An American Foundation: Four of the Pillars



An American Foundation: Four of the Pillars

Background Information

In his book, The Meaning of Independence, Edmund Morgan makes an interesting analysis of the colonial American attitude toward its English counterpart. He acknowledges the historical realization that colonies eventually, without exception, always grow to “adulthood” and cut themselves off from their dependency on the “motherland”. However, the American colonies, as suggested by Morgan, were much more reluctant to break the ties than England herself.

The Americans themselves seem to have been more reluctant than their English brethren to admit the possibility [of independence]. When the quarrel with the mother country began in 1764, the colonists took pains to accompany their formal protests with affirmations of allegiance.

The colonists referred to themselves as “His Majesty’s Subjects” when writing back to the king. Even when the Second Continental Congress wrote back to England, Jefferson penned that “we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us.” So, as Morgan suggests, “it would almost seem that independence was an afterthought to the men who had taken up arms against Parliamentary taxation.”[1]

Morgan further points out the, “in light of the colonists’ initial reluctance to consider independence, the finality with which they embraced it when it came is a little surprising.”[2] By 1778, England would have gladly given the American colonies all that they had desired if they would but forfeit the fight for independence. By that time, the colonists barely even considered yielding the cause to England, and thus embarked on a bloody battle to achieve it. Not only was the battle a physical one, but an emotional and mental one too. Several men were involved in the great debates, writings, and social interactions leading to the culmination of achieving independence. These men were like four pillars supporting a newly founded nation of freed men. They held company with men of greatness, but they themselves were ordinary men with huge vision for the future.

Meeting the Pillars

The United States of America was founded by the collaborative efforts of a diverse group of men whose lives were characterized by distinct differences. These men overcame their limitations through their collaboration with one another in order to be united for the cause of independence. Their lives provided a parallel looking glass with which to study the diverse “melting pot” of the American nation that was birthed through their efforts. The cause for which they fought required a myriad of diverse passions and talents to succeed yet would not have survived without a unified bond that was almost inseparable.

The cause was led by a league of men whose lives were characterized by firm political ideologies, personal convictions, an almost larger than life public status, and refined character. The goal of this discussion will be to compare the lives of four of those founders: Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The lives of these four gentlemen will be examined at the level of their approachability, religiosity, education, occupations, and public interactions in the effort of discovering the vast diversity, and tight-knit unity with which their lives were intricately forged together. These four men interacted both in the public and private spheres of life, and some were more cordial in their relationships than others. By examining the intertwining of these four lives, one will be able to see the impact that such greatness had upon the founding of the American Nation.

Comparing these four men’s lives will be most easily done by considering the personalities which compelled them to behave the way they did. Their personalities will reveal a great deal about who they were in the eyes of both their families and the public. Their personalities differed greatly, and were not contrary to that position to which they aspired. Their religious convictions will be examined since belief systems often influence political agendas and social activities. Each of the four had similar convictions but differed in the manifestations of those convictions. Observing what compelled these men to live the way that they did will give a glimpse into seeing a deeper view of their overall character, and social interaction with one another. As we look at both the strengths and weaknesses of these four men, the ability to develop a deeper appreciation for their efforts to the cause of independence will become much easier.

Approaching the Sage

Structuring the introduction of the pillars from Edmund Morgan, this thesis will become acquainted with the four founders based on their approachability. Benjamin Franklin seemed to be the most approachable and therefore, he will be the first founder that will be discussed. Franklin was almost an inch or so shy of being six feet tall. He was a broad, thickset man with a muscular build and large physical presence. He had dark brown hair and friendly hazel eyes. Franklin was normally dressed poorly and looked rough and raggedy. Coming ashore to make his fortunes in colonial America, Franklin appeared to be a poverty-stricken scoundrel of the streets.[3]

Of all the founders of 1776, Benjamin Franklin would have been the most likely to have thrived in modern day politics. His blossoming personality, and charismatic influence attracted many to him. He was the social butterfly, the life of the party. His genius intellect and creative instinct combined to produce an almost intoxicating personality. Benjamin Franklin was a contagious man. His wit, human, and down to earth nature enabled him to be admired by his various colleagues. He was compelled by a continuous source of positive energy that even sometimes got on the nerves of those he shared company with. During the Continental Congress when the caucus began to get dull and mundane, Franklin could be seen buzzing around as energetically as ever.[4]

Franklin was an extremely ambitious man. He charged toward life with a manner of obsession. He would not have been as successful in life had he not only been a genius, but more importantly and obsessive man. He was a man captivated with intrigue about knowledge. “Franklin had already taken to books as some men take to drink. He could never have enough of them and he was to enjoy printing them as much as he enjoyed reading them.” He was described as being a self-educated man who was often self-reflective and had a very high view of himself. Franklin seemed secure in who he was and did not hesitate to embrace his creativity or personality.[5]

Approaching Tenacity

The next founder to be discussed was in many ways similar to Franklin. Just as Franklin could awe the convention with his rhetoric, John Adams had mastered the same skill. Although Adams was not as highly regarded in some circles as Franklin was. Adams, although being less outgoing and approachable as Franklin, seemed to be a bit more willing to open himself to the public than Jefferson or Madison who will be discussed shortly.

Adams was nearly five feet, six inches tall and stocky as a youth. In his latter years, Adams became quite portly but made up for his physical build with a set of inquisitive eyes, fine brown hair, and a commanding presence in the courtroom. Nearing his elder years, Adams suffered weak eyesight and easily fell sick, suffered headaches, heartburn, and general weakness. His teeth had fallen out to pyorrhea as a result of his refusal to use dentures. His body was struck with a form of paralysis that limited his mobility; although he was not incapacitated.[6]

Adams had a deep love and compassion for humanity; however, paradoxically he never really learned how to deal with individual human beings. To those in the immediate family of Adams, he appeared caring, compassionate, and genuine; but to those outside of his family circle he was considered to be cold, distant, and conceited. Once such reason why outsiders often characterized Adams as such was his consistent and tenacious ambition toward becoming a “great man.” Throughout his life, he struggled fiercely with controlling his passions. He was often quick-tempered, belligerent, and suffered from terrible mood swings. He could easily go from happiness to despair or deep depression, usually stimulated from some sort of illness, public criticism, or lack of acknowledgement for his achievements.[7]

Adams was very discreet about certain issues of life and did not believe it appropriate to discuss issues of sexuality in public circles. One such occasion where his discretion was never more apparent was at an eighteenth century dinner party in Bordeaux, France. Much to his embarrassment, Madame de Texel, innocently, yet frankly asked Adams his opinion on how Adam and Eve had ever learned to have sex. Adams was altogether flustered and blushed as he had never before heard a woman discuss such private matters. After quickly regaining his composure, he answered her with a bit of mock-seriousness, “There was a physical quality in us resembling the power of electricity or of the magnet, by which when a pair approached within a striking distance they flew together like the needle to the pole or like two objects in electric experiments.[8]

Approaching Wordsmith

Interestingly, Adams had a paradoxical counterpart, Thomas Jefferson. Everything that Adams wasn’t Jefferson was and everything Jefferson wasn’t Adams intended to be. Of the four founders, Thomas Jefferson was probably the most unapproachable. Although Jefferson was somewhat outgoing, he was very reserved. This seeming contradiction shall be explained in a few moments.

Approaching the Wordsmith

Thomas Jefferson was three inches above six foot tall with a very thin and lanky stature. He was head and shoulders above the majority of convention representatives. Jefferson had small hazel eyes with an angular nose, solid straight teeth outlined by thin lips, and a pointed chin supported by his long neck. In his youth, Jefferson had heavy freckles and poor posture, which made him look rather gawky. As he grew, Jefferson gained large hands and feet and was adorned with beautiful red hair.[9]

As Jefferson matured, he never fully outgrew his indifference to fashion. He had a knack for wearing whatever was most comfortable and often ignored the traditional expected fashion styles. Jefferson enjoyed good health most of his life, aside from the occasional headaches which often came over him during times of great stress and lasted for weeks at a time. When Jefferson became elderly, he did suffer from rheumatism and a crippled right hand, which may have been from the extensive writing that he did throughout his life.[10]

Jefferson was open and approachable, yet maintained a hidden core of inner feelings. He was meticulous and orderly in his structure of daily life with an “insatiable curiosity” for things; yet he lacked two qualities nearly always necessary for success in the Presidency, and those were thick-skin for criticism, and polished oratory skills. He was gifted in neither. Although he was captivating in small circles, he was infamous for his rather uninspiring speeches to the masses.[11]

“Mr. Jefferson displays a mild, easy and obliging temper, though he is somewhat cold and reserved. His conversation is the most agreeable kind,” remarked the duke de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt.[12] Jefferson was also known for his amazing prose and exquisite penmanship.

Of the four, the most unapproachable was James Madison. Standing only five foot, four inches tall, Madison was a frail figure of a mere 100 pounds. He had brown hair, blue eyes, and a rather brownish-yellow complexion. As a youth, Madison was a very sickly, weak and rather nervous boy. Due to his rigorous efforts to strengthen himself, he was able to toughen his weakness into a more stable physicality. He suffered a form of epilepsy that sometimes left him in convulsions and seizures. He had an extremely weak voice that was so quiet that often made him unheard in the back of the assembly room. Madison was very obsessive with having a neat appearance, and he typically wore black.[13]

Approaching Capricious

Madison, as stated earlier, was the most unapproachable of the four.

Madison was shy and reserved with strangers and never used the politically useful skill of small talk. Not only was Madison good at giving poor first impressions, but his manner of decision-making often left others with utter frustration on his account. He often “deferred” decisions whenever he could until he had considered every possible perspective that could be taken. This characteristic caused some to regard him as being a “weak and indecisive” man; however, others tended to see this as wisdom before action, rather as a strength in being well-informed of all possible avenues before settling on a position. As Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin once said of Madison, “[He] is… slow in taking his ground, but firm when the storm rises.”[14]

Religiosity

The religious convictions of these four men differed greatly. All four held the belief that there was a creator God, but the manner in which that God ran his universe was a matter to be debated. They all four seemed to respect one another’s beliefs even in the midst of having different opinions. None of them were involved in organized church beyond rare occasions of participation.

Benjamin Franklin had a series of changing beliefs. At one time he was under the belief that God was all-powerful, but that free-will and reason were only useful to humans for the leveling of intellect to that of “beasts of the field.”[15] In 1790, replying to an inquiry from the president of Yale, Franklin wrote down his views on Christianity.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is like to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.[16]

After reading Franklin’s response to the president of Yale, his lack of dogmatism becomes very evident; however, he writes with such wit and elegance even in his apparent uncertainties.

John Adams was a part of the Unitarian branch of Congregationalism. His belief centered on loving God, and his neighbor. Adams was under the belief that Christ was a great and good man whose example of closeness to God, loving others, and seeking universal brotherhood was an ideal for all humans, but he did not believe Christ to be the Son of God. He argued that Christ was merely a human being, not the Word manifested in the flesh, because if he were God, reasoned Adams, “why would he allow his own creatures to nail him to a cross?” Adams was not a supporter of the doctrine of the Trinity either. He rejected the Calvinistic teachings of predestination, and likewise deemed Deism as equally unacceptable. He believed that God continuously intervened in the lives of his created, but he had little use for organized religion. Adams felt that a solid Christian needed to only follow the conscience God gave him, and those precepts set forth in Scripture.[17]

James Madison was Episcopalian, professing the basic tenets of his faith but was not zealous. He believed in a divine creator but doubted men’s ability to know him.[18]

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. He had grown up Anglican, but his practicing faith as an adult was to believe that there was a creator, but that he was not involved in the affairs of his created. He used reason and logic rather than divine revelation for the foundation of his moral conduct. Many of the characteristics of his moral code were Christian in nature, but he himself, had little use for church. Writing after his retirement, Jefferson made the comment, “‘I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” He felt that Christ’s teachings were, “the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man,” but that the clergy of the day had “adulterated and sophisticated” it.[19] Jefferson attended churches sporadically among various denominations, but never felt obligated to make one of them his home.[20]

Character Unveiled

After his admission to the Massachusetts bar in 1758, Adams steadily built his law practice in Boston and held many local offices. Adams took on such trials as defending John Hancock for supposedly smuggling wine into the port of Boston without paying the proper duty, and the case of the Boston Massacre, a celebrated case that nearly cost him his career as a lawyer and his reputation as an American idealist. John Adams and Josiah Quincy were the only two lawyers willing to represent the British soldiers being tried for the shootings during the Boston Massacre. Adams believed that the soldiers had been provoked by an angry, blood-thirsty mob of rebels who were seeking vengeance. He used his influence to get a jury of rural folks for the trial, and he appealed to them on the argument that any man with the least bit of sense or passion would react to being clubbed off of his feet and beaten by a mob. He successful had all but two soldiers acquitted; and the remaining two were merely branded for manslaughter and released. Justifying himself against anti-British sentiments, Adams was a proponent of opposing “trial by passion” but rather believed protecting the innocent was more important than punishing the guilty. Adams felt it more important to establish the supremacy of justice rather than the political expediency.[21]

Many found it surprising that John Adams had such a huge impact in the colonial movement for independence. In 1772, the retired governor of Massachusetts, William Shirley, commented on the political activities in Boston, “Mr. Cushing I know, and Mr. Hancock I know, but where the devil this brace of Adams’s [sic] came from, I cannot conceive.” Two years later, even King George III was just as shocked. After speaking with Thomas Hutchinson who had nearly been removed from his Massachusetts post by the Adamses, the king said, “I have heard of one Mr. Adams, but who is this other?” The king knew of Samuel Adams, but had no clue as to who John Adams was. In fact, during the first continental congress, Samuel was a dominant figure with his revolutionary passion and his charismatic zest for rallying support. It was John Adams; however, who dominated the second Continental Congress, because John was a man of much deeper vision than Samuel. Together, the two cousins made an interesting pair. John Adams made up for his less charismatic personality with his great vision and wit in working the public circles of influence.[22]

Developing Proselytism

In order to understand what these men were able to do, one must realize the various ways in which they were educated and how that impacted their life callings. Benjamin Franklin, being the most intelligent of the four, was a self-educated man. He was an avid reader as a youth and learned to read at a very early age. Whatever learning Franklin gained aside from books was most definitely that of the streets. He spent a great deal of his time as a wanderer. Franklin also and an insatiable curiosity to go along with his great intelligence; he spent a great deal of time tinkering around with objects and invented numerous gadgets.[23]

Adams differed from Franklin in that he was a well-educated man who had been expected to attend formal schooling. Yet, Adams first learned to read and was educated by his very own father who took a proactive role in his son’s education. Adams’ father had enrolled him into Latin school, which he absolutely hated. Adams made a pact with his father that if he allowed him to drop out of Latin school, then he would attend Harvard. Since his father very much wanted him to attend Harvard, he reluctantly agreed. While attending Harvard, Adams exhibited such an awe-inspiring gift for rhetoric and acting that his fellow students and professors convinced him to use his dramatized style of persuasion for law. Adams therefore decided to become a trial lawyer, and strived to be the best in all of Boston.[24]

Thomas Jefferson had a similar education to Adams, although he lost his father at a young age, and thus was educated by clergymen. He studied under Reverend William Douglas for five years. While studying under Douglas, Jefferson became quite a linguist, learning Greek, Latin and French. At age 14 he began studying under Reverend James Maury for what lasted two years. Other students under Maury were James Madison and James Monroe.[25]

Jefferson later attended William and Mary and studied mathematics, science, rhetoric, philosophy and literature. While there, under Dr. William Small, Jefferson commented about the impact his professor had on him, “[Small] probably fixed the destinies of my life.” Small introduced Jefferson to George Wythe an American law professor and Francis Fauquier who was the colonial governor of Virginia. Jefferson often dined with the two men, and considered those conversations to be filled with “more good sense, rational and philosophical conversation that in all my life besides.” This was most likely the time when Jefferson formed his love for rational thinking above spiritual conviction. Jefferson ended up studying law under George Wythe, who taught Henry Clay and John Marshall, for nearly five years, which was unusual for the day. Yet, Jefferson made the most of his apprenticeship.[26]

Jefferson was similar to Franklin in that he was very well read. He was an avid bookworm, and during his apprenticeship, he read extensively. In fact, at his admission to the Virginia bar in April 1767, he was the most well-read lawyer of his time which was extremely unusual since most lawyers focused completely on law exclusively. Jefferson was said to have studied for 15 hours per day, nearly every day, which seems unbelievable.[27]

James Madison studied under local educators just as Jefferson had. Madison however, studied at a nearby plantation, Innes Plantation of Virginia. He later studied law at Princeton, although he never finished his education there. He had chosen Princeton over William and Mary, because of his fear that the damp weather might incapacitate his health. Madison, being the most similar to Jefferson, had a fabulous gift for penmanship. He was quite the littérateur. Madison took studying seriously, but never fully intended to use his knowledge of law for anything beyond broadening his perspective on life. He sporadically studied law throughout his life, but never gained admission to the bar.[28]

Trade Calling

Benjamin Franklin was primarily known in France and most of Europe for his scientific work and inventive genius. Yet, in America, he was most notably recognized for his occupation as a printer, in which he printed many articles, newspapers, etc.[29] He dabbled around quite a bit, and ended up doing various diplomatic and political occupations as well. He was the type of person who could do just about anything he wanted to, and was determined enough to succeed at it. He was an inventor, scientist, businessman, postmaster, diplomat, writer, printer, statesmen, etc. In the early portion of his life, he was known in France as the man who had “tamed lightning” and eventually used his insatiable curiosity and instincts to create many different items of fascination and practicality, i.e. spectacles.[30]

Interestingly, Franklin nearly spent his life teaching swimming in England. He found this subject to be quite intriguing, and had life afforded him the finances and opportunities to open a school in England then he very much would have followed this early passion of his life.[31] Instead, he spent his years dabbling in many different occupations, which could be considered a very fortunate event. Had Franklin spent his life teaching swimming in England, the American colonies would have been at a terrible loss without his wit, charisma, and powerful influence.

Being a man of great genius allowed Franklin to overcome his social class barriers and move from one social class to another. He even once went before King Louis XIV without a wig and sword, which was customary for the time. Franklin could mingle with the elite, because of his reputation for genius. This enabled him to be effective as a foreign diplomat and member of the various committees to draft the Declaration of Independence as well as forming other legislative frameworks. But, his greatest passion was for books. He absolutely marveled at the crisp, well-bound written text. This love developed from an early age and lasted into the very end of his life as he enjoyed the pleasure of writing and printing in the effort of educating himself and those for whom he remained a stable source of knowledge.[32]

John Adams, unlike Franklin, spent his life primarily in one occupation. Although Adams spent time as a statesman and diplomat, he was first and foremost known for his incredible tact and talent in the courtroom. He was created to be, by definition, a trial lawyer. He was gifted in rhetoric and drama in such a way that enable him to successfully persuade his audience, but he did so with the restraint of his convictions.[33]

Thomas Jefferson was very similar to Adams in that he practiced law as a profession. Yet, Jefferson had an interest in many different sciences and studied vastly. Jefferson was very connected to the people of Virginia as he practiced law on the circuit which covered nearly every county in Virginia. Adams, on the other hand, practiced within Boston exclusively. Jefferson became a statesman and diplomat and was very successful due to his incredible gift of prose, which led to him being chosen to draft the Declaration of Independence.[34]

Madison, once again, like Jefferson had a knack for the written word, but did not practice law. He spent his time as a colonel in the militia. His fragile health did not enable him to serve in battle, but he spent time training troops and drilling the new recruits.[35]

James Madison was a supporter of the Federalist ideal for American government. Madison wrote a series of documents, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, to the newspapers of New York City arguing for writing and adopting of a Constitution. In the Federalist No. 57, Madison argues against political qualifications of property, religion, or class and instead supports the idea only of one qualification for public office: “the esteem and confidence of one’s own country.” He envisioned the House of Representatives as the body that would truly represent the people, and the Senate as a body of “settled and wise opinion.” The combination of these two bodies would eliminate tyranny from the majority.[36]

Madison basically sought for a centralized government, but with a separation of powers between state and local governments and a more centralized federal branch. This Madison argued would eliminate the tendency toward factions, which he outlined in Federalist No. 10 as a major source for political ineffectiveness and division.

Interwoven Relationships

While serving as a foreign minister in France, Jefferson was seeing the transformation from the French feudal society to a more democratic one. Writing back to Madison, Jefferson inquired as to the possible benefits of erasing all debt of an individual after 19 years, thus being the length of a generation, and two, the idea of having each generation adopt its own constitution. With amazing ability, Madison not only gently but politely pointed out the philosophical and practical weaknesses of Jefferson’s argument. Jefferson had hoped Madison might use his Congressional influence to legislate these ideas; however, Madison pointed out that “generations have a tendency to be born at all times” and that generational obligations, such as debt and a standard constitution being passed down from one generation to another, not only ensure political stability but provide a deeper reverence for the law.[37]

This interaction through a series of letters written from September 1789 through February 1790, give a glimpse into the close, consistent friendship that existed between the two men. Even on these particular issues on which Madison and Jefferson disagreed, a sense of mutual respect remained a steady characteristic of their love and loyalty for one another. Madison has an amazing ability to critique Jefferson’s ideas with an acute honesty, but does so with a soft, gentleness that no doubt touched the heart and mind of Jefferson to think further about the assumptions he was making about future generations’ political obligations. Very few people enjoyed similar luxuries of giving Jefferson criticism without provoking him to anger or sadness; yet, Madison’s elegance and gentleness shows the wisdom of his intellect and compassion toward his fellow brother.

This thriving relationship was in stark contrast to that of the relationship of Jefferson to John Adams. Adams and Jefferson seem more like two school children who can occasionally enjoy playing together, but who more often than not, spend their time arguing and competing with brash stubbornness and prideful arrogance. Such bickering was evident in the correspondence between the two, as Adams’ criticism of Jefferson often brought vindictive reprisal and Jefferson’s public critique of Adams often infuriated him to action. They had a very unique relationship, that as youthful men they became close friends in 1775 at the Continental Congress. They made an unlikely pair, as Adams was short and meaty being from the North and Jefferson was tall and lean being from the South. Adams described himself as “obnoxious, suspected, and unpopular” and Jefferson seemed to be quite the opposite. Political differences nearly ended their friendship, which was not regained until the end of their lives.

Jefferson thought that Adams was betraying the ideals of the revolution by embracing “monarchial sentiments.” Jefferson wrote a letter to the editor of the American edition of Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man in which he indirectly criticized Adams by arguing against “political heresies which had of late sprung up among us.” Much to Jefferson’s horror, the letter was published as a preface to the book and viewed by Adams as a “public and personal attack.” Adams was infuriated by Jefferson’s attack. This began the long and bitterly estranged relationship between the two men, who with different visions soon became rivals.[38]

Even though Jefferson had apologized for the letter, Adams was in strong opposition to Jefferson over the personal attack and viewed Jefferson’s “radical republicanism and unqualified support of the French Revolution” as diversions from the experiment of “self-government.” Therefore, before leaving the office of Presidency, Adams made “midnight appointments” of justices who would oppose Jefferson’s presidential initiatives.[39] Not until the end of their lives did the two seek to reconcile the long battered friendship. Coincidentally, Jefferson and Adams both passed away on the same day, July 4, 1826, with Jefferson dying just hours before Adams.

Interestingly, all three men had opportunities to work with Benjamin Franklin, who was nearly a generation older than them. There seemed to be a sense of respect and admiration toward the older, often wiser Franklin. Franklin and Adams both shared the characteristics of personal ambition and a rather obsessive nature; however, Franklin’s intellect was a commonality that he shared more with Madison and Jefferson, who manifested their gifts through writing and persuasion of their personal circles of influence.

Franklin was a poster-child of America, in that he changed the European image that American colonists were nothing more than backwoodsmen void of intellect or intrigue. He symbolized the realization for Europeans that America could produce intellect, scientific genius, and political attraction. He was the epitome of American potential, and this was quite evident in the unusual combination of his scientific genius and his popular exposition. He could amaze and intrigue even the most elite, while taming the hearts of the average citizens. This combination of his charismatic personality and vivacious wit enabled him to engage an audience almost unparallel in his time.[40]

These four men came from very different backgrounds; Franklin being raised nearly a generation before the other three in colonial Pennsylvania. Madison being the youngest, along with Adams and Jefferson were raised in Virginia and Massachusetts, respectively, where more centralized, Congregationalist ideals were present. The latter three seemed to have more opportunities at an earlier age to partake in well-established institutes of learning and public forum. Amazingly, the bond that these four men had was interwoven through the fabric of time with passion and dissension where an intriguing balance of loyalty, respect, and creativity seem to sway against divisive political agendas, personal ambitions, and public achievements. The neatest facet about the crossing of their life paths and its seeming interdependence was the vast diversity that enabled them to challenge, grow, and thrive off of one another. By interacting together, their great strengths and gifts become as evident as their deepest flaws and weaknesses which were limited by their humanity. Yet, their legends live on as inexpressibly as their impact on the founding of a nation which tolerates differences. As well as, a nation that collaborated the ideas of many in an effort to affirm respect and dignity which manifest themselves in unalienable freedom, passionate liberty, and the rights to pursue a life filled with happiness.

The United States of America was a nation founded by the energies and passions of ordinary men who rose above their circumstances and limitations to accomplish a dream of a much better life; a life whose governance centered on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Assuming equality in the eyes of their Creator, they enjoyed a vast myriad of diversity, yet were unified under one purpose, one cause: independence. To achieve independence required the combined efforts and gifts of each and every pillar. Without their complex connection, and strong foundation, the American nation would never have lasted until now. Even more, the nation would not have been able to paradoxically be unified under one flag while at the same be a nation of diversity, tolerance, and conviction.

-----------------------

[1] Edmund Morgan. The Meaning of Independence: John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1976. p. 3

[2] Edmund Morgan. The Meaning of Independence: John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1976. p. 3

[3] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. P.24

[4] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. P. 35

[5] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. Back cover

[6] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 26

[7] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. p 19

[8] L. H. Butterfield, ed., Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1961. P 36

[9] William Degregorio. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 37

[10] Dumas Malone. Jefferson the Virginian: Volume One. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1984. P. 38

[11] William Degregorio. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. p37

[12] Merrill D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation, New York: Oxford Press, 1970. p 520

[13] William Degregorio. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P 55.

[14] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. p. 22

[15] Ronald Clark. A Biography of Benjamin Franklin. New York: Random House, 1983. P. 28

[16] Ronald Clark. A Biography of Benjamin Franklin. New York: Random House, 1983. P. 413

[17] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. p 22

[18] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. p 57

[19] Peterson, 957

[20] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 40

[21] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 43

[22] Edmund Morgan. The Meaning of Independence: John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1976. p. 5

[23] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: An Autobiography. New York: Random House, 1983. P. 76

[24] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 21

[25] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 38

[26] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P40

[27] Dumas Malone. Jefferson the Virginian: Volume One. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1984. P. 57

[28] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 58

[29] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. 59

[30] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. 29

[31] Ibid, 29

[32] Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. P. 36

[33] John Adams to John Quincy Adams. As reproduced in Bennett. P. 96

[34] Dumas Malone. Jefferson the Virginian: Volume One. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1984. P. 67

[35] William Degregario. Complete Book of U.S. Presidents. New York: Gramercy Books, 2002. P. 56

[36] William J. Bennett. Our Sacred Honor. Simon and Schuster. New York: 1997. P. 349

[37] William J. Bennett. Our Sacred Honor. Simon and Schuster. New York: 1997. P. 342-344

[38] Ibid, 200

[39] Ibid, 200

[40] Ronald Clark. Benjamin Franklin: A Biography. New York: Random House, 1983. 416-417

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download