Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States

Sources covering the Continental Congress, its Association and the founding

@Randy Kryn, Robert McClenon, Allreet, and Rjensen: and all concerned. — Below are statements taken from sources that establish the idea that the Continental Congress and its Association, were essential steps in uniting the colonies under one independent government. These sources should more than satisfy the idea that the Continental Congress, and its signatories of the Association be listed in this article as they have been for many years. Please leave any comments below, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• "The Continental Association is one of the most important documents of American colonial history. By authorizing the establishment of local committees to enforce the embargo of trade, it provided the apparatus that would eventually develop into the government of Revolution.
• "These were the first institutions of independent local government in the future United States."
• "Section eleven of the resolution specified that enforcement would lie with committees. Thus were the elected foundations of the new revolutionary government put in place."
• "The Association stands out as an important step toward the creation of an organic union among the colonies.
• "The Continental Association is significant in that it got the ball rolling toward independence and the colonies speaking in a united voice.
• They networked the provinces, which ultimately resulted in the Continental Congress where representatives began speaking against Great Britain with one resounding voice. Indeed, through the colonial Committees of correspondence, our Founders encountered British oppression, explored American unity, and exchanged visions of the future that would become the foundation of our nation.
• "The Continental Congress occupies a most interesting and important position in our national and political history. Suddenly brought together to meet a pressing emergency, its membership was made up from the most thoughtful among the men of the country. Few of them, if any, conceived that events would so happen that they would be called upon to adopt a policy which must inevitably lead to establishing a new power among the nations.
• "Even before outbreak of hostilities an embryonic "federal" effort had been mounted, with the Stamp Act Congress and then with the First and Second Continental Congresses.
• "The Continental Congress, which set the most salient national precedents, delegated legislative authority by the bucketload."
• "In agreeing to meet in a Continental Congress, Americans, whether they knew it or not, consented to a major political revolution, for they transferred the debate over theories and policies from the local to what was in effect the “national” level".
• "The Association provided a “national” policy, but its effectiveness would depend upon action taken in each of the colonies. ...the Association was a reality that had to be faced as soon as Congress adjourned. Furthermore, many Americans were convinced that eventually they would reach a fork in the road ahead. One fork might lead to reconciliation with Britain; the other would probably lead to independence, and the Association pointed toward that fork."

• "...the Continental Congress made its chief contributions to the building of the nation. ... which in time were transmitted to its successor to form an essential part of the new and more adequate system of government. It was, in fact, in the Continental Congress that were developed and formulated many of those fundamental principles of government that have become our national heritage."

• "With its emphasis on marshalling popular support, the Association thus marked an important early step toward the eventual creation of avowedly republican governments."

• "With a rather human predilection for finality historians have generally accepted the view that the American Revolution was inevitable since the members of the First Continental Congress were committed to revolt from the outset."

• "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association [by the First Continental Congress] in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”"
• "Thus had this awkward but clear-headed Yankee [Roger Sherman] helped to found a great nation. He was the only patriot to sign the four most important documents signalling America’s break with England: the Association of the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution."

Sources:

• Ammerman, David (1974). In the common cause: American response to the Coercive acts of 1774. Charlottesville : University Press of Virginia. ISBN 9780813905259.
• Phillips, Kevin (2012). 1775 : A good year for Revolution. New York : Viking Press. ISBN 978-0-6700-25121.
• Friedenwald, Herbert (1895). "The Continental Congress". The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 19 (2). University of Pennsylvania Press: 197–207. JSTOR 20083644.
• Warford-Johnston, Benjamin (November 2016). "American Colonial Committees of Correspondence: Encountering Oppression, Exploring Unity, and Exchanging Visions of the Future". The History Teacher. 50 (1). Society for History Education: 83–128. JSTOR 44504455.
• Werther, Richard J. (October 24, 2017). "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the signers of Four founding Documents". Journal of the American Revolutionary War.
• Burnett, Edmund Cody (1941). The Continental Congress. New York : Macmillan Co.
• Jensen, Merrill (1968). The founding of a nation : a history of the American Revolution, 1763-1776. New York, Oxford University Press.
• Johnson, Herbert A. (Winter 2016). "American Constitutionalism and the War for Independence". Early American Studies. 14 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 140–173. JSTOR 44630818.
• Mortenson, Julian Davis; Bagley, Nicholas (March 2021). "Dedication at the Founding". Columbia Law Review. 121 (2). Columbia Law Review Association, Inc.: 277–368. JSTOR 27002094.
• Meister, Charles W. (1987). The founding fathers. Jefferson, N.C. : McFarland. ISBN 978-0-8995-02915.
• Mullett, Charles F. (December 1931). "Imperial Ideas at the First Continental Congress". The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly. 12 (3). Wiley: 238–244. JSTOR 42864744.
• Rakove, Jack N. (1979). The beginnings of national politics. Random House USA Inc; 1st edition. ISBN 978-0-3944-23708.
• Ellis, Joseph J. (2007). Founding fathers : the essential guide to the men who made America. Hoboken, N.J. : John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-4701-17927.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

The proposed dismantling of much of this article was based on the premise that there were not enough sources to support the idea that the members of the Continental Congress and its Articles of Association were not part of the founding process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Very nice work, thanks for the effort and dedication. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion and some personal recommendations

As you've probably seen, William Allen Simpson has proposed deleting the Founding Fathers article based on a wide range of concerns. If you haven't already, please visit the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founding Fathers of the United States page and register your vote for Speedy Keep, Keep, Speedy Deletion, Deletion, Split, or whatever you feel is appropriatep as a recommendation. The page also includes William's list of concerns, of which I share a few.

I think his most valid points are in regards to the repetition of certain topics that are ably covered in depth elsewhere in WP, specifically the following sections:

• Colonies Unite
• Continental Congress
• Declaration of Independence
• Fighting for Independence (Revolutionary War)
• Constitutional Convention
• Bill of Rights
• Slavery

While I enjoyed working on some of these and learning what I did, I no longer see the point of repeating all this material, especially since no particular effort was made to focus the discussions on the roles of the founding fathers. Therefore, I'd like to propose their deletion as redundant. If we've uncovered anything that isn't mentioned in the main articles—most of our research and writing is "original"—then it would be better to incorporate this "new material" into those articles.

I also think William has a valid point about the Demographics section. The information here probably should be covered in some other way. I say that despite the fair amount of work I did on some of the sub-sections. And not to stop there, we should also take a hard look at the sections toward the end. Our focus should be on what would better serve readers, as opposed to our own interests. Allreet (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this. I may have peeved William off at a category he's, in good faith, trying to get rid of that I created related to the Founding Fathers. The Founders is quite the article to want to delete, especially with the 250th anniversaries coming up, and I'll read the attempt later. Anyway, I disagree with Allreet and say that we don't make any immediate compromises here. This page has been crafted well, and everything on it gives narrative to the men who founded the nation. It describes how they did it, and highlights the patterns and processes that they followed. Having all of this lain out in one place, an appropriate place, totally related to the topic, serves readers to an extent that this page is an honor to create for the editors who have taken the time to collab and craft such a thing. Rather than change anything, keep the page as is, and keep improving it. It is becoming a work of art, and rather than begin to pick away at it please realize that this page is near feature status. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, Randy, I'm not politicking for this and only want to hear what others have to say. While I disagree about the redundancies, I do agree we've done a respectable job in presenting another account of the history. Thanks for replying. Allreet (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article in the near future?

Until I saw this at AFD, I was not aware the article existed. Now that I've read it, I would like to encourage whoever feels motivated to do so, to take this up through WP:PR and WP:FAC. This article has come so far, it would be fitting for this to make it through FA Candidacy, and eventually on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that's what prompted some of my suggestions above. I originally intended to mention GA and FA as possible goals, but I think trimming may be necessary. Thanks for the praise, which is reflective of the hard work and skills of a great team of editors over the years. BTW, I wasn't aware of WP:PR and that seems to be a good place to start the process. Allreet (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The article size (readable prose) is currently only at 42k...no where near the size that would call for trimming. Imo, much more context could be added, as the subject is broad in its scope. Trimming should only occur if the text in question goes off on a lengthy or irrelevant tangent. One of the criterias for a FA is plenty of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers's analysis seems about right. This is quite a remarkable article. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 24#Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers

Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers has been nominated for deletion (since relisted) at the link above. If interested, please comment on the category deletion attempt which is related to this page topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If anyone can add homes to the category, please do so. I tried to get them all, but kept finding more of them, so I have no idea how many have been missed. The category should only contain homes of founders and not patriots (or not the future Founding Fathers from the First Continental Congress, similar to waiting for someone to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, TheVirginiaHistorian, I don't know if you've seen my request above but if anyone knows of further homes to add to the category you two would. The deletion attempt, which is still open, at least provides a chance to focus editors on this interesting subject. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Randy: Just saw it now. Busy week. I'll add my two centavos. Maybe four. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Randy: In response to your request, I searched the List of National Historic Landmarks and found three additions: Oliver Ellsworth Homestead in Connecticut, Robert Treat Paine Estate in Massachusetts, and Heyward-Washington House in South Carolina. Considering the level of difficulty, as determined by the number of potential candidates and possible variances in names, I'd say you done quite well. So you may have the honors of adding the three I found, if you're so willing.

The only one I saw that may not qualify is Knox's Headquarters State Historic Site, since it's more like Washington's headquarters at Valley Forge which wasn't exactly a home. I'll let you mull that over. Anyway, I'm sure there's more founding digs to dig for, so I'll add any I find and will let you know.

Oh, and the more time I spent on this, the more convinced I was that it's a great category. Kudos. Allreet (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Allreet, both for enjoying the page and your new discoveries above. I'll add those, thanks [EDIT: except for the Paine Estate, built by Paine's great-grandson]. I agree on the Knox site because I remember that it may have been the only one I was a bit undecided about as well, thanks, a good second opinion. Your new finds show that I should have mentioned the category sooner and not hog it all to myself. Yes, the more the house articles are either read or scanned the more interesting the topic becomes as patterns and connections click in. Another founder's category I've put up and populated is Category:Ships named for Founding Fathers of the United States which is not as important historically (the homes resonate with the era) but fits Category:Ship names. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at alternatives, the ship category would fit into an overall Category:Monuments and memorials to United States Founding Fathers, which I've tossed up and expanded with the homes, Category:Statues of U.S. Founding Fathers (seems I put this one up as well), Category:Monuments and memorials to Thomas Jefferson and Washington, etc. Another category which seems to merit navigational use. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• The homes category was closed as no consensus. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Time to bring back Category:Founding Fathers of the United States

After reading the comments at the deletion attempt of Category:Homes of United States Founding Fathers it seems that some editors don't have any idea what a Founding Father is, and !voting from that perspective. They point to the 2007 category deletion of Category:Founding Fathers of the United States which had similar problems, editors not aware of the subject matter (although, interestingly, an earlier 2007 deletion attempt was closed as no consensus). Well, I submit it's well past time to bring it back and that the entrants would now be well-defined and well-sourced. The category would consist of the three extant signers categories plus 31 other individuals. Sixteen of the 31 were delegates to the Constitutional Convention who are easily cited as Founders and belong in the category. That leaves 15 who would be included from sources and citations. Almost all of those if not all of those are easily cited as Founders, and are included on this page. Unlike 2007, this would now be an easily defended and well-sourced category, with possibly a few entrants subject to debate. Are page editors and watchers okay with the idea, and does anyone know what the requirements are of bringing back a category deleted 16 years ago aside from notifying the editor who deleted the category, ProveIt? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that this major category be restored. Consensus can change, esp when the reasoning is presented correctly, and attempts to obscure dealt with accordingly, with sound reasoning, based in historical fact, per sources – and there are many.
Apparently there is a 'school of thought' out there that has it in for the idea of Founding Father. There have been three attempts, two of which failed recently, to delete items, be they a category or an article, that feature the Founding Fathers. For reasons that are becoming sort of obvious, the term Father doesn't sit well with the gender denial crowd and others of similar thinking, caring not about the truth behind the history, that the Founders, those who participated in the actual formation, debating and signing of founding documents, and/or were primary leaders during the Revolution, were men, and who were roundly addressed as Fathers by both men and women alike for hundreds of years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how this works. The instructions are to contact the editor who deleted the category before starting a new one, so ProveIt can give us information on how to put a deleted page back. Your analysis of why the category makes sense now rings true. Reading the first 2007 no consensus discussion, and the successful 2007 deletion nomination, seems to show that a deletion nomination would not succeed this time around. Politics and wording aside, the Founding Fathers of the United States has sustained as a notable and reputable topic, as shown by the recent deletion attempt of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the renomination of anything doesn't require that the original nominator begin another nomination. In any event, consensus is of course important, but it should not be 'the' deciding factor. That the Founding Fathers forged a nation, and did so with the resistance of the most powerful nation at the time, i.e.Great Britain, was a monumental advent which changed the Western hemisphere, giving impetus and inspiration for the French and other revolutions shortly thereafter, and subsequently the founders involved, a distinct group of people, merit their own category. There is no other category that places all these individuals under one umbrella. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't about the original nominator, who left Wikipedia in 2008, just that the instructions say to contact the admin who actually deleted the page after the two 2007 deletion nominations (the first closed as no consensus, the second passed). Just trying to dot the i's and not run afoul of rules and regs before the category is put back up. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means, proceed correctly. From there, we'll look at the former arguments, such as they were, pony up, with the sources, and move forward. It's sort of amazing, and disappointing, that anyone would have this category deleted.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gwillhickers, thanks for keeping track of this. Just trying to find out the correct way. Since the editor who deleted the 2007 page seems to only edit Wikipedia every couple of months I've also asked at WikiProject:Categories for direction on how to return a deleted category page. If I get permission or guidance on how to add it back should I just go ahead and do so or wait until more sources are added (Allreet is adding many cites)? The main 2007 objection seems to be that the term 'United States Founding Fathers' wasn't specific enough to define the criteria. The signers of the three documents are easily added, as are the 16 individuals who attended the Philadelphia Convention but didn't sign the Constitution who are recognized as Founders. The 14 others seem to just need enough cites to qualify. Do the two women qualify, as Abigail Adams was an advisor (do advisors to founders qualify?) and Otis seems to have been an important writer during the period. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say just go ahead and re-create the category (assuming you can) and put the clear criteria on it, which makes it a different beast from what was deleted before. If someone objects, then we'll discuss in whatever forum makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Dicklyon. Yes, it is easily creatable and would be stocked with more links than in 2007. You are probably correct but I don't want to get ahead of what Allreet is doing (adding cites so criteria-being-met is clear to those who might object and re-nom it for deletion). I would say he should have the green light on this (if Ben Franklin had invented to stoplight would he have chosen green for go and red for stop? Where is Isaac Asimov when you need a good short story written). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Re:criteria.  We should assign the category only to the various founders who signed founding documents and those who played major roles in the war. There wouldn't be any debate there. If we go beyond that it'll open the door to anyone who lent advice or played minor roles on the side, as well as invite other never ending debates. But first things first. Let's get this important category back on track. There is no other category that includes all the founders. Categories for signers of the D.O.I. doesn't; Signers of the Constitution doesn't.  If I'm not mistaken, there is not even a category that has the term Founder included in its title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• As for the term Founding Father this has existed in one form or another. i.e.Fathers, Forefathers, Founding Fathers, etc.
  Our article reads:

In his second inaugural address in 1805, Thomas Jefferson referred to those who first came to the New World as "forefathers".[19] At his 1825 inauguration, John Quincy Adams called the U.S. Constitution "the work of our forefathers" and expressed his gratitude to "founders of the Union".[20] In July of the following year, Quincy Adams, in an executive order upon the deaths of his father John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, paid tribute to the two as both "Fathers" and "Founders of the Republic".[21] These terms were used in the U.S. throughout the 19th century, from the inaugurations of Martin Van Buren and James Polk in 1837 and 1845, to Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union speech in 1860 and his Gettysburg Address in 1863, and up to William McKinley's first inauguration in 1897.[22][23][24][25]

We also have a huge variety of sources that uses the term Founding Fathers. In our Bibliography there are some 33 sources that has the term Founding Fathers in the title, not to mention all those that use the term in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Good analysis Gwillhickers, although I'd expand the known and provable founders to those who attended but didn't sign the Constitution (all are Framers according to the National Archives) and many of the other Founders including Robert Livingston, Patrick Henry, Peyton Randolph, Charles Thomson and others. Best to have the discussion here about those "extras", and include most of them with an eye on anticipated discussions on the others (does Paul Revere rise to the status? etc.). Allreet has recently been adding sources to articles, and probably has good thoughts on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Paul Revere...? Hmmm.. :An iconic patriot, but I dunno. He was also a silversmith and so forth, but not exactly a Founder in terms of drafting and debating the founding documents. And he wasn't exactly a military leader of the same measure that Washington, Gates, Lafayette, etc were. This is the sort of thing that we should just step aside from for now it seems.. Let's just include the founders, who were so without a doubt, and thereafter, we can discuss people like Revere. e.g. William Goddard worked hand in hand with Ben Franklin to establish the colonial/US postal system -- but he wasn't an actual a founder, as much as I'm inclined to include him as such. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, Revere is already listed on this page as a Founder although I'd agree with you that he should be moved to Patriots (and maybe Goddard added as a Patriot if not already on the list). Gates, Greene, and Lafayette aren't on the Founders list, although I've also said they should be, but on our Patriots list. We should be sure of our "extra" Founders (i.e. the two women were already moved to after the Founders) but list them in the category. The Framers for sure (including non-signers) and the people like Livingston and Peyton Randolph I mentioned above. Again, Allreet would have a good feeling about which would pass the muster of a formal Wikipedia discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's another thing. We have to have the Founders article consistent with the criteria for the category. Recommend moving Revere to Patriots. . If there is more than one source referring to Revere, Gates, et al, as Founders, then that's what we should say and dub with the category. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: I agree on moving Revere to Other Patriots. He played a significant role at one point, his ride, but too brief to qualify. IMO, the criteria should be "multiple sources" of an "authoritative" nature, for example, 2-3 books or journal articles written by recognized historians. Websites run by prominent institutions such as the National Archives or Harvard would also qualify as reliable sources since they have historians to vet such things. There are other possibilities, but I suggest setting the bar relatively high. Allreet (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Please consider me notified. I deleted the category as a janitorial action after the community had voted for its deletion, and have no objection to its reinstatement. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Okay, I suggested two sources for military leaders, but Revere wasn't exactly a leader, even though he briefly played a vital role. Perhaps you're right. We should use at least three, and highly reputable sources, new and old, and ones where most editors can agree on if it becomes an issue. I just checked the cites for Paul Revere in the Additional Founding Fathers section. One cite is Berstein, 2009, p. 180, but there is no mention of Revere on that page -- or anywhere in the text(!). The other cite is History.com, under Additional Founders. Not sure if that's reliable enough for our purposes. Meanwhile I'm going to strike the Berstein cite for Revere. Since the main argument opposing the term Founding Father is that it's "too vague", our criteria for the article, and the category, should be clear, and consistent with each other i.e. Signers of founding documents, or at least a prominent member of the Continental Congress, and primary military leaders, like Horatio Gates and Henry Knox. Everyone else can be listed under patriots. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You're correct...I believe I applied Bernstein's p. 180 as a cite, a case of mistaken memory and poor follow-up. I did check Bernstein's Appendix before responding to you and thus I ruled against Paul (I don't consider the History website authoritative enough on an issue like this). Vague is a poor characterization. If reliable sources are explicit, what's fuzzy or unclear? I'm beginning to lean against many, but by no means all non-signers. Better might be to re-write the Other Patriots lede to indicate these patriots all made significant contributions to the founding but leave the fathers issue up in the air. Allreet (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The Framers who didn't sign are listed by the National Archives, which should be enough. That George Mason is included among others who did not sign because they wanted a Bill of Rights is an important Founder attribute. Peyton Randolph should be kept, unless you'd like to finally add the First Contiential Congress. Robert Livingston was on the Committee of Five, a Founder if anybody is. Charles Thomson is surely a Founding Father, I'd argue this one in an RfC if the category is nommed (called the "Samuel Adams of Philadelphia" he was there, in Congress, for everything except the Constitution). Most of the others are equally important as Founders. Paul Revere seems to have been patriotized (George Clinton, enough sources?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Yes, signing a founding document is not the only consideration. The Founders category should only include signers, and/or those who participated in the debates and drafting, in the Continental Congress, as well as prominent military leaders. This would, unfortunately, exclude Paul Revere and John Marshall, who should be listed under Patriots. As mentioned, since the term has been, and is likely to be, challenged, we should have multiple sources that say, in definitive terms, not just an empty claim, that any individual in question was indeed a Founder, regardless if they are loosely referred to as such by one or two sources. If this category is going to fly we should adhere to strict criteria. i.e.Signers, debators/drafters and major military leaders. This way there won't be any solid basis for the "vague" argument. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Background

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — Re: the nomination for the deleted Category. The nomination was closed in 2007 by Vegaswikian, who hasn't made any edits since 2015. The nominator was Dr. Submillimeter who hasn't made any edits since 2008. Given these circumstances, renomination would be acceptable, esp since much time has passed since the closing in 2007.

The only arguments for deletion was that the Category in question was "too vague", or "broad", or "Subjective", and that sub cats can suffice, which are debatable at best. Esp since there is no category that holds all the Founders as one distinct group. If we adhere to strict criteria this assumed problem can be easily avoided. i.e.Founders who signed founding documents, and notable leaders of the war, with at least two reliable sources referring to any military leader as a Founder. If challenged, justification for this category would be easy to establish, as outlined here and above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe I said as much above. Allreet (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The main unanswered question would be if the category includes the signers categories as sub-categories Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence etc., which would duplicate many names, or list each Founder in a separate listing? I'm leaning towards the sub-categories unless by doing so it harms the category chain of important documents. It should probably also include Category:Monuments and memorials to United States Founding Fathers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, signers of the D.O.I. and other such categories involving the Founders, should be sub categories to the Founding Fathers of the United States category, an all inclusive category pertaining to all the Founders, under one roof. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Allreet and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, regarding your last edit and the opening statement in the Other patriots section.
  The following men and women are also recognized for the significant contributions they made to the nation's founding:
  We might want to change that to ... contributions they made to the nation during the founding era.. As it is, the statement now implies that they had a hand in the actual founding, per founding documents, or primary leadership roles, esp with the adjective of "significant" in there. Also, in the Other patriots section there are members of the Continental Congress and prominent military leaders listed who would be better placed in the Additional Founding Fathers section. i.e.Horatio Gates, of Saratoga, the turning point in the war, was a major military leader, second only to Washington.  Lafayette should also be moved there. John Rogers, who voted for the Declaration of Independence but fell ill before he could sign it would be better placed there, as well as Arthur St. Clair, major general and president of the Continental Congress, along with Thomas Willing and Henry Wisner, both delegates to the Continental Congress – all better off in the Additional Founding Fathers section.  This will bring more consistency to the article and further abate any "vague" contentions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers, on a second reading of the patriots list your language seems to fit better. Each patriot listed should have had a role in the founding of the nation during its creation, but I understand that you consider "Founding" to be the government, war, and documents. I'd agree with all of your Founder additions, a good summary list. But are there adequate sources? John Paul Jones probably also qualifies in principal and per military achievement during the war. But again, sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: I'm reflecting John Ferling's comment from the Journal of the American Revolution article "How Do You Define 'Founding Fathers": I have a broad and generous definition of the Founding Fathers. Together with the usual suspects, I lump in anyone who helped bring on the American Revolution, win the war that secured independence, and helped establish the American Republic. Most definitely this is true of many of the patriots listed, and if does not apply to someone in particular, then they don't belong here, given the subject of the article. IOW, if their contributions to the nation don't relate to the founding, why should we care? Allreet (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just checking in before I kick back and retire for the evening. I'm sure there are adequate sources that place the names highlighted above in the arena of the founding process. Not sure if they'll say, in every case, Founding Father, per se, but enough so to fit the criteria put forth here in Talk. i.e.Signers, debators/drafters, per the Continental Congress, and prominent military leaders. Let's hope this is the case all the way around the block. We have to get our act together here before recreating the Founding Fathers category. This way we can stand up to any challenges the nay-sayers may put forth. My time stamp says differently, but it's still the 13th out here in California. Loggin' out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Help needed: I put up the navbox category Category:Founding Fathers of the United States navigational boxes with 18 entries, but there are over 100 other entries floating in there that don't belong and I can't figure out where they are coming from. If anyone knows, please edit those, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Randy Kryn: — I count 23 entries., added when the category was created. No other edits yet. Where are you getting, "over 100 other entries"?  In any case, will you be creating the Category:Founding Fathers of the United States category soon?
• @Allreet: — Regarding Ferling's statement (in bold) and your comment:

I lump in anyone who helped bring on the American Revolution, win the war that secured independence, and helped establish the American Republic - Ferling — Most definitely this is true of many of the patriots listed, and if does not apply to someone in particular, then they don't belong here, given the subject of the article. IOW, if their contributions to the nation don't relate to the founding, why should we care?"

I can appreciate Ferling's statement, but I'm sure you know we can't just include any such individual. If we assign the Founding Fathers of the United States category to anyone whose contributions "related" to the founding it will give the "vague" or "too broad" arguments a leg to stand on. Perhaps I'm reading your comment wrong. In any case, many individuals "contributed" during the Founding era, but we should assign the Founding Father title only to those directly and primarily responsible. Historian's opinions certainly vary, as is readily evident on the Journal of the American Revolution web page, but for purposes of a category, one which will be consistent with this article, we need to set practical limits. We have a Patriots section, and this is the ideal place to list notable people who weren't in the actual drafting, debating and signing, or were not primary and significant leaders in the war and its outcome. If we start assigning the category too broadly it will likely invite many reverts and ongoing debates. If we adhere to practical criteria we avoid that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The list is pretty much trimmed down, who else, besides John Marshall, are you thinking of removing? A good case can probably be made for each of them if contested. It's good this is coming up now, so the inclusions are worked out by the 250th anniversaries. Allreet, I had changed some of the coding at a template which seems to have cut the category down from almost 100 incorrect entries to now five incorrect extra entries. I'll fidget with it again to see if I can fix those five, but am not code savvy about some things. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn: I agree our list of Patriots should be limited to those whose contributions were significant, meaning important. As for concerns about the Founding Fathers category, this list has no connection with it. These are people who are not recognized as Founding Fathers, and will not be included in the category. However, I also believe that "drafting, debating, signing...and fighting" are not the only criteria for founderhood, though that's for sources to say. So just to be clear, I only cited Ferling in regards to my wording of the lead-in to this section. If he can be that "generous" about founders, our criteria for patriots does not have to be any stricter. Allreet (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Randy Kryn: I'd double check sources on Marshall before moving him. His contributions to the founding were not as great as those of James Wilson, who also served on the first Supreme Court, but it strikes me as odd that Marshall got the top post yet doesn't qualify as a founder. As for the Patriot's list, I believe it's far too long, and despite what I said a few minutes ago, we should vet the sources here to make sure we're not being too "generous". Allreet (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As you both probably know, I moved several names from the Patriots section to the Additional Founding Founders section, as outlined above. As for the others, trimming might be in order, as the Patriots section is a bit lengthy for individuals who were not actual Founders. There are a number of iconic figures to the Revolution listed, like Paul Revere, John Paul Jones and Nathan Hale, but figures like Albert Gallatin and William Maclay, whose notability was established after the Revolution, might be well to have removed. Names of secondary military leaders during the Revolution, like George Rogers Clark and Tadeusz Kościuszko should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Think before clicking send. I got my Chief Justices mixed and forgot John Jay won the nod for first chief justice. Marshall, who was fourth, stands out not only as the longest serving supreme supreme, but remains one of the court's most influential. Whether his shaping of the court or prior contributions qualify him as a founder is only for sources to say. Allreet (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Marshall's significant contributions were after the actual founding. Anyways, I moved George Rogers Clark to the Additional Founding Fathers section. He was the highest-ranking Patriot military officer in the northwestern frontier, a large chunk of the eastern continent, during the Revolutionary War, and as such, he was among the military leaders that cleared the way for the founding. Without these individuals, there would only be founding documents blowing in the wind, with King George III laughing all the way to the bank(s) that financed his charters in the colonies. Don't suspect there will be any sources out there that refer to Clark as a Founding Founder, so this, as you must realize, can get involved. This might call for a rewriting of the opening passage in the Additional founding Fathers section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers:

• Regarding Marshall, what years apply to "the actual founding"? I don't have a definite opinion, so out of curiosity I checked the American Revolution article, which cites 1765-1791. A source I tripped across the other day indicates it may have started earlier, with the Writs of Assistance and Paxton Case in 1760. As for an end date, I don't have a clue as to what sources say.
• Regarding Clark, the source here, Dictionary of American Biography, does not use the title in reference to anyone, and I believe we can't bestow it ourselves using criteria that seems right to us. Everyone in the Additional Founders list either does or should have explicit sources, as indicated by the section's lede. If we stick by this as a standard, we'll have a far better chance at establishing the category. – Allreet (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, 1765, the year of the notorious Stamp Act, marks the beginning of the Founding era, per the Stamp Act Congress, and other events and resolves that soon followed. If there are no sources that pegs Clark as a founder, even through he was a major military leader during the Revolution then, regrettably, I suppose we should return his name to the Patriots section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I checked the two sources for Marshall and both are explicit. Bernstein's reference is direct, while the the Library of Congress's description of Marshall's letters on Founders Online requires a more careful reading. Meanwhile, I've found a third citation for Marshall, so it's likely there's more. As for his contributions before 1791, according to his WP article, Marshall joined the Continental Army, serving in numerous battles. During the later stages of the war, he was admitted to the state bar and won election to the Virginia House of Delegates. Marshall favored the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and he played a major role in Virginia's ratification of that document. Allreet (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Marshall, may have fought in Revolutionary War battles, and endured Valley Forge with Washington, but he wasn't a primary military leader. In any case, if there are multiple reliable sources that refer to him as a Founder then we must also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Marshall's main founding activities seem to be the Virginia ratification, is this enough to list as a Founder? Checking over the Patriots list, it's pretty tight and getting in good shape. Agreed to the items moved to Founders, hard to imagine that those two who didn't sign the Declaration but who voted for it and then left aren't well-sourced as Founders. Given them and the delegates to the First Continental Congress some professional historian (looking at you Rjensen) is going to have a field day in being the first major historian to add some obvious Founding Fathers to the literature (remember that amateur Richard Werther and the unsung intern at the National Archives seem to be the first to have named the delegates to the First CCongress as Founders). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, am going to question Elias Boudinot as being listed as an additional Founder. Certainly a Patriot, and was President of Congress (but not all the presidents are listed as either Founders or Patriots, although probably should be?), yet where is the elevation to Founder in the good faith addition? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

in my opinion historians these days take an expansive view of "founders" and it includes both Marshall and Boudinot. Rjensen (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The term depends solely on sources, which means we don't get to assess someone's qualifications for inclusion. And neither is anyone else likely to, given the availability of sources. Allreet (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Background cont...

@Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Rjensen: — Regarding the argument that opposes the term Founding Father as a category because it is too(?) broad, this is hard to deny, but it is by no means "vague" if we only list, or assign the Founding Fathers category, to those individuals who are indeed referred to as Founding Fathers, or Forefathers, by at least two or three reliable sources -- scholars with names, ideally. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC).

I'm in accord, on 2-3 reliable sources as well as for them to be explicit, meaning the term Founder or Founding Father is required. Forefather? Lincoln, of course, used it, and so too did Jefferson, though he was referring back to around the time of the Mayflower. My point is only that I doubt we're going to see many sources use this as an alternative, and I can't think of any other synonyms that would qualify. Allreet (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if the term forefather is used in the context of the Founding/Revolutionary era then I'd allow it, but it would seem this term doesn't occur much anyways. Was just saying, if it does occur in reference to one the people in question here we should allow it, if of course, it's used by a scholar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Boudinot is considered a FF in THE FAITHS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS By David L. Holmes. (Oxford University Pres 2006) --it's a major scholarly book with very good reviews. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Would that include all of the presidents of the Continental Congressses? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

a VERY GOOD source is Encyclopedia Britannica, Founding fathers : the essential guide to the men who made America (2007) Joseph Ellis in introduction page 1 states: " the following 10, presented alphabetically, represent the “gallery of greats” that has stood the test of time: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamil- ton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, George Mason, and George Washington. There is a nearly unanimous consensus that George Washington was the Foundingest Father of them all." --The book has short bios of 46 "founding Fathers" (and mothers). see online complete text (2) Harlow Giles Unger John Marshall : the chief justice who saved the nation (DA Capo Press 2014) (p 4 states: "Marshall’s pronouncements would ensure the integrity and eminence of the Constitution and the federal government and catapult him into the pantheon of American Founding Fathers" Unger has a dozen or so scholarly biographies of the Founding Fathers (3) Bruce Ackerman--The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (2005) argues the "Founding era" ended in 1812 (p. 242) and depicts Marshall in 1800-1801 as a major player. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And...that's why Wikipedia needs you coming by here once in a while. You've saved Marshall's place on w. as a Founder. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Dr. Jensen, and Allreet for his latest edits for Marshall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• @Rjensen, Allreet, and Randy Kryn: — Rjensen, we have been discussing the prospect of recreating the Category: Founding Fathers of the United States. It was deleted back in '07 with the claim that the term was too vague. We feel that it's needed, regardless of all the sub-cats for the Founders, as there is no other category that places all the Founders under one roof. Assigning this category to any person would be done in accord with scholarly sources. Appreciate your thoughts on that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree--"yes" to recreate the category "FF of the US" Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please do. Having too much time on my hands, I looked into the category's history, based on George Washington's page. The category Founding Fathers was assigned to George in October 2004, was changed to U.S. Founding Fathers in December 2004, and became Founding Fathers of the United States in January 2005. It disappears in March 2007. The Founding Fathers page at the time was a mere shadow of its current self, so I can understand how others may not have taken the subject too seriously. Allreet (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Rjensen: — As Randy brought this issue back to the table I'll let him do the kick off. Recommend starting off with the major Founders and then assigning the category to the other Founders as we go along.  Reminder, that our strongest position is based on reliable sources, that no individual is assigned the category unless there are two or three scholarly sources that refer to a given individual as a Founder -- in definitive terms. We should stay away from sources that simply refer to someone as a founder in passing, typically while covering an other topic. Another strong point, once again, is that there is no single category that lends itself to all the founders. If it's argued that there are sub cats for the various founders, we remind them that many subjects have multiple categories assigned to them, that the inclusion of one does not mean others must be excluded, or are not needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

By all means. So by "major" I presume you're referring to Signers/Framers. If so, that'll give us time to verify the individuals (Additional Founders). And thanks to everyone for their interest and efforts. Allreet (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, will start it a bit later, and I'll include the unsigning Framers as the National Archives alone seems to be enough for them. Some of the others we have listed as well, and these lists should all align at some point soon. Will alert here when it's up. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, you're right, I'll just add the Framers and not begin to add the additional Founders until the list gains full sourcing and the page can sort it out, especially with the potential addition of quite a few new names below. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, at Category:Founding Fathers of the United States. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, job well done. If I might suggest: The Signers of the U.S. Constitution subcategory should probably be titled Framers of the U.S. Constitution, a group that also includes non-signers. Sources recognize all delegates and don't make the distinction about non-signing, except for an asterisk. An alternative title would be Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but the first is simpler. Allreet (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Just assigned the category to Washington, Franklin, both Adams, Jefferson, Henry and Marshall. Get ready for the coming storm of debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Allreet, Dimadick, I've removed five of those who are already listed in the parent categories as signers of the documents to bring up the question: should all the Founders be listed individually and not just in the signers categories? Maybe, it could be a nice list. This will keep happening, and if individuals are listed then instead of adding 'George Washington' etc. it should also be the parent category Category:George Washington etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I favor duplicate listings and believe the parent list is also important since this captures everyone. So Sherman, who signed three documents, would be listed in three document sub-categories, plus the parent category. Whereas Gen. Knox, a non-signer/non-framer, would only be included in the parent category. As long as this adheres to standards, which I'll leave to your judgement to determine. Allreet (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I just caught this. I favor duplicate listings also, in this case especially. See Parent category section below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Default "sort key" conflict...error message displaying

I just noticed the following error message in large red type at the very bottom of the Founding Fathers page above the Categories box:

Warning: Default sort key "Founding Fathers Of The United States" overrides earlier default sort key "Madison, James".

I have no idea what this means, so out of curiosity I checked the history and found the error message has been displaying since January 25, 2015. As best I could tell, nothing was done by our editors that caused this, and the current DEFAULTSORT Founding Fathers Of The United States predates the error so it doesn't seem to be tied to that. Would somebody take a look at this and if possible, fix it? If it turns out the issue is "beyond our pay grade", I'm willing to take it to the Help Desk. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, fixed. It was a coding error at the Madison navbox. Thanks for noticing the alert. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy. Amazing how we missed this for nearly 10 years, despite our assiduous, virtually rabid attention to detail. Allreet (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't there for long, as I have look at that part of the page often. Somehow the history is incorrect and may have code-flown-backward when I made the default-name attempt at a couple of the navboxes. When that was fixed on the Madison navbox, the problem went away. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. It's possible recent programming changes created a conflict between the sorts, triggering a message that would display from the beginning of the conflict (January 25, 2015) to the present. But it would not have displayed prior to the recent changes. Allreet (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Page view feature on Talk page

I've added a template that shows the daily/annual page views for the Founding Fathers article. I've long felt that the legitimacy of the title as well as the Founding Fathers page is the wide interest WP's readers have in the subject. In 2020, when people had lots of time on their hands, readership soared past 2 million. It dropped back down last year to just short of a million, but remains one of the most-read articles on the Founding Era. Okay, the Founders aren't as popular as The Beatles (4.5 million readers in 2022), but still, one can only hope. All that said, if enough "followers" find the chart obtrusive, I wouldn't be offended if it's removed. Allreet (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet: — The difference in page views between the Founders and the Beatles is really not an accurate indication of the subject's interest exclusively. For a good indication of the Founder's popularity it should be compared to the page views of other history articles, and moreover, the type of audience must be considered. The Beatles are popular the world over, whereas the US Founders are not. If we could somehow compare the page views for the Founders and the Beatles among American viewers, that would be a more realistic cross section of their respective popularity, but only among Americans. In any case, your basic point is well taken, that the Founder's article is among the most viewed, and that, by itself, is encouraging. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The great wars win these battles: WW II 9.6 million and WW I 8.3 million. State-side, the Civil War garners 4.2 million. But the Beatles came to mind because of John Lennon's quip about their popularity and Jesus's. The Beatles, btw, currently have a half-million edge. Allreet (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggested names

OK here's a list of 25 names from an eminent scholar (I left out a few): "America’s Founding Fathers" (2017) by Allen C. Guelzo --- (George Washington’s Doubts page 3; Thomas Mifflin’s Congress .. 11; Robert Morris’s Money ..19; Benjamin Franklin’s Leather Apron 27; Thomas Jefferson’s Books ..36; Alexander Hamilton’s Republic 53; James Madison’s Conference .62; Patrick Henry’s Religion 71; Edmund Randolph’s Plan ....87 ; William Paterson’s Dissent ..94; Roger Sherman’s Compromise ...102; Elbridge Gerry’s Committee .. 110 ; James Wilson’s Executive .118; John Rutledge’s Committee ..125; Rufus King’s Slaves .....132; David Brearley’s Postponed Parts .....140; John Dunlap and David Claypoole’s Broadside 148; Patrick Henry’s Convention ...165; Benjamin Banneker’s Survey 207 [the leading black]; John Jay’s Treaty ...215; John Adams’s Liberty ..224; Timothy Dwight’s Religion .240; James McHenry’s Army .....247; John Marshall’s Court ..271 Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Below are the cite book templates for some sources just brought to us, not that we don't have enough already, but they appear to be top notch. Available for borrow and full viewing at archive.org. – Thanks RJ.

Although the list of members can expand and contract in response to political pressures and ideological prejudices of the moment, the following 10, presented alphabetically, represent the “gallery of greats” that has stood the test of time: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Marshall, George Mason, and George Washington. There is a nearly unanimous consensus that George Washington was the Foundingest Father of them all.

• Ellis, Joseph (2007). Founding fathers : the essential guide to the men who made America. Encyclopedia Britannica; Hoboken, N.J. : John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-6204-5550-0.
• Guelzo, Allen C. (2017). America's Founding Fathers. Teaching Company, Smithsonian Institution.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Guelzo's choices are interesting but so expansive it's doubtful we'll find additional sources. Allreet (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay...for instance? With the multitude of sources out there, we shouldn't have any problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guelzo book has a long bibliography he used, and each chapter ends with a couple titles for that person. Rjensen (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Another book to add: The Founding Fathers Reconsidered by R. B. Bernstein (2009) online full text Bernstein states on p 177: "Nobody can agree on the complete list of the founding fathers, especially when we include the great number of Americans who did not hold political office in the new state governments, the Continental and Confederation Congresses, or the new government launched under the U.S. Constitution in 1789. This appendix provides a list divided into three groups: (1) the signers of the Declaration of Independence, (2) the framers of the Constitution, and (3) those who were neither signers nor framers but who played pivotal roles in the creation of the United States." his list #3 pp 179-180 . Other Founding Fathers (and Mothers) = Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Aaron Burr, George Clinton, Patrick Henry, James Iredell, John Jay, Henry Knox, Henry Laurens, William Maclay, John Marshall, James Monroe, Thomas Paine, Mercy Otis Warren. Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bernstein is one of our main sources for signers/framers as well as the "additionals" you mention. The Bibliography for the Founding Fathers page is extensive and covers the main works on the subject, most of which are available on the Internet Archive. We have the bulk of Guelzo's selections accounted for, though he'd be a good additional source. The "interesting" choices I referred to are less significant figures such as Benjamin Banneker, John Dunlap, and Thomas Dwight. While lots of sources may cover them, it's doubtful any identify them as Founding Fathers. That's all I meant. Allreet (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Parent category

@Randy Kryn:, @Allreet: — Randy, I noticed you removed the Founding Fathers category from the George Washington, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin articles, with a note in edit history saying, "already in parent categories". I thought the Founding Fathers category was the parent category. Which category were you referring to by parent category? It would seem, of all people, Washington, Adams and Franklin should be on the Founding Fathers category page, regardless of any other categories that are assigned to them. Wasn't the Founders category created with the idea that all the Founders would finally be listed under one roof, to which most if not all agreed?. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Allreet, those three and almost everyone else are already in the three sub-categories of signers (Declaration, Articles, and Constitution), but okay, I'm reading that we should list all of the Founders individually as well. I'm good with that, just as long as it keeps the signers categories on the individual pages as well. Sound good? If so, Gwillhickers, please return the major Founders I removed but, in their cases, they should be returned as sub-categories category:George Washington, category:John Adams, and category:Benjamin Franklin, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done, at least the Founders on the chart (and the Framers who did not sign the Constitution and some but not all of the additional Founders on this article's list). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Randy, for the Category and the edits. I'll pitch in to help with research on the "additionals" and leave it to you (and others) to do the categorizing. Allreet (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Randy, for putting Washington, Franklin, et al,, back on the main table -- where they belong -- up front. We have four learned editors, and the facts, per reliable sources, on our side. We'll not waver in the face of any academic or other 'friends of America' contenders if it should cone to that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sub categories to the Founding category

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Rjensen: — As highly notable people like Washington, Franklin and Jefferson have their own category, e.g. [[Category:George Washington]] , we should still assign the Founding Fathers category to their biographies. There is no category on the Washington page that directly links to the Founders category, even though Washington is listed as a sub category there. As discussed before, we should employ the Founders category, regardless of any other categories that are assigned to these people. The Founders category has been assigned to the Washington category but not to Washington himself. As it is, there is no category on the Washington page that even suggests that Washington was a Founder. i.e. One has to go searching through sub categories to find this out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Allreet, and Rjensen: — Randy, if you've no strong objections, I'd like to re-assign the Founders category to Washington himself, along with Jefferson, Franklin and the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Gwillhickers. Of course, I won't revert. I think I know the guideline that the parent category, George Washington, would cover it, but am certainly not sure. There are ten-thousand-and-one rules, guidelines, and regs around here, so the non-WikiLawyer in me usually knows nothing for sure and double that for certain. But please leave the subcategories as well, as a link to the Washington category provides many pathways to his life and work. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Intelligent words of humility. Yes, who knows all the rules. not me! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, please go ahead and add all 12 of the founders also listed in the subcategories, I've researched a bit and have added an "all" template to the category (see the top of the category page). I'd go ahead and do so but you've advocated for this logical move so will watch from a distance (pixel length). Thanks for being determined to make these edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Include Benjamin Banneker?

Yes I think we should: Benjamin Banneker as Founder-- I found the 3 needed cites: #1. Guelzo p 14: "The course also includes important figures who have faded over time but deserve some dusting off...and Benjamin Banneker, the African American surveyor. " the details are pp 223-226: cite 2) The well-known conservative media personality Glen Beck produced and narrated a 9-part TV series entitled "Founders’ Fridays" in 2010. One unit was on "African-American Founders" and featured Benjamin Banneker as one of the "Founding Fathers." [cite: LaGarrett J. King & Patrick Womac, "A Bundle of Silences: Examining the Racial Representation of Black Founding Fathers of the United States Through Glenn Beck's Founders’ Fridays ," Theory & Research in Social Education, 42:1, 35-64, DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2013.824396] and cite 3: LaGarrett J. King, "More Than Slaves: Black Founders, Benjamin Banneker, and Critical Intellectual Agency." Social Studies Research & Practice (2014), Vol. 9 Issue 3, p88-105. Rjensen (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is now a new scholarly field of Black Founders, See Richard S. Newman and Roy E. Finkenbine, "Black Founders in the New Republic" William and Mary Quarterly (2007) 64#1 pp. 83-94 online [email me for a copy at rjensen@uic.edu] the #1 Black founder is Richard Allen (bishop). The essay argues: [p 91] "black Founders might be defined as visible African American leaders who emerged after the Revolution, often using literary skills and social and political connections to white reformers and politicians to make freedom claims on be people of African heritage" and [p 94] "For [Frederick] Douglass black Founders such as Allen had shown the way to a new Declaration of that supplied true equality to black as well as white Americans....modern scholars might say that black Founders stand at the front of a genealogy of multiracial democracy." Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I suppose one should watch what they ask for, which is to commend the scholarship here. I also believe we're treading new ground. Since that will require work on the article itself—this is akin to the Founding Mothers issue—I prefer we wait until gaining consensus on the Category issue. That said, if Rjensen wants to forge the way, I have no objections. Allreet (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something on his page, Banneker doesn't seem to fit the definitions of Founder used in the founders article and seems a stretch to even list him as a major patriot. Allen is already listed as a patriot. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The strong trends in the reliable sources is to expand the definition to include blacks and women. The nation THEY founded is a major part of the nation we have in 2023. It's interesting to note that political conservatives have joined the movement--Banneker is a FF to conservatives like Guelzo and Beck. Rjensen (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

There is only one nation, not three nations, so not understanding the concept. Errors and omissions in the 1774-1791 founding documents concerning women and blacks were eventually corrected using the tools - the amendment process and the freedoms of the first amendment - outlined in the Constitution. Individuals that used those tools being considered founders of the nation would be extending the term to the major leaders of the 19th and 20th century Suffrage and Civil Rights Movements. As for Banneker, are you saying he's a Founding Father because he assisted Andrew Ellicott for several weeks in mapping Washington D.C., and if so then Andrew, Joseph Ellicott, Benjamin Ellicott, and Pierre Charles L'Enfant have just as much a claim on the wording. Or because he wrote the 1791 letter to Thomas Jefferson about the plight of the blacks in the newly formed nation. He did good work, and maybe because of his letter to Jefferson he rises to patriot status, but listed as a Founding Father seems a large stretch of the terminology. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading more about him, I did not know much, I can support patriot status because of Banneker's 1791 lobbying of Jefferson. That Jefferson responded opened new grounds for discussion between people in the United States. A one-sentence descriptor could mention this exchange as well as his assistance in mapping out the nation's capitol. The attention he has received has created a defining role in history, although the page's criteria for inclusion doesn't seem to extend to Banneker's contributions. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Many changes and amendments have been made since the Founding, and it could be 'argued' that the Founding is a continuation that has taken us through the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries, and therefore the list of Founders can be an endless one. The actual foundation on which all changes and amendments have been made, however, was established during the Founding era, and therefore we should confine ourselves to that period and to those who had a direct hand in the drafting and debates involved with founding documents. Otherwise we will be opening the door to who knows who. It's understood that some modern day historians have included others, but unless they explain how they took part in the actual founding, in definitive terms, not just allegorically, we should stay away from them. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Washington, Jefferson, etc, had many friends and advisors -- but they are not all Founders -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking at the new book by David Hackett Fischer, African Founders: How Enslaved People Expanded American Ideals (2022) (as well as Richard S Newman, Freedom’s Prophet: Bishop Richard Allen, the AME Church, and the Black Founding Fathers (2009). It occurs to me that perhaps one solution is a new article on "African American founding fathers of the United States." any suggestions?. Note that there is List of national founders that list one or more persons for other countries. The point is that "founding" is a broad term that means not just the insttutions (nation state, independence, Constitution) but also creating the values by which the USA is distinctive. In which case the article stresses the people who created and promoted anti-slavery, abolition, equal rights & votes, and equal opportunity for the American Dream. Maybe that just overlaps too much with the articles on Abolitionism in the United States and Civil rights movement (1865–1896) ???

Rjensen, there's no doubt that the idea of slavery was often brought to the socio-political table by the enslaved themselves, but the idea of slavery was debated at length by many of the Founders. Because many plantations and other places depended on slavery, and because it was an issue that would no doubt have divided the nation, or get in the way of its founding, the idea of slavery was subsequently put on the back burner. Of course various slaves, or freed slaves, pressed the issue, but to refer to these people as founders, those who forged the actual foundation of the existing government and the ideals it embraced, is misleading and seems to be sort of a "politically correct" prospect. I've no objection to an article that covers this advent, but I would leave the term Founders out of any title for it. The ideals of freedom (e.g.Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc) were well established during the actual founding, so it's not like this was some abstract concept that everyone was aloof to beforehand. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You make some good points. Slavery was controversial in the late 18c--all the northern states abolished it by 1804 but none in the South--then you get increasingly violent debates about slavery in the territories up to the late 1850s-1860 election. The blacks were not the leaders there (Quakers were and people like John Jay). But to be "American" in 2023 means to be committed to equality of race and that was not on the table before 1800--it was the African American community that took the lead and introduced the idea. So I think we can argue that the people who "founded" this sense of equality are founders of USA 2023 even more than whoever drafted the 7th amendment. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say they introduced the idea of equality by themselves. After the Civil War many in the Black community, slowly but surely, played a major role in putting the idea square on the table most certainly, as did President Grant and the Reconstruction movement. But to refer to them at that late date as Founders seems to blur the essence of the idea. The idea of Founding Father, or Forefathers, has for hundreds of years been in reference to the Revolutionaries who forged the actual founding and its documents. The leading argument against the Founders category was that the idea was too broad, or vague, and going down this road seems to give weight to that contention.. As for Banneker, I'd have no objection of listing him under Patriots. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The black leaders had a well developed demand for equality of the races before the civil war, at a time Grant owned one slave--and Lincoln (1858) denied equality. In debating Lincoln in 1858 Stephen Douglas was constantly referring to “the Black Republican party”— = a race-baiting phrase that suggested GOP had taken up the black position. Douglas in First Debate: “I believe this government was made on the white basis....I believe it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity for ever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, for the benefit of white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races." That was a dominant attitude 165 years ago and was strong in the South into the 1950s. My argument is that the American principle of equality of races--so strong today--appeared well after the original founding fathers were no longer active. So the Founders were only partial founders. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

These things are all true, but before the Civil War their collective voices were not nearly as pronounced -- virtually silent in the south. As for Grant, 'owning' a slave, he inherited an estate from his father in law, which included one slave. He never gave orders to this man, and often times went out there and worked and toiled right along side of him. Grant's father, Jesse Grant, an ardent abolitionist, refused to attend Ulysses' wedding, because the father of his soon to be wife, Fredrick Dent, owned slaves, and the wedding took place at Dent's home in Missouri, a slave state. Later, not long after Grant inherited the estate, he gave this man his freedom. Iow, many people were very conscientious of these things before the Civil War. If Lincoln denied equality in 1858 he must have known, as did the Founders, that it was a hot-bed issue that would divide the nation, and ultimately he was right.
Anyway, the question remains, are we going to start referring to people like Banneker as Founders? There were many hundreds of friends and advisors, all with their own interests, who often wrote letters of advice, lobbied, and so forth, but to refer to them as Founders is, imo, not appropriate, all things considered. All changes and amendments rest on the foundation that was established during the founding era -- and it was that foundation that made it all possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

the consensus of experts is that the Civil War & Reconstruction radically changed the US from a weak coalition to a strong nation. Thus: Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019) see Foner interview. I am arguing here that racial equality is a central part of Americanism today but not in 1858 (and not in 1940). I quoted Douglas above--now to quote Lincoln's debate on September 18, 1858: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." see Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Rjensen (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but has little to do with this page, which is about the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution and its Constitutional creation. The Constitution, designed to be self-correcting, provided the tools for further change: the amendment process and the Bill of Rights. There have been numerous societal shifts over the last 230 plus-years brought on by the use of those tools, and that timeline provides an affirmation of the self-correcting nature of the document. Does it apply to this page? Maybe, in a summary "follow-up" to the success of the documents, a testament to the applied genius of the original 1774-1791 period and governmental creation, yet not in an extension of the page topic and criteria to future generations and times (such as the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement, which has been called the Second American Revolution but, importantly, not overlapping with the First but as a direct result of it). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Article scope

• Yes, the Constitution, with its checks and balances, representative government and allowance for Amendments, was and is a self correcting entity, and the foundation for this was created during the Founding era. As such, we should keep the scope of this article within the realm of the actual founding. Otherwise, the article's coverage is likely to venture off all over the map, which would, again, give weight to the argument that the term Founding Fathers is too broad or vague. I have no objections to including Banneker in the Patriots section, because he lived during the Founding and had a measure of influence with Jefferson, but to venture into the Civil War, civil rights movement, etc would over complicate an article that is already fairly complicated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Foner's book title, imo, is rather overstated, and misleading: The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. This more than suggests that they re-wrote the entire Constitution, which never occurred. We have the same basic Constitution today as they had after the Constitution was ratified. While there have been amendments added, it overall is the same framework of laws and precepts, which again allowed improvements to be made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm hearing the assumption that the Founding Fathers made provision for a huge civil war that ruined the ruling class in the South and freed millions of slaves, and created a very power national government that could--and did--seize control of all the ex-Confederate states. Furthermore, Foner argues, the 13-14-15 amendments changed the basic value system on which USA was based to include equal rights for all races. Rjensen (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It was the South who attempted to make a break with the Union, by force -- I don't see where anyone made any Constitutional provisions for that to occur. The value system for all men being created equal was already in place, it just took time to reach fruition. The Amendments for equal rights rested on a Constitutional Foundation, without which there would have been no Amendments. Yes, after the Civil War the Union seized control of the southern states, control which they had in the first place, before the south made a violent break with the Union. It might make things more clear if you told us what you would like to add to the article. A Civil War section, that would include various national figures from that time, and to list them as Founders also?   It's probably best just to add some comments, that the revolutionary Founders built a system of government that grew to better accommodate everyone through a Bill of Rights and the other Amendments that followed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

right -- nobody expected a drastic restructing of government, power relations, races and redistribution of power and values. No reliable source says the value system of the 1850s included racial equality.--neither Douglas nor Lincoln was on board in 1858, as I uoted them. The only ones on board were abolitionists responding to black demands. (William Lloyd Garrison is a major player--over 2/3 of his supporters were blacks.) No reliable source says that before 1861 anyone said the federal government could seize whole states and change them radically. --Perhaps you will quote a few of the reliable sources you are depending upon? Meanwhile look at The Second Founding re the Foner book. Also look at Fischer, David Hackett. African Founders: How Enslaved People Expanded American Ideals (Simon and Schuster, 2022) excerpt -- that is where scholarship is these days. Foner and Fischer each have won the Pulitzer prize in history--they are not fringe. Our job as editors is to report on what the reliable secondary sources actually say in the 21st century. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Fischer and Foner no doubt cover these things well, as you say, but are we going to lump this time period and the various figures involved in with the Founding Fathers and the the system of government they created? That is the focus of this article. As mentioned, we can comment on the various Amendments and so forth that followed, and maybe mention a few names, like Banneker, but listing them as Founders along side Washington, Franklin, et al, would be misleading and drastically expand and change the scope of this article. All the improvements, Amendments and so forth were made possible by the Founders and the Constitution, and the debates over slavery that occurred during this time. Many of the Founders were conscientious about equality, esp in the North, but again, the issue was put on the back burner for fear of dividing the Union, which is what indeed happened over that issue. In time Amendments followed, but no one re-invented the Constitutional wheel. That has remained constant to this day.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

the system was radically changed in the second founding and the the article should say that. You emphasize mechanics and I argue that since Harding's day, the theme of the great-Founding-Fathers has not been the mechanics of how the machinery works but the value system they created. That value system was radically changed by the civil right movements of 1860s and 1960s. I think when you say "Many of the Founders were conscientious about equality, esp in the North" you actually mean "slavery" not "equality." Lincon (in 1850s wanted to abolish slavery and NOT give equality to the newly freed slaves. (He wanted to deport them.) He changed in the war--the behavior of blacks (black soldiers, Frederick Douglass) is given some of the credit for that. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

There's no denying that the value system improved, or changed, but not the system of government. We still have the offices of President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, three Branches of government, a Senate and Congress, the Bill of Rights, etc -- the foundation, as outlined in the Constitution. No Amendment or set of values has changed that. Blacks were eventually allowed to vote, but I'm not seeing any radical change in the system of government. The founding of that government should be the focus of this article. Most of the things you touch on should be part of the American Civil War and The Reconstruction era articles, not in an article about the revolutionary Founders who made possible the break from Great Britain and the founding of a Constitutional government. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have such a long article and pay so much attention to the mechanics? The answer according to David Sehat (The Jefferson Rule 2015, pp 1-2) goes like this: " Everyone cites the Founders. Constitutional originalists consult the Founders’ papers to decide original meaning. Proponents of a living and evolving Constitution turn to the Founders as the font of ideas that have grown over time. Conservatives view the Founders as architects of a free enterprise system that built American greatness [etc etc]....Across the political spectrum, Americans ground their views in a supposed set of ideas that emerged in the eighteenth century." ie the FF represent policies that people today want to get enacted. Sehat says in fact the FF did NOT agree on policy --they fought each other as much as Americans do in 2023. It's a fallacy to give them so muich attention. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Of course !!  The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, along with the Bill of rights, were debated at length, as exemplified by Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams.. But in the end, contrary to what Sehat claims, apparently, most of the Founders came together and signed. What you refer to as mechanics, forms the foundation of the government, on which the Bill of Rights and all other Amendments rest on. RJ, let's not slight the Founders, who, albeit, were not saints, but compared to the kings and dictators, and the African tribal chiefs who sold African prisoners of war, and other African victims, into slavery, all of whom throughout history exploited and utterly oppressed their own people, the Founders look like Boy Scouts. During the founding era, much of Europe was clamoring to come to America to escape religious and political persecution, before there was even a Bill of Rights, much less the other Amendments. When Liberia was established in west Africa as a haven for freed slaves, only a tiny fraction of Blacks left America and ventured there, even with their passage paid for. Looking at the big picture, civil rights short comings aside, they were wise to stay in America. Stepping down off my soap box, this article is about the revolutionary founders, and should not venture off into Civil War and civil rights topics any more than to mention these advents in brief context. Let's also briefly cover Banneker in the Patriots section and move on before we build an endless wall of text that will ward off most other editors . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Rjensen, when you speak of a second founding that has nothing to do with this page. The scope of this page is on the events in founding a government between 1774 and 1791, of which the Founding Fathers created a series of documents which allowed for citizens to bring about changes which would continue to create "a more perfect union". You bring up the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Sir, with all due respect, the person who strategized that movement from near start to finish, James Bevel, said the Nashville students studied the founding documents and taught the people active in each movement to have what he called "constitutional consciousness" - to base their end goals, and their deeds and actions, on the freedoms, thoughts, and framework given in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He and they studied and tested those documents and found that they provided everything needed to free a people from legalized segregation. Along with the Sermon on the Mount read as a scientific point-by-point description of nonviolence, and Gandhi's successful experiments and writings about his use of that science, the people who strategized and carried out the actions of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement relied on and carried in their hearts and thoughts the "constitutional consciousness" which then transformed much of society towards fulfilment of the "created equal" promise of the founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

the idea of a "second founding" is well established among the reliable published secondary sources (especially Foner and Fischer, plus numerous other professors of history or law in 21st century) so I recommend a single new section at the end to encompass it (and a separate article on African American founders). James Bevel was a minister active in the 1960s. He did not attend college and had no training in history or law but was influenced by reading Tolstoy & Mahatma Gandhi. He was expelled by the civil rights leadership in 1969 and became involved in various fringe groups (see James Bevel). By contrast Eric Foner and David Hackett Fischer are famous history professors who each won the Pulitzer Prize in history recently. Rjensen (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Rjensen, sounds good if it's a very short section near the end, and yes, a separate article would address the concerns you've mentioned and augment American history without drastically changing the criteria, basis, and concept of this present article. Bevel attended college, which is where he got involved in the Civil Rights Movement (see Nashville Student Movement). Before 1969 Bevel and King were the Civil Rights leadership, then when King died Bevel wanted to continue the movement and came up with and actually began to staff several suggestions - but the SCLC board was not ready to continue full movements after King's death and gave Bevel a "your services are no longer needed" letter while never explaining to him the circumstances of that removal. Much later he became involved in a couple of "fringe" groups simply because they asked him and he researched their philosophy, as no mainstream group was asking him to come on board and continue his work. He bounced around quite a bit after King was killed, but kept true to movement and analysis of the science of nonviolence which, according to him, positioned the Founding documents alongside the work and words of Gandhi, Tolstoy, and Jesus. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rjensen, Gwillhickers, and Randy Kryn:, my impression is that the first encompassed early resistance, the Revolution, and Articles of Confederation, resulting in a loose Union centered on the sovereignty of states, while the second produced a strong central government founded on democratic principles, which made all the difference. Regarding the subject's relevance to the FF article, of the 157 founders listed, including additionals, 66 (42%) had an active role in the Second Founding, while all of the 1st ranked founders—the top 7 plus—were active throughout. Allreet (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, I don't know what you mean when referring to the Second Founding. Do you refer to the Constitution and the government it formed? That has to do with the Framers and is covered in this article, the founding of the United States, which essentially occurred between 1774 and 1791 with the Bill of Rights and then matured with Washington's presidency. I think Rjensen refers to the topic of the book The Second Founding, which describes a much longer time period including the civil war and its reconstruction aftermath, and his new article African American founding fathers of the United States, which are outside the scope of this page but can be added to a brief new proposed ending section. What is the "accepted" definition of a "Second Founding" that you are referring to, as I don't think you are describing it correctly. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct, Randy: I misunderstood the reference. I see now this relates to events beginning with Lincoln and the Civil War, what the U.S. Constitution Center calls the "new birth of freedom". Would a short section toward the end be justified in terms of the article's scope? One direct tie would be that it serves to critique what was left undone, without the usual Criticisms title. I'd also like to commend Rjensen for initiating the separate article on African-American founding fathers, especially since this is Black History Month...and given other current events as well. Allreet (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

OK I think we're agreed. 1) we add a short section to this article on "Second Founding" theory as proposed by Foner et al. I can get to it next week. 2) I have started African American founding fathers of the United States and will cover "Second Founding" theory at greater length. One key argument is that black activists were central: unlike most anti-slavery people the free blacks were deeply concerned about the status of ex-slaves (in terms of equal rights, economic opportunity, end of black codes and the vote). Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Article scope cont...

@Rjensen, Randy Kryn, and Allreet: — Re: "Foner argues, the 13-14-15 amendments changed the basic value system on which USA was based to include equal rights for all races"
These Amendments may have changed the value system, but to refer to them as the "second founding" is highly misleading highly overstated and suggests that the basic framework of government got an overhaul, in the same manner they went from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution -- two drastically different documents. That did not occurr. If we are going to employ highly opinionated and allegorical terms and ideas, even from scholars, we should quote them, and qualify it with, Foner claims this, etc, etc., or, Fischer maintains that, etc, etc., all in neutral terms, making it clear that these are subjective ideas and that the basic Constitutional framework is entirely the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

the idea that civil war & recon brought a radical change in US government is well established. C Vann Woodward said as soon as Union was committed to abolish slavery it also committed to racial equality. [Burden of Southern History (1960) p 74. Does any scholar disagree? James McPherson had a whole book on it in 1964 [The struggle for equality: Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction (Princeton University Press, 1964).] It's standard in textbooks--see the title of John Murrin, et al. Liberty, equality, power: A history of the American people, volume 1: To 1877 (Cengage Learning, 8th edition 2019) Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's understood that the Civil War brought on the Amendments that abolished slavery, but to say there was a "radical change" in the structure of government, a "second founding" even, is, imo, hyper-speak, and overlooks the big picture. We still have the Presidency, a Cabinet, three branches of government, a Senate and Congress and a Constitution whose Articles have remained the same since ratification. I'm not seeing any "radical change" or "second founding" in the government and the way its conducted. As said, we can state the opinions of various scholars, but when it comes to terms like "second founding" they belong in quotes and presented in objective and neutral terms. — e.g.With the passage of the 13th Amendment after the Civil War some scholars believe that a "second founding" occurred, however, the basic structure of government has remained the same since the original founding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

most reliable sources say the Civil-War/Reconstruction radically changed the values on which the nation is based. I argue it's the values not the mechanics that make the FF issue so important. Does America allow slavery? Will it give up 700,000 dead bodies to end slavery? Will it make the national govt much stonger than the state governments? Does America treat all races the same or (Senator Douglas and Chief Justice Taney) is it a government by and for white people only? Lincoln said "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. "unfinished"/"new birth" --sounds much like "second founding" I think. 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, and I'm on that page too RJ, but there was no "second founding", i.e.a Rewriting of the Constitution at its core, or anywhere in that document. The Federal government was made much stronger when the Constitution was ratified.The Amendments in question just extended these ideals and precepts to include Blacks, after the Civil War. A landmark advent, indeed...but no "second founding". Again, if we are going to intimate this idea in the article, it should be done so objectively. I believe that would be fair for all concerned.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

New section

@Rjensen, Randy Kryn, and Allreet: — Rjensen, thanks for including the section and making it clear that a "second founding" is the opinion of various scholars. And thanks for entitling the section in context as Reconstruction as second founding, writing it in objective terms while not making it very long. Good work! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Just as a curiosity, there are two U.S. stamps that feature Frederick Douglas, which can be viewed Here, and also in the Frederic Douglas article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The section reads well, nice work. But isn't it a bit high on the page? It should probably be moved to the end of the text, just above 'See also'. Several sections about the page-principal founding are now below the new section. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the section seems okay where it's placed, above the Scholarly analysis section. It would seem a bit off if we had any section about the history that came 'after' the Scholarly analysis section. Speaking of analysis, we might want to mention in the Modern historians section how some historians have regarded the Amendments in question, much as I disagree with their terminology.
On a different note, my only reservation at this point is over why they didn't refer to the Reconstruction Amendments as the second union, rather than the second founding. The country 're-united' where the former Confederate states returned to the system of government that was in place since Washington's time. There was no actual "second founding", which again, more than suggests that a new system of government took the place of the Constitution, whose articles have remained unchanged since their ratification It's understood that additional Amendments were needed to put some Constitutional 'teeth' in matters, so as to get the re-union, and reconstruction, under way. In any case, we are only relating what some modern day scholars (150+ years later) are saying, and R.J. has effected this well, imo.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the section itself consists of scholarly analysis of things which occurred many decades after the founding, and it seems that it should, at most, be placed at the end of the 'Scholarly analysis' section. Placed where it's at now gives an emphasis which seems out of place chronologically, as the actual founding is the subject of the present Scholarly analysis section. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, Rjensen, and Allreet: — Hmmm... Yes, on retrospect, the new section does overall lend it self to scholarly analysis. I think if we appeal to R.J. about the section's placement he might concede.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

well it's not really a scholarly debate since there is a consensus-- and so far I have not found any scholar who rejects the "second founding". Most sections of the entire article gives the analysis of scholars. One move that makes sense to me is in the chronological sections right after #8 Bill of Rights of 1790s Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

How does Froner, among other proponents, reconcile the concept of a rebirth with the short lifespan of Reconstruction, its "brutal rollback" (a phrase from Henry Lewis Gates, Jr.'s recent NY Times editorial column on "America's Long Tradition of Rewriting Black History"), and then the scant progress we've seen relative to the century and a half that followed?

On an unrelated note, I'd like to move the Slavery section up to follow the History and Ascending to the Presidency sections on the belief that the subjects here are more notable than Demographics, Sports and Stamps and then more related to the previous narratives. But I'd like some feedback first. Allreet (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Allrest asks about the short life of Reconstruction; my thoughts = The opposition to Reconstruction won because it was a) ferocious; b) steady base in ex-Confed states; c) highly partisan (Democrats); d) linked to economy (recession of 1873 hurt GOP and Dems took Congress); e) in 1876 GOP made a trade: they got the White House and the Dems/whites regained full control in South; f) Supreme Court in a series of decisions watered down Recon laws (Slaughterhouse cases, Plessy, etc); g) in 1890 GOP made one last attempt and failed when silver Republicans in new western states were not supportive. In early 20c The blacks set up NAACP and spent a half century in lawsuits that turned the Supreme Court (Brown decision 1954), and then M L King launched the civil rights movement that in a spectacular battle won in 1964 (Clay Riosen, The Bill of the Century) Rjensen (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the 1876 trade. Will have to research the topics you've focused us on in order to get more of a mental map of what the historians of the "second founding" eras have in mind. Yes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act came about, in a large part, because of the extreme and televised Birmingham authority reaction to 50 young students at a time who set out from a church with the intention to take a walk over to Birmingham City Hall, there to either talk to the mayor about Birmingham's segregation policies or make an appointment to talk to the mayor. In retrospect they should have let the first couple hundred through to take that walk, but no, nothing doing. They arrested all of them, each one of the students who came out of that church, arrested for taking a walk. Dr. King actually had little to do with what came to be called the Birmingham Children's Crusade, that was all James Bevel's doing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

by "1876 trade" i meant the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've known "of" it of course, but not enough to even be conversational about the topic. Will give it all a good look. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery section: inaccurate, one-sided account of Founders' relationship to slavery

I've applied a multi-issue template to the Slavery section, which is an inaccurate account of the founders' relationship to slavery. A typical example of how the founders are portrayed, the second sentence:

Many of them were opposed to it and repeatedly attempted to end slavery in many of the colonies, but predicted that the issue would threaten to tear the country apart and had limited power to deal with it.

Many founders were opposed to slavery, but many were not, and only some made attempts to end it. So to say many made attempts repeatedly is not accurate. The threat to the Union was a legitimate concern, but did not render the founders powerless. The section comes off, then, as an attempt to excuse the founders. Another example a few sentences later:

many other of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners, but some were also conflicted by the institution, seeing it as immoral and politically divisive

If they truly saw slavery as immoral, why did they keep their slaves and do nothing to stop the practice? What's "conflicted" is that they knew it was wrong but did it anyway. There are also inaccuracies and omissions. For example, we're told Washington freed his slaves in his will. He did not. He bequeathed his slaves to Martha and they would only be freed upon her death. We also get a very long monologue by Benjamin Rush on how he he did not consider blacks to be inferior, but we're not told that Jefferson held the opposite view.

These kinds of things happen throughout the section which is a hodgepodge with little cohesion and no particular theme other than to try to put the founders in a favorable light. My recommendation, then, is to overhaul the section by researching the issue and writing a new account. Allreet (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet: — Re some of your statements:

• Many founders were opposed to slavery, but many were not, and only some made attempts to end it. So to say many made attempts repeatedly is not accurate.

It would seem that the idea of "Many founders were opposed to slavery" is not inappropriate, esp when you consider slavery was outlawed in the Northern states. That was an effort that indeed involved many. Also, the statement doesn't say "most" or the "majority" were opposed. Do we have a source that says very few were opposed?

• If they truly saw slavery as immoral, why did they keep their slaves and do nothing to stop the practice?

Nothing?  Not exactly a fair assessment. Also, we have to remember, that setting a slave free was no simple prospect, as almost all slaves had no other means of support, let alone able to go out into the world and build their own homes, establish gainful employment, etc, and were overall unable to read or write. Simply setting a slave free in the 18th or 19th century could very well be a virtual death sentence in many instances. Slavery was often justified by the idea that they were provided for in terms of food, clothing and shelter, and that most slave owners didn't work them any more than an average farmer had to work. Of course, this would be unheard of by modern standards, but that was the situation back then.
Trying to force the idea of abolition on all the states during the founding and early post founding eras, when the priority was national survival and national stability, is largely why abolitionism was not pursued in a measure that everyone was comfortable with. The Constitution would never have been ratified by all the states. Since you have tagged the section can we assume you have found material in the sources that would support your contentions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

My "nothing" was rash: some did something, but most did little to nothing, which is a "fair assessment". But I must say your thoughts come dangerously close to the propaganda that emanated from the South post-Reconstruction, and in particular, the work of Mildred Lewis Rutherford, who wrote that the enslaved were "well fed, well clothed, and well housed."

I've accumulated reams of notes on the subject and have a few ideas in mind. I just did something along these lines for the lede of the Constitution of the United States article. Appallingly, slavery, the number one issue in 1787. wasn't mentioned until half way through the article. Meanwhile, here are some thoughts to help guide our ethics, from Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn:

• It doesn't seem good enough to say that the people who wrote the Constitution were more concerned about creating and sustaining the fragile Union than of running the risk of destroying it over the issue of slavery; to suggest they knew what they were talking about is, somehow, to exonerate the evil of slavery.
• One could, for example, spend quite some time explaining the very sensible—logical—reasons why Jefferson did not free his slaves and why the Constitution did not eliminate slavery. But it seems to be moral obtuseness to say that Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution had their reasons for this.
• In a deep contextualism (giving too much consideration to their times), you run into a moral problem, because you are not merely explaining; you are...excusing what people did...

I'm not saying we should condemn the Founders, but at no point and in no way should we excuse their complicity. Allreet (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Allreet, I haven't read your additions either here or at the Constitution page, but I hope you mentioned that the Founders left tools within the constitution to solve these errors in the American nation. Hopefully you also mentioned women's suffrage as well as slavery, both major errors which were eventually corrected using the governmental and constitutional system purposely set up by the Founders. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't address the founders' "errors". I simply synopsized what can be found later in the History section, with one colossal exception: Slavery is not currently mentioned here! It's also not mentioned in the Articles section. Nothing on the three-fifths provision, protection of the slave trade, or the fugitive clause! I'm sure the errors of the founders' ways were "corrected", so to speak, by subsequent amendments, but my first priority is to address our errors, or rather, our omissions. Allreet (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

"well fed, well clothed, and well housed." was their reasoning, esp in the South, that's all. Setting them free, esp woman and children, with just a pat on the back and best wishes, would have been more cruel than servitude. It's not an excuse, it's a perspective you can't ignore if you're going to study the history, for better and worse. Nothing "dangerous" about that. If we're going to discuss history objectively, we have to put the modern day notions, the judgements, (some of which you quoted in green), the distortions, the emotionalism, and the indignations, about the past, on the shelf.

It's safe to say that many of the founders opposed slavery and enacted measures, e.g.Jefferson's banning the trans-Atlantic slave trade, etc. That most of the Northern states outlawed slavery tells us there were many behind the push for Abolition, including Alexander Hamilton, Lafayette and many others. We should also ask ourselves, if slavery was so "evil" why did most blacks not run away, or opt to return to Africa, e.g. to Liberia, or to Haiti, both set up as refuge countries for free or escaped slaves. Why did not Sally Hemings remain in France when Jefferson was Minister and finally returned to the states? National stability was the main reason abolition was not pursued during the founding and post founding era. I don't excuse the institution of slavery, but I can understand how it came about and why it persisted, starting with the African tribal chiefs who sold black prisoners of tribal war (there were many) into slavery. Tens of thousands. First to the Dutch, then to the British and French.

Back to article improvement. What sources can you present that show the section to be not accurate or in error? You gave us a sampling of the moralistic rhetoric and conjecture from some modern day scholars, but nothing that pegs the section as wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Calling what I just said "moralistic rhetoric" is to miss the point entirely. As for other obtuseness: the justification for not "setting them free", as you put it, has been widely circulated in an attempt to exonerate Washington, among others. I'm sure the 317 human beings held in captivity on Washington's plantation were grateful for his concern about their welfare. On the same subject, MountVernon.org has this to say: "On numerous occasions, people enslaved by the Washington household ran away in an attempt to regain their freedom." That's closer to "objective history", not tripe such as "why did most blacks not run away?" Short answer to your question: their hides, their lives, their families. Longer answer: the Constitution's fugitive slave clause, which was enacted because escapes were commonplace.

As for "well fed, dressed, housed", the quote was crafted a half century or so later by Mildred Lewis Rutherford whom I wikilinked before but without taking a look at her bio. Turns out, Wikipedia's "objective history" about Rutherford was skillfully sanitized. So at the outset, you'll learn she was a white supremacist, but you'll find only one paragraph near the end that addresses this. The full story: She was an early 20th century revisionist "historian" and lecturer whose propaganda proved highly effective in the campaign to erase Reconstruction. I provided a link above to a column by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. from this past Sunday's NY Times that features more on Rutherford: "America's Long Tradition of Rewriting Black History" (the revised title). The point here is that history is in the hands of the historian, so caveat emptor. Allreet (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: In response to your question about sources, I've posted bibliographies on Founders (general and individual), U.S. Constitution, and Slavery to a Secondary Sandbox. A work in progress, in perpetua. Feel free to avail yourself. Randy, you may do the same. Allreet (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Allreet and Randy Kryn: — I didn't realize I was quoting anyone. Quote or not, that was the widely held perspective during that day. And while there were often runaways, usually young men and boys, the greater majority did not, and didn't live in some hell as many modern day individuals prefer to believe. Even John Brown couldn't get the following he though he surely had. I'm sure you realize that slavery is not a black and white issue (no pun intended), and that there were many variations as to how it was effected. You seem to think there was only one extreme negative side, which unfortunately is typical among many modern day historical speculators, 150+ years later, whose apparent indignation gets in their way of objectivity. e.g.Africans were often taken into the homes of Christian families in Philadelphia and Boston who sympathized with their situation where they served as servants This is how the term "house ni * * er, came about, from other blacks. Not a justification, just a reality.

We seem to be getting away from addressing the problem you claim exists, that many (not necessarily most) founders opposed slavery and made efforts to curb or abolish it, and that the northern states outlawed slavery more than supports that idea. I ask again, what sources are you using to challenge the existing account/source, one of which is Gordon-Reed. I will give you this --The Gordon–Reed account is mostly about the alleged Jefferson–Hemings relationship, and says nothing about the idea that many founders opposed slavery, so if you want to put a citation-needed tag on the opening paragraph, that would be appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: Your round-up of statements on slavery reminds me of the discussion in Slavery as a positive good in the United States. In any case, I have no intention of reducing this to an inline citation-needed template. The section seems to have been done without any particular editorial direction in mind. It's a grab bag of examples—a random list tossed together—that as a whole exaggerates what the founders did when the greater truth is they didn't do much. In fact, the Constitution served to perpetuate the institution for at least another 70 years, and if the South hadn't gotten in such a tizzy after Lincoln's election, the practice may have lasted out the century. What I have in mind, to let you know, is a thoughtful, balanced discussion of the various aspects of the issue based on what sources say, the good-bad-and-ugly though nothing too earth shaking. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Apparently my comments remind you of a lot things, esp how the Constitution "perpetuated slavery", where in reality it laid the ground work for its eventual abolition, all the while you seem to be ignoring that the northern states abolished slavery early on, an advent which involved many, while you also seem to be discounting the idea that abolition wasn't pursued during the founding era because it would have divided the Union, resulting in no Constitution, and no end to slavery. Yet above you claim we should not condemn the founders, which is exactly what you're doing with you comment about the Constitution, your comment about a "thoughtful balanced discussion" aside. Such opinions are rather narrow and simply ignore too much for any balanced discussion to occur. If you think the section needs a tag, then please fix or rewrite it, with a good selection of sources, not just a couple of typical ones on one side of the fence. While you're at it you might want to make efforts to see which editor(s) wrote it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bunk. The Constitution did nothing to abolish slavery, not until the 13th Amendment kicked in. The closest it came was to end the slave trade, 20 years into the future. Now for the real news: contrary to popular belief, slavery was not abolished early on in the North or at least not as early as most people think.

• New Jersey never abolished slavery, not on its own. A gradual emancipation law was passed in 1804 that turned the enslaved into "apprentices for life". So it wasn't until the state reluctantly ratified the 13th in 1866 that slavery ended.
• Pennsylvania passed abolition in 1780, but slavery persisted until 1847.
• Rhode Island banned slavery in 1843, yet it continued until ratification of the 13th in 1865.
• New Hampshire officially outlawed slavery in 1857, a decade or so after the death or manumission of its last slave.
• In Delaware, slaves remained in bondage until December 1865, when the 13th was ratified.
• Connecticut passed a gradual abolition bill in 1784 that allowed children born into slavery to remain slaves until age 25. As result, slavery continued until 1848.
• New York was the first state to actually ban slavery. Under the law signed by Gov. John Jay in 1798, slavery became illegal in 1827.
• Massachusetts, however, was the one shining light. Its constitution, which went into effect in 1780, allowed slavery. After several court cases were filed, however, the commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court stepped to abolish slavery in 1783.

I'll let you source these statements. A quick way to confirm is to do what I did: ask Google when slavery was abolished in <your state here>, then just change the state name after you get your answer. Allreet (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

well not quite. Chattel slavery of the sort the South had was based on the right to buy/sell/inherit/import or export slaves, and their babies were slaves. That was no longer possible in the North. The Census of 1830 said five of the six New England states had non-chattel slaves -- including 2 in Maine, 3 in New Hampshire, 1 in Massachusetts, 17 in Rhode Island, 25 in Connecticut, and zero in Vermont. --compare to 453,698 in Virginia with chatell slavery. Century of Population Growth (1909) p 133.online. Rjensen (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I was addressing the widely-accepted assumption that slavery had been abolished in the North by some "early" date. "Not quite" is what 30 minutes of research uncovered. I'm more concerned, then, with the myth that slavery had been all but eradicated in the Northern states than I am with what's been well documented about the South. For example, all of the following statements in Wikipedia qualify for "not quite":

• Beginning during the Revolution and in the first two decades of the postwar era, every state in the North abolished slavery. — Slavery in the United States
• Pennsylvania: An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery passed, freeing future children of slaves, 1780. Connecticut and Rhode Island: Gradual abolition of slavery begins, 1784. New Jersey: Slavery abolished, 1804. — Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom
• By 1804, abolitionists succeeded in passing legislation that ended legal slavery in every northern state. — History of slavery
• Slavery was abolished in all states north of the Mason–Dixon line by 1804... — History of the United States
• Many Northern states had adopted legislation to end or significantly reduce slavery during and after the American Revolution. — Founding Fathers of the United States

This barely scratches the surface for what we haven't gotten quite right and needs to be corrected. As for what the Constitution accomplished, according to census figures, the number of slaves in the U.S. increased from under 700,000 in 1790 to nearly 4 million in 1860. Allreet (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Allreet, Randy Kryn, and Rjensen: -- " the Constitution accomplished"?? Reckless conjecture. The increase in slaves wasn't "accomplished" by the Constitution.The institution of slavery, i.e.via the plantations, were in great measure chartered by European interests, who received a great percentage of the cotton and other spoils produced by slaves, right up to the Civil War, where the British, with their royal pinky in the air, condemning American slavery, where happy to support the Confederacy, trading numerous shipments of arms for cotton, to maintain their huge textile industry, which was wholly dependent on American cotton, produced by slaves. They were also waiting in the wings for the Confederacy to split the Union, i.e. divided and conquer. Why else would they have supported the Confederacy, who wanted to "perpetuate" slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Slavery cont...

@Allreet, Rjensen, and Randy Kryn: — Allreet, you claimed that "the Constitution served to perpetuate the institution for at least another 70 years", which is not at all the same as the founders, during the founding process, staying away from the issue for national stability and keeping the union intact. Though the northern states one at a time abolished slavery, the sentiment was there from the onset, starting with the Continental Association, and indeed many of the founders were opposed to it, which is what our article says and should continue to say. All these dates and such about when the various states abolished slavery isn't going to go into the article other then to perhaps mention that the northern states abolished slavery soon after the Constitution was ratified. Meanwhile, if you're going to fix "what needs to be corrected" you should outline any errors and present at least three sources that support any such correction, as this is obviously a controversial issue. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: While suggestions are always welcome, you have no right to dictate what I should do or how I should do it. Of course, you can always dispute anything anyone posts that you may disagree with. Otherwise, thank you for your comments. Allreet (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't dictating, only mentioning what I believe should be done, which would apply to anyone. The section maintains that many founders were opposed to slavery. Statements in the section that support this idea include:

• Jefferson, Washington and many other of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners, but some were also conflicted by the institution.
• Many Founders such as Samuel Adams and John Adams were against slavery their entire lives.
• The Continental Association contained a clause which banned any Patriot involvement in slave trading.
• Jay founded the New York Manumission Society in 1785, for which Hamilton became an officer.
• In 1782, Virginia passed a manumission law that allowed slave owners to free their slaves by will or deed
• Hamilton and other members of the Society founded the African Free School in New York City, to educate the children of free blacks and slaves.

Finding and sourcing other examples would only be a matter of routine. Of course many southern founders opposed abolition, and this idea could be expanded on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know why you all keep pinging me, you know how I feel about this. The founding documents gave the tools to do away with slavery in America, and they eventually did that. Slavery is one issue of many (and by 'error' I didn't mean to slight the topic, but it is one of many) which wasn't decided by the Founding Fathers. They punted, knowing that there was no way that their nation-forming documents would have been ratified if they tried to abandon slavery in the 1770s-1780s. Other unaddressed issues included women's suffrage, animal rights (who knows, in 50 or 5 years people may be tearing down statues of Jefferson and Dr. King because they were meat-eaters), homelessness, child labor, and hundreds of other topics left, at the time, to the states. When some founders owned slaves it was legal and aboveboard, none of them tried to hide their deeds regarding slavery. Many then tried to curtail its use or expansion (Jefferson outlawed the Atlantic slave trade during his presidency). This issue should not be given more than its share of attention on this page. People used the documents and a war to end slavery, and finally did so by adding amendments. That's how the game the Founders set up is played: a HowTo legal blueprint provided by the negotiations, meetings, and documents covered on this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Randy Kryn: They "punted", kicked the can down the road, for good reason I'll grant. The question is what did they do after the 1787 Convention? Most .who had slaves kept them. Most who weren't slaveowners and opposed slavery joined abolition societies but not much more. Jefferson, who owned 600 slaves over the course of his life, wasn't directly responsible for outlawing the slave trade. That was made possible by the expiration of the Constitution's 20-year extension. Your arguments IMO are appalling, given your direct connection with the civil rights movement. How would James Bevel respond to what you just said?

  Gwillhickers, as for your arguments, they coincide with those of white supremacists . Imagine: slavery wasn't that bad, not much worse than farming, plus you didn't have to worry about food, clothing, or housing. And you're concerned about my objectivity? Allreet (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  James Bevel honored the Founders, their work, and their documents, and gave the Founders, Jesus, Leo Tolstoy, and Mohandas Gandhi credit for producing the routes used by the Nashville Student Movement and SCLC to nonviolently urge and then implement legal policies consistent with what he called "constitutional consciousness". The assertion that "All men are created equal" alone, drafted into requests and then laws which made that radical proclamation reality, allowed the Civil Rights Movement activists to nonviolently and truthfully claim equality and fairness within their elected government's decrees and legal systems. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Forcing abolition on the states by federal law wasn't pursued during the founding era and thereafter because it would have threatened the Union, as it eventually did anyways. Once again, setting a slave free wasn't something that was done without seriously compromising the welfare of a slave with no means of support. Once again I offered the food, clothing and shelter perspective only to point out that this was the rationale often embraced. I made it clear that I wasn't offering this as a justification, but only to point out the mindset very common in the 18th and 19th centuries, so kindly get off the my "arguments" are like those of "white supremicists" BS, as these things have been toughed on by many scholars. Even Annette Gordon-Reed acknowledged that Jefferson saw himself as a patriarch regarding slaves.
• Several points were listed above, found in the article, that reflect on the attitudes of some prominent Founding Fathers regarding slavery. You ignored them and instead are giving us your shallow invective. Yes, objectivity. If you can only look at these things as something white supremicists espoused then it's plain to see your objectivity has been seriously soiled and extends no further than your own speculations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Randy, you make some well thought out statements. Indeed, the Constitution laid the groundwork, based on human rights, and so forth, but even after the Constitution, whose ratification was made possible with the idea that the federal government heed states rights, which prompted the passage of the Bill of Rights, abolition occurred in gradual and slow steps on the state and local levels. If the Federal government, right after ratification, turned around and started initiating abolition legislation over the states, the stability of the Union would still have been threatened and there would have been a civil war long before 1860. Most of the Founders were not so naive that they couldn't see that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Part of the Multiple Issues template reads, "This section's factual accuracy is disputed.", yet thus far no such inaccuracy has been well defined, with sources to support it. All we've gotten are generic claims that the section is "biased, lacks cohesion, needs rewrite" and that most of the founders "did nothing", while there's been no acknowledgement that prevailing circumstances kept the federal government from advancing abolition legislation for all the states, as if there was no real and pressing reason for it. No actual proposals for the section have been introduced that would remedy this perceived lack of balance and correct any inaccuracy, nor have any sources been cited that would refute the existing statements in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Gwillhickers and Randy Kryn:: I've made clear what the issues are, and there's no presentism involved in any of this. My only concern is that we're perpetuating myths and acting as apologists, when our role is to document events as completely and accurately as possible in accordance with our sources. While I intend to contribute to the section's improvement, I'm under no obligation to offer proposals or rectify what I pointed out in the template. Meanwhile, I don't understand why the two of you are acting as if I'm attacking motherhood - or more appropriately in this case, fatherhood. Allreet (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Allreet, in my case you may be seeing something which isn't there. I haven't even read the section yet. Was just pointing out that due weight and balance should be given by including the fact that the eventual end of slavery came about using the tools provided by the Founders in the Constitution. Plus include other major issues not immediately remedied in the document, such as women's suffrage, which also advanced by using those tools. That the Constitution was written as a self-correcting document seems a central point to be covered in the section, and maybe it already includes all of these points (I'll read it eventually). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)