My favorite historical period!
And my favorite people from that period…
Ben Franklin, for his combination of brilliance and charm (I’ll second **Martin Hyde’s ** recommendation of First American).
And Abigail Adams, for her influence, even as a woman. And for this quote, describing the era: “Times in which a genius should have wished to live.”
My least favorite: Probably Jefferson, for many reasons already stated, and for the fact that he seems so overrated by your average 'merican.
WTF? 
Now I have to hijack:
I’ve noticed a recent trend of people disparaging Thomas Jefferson in a sort of matter-of-fact way. This trend seems to have emerged within the past ten years or so. I do not understand it. Is it a fad now in academia that is being passed along to students? Is it because of the whole Sally Hemmings business? Is it because conservative historians are trying to elevate Hamilton and Adams at Jefferson’s expense?
I find it appalling that people are so ready to write off the guy who:
[ul][li]Wrote the Declaration of Independence (for crying out loud), thereby giving us our nation’s aspirational creed “all men are created equal”[/li][li]Was thoughtful enough when drafting the Declaration of Independence not to worship at the altar of property rights. (When listing humankind’s “inalienable rights,” he substituted “pursuit of happiness” in the earlier construction “life, liberty, and property.”)[/li][li]Lest it be forgotten, risked his neck quite literally by affixing his name to the Declaration of Independence[/li][li]Introduced the bill on religious liberty in Virginia before any other state in the union (or nation in the world) made that guarantee[/li][li]Eliminated the rule of primogeniture in Virginia in the face of opposition from the planter class[/li][li]Fought to establish separation of church and state[/li][li]Argued for a Bill of Rights[/li][li]Doubled the size of the nation with the Louisiana Purchase (in the face of opposition from the Federalists)[/li][li]Established the first state university upon the egalitarian principle that its doors would be open to the best minds, not just the scions of planters[/li][li]Fought to defend his idea of America as a meritocracy against those (like Hamilton) who seemed to be angling to create an American aristocracy[/li][li]Wrote the report which led to the creation of our current monetary system[/li][li]Brought the young nation’s first foreign war (with the north African pirates) to a successful conclusion[/li][li]Was a renaissance man, dabbling in architecture, agricultural technology, paleontology[/li][li](Though he did not give up his slaves, which would have bankrupted him) saw slavery as evil, and fought unsuccessfully to outlaw it in the western territories[/ul][/li]
Overrated? Overrated?? (Where the devil is that steam-coming-out-of-your-ears smiley?)
spoke- Meritocracy and Aristocracy are synonyms. No one reflects meritocracy better than Alexander Hamilton.
aristocracy
The first two describe the aristocracy they were fighting against, but the last three describe a meritocracy.
aristocracy
1561, from L.L. aristocratia, from Gk. aristokratia “government, rule of the best,” from aristos “best” (originally “most fitting,” from PIE *ar-isto-, superlative form of *ar- “to fit together”) + kratos “rule, power” (see -cracy). At first in a literal sense; meaning “rule by a privileged class (best-born or best-favored by fortune)” is from 1577 and became paramount 17c. Hence, the meaning “patrician order” (1651); and aristocratic “grand, stylish” (1845). In early use contrasted with monarchy; after Fr. and Amer. revolutions, with democracy. Aristocrat first recorded 1789, from Fr. aristocrate.
I also disagree with denigrating Jefferson. Without his ideological vision, we wouldn’t have become what we did. His personal hypocrisy is irrelevant to that. It’s simply an ad hominem meant to overshadow the argument. I like Jefferson just fine.
I tend to be more interested in real politik than ideological wrangling, but I definitely see the practical advantage of the ideologues.
Hamilton said some things which make me think he would not have minded at all an aristocracy of the first or second type (with him as a member, of course).
And perhaps I should have specified the difference between a pure meritocracy (Jefferson’s vision) and an essentially hereditary aristocracy of wealth - the better people (Hamilton’s vision).
I think this is ready to go from IMHO to GD.
I honestly can’t view anyone but George Washington as being the single most important Founding Father. Followed, closely, by the intellectual Jefferson, and the inflammatory Paine, and the lawerly Adams.
My favorite, however, is Ben Franklin. How can anyone not like Ben Franklin?
I wholeheartedly agree.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
[li]Was a renaissance man, dabbling in architecture, agricultural technology, paleontology[/li][/QUOTE]
In fact, he did much more than ‘dabble’ in architecture. He was without doubt this country’s first great architect. Monticello is one of the most important residences in architectural history, and the original part of UVA remains one of the finest architectural works in the US (not to mention that he also designed its curriculum and hired its faculty).
Once they’d had their way with Mr. Paine, he began to make them nervous, he was a revolutionary where they were only insurgents. They couldn’t make him understand that all this “equality” talk was rather metaphorical, an ideal to be respectfully and devoutly ignored. He wouldn’t grasp that the problem was an inherited aristocracy, there would always have to be some ruling class, otherwise the horses wouldn’t run on time.
Wasn’t long before they started in on marginalizing his place in history. Started erasing his image in old photos, so you wouldn’t know he was there, walking next to Malenkov, I mean, standing there quarelling with Jefferson. And Hamilton, and Madison, and the groundskeeper…
I have to pick Washington as #1. He held the Continental Army together through some absolutely horrible circumstances, when the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots were throwing in the towel. Also, as president of the constitutional convention, his stature was such that the delegates could actually meet in secret for 17 weeks to write the new constitution without the whole country being in an uproar over said secrecy. (Can you imagine any American today that the country would trust in this manner? Well, besides Dick Cheney.)
Like others have said above it is very hard to pick a favorite. A part of me is leaning towards Paine. I even wrote a college paper entitled, “No Paine, No Gain.” It was about the impact “The Crisis” had on the Revolution.
He’s tied with my other favorite, Samuel Adams (I’m not sure if he counts though). Without Adams there would not have been an American Revolution. Without him chances are the differences could have been settled amiably, which means no United States. From what I’ve read some historians think he’s the one behind “The shot heard around the world.”
I rather dislike Charles Lee.
I can’t hate almost any of the Founding Fathers. To a man, they were brilliant; even the lesser-known Fathers often had a deep impact on our nation, which we today only know echoes of for the distance of time.
Speaking of Adams and Franklin in France, both were very good men, although Adams was really not a good choice for French diplomacy (he worked twice as hard to get good, though, mastering French in a very short time.) However, Franklin failed to use his power to get things running smoothly. He was able to get huge loans from France, but never organized American operations there. Congress being incommunicado half the time (hey, it took something like six months to get a message there and back), this was a glaring oversight on his part. Had he done so, Frankling probably would have shortened the war and preserved his relationship with Adams. As it was, John Adams nearly had a stroke from Franklin’s mismanagent and eventually used his power to cut ties with France and make peace with England.
Well, I think we have a bit of both due to the mixture of Jefferson and Hamilton. Federalism is a brilliant compromise, though I think it’s been taken too far recently. The Federal government has had too much power since the Civil War. The reality is that people with power will continue to pass that power on to whom they see fit, that is often their children. No system can really change that.
George Mason, for his pioneering work.
Ben Franklin for social engineering and pure awesomeness.
And George Washington for turning down the crown.
I have a soft spot for John Adams. He was so earnest.
Have you seen Hamilton’s picture on the ten dollar bill? I’m thinking about putting him up in my bedroom next to the Teen Beat posters.
Well, except he did foresee the US Civil War, as shown in his “Fire Bell in the Night” letter on the Missouri Compromise:
(underining Jefferson’s; bolding mine)
So although he blathers on about justice requiring the emancipation of the slaves, so long as they are then expatriated from the United States, in the end he chose his self-preservation, of his estate and way of life, even though he saw that could result in the fracturing of the union.
As for the suggestion that criticising his agrarian economic views is an exercise in hindsight, that ignores the fact that his contemporary, Alexander Hamilton, correctly foresaw that the economic future of the United States lay with industrial and commercial development. It’s not hindsight to say that Hamilton got it right and Jefferson got it wrong.
No Paine, no gain.
I find it curious that nobody except E-Sabbath and me have even mentioned George Mason, given the high regard most posters here (and indeed most Americans) have for the Bill of Rights.
I agree that he is one of the lesser known founders, but perhaps he shouldn’t be.
Well, but he opposed ratification of the Consititution - for what he saw was good reason (the lack of a Bill of Rights), but by doing so he picked the wrong side of the basic founding issue. Unlike Madison, who was a more practical politician, and saw a potential two-step process - get the Constitution ratified, then deal with the Bill of Rights issue, through the amending formula in the new Constitution.
By Mason’s approach, there was no guarantee that even the first step would have been made.
it’s the same reason that the revolutionary Patrick Henry doesn’t get as much play - although he was on the winning side on the Revolution, he was on the wrong side on the adoption of the Constitution.
Founding Fathers. Great guys. But personally, I prefer the rebels. John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, Thomas Paine… 