Introduction
In "Founding Brothers," historian Joseph J. Ellis offers a fresh perspective on the early years of the United States and the men who shaped its foundation. Rather than presenting the Founding Fathers as infallible heroes, Ellis portrays them as complex individuals grappling with unprecedented challenges. This book delves into the personal relationships, political debates, and crucial decisions that defined the birth of a nation.
Ellis focuses on key moments and interactions between figures like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. Through these stories, we gain insight into the human side of these legendary figures and the high-stakes nature of their endeavors.
The Revolutionary Gamble
The American Revolution was a bold and risky venture. In 1775, thirteen British colonies in North America decided to break away from the most powerful empire in the world. A year later, they declared their independence, setting the stage for a conflict that would shape the course of history.
The odds were stacked against the revolutionaries. The British army and navy were far superior in strength and resources. Victory for the Americans came only after years of struggle, with several near-defeats along the way. But for the revolutionary generation, this wasn't just a fight against British rule – it was a challenge to the very course of human history.
The founders saw themselves as embarking on a grand experiment in self-governance. They were attempting to create something that had rarely existed before: a republic where citizens ruled themselves through elected representatives. This was in stark contrast to the monarchies that dominated the world at the time.
For the revolutionaries, the stakes couldn't have been higher. They believed that the success or failure of their experiment would have profound implications for the future of humanity. This sense of historical importance fueled their determination and shaped their actions in the years to come.
The Importance of Virtue in a Republic
At the heart of the founders' political philosophy was the concept of republicanism. This ideology held that a truly free state could only exist when citizens actively participated in their own governance. But for a republic to succeed, both its leaders and its citizens needed to possess a particular quality: virtue.
In the context of 18th-century political thought, virtue meant more than just personal morality. It encompassed a commitment to the common good, a willingness to put the needs of the community above individual interests. The founders believed that this kind of civic virtue was essential for the survival of their new nation.
They looked to examples from history, particularly ancient Rome, to understand why republics often failed. The conclusion they drew was that when citizens and leaders became corrupt or overly self-interested, it led to the downfall of free societies. Despots could rule through force and bribery, but a republic required a populace dedicated to higher ideals.
This emphasis on virtue helps explain why the founders held each other to such high standards. They saw any moral failing or selfish action as a potential threat to the entire republican project. It wasn't just about personal disagreements – in their minds, the very future of liberty was at stake in their debates and decisions.
Alexander Hamilton: The Little Lion
One of the most dynamic and controversial figures of the founding era was Alexander Hamilton. Known as the "little lion" due to his small stature and fierce demeanor, Hamilton was a driving force in shaping the early American government.
Born out of wedlock in the West Indies, Hamilton rose from humble beginnings to become a key advisor to George Washington during the Revolutionary War. His experiences shaped his political views, particularly his belief in the importance of a strong central government and a robust financial system.
Hamilton's vision for America was deeply influenced by his time in New York City. He saw urban centers as the future of the nation, places where industry and commerce could flourish. This put him at odds with those who envisioned a more agrarian republic.
As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton proposed bold plans to establish the nation's financial credibility and promote economic growth. His ideas, however, often met with fierce opposition from those who feared too much centralized power.
Hamilton's combative nature and unwavering commitment to his principles earned him both devoted allies and bitter enemies. His rivalry with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would shape much of the political landscape in the early republic.
The Debt Crisis and Hamilton's Solution
In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the United States faced a severe financial crisis. The young nation had accumulated massive debts to fund the war effort, owing around $80 million to various creditors. This was an enormous sum for a country that only collected about $3 million in annual revenue.
The problem was compounded by the fact that each of the thirteen states had its own debt obligations. Some states, like Virginia, were in a position to pay off their debts, while others, like Rhode Island, were on the brink of financial collapse. This disparity threatened to create economic divisions within the new nation.
Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, proposed a bold solution: the federal government would assume all state debts, consolidating them into a single national debt. This plan, known as "assumption," had several aims:
- It would improve the nation's credit-worthiness by presenting a united front to creditors.
- It would make it easier to secure loans at lower interest rates.
- It would strengthen the federal government by giving it more financial authority.
- It would promote national unity by sharing the burden of war debts across all states.
Hamilton believed this approach would not only solve the immediate crisis but also lay the groundwork for a strong, centralized economic system that could drive future growth and development.
James Madison's Opposition
While Hamilton saw his debt plan as crucial for the nation's future, it met with strong opposition, particularly from James Madison of Virginia. Madison, though small in stature and unassuming in manner, was a formidable political thinker and strategist.
Madison's objections to Hamilton's plan were both practical and ideological:
Fairness: Virginia had already paid off much of its war debt. Madison argued it was unfair to ask Virginians to then help pay off the debts of other states.
States' Rights: The plan would give the federal government significant power over state economies, which Madison saw as a dangerous centralization of authority.
Historical Parallels: Madison drew comparisons to British rule, suggesting that Hamilton's plan would create a system where state taxes flowed to a distant central government, much like the colonial system they had just fought to overthrow.
Underlying these specific objections was a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the American republic. Madison, like many Southerners, envisioned a more decentralized nation where states retained significant autonomy. Hamilton's plan threatened this vision, pushing the country toward a more unified, centrally-governed structure.
This debate between Hamilton and Madison represented more than just a policy disagreement. It was a clash between two competing visions for America's future, setting the stage for political battles that would shape the nation for years to come.
The Compromise of 1790
The standoff between Hamilton and Madison over the debt plan threatened to derail the young government. Enter Thomas Jefferson, who played a crucial role in brokering a compromise.
Jefferson, who had recently returned from serving as ambassador to France, recognized the importance of resolving the nation's debt crisis. He also understood the political sensitivities involved, particularly for his fellow Virginians like Madison.
In the summer of 1790, Jefferson hosted a dinner at his residence, inviting both Hamilton and Madison. This famous dinner became the setting for a pivotal compromise in American history.
The key to breaking the deadlock was linking the debt issue to another contentious topic: the location of the nation's capital. Southerners, led by Madison, had long advocated for a capital along the Potomac River, seeing it as symbolic of the nation's future expansion westward. Northerners had resisted this idea, preferring locations closer to existing population centers.
The compromise that emerged from Jefferson's dinner had two main components:
Madison agreed to support Hamilton's assumption plan, allowing the federal government to take on state debts.
In exchange, Hamilton and his Northern allies agreed to support moving the capital to a location on the Potomac River (what would become Washington, D.C.).
This agreement, known as the Compromise of 1790, resolved two major issues facing the new government:
- It provided a solution to the debt crisis, establishing a stronger financial foundation for the nation.
- It settled the contentious debate over the capital's location, addressing concerns about regional influence.
The compromise demonstrated the founders' ability to find middle ground on difficult issues, even when it meant setting aside personal preferences for the sake of national unity. It also highlighted the interconnected nature of political issues in the early republic, where regional interests often played a significant role in shaping policy decisions.
While the compromise resolved immediate problems, it didn't eliminate the underlying ideological differences between Hamilton and Madison. These differences would continue to shape political debates in the years to come, eventually leading to the formation of the first political parties in the United States.
Benjamin Franklin and the Slavery Question
As the new nation took shape, one glaring contradiction threatened to undermine its founding principles: the continued existence of slavery. This issue came to the forefront in the final days of Benjamin Franklin's life.
Franklin, the elder statesman of the revolutionary generation, had long been troubled by the institution of slavery. In his youth, he had briefly owned slaves but had come to see the practice as morally reprehensible and incompatible with the ideals of the revolution.
In 1790, at the age of 84 and near death, Franklin made one last significant contribution to the cause of liberty. He signed a petition to Congress calling for the immediate abolition of slavery. This act was more than just a personal statement; it was a challenge to the nation to live up to its professed values.
Franklin's petition argued that the Declaration of Independence's assertion that "all men are created equal" was not mere rhetoric but a statement of fact. He contended that slavery was fundamentally incompatible with the principles of the new republic.
This final act of Franklin's life forced the nation to confront an issue that many had been trying to avoid. It shattered what Ellis calls the "great silence" on slavery that had settled over American politics.
The Great Silence on Slavery
The issue of slavery had been carefully sidestepped during the drafting of the Constitution in 1787. This avoidance was rooted in several factors:
Self-interest: Many of the founders, including prominent figures like Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves themselves.
Political necessity: There was a fear that addressing slavery directly would fracture the fragile union between Northern and Southern states.
Economic concerns: Slavery was deeply entrenched in the Southern economy, and many believed that rapid abolition would cause economic chaos.
Racial prejudice: Even many opponents of slavery held racist views and struggled to envision a society with true racial equality.
The result was a conspicuous absence of the word "slavery" in the Constitution, despite its profound impact on American society. Instead, euphemisms like "other persons" were used to refer to enslaved individuals.
This silence was not just a matter of omission; it was a deliberate political strategy. Many of the founders, including James Madison, believed that slavery would gradually die out on its own due to economic factors. They argued that pushing the issue too hard in the early years of the republic would jeopardize the entire American experiment.
Franklin's petition challenged this strategy of avoidance. It forced Congress to openly debate the issue of slavery, breaking the gentlemen's agreement to keep the topic off the table.
The Congressional Debate on Slavery
Franklin's petition sparked a heated debate in Congress. It exposed the deep divisions within the nation over the issue of slavery and raised fundamental questions about the meaning of American liberty.
Supporters of the petition argued that the continued existence of slavery was a betrayal of the revolution's ideals. They pointed out the hypocrisy of a nation founded on principles of liberty and equality that still allowed human bondage.
Opponents, primarily from Southern states, reacted with alarm. Some even threatened secession if serious moves toward abolition were made. They argued that the Constitution protected their right to own slaves and that federal interference in the matter would violate states' rights.
James Madison, despite his personal misgivings about slavery, worked to defuse the situation. He argued that pushing for immediate abolition would tear the country apart. Instead, he advocated for a gradual approach, believing that economic forces would eventually make slavery unprofitable.
The result of this debate was a compromise that largely maintained the status quo. Congress agreed that the federal government would not interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed until at least 1808. This decision effectively kicked the can down the road, avoiding an immediate crisis but leaving the fundamental issue unresolved.
The Consequences of Compromise
The compromise on slavery had far-reaching consequences for the future of the United States:
It preserved the union in the short term, allowing the young nation to continue developing its institutions and economy without fracturing over the slavery issue.
However, it allowed slavery to become even more deeply entrenched in the Southern economy and society. Contrary to Madison's predictions, technological advances like the cotton gin made slavery more profitable, not less.
It set a precedent for avoiding direct confrontation on the slavery issue, a pattern that would continue for decades.
The moral contradiction of slavery existing in a nation dedicated to liberty became increasingly difficult to ignore, fueling growing tensions between North and South.
By delaying a resolution to the slavery question, the compromise ultimately made the eventual conflict more severe. The issue would eventually be resolved only through the devastation of the Civil War.
The founders' decision to compromise on slavery highlights the complex moral and political calculations they faced. While they achieved their immediate goal of preserving the union, they left future generations to grapple with the consequences of their choices.
The Duel: Hamilton and Burr
One of the most dramatic episodes in the early republic was the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1804. This event, which resulted in Hamilton's death, symbolized the personal and political tensions of the era.
Hamilton and Burr had a long history of rivalry and mutual distrust. Both were ambitious and talented, but they represented different approaches to politics:
- Hamilton was an ideological purist, committed to his vision of a strong central government and willing to make enemies in pursuit of his goals.
- Burr was more pragmatic and opportunistic, often changing allegiances to advance his career.
Their rivalry came to a head in 1804 when Burr, then the sitting Vice President, ran for governor of New York. Hamilton campaigned vigorously against him, seeing Burr as a dangerous and unprincipled politician.
After Burr's defeat, he learned of disparaging remarks Hamilton had made about him at a private dinner. Burr demanded an apology, which Hamilton refused to give. This led to Burr challenging Hamilton to a duel.
The duel took place on July 11, 1804, in Weehawken, New Jersey. Hamilton, who had lost his eldest son in a duel three years earlier, had resolved not to fire at Burr. However, when the duel commenced, Burr shot and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died the next day.
The death of Hamilton shocked the nation and effectively ended Burr's political career. It also marked the end of an era, as the practice of dueling to settle political disputes fell into disrepute.
The Hamilton-Burr duel illustrates several important aspects of the early republic:
The personal nature of politics: Political disagreements often became deeply personal, sometimes with fatal consequences.
The role of honor: For men of this era, personal reputation was paramount, often leading to extreme actions to defend one's honor.
The passionate nature of political disagreements: The founders saw their political battles as having profound consequences for the future of the nation.
The changing nature of political culture: The public revulsion at Hamilton's death helped accelerate the decline of dueling as an accepted practice among politicians.
The Adams-Jefferson Letters
One of the most remarkable reconciliations in American history occurred between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in their later years. These two founders, once close friends, had become bitter political rivals during their presidencies. However, in their retirement, they rekindled their friendship through a series of letters that provide invaluable insights into the revolutionary era.
The correspondence began in 1812, initiated by Benjamin Rush, a mutual friend who encouraged them to put aside their differences. Over the next 14 years, Adams and Jefferson exchanged 158 letters, discussing a wide range of topics including:
- Their reflections on the revolution and the early years of the republic
- Their views on contemporary politics and the future of the nation
- Philosophical discussions on religion, morality, and human nature
- Personal matters, including their health and families
These letters are remarkable for several reasons:
- They provide a firsthand account of the revolutionary era from two of its key participants, offering unique historical insights.
- They demonstrate the intellectual vitality of these aging founders, who continued to grapple with big ideas well into their eighties.
- They show the ability of these men to move past their political differences and rekindle a friendship based on mutual respect and shared experiences.
- They offer a model of civil discourse on difficult topics, with Adams and Jefferson often disagreeing but always maintaining a tone of respect and affection.
The Adams-Jefferson correspondence ended only with their deaths on July 4, 1826 – exactly 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This coincidence struck many Americans as deeply symbolic, marking the end of the revolutionary generation.
The Legacy of the Founding Generation
As the last of the founding generation passed away, Americans began to grapple with their legacy. The achievements of these men were undeniable:
- They had successfully broken away from the most powerful empire in the world.
- They had established a new form of government based on republican principles.
- They had navigated the difficult early years of the nation, setting precedents that would shape American politics for generations.
However, their legacy was also complex and sometimes contradictory:
- They had proclaimed the equality of all men while allowing slavery to continue.
- They had created a system of checks and balances but often engaged in bitter partisan battles.
- They had established a democracy but initially limited voting rights to property-owning white males.
As time passed, successive generations of Americans would struggle with how to interpret and apply the founders' vision to new challenges. Some would see the Constitution as a fixed document to be strictly interpreted, while others would view it as a living document that could evolve with the times.
The founders themselves were aware of the limitations of their work. They knew that they couldn't solve all of the nation's problems or predict all future challenges. Instead, they aimed to create a flexible system that could adapt to changing circumstances.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the founders' legacy was the example they set of vigorous debate, compromise, and commitment to the common good. They showed that it was possible for people with deep disagreements to work together for the sake of a larger cause.
Conclusion
Joseph Ellis's "Founding Brothers" provides a nuanced and human portrait of America's revolutionary generation. By focusing on key moments and relationships, Ellis helps us understand these historical figures not as marble statues or infallible demigods, but as real people grappling with unprecedented challenges.
Several key themes emerge from Ellis's account:
The experimental nature of the American project: The founders were acutely aware that they were attempting something new and risky. Their decisions were often made with a sense of uncertainty about the future.
The importance of compromise: Despite their strong convictions, the founders often had to find middle ground to keep the fragile new nation together.
The role of personal relationships: The interactions between these men – their friendships, rivalries, and reconciliations – played a crucial role in shaping the nation's early years.
The tension between ideals and reality: The founders struggled to reconcile their lofty principles with the practical realities of governance and existing social structures.
The long-term consequences of their decisions: Choices made in the heat of the moment often had far-reaching effects that the founders couldn't fully anticipate.
Ellis's work reminds us that the creation of the United States was not a foregone conclusion or a smooth process. It was the result of difficult debates, painful compromises, and bold gambles. The founders were not perfect, but their commitment to creating a new kind of nation – one based on principles of liberty and self-governance – set in motion a political experiment that continues to this day.
As we face our own political challenges in the present, we can draw inspiration from the founders' example. They show us the importance of vigorous debate, the need for compromise, and the value of putting the common good above personal interests. At the same time, their failures – particularly on issues like slavery – remind us that each generation must strive to live up to the nation's ideals and correct the mistakes of the past.
In the end, the story of the founding brothers is not just about a group of exceptional men who lived over two centuries ago. It's about the ongoing process of creating and maintaining a democratic society – a process that requires the active participation and commitment of each new generation of citizens.