Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States

Link change

Hi all,

I think it might be better to link 'the' (as written in the article, not 'a') "Declaration of Independence" to link to "/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence" as opposed to /Declaration_of_Independence

Thanks, Ian Clark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.196.222 (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

French founding fathers

Seems that there is little support for these additions. Could the user adding the information come up with a persuasive argument and a source for these inclusions?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

--> Please define "little support". Even a cursory review of the articles for the names recently added to the "Other Founders" list will reveal that the additions are exactly comparable and equivalent in historical importance - if not more so - to Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, whose name already appeared in this list prior to the addition of the accurate content that has been deleted impulsively and without review of the relevant historical facts. Deletion of historically relevant names on this list should be accompanied by a persuasive argument as to why they should be deleted.

First, read what consensus is. Also read WP:V, which is a core content policy. If three different people revert the names, its a pretty fair bet that it shouldn't be in the article. Also, wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other article per WP:CIRCULAR.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sammy Houston has not provided any WP:RS to support his claim that the French officials he has listed should be included in a list of founders of the United States. His reference to Lafayette already being on the list does not support his claim. Lafayette was in the service of the rebelling colonies and not at that time serving under French government authority. Sammy Houston is in clear violation of WP:3RR. Dwalrus (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted twice already and don't wish to fall into his trap,so I'm out of options when it comes to someone who doesn't care about WP:BRD and WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS, andWP:V, and WP:RS, and WP:CIVIL, and ect, ect.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for 'Other founding fathers'?

There seems to be no consensus on criteria for a person's inclusion in this section. The result is an overly long list of names. I suggest that a minimum qualification for a 'Founding Father' is that his main accomplishments in service to the U.S. occurred during the founding period (from about 1765 to 1789). WCCasey (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, what you're calling for is original research, which we don't do. On Wikipedia, the only meaningful qualification for inclusion on the list is that a reliable source calls the guy a Founding Father. Anyone should feel free to remove any name from the list for which you cannot find support in a reliable source. Some, like Patrick Henry, should be easy to support. A few other names are dubious and will probably be removed. —Kevin Myers 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why any OR is necessary; these names are all linked to bio articles. I'm willing, however, to support Kevin's proposed criterion. To try it out, I read the article on Ethan Allen, first name on the list. He is described as "one of the founders of the U.S. state of Vermont", but I didn't find the words 'Founding Father' anywhere. Should Allen be removed from the list? As for Patrick Henry, my opinion is that he qualifies as a Founder, but the statement to that effect in his bio is not sourced. Tag it? WCCasey (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) I'm a bit skeptical about the sub-list of "other" founders. It includes a lot of people who were relatively unimportant, and omits people who seem equally important (e.g.omitting Paine Wingate). The sub-list includes:

• Richard Allen
• Egbert Benson
• Richard Bland
• Elias Boudinot
• Cyrus Griffin
• Michael Hillegas
• William Jackson
• Thomas Sim Lee
• Philip Mazzei
• Edmund Pendleton
• William Rickman
• Robert Smith

These were founders? I plan to delete these people, and slap "citation needed" tags on the rest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Might as well just do a JSTOR/Google Scholar search for each name in the list and cite as many as we can. After that initial pass, then we can reevaluate who belongs. NW (Talk) 02:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and get started with deletions. Robert Smith (cabinet) was the second United States Secretary of the Navy from 1801 to 1809 and the sixth United States Secretary of State from 1809 to 1811. I can't find any reference referring to him as a founding father or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove Michael Hillegas, who was the first Treasurer of the United States, up until 1789. I can't find Hillegas mentioned anywhere as a "framer" or "founder" or the like. The closest I get is that he is mentioned by Robert Wright and David Cowen in their book Financial founding fathers: the men who made America rich (University of Chicago Press, 2006). But Hillegas is not among the nine people identified in that book as financial founding fathers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think William Rickman is also an outlier here. He was a doctor who helped care for soldiers of the Revolutionary War, but I can't find any sources that say he rose to the level of a "founder" or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've installed a "seealso" for President of the Continental Congress. I'm going to remove the following because I can't find support for them being founders: Cyrus Griffin, Thomas Sim Lee, Thomas Pinckney, Peyton Randolph, and Arthur St. Clair.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Statement in Article

The second paragraph, first sentence, "Most historians ....", is false. The source cited actually reads the opposite: "Most scholars identify as founding fathers the politicians, soldiers, jurists, and legislators who held leadership positions during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic. This category has two subsets .... First are the Signers .... Second are the Framers". [Bernstein, The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, first chapter, electronic edition, location 106.] Two paragraphs later, Bernstein writes, "Some have expanded the phrase to embrace ... Americans of the middling and common sorts who served in the [military] during the American Revolution, who voted for delegates to state conventions that were to ratify the Constitution, and who helped bring the new government into existence." [id., location 110.] However, Bernstein explicitly uses the more common definition of the founders, i.e. the Signers and the Framers, not "the middling and common sorts." Stephenrumson (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

With your ellipses in the quotations, it does not conflict. "politicians, soldiers, jurists, and legislators who held leadership positions during the American Revolution, the Confederation period, and the early Republic" would appear to be a larger group then the latter mentioned "two subsets" but much smaller than a definition including "Americans of the middling and common sorts" which he rejects. If it clearly said that it consists of "only two subsets", it would conflict and without the full text it is hard to say for certain. Rmhermen (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I also see no conflict. There really is no hard and fast definition for "founding father"; it's been a vague term from the getgo, and it depends upon who you talk to and who you read as to the extent or limitation of the phrase's meaning. That's what I glean from the Bernstein source. Aside from that, I also liked the part about Abbs Adams and the "founding mothers of the USA". Anyway, due to the phrase's inherent vagueness, I really don't see a way to limit the extent of its meaning. The above conversation in the previous section calls for "criteria", and one editor said that "the only meaningful qualification for inclusion on the list is that a reliable source calls the guy a Founding Father." Good luck with that. In light of the realization that the term "founding father" has always had veiled meaning at best, the requirement for the described reliable source would probably wipe out most of the article. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The conflict is that article states that "Most historians" include "ordinary citizens" in their definition of Founding Fathers. However, the sources cited by Bernstein do not include ordinary citizens. Bernstein later states that "Some" historians include ordinary citizens. The difference between "most" and "some" is huge. The consensus of academic historians, in fact, is that the Founders and Framers comprise a few hundred men, at most. Now, within that consensus, numerically small differences exist, but nothing approaching anything that warrants including ordinary men in the definition. Further, the three historians Bernstein cites for his "Some" historians statement are considered narrative and/or post-modern historians that research "ordinary" people during this era; their use of "founders" is largely rhetorical. About my text, my ellipses are only meant to make it easy to read. The first ellipses can be read in full in the article. Removing my second and third ellipses, the text reads: "This category has two subsets, each keyed to one of two founding images. First are the Signers, the delegates to the Second Continental Congress who in July 1776 in Philadelphia's State House (now called Independence Hall) declared American independence and revised and adopted Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence. Second are the Framers, the delegates to the Federal Convention who met in the same building from May through September of 1787 and framed the Constitution of the United States." And third: "Some have expanded the phrase to embrace not only the usual cadre of elite white males but also Americans of the middling and common sorts who served in the militia or the Continental Army or Navy during the American Revolution, who voted for delegates to the state conventions that were to ratify the Constitution, and who helped bring the new government into existence." Stephenrumson (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "to mean a larger group, including not only the Signers and the Framers but also all those who, whether as politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens, took part in winning American independence and creating the United States of America." You seem to be concentrating on the "ordinary citizens" part of the sentence while ignoring the "took part in winning...and creating" part. Someone like Haym Solomon who was not a soldier or judge or politician or statesman but a financier comes to mind. Rmhermen (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that some historians apparently encompass ordinary citizens in the term "Founders" comes as a surprise to me. I'm not disputing it, but I've always seen the term used to refer to leaders, only, such as signers of the Declaration and participants in the Constitutional Convention. So I've changed the word "most" to "some," since Stephenrumson tells us that the cited reference uses the word "some." NCdave (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

deists?

The article says, "Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson... and Benjamin Franklin. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists."

That is very misleading, in that it greatly understates the dominance of the Christian religion among the Founders and Framers:

1. Neither Jefferson nor Franklin were "vocal about their opposition to organized religion." Both were anti-clerical, and Jefferson (though he called himself a "true Christian") was noticeably heretical, but neither expressed opposition to organized religion. None of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention did so, either.

2. The phrase "anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion" strangely lumps together many Protestants, such as Methodists and Congregationalists (who were and are anti-clerical), with non-Christians. It sounds as though the writer doesn't know the difference.

3. The 2nd sentence makes it sound as though "proponents of traditional religion" were a mere faction, with representation at best comparable to those who were in "opposition to organized religion." In fact, the vast majority of the Founders & Framers were practicing Christians.

4. The 2nd sentence also suggests that the whole spectrum of "organized religion" was was represented. That is not the case. The only organized religion professed by any of the signers of any of the founding documents was Christianity. A few Jews also had some level of prominence: Isaac Franks, Haym Salomon & Francis Salvador. No other "organized religion" had any representation at all.

5. The claim that "several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists" is false unless you use a rather broad definition of the term "Founding Fathers." It was true of none of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The most prominent men who fit that description were Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, neither of whom signed any of the key founding documents. Franklin, who came to his faith late in life, is sometimes included in such lists, but he was a vocal Christian by the time of the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson is also often accused of being a Deist, but he was a regular churchgoer, and he called himself a Christian. NCdave (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1 has a discussion of this subject. Rmhermen (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Signers of the declaration of Indepence

I counted your list and you have 57 names, but all the other sources say there are 56 names. So who is extra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.158.178 (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that is Charles Thomson, secretary. Rmhermen (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)