The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Founding Fathers Summary

The Founding Fathers: A Reform Caucus in Action, written by John P. Roche, addressed the difficulty that the Founding Fathers had in constructing the U.S. Constitution because of the high level of stress they received and the limited amount of time that they had to carry out the formation of this document while keeping the best interest of the country as a priority. John P. Roche starts of by commenting on why the creation of the Constitution was so effective and how the Articles of Confederation benefitted the ratification of the new U.S. Government. As it turns out, the delegates elected to attend Pennsylvania were mainly people who had served in Congress and had experience in the weakness of the Articles in granting too little power to the national government. In addition, the delegates were appointed by the state legislatures, not by the people, as justified by the Articles of Confederation.

Richard Hofstadter, in the Chapter one, “The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism,” of his book, “The American Political Tradition,” expresses his ideas of the conflicts that the Founding Fathers of US may have had when they created the Constitution of United States. Right from the beginning of the Chapter, Hofstadter starts with a quote from Horace White that the Constitution of United States “assumes that the natural state of mankind is state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.” It is no wonder that Hofstadter, who understood Founding Father’s pain, used such quote. In Hofstadter’s view, the Founding Fathers, torn between democracy and monarchy, the two extremities, set out to create a government in which both could be applied and satisfy both the mobs and the elites of society.

Summary: In Chapter 1, Hudson addresses the distorted views of democracy from modern-day Americans. He explains how separation of power within the government lessens the power of American citizens and ultimately alters the ideology behind a true democracy into what we have today.

In “We’re a Democracy” by Eugene Volokh, he shows that there is a fine line between being a

When the United States first gained its independence from England in 1776, most people believed that it would fail. This most likely would have been true, had it not been for the founding fathers that held our fragile country together. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson are only a few of the many political figures that helped rule the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries, helping turn this country from an oppressive monarchy to a solidified republic in only a few decades. In the eyes of many, these three supposed geniuses were similar to gods. However, just like every single person that has ever been born, they had flaws that made them different from everybody else; these flaws heavily influenced almost every decision that they made, for better or worse. For example, Alexander Hamilton was very arrogant and egotistical, contributing to his brash and seemingly aggressive personality. In addition, John Adams was very stubborn and stuck in his ways when it came to listening to others; however, he was the complete opposite, very easily swayed, when it came to listening to his wife. Finally, Thomas Jefferson was an idealist, which in many cases, contributed to him being somewhat of a hypocrite. All three of these important political figures were obviously very influential in our country’s history, but like all humans, they had their flaws.

In Founding Brothers, Joseph J. Ellis discusses how the relationships of the founding fathers shaped the United States, looking not only at what happened historically but the myths that have prevailed in modern times. I have few issues with this book one of which is that the narrative often jumps from one time and place to another, and while it provides the relevant information and keeps the reader’s attention, it can be hard to follow at times. In addition there are times were he explains the same incident more than once, which is distracting and unnecessary. Despite this Ellis supports his thesis well through stories of political and personal events between the founders, and clearly shows how it affected their treatment of each other.

I think it is of high importance to understand a little more about the personal lives of our country’s Founding Fathers. Understanding the peculiarities of their lives gives us a greater understanding of why they developed our Constitution the way that they did. It also gives us an excellent insight as to what was developing in their minds as they worked to develop a set of rules and standards that sets us apart from other developing nations during the same time period. I feel that delving into their psyche, so to speak, gives us a better understanding of the controversies we have today because we can form a more rational basis as to why our country was conceived in the way that it was. I have attempted to take a more formal role in our various political spectrums, and books such as this one has helped me to do so. As I pursue a Master’s of Science degree in Vocational Rehabilitation, this book sets my mind up to understand the sophisticated views and philosophies that our nation was framed under.

Federalists in Rhode Island argued against these Anti-Federalist notions of democracy by basing their opposition around the idea that the general public could not be trusted to make policy decisions. Mankind, James Madison argues in The Federalist No. 10, is too susceptible to factionism. Once divided into factions, men were “inflamed… with mutual animosity” that rendered them “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other.” Instances like Shay’s Rebellion, in which overtaxed farmers violently rose up against the government, validated arguments presented by those like Madison and Joseph Schumpeter, who held negative views of the general masses. Both rejected the beliefs of the Anti-Federalists on the basis that the public was easily swayed by “unfriendly passions” and “primitive impulses”.

During the Revolutionary period, the founding fathers set forth many goals and values to shape American politics. They saw the great potential that America possessed to become a united nation and leading economic power. Even though the U.S. was in debt as a result of the Revolutionary War, the founding fathers did not approve of debt and warned future generations of its danger. The founding fathers also warned future generations of the importance of an isolationist policy to prevent foreign entanglements. Throughout American history, freedom of the press has been continually threatened. Therefore, American politics today does not uphold the goals and values the founding fathers set forth for America during its creation because of national debt, current foreign affairs, and freedom of the press.

The failure of the Founding Fathers to clarify their view of slavery in the constitution is also a cause of the Civil War. The issue of slavery was never clearly settled by the Founding Fathers, which lead to many arguments over the next decades (“Origins of the American Civil War”, 2005). In 1787 when the U.S Constitution was written, the interests of slave owners could not be ignored so, although slaves could not vote, white Southerners made the case that they should be allowed to as they contributed largely to the nation’s wealth. Therefore, the Constitution allowed them to be citizens and vote, but only counted them as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation in Congress. The clause allowed the South to have a larger role in the

The American Revolution will always be a source of nationalistic pride for Americans. It represented the era where the freedoms and liberty of the common man fought against tyranny and an oppressive government. What many people overlook is the five year period which defined what the new country would become politically and socially. As the framework for the Constitution was being debated, these factors played a role in how the Federalists saw the future of the fledgling country. Through examining the Federalist papers and comparing their ideology with the Constitution born of it, it is clear that the Constitution created and safeguarded the rights of citizens while maintaining an informal class system.

American politics has proved to be flawed in structure over, and over again. Although our founding fathers had the best intentions when they implemented democracy, they like most modern day politicians, failed to actually make things better. Yes we gained our Independence, but with the ability to make our own choices we tend to make childish and impulsive decisions. The election of Donald Trump stands to be the most recent of those mistakes, and the politicians who work for him are either blinded or full of regret. Poets Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Robert Lowell paint vivid pictures of these very mistakes that seem to recur with the thought of democracy.

Democracy flourished in America where it had previously floundered in Europe. As early as 1907, J. Allen Smith attributed this to the fact that the colonists were “more active, enterprising, and dissatisfied” than the typical Englishman, in his work The Spirit of American Government,. He noted that the Revolutionary War was not sparked by colonists hating the monarchical system, but by the negative relationship between England and its newest colony. This attitude, coupled with an active revolution, created the perfect outlet for democratic theory to be expressed and enacted (Smith, 1907; Thoman, n.d.). In creating an independent nation, the founding fathers looked to various forms of government, both ancient and modern, for inspiration.

Democracy in the United States became prominent in the early to mid 19th century. Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, was inaugurated in 1829 and was best known as the person who mainstreamed democracy in America. Because he came from a humble background, he was the “genuine common man.” (Foner, pg. 303) He claimed he recognized the needs of the people and spoke on behalf of the majority [farmers, laborers]. However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the

The project that Alexis de Tocqueville undertook in writing Democracy in America was highly ambitious, and became one of the most influential texts of the nineteenth century, and remains to this day a classic in political science literature. Having witnessed the failure of France to democratize, Tocqueville sought out to study a prosperous democracy. The United States of America during the writing of this text exemplified stability and democratic governance, allowing Alexis de Tocqueville to gain insight into making a democratic government succeed. His travels and studies in the United States ultimately led him to conclude that the transition toward a democratic government and equality of conditions had developed strongest in America, though he suggests that it is indeed a universal phenomenon and a perpetual historical tendency that could not be stopped. This conclusion that democratic development is inevitable encouraged him to examine the process in an attempt to understand the strengths, as well as the dangers, associated with democratic governance.