FATHER KNOWS BEST . . .

Wow! This is pretty wide open. Let me throw something general out here and I'll come back later with specifics on individual Founding Fathers.

To some extent I think the idealstic view most people have of our "Founding Fathers" was just a product of the times. They were an intelligent, well read lot without a doubt and they took their business very seriously but in the later 1700s the political arena was a much more respectful and polite setting than anything we've seen in recent decades.

IMO, there are two important aspects that shape (or maybe distort?) our current views of the founding fathers. Each understood that their views were just that, their own personal/regional views. They came together and each presented their veiws with a goal of seeking compromise. The objective of the day was to seek the middle ground and find an overall position that satisfied all without anyone fully "winning". The other thing is that this group focused entirely on Federal government when they met. While they drew from state level experience they weren't setting rules/laws for all of the states. That distinction between Federal, State and local has become clouded in the intervening years so people today tend to lose sight of how much restraint the Founding Fathers exercised.

Advances in communications changed the face of politics. In the 1700s our Founding Fathers passed letters to each other. Those letters were carried by horseback. The intervening time allowed people to temper their anger and cool off. Their letters were well thought out and words were carefully chosen. Very few harsh words were exchanged even when there was total disagreement. The most famous disagreement, the Hamilton and Burr duel, took decades to simmer to the boiling point. With the advent of large newspapers and the telegraph word traveled much faster and people could "fire off" a response within hours or print a rebuttal in the following days paper. Today for example, we have a weekly radio address by the President every Saturday morning at 10am ET. The "rebuttal" to that address is scheduled for 30 minutes after the address is completed.

BTW, for those who are interested , The books "Founding Brothers" and "American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson" by Joseph Ellis, "John Adams" by David McCullough and "The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin" by H. W. Brands are all excellent accounts of the actions of some of our Founding Fathers.

BTW, Fishin', it is worth noting that both Burr and Hamilton accompanied Montgomery's New York militia to Canada, and both participated in the ill-fated attempt to take Quebec City. Montgomery was killed, the cooperating force commanded by Benedict Arnold faltered when Arnold was severely wounded, and the effort failed. (In a further aside, drive the Arnold trail in Northern Maine sometime, and i'm sure you'll be impressed with the hardship his force must have suffered traversing the same ground in the winter of 1775.) The recriminations date from that attack on Quebec, when both blamed the other for the failure to make the effort necessary to break into the "upper city." The grudges continued to pile up thereafter, but i've always imagined the two meeting in the early morning for their duel, and the image of that horrible night in Canada, in a raging blizzard, before the old walled city, foremost in their minds.

Inspired by this thread, I went to the local bookstore during lunch today and picked up a copy of "America Afire; Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800". According to the book's jacket, that election was the turning point in the civility I mentioned above. It should be an interesting read.

I went to the Jefferson Memorial this year when I was visiting my founding step-father and man! What an incredible building! What a guy! If I even watch a documentary on the writing of the constitution and declaration of independence, I get pretty worked up. I could have stared at that humungous statue for the whole day, and ol' Abe Lincoln, too.

Hmmm...Maybe I have founding father issues...

Heyyo Lenny Bruce! :-D

Setanta, thinking about this - here's a Founding Faddah we may have all quietly forgotten about or at least not put on as much of a pedestal because he really isn't known for government.

I'm talking, of course, about Ben Franklin. He might be the most influential of the bunch in the sense that, well, he seems to have made science important to America.

Anyone see the PBS rebroadcast of Ken Burn's "Jefferson"? Also, my second nominee(s) are Lewis and Clark and that will likely be repeated in the current cycle of Ken Burn's documentaries.

Welcome, Lenny Bruce!

I am not an admirer of Jefferson. It's true that his inspired words in the Declaration are among the most important penned at the time. His high points were all summed up in the sentiments he dictated for his tombstone. On the other hand, his contributions to the long war for independence were almost non-existent. The closest he came to the fighting was when as the Governor of Virginia he fled before the British. Even at the time his lack of valor, or even active participation in the struggle was noted.

As the Secretary of State In Washington's Cabinet, Jefferson was the source of constant bickering with Hamilton. Washington, Adams and Hamilton were dedicated to Federalism, while Jefferson still clung to the idea that the States should remain largely independent of central government. It was the failure of the Articles of Confederation that brought on the crisis that made the Constitutional Convention necessary. The various States all insisted upon their own sovereignty. There were at least thirteen horses all pulling in different directions, and the economy was in ruins. No smart bettor would have wagered on the survival of the new country for even another decade.

The Constitution was resisted by many, though to be fair about it Jefferson eventually supported it's adoption. George Mason, of Virginia, was a terribly important "Founding Father" because of his insistence that the Constitution include a Bill of Rights. The Federalists were well represented and were persuasive in forming the new governmental system. After the adoption of the Constitution, Washington became the first President of the Constitutional United States. Washington headed the Federalist "Party", but resisted the idea of political factionalism. It was Washington's attempt to govern without partisan politics that accounted for the inclusion of people like Jefferson in the first administration. It didn't work out well, the Executive Branch needs a certain degree of unanimity of philosophical outlook to be effective.

Jefferson's election in 1800 was a peaceful revolution. For the first time a government voluntarily and peacefully handed over the reins of power to opponents whose views were radically opposed to those held by the sitting government. When the Federalists turned over power to Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, the nation's wounds were largely healed. The economy was on the upswing, and the currency was sound. The military was small, but strong enough to deter most foreign aggression. Washington wisely kept the new nation out of European politics until we were strong enough to go our own way if need be. Jefferson was a Francophile, and an admirer of the French Revolution, who pressed for close ties with France.

When Jefferson came to power, all that changed. He reduced the Army and Navy to levels that made them little more than a joke. He suspended every project he could that required central government funding, or coordination, or over-sight. He moved to weaken the central bank that Hamilton founded. Some talk about Shrub stealing the election from Gore. If Burr had been just a little more active, he would have become the fourth man to hold the Presidency instead of Jefferson. Hamilton's hatred of Burr caused him to undermine Adams, the Federalist candidate, and to support his enemy Jefferson in the tied vote. Adams lost, largely because of Hamilton's disloyalty and ambition. Jefferson won by a vote when Federalists supported him rather than Burr. Up until that election Jefferson was Burrs great friend, and thereafter Burr was shunted aside and marked for destruction. Jefferson was known for his easy friendliness, but he had a darker side as well. Jefferson could hold a grudge a long time, and he used his personal power to destroy anyone he disliked. Burr was arrested on the only Presidential Arrest Warrant the country ever had. There was precious little evidence that Burr had done anything treasonous, though he certainly acted foolishly. Burr was denounced by General James Wilkenson, one of the countries most notorious, and successful, traitors.

Wilkerson had been one of Gates aids at Saratoga and was one of the Conway plotters. He was almost dismissed from the service for improprieties, and was despised by Washington and other competent Revolutionary officers. Wilkerson managed to survive and ended up in charge of American Forces in the West. There it is proven that he was a paid agent for the Spanish, and had improper dealings with the French. Common gossip had it that he was responsible for the murder of a number of people who opposed him. After the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Lewis was made governor of the territory. Unfortunately, Lewis suffered from a mental disorder and was a very poor administrator. When he was recalled to Washington to explain discrepancies in his books, he chose to go up the Natchez Trace rather than take ship in New Orleans, where Wilkerson had his headquarters. Lewis was killed, though his death was ruled a suicide, at a farm along the trail. Lewis had his throat cut and had several gunshot wounds, and there was a general feeling that Wilkerson agents may have done the deed. During the War of 1812, Wilkerson was responsible for the Canada Invasion fiasco. He died in Mexico City while engaged in other self-aggrandizing plots.

This was the chief witness against Burr, but Wilkerson's reputation didn't matter because he was a Jefferson man, catering to Jefferson's known desire to eliminate Burr. The indictment against Burr was quashed for lack of evidence in Louisiana, but he was taken in a cage anyway back to Virginia. Jefferson placed Chief Justice Marshall in charge of the case, and among the witnesses was Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a witness for Burr, and Burr was again found not guilty of the charges. Jefferson was livid.

Much is made of Jefferson's intellect and inventiveness. Actually he was mostly an amateur, who often got things wrong. Monticello is a beautiful spot and the architecture is also beautiful, but filled with flaws. Jefferson copied most of the design from imported books describing the work of Palladio, the famous Italian architect. The estate was built by slaves, and money that Jefferson borrowed at sometimes ruinous rates. Jefferson's poor business sense resulted in his being constantly in debt, and eventually in his bankruptcy.

As I said above, I'm not an admirer of Jefferson. His political philosophy was, I think, wrong-headed. Effective centralized government advocated by the Federalists was and is essential to maintaining a strong democracy. The Federalists became extinct after opposing the War of 1812, and some variety of Democratic Republicanism has been in vogue ever since. The Whigs recaptured some of the zest for involvement of the central government in public works. The Republican Party of Lincoln was anathema to the South because it wanted to take too great a role in affairs that the Democrats strongly believed were internal and not Federal.

For the greatest of all the Founders, there is really no question that the man was Washington. George Washington was a giant in every sense, he towered above all the others. He had great vision, favored practical solutions over dreamy theories, and refused to be driven by others. Washington might have been King, but chose instead to step aside once the crisis was past. He was only a mediocre general, but he understood strategy and men.

Although i cannot support your contention that Washington was a mediocre general, i found your post an excellent exposition of power politics in the period of the 1800 election. You did very well to pack so much information in such a small space.

I would also modify the statement about the invasion of Canada. General Hull deserves every bit of credit anyone would give him for botching his invasion of Upper Canada, and for surrendering Detroit to an inferior force. The fiasco at Queenston in 1812 can be laid at the door or Van Rensalear (sp?), and the New York militia in general--but since it was the professional debut of Winfield Scott, it was not entirely a disaster. Additionally, General Brock, the nemesis of Hull in Detroit, very foolishly exposed himself in a failed attempt to retake Queenston heights, not waiting for sufficient force to assemble, and got himself killed for his trouble. This actually proved a great material aid to the U.S. operations in Upper Canada, as Brock was the most competent English officer in British North America at the time. Scott later did very well in his operations in the Niagara pennisula, and virtually everything he accomplished was thrown away by his superiors. I would blame the poor performance of the U.S. in land operations in that war on Jefferson and Madison for their ridiculous assumption that we could rely on the militia in a real war. Jefferson was clueless in military matters, but Madison had served in the Revolution, and ought to have known better. Not only did the New York militia abandon their posts and their comrades at Queenston, but the Maryland militia left a handful of Marines and a few hundred sailors holding the bag at Bladensburg--about seven thousand of them ran away at the sight of fewer than 2000 redcoats. The Marines fought until sundown, and then marched off carrying away their dead and wounded. The sailors fought well enough that they impressed the hardened veterans of Wellesley's penninsular campaigns. One English officer wrote that the American sailors: ". . . continued to serve the guns after we had shot down all of their officers, and were among them with the bayonet." Fortunately for the Navy, their (Jefferson and Madison) dream of a coastal, gun-boat navy was mitigated by the survival of the first-class professional service built up during the administrations of Washington and Adams. There is a pretty thorough discussion of the naval war on the lakes in Roosevelt's The Naval War of 1812. I would further blame Madison's superbly incompetent Secretary of War--Johnson, i believe, was his name, but i'm at work, and don't have reference materials at hand.

Setanta,

Good post. Good to see another historian here.

I totally agree that Johnson was a disaster, and that with the exceptions of Scott and Jackson virtually all of the American senior command was incompetent almost beyond belief. The surrender of Detroit is one of the great blotches on the honor of our military history.

Jefferson's gutting of the military was in many ways responsible for the events that drew us into the War of 1812, and for the problems of fighting that war. Jefferson's gunboat navy invited the distain of both Britain and France. The Napoleonic Wars were in full swing, and America was in the middle. Our maritime service was at the mercy of both the British and the French. Jefferson's Embargo brought on one of the worst depressions in the nation's history. Our maritime strength took a bullet to the head, and the stalled(!) economy left the entire nation enfeebled.

Jefferson had reduced our army to hardly more than a palace guard. What was left, was led by ancient and incompetent generals who held their place by political connections rather than merit. Wilkerson, was a known traitor, but still enjoyed the support of the President. The whole notion that the militia could be an effective fighting force had been exposed as nonsense during the Revolution.

With the exception of the battle of Cowpens (Jan. 17, 1781), when Gen. N. Greene used the militia to sucker Tarleton, the militia was a dismal failure. Green, knowing the militias propensity for fleeing in the face of the enemy, persuaded them to fire just one shot before retiring. Tarleton took their fire and charged into a trap where the regular Continentals did dreadful execution. Of course, Jefferson hadn't a clue and was blinded by his philosophy.

I am a great admirer of Washington. The War of Independence would have been lost if the Conway Cabal had been successful in replacing him with Gates. Charles Lee (no relation to Light Horse) had a much better military reputation, but he may well have secretly turned his during his brief captivity. Lee's performance in New Jersey was certainly suspect. Only Washington had the stature to lead the fight, but his losses far outnumbered his victories. Ah, shucks. I withdraw my criticism of his generalship. Ultimate victory always confers the cloak of genius on a leader's shoulders.

Well, i wouldn't call him a military genius, Boss, but his qualities of leadership lift him far above the ranks of militarily mediocre--which is to say, the majority of those who have held high rank in any nation in history.

The Romans developed system and doctrine to immunize themselves against the effects of military mediocrity. Washington used pure leadership. At Princeton, Washingtons forces trickled in, having marched in many small columns. I don't really fault him for this, as he understood that he would not get professional performance from most of his officers, nor from militia or short-term volunteers. When Col. Macon was killed, the troops wavered. Cadwallader's Pennsylvanians finally began to run, and the Continental Marines, on site with no officers of their own, joined them. Washington's hearty good cheer and tone of disbelief that his boys would actually desert him in the face of the English completely turned the situation around.

At Kip's bay, the militia took a long hard look at the redcoats coming in from the frigates, dropped their guns and ran. Old George was livid--he threw his hat down, and rode back and forth over it, before drawing steel and attempting to charge the English. The English were amused, and then more than a little non-plussed to see this huge, bare-headed man on horseback charging them. Washington's officers stopped him in time, but many militiamen returned, shame-faced, and others returned in simple amazement at his reaction--few had ever heard cursing of such an exsquisite nature. The landing was not prevented, but Howe's plan for a lightening march by light infantry and grenadiers into the American lines was prevented.

At Monmouth, Washington had offered the command of the attacking force to Charles Lee the previous evening, but Lee, stating his opposition to the plan, refused. Washington immediately turned, and offered the command to LaFayette--who proved throughout the war to be a competent commander--and he accepted. I think Lee was surprised that Washington would persist in his plan over his (Lee's) objections. Later that evening, Lee came back to Washington's tent to ask for command of the attack the next day, and, Washington, ever ready to make the best use of his resources, accepted, and mollified LaFayette, who acquiesced without complaint.

Of course, Lee then screwed the entire plan, and Washington's first clue was Stirling's and Sullivan's troops streaming to the rear. Washington then began to curse Lee as i am sure no man had ever before spoken to him. The troops, of course, loved a good stream of invective, and were especially fond of those rare occassions when they heard it from the great man himself, as he was always so reserved, courtly and circumspect on all other occassions. Washington's display of the mule-skinners art was in no small measure responsible for the successful effort to halt the men and get them to reform--they didn't want to miss that show. When Lee had been dispensed with, and to the relief of American history, disappeard into oblivion, the boys were lined up, and with a cheer, advanced against the English with the bayonet.

In all seriousness, i think that in judging Washington's military abilities, it should be remembered that he extracted the survivors of Braddock's small army from their debacle, despite having no formal position in Braddock's army. He extracted his own army from the numerous defeats which you have mentioned, and the most difficult military task is to retreat in the presence of a victorious enemy, and to preserve your force-something he accomplished time and again. His was the main army, and yet he constantly made substantial detachments to other commanders in order that they might carry out their orders. This included sending troops to Gates, even after the Conway fiasco. Generally, they wasted the opportunities offered them, with the notable exception which you have mentioned, General Greene.

I have a pet peeve with the condescendion of many historians (no criticism of you, Boss) toward Washington. I've often viewed it as the puny trying to cut down to their size a true giant.

I'm sure we are on the same hymnal page.