thought out concepts that had broader application. Monticello is an architectural mishmash, largely taken from style books featuring the Palladian style. Nothing Jefferson ever put his hand to was completed, and his personal finances were as bad as his notions about financing an effective national government. He was a vain and vindictive man whose personal vanity has been largely forgotten. "Father of Freedom", utter bosh. Jefferson believed in the plantation system based on a slave economy.

Patrick Henry was very good at making rousing speeches, as was Samuel Adams. Neither contributed much beyond instigating a bloody civil war with England. These guys were rather like the little fellow who starts a saloon quarrel to see what will happen. Social misfits who played a role in getting the fight started, but thereafter retired to watch the fun from the sidelines.

Wow, that's some interesting ****.

I was under the impression that after his victory against the British, Washington was offered the crown but he turned it down.

Were either of you guys history teachers or something?? You know an awful lot by memory.

So how about Thomas Paine? I know "Common Sense" was a very influential piece of propaganda. Or was he just another rabble rouser??

John, I think you're correct. They wanted the honorary title to be Your Highness or some such--and wanted him to stay on for a life tenure--other such "kingly" offers were made.

I'll have to bring a link.

He was quite rare to, as Set said, ride away when he did.

An excerpt--from www.americanpresident.org

King Washington?

Following the war, Washington quelled a potentially disastrous bid by some of his officers to declare him king. He then returned to Mount Vernon and the genteel life of a tobacco planter, only to be called out of retirement to preside at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. His great stature gave credibility to the call for a new government and insured his election as the first President of the United States. Keenly aware that his conduct as President would set precedents for the future of the office, he carefully weighed every step he took. He appointed Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to his cabinet. Almost immediately, these two men began to quarrel over a wide array of issues, but Washington valued them for the balance they lent his cabinet. Literally the "Father of the Nation," Washington almost single-handedly created a new government -- shaping its institutions, offices, and political practices.

Although he badly wanted to retire after the first term, Washington was unanimously supported by the electoral college for a second term in 1792. Throughout both his terms, Washington struggled to prevent the emergence of political parties, viewing them as factions harmful to the public good. Nevertheless, in his first term, the ideological division between Jefferson and Hamilton deepened, forming the outlines of the nation's first party system. This system was composed of Federalists, who supported expansive federal power and Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans, followers of Thomas Jefferson's philosophy of states' rights and limited federal power. Washington generally backed Hamilton on key issues, such as the funding of the national debt, the assumption of state debts, and the establishment of a national bank.

Throughout his two terms, Washington insisted on his power to act independent of Congress in foreign conflicts, especially when war broke out between France and England in 1793 and he issued a Declaration of Neutrality on his own authority. He also acted decisively in putting down a rebellion by farmers in western Pennsylvania who protested a federal whiskey tax (the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794). After he left office, exhausted and discouraged over the rise of political factions, Washington returned to Mount Vernon, where he died almost three years later.

Historians agree that no one other than George Washington could have held the disparate colonies and, later, the struggling young Republic together. To the Revolution's last day, Washington's troops were ragged, starving, and their pay was months in arrears. In guiding this force during year after year of humiliating defeat to final victory, more than once paying his men out of his own pocket to keep them from going home, Washington earned the unlimited confidence of those early citizens of the United States. Perhaps most importantly, Washington's balanced and devoted service as President persuaded the American people that their prosperity and best hope for the future lay in a union under a strong but cautious central authority. His refusal to accept a proffered crown and his willingness to relinquish the office after two terms established the precedents for limits on the power of the presidency. Washington's profound achievements built the foundations of a powerful national government that has survived for more than two centuries.

_______________

This isn't an "official" offer of a crown, but it wasn't the only one I've read, either. There was a concerted effort to make the presidency a more authoritarian position, and Washington had to dig his heels in against it.

More on Almost King Washington

I forgot to mention that Hamilton was highly influential for a time, saving the new country from a mountain of debt, setting up the US Customs Service, etc.

One of my undergraduate degrees was in History, but I've never taught it.

I think I've probably overstated in re. Sam Adams, etc. Especially, Patrick Henry. Henry's declaration from the scaffold should not have been so harshly spoken of. He talked the talk, and stepped off into eternity a courageous man. Paine's writing helped to shore up the spirits of the Army during difficult times, and gave eloquent voice to the best aspirations of the Patriotic movement. He didn't say anything particularly new, or participate in the design of what the country would become.

The thing is, that many of these well known and remembered people had really rather little to do with the successes of the Democratic experiment. After the nation's most difficult war, the former colonies were in pitiful shape. Every State regarded itself as most sovereign, and rarely supported any overall national policy. There was a strong movement in many places to re-distribute wealth and property .. to the shock and dismay of many of those who sacrificed almost everything to win the war. Some political opportunists enriched themselves at the expense of the commons. The economy was in one of the worst depressions in the country's history, and there was no one in a position to do anything about it. Revolutionary fervor and inspirational ideals were not enough to make a country out of the shambles of war. The smart betting money was that the newly independent States would collapse and come begging to return to British dominion.

When the Constitutional Convention was called, most people and the various States expected that a few small changes would be made to the Articles of Confederation. Meeting in the deepest secrecy, the Convention scrapped the old Articles and started fresh. The demands of the various States were heard, argued and eventually compromised upon to arrive at a workable and practical structure. Suspicions about the motives of others and the fear that some group might seize and hold perpetual power inspired the sort of government we have today. The interests of the poor and propertyless were balanced against the intrests of the wealthy and powerful. Small populations and States are balanced against the large populations and States. The Executive is given the necessary power to administer the functions of government, especially to command the military forces of the nation. The Congress has the power of the purse, and the Courts secure from popular demands are the special guardians of the Constitution. Those men who met and hammered out a totally new form of government that had never existed before are the real heros, yet few even remember most of their names. Hell, I couldn't name more than a handful and this is something I'm interested in and have studied.

The nation didn't work out exactly the way the Founders expected, but it has worked wonderfully well anyway. The Founders expected slavery to wither away before 1825, but it took instead another bloody Civil War to decide the issue. Washington and many of the others firmly believed that national parties were divisive and a threat to the Republic. As it turned out the two party system is far, far better than any single party could ever be.

Hamilton is often underrated for his financial contribution, as his participation in the Federalist pro-constitution propaganda have been the focus of the study of Hamilton. But his financial program very quickly put the United States on a sound financial footing, and enabled the eventual payment of the claims by Englishmen made as from before the revolution. It was the non-payment of those claims which lead the English to remain in the upper Great Lakes region and in Florida, from whence they armed and incited the Amerindians.

It is likely that this aspect of Hamilton's crucial contribution was historically "buried" because of the rancor it caused at the time. People with foresight and hard cash had bought up the notes of the Continental Congress at a tenth, or sometimes even less, of their face value. By holding onto them, they eventually made wild profits. Hamilton's decision to the effect that the debts of the Continental Congress must be paid, and that the English claims be adjudicated and paid were very unpopular, but immediately put the United States on a sound credit standing, with which she could draw loans based upon the future revenue. Financial confidence among money men who understood the value of his measures was such that the American economy took off like a rocket. In part, that was because the predictable recession which had followed the war ended, but it was largely due to confidence among financiers and in credit institutions in Europe--the benefits for American trade were enormous.

The downside for the Federalists was that they became identified in the public mind with the "money men." Even as late as the presidency of Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams and the rump of the Federalists were seen as a clique slavishly devoted to the monied interests, and weilding far more political power than they deservred. At the dawn of the "era of the common man," Jackson effectively used the propaganda to his advantage.

Ash, you've confused Patrick Henry with Nathan Hale.

As usual, Setanta you are correct and I'm a confused old fool.

I suspect you don't beat me in the old fool category by much . . .


Patrick Henry first made a name for himself at a time when the lack of specie meant that tobacco futures were traded as currency in the Virginia colony. A vicar of the C of E had brought suit because the bottom had fallen out of the tobacco market, and he was demanding that the amount of his payment (calculated in hundredweights of tobacco) be increased to assure the continuity of his income. Henry plead for the parish--and although he "losts," the jury awarded the vicar damages of one penny.

Riding on his fame, Henry arrived in Williamsburg and the House of Burgesses. During the Stamp Act crisis, Henry joined with a group of young firebrands to propose a radical address to the Parliament, and they waited until a sufficient number had left Williamsburg for there still to be a quorum, but with the "radicals" in the majority. The proceedings were widely reported in the colonies, and editors had no problem embellishing the reports, putting back portions of the resolution removed by the Burgesses, and even making up some of their own. But Henry got the best press of all.

The standard story is that he rose in the Burgesses and commenced an address to the Speaker, Peyton Randolph. It was claimed that it ran: "Tarquin and Ceasar both had their Brutus, and Charles I his Cromwell. And George III . . . "--at which point the story goes that Randolph roared out: "Treason ! ! !" To which, it is reported, Henry replied: "And George III may well profit by their example. If this be treason, let us make the most of it." Later authors added a line to the speech was never reported in the 1760's--"Give me liberty or give me death."

The only problem is, that there is not only no confirmation of this dramatic scene, but early in the last (20th century) century, American scholars came accross a long-forgotten travel book by a Frenchman who happened to be there that day. The Frenchman reported no such dramatic moment, and spoke of Mr. Henry being chastised by the Speaker, and humbly beggin his pardon. Henry was later Governor of Virginia during the war, and some of the more firebrand patriots there accused him of pusillanimity during the English occupation--a similar charge was leveled against Jefferson when he occupied that office. Henry fades from American history thereafter, and he is chiefly remembered for a speech that he very likely did not make.

excellent stuff guys, thanks.

This era in our history is especially interesting for me because I live so close to where a lot of history took place. I live about twenty minutes from where the Battle of Saratoga took place.

A book which is very instructive is Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution through British Eyes, by Christopher Hibbert, one of the best of contemporary English historians. There is another book entitled Rebels and Redcoats which is not nearly so good a read, so it is important to look for Mr. Hibbert's book. There are so many books on the topic, most not worth that much, that it's difficult to find "the best" book on the subject, if any such book exists.

The best "short" biography of Washington, in my never humble opinion, is James Flexner's Washington: The Indispensable Man. This is a single volume abridgement of his four volume biography. Flexner's full biography is the best effort on the subject since the 1950's. However, the definitive biography is George Washington, Douglas Southall Freeman, seven volumes, 1948-1954. Mr. Freeman died while in the midst of writing Washington's second term in office (about chapter 15 of volume seven) and it was finished by his two assistants. Personally, i don't think it's worth really studying the man without starting there (the best secondary source available, and the only one worth consulting if one is not actually going to look at the compilations of the oldest biographers and collectors of correspondence and documents). Any good, large library will have Freeman's work.