The Feuding Fathers

WSJ ^ | 26 June 2010 | Ron Chernow

[Palter]

In the American imagination, the founding era shimmers as the golden age of political discourse, a time when philosopher-kings strode the public stage, dispensing wisdom with gentle civility. We prefer to believe that these courtly figures, with their powdered hair and buckled shoes, showed impeccable manners in their political dealings. The appeal of this image seems obvious at a time when many Americans lament the partisan venom and character assassination that have permeated the political process.

Unfortunately, this anodyne image of the early republic can be quite misleading. However hard it may be to picture the founders resorting to rough-and-tumble tactics, there was nothing genteel about politics at the nation's outset. For sheer verbal savagery, the founding era may have surpassed anything seen today. Despite their erudition, integrity, and philosophical genius, the founders were fiery men who expressed their beliefs with unusual vehemence. They inhabited a combative world in which the rabble-rousing Thomas Paine, an early admirer of George Washington, could denounce the first president in an open letter as "treacherous in private friendship…and a hypocrite in public life." Paine even wondered aloud whether Washington was "an apostate or an imposter; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any."

Such highly charged language shouldn't surprise us. People who spearhead revolutions tend to be outspoken and courageous, spurred on by a keen taste for combat. After sharpening their verbal skills hurling polemics against the British Crown, the founding generation then directed those energies against each other during the tumultuous first decade of the federal government. The passions of a revolution cannot simply be turned off like a spigot.

By nature a decorous man, President Washington longed for respectful public discourse and was taken aback by the vitriolic rhetoric that accompanied his two terms in office.

[Palter]

[Palter]

GW, etc. ping

[cripplecreek]

Pretty amazing men, flaws and all.

I cannot be convinced that divine providence didn’t bring them together and more importantly, hold them together till their goal was achieved.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for posting AND the ping, Palter. I had read this this morning on the WSJ site (I have a paid subscription) and would have posted it but I thought it only could be read with a subscription.

Great piece...I was actually surprised that he did not mention the final tiff between The General and Jefferson. Jefferson was the originator of the rumor that Washington was becoming senile (I believe this was 1796 or 1797); Washington had many friends, and they tipped him off about it. Washington called Jefferson in to his office, asked Jefferson about it, and TJ denied it all. Washington knew he was lying and never was in the same room with Jefferson again after that.

The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list...

[aculeus]

Thomas Paine went a lot further in attacking Washington as his (Paine’s) alcoholism intensified.

Some guy (wink) even included Paine in his alcoholism book. See page 85 for the Paine-Washington stuff.

http://books.google.com/books?id=oqlNkz9cKlUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vessels+of+rage&hl=en&ei=LigmTPCBGIW0lQf9vtXEAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks Pharmboy. Part of the problem was no clean drinking water, if you take my meaning. ;') All of them played important roles, and we remain permanently in their debt. But John Adams played the most important role of all, IMHO -- he was the butt who accepted the one term presidency nearly inevitable for anyone who followed The General. Adams was the perfect flawed little bitch to take that role. ;') It's worth remembering that in 1801, when Jefferson became president, the US national debt was around $100 million, about 10 times annual federal revenues. This was literally "the cost of freedom," and would correspond today to a national debt around $30 trillion. Since our actual national debt is $13+ trillion, the government is in better financial shape today than it was in Jefferson's time. And at the time, Jefferson's number one priority was paying down the national debt. So, how did he do it? How does ANY wise government ever increase its revenues? Yes, that's right! JEFFERSON REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND CUT TAXES.-- BroJoeK Thank BroJoeK, and for that matter, thanks President Jefferson. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · Mirabilis.ca · LiveScience · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[SunkenCiv]

• Wisdom Of The Founding Fathers

[Gondring]

One of James Madison's greatest lines, written about Alexander Hamilton--the Switzerland of the Founding Fathers--and his neutrality push:

"Several features with the signature of [Hamilton] were [as of] late published, which have been read with singular pleasure and applause by the foreigners and degenerate citizens among us, who hate our republican government and the French Revolution."

Over and over I ponder... How different the world would be now, if a British dragoon had aimed the muzzle of his weapon mere millimeters differently and shot Alexander Hamilton at Valley Forge (Sep 18, 1777). Might we have intervened in the French Revolution? Would we have a Federal Reserve Bank problem?

That glorious tension between factions, where both sides loved America, is so different from the friction we have now.

[Pharmboy]

Indeed, what you said. Another incident and the possible consequences thereof would be this one, where Washington's life is spared by Capt. Patrick Ferguson, a sniper and firearms inventor.

[Pharmboy]

Indeed...Paine became a great hater, with Washington just added to the list which included all God-fearing Christians and Jews.

Thanks for the post and the link...

[Cyber Liberty]

The Saturday morning Admin Moderator would have thrown each and every one of them in the cooler for a week. nOObs would be multi-clicking “Abuse” on them.

[Publius]

Ping. Good article.

[Gondring]

Another incident and the possible consequences thereof would be this one, where Washington's life is spared by Capt. Patrick Ferguson, a sniper and firearms inventor.

Yes, and I've often wondered who would have taken over (both in getting the Americans extracted from Brandywine, and then later in the campaign. After all, Gen. Washington was extremely fortunate, losing battle after battle on the British road to Philly but escaping with his army largely intact (and, as the histories say after every battle, "but morale was still high.")

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“Pretty amazing men, flaws and all.

I cannot be convinced that divine providence didn’t bring them together and more importantly, hold them together till their goal was achieved.”

Big old BUMP to THAT! I feel exactly the same way. It was a MIRACLE we ever came to be. Too bad we’re screwing it up so badly. Grrrrrr!

[cripplecreek]

I hold firm to the faith of Washington.

'By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, altho' death was levelling my companions on every side.'

George Washington

[Diana in Wisconsin]

He had Someone very powerful on his side! :)

[Billthedrill]

Thanks for the ping - yes, it's a great article. Washington, as usual, comes off very well. I get a mental image of him in a cabinet meeting wondering if he were the only normal adult among that gaggle of egomaniac freaks. Very, very bright egomaniac freaks, but if he'd taken a cane to the lot of them I doubt if history would have blamed him much.

Nevertheless, there is something rather distasteful in a bunch of passionate people publishing wild tracts under ridiculous pseudonyms. Fortunately we've grown beyond that childish behavior. (Snork!)

[Valin]

I’d say Washington’s ego was just as big as the rest of them. He just did a better job of camouflaging it.

That said...
1. It takes a big ego to do what they did.
2. We were extremely lucky (fortunate?) to have these guys come along when they did.