Book Review: Brothers at Work: Founding an American Republic

It seems as though most history books refer to the men who established the American Republic in its infancy, as America's Founding Fathers. These men fought for independence, developed a republican government, and eventually revised their own Articles of Confederation, and created a product that even they would not have anticipated. The exceptional document they formed at the Constitutional Convention incorporated ideas from such documents as the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Along with these ideas, compromises were made concerning matters of states' rights versus a powerful central government as well as slavery issues. With such conflicting paradigms it seems quite amazing that the U.S. Constitution was actually ratified enacted. Therefore, the credit for this remarkable achievement must be given to those who gave most to this upright cause. John Adams, Aaron Burr, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington are referred to by most historians as the "Founding Fathers" of America, yet there were so many more (Wikipedia). However, Joseph J. Ellis gives a unique twist to the ordinary and refers to these intellectuals as America's "Founding Brothers."

Along with their differing philosophies, the Founding Brothers also had severely different personalities. These differing characteristics allowed for the creation of a system of checks and balances. This system was built intrinsically on differing ideals, giving one house the power to veto the other. However, in one personal matter, these differing principles led to brutal violence; the case in which two conflicting personalities met head to head was in Alexander Hamilton's duel with Aaron Burr. These two individuals possessed nothing but bitter discontent for one another. Aaron Burr came from a line of aristocratic ancestors, and possessed a subdued demeanor. On the other hand, Hamilton was a vibrant, enthusiastic man who was the illegitimate son of a French woman and a Scottish Drunkard (Ellis 22). These personalities, obviously on opposite poles of the spectrum, collided on July 11th 1804. Hamilton had apparently made some remarks about Burr, which Burr had taken great offense to. Burr believed the only way to redeem his character and reputation was by challenging Hamilton to a duel. Hamilton did not wish to partake in the duel, however, his character would not allow him to decline Burr's challenge. Although the details of the events which unfolded on that fateful day are vague and ambiguous, the results are not. Alexander Hamilton suffered a shot in the abdomen from Aaron Burr's pistol, and subsequently died from that fatal injury. However, it seems in the end neither of the two individuals "won" the duel. Hamilton was killed while Burr, in essence, suffered the same fate. Although Burr did not physically perish, his political reputation did exactly that. The ultimate outcome of this infamous duel was simply the destruction of two of the great Foundering Brothers. Ironically, this event interpreted from Ellis' point of view appears to be an example of sibling rivalry.

Nonetheless, this type of violence, although important, was a rare event. Outbursts in the convention or between individuals were mostly verbal and far from the case described above. The infamous dinner is an example of a peaceful resolution, which was far more likely to occur than violent conflict as the one mentioned above. As Alexander Hamilton submitted his fiscal plan to Congress, he ran into difficulty passing certain parts of it, particularly the issue of assumption. Hamilton who encouraged a strong central government saw the chance to incorporate individual states' debts into one large federal debt as a great opportunity to press on his ideals. However, James Madison opposed Hamilton because he believed the South had already paid off their debts and wanted to maintain state sovereignty. It seemed to Hamilton that if his plan would not succeed, he would be forced to resign (Ellis 48). His theatrical tactics convinced Thomas Jefferson to mediate a resolution. He invited both Hamilton and Madison to his home for some dinner and wine, and to discuss a resolution to the problem at hand. Both parties accepted, and at the end of the night a compromise was achieved. The negotiation entailed that Madison would use his political sway to pass Hamilton's plan. Hamilton's end of the deal was to ensure that the nation's capital would be placed permanently on the Potomac River. Although it seems that Jefferson was just a mediator in this meeting, that is not quite the case. Jefferson and Madison shared a common interest in maintaining a slave culture in America. They believed that placing the capitol in the South would allow Northern congressmen to experience slavery in order to realize it wasn't as appalling and inhumane as the stories they heard. Newspaper editors trashed the events and were outraged that such a deal had been made. Even Thomas Jefferson stated to his compatriot James Monroe in a letter that he too found the measure repulsive (Assumption), "but in the present instance I see the necessity of yielding for this time… for the sake of the union…"

However, hypocritically the issue of slavery was handled in a fashion that was similar to that of the secret dinner, in the sense that slavery was not openly discussed in the Constitution; except for the clause that prohibited Congress from interfering with the African slave trade prior to 1808, and even then referring to slaves as "such persons." In 1790, the silence of slavery was broken when two Quaker delegations submitted a petition for the immediate end to the African Slave Trade (Ellis 82). James Jackson feared that this petition may lead to thoughts of complete abolition of slavery. Madison tried to convince Jackson to let the petition pass and fade quickly without drawing attention to it because he was sure the latter would not happen. However, Jackson's fears came true when another petition arrived from the Pennsylvania Abolition Society essentially demanding the abolition of slavery. Furthermore, the document was endorsed by none other than Benjamin Franklin. Ultimately after much debate the emancipation of African Americans was deemed to be an issue that Congress had no authority to intervene in. The issue was left for another generation to solve. Though at first it seems like the wrong decision, at the time Madison most likely held the American Republic together with his decision. The South was adamantly against the emancipation of slaves and Benjamin Franklin's petition may have divided the republic so soon after it had formed, that it may never have recovered (Ellis 118).

Holding the infantile republic together was a daunting challenge. Most figures would be afraid and unable to handle such responsibilities. However, the man who held the reins and led America through its first vital years was George Washington. Revered for his silent intellect and skills in battle, Washington was the only candidate imaginable for presidency in 1789, "He was the American Zeus, Moses, and Cincinnatus all rolled into one (Ellis 121)." Washington's farewell address - or more appropriately, farewell letter - told the public that he would not be take office for a third term, and he subsequently established a two-term tradition for presidents to follow. As he left office, he warned the republic to stay away from entangling alliances with other nations and be wary of national parties. Washington believed that slavery would be removed after the clause in the Constitution passed its 1808 limit. With these declarations made, and his thoughts at ease he passed away contently on December 14, 1799 (Ellis 161).

With Washington's passing there was a squabble for presidency, although the candidates did not like to admit to it. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who had played such a vital role in the formation of the country, were torn apart by a political fall out. Each had taken underhanded routes and made false claims about the other through enigmatic means. When Adams left office he appointed "midnight judges" very close to the end of his term, to stop Jefferson from appointing his own. The appointment, which angered Jefferson most was that of chief justice John Marshall. The two did not get along on most issues, and Jefferson felt that Adams had done this intentionally to spite him. These kinds of tactics broke a long friendship between the two politicians for several years. When Jefferson's younger daughter died of complications during childbirth, Abigail Adams sent Jefferson a letter of consolation. Jefferson mistook the letter as an invitation to resume relations with the Adams family and began to write Abigail. However, when he mentioned that he had been disappointed in Adams' appointment of judges and thought it was dirty politics, Abigail was furious. She wrote back citing many examples of Jefferson's less honorable acts against her husband. Jefferson denied the allegations even though he knew they were true, and suggested that both sides had been in the wrong. John Adams had been unaware of the correspondence between his wife and his old friend. When Abigail showed him the letters he had no remarks to make on the subject, and so Jefferson and Adams once again ceased to communicate for a period of eight years (Ellis 211). Benjamin Rush eventually was able to mediate between Jefferson and Adams by altering their letters without their knowledge. Thus, they began, once again, to correspond with one another until their deaths, improbably on the same day - July 3rd 1826.

In essence, these separate stories shed light on how the American Republic was founded in its early days. History books like to embellish these characters and make them seem more than human. The founding fathers seem so far removed from the average American of this day. However, these men saw each other as equals and it seems fitting to label them the "Founding Brothers" as Ellis so eloquently stated. These men shared ideals, but also had their own personal interests and philosophies on how the republic should be structured. The arguments and debates which ensued because of their differing ideals actually helped construct a firm government that lasted longer than any they had witnessed. The Founding Brothers had no idea when they began their endeavor if the product of their sacrifices would be a success or not. Statistics were not on their side; there had been no prior successful colonial rebellions to look to for guidance or encouragement. Going against a powerful nation such as Great Britain, which possessed a majestic navy and powerful military, had to instill severe reservations as well. However, Benjamin Franklin made a notable statement at the very start of the young American Republic. At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4th 1776, he said "we must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately (Levanthal)." These thoughts carried through the early years of the republic. Through this ideology, even though the founding brothers had contrasting and unique personalities they were able to bind together for one country and a righteous cause. Because of the Founding Brothers' resolve and diligence, America has become the powerful nation it is today.

Works Cited

Ellis, Joseph. Founding Brothers The Revolutionary Generation. New

York: Vintage Books, 2000.

Levanthal, Michael. "Spirit of America Liberty Quotes" Quotes From the Founding Fathers.

2005. 23 Oct. 2005. .

Wikipedia. "Founding Fathers of the United States" Wikapedia: The Free Encyclopedia.

2005. 22 Oct. 2005.

United_States>.