To anyone tasked with reading the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, be warned there is potential to find difficulty believing that the fate of the United States was so entirely unpredictable just centuries ago. The band of men that lived during this revolutionary generation and who are largely responsible for the freedom we have today, viewed the newborn nation as an experiment that would more than likely fail. Despite the incredible world power the United States has become, the beginning of this experiment, which was the first revolt of its caliber that the world had yet to see, seemed to face new challenges every day that threatened all that the colonists had strived for. As outlined by Joseph Ellis, these challenges and the differences that caused major polarization in this early nation, were met with some prophetic solutions as well as destructive ones, both at home and overseas, that shaped the spirit and structure of America well into modern day.
No matter if you were located in the colonies or overseas, all were aware of the plentiful resources and limitless potential available in North America. So, while the founding fathers of our nation had an abundance of land, they ultimately lacked the knowledge, experience, and unity to properly utilize their newfound haven from Europe. In fact, even the blessing that ample land appeared to be, actually made these struggles in governance even more intense due to the distance between settlements as well as the varying ecosystems and climates. Unfortunately, the size of the continent did not inspire fear or respect from powers overseas and abroad. Even today many countries look down on the American way of life, and according to Joseph Ellis, “The term American, like the term democrat, began as an epithet, the former referring to an inferior, provincial creature, the latter to one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses,” (Ellis, 10). No nation or civilization had ever attempted a revolt of this magnitude and all the other attempts in the past had been futile and regressive. Another factor that created deniability with these foreign countries, according to accounts from Thomas Jefferson who spent ample time in Europe and as secretary of state, was the massive debts that America had accrued with Amsterdam. So, it is no wonder that England and the other imperial powers did not have faith in the American movement since they could not even support themselves financially. Furthermore, colonists who were born in North America and those who had forged a home there were seen as lesser Englishmen, more on par with animals or subordinates in the eyes of the European powers. Perhaps it was the English pride and arrogance that led them to not pursue the Continental Army with more vigor and ultimately led to their surrender and failure during these formative years.
Another factor that was unavoidable and still presented a challenge, was the time frame that these revolutionaries were facing. As stated by Ellis, “The creation of a separate American nation occurred suddenly rather than gradually, in revolutionary rather than evolutionary fashion,” (Ellis, 5). The individuals responsible for tearing away from England were forced to make world-altering decisions all during the span of the latter half of one century, thankfully uncanny luck played a decent role in the creation of the separation. However much the founding brothers wish they could have avoided this issue, one of the most prominent and looming adversaries of the American spirit was slavery. No institution since has created as much pain, turmoil, and division among people, yet just centuries ago it was something that the majority of American citizens could not seem to let go of. Out of sight and out of mind seemed to be the route revolutionaries were taking in handling slavery, no matter how much it disagreed with everything this nation was built around—the more real truth was that this nation was built by the money that these laborers brought in. There seemed to be no way for the revolutionary generation to gain their independence from England, create a united front, and have the first biracial population the world had seen, so instead of being proactive about abolishing the slave trade, they decided to put it off for the following, more cohesive generation to arbitrate.
In relation, the last and most oppressive issue in this newborn nation was the lack of a national identity and mistrust in the idea of a unified national power. The early citizens who had directly seen the abuse of power in their home country had the absolute right to be terrified of another monarchical or dictator rule. It was well within the scope of rationality to initially reject a centralized power, and that is exactly what happened. In fact, as Ellis puts it, “the dominant intellectual legacy of the revolution, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, stigmatized all concentrated political power and even, its most virulent forms, depicted any energetic expression of governmental authority as an alien force that all responsible citizens out to repudiate and, if possible, overthrow,” (Ellis, 11). It was in the blood of this nation to revolt and reject centralized power and quite frankly it is a miracle this country made the transition rather seamlessly. Luckily, it was guided by eight of the most well-known and prominent political leaders of all time who took drastic measures, some effective and some regretful, to try and stabilize the nation throughout its scrabble for order.
In attempt to bring stability to the newborn United States, the founding fathers had to come together and try to guide a nation that was so feverishly against control. A dichotomy like this was bound to create some tensions and one of the first examples of this pressure involved the Compromise of 1790. There were varying ideals on how to begin paying back domestic debts, all of which incited fear of too much centralized power. No progress was being made on the economic front as well as choosing a location for the nation’s capital. Alexander Hamilton wanted the federal government to obtain all of the state’s debts that had developed during the Revolutionary War and according to Ellis, “Hamilton agreed to use his influence to assure that the permanent residence of the national capital would be on the Potomac River,” (Ellis, 49). Hamilton was willing to bargain with the most important district the country had yet to see in order to move the nation toward the economic policies he had his faith in. This compromise, while effective in reaching a decision that would break the paralysis in America’s infant economy, created huge distrust among the citizens who, as Ellis stated, “clearly believed that some kind of secret deal had been made to effect the switching of the votes necessary to break the long-standing deadlock,” (Ellis 50). However much distrust was created, this compromise was still incredibly effective not only in deciding how to rid the nation of debt, but in choosing a location for the capital of the United States.
In order to keep this fledgling union together, many compromises were made that may seem abhorrent in the modern day. The greatest of these compromises surrounded and coddled the institution of slavery. Despite New England and the northern states being almost completely independent from slavery, it still was not enough for the masses to come together and effect change during the most pivotal time in our nation’s history. The Sectional Compromise was, as Ellis puts it, “an exchange of votes whereby New England agreed to back an extension of the slave trade for twenty years in return for support from the Deep South for making the federal regulation of commerce a mere majority vote,” (Ellis 94). Instead of being proactive about respecting the true meaning of American freedom, the fathers of the constitution put in a clause that actually prohibited the destruction of the slavery institution until 1
808. However, much like most discussion of slavery back in these times, no direct verbiage about enslaved African Americans is in the final constitution as these warriors of freedom felt it should be talked about behind closed doors and Joseph Ellis states rather bluntly and truthfully that, “slavery was too important and controversial a subject to talk about publicly,” (Ellis, 84). These compromises were a huge disaster not only for the enslaved people at the time, but for years to come with prejudices reaching into modern day that could have been squelched in the early days of our nation.
Adjusting from a centuries-old monarchy to a continent that had no identity and no idea how to form one, is nearly unfathomable in the modern era. It is no wonder why the first citizens of America rejected any form of lawmaking or centralization of power and why their primary desire was for self-governance. It was a strike of luck that brought George Washington into the public eye surrounded by so much respect and admiration, perhaps the only common denominator of the growing American identity was the unanimous love for their first leader. He faced an impossible job with incredible grace and despite the few critics of his leadership, selecting Washington as the first president was the best move the nation could have made toward cohesion. This assertion is supported by all that Washington himself supported, such as elections that gave the people and states the power they craved, as well as being a huge advocate of severing ties with foreign powers as quickly and painlessly as possible. However, every rose has it’s thorn and Jay’s Treaty could be seen exactly as Washington’s thorn. It seemed retroactive and treasonous to the American people that their fearless leader would cooperate and in fact make a deal with England, the very power they were trying to escape from. The citizens were outraged, but no one was more upset than Thomas Jefferson who fought to have the treaty destroyed, however, he knew like many others that opposition to George Washington was never successful. Joseph Ellis remarked on the reaction of Jefferson who said, “Jay’s Treaty had passed, he concluded, because of the gigantic prestige of Washington,” (Ellis, 138). This comment and many others like it sparked the rift between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington at a time when this nation needed its founding family intact more than ever.
Joseph Ellis’ description of America’s uprising as a “decade-long shouting match” could also have the title of a decade-long brother’s quarrel. Respecting the order that Ellis places his book, the first “sibling” rivalry that will be discussed is that between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. This fatal rift was caused not so much by differing political parties, but by honor and character or lack thereof. As stated so eloquently by Ellis, “Whereas Hamilton’s central charge against Jefferson was that he was a utopian visionary with a misguided set of political principles, his core criticism of Burr was that he was wholly devoid of any principles at all,” (Ellis, 42). While comments like this eventually led to his death by Burr, Hamilton was strong in his assertions of character and defended his comments to the death via duel. He was not alone in his opinion of Jefferson, which brings us back to the disagreements between himself and Washington over Jay’s Treaty and many other feuds. Despite both being Virginians, no love through heritage could survive a battle between political parties. Washington was famously against the entire institution of parties, but his ideals had the propensity to align with the Federalists. Jefferson on the other hand has unknowingly created a whole cluster of historians who coin themselves Jeffersonians and like their muse, fear a centralized federal government and believe in resting all power with the people. It is rather ironic that Jefferson served as Washington’s secretary of state since the two disagreed on the majority of issues that would come through the cabinet such as the Whiskey Rebellion. According to Ellis, the Whiskey Rebellion was, “a popular insurgency in four counties of western Pennsylvania protesting an excise tax on whiskey,” (Ellis, 140). Washington responded to this matter in a responsible fashion by ordering the militia to destroy the riot, and this absolutely outraged Jefferson. He compared Washington to a lunatic, a king, and someone who was being swayed to destroy liberty in its entirety. This reaction was rather extreme, but in the early days of a country so prone to collapse—it is difficult to deem a response excessive or unnecessary.
Thomas Jefferson collected quite a few enemies on the road to political prestige, joining both Hamilton and Washington, is the second President, John Adams. As much as Washington tried to avoid it, along with his summation of office came the basis for the two political parties that we still acknowledge today. Much like Washington and Jefferson, Adams and Jefferson rose through the ranks together and were united as friends throughout the revolution, and Ellis goes as far as to say, “Adams and Jefferson bonded at a personal and emotional level that defied their merely philosophical differences,” (Ellis, 164). Adams was the Vice President to George Washington and the natural successor to the executive spot, it would be fair and accurate to say that Jefferson was set to follow Adams despite the fact they both competed for the election. With Jefferson as his right-hand man, Adams was desperate to institute a bipartisan executive presence within a strong central government but had no idea how extreme Jefferson had become in his Republic ideals. It became clear to Adams after the French Revolution that the dear friend he once knew had become overzealous and blood thirsty when it came to the spirit of ’76 he needed so feverishly to protect. In fact, in order to protect his ideals, he essentially became the leader of the Republican party, in direct opposition to his Federalist superior Adams. According to Ellis, by 1797 the polarizing parties Washington had stressed to avoid were in full-swing and can be essentially traced back to Jefferson and his desire to destroy the government that Adams had set out to develop. This staunch opposition is perhaps what caused Adams to sign the Alien & Sedition Acts which only deepened the sores and divide between the Federalists and Republicans. According to Ellis, “The passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, then the creation of the New Army, only confirmed that the Federalist agenda violated the central tenets of the American Revolution, conjuring up memories of Parliament’s restrictions on the colonial press,” (Ellis, 199). This act alone would have been enough to begin a chaotic battle of ideals had it not already been in effect and was enough to swing the majority to the Republican team when election season came again. Jefferson won the third presidency and ruined many friendships in the process.
These feuds speak volumes about the American nation and identity that was forming and transforming during the Revolutionary generation. While the split into separate parties was and still is seen by individuals as a curse and means of destruction to the United States, it speaks more to the true meaning behind the Revolution. The fact that Jefferson and his followers even had the freedom to begin the separation meant that the liberty and representative government they sought was well on its way to modern day democracy. Without all of the challenges, mistakes, rebellions and riots, America would not be the dominating world power that it stands as today. A decent portion of the success of these eight brothers who molded our world could be handed to luck, but as Ellis states, “American revolutionaries also talked as if they were actors in a historical drama whose script had already been written by the gods,” (Ellis, 1). Perhaps th
e miracle that is the United States really was cosmically destined to happen or maybe the fathers of our country just used their common American sense.