defend the Founders against the Devil's Advocate

[The Wrath]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I have some serious moral/political objections to many of the things that the Founders did. I still believe that they were great men, but I would like to hear some arguments as to why they should still be considered "great," despite their numerous and often very serious flaws. I'm not going to list everything that I think they did wrong, but I'll list what I consider to be the major ones. I would prefer to leave slavery out of the discussion, since their positions are well-known and the topic has already been extensively discussed.

Washington: suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion; believed that citizens have an obligation to obey unjust laws, by virtue of the fact that they were "the law"

Adams: Alien and Sedition Act; favored a strong executive

Jefferson: politically, I have no serious objections to Jefferson, but he had very questionable integrity and was known to slander Washington and Adams, and then deny that he had done so; he also managed to take in a lot of the glory for the Revolution, when he essentially sat on the sidelines of the Continental Congress, though I suppose that is not entirely his fault

Madison: don't know much about Madison...but I do know that he was responsible for working in the clause of the 5th Amendment that provides for eminent domain

Hamilton: instrumental in the consolidation of economic power in the federal government; supported the creation of a new army, with himself as the commander, which he would then proceed to use to conquer Spanish territories, even though the current conflict was with France

[y_feldblum]

In the name of political freedom, they overthrew a tyranny and established a constitutional representative republic dedicated (in general) to the protection of individual rights.

[softwareNerd]

I agree. The defence is rather simple: despite everything, they created the best country ever.

The accusations amount to saying: so what if it was head and shoulders above all others, if they had the vision to see that much, then they should have also written Atlas Shrugged and OPAR, and created not just the best country of their time, but also the most perfect one ever. Their bad, for not doing so!

[DavidOdden]

I still believe that they were great men, but I would like to hear some arguments as to why they should still be considered "great," despite their numerous and often very serious flaws.

What do you mean by "great"? Does that mean, "perfect, without error, as judged from the perspective of 2 centuries later"? What are some examples of men who you consider "great"?, so that we might apply that same standard to the founding fathers, to determine if they are really wanting.

[The Wrath]

I specifically said that I still consider them to be great men, despite their flaws...I think that for pretty much the exact reason stated above: that, despite their flaws, they still created the most moral country ever, up to that time.

I guess what I was wanting was more a defense of their flaws, particularly for Jefferson and Hamilton. I would like to see a defense of Jefferson's character. Although he used to be my favorite of the Founders, I have come to hold the opinion that he was not as moral as Washington and Adams. Politically, I still agree with him the most, but when considering character and integrity, I think he falls far short of the other 2. Then there's Hamilton...his finance plan ensured that economic power would be concentrated in the federal government, and he had aspirations that sounded conspicuously like setting himself up as a dictator. The only thing I can think of that might balance this out is that his death ruined the political career of Aaron Burr.

[DarkWaters]

Jefferson ... was known to slander Washington and Adams, and then deny that he had done so;

Do you have any examples of Thomas Jefferson slandering George Washington and/or John Adams in mind? I know that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were heated political rivals. However, even then they still maintained a frequent epistolary relationship where they discussed political philosophy. Thomas Jefferson was also subjected to much slander himself at the hands of his opponents. He was repeatedly (and falsely) accused of being an atheist.

I guess what I was wanting was more a defense of their flaws, particularly for Jefferson and Hamilton.

Notwithstanding any flaws, the achievements of the founding fathers were monumental in the context of their time and are among some of the greatest achievements ever accomplished by any civilization. The essential characteristics of the lives of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison are all nothing less than magnificent.

I do consider Alexander Hamilton a step down from the other four you have listed. The ideas of an "elastic constitution" and implied government powers essentially stem from him. I also remember reading (I believe in Walter Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin) that Alexander Hamilton proposed that legislators serve unlimited terms. Benjamin Franklin shot this down with a humorous retort that went along the lines of "You yourself are a prime example of a lawmaker who has served past his efficacy."

Hamilton: instrumental in the consolidation of economic power in the federal government; supported the creation of a new army, with himself as the commander, which he would then proceed to use to conquer Spanish territories, even though the current conflict was with France

France and Spain had a familial pact and were allies around this time. However, I do not think that Spain was directly involved in this conflict so this is also another point of concern.

[Cogito]

Thomas Jefferson was also subjected to much slander himself at the hands of his opponents. He was repeatedly (and falsely) accused of being an atheist.

Terrible slander, that.

[aequalsa]

I know that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were heated political rivals. However, even then they still maintained a frequent epistolary relationship where they discussed political philosophy.

Actually, they did get into a roe where they stopped speaking for ,I think 12 years, but made up later in life.

With jefferson, it helps to remember that he was a rediculously voracious writer. Princeton's complete works is like 60 volumes of small print. I am not certain he ever had a thought in his head that he did not put on paper. It is easy in that much quantity to find contradictions and ideas not necessarily well thought out. He was also a poor public speaker with a stutter which made holding office a little difficult for him.

Washington was of impeccable character, no doubt, but he was a general and man of action wise enough to rely on the intellectuals he surrounded himself with jefferson, adam's, hamilton, for decisions. His trustworthiness is considered to be foundational to the success of the union staying together in the early years. He had near unanimous support which was fairly critical. But he did that by not falling too far to either side, it seems.

I will not defend hamilton, except to say that he was a staunch advocate of preserving the credit of the US government by pushing for repayment of it's debt. He was a very successful businessman who worked his way up from nothing, but his ideas I for the most part disagree with.

[The Wrath]

Do you have any examples of Thomas Jefferson slandering George Washington and/or John Adams in mind? I know that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were heated political rivals. However, even then they still maintained a frequent epistolary relationship where they discussed political philosophy. Thomas Jefferson was also subjected to much slander himself at the hands of his opponents. He was repeatedly (and falsely) accused of being an atheist.

Jefferson circulated rumors that Washington was senile, when he disagreed with him regarding Jay's Treaty. And he paid a newspaper writer to libel against John Adams. They rekindled their friendship starting sometime around 1812, if I'm not mistaken, but Jefferson's misdeeds caused them to not talk to each other for years before that. It wasn't until Benjamin Rush decided to play match-maker that the stage was set for forgiveness.

Notwithstanding any flaws, the achievements of the founding fathers were monumental in the context of their time and are among some of the greatest achievements ever accomplished by any civilization. The essential characteristics of the lives of Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison are all nothing less than magnificent.

I agree, and this is why I still consider them great men. I can forgive their political flaws because, as you and others have mentioned, their politics were light years ahead of what existed at the time, despite their flaws. But I find it difficult to forgive the moral shortcomings of Jefferson and the attempted political opportunism of Hamilton.

Actually, they did get into a roe where they stopped speaking for ,I think 12 years, but made up later in life.

With jefferson, it helps to remember that he was a rediculously voracious writer. Princeton's complete works is like 60 volumes of small print. I am not certain he ever had a thought in his head that he did not put on paper. It is easy in that much quantity to find contradictions and ideas not necessarily well thought out. He was also a poor public speaker with a stutter which made holding office a little difficult for him.

Washington was of impeccable character, no doubt, but he was a general and man of action wise enough to rely on the intellectuals he surrounded himself with jefferson, adam's, hamilton, for decisions. His trustworthiness is considered to be foundational to the success of the union staying together in the early years. He had near unanimous support which was fairly critical. But he did that by not falling too far to either side, it seems.

I will not defend hamilton, except to say that he was a staunch advocate of preserving the credit of the US government by pushing for repayment of it's debt. He was a very successful businessman who worked his way up from nothing, but his ideas I for the most part disagree with.

I see your point about Jefferson, but it doesn't explain why he was willing to slander his supposed best friend.

I also agree with your assessment of Washington, and I have decided that he is probably my favorite of the lot. He was the only president we've ever had who wasn't a party president, and he did the honorable thing by retiring after 2 terms, in order to dispel the impression that he wanted to become a monarch. That set the example for presidents that was not broken until FDR, who truly did have dictatorial aspirations.

[The Wrath]

This is a little off-topic but, regarding the Adams-Jefferson rivalry, I think that their story of reconciliation and eventual death is the greatest story of the post-Revolutionary era. No fiction author could have given the fairy-tale ending that their real life deaths produced.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Moose

[Mimpy]

This is a little off-topic but, regarding the Adams-Jefferson rivalry, I think that their story of reconciliation and eventual death is the greatest story of the post-Revolutionary era. No fiction author could have given the fairy-tale ending that their real life deaths produced.

Abigail Adams actually revived their friendship through letters to Jefferson. It was pretty amazing.

[aequalsa]

I see your point about Jefferson, but it doesn't explain why he was willing to slander his supposed best friend.

Oh...the slander went both ways. They got very bitter towards one another but died the best of friends. I take that to be a testement as to how seriously they took ideas. They were not just words, they uderstood that the ideas impacted the world...that disagreements could be life or death issues.

I also agree with your assessment of Washington, and I have decided that he is probably my favorite of the lot. He was the only president we've ever had who wasn't a party president, and he did the honorable thing by retiring after 2 terms, in order to dispel the impression that he wanted to become a monarch. That set the example for presidents that was not broken until FDR, who truly did have dictatorial aspirations.

While he had very a very excellent character, I don't think it entirely fair to compare him to Jefferson or Adams. For one, he really had no political rivals and two, he wasn't an intellectual on par with the other two. He had a lot of practical wisdom from what I see, but a fairly small amount of formal education, by comparison to them.

They have plenty of faults which are ok to consider in a historical context, but from the aspect of hero worship, I don't recommend it. Their stengthes and achievments so far outweigh their shortcomings, it is a disservice to focus on the faults in significant degrees. The act of admiration for me is similiar in this respect to an artist. Your sense of life will determine what traits you focus on in the same way an artist can choose whether or not to include the blemish on a beautiful woman's face in his painting.

Thomas Jefferson wrote 60 volumes of works, mostly dealing with philosophy and politics, while he founded a university, helped found the greatest country ever concieved based on individual liberty, and the became secretary of state and then vice-president and eventually, president of it. In his free time he invented a number of things, acted as architect for his own house, and studied in great detail fauna and native tribes in his area....Now let's focus on how he said some mean things to a friend of his once. Doesn't seem real important now, does it?

Viewed in context, it just isn't that bad. And not relevent at all to looking up to the man. He was a hero. No question about it. When looking at him as a Hero, you focus on his achievments as inspiration. As a historian, you focus on the whole, but the whole kept in context.

[The Wrath]

Abigail Adams actually revived their friendship through letters to Jefferson. It was pretty amazing.

Abigail Adams sent him a letter when his daughter died, which Jefferson took as his cue to bring up his old grievances. They ended up exchanging some rather harsh words with each other, and did not communicate again until after Benjamin Rush had managed to get them writing each other.

Oh...the slander went both ways. They got very bitter towards one another but died the best of friends. I take that to be a testement as to how seriously they took ideas. They were not just words, they uderstood that the ideas impacted the world...that disagreements could be life or death issues.

While he had very a very excellent character, I don't think it entirely fair to compare him to Jefferson or Adams. For one, he really had no political rivals and two, he wasn't an intellectual on par with the other two. He had a lot of practical wisdom from what I see, but a fairly small amount of formal education, by comparison to them.

They have plenty of faults which are ok to consider in a historical context, but from the aspect of hero worship, I don't recommend it. Their stengthes and achievments so far outweigh their shortcomings, it is a disservice to focus on the faults in significant degrees. The act of admiration for me is similiar in this respect to an artist. Your sense of life will determine what traits you focus on in the same way an artist can choose whether or not to include the blemish on a beautiful woman's face in his painting.

Thomas Jefferson wrote 60 volumes of works, mostly dealing with philosophy and politics, while he founded a university, helped found the greatest country ever concieved based on individual liberty, and the became secretary of state and then vice-president and eventually, president of it. In his free time he invented a number of things, acted as architect for his own house, and studied in great detail fauna and native tribes in his area....Now let's focus on how he said some mean things to a friend of his once. Doesn't seem real important now, does it?

Viewed in context, it just isn't that bad. And not relevent at all to looking up to the man. He was a hero. No question about it. When looking at him as a Hero, you focus on his achievments as inspiration. As a historian, you focus on the whole, but the whole kept in context.

Good post, and I pretty much agree. It just irks me a little bit that we are taught to look at these men as though they were perfect. One need only visit Washington D.C. to see how they are given the status of Greek gods. They certainly deserve to be honored, but I think it benefits everyone to have a more realistic picture which also includes their faults. Honor them for their great achievements, but try to recognize their shortcomings so that we may avoid falling into the same traps.

[aequalsa]

Good post, and I pretty much agree. It just irks me a little bit that we are taught to look at these men as though they were perfect. One need only visit Washington D.C. to see how they are given the status of Greek gods. They certainly deserve to be honored, but I think it benefits everyone to have a more realistic picture which also includes their faults. Honor them for their great achievements, but try to recognize their shortcomings so that we may avoid falling into the same traps.

Well, recognize their faults, but recognize them in the proper context of their zeitgeist and against the backdrop of their incredible achievments. To focus on them as anything more is to hate the good for being the good. An emotional state we would do well to avoid at all costs.

[Bold Standard]

It just irks me a little bit that we are taught to look at these men as though they were perfect.

You must not have gone to a public high school..

[mrocktor]

(...) and created not just the best country of their time, but also the most perfect one ever.

Your argument is clear, but this is exactly what they did

[LaszloWalrus]

You must not have gone to a public high school..

Or a private one either.

[The Wrath]

I went to a private school, and we were taught to pretty much worship them.

And when I say we are "taught to" have a certain attitude about them, I mean our culture as a whole, rather than just the education system.

[LaszloWalrus]

I meant that jokingly.

I went to a private school, and we were most definitely NOT taught to worship them, and that's an understatement.

[The Wrath]

I knew it was a joke because, otherwise, you'd be suggesting that I didn't go to school at all. "Worship" is a bit strong, but my classes on the American Revolution certainly didn't discuss any of the mistakes that they made.

[Dorian]

One of the arguments I don't like to hear is "that's not what the founders intended!"

I certainly respect their accomplishments, but I don't think they were flawless men. I always try to avoid this argument, and call it out as a invalid argument when used against me but most people don't respond lightly to that.

People go on and on about what they think the founders intended when instead I think they should be focusing on how to solve their current problem based on facts directly relevant to that situation. It doesn't hurt to look at history, but I do not think it should be an end all argument.

[The Wrath]

I've also found that to be true. I hate it when people use that as a reason for their beliefs. If you're arguing that something is Constitutional, it makes sense. But if you're arguing that something is moral, it is absolutely irrelevant. Very often, when people use that argument, I will retort by saying, "then the Founders were wrong."

[DavidOdden]

One of the arguments I don't like to hear is "that's not what the founders intended!"

But that argument is, in my experience, always used to refer to a political and legal question, ultimately reducing the question of constitutionality. If you accept the idea of "rule of law" and especially the idea of an overriding framework of principles that constrain possible laws, we need to know what the Constitution says, so we have to know what is meant, and one theory on the topic of what the Constitution "means" is that we need to know what the authors intended.

[Whoisjohngalt]

Do you have any examples of Thomas Jefferson slandering George Washington and/or John Adams in mind? I know that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were heated political rivals. However, even then they still maintained a frequent epistolary relationship where they discussed political philosophy. Thomas Jefferson was also subjected to much slander himself at the hands of his opponents. He was repeatedly (and falsely) accused of being an atheist.

I don't know the source, but this a popular quote of Jefferson's:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

[DarkWaters]

I don't know the source, but this a popular quote of Jefferson's:

That is a good quote but it still does not imply that he was an atheist. However, if Thomas Jefferson were alive and well today, he probably would be.