The American Revolutionary War: The Founding Fathers

Figure 1.--

Americans have a continuing interest with the Founding Fathers. Books about them continue to appear on the best seller list. A range of issues emerge. One is who was the most important. During the 2008 presidential election, Gov. Palin was ridiculed for suggesting Washington, the thought we suppose being that she couldn't think of any others. In fact, however, Washington was the one indispensable figure. He was not the deepest thinker or most eloquent writer, but without Washington's military leadership, the Revolution would not have succeeded. Another question that many Americans ask today is how we could have so many brilliant men when we were a small country and why today when we are a much larger and better educated people find ourselves with leaders who do not seem to measure up to the Founding Fathers. Some argue that the current political system does not permit men like the Founding Fathers to succeed in the political process. Motivation is an unansweered question. The Founding Fathers are often idealized and placed on a lofty pedestal. These men, however, were not saints. They acted in what they saw as their own self interest. Yet they took enormous risks in launching the Revolution. There was no surety of success, in fact failure was more likely and nearly occurred in 1776. Many would have probably been hanged. Yet they risked all out of a fascinating mixture of self interest and personal conviction. One common thread among the founding fathers is the degree to which they had been influenced by the European Enlightenment, including both English and French thinkers. For much of our history, considerable deference, even reverence has been accorded the founding fathers. In our modern age there has been tendency to find faults with the Founding Fathers. Washington and Jefferson in particular has been condemned for holding slaves. Franklin for philandering. Adams for being plodding and humorless. Hamilton for his attachment to the propertied class. Hancock has been depicted as an unprincipled fop. It is interesting how the Founding Fathers looked back 2,000 years to the Roman Republic for insights. Yet modern critics believe there is nothing to be gained from the Founding Fathers even though we are only separated by less than 250 years. One author describes them as 'a querulous and divided group that did not and cannot offer the guidance that we might wish' today. [Sehat] Part of the reason for this is the socialist-oriented academics that see capitalism and the division of powers enshrined in the Constitution as a serious impediment to their acquisition of power economic leveling goals.

Biographies

One of the most notable observations when studying the great figures of the Revolution is the number of almost unbelievably talented and educated people in America that decided to separate from Britain and today are known as the founding fathers. It is almost unfathomable that such a small population as the American colonies could have produced the number of talented, deeply thoughtful individuals to lead their Revolution. Many were amazingly well educated, but one noted scholar enphasizes that they were not sophistcates in the sence of the British political and military leaders they faced. HBC has developed biographies on some of the individuals involved in the Revolution. The early American presidents were involved (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison). Another president (Jackson) fought in the War as a boy. Two important monarchs (George III and Louis XV). Also surprisingly a leading Roman orator (Cicero) was amazingly influential, especially in devising the Constitution which followed the War.

Importance

One is who was the most important. During the 2008 presidential election, Gov. Palin was ridiculed for suggesting Washington, the thought we suppose being that she couldn't think of any others. In fact, however, Washington was the one indispensable figure. He was not the deepest thinker or most eloquent writer, but without Washington's military leadership, the Revolution would not have succeeded.

Brillance

Another question that many Americans ask today is how we could have so many brilliant men when we were a small country and why today when we are a much larger and better educated people find ourselves with leaders who do not seem to measure up to the Founding Fathers. Some argue that the current political system does not permit men like the Founding Fathers to succeed in the political process.

Motivation

Motivation is an unansweered question. The Founding Fathers are often idealized and placed on a lofty pedestal. These men, however, were not saints. They acted in what they saw as their own self interest. Yet they took enormous risks in launching the Revolution. There was no surety of success, in fact failure was more likely and nearly occurred in 1776. Many would have probably been hanged. Yet they risked all out of a fascinating mixture of self interest and personal conviction. One common thread among the founding fathers is the degree to which they had been influenced by the European Enlightenment, including both English and French thinkers. For much of our history, considerable deference, even reverence has been accorded the founding fathers. For much of the 20th centuty, American historiuographt has bee powerfully influnced by Columbia Univeroty historian Charles A. Beard. He provided the most widely accepted assessment on the motivation of the Founding Fathers. I recall how lionized Beard still was when I was in college (early 1960s). His central thesis was that the founders were primarily motivated by economic self-interest, notably their staunch opposition to British taxation. [Beard] He became an intellectual leader of the Progressive Mobement and collaborated on widely used history textbooks. The Beard thesis was not seriously challenged for half a century. The principal problem with the Beard economic thesis is that most of the Founding Fathers were well-to-do men who were risking everything to wage a revolution against the most powerful nation on earth. And a revolution that had poor prospects of suceeding. The most notable response was offered by Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn who plunged into 18th-century source materials. Rather than just pursuing personal economic interests. Bailyn found the colonists as deeply principled and driven by radical Enligtenment ideas about republicanism and liberty in the face of encroaching British power. [Bailyn. Ideological] Bailyn explained that his effort to understand their perilous break with Britain led 'to this whole expansion of their ideological commitments as they grope to explain what it is they’re trying to preserve and what it is they’re trying to oppose. By the time you get to 1776, there’s an elaborate structure of thought that's worked out that justifies this and that really sets American constitutional thought on its path. [Bailyn. C-Span] Like Beard, Bailyn has influenced another generation of scholars. He provided, a new nore nuanced framework for understandung the Revolution and the Founding fathers.

Faults

Sources

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967).

Bailyn, Bernard. C-Span interview (2003).

Beard, Charles A. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913).

Created: 3:49 PM 4/8/2022
Last updated: 3:49 PM 4/8/2022